Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1071

Nationalistic edits reg. place names in Georgia

In the nation of Georgia, there are places that aren't ethnically Georgian, which shouldn't be surprising considering most other countries on Earth aren't homogenous either.

Namely, the southern historical region of Javakheti, also known as Javakhk, is almost fully Armenian, while another region known as Trialeti has historically been Greek and Armenian until post-Soviet times, when the region became pluralitarily Georgian. Another region, Kvemo Kartli has a population that is around half Azerbaijani.

Despite all this, a user by the name of Giorgi Balakhadze is removing names from several (formerly and presently) Armenian/Greek/Azerbaijani cities in Georgia, namely Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda, Marneuli, Dzveli Kveshi and Tsalka. His justification is that the inhabitants are citizens of Georgia, even though their native languages are not Georgian. As an example, the city of Marneuli, also known as Sarvan to its majority-Azeri population, now features the latter name in the introduction and infobox. Giorgi Balakhadze, however, has made it their task to systematically remove non-Georgian, native names, from the aforementioned article.

Historical and present names which may serve as alternatives to the main names of places have always found a home on Wikipedia, yet Giorgi Balakhadze keeps attempting to change this very fact. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The names are in the lede but not in the infobox. I agree that the infobox in non-0exceptional cases (like disputed territories) must only have one name, which in this case is Georgian.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case, let's do it uniformly then, no? It'd be okay to remove Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia and Georgia and vice versa; am I understanding this correctly? BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have articles on localities outside of Nagorno-Karabakh with two or more names in the infoboxes?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a map of former Azerbaijani villages in Armenia: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1uZHWE3I4m3xCiYbWcO8R9IBSW9T3LJmo&ll=40.11264278826263%2C45.08639034391172&z=8. They all have former Azeri names in their infoboxes, so Akhalkalaki and co. aren't alone. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If the issue is that it's inappropriate to call an historical or unofficial name "native", {{Infobox settlement}} also has the parameter other_name (as used in Mumbai and Kolkata). NebY (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue with this specific user seems to be the mere mention of alternative, non-Georgian names. I personally just want nothing but consistency on this encyclopedia. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue for this specific user - me is that you were doing wrong edits in infobox, and even started edit-warring about that. After your intense reverts, I tried to explain to you on your discussion page but instead of any dialogue, you showed unfriendly attitude and from the very beginning called me "nationalist". In addition, even in "roll back comments" you used an invalid argument, like, the example of Marneuli article, where similar edits were recently made by the user VivaEspana11. Both of you were doing the same, and used each others edits as an argument. As you can see from other users they don't agree with you or all of them are Georgian Nationalists and please remove all your disruptive edits mentioned on your discussion page. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 23:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if not you, I was definitely going to start a discussion here regarding edits of you two BaxçeyêReş & VivaEspana11. It's late time for me but anyway it is good that the issue is already here. If you don't mind see you tomorrow. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Really @Ymblanter ? 1, 2. Btw personally, I think inclusion limited to the lede is more appropriate (given it's sourced), but to see someone like Ymblanter saying that and even questioning its existence outside of NKR is just something (: ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you bring my mass reverts of an obviously disruptive user as an example, but yes, I think everything from the infobox should just go.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You were just questioning the availability of such articles outside of Nagorno-Karabakh? Am I reading the same thing as you do? Also, the reverts you restored, done by now blocked Azerbaijani editor, CuriousGolden, directly contradict you here. But I guess it was "mass reverts" so it's fine then right? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if an IP arrives and makes 20 similar pro-Armenian nationalistic POV edits without any discussion, it is perfectly ok to revert them. If someone shows up in your house with a gun and does not say anything, it is perfectly ok to shoot them dead first, even if their intention was to offer cleaning services.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious (pun intended) how all the edits done by CuriousGolden including infobox additions and often times poorly sourced/unsourced same POV style additions as you mention with that IP (only on the Azerbaijani side) didn't bother you at all it seems like. Hell, they even had a map apparently, and added the Az names (in infoboxes included and again, often times poorly sourced), to hundreds of Armenian villages. Some consistency would be appreciated, and your analogy is just pure hyperbole. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what are you trying to achieve. This is not a topic about me. You showed up with your ad hominem arguments which do not address the topic in any way, but are presumably intended to attack me. At least I do not see any other purpose. If you think I performed any misconduct you are welcome to open a topic about me and prove this misconduct with diffs. Trying to derail this thread is not going to be helpful.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• It' hard to say what exactly "native" names of these villages might be. Looks like a content dispute. The only immediate concern is editing by user VivaEspana11 who recently opened an account specifically to edit war on this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is it "hard to say" when a city is inhabited by over 90% of a specific ethnic group? BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I beleive it does not really matter what ethnic group is/was leaving in a settlement. Which WP policy or guideline tells that naming of cities should be based on ethnicity of inhabitants? My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia policy that recommends not doing so? If a settlement has a native (historical or present) alternative name, it deserves to be mentioned. That is the case on virtually every WP page; just see Lviv, Tabriz, Cluj-Napoca, Belfast, Port Elizabeth, and probably thousands of others. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

But then you need some good RS explicitly saying that "city X had an old/historical name N". If you do have such RS, please use then on all pages in dispute. That would make your position a lot stronger. But you do it without any referencing [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all fine, but this is a matter for the lede, not for the infobox.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 06:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No matter in the lead or infobox, but the claim about each specific old/alternative naming must be explicitly sourced. If not, this is WP:SYN by BaxçeyêReş, and it should be reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Strongly disagree. We routinely mention alternate names in infoboxes[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Even more: we sometimes prefer traditional, actually used names to official names[9][10]. That's the whole reason of having multiple parameters! We do not routinely require strong sourcing for each name; enough that some sources confirm alternative names. I agree with the OP that an argument that Armenian names are not "official names" is insufficient to remove them from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think one needs at least one RS to support alternative naming if it was disputed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Kashmiri firstly, providing example on India where territories can have their own official languages as a universal example is a manipulation. Secondly, no one were trying to remove Armenian names from Wikipedia. It's clearly said, provide sources, include them in the beginning of the article but not in the infobox, where they provide them as native name!--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a separate set of naming rules for India and for Georgia. Your argument is further void because Georgia is also a multi-ethnic and multilingual country[11]. Infobox always should contain any names in significant use – because that's its role. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Georgia is also a multi-ethnic and multilingual like most other countries in the world but unlike India there is one official native language - Georgian, and regions don't have their own official languages except Abkhazian AR. Placing any other language name as native in infobox is wrong. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You confuse the official languages parameter with other languages. The latter is there precisely to contain languages that do not have an official status yet are in actual use. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like one needs an RfC, otherwise edit-warring would never stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, My very best wishes the user VivaEspana11 keeps vandalizing Dzveli Kveshi article. He pushes other name which is not even the second most widely used name for the village (see User_talk:VivaEspana11#Dzveli Kveshi), puts it in bold (before even as native name) and says that s/he has sources but I can't access those links, they are dead links. Any help? --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 15:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I can not act as administrator in this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Though this user has no useful contribution to Wikipedia and must be blocked per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That user just seems to be a singe purpose account. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The constant reverting isn't resolving anything. There's already violations of WP:3RR. The best course of action though is to add full protection to some of the disputed articles, and have the involved individuals use the article talk page to resolve the matter because this discussion is becoming a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. Jerm (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached. I have reverted my edits, and I will work together with other editors to remove non-official names from infoboxes in the future. I (the purported sockpuppet of CuriousGolden, according to you) am no longer involved in this. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

BaxçeyêReş I've already moved on from the SPI, why can't you? Jerm (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

Strange and inappropriate editing at Midakanatti as well as other places by User:Yallappa Nandi who is also doing logged out editing

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.

---

Yallappa Nandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A look at the history of Midakanatti tells an interesting story. It appears that User:Yallappa Nandi is attempting to hijack the article on an almost weekly basis. Despite the edits being reverted and Nandi having repeated warnings on their talk page, this has no effect. Blocking Nandi from editing the article could be a solution to the issue. They are, however, continuing to vandalise the article while logged out so there'd need to be a way of preventing that from continuing as well. They have also created inappropriate articles like Mallasarja Desai (copyvio), Yallappa Nandi (shameless self-promotion) and also Draft:Yallappa Nandi (also shameless self-promotion). Thank you to User:Msclrfl22 who has continued to challenge the user about their poor behaviour. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone:, @Bbb23:, thank you for your quick response and action.--Msclrfl22 (talk), 7:58, 1 July 2021 (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:FloridaArmy and accusations of racism and white supremacy

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:FloridaArmy is edit restricted from creating articles directly, and has to use AfC instead. While many of his articles get accepted (directly or after considerable efforts by others), many others get rejected, usually for not adequately showing why the subject is notable, and/or a lack of indepth reliable sources. Because many of the subjects FloridaArmy writes about are about African-Americans, many of the drafts which get rejected are about African-Americans. However, according to oft-repeated claims by FloridaArmy, this is evidence of racism. They were blocked for a weeek in October 2020 for "accusing an editor of "slurring murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out", after multiple warnings to stop accusing editors of stuff like that without clear evidence", and for 24 hours in May 2021 for "Accusations against other editors of racist behavior".

Today, they once again started a thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Omission and exclusion of African American subjects from Wikipedia, claiming that the rejection of some articles (or even the non-existence of some articles) is due to "Shouldn't we call it what it is? Systemic racism." "Let's be honest, I've received a lot of pushback for creating entries on African American subjects." "Confronting racism ruffles feathers." "Are African American communities, schools, films, and cemeteries notable? Should we continue to omit and exclude them? Does doing so present a white supremacist version of history?" (emphasis mine) "the Wikipedia standard is to exclude African American subjects and attack editors who seek to fix the situation and point out the problem." "we are responsible for our systemic racism".

All this is highly offensive to all people at AfC who have rejected drafts by FloridaArmy, not because of systemic racism, not because of white supremacy, but because his drafts are often clearly substandard (the reason he got this restriction in the first place). There is no indication at all (not in FloridaArmy's comments, and not when looking at which of his submissions get accepted and which get rejected) that African-American subjects are treated any differently by the AfC people than others. As the previous two blocks clearly haven't helped in stopping these baseless accusations, can we get some other restriction? A topic ban from discussing the racism and white supremacy of Wikipedia and its editors, or something similar? Fram (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the editor making structural arguments (that lead to racially skewed outcomes) rather than accusing individual editors of racism and white supremacy? My experience editing on Wikipedia is consistent with claims that it is extremely easy for editors to erect hurdles and block content that relates to the history and experiences of African-Americans, which leads to a systematic neglect of content that relates to the history of race and racism in the United States. That Wikipedia's editing processes lead to those outcomes does not necessarily mean that the editors who erect the hurdles are white supremacists and racist, but the ultimate outcome ends up being racially skewed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, he is blaming the rejection of his article drafts on systemic racism and white supremacy in Wikipedia (not racism in general or in historic sources), without providing any evidence of this (he compares sports people to African American schools and communities, which has nothing to do with racism; there is no different standard for African American and other sportspeople, and there is no different standard for African American schools or communities vs. other schools and communities). He no longer names individual editors, as that got him into problems earlier, but the message is the same (and has been repeated ad nauseam already). Fram (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the thread over at Wales' talk page, if you haven't already. FloridaArmy is tiptoeing right to the line of explicitly stating that other editors are being racist for not accepting articles on these subjects, in my opinion. They have stated that the subjects are notable, but as far as I could tell in the conversation provided no sources showing that. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Though I will generally admit to being personally doubtful of most high schools and cemeteries being notable excluding extraordinary circumstances. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As an example of the racism, bias, and bigotry he sees at work, he provided in the previous discussion at the same talk page[12] a section "Typical examples of high schools serving African Americans not being covered" with "I can't even get a disambiguation page approved for the three Draft:Greene County High Schools. I think two served mostly African American students. " This has nothing at all to do with racism, this is a draft of a disambiguation page for three redlinks, which would get rejected from anyone (or deleted in the mainspace), and which doesn't mention anything about African Americans. That draft has been submitted four times, was rejected correctly four times, and then gets paraded as evidence of racism? Fram (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia systemically racist? I suspect it is. Does it have a pronounced and systemic male bias? I am even more sure of that. Questioning the epistemological frames that we bring to the community and that emerge from the community as a whole should always be on the table. All that said, I would respectfully suggest that FloridaArmy is less than an ideal messenger here, and it is possible to raise such topics and push things in a better direction while simultaneously "dropping the stick." I hope FloridaArmy will consider doing so. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I look at it from this perspective: being an AfC reviewer, I end up working with FA a lot regarding his drafts. The value this editor brings is very much needed, as he has contributed a huge number of pages that otherwise likely would never have been created in the first place. That being said, of course I have occasional frustrations with FA when he submits a draft that is so obviously non-notable, but that's just part of the AfC process. With this in mind, topic ban is simply preposterous, the most we should support would be to follow the standard warning line the same as we would any other user for attacking other editors (Tier 1 warning to block if we sadly have to go that far). In this case a topic ban is too much of a half-measure for me to get behind. Either take the full-measure or go via the normal warning process.

Addendum: I just read the thread on Jimbo's talk page. I agree that action should probably be taken; however, I don't believe a topic ban is the correct action with this case. Curbon7 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• (General comment as previous blocking admin:) This came up on Jimbo's talk page a while back, and I'll say the same thing here that I did there. Evidence-free accusations of personal racism against specific editors: personal attack, unacceptable (indeed, that's what I blocked them for a few years ago). General accusations of systemic racism in WP (and everywhere else), even if aggressive: not personal attacks, and indeed healthy. It doesn't matter if FA is the best person to make this accusation, we should not be censoring people for having thoughts about systemic racism that aren't targeting specific editors. That is a slippery slope. If FA has returned to targeted unfounded accusations of personal racism (I haven't seen any), then we should do something. If he is just refusing to stop saying WP's policies have institutional racism built into them, then good luck FA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  It seems like a fine line to thread. Seeing as at least some of the cited examples are about declined drafts, which were declined by specific editors. I'm not sure what FA's goal is, are they trying to get policy changed so that these drafts fall under some exception, or are they accusing these editors for declining them for biased reasons? There are other ways to interpret their statements, I'm sure, but those are the two I came away with. Maybe it would be helpful if FA clarified exactly what they are trying to accomplish. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Why is it a fine line? When someone is complaining about institutional/systemic racism, that's by definition not singling out particular editors. It seems to me all his recent posts have specifically been about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Pretty sure I stated why I thought it was a fine line in my comment. They are talking about systemic racism at Wikipedia while talking about specific declines at AfC. How can that be read as anything other than an implicit accusation of racism against the editors who have declined the article? I'm seriously trying to assume good faith here, but I honestly am not seeing another way of reading that part of their thread. SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  If FA was complaining about individual editors, I assume he would call it something other than systemic racism. Isn't the easiest interpretation that these declines are supported by a WP policy, but the policy is racist, and he wants Jimbo's help changing the policy? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the linked thread, it seems to me that FloridaArmy is being more critical of our notability guidelines and other community norms and policies that result in inequitable treatment of biographies of African Americans and related topics (aka, systemic racism), than describing any specific AfC reviewers as racist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• As one of the commenters on that thread, the issue around FA is not that these are directed personal attacks, but that several editors are provide them good advice on how to deal with the systematic bias issues, and they are turning that aside, refusing to put down the stick, and continuing to assert WP as a whole is racist. While this is not immediately actionable, there is a history with FA that is disturbing that they keep turning to this level of accusations at the project as a whole and missing the point that the project is not inherently rejecting African-American topics because of a racial bias, and that's not a healthy argument to continue to present. I did try to warn FA that they're missing the advice and were trending into the same territory that they were blocked before on. --Masem (t) 21:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  While this is not immediately actionable, there is a history with FA that is disturbing that they keep turning to this level of accusations at the project as a whole and missing the point that the project is not inherently rejecting African-American topics because of a racial bias, and that's not a healthy argument to continue to present. Why is this disturbing? It seems like a very legitimate opinion—is the issue with the opinion or just that FA is the one to hold it? It's not entirely clear to me from your comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Echoing other editors here, with regard to the fact that FloridaArmy's views are perfectly legitimate - as long as they are not attacking other editors and accusing them of racism without evidence (and there is nothing to suggest this has happened) then why should the editor's views be completely disregarded? When it comes to systematic bias (and I will preface this by saying I am not a Person of Colour and therefore will not comment from such a perspective), it is not something that one editor alone can take on, as Masem seems to be suggesting (forgive me if I have misunderstood you). Challenging such a bias needs to be a group effort - as they say, we can all do better. Patient Zero^talk 22:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is absolutely an issue related to external systematic bias and sourcing in some topic areas on WP. There are absolutely in existence and no one denies they exist. The reason they exist, however, is not as FA continued to assert that this is a purposeful effort on the collective group of WP editors to stop inclusion of these articles. We have outlined multiple times (see below) why WP is not an original publisher of material and dependent on sources, how one can look to find difficult-to-acquire sources, and what types of minimum standards we anticipate from sources. FA tends to flat out ignore that. They're free to ignore our advice but we're entering the WP:TE area here. That's really the problem here. --Masem (t) 23:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  I do not have a problem with the subject's agenda but as a member of WP:AFC it would be a stretch for his favorite fan not to see there are directed insinuendoes. I made comments at Jimbo's talk page, because he specifically mentions AFC along with mention of White Supremacy, systemic bias, and his other choice of Shouldn't we call it what it is? Systemic racism. For any that might not know or didn't look that is Institutional racism, that if true we should close down Wikipedia permanently. When you go farther than the acceptable systemic bias there should be acceptable proof because "I feel" as if I am targeted as part of the problem that I have had nothing (I can't change my race like I could my gender) to do with. If I have ever (still didn't look) declined a draft of the subject (or any minority article) there would be absolutely no doubt I am included as would any of the other AFC volunteers. To state that the subjects' comments weren't personal and including AFC participants is giving a pass that may not be deserved. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There have been several studies (the most recent one I have been advised of is https://artandfeminism.org/resources/research/unreliable-guidelines/) that suggest reforming the verifiability and reliable source guidelines in order to tackle systemic bias and improve diversity. I wonder if this is the root cause of what FloridaArmy is getting at? It's still acceptable to enforce those policies because, well, they're policies, but maybe it's worth stopping and thinking about what everyone's ultimate goal for the encyclopedia is? I tend not to look at Jimbo's talk page too often, but I note he says, "I have gone further to say that we should examine our policies on notability and sourcing to ask ourselves whether the policies are consistent with our goals and in particular whether they may have a disproportionate impact on minority-related subjects.". That said, FloridaArmy should not take all that an excuse to fly off the handle at people and should assume good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The claim that African-Americans are underrepresented in Wikipedia has at least three layers:

1. Systematic racism in society whereby people in a position of power refused to allow minorities to engage in activities that could lead to achieving notability
2. Systematic racism by media and other publishers who declined to cover at all or in-depth minorities who have performed in a way that would meet our notability standards if reported
3. Systematic racism by Wikipedia editors who consciously or unconsciously show preference for coverage of subjects other than minorities

I've read some of the charges of FloridaArmy and it isn't perfectly clear to me whether the charges of systematic racism are directed solely at the third item on the list or are more general. The comment by Snooganssnoogans Could be interpreted is saying that yes systematic racism exist but it is more categories one and two rather than three. My guess is it's a mixture but absent definitive language I'd like to err on the side of benefit of the doubt. My impression is that Jimbo is bending over backwards to try to be helpful. Wikipedia, for better or for worse has hitched its wagon to public reliable sources. Relaxing that might help address one of the three points but not the first. However, we have to be exceedingly careful as relaxing our dependence on published reliable sources will have far-reaching consequences. Obviously, this community is in a position to address the third.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I will probably comment further on this thread in the near future, but for now I would like to thank User:Sphilbrick for providing a clear and useful breakdown of reasons for under-representation of some racial and other groups. Point 1 is known, a long ugly history. In discussing systemic racism, systemic bias, and systemic bias in Wikipedia, we must be careful to distinguish point 2 from point 3. Thank you for providing the breakdown. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need for admin intervention based on the latest thread. I would suggest to FA and others, as I did there, to the extent they are having difficulty with finding RS, they ask for help, on and off the pedia, and also remember that a new article is not the only way to get info, and a link to that info, onto the pedia. A post asking at Jimbo or other places for sources would at least begin to help fill out the pedia. (As much as we all like to work alone, and not have to deal with others for whatever reason, part of the success of the pedia, to the extent there is any, is at least somewhat working with others of different experiences.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose any sanction of FA based on this report. I believe they should be commended for their efforts, both in terms of substantive editing and raising difficult, important issues in appropriate venues. In particular, it's clear from the initial post here that FA has taken on board criticism of their earlier, more personalized approach. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  In his most recent thread, FA claims "Wikipedia excludes..." topics like Westfield, Alabama (repeatedly). That is false. They claim Oberlin Academy was "deleted and redirected repeatedly". I can find no evidence of this. It was moved from a title with a typo, and it was kept at AfD in 2019. He presents this as evidence of "systemic racism."

  Far from being evidence of "racism", I think the community has been exceedingly patient with Florida Army because of the topic area in which they work, and that they would have been indeff'd a long time ago if they were working in almost any other topic area. 2601:194:300:130:C849:BAB9:595B:CE43 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Right, got it, racism is only against white people and that's why you think people who oppose racism should be indefinitely blocked from WP. Why don't you log in under your account? --JBL (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  That appears to be a gross misrepresentation of the point they were trying to make. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  ...as well as a personal attack. I attempted to respond at their talk page, and was ignored. I didn't want to derail this thread (which may well have been the goal of the comment). In case it wasn't obvious, I am the same IP that posted the list above. 2601:194:300:130:C849:BAB9:595B:CE43 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Do Nothing - First, as a disclosure, I have accepted many of the submissions of User:FloridaArmy, and I have normally applied a relatively low notability bar, because many of the submissions have been in areas where Wikipedia's coverage is spotty and can be improved, such as lost films. Second, User talk:Jimbo Wales is something of a free-fire zone, which seems to be what Jimbo Wales intends. Almost anything is permitted except for named personal attacks, libel, copyvio, BLP violations, or incitement of hatred. Third, FloridaArmy doesn't appear to be attacking specific reviewers or specific other people. He is ranting, and Jimbo's talk page is a place for ranting. Fourth, FloridaArmy is probably hurting the acceptance of their own contributions by their ranting, because reviewers now may be more inclined to ignore a draft that needs improvement than to decline it for more work, out of fear of being accused of racism. This will mean that their drafts will be pending longer, which is a self-inflicted injury to FloridaArmy and a FloridaArmy-inflected injury to the topics of their drafts that they mean to be advancing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree on all points. FA's behaviour seems to be sitting at the Venn diagramm intersection of Well-meaning but misguided, Annoying, Not actionable, and Self-defeating. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree about Jimmy Wales's talk page. If it didn't exist we would have to invent it as a place where ranters can rant without harming the rest of the encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I also agree with this. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just want to make it clear that while I stand by my thoughts above--I think FloridaArmy would do well to modulate, not change their approach, I agree with all of this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, FA appears to have created an article in the mainspace. See their most recent contributions. Should I draftify it? Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of a substantive (rather than procedural) reason to do so, that sounds like a terrible idea. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: understood. I just thought it would be best to bring this up here. Besides, the article was fine. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment WT:RS#Research on this page is a thread that touches upon this subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:25, 1 July 2021 (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.

Ruling List of fatal cougar attacks in North America

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.

---

Editors who maintain the List of fatal cougar attacks in North America need to have an admin rule on a single user's efforts to change the text of the article using "sex" instead of "gender," something which we have discussed and reached consensus on for over a year, a new account user was created and does not accept previous consensus, so we are requesting an admin to rule. Thanks. SoftwareThing (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave EEng 01:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment SoftwareThing did not send an ANI notice to the individual being reported. SoftwareThing was also Wikipedia:Canvassing Bilby here:[13]. Now Bilby has performed a revert on the article. I'm also curious as to where this "consensus" is at, and there won't be a fair discussion on the article talk page now that SoftwareThing has canvassed another editor. Jerm (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is a simple content dispute that hasn't reached the level of AN/I. At the moment, one editor wishes to make a change, and three editors have disagreed. Thus we've ended up with an edit war, but that should settle down for a bit. - Bilby (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Bilby That still doesn't change the fact that were were invited in the dispute. You should not be allowed to touch the article or its talk page because of that. Jerm (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I was already involved in the dispute before SoftwareThing left a message. I haven't yet read that message, but my involvement predates it. - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor gets a notification when someone starts a new discussion on their talk page, so please, find a better excuse. Jerm (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I got the notification, but I hadn't yet read the message. That said, this is moot - I was involved in the dispute before a message was left on my talk page, so I did not become involved through canvassing. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It took less time for you to reply to me than it did reading the new discussion on your talk page which is just a single sentence? Your full of shit. Jerm (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If that's your response, I guess we're done. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2021 (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.

Nikephoros1

Nikephoros1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is what seems to be in a bizarre fashion attempting to Greekify the article of Arsaces I of Parthia by removing/altering sourced information as well as adding unsourced info. His argument behind removing sourced info is 'No evidence' or 'It’s dubious', even though the very sources contradict what he is saying (see [14]). Yet ironically he keeps adding sourced information himself, completely contradicting his previous (baseless) arguments. This is sheer WP:TENDENTIOUS.

His edits;

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at Nikephoros1's edits at Arsaces I of Parthia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as at a number of articles they've edited earlier, and it's clear to me that this user does not understand that they can't change article content without citing sources. They also seem overly confident (cf. the questionable claims on their user page, and compare with the incivility here). Given the fact that they're editing quite prolifically on a range of articles and making similarly unsourced changes in all of them (e.g., [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]; skipping 7 days, they become bolder afterwards [26], [27]), this is quite damaging. They should be stopped in their tracks and their edits should be mass-reverted. However, this is a relatively new user (started editing 15 June) who has received a number of warning templates but no welcome and no guidance of any form. I recommend expedient and forceful action, but perhaps not yet a block if we succeed in engaging them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jgwilliams873, template usage and other issues

Jgwilliams873 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Core issues: Since 7 April, User:Jgwilliams873 (JG) has been tag bombing articles with {{update}}, {{expand section}}, and {{lead too short}} among other templates. Attempts to communicate with them on their talk page are being ignored, and they default to edit war maintenance templates back into articles.

Scope: JG has made 462 edits in main space since 7 April. At least 169 of their edits have been directly reverted. Most of their edits consist of adding maintenance templates such as {{update}}, {{expand section}}, and {{lead too short}} to articles and sections. Counting some of them, I see

• 64 cases of {{Update|date=June 2021}} (+26 bytes)
• 99 cases of {{Update|date=April 2021}} (+27 bytes) – this backdated tag was used all through the month of May, example: Special:Diff/1023731251, and well into June, example: Special:Diff/1027385174.
• 33 cases of {{Expand section|date=June 2021}} (+34 bytes)
• 36 cases of {{Expand section|date=April 2021}} (+35 bytes) – again, used well into June, example: Special:Diff/1027385705.
• 104 cases of {{Lead too short|date=April 2021}} and {{Update|date=April 2021}} (+62 bytes) – and again, this backdated tag was used well into June, example: Special:Diff/1027387256.

That totals 336 edits out of 462, or 72%. The actual numbers are higher, as JG makes other combinations of maintenance templates such as

• {{Update|date=April 2021}} and {{BLP sources|date=April 2021}} in this diff,
• {{Update|date=April 2021}}, {{BLP sources|date=April 2021}}, {{Lead rewrite|date=April 2021}}, and, confusingly, a second {{Update|date=April 2021}} in this diff,
• or use {{missing information}} such as here and here,
• or put a misplaced {{stub}} on the top of articles (diff, diff, diff, diff) even though none of these articles are stubs,
• and that list could go on.

Improper template usage

• {{Update}}: The documentation says "Do not mark an article as needs updating, without a reason, unless it is very obvious." Sifting through JG's contribution I fail to find 1 single case where they use the |reason= parameter in {{Update}} let alone the |talk= parameter. In most cases the tag, sometimes applied at a speed of 2-5 per minute, is reminiscent of drive-by tagging; two examples:
  • Director Thomas Vinterberg received the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film for Another Round on 26 April, and multiple editors had already on the same day updated the article. Four days later on 30 April, JG drives by and tags the article with {{Lead too short|date=April 2021}} and {{Update|date=April 2021}} in Special:Diff/1020038898/1020690218. JG gave no reasons for his tagging, and had no previous edits to the article.
  • On 8 May within eight minutes, they tag 26 San Diego Rockets/Houston Rockets season articles dating back 54 years to 1967 with the backdated {{Update|date=April 2021}}. That is a tag every ~19 seconds. It is not clear what they think needs updating in these articles.
• {{Lead too short}} applies "where the lead section is much shorter than what is recommended, relative to the length of the article." One of many examples where it does not apply is
  • Arthur Schmidt (film editor) that is not divided into sections of prose, yet JG tagged it in Special:Diff/997753820/1020688331 with {{Lead too short|date=April 2021}} and {{Update|date=April 2021}}. According to IMDb, this 84-year old and twice Academy Award winning editor edited his last film in 2005. What is there to update?
• {{Expand section}} can be used "at the beginning of article sections that need expansion, after that section's title. ... Recommended use is with a talk page link explaining what is needed and especially any justification for your judgement."
  • I fail to find any examples of JG following the recommendation and explaining on the talk page what is needed.
  • They will habitually tag multiple sections within the same article with {{Expand section}}, examples:
    • Terry Stotts on 4 June in Special:Diff/1026845323, Special:Diff/1026845323/next, Special:Diff/1026845374/next, and Special:Diff/1026845405/next. That is four tags within 34 seconds. No edit summaries were provided. And for "good measure", they also add the empty level two heading "Personal Life" [sic] in Special:Diff/1026845451/next a few seconds later.
    • Stephen Silas a few minutes later on 4 June in Special:Diff/1026847918, Special:Diff/1026847918/next, Special:Diff/1026847944/next, and Special:Diff/1026847970/next. That is four tags within 28 seconds. Again, no edit summaries were provided. And they follow up by adding the usual and backdated {{Lead too short|date=April 2021}} and {{Update|date=April 2021}} (+62 bytes) tags in Special:Diff/1026849189.
  • If a section does not exist, they will on occasion create it, and tag it with {{Expand section}}, example:
    • Tom Osborne on 22 April, that subsequently also gets tagged with {{expand lead|date=April 2021}}, the backdated {{Cleanup|date=February 2021}}, and {{Update|date=April 2021}} in Special:Diff/1019293208. I don't know if we have a guideline regarding empty sections? In any case, the correct template would be {{Empty section}}, not {{Expand section}}.
    • Sometimes, e.g. in Quin Snyder, they will add an empty section, but forget to tag it. User:Sabbatino posed two frank questions when they undid the edit.
• Some articles really get the full treatment, take Denny Crum as an example:
  • First a triple tag with {{Lead rewrite|date=October 2020}}, {{update|date=February 2021}}, and {{expand section|date=July 2009}} in Special:Diff/1015837212/1016537847. It is 7 April 2021, so the user is not aware of {{subst:date}}. Jweiss11 removes the backdated {{expand section|date=July 2009}} placed on top of the article, but is promptly reverted by JG, who then goes on to add a second {{update}} and a {{blp sources}} at the top, as well as an {{update}} to a section, an edit they undo, as well as three subsequent {{expand section}} tags.

Lack of communication and edit warring

• Several editors have approached JG on their talk page. Remarkably, JG has never replied to any messages on their talk. On 8 April, a day after JG starts their tagging spree, User:Bagumba posts a recommendation regarding the update tag. JG ignores it and continues their MO, and later, they remove Bagumba's post. Subsequent posts by User:Howard the Duck (FIBA World Championship updates), User:Rikster2 (Tagging articles), and User:Yosemiter (Tagging articles) were all ignored and reverted by JG.
• Sabbatino opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 41#Disruptive additions of templates? (permalink) to which JG did not initially respond. They may not have gotten the ping. Bagumba notified them on their talk with a {{please see}} on 10 June. Notice, that when JG started editing again some 11-12 hours later, their first edit was not to respond in the thread at WT:NBA, no, it was to edit war with User:Broccoli and Coffee in Cliff Hagan (diff) and restore {{Lead too short|date=April 2021}} and {{Update|date=April 2021}} although we were in June. When they did respond on WT:NBA, their response did not display any understanding for why their edits might be considered disruptive, and they immediately continued edit warring in main space with User:Yankees10 in Dave Giusti (diff), as well as in Doug Rader (diff), and in Steve Blass (diff), and in Johnny Egan (diff). The next couple of hours were spend almost exclusively adding {{Update|date=April 2021}} to articles.
• When they did return to the discussion on WT:NBA, they initially removed their own reply without any edit summary, and when that was reverted by Yosemiter, JG then added del tags to their own edit without leaving an edit summary.
• I left JG a message on their talk on 21 June asking them to stop tagging articles. They did not respond. They did not edit for the next eight days, but when they did return on 29 June, it was to edit war again in three different articles, Bruce Furniss, Mike Bruner, and Mark Schubert.

I would prefer hearing from JG with a clear commitment to stop tagging articles, refrain from edit warring, and start listening to their fellow editors. I added a source to Cliff Hagan, and I'll be happy to help JG get started with doing something similar in other articles. On the other hand, if JG continues to edit as they have done since early April, the community needs to evaluate if an editing restriction would serve a purpose. Sam Sailor 08:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

On the user talk page suggestion that I left, which they deleted, I asked them to supply the |reason= on the {{update}} tag, or leave an indication on the talk page on what they feel needs updating. I have not seen that followed. My preference is that they simply begin dialogue with the community on how to improve Wikipedia. Barring that interaction, I would suggest a topic ban on using {{update}}, {{expand section}}, and {{lead too short}}.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the reported editor is WP:NOTHERE due to lack of communication and WP:TAGBOMBING. I am sure that the editor wants to do good, but this WP:TAGBOMBING is ridiculous when he chooses pages of retired (maybe even dead) people and just blindly adds multiple templates. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I left a message at User talk:Jgwilliams873#Warning: collaboration is required and will review any further tagging against consensus. I have not reviewed the editor's contributions to date (other than confirming the recent tag bombing) and my comment here is not intended to avoid action now if another admin believes that to be justified, or if consensus here forms the view that action is required. Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• As noted, I also left JG several messages about unwarranted tagging and deleting their comment after being responded to (per WP:REDACT). While I think this user probably has good intentions, they apparently WP:DONTGETIT when it comes to article tags, which can be very frustrating when they revert to re-add tags to swimmers who have not competed in over 30 years or to an ongoing event even though it actually had been updated 68 times in the interim. (They were probably looking for {{Current}}, but one can usually assume that tag is not necessary via readers being competent enough to read the article that usually states that the event is in progress.) They seem to want articles updated, but have yet to do any actual updates to articles themselves. I would like to see JG start to communicate in order to understand why the tags are inappropriate and refrain or T-Banned from adding tags to any article until they can demonstrate the competence of their usage. Yosemiter (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • They have not edited since my rather clear warning. Let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • ​Thank you, will do. Sam Sailor 05:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ján Volko

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 rando keeps undoing my edit that is sourced. (Redacted) --2A01:36D:1200:6B6:61BC:45D9:2CEA:8AD5 (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no need for that abuse when reporting an issue. I have blocked both you and Manticore from editing Ján Volko for 24 hours. Use the talk page to discuss your differences, and if there are any more personal attacks, I will upgrade the block to site wide. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I see this is here now (I came across it via Richie's talk page — my comment), so I'll update: for their attacks, the IP (/64) has been blocked sitewide for one week with TPA disabled (good action). After discussing the matter with HighInBC, Ritchie333 has lifted Manticore's partial block, which I think was the right call. El_C 11:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think the matter is resolved. I commend Ritchie333 for reversing the block even though they may not have necessarily agreed with my reasoning. I think that an uninvolved admin can close this if nobody has anything else to add. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, will do. One sec. El_C 11:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

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

DIsruptive user

198.48.187.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Drill it (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and harassmentDrill it (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems Drill it is already blocked. I was about to tell him to take it down 5 notches. You are edit warring on the IPs talk page. I have asked the IP to take it to the talk page and I am asking you the same thing.

I get that you are trying to do anti-vandalism patrol but you are a bit too aggressive about it. Users, IPs included are allowed to remove warnings and use their talk page for organizing sources so don't edit war about that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I was to post that Drill's behaviour towards other editors, including myself, warrants an immediate block. Glad to see he has already been indeffed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank-you very much for the help.198.48.187.109 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

User 109 has just gotten off of an edit war block and I have already advised them to take their ideas and sources to the article talk page if reverted(which it appears they have done). I don't think their actions since the block expired have been disruptive, I just hope that they don't resume edit warring and keep their cool if they encounter resistance to their edits.

I don't think anything else needs to come of this report unless things change. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, a number of admins, including ToBeFree, El C and Bbb23 have suspected Drill it was a sock, but all the evidence was circumstantial. I asked Drill it if this was their first Wikipedia account, which was immediately reverted, which (in my view) is about as close to an admission of guilt as you can get. Since then, they have been globally locked as a long-term abuse case. I think I know which one but I won't say per WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Add my name to the list. This newish user seemed to have the experience of a prolific and overly enthusiastic vandal fighter. They went from 0 to full speed without any apparent learning curve. Either way they were certainly being disruptive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

We've had such an "admission" for a while (Special:Diff/1025798962). I'll assume that the global lock is based on technical evidence; well then. My main concern with this user was a complete refusal to be accountable for their edits, and the disruption caused by the lack of proper explanations for their actions, in edit summaries and in response to talk page queries. This behavior alone would already have justified a block or ban, so I didn't spend time on guessing whose sockpuppet they may be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note on Drill it's protection request record: as someone who has attended to hundreds of RfPP requests in the last couple of weeks (tens of which having been filed by Drill it), I found that while most of their requests were valid, there still was a substantial amount that were not (unambiguously so). For whatever that's worth (not much, I suspect). El_C 12:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, admins: if a user stonewalls you after you've queried them about previous accounts — block them. They cannot plead the 5th and remain editors in good standing. El_C 12:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

SPA, Possible sockpuppet of user:EljanM

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.

---

VivaEspana11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New account with edits focusing on removing Armenian names from articles. 2-part username and persistent name edits and WP:CIR issues are alike to the sockpuppets of EljanM and IskandarRocket (see related SPI). Overall, user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

This talk page[28] clearly shows who is focused on deleting a name. I was waiting for you to answer my question. I said let's discuss but you didn't answer because the outcome of this argument would be against you. Unfortunately, you delete the Azerbaijani names in the Azerbaijani majority villages and add the Armenian names in the Armenian minority cities such as Ganja, Azerbaijan, Gədəbəy, Nakhchivan (city). All of them have never been an Armenian majority. I think this user[29] is can be sockpuppet of User:Kevo327. Because he only has 3 edits and similar to Kevo327's edits. VivaEspana11 (talk page) 19:38, 1 July 2021 (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.

Slow, but persistent, vandalism

I noticed that Cordyceps-Zombie, an account active since 2016, recently vandalised a political party article here. They also created this disruptive redirect which I've nominated for CSD. Given how long they've been here, I initially thought it was a hacked account. However, looking at their talk page, they are a long term vandal who occasionally gets vandalism warnings, but never enough for an immediate block. This user strikes me as someone who is WP:NOTHERE and wants to WP:GAME the system by dancing on the line rather than overtly crossing it. — Czello 15:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Jewish labels on BLPs, poorly supported

• 2001:8003:D95F:3301:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Melbourne has been labeling BLPs as Jewish on very thin grounds. If some aspect of Jewishness is brought up in connection to the BLP subject, this person jumps to conclusions and applies the label.

For instance, at the Lou Barlow biography, the person said Barlow was Jewish, citing an article in thethinair.net. But the article itself only says that Barlow's songs "were melancholy and introspective but laced with a wittiness typical of self-deprecating Jewish humour." The article does not say Barlow himself is Jewish.

Another example is Jim Starlin's biography in which the Melbourne person labeled Starlin Jewish, citing multiple sources. I looked up the first source: I'm not a subscriber, but this cited article appears to say that Starlin's parents were Jewish. I don't think it says that Starlin himself is Jewish. The other sources are tangential mentions of Jews, not definitive. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This address been blocked by Bbb23 for BLP violations, and it looks like the edits have been reverted. This sort of behavior (from many editors) has been a perennial problem. I don't suppose it would be possible to create an edit filter for the addition of Jewish categories to articles that don't have some likely keywords like "Jew" or "Jewish" anywhere in their text? It wouldn't catch all of them but it might help. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I, too, have seen this same kind of problem before. I believe it comes from multiple persons acting independently. A notional filter to fix the problem would be extremely difficult to code. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit filter 982 already exists, it's not very nuanced, but it helps to identify this sort of thing. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Classic joke about this sort of thing: A little old lady gets on a bus and sits next to a young man. She looks at him for a few minutes and then asks "Young man, are you Jewish?". He replies "No lady, I am not Jewish." A while longer after continuing to look at him she again asks "Are you Jewish? Maybe on your mother's side?" Again the man replies "No lady, I am not Jewish". She keeps staring at him and again asks "Are you sure that you’re not Jewish? Maybe just a little? On your father's side?". Just out of frustration, the man replies "Yes, lady, I am Jewish!". She says "That's funny, you don’t look Jewish." --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Involved (possibly) block by Bbb23

I just got pinged to User talk:2601:5C2:300:62E:2D79:1C9F:332B:6B05 who is objecting to being blocked for a week after what appears to be a mild edit-war with Bbb23 on Sara Ganim. The point of contention is whether it is appropriate to mention her husband Davniel Cevallos in the infobox. There is a New York Times source here. However, the IP didn't cite this directly in the article, so there are possible BLP issues, and it's possible the IP should have done this (even a bare URL with a ref tag would do). However, these are easily resolved by other editors. The list of edit-warring exemptions says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." In any case, as far as I can make out, Bbb23 should not be doing the blocking here as they are clearly WP:INVOLVED.

I've got to nip out to the shops in a minute, and I fear if I took direct action, the fire of Hades would rain down on my head if I wasn't around to explain myself more fully. So I'm bringing it for review here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This is sillily bureaucratic, but in the interest of avoiding an even sillier discussion, I've unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. This user has been messing with both the Danny Cevallos and Sara Ganim articles for weeks, and had already been blocked for it. I would have blocked for a lot longer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector Another user -- not this user! -- is the one who was messing with the articles and has been blocked indefinitely. Otherwise, I'm going to link the Cevallos and Ganim pages, Bbb23. Please be constructive or instructive (but not destructive) in allowing that link to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c2:300:62e:2d79:1c9f:332b:6b05 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)‎

• I added the spouse info to the Ganim infobox, sourced to the NYT. That said, the way the Cevallos AfD is going (which I agreed with), I'll probably have to delink his name from the Ganim article in short order.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Even if Cevallos' page gets deleted (which is a baroque topic at best for insomniacs), it is still relevant on Ganim's page to mention her spouse, a CNN legal analyst no less, by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c2:300:62e:2d79:1c9f:332b:6b05 (talk)

Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive 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.

---

A couple of IP users, including IP ranges (1), (2), and (3) (probably used by the same person), have repeatedly made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Some edits have clearly violated the Manual of Style. (like this one and this one). The MoS clearly says that The term "mainland China"...Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should only be used when a contrast is needed. And other edits include removal content without any reason and addition of empty sections. Moreover, the IP user is simply unwilling to discuss with me despite the messages on the talk page. --HypVol (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Most recently, a single-purpose IP has made a total of 22 edits within 15 minutes, all of which were to undo mine. --HypVol (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• 2402:7500:900:0:0:0:0:0/42 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one week. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:38, 30 June 2021 (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 warring and repeated incivility by Locke Cole

@Locke Cole: seems to have an especially strong dislike for IEC binary information units. Whatever the merits of the arguments pro/contra these units, this editor has taken the liberty of engaging in repeated edit-warring, together with passive-aggressive talk page posts (almost universally dismissive of anyone who even tangentially calls their opinion or their behaviour re IEC into question) and abusive edit summaries such as "if I could find a consensus of editors here who could read, that would be ideal" (diffs below). They have maintained this attitude despite having started (for example) a discussion as to whether a template that they did not like should be nominated for deletion, and getting universal rejection. I have taken the liberty of opening this discussion as someone who has not participated in these events outside of a few talk-page messages, but has witnessed some of the disruption and annoyance caused by this editor's intransigence over the past month or so.

In an ongoing thread at WT:MOSNUM, @Dondervogel 2: has summarized the latest incidents of such disruptive revert-warring in this post, with the relevant diffs.

I appreciate that the issue of IEC units is unimaginably trivial to most people, but the disruption it causes is out of all conceivable proportion to its importance. These edit wars and talk-page battles have raged for well over a month, across multiple articles and talk pages, and are now affecting templates that are (I believe) quite widely used in computing-related articles. Largely because a single editor with a militant POV (who has been recently warned about their revert-warring behaviour) will simply not accept that not everyone shares it, and that people who do not share it are not incompetents or acting in bad faith (as they insinuated about another editor in a spiteful and condescending reply to me), or liars.

I don't know what the appropriate course of action is here; it seems to me that general sanctions of some sort might be appropriate regarding edit-warring related to IEC units, as this nonsense has gone on far too long and caused an obscenely disproportionate amount of frustration and disruption. And as anyone with the patience can verify, disruption relating to IEC units has been going on for well over a decade now, with absolutely no sign of abating, at MOSNUM and in article-space. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting to me to see that my behavior is called in to question here, but the behavior of an editor who has pushed IEC units against consensus for well over a decade is somehow just fine... If you can't see how this would frustrate someone, dealing with sources that amount to less tghan 1% in most instances, but being told we simply must use this unit, I don't know how else to explain it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So it's tu quoque is it? However other editors have behaved, you are very thin on justification for your aggressive edit-warring and abusive attitude towards the (many) editors who do not share your view. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

[30][31][32][33][34] I mean sure, starting a bunch of nearly identical discussions isn't disruptive at all, which is what they did initially. They also resisted my attempts to get a combined discussion going at WT:MOSNUM (note all the various sections which are, fundamentally, about the same things). Then there's the habit of restarting old discussions, or waiting a month to reply to keep the section from being archived and allowing editors to move on: (original comment 2021-05-01T19:12:09, reply 2021-06-14T07:38:22; original comment 2021-05-03T16:06:45 reply 2021-05-30T09:57:43‎; original comment 2020-05-25T17:12:18‎, reply 2021-05-03T10:14:13 (almost a year later), pings the editor who never replied to the initial conversation almost a year later). Trust me, my behavior is not the problem here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing how, like clockwork, the default response to some people's behaviour being called into question is to assert that others have behaved worse, and then double down on it. Even when the evidence is right in front of us. It's yet another time-wasting distraction. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The OP leaves out LC's attempt to delete a bunch of templates when they discovered that consensus might be against their position in a related content dispute. I called it "a remarkably childish approach to dispute resolution" at the deletion discussion, but I now think "pointy", "bad-faith", and "disruptive" also apply. --JBL (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, LC seems to see no problem with starting spinoffs of one talk-page tirade elsewhere, while the original one is still ongoing (so long as LC is the person doing it, I mean). Archon 2488 (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I have experienced the following kinds of disruptive behaviour from LC:

• Unilaterally closing discussions on article talk pages before these had reached a conclusion, suggesting the discussion should be held at WT:MOSNUM
  • SDRAM [35]
  • Memory hierarchy [36]
  • SD card (twice) [37][38]
• Unilaterally closing discussion at WT:MOSNUM when that discussion was transferred from an article talk page at LC’s request [39]

• Persistently hostile editing at WT:MOSNUM [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]
• Personal attacks [63][64][65][66][67]
• Edit warring on bit and byte prefix templates
  • Template:Quantities of bits [68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]
  • Template:Quantities of bytes [78][79][80][81]
• Canvassing another editor to support LC’s position on bit and byte prefix templates [82]
• When the edit war and canvassing did not produce their intended results, initiating the RfD referred to by others

I don’t have time now but will follow up with supporting diffs. (As pointed out by Archon, some can be found at WT:MOSNUM). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's very tiring dealing with your disruption. You really ought to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting how perspective changes things: I see you being disruptive, starting a half dozen discussions on largely the same topic because you felt your edits were fine by WP:COMPUNITS. Ultimately I started a discussion at WT:MOSNUM after you refused to take the discussion there yourself. Upon doing that you again disruptively broke the conversation into about a dozen different sections for each article (so really, despite my attempt to consolidate what was, fundamentally, the exact same discussion into a single thread, you still forced it into a dozen separate discussions). After engaging with you (despite editors there encouraging me to bring you here because of your tendentious editing) for over a month, I stopped engaging when you starting flat out LYING about my position on things. After that, you started adding to the conversation to keep it from being archived, and after ignoring you (because I'd already made my objections quite clear) you decided to go back to editing against consensus because nobody would bother to engage you (WP:NOTSILENCE). Anyone who reads that entire discussion can see how comically low on sources your position is (less than 2% of even academic sources, which were the ones you preferred, use IEC units). I'm very sorry I didn't bring you here sooner to have this dealt with when it all started. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User gaming the system

So the AANES was recently extended protected to stop editors from flooding the page. A recent editor BerkBerk68 who clearly has Turkish nationalist reason for editing Wikipedia, has been edit warring extensively on the page, just see history. He willing fully doesn't understand edit warring the AANES has arbitrary sanctions of one revert per 24 hours. He has been notified about this twice, the page was recently extended protected indef and BerkBerk68 proceeded to game the system, see immediately after page protection he starts making a flood of edits on his user-page. Des Vallee (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not personally a nationalist. I am not fully Turkish either. As I mentioned in my old page, I have Zaza/Kurdish ancestry. ( my old page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BerkBerk68&oldid=1030586534 ) however, in Des Vallee's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Des_Vallee), there are ideological userboxes related to the topic. such as "This user is a libertarian socialist." or "This user supports Democratic Confederalism in a free Kurdistan." (I don't oppose his ideologies, I am just answering.) So, it is not me who is moving with ideologies.

in terms of one revert per 24 hours rule, I violated it only once (which is already reported to Administrators) when I was not sure about the system. When I understood the system, I never violated any rules. BerkBerk68 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

BerkBerk68 The whole Zaza Kurdish thing is strange and is completely unrelated to the topic. It's not userboxes, userboxes are completely fine it's the general way you edit war, add content and game the system, see 1 and 2. You can't re-add content unless you have consensus even if the 24 hour time period ends, you are not allowed to have a firm against consensus on the talk, and keep re-adding content, it's not allowed, see the edit warring policies and the revert rule. Des Vallee (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee Yeah, I see. after this stage I won't edit the page and will discuss at talk page. However, in case of I don't get any answer in 24 hours, I guess I have rights to count it as "didn't answer" and editing. Also I mentioned my Zaza Kurdish ancestry to prove that I am not moving with a specific ethnicity's nationalism. However, I couldn't understand what exactly did you mean by "strange". BerkBerk68 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• BerkBerk68, I've revoked your EC user right. I don't know why you thought doing that was okay, but it wasn't. El_C 16:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C Okay. How can I take it back? how much edits do I need to make again (with a correct way) or is it possible for me to take the pass again in future? BerkBerk68 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

BerkBerk68, you can't take it back. You'll have to to attain the WP:500-30 tenure again, and this time, do so legitimately. Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out to you that you're fast approaching a broad WP:KURDS/WP:SCW topic ban. El_C 13:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Mass cross-wiki creation of nonsense pages by anons and registered users

Hi, I was initally alerted to this at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Long-term_addition_of_nonsense_pages. I then looked through Wikipedia and noticed this rubbish was on dozens of pages here. I request an admin delete them all.
List of pages:

• User:OswaldCyrano/mixing-sailors.js
• User:Croobatch
• User:SteveRadclown/mixing-sailors.js
• User_talk:2A04:CEC0:1054:8B1C:0:53:B0EA:1901
• Draft:OIL_AND_CLOWN_COLORS

aeschylus (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Remnants of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 180. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

points at WP:G3. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I nuked these (and from them a few others, based on BEANS). Is there a way to include userspace .js in Special:Search or other content-search tools? DMacks (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

DMacks, you can search for .js pages in userspace from this search settings. Expanding the advanced search option below the search bar gives several options to narrow down the search. For example, adding username to "Subpages of this page" field will list all .js pages of that user. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Weird...I had been using the All namespaces checkbox along with insource: and .js pages that I knew had the string were not coming up. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent promotional disruption/vandalism at Watpracharangsan School

Despite page protection and warnings, see continued disruption today be Krisay90 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Previously blocked user making weak 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.

---

• Probecks (talk · contribs)

Repeatedly making weak/non-improved edits (e.g. replacing commas with dashes) and making negative comments towards editors (calling me a "hateful individual" in response to reverting his/her edits). This user was blocked from editing last month as the result of personally attacking or harassing an editor. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

These edits are not weak. Just because I am not adding sources doesn't mean I am not making the articles better by correcting punctuation and sentence structure by creating active rather than passive voice and adding much-needed distance. These articles read in large part as written by fan club members. I am not although I am listening to the material and enjoying it. Placing a positive change on these articles helps me feel like I am making a contribution. I am sorry if that offends certain editors who have nothing better to do but wreck my efforts. Maybe someone with "devil" in their user name shouldn't be allowed to do that. we have enough devils in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Probecks (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocking for a week, if it resumes this'll be an indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:00, 3 July 2021 (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 user attacking me with uncivil slurs

A user 63.194.188.238 (talk · contribs) has been attacking me when I was trying to suggest to them to not attack users on their talk page. Continued edits have not helped. There edits can be seen here:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

There are several more that can be seen through their edit history (often just spelling the words backwards I assume to hide some sort of profanity filter?). I've suggested to them to read WP:CIVIL and gave them over four warnings on their talk page (all have been removed). I'm not really sure what I can do more, but I would suggest a block/ban as this user is not here to work with others to help build an encyclopedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the users response to to giving them a notice to this was this. I'll admit, it gave me a cheap laugh at least! They are currently blocked but I'm suggesting that they have little to no interest in contributing to the encyclopedia and don't seem to show any indication that they've read the rules I've linked them to. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've extended the block and disabled TPA due to that last edit summary, which used the f-word (i.e. not fuck). That said, you should report misconduct and leave it at that, rather than continue posting on their talk page (in the double digits), seeing as they've just been blanking everything (without exception). El_C 10:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• The IP should be warned to use only civil slurs. EEng 21:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Knock it the hell off, you witty, valued contributor. I swear to god, you just go around improving every thread you get involved in, and it's getting downright pleasant. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Do I detect a note of sarcasm? EEng 21:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Bot cyberbot is malfunctioning in Russo-Ukrainian War

Resolved

cyberbot is endlessly spamming the history with "changes" about adding a deletion discussion flag to the article. Sorry if this is the wrong place to report it, never seen this type of thing happen before. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

courtesy pinging bot operator cyberpower678 did I do this right?   melecie   t 10:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

At least it seems to have stopped. We should keep an eye on it until we know it has been addressed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This bug has happened before, last time at Spring_Championship_of_Online_Poker. Izno blocked it from the page to stop it that time. I wonder what causes it, and hope Cyberpower can shed some light. firefly ( t · c ) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It might have been caused by this bit of IP vandalism, which deleted half the AfD template but left some of the comments intact. When the bot re-added the template you were then left with 1 1/2 AfD templates on the page. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch editor 91, I agree that may be the cause. Now that anyone reading this page knows how to cause this it should be fixed. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

User:104.32.200.138

• 104.32.200.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pyrrhus of Epirus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This IP editor persistently attempts to change the nationality of Pyrrhus of Epirus from Greek to Illyrian despite the article not supporting it and other editors such as User:Tpdwkouaa having reverted their edits. Temporary page block for this editor requested. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Here, [83] here, [84] here, [85] and here [86] [87]. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has not continued since 08:20 on 3 July. If they do so a block might be considered. This looks to be standard nationalist edit warring (arguing whether some famous person was Greek or Illyrian, without providing any actual sources). The IP is doing this kind of thing across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans

Snooganssnoogans was aware that I was blocked as a sockpuppet because on their userpage, they placed my name under the word, "Busted".

On 16 May 2020, they removed "Busted" and kept my name listed under NoCal100 Sockpuppet investigations.

On 28 Dec 2020, I was informed by Maxim that ARBCOM approved my appeal, that I was not a sockpuppet The Kingfisher was not a NoCal100 sockpuppet and that both accounts (The Kingfisher and UberVegan) were now in good standing.

On 24 May 2021, I warned Snooganssnoogans to remove my name from their userpage:

As I'm sure you are aware, ARBCOM cleared me of being a sockpuppet. Therefore, per WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVILITY, you need to remove this edit from your userpage immediately and I may consider not reporting you. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Shortly thereafter, they made this edit, removing me from under the NoCal100 Sockpuppet investigation, but still leaving me listed on their userpage under sockpuppet investigations.

As of now, their userpage still has me listed as an editor that is a suspected sockpuppet.

I believe that listing another editor on their userpage as a suspected sockpuppet for more than six months after ARBCOM stated that I'm not a sockpuppet, AND after I warned them, that they are most definitely violating WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVILITY.

Thank you! The Kingfisher/UberVegan The Kingfisher (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You DID sock by creating the account User:UberVegan. UberVegan was an account that you created to circumvent a block. Even if the original block was bullshit you still made a sockpuppet account. You need to keep in mind that ArbCom didn't clear you of socking; it cleared you of being a sockpuppet of NoCal100. Listing you as a "active" sockpuppet isn't true anymore and you're right that it's something that should be removed. At the same time you need to moderate your language. You're overplaying your hand here and saying stuff like "I may consider not reporting you." doesn't demonstrate a collaborative mindset; it's very battlegroundy and seeking to remove any and all mentions of your sockpuppetry isn't a tenable position. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 09:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your points are well taken.

It's listed on my userpage because I was the editor who successfully uncovered that you were running a sockpuppet account to evade a ban[88]. If the consensus here is that I should remove the sockpuppet mention from my userpage, then I will comply with that. However, the list of past sockpuppets is very helpful for me to bust future ones (usernames are hard to remember), which is why I note them down. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous at best. It is not listed as "I uncovered this sockpuppet", but rather "Active sockpuppetry to watch for". In other words, you've put a bounty on me. I am simply an editor with two accounts. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs)

You're not simply an editor with two accounts. This is how you reacted when I asked if you had a relationship to the other account: "You're insane! No, I have no idea who The Kingfisher is! Are you crazy???!!!"[89] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

All the mud that you're throwing clearly came out in my appeal and I've left on my talk page for all to see. And, most of that was the basis for my appeal being denied. However, ARBCOM was able to get past that and ultimately unblocked me, BOTH accounts. Meaning, neither is now a sockpuppet. All the S#!T that you continue to sling from the past doesn't justify you to openly imply on your userpage that I am a sockpuppet. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I do find your obsessive focus on me a bit disturbing. Since your return, you've made baseless claims of tendentious editing on my talk page[90] and absurdly called for a ban on me for bringing a content dispute to the BLP noticeboard[91]. Even in your unblock request, you called for a ban on me for successfully uncovering that UberVegan was your sock[92]. In my view, this borders on harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A bit of a strawman and again disingenuous. I believe that since my return I have made one claim, not claims (I will check later) whereas you have ME listed on your userpage! Who is obsessed? The Kingfisher (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• @The Kingfisher: Will it make a difference if the word Active was removed (assuming Snooganssnoogans agrees)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No.

I changed it to just "sockpuppetry".[93] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You need to take my name off your userpage.

Just want to briefly weigh in as a third party--while I don't think Snoogans' approach here is particularly constructive, he is within his rights. Kingfisher, I think you would admit that whatever the merits of any official action, there are some things you regret. I understand that it is irksome when some people won't let the past be the past, but neither you nor I can control anyone else's conduct. My advice would be to have some of your favorite food or drink and just try to ignore this, difficult though it may be. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: What do you think the community would say if every editor who wanted, placed on their userpage transgressions of other editors? Would it be okay for me to list on my userpage every editor who has been blocked? Is that civil?

The focus should be on the process that allowed an editor to be wrongly blocked as a sock in the first place. Think of Andy Dufesne. Are you going to judge him by the fact that he was wrongly convicted or on the fact that lied to the guards and the warden? Or that he dug a hole when that was forbidden by the prison? Or that he was a sockpuppet and used a fake name to set up bank accounts? Or that he broke out of prison??? I'm sorry, but that's exactly what is happening here. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that if you want to list all userpages of blocked editors, you'd be expending a lot of effort, but it would be within your rights. I've given my take. You are, of course, free to ignore it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Why personal attacks are harmful says, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors says, "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them."

It bothers me to see for example members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Eastern European mailing list who were banned for coordinating their edits off-Wiki now un-banned and editing under new names. But I have to accept that ARBCOM has decided to allow them to edit as full members of the community and would only bring up their past misdeeds in a disciplinary discussion. While past blocks and bans are relevant to discussions of future blocks and bans, they are not relevant to content discussions, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

If you want to listed sanctions against editors, you are free to save them on your computer or use cloud storage, which is provided free by several companies.

TFD (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

While I do not condone socking (Which The Kingfisher did), I think Snooganssnoogans is wrong to keep The KingFisher's name on his userpage even though he is not actively socking. This is highly uncivil behavior that I see all the time. I do not think a community where civility is a pillar should allow editors to keep highly negative information about other editors on their userpages if they are in good enough standing. Telling someone to "just ignore it" does not sit well with me at all. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the list – I'm pretty open-minded about userspace freedom but userpages shouldn't be used to keep score or brag about successful sock hunts; it's counterproductive to a welcoming, collegiate community. And kind of immature. (Oh, and if an editor actually did use multiple accounts to pretend they were two different people, that's also immature and they should avoid riding high horses for a while.) Levivich 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Just wanted to be perfectly clear that I agree with this entirely from a prudential standpoint--I just don't think an administrator should have the ability to enforce such a mandate. Then again, perhaps that's why I will never be an administrator. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  It is not a listing "used to keep score or brag about successful sock hunts". It is a listing helpful to identify sockpuppets in the parts of Wikipedia that I'm familiar with and with modus operandi that I'm familiar with. A number of the sockpuppets are long-time abusers and I go back to the notes to identify them when they return. Editors who have little to no experience in identifying socks may not realize it, but it's extraordinarily tiresome and time-consuming to identify likely socks and connect them to the right account. Those notes help with that task. It's absurd to see it described as "immature", but I'm not surprised to see that from Levivich (who pops up in every discussion related to me to lay into me). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's what WP:LTA is for. If you want to maintain your own LTA notes, do it offline. Having your own personal LTA section on your userpage is not a good idea; it looks like you're publishing an "enemies list" on your userpage. Levivich 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I am not going to maintain notes on LTA on my computer and I see no value in consulting a crowdsourded LTA list where I have no familiarity with 99/100 accounts listed. The point of the notes is too rapidly link a particular sock with a master account. Your suggestions are all burdens that serve no purpose (except to protect the feelings of confirmed sockpuppets) and make it much more time-consuming and complicated to link likely socks with their masters. If my notes are so offensive, isn't the next logical step to do away with all archives of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Another option would be a user subpage. Levivich 21:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. This is WP:POLEMIC and inappropriate, regardless. Few people will be interested in a random old sockpuppetry case anyway. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Without further comment on the other sockpupppetry listings, the listing of the UberVegan account, given the totality of the circumstances, likely violates WP:POLEMIC, point 3, as "[negative] evidence ... should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if [it] will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Given it bothers The Kingfisher enough to bring it to ANI, I would suggest that the mention of The Kingfisher/UberVegan be removed from User:Snooganssnoogans. Maxim_(talk) 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I advise User:The Kingfisher to read Streisand effect. The Wikipedia community knows far more about this incident than we would if they hadn't made so much noise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that's one way to deal with uncivil behavior. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that's why you are making this cameo appearance here? SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User pages are full of all kinds of nonsense. Nobody's compelled to look at them. Why do the same familar names come here with snark and attack every time the thorny but diligent good faith Snoogs gets dragged into court? We do not know. SPECIFICO talk 19:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's because of how they interact with other editors. For example by using their user page to attack other editors. TFD (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

When a picture speaks...

No, that doesn't explain a certain POV constituency with no cogent comment except "bad" -- especially the less lily-pure warriors among them. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The editors who commented in this thread are The Kingfisher, Snoog, Chess, M.Bitton, Dumuzid, TFD, Scorpions, Maxim, Robert McClenon, SJ, you, and me (apologies if I missed anyone). None of us are "a certain POV constituency" or "less lily-pure warriors," and it'd be great if you didn't make comments like that towards us. Levivich 04:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Who fingered you? Puzzled. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

That's rather a personal question, isn't it [94]? EEng 21:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

You said "Why do the same familar names come here" and I've listed the names. You said some or all of them "come here with snark and attack" and are "a certain POV constituency" including "less lily-pure warriors." These are not OK things to say about your colleagues, so stop.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the editors who commented here don't appear to have commented in the last ANI about Snoog [95], or the one before it [96], or the last three ANEWs [97] [98] [99] (that's all I checked). Levivich 06:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh of course it's OK this board is for dicussing behaviour. Your research is off the mark, but if you are looking for a personalized accusation, you won't get any from me. Chill time. Maybe work on more article conent and less noticeboards and chat pages? Cheeers. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a true party unless one of the familiar names jumps in to unironically wonder why the same familiar names comment, unironically use snark and attacks while accusing others among the familiar names of using snark and attacks, and unironically maintain this board is for discussing behavior while criticizing others for discussing behavior. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Y Ernie! We've been expecting you. 😎 SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been waiting for you to open the door! Mr Ernie (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that the investigation was originally listed under the heading of 'Busted' reveals that the original intent was to maintain a trophy wall. While uncovering sockpuppets is admirable, maintaining a list like this on a user page discourages sincere attempts at WP:FRESHSTART, and for those SPI like this one that are more nuanced (the block evasion was due to a bad block), it crosses into incivility to keep a personal vanity list, especially as the editor involved has asked for their name to be removed and is otherwise in good standing. RandomGnome (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: I'd just <!-- comment them out --> if I was you. nagualdesign 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Honestly is comes across as this user treating the Wikipedia as an MMORPG, where "Identify 10 sockpuppets to earn a +10 Sword of Sock-Slaying" is a quest objective that they track their progress towards. It should be removed from the user-page. Zaathras (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Problematic COI editing at Ashland University

Can an administrator please take a look at the recent editing history and Talk page discussion of Ashland University? There is a legitimate discussion in Talk about whether the university should be labeled as a "Christian" university in the lede sentence. The problem is that the editor who first edited the article to remove that adjective is a paid by the university and continued to edit the article while the discussion has been ongoing and a loose consensus (only a few editors have participated) has formed in favor of keeping this adjective in the lede sentence. This same editor has also looked up my work e-mail address - it's not hard to find but it's not the e-mail I address I have connected to Wikipedia's e-mail function - and sent me a few pointed messages including one that was sent after I explicitly asked him to only contact me in my User Talk page. And now a relatively new single-purpose editor has begun editing the article to remove this adjective with no discussion in Talk or even an edit summary (in addition to several recent edits made by unregistered editors, including several using IP addresses owned by the university, and a few edits made by new editors who only edited this article once or twice).

Semi-protection of the article may be appropriate. And it would also be helpful if an administrator could have a word with these editors. It's totally fine for people who work for the university to ask questions and make suggestions in the article's Talk page. It's even fine, in my opinion, for them to make uncontroversial edits and to disagree with other editors in the article's Talk page or other Talk pages. It is not acceptable for them to edit war with other editors, against consensus, to ensure that the article conforms with their employer's preferred public image. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I've applied ECP to the article for 2 weeks due to the extensive IP-hopping and general lack of communication. Hopefully that is enough time to establish a consensus on the talk page. – bradv^🍁 02:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have warned any paid editors to comply with policy on the article talk page, and explained the importance of independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User vandalizing article on Bauhaus band

Woovee repeatedly removes information from the article on Bauhaus (band) on the grounds that it's insulting to bands he likes and because the article is written by biased Bauhaus fans, even though everything is cited and contains multiple points of view on a notable aspect of the band (how much influence they had on what was later considered goth when it's cited that the band is often considered the first goth band). He claims this is turning the article into an "essay on goth" when it's one short paragraph. This has been discussed to death on the talk page, and third parties have been brought in, and the consensus was reached that information was appropriate. Woovee had even conceded and seems to have laid low for a while hoping the consensus would have been forgotten and now has sprung back up again to remove cited information on the same grounds as before. First as though the conversation has never occurred, then denying consensus had been reached. There are issues with the article that I agree with Woovee on and would be happy to see him address them (too many long lists name-dropping every band who ever mentioned Bauhaus, too many quotes for the sake of including quotes) but this one paragraph is relevant and he seems to want it removed because he subjectively sees it as insulting bands he likes by "blaming" them for goth.Lynchenberg (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Clerical note: I have full-protected the article for one day. You are both well in excess of 3RR, but I do not want to stifle any discussion here. --Chris (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the multiple reverts. Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion be and let you guys sort it out. I've made my case multiple times already and I tend to be long-winded. So, I think it's better if neutral outsiders (preferably ones with no interest in this music) handle this. I'm also confident that upon reviewing the edit history, sources, and talk page, the situation will speak for itself. It's my opinion that if I engage in further discussion, Woovee will just continue falling back on accusations of me being some kind of Bauhaus super-fan with a beef against The Cure. That's not the case and in my opinion neutral parties will see that. Lynchenberg (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Both Lynchenberg and Woovee have been edited warring aggressively. Both are hereby warned that edit warring is a blockable offense, so stop it. Neither are using the talk page which hasn't been edited for three weeks. Lynchenberg, you are accusing Woovee of vandalism but Wikipedia has a narrow definition of vandalism and Woovee's edits do not constitute vandalism. Not even close. So, Lynchenberg, you are warned to stop making false accusations of vandalism. This is a content dispute, pure and simple, and ANI does not resolve content disputes and administrators have no special powers to adjudicate them. We do have the power to block edit warriors and genre warriors, though. Use the talk page, avoid copy pasting lengthy edit summaries, and hammer out consensus. There are various forms of dispute resolution available, but edit warring is an unacceptable tactic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The talk page hasn't been used for three weeks but we had this same discussion over six months ago instead of edit warring and you can see the results on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#Musical_style_and_influences It's pretty clear how it went and the only response Woovee had to offer was to bully me and others about supposedly being obsessive Bauhaus fanboys on a holy war to denigrate The Cure by turning Wikipedia into a badly written blog post. The edit warring did not start until he conceded (reluctantly and rudely) six months ago, then popped back up today to make the same edits as though nothing happened. In this situation, what else can I do but revert his edits and report him? If I make another thread on the talk page, it will just be ignored outright, or if he's pressured into responding by other people addressing it there (which is what happened six months ago) the actual content of what I'm saying will be ignored and dismissed with the same "You just hate The Cure, you obsessive Bauhaus fanboy" rhetoric, or he'll concede for half-a-year then make these same edits again hoping we'll forget about this. If you're telling me to no longer revert his edits, fine, I'll stop. I'll also just unwatch the Bauhaus page and move on as I've already spent way too much time arguing my case over-and-over and a consensus was reached with other users. If administration can't uphold that consensus then I can't do anything more. And despite being "Cure detracting Bauhaus fanboy hijacker" I don't care enough about the band to try. Haven't listened to them in years at this point, I just wanted to improve their article. I do still listen to The Cure though. Lynchenberg (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

IP commented on my talk page and outed another editor

• 2603:7000:6b00:4b00:7817:8102:65b1:c182 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• User Talk:Mikehawk10
• User Talk:Horse Eye's Back

I was advised by Spencer at AIV that I should bring this here. And IP editor recently posted on my talk page, and that of Horse Eye's Back containing information that would reasonably be construed to constitute outing. The edits have been suppressed by oversighters, but the IP remains unblocked. I'm wondering if it would be possible to temporarily block the IP/64 in order to ensure that this information doesn't pop back on to the wiki in the coming days.

I'm not really sure how to provide evidence except to point to the now-suppressed diffs, so here's a list of the two contributions that they have made. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that was weird... Thanks for removing it from my page and seeking help at AIV, I was unsure what to do with it and would have just let it linger unresponded to on my talk page. My memory of the message is a little vague but was it technically outing? As far as I remember the claim being made was that a twitter account and a wikipedia account with the same unique name were under the control of the same person but unless I missed something (or the version posted on your talk page was more in-depth) there wasn’t anything regarding the identity of the person alleged to be behind both accounts nor was there any other personal information nor was there anything which actually linked the two accounts besides the unique name and similar areas of interest. When first interacting with it I was viewing it from a harassment angle rather than an outing one, I think thats still the safe bet. I think Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment is probably right and we should for the most part ignore Twitter etc harassment. But if it was outing they didn’t exactly do a great job of it, they managed to share zero personal information in forums. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:HassanTNTA

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.

---

HassanTNTA has been uploading non-free works claiming that they are the copyright holder. There was a previous ANI in which this user stated: Please don't ban me, I swear I'll not upload any more copyrighted works. However, they did exactly that with three images on Wikipedia today. I started a discussion with this user, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they just didn't understand how fair-use works. After, they uploaded two more non-free files to Commons: File:GGST Sol Badguy.png and File:GGST Sol Badguy.png. I believe, at minimum, a global temp ban should be put in place. — Pbrks (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Then just delete my account already.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HassanTNTA (talk • contribs)

No, but we can block it for repeatedly posting non-free images, and continuing to ignore requests to not do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits on Nubia (character) article by Benicio2020

Over a period of the last 3-4 weeks, Benicio2020 and I have been involved in a conflict that is starting to know no end. Beginning on 31 May 2021, I have made 14 edits to the Nubia (character) article, most or all in the Nubia (character)#Long-term publication absence which is the particular area where Benicio2020 and I have have been having a conflict.

Benicio2020’s first edit on 19:38, 31 May 2021 was a simple revert, that deleted all of multiple interconnected points, in which he/she 1) claimed that it was all original research 2) neglected to contribute any discussion beforehand 3) did not attempt at salvaging anything or 4) did not attempt to add any references (which were already in the article or related articles that were wikilinked-to) that were relevant.

After a simple un-reversion by me, my very next edit on 03:55, 3 June 2021 showed improvements on my part with the addition of 3 references for a medium-sized paragraph with less than 100 words. This was followed up by Benicio2020 the very same day (3 June) in a series of 6 edits over a period of 4 minutes, beginning at 13:57 going to 14:01. Some of these edits included what I would call rather petty quibbles over language choice, including an objection to my using the word “full” in a quote “a full twenty years” in reference to a publication gap for the subject’s publishing history (actually, 19 years and 11 months), although I later did make this more technically correct by further qualifying the statement. It was also in this series of 6 edits in one edit on 13:59, 3 June 2021, when Benicio2020 1) started a series of contentions of his/hers over a particular item of material by calling into question the reliability of the cited source for that material and 2) deleted additional material without any explanation whatsoever.

In the next edit I made, on 18:05 4 June 2021, I changed the source from the one Benicio2020 objected to, to the primary source which, for this intent and purpose, was the best possible source. Benicio’s next edit on 20:15, 4 June 2021 was 1) a simple reversion 2) with the rationale that I was introducing opinions into the article and sourcing them to the new (primary) source, taking contention with the exact same material 3) in which he/she continued to delete accompanying material without any rationale, whatsoever.

Since that time, Benicio has undone that work a total of 5 more times (including 3 simple reversions) without once ever having demonstrated at all that he/she has done any fact-checking on the particular item of contention, despite on 22:06, 4 June 2021 on the article’s talk page, my calling to his/her attention on 22:06, among other things “Not even an hour-and-a-half went by between my making that edit and you 1) deleting some material for no stated reason, whatsoever, and 2) making a deletion without any demonstration of consulting a source to determine its relevancy” (something that he/she has continually repeated to do). I reminded him/her again on the article’s talk page on 19 June 2021 that an editor must fact-check, linking to Wikipedia’s fact-checking policy and citing that she/he “h[ave] the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content” before he/she can start to make a contention about the applicability and relevance of a reference to the material it supports in the article.

Benicio2020 has made repeated claims that I am injecting opinions, but how can somebody claim material in an article supported by a reference is an opinion if they have repeatedly and consistently refused to demonstrate that they have consulted that reference, themselves?

Also, after my 18:05 4 June 2021 edit, and after I made the explanation that I mentioned on the article’s talk page on 22:06, Benicio2020 made 3 more reversions over the next 24 hours (curiously enough, stopping just one edit short of the 3-revert rule), all the while completely neglecting to engage with my discussion on the article’s talk page.

Throughout all 5 of his/her reversions/edits since my edit on the main article on 18:05 4 June 2021, not only has Benicio2020 refused to demonstrate, every single time, that he/she has consulted the source to be able to argue the relevancy and applicability of the source to the corresponding material in the article, he/she has also, in all 5 edits, deleted other material for which he/she has failed to articulate any reason for deleting.

Can I please have an administrator’s oversight on this?

ETA: Sorry. Forgot to sign. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly simple case of QuakerIlK continuing to add their opinion to the article, in various phrases, while sourcing those phrases to a comic book (a primary source). I removed it because it is Original Research according to WP:OR. QuakerIlK has ignored me when I pointed out that you can't add your own personal interpretations of primary sources to articles. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly simple case of Benicio2020 failing to demonstrate him/her having fulfilled their basic editorial responsibility of undergoing basic fact-checking to determine whether the material a source supports in an article is actually an opinion. Benicio2020 fails to grasp that visual evidence is more proof of a person's appearance (and cultural identity association) than mere text is. If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source. Additionally, Benicio2020's rationales for reversions/deletions are inconsistent. On top of that, Benicio2020's reversions and deletions include deletions of additional material, beyond the debated appearance and possibly resulting cultural identity association of Euboea, for which he/she has failed to ever even once articulate a rationale.

I could be more helpful and more directly supply evidence to illustrate that the material in the article is accurate, making more irrefutable than ever any disagreement, but according to Benicio2020's rationale, which is faulty to begin with, there isn't anything I can provide OTHER than opinions, (because he/she actually wants text opinions from secondary sources to prove what the appearance and/or ethnic looks of Euboea are), which directly contradicts more objective and irrefutable evidence ever being applied, which puts me in a lose-lose position in Benicio2020's eyes, no matter what I do.

I think with an administrator's proper oversight, this could be solved very easily, but I have already spent too much time and energy on this matter to further invest more time and energy only to have the contribution I have made be negated for no good reason. If I can be provided with either an administrator's written advice as to how to proceed in order to properly support the material in the article OR if Benicio2020 would care to realize that he/she is putting me in a lose-lose situation because he/she fails to understand when/why different categories of sources are applicable, then I am more than happy to proceed. QuakerIlK (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source This is absolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works; we use established, reliable secondary sources. OP is a pretty clear case of an editor failing to understand WP:OR and pushing their interpretations of source material (or interpretations/claims sourced to fan wikis) in the article. Suggest QuakerIlK familiarize themselves with the relevant policy, because they are fully in the wrong here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"[A]bsolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works", Grandpallama? Your statement is both reductive and extreme, (in other words, wrong), and whereas you absolutely fail to quote any specific policies, I will not fail to do so. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Furthermore, as per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Additionally, that section states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and "[a] primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". (The primary source I ended up using that got reverted/deleted 5 times by Benicio2020 was an excerpt from a issue of the main series of the Wonder Woman comic book, published by DC Comics. It is 100% relevant to the article and the publisher is DC Comics, which was, at the time of the publication of this source in particular, A Warner Communications Company.)

As for the material, itself, fine. This shouldn't be necessary, but perhaps because of the audience, it is. Perhaps visual proof would help more than a bunch of text. Benicio2020, are you really going to claim, in light of this visual, that it is only an opinion that Euboea's “looks suggest perhaps East Asian or Hispanic ethnicity, rather than Caucasian ethnicity”? This is not an opinion, it is “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts”. Frankly, in light of this visual evidence, I could easily issue a stronger, less qualified statement.

If you don’t believe the context/sourcing, here is a video proving that this is from the stated source. [100]

Again, this is not how Wikipedia works; this is a textbook example of original research with what increasingly appears to be some WP:IDHT thrown in for good measure. Your interpretation of this character's appearance is just that: interpretation. If you continue to dig in your heels on this, prepare for the incoming boomerang. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, since you are quoting WP:RSPRIMARY, you might want to pay attention to the text immediately below what you quoted (that you seem to have conveniently ignored), which is relevant in this situation: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. The fact you just tried to edit war this back in while the ANI discussion is ongoing is unacceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am edit-warring is utterly inappropriate - Benicio2020 was the one who started repeatedly reverting my edits, plus I was the one who initiated this complaint and I made that edit a little while ago only after going through great lengths to provide greater transparency regarding the sourcing. We're still waiting for an administrator to weigh in on this, aren't we? You also fail to grapple with the actual material and the related sourceing at all.QuakerIlK (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong on pretty much all counts, and Grandpallama has explained the relevant policies to you correctly. Please just drop it. There is nowhere on Wikipedia where you can argue about the apparent ethnicity of fictional characters. If you want to include this, you have to cite a secondary source; posting your own interpretation of a primary source is against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Does being "wrong on pretty much all counts" include the fact that not only Benicio2020 (at least 5 times) but now also Grandpallama have made reverts that delete, in addition to the debated material, material for which no rationale for deletion has ever been articulated by either one of them? That is part of my complaint. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

More supporting material, including 2 new sources, have been added to the article. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Two editors and an admin have now explained why this attempt to insert original research is inappropriate. Please quit trying to force it in. If you have other edits you want to make, that's fine, but continuing to edit war to include your personal opinions is going to lead to sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You completely ignored the fact that I introduced new sources and material and all you did was a simple revert. Your rationale for making the revert you just did is 100% baseless because neither you, nor Benicio2020 nor NinjaRobotPirate has weighed in at all on either the newly-introduced material or the newly-introduced sources in the article section. QuakerIlK (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So, at this point QuakerI1K received a 24 hour block for edit warring. That should be a clear message that yes, you are edit warring QI1K. Once your block lifts, take your comments to the article Talk page, but do not resume attempting to force your edits into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to here at ANI, this has already been discussed at the article talkpage, at QI1K's talkpage, and at Benicio's talkpage. If we are advising QI1K to return to the article talkpage, they need to understand that it isn't an invitation to continue to push this particular edit; further attempts to argue that their interpretations and unencyclopedic language should be included in the article are just going to result in an escalation of sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Hand That Feeds You, Can either you or NinjaRobotPirate please explain to me why once I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question that Grandpallama reverted that edit without either a review of the source or discussion of it on here by any involved party? Can anybody explain to me how I was being charged with edit-warring and was blocked and not Grandpallama? Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made ( Black characters in animation and Category:Black people in comics ), and why those categories remain deleted from that article and why none of the reversions of the articles by any of the other editors, other than myself, involved in this dispute, included rationales for the removal of those categories and why the categories remain removed/deleted without absolutely any rationale whatsoever as to why those removals/deletions persist? QuakerIlK (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve content disputes; you need to use dispute resolution for that. You were blocked because people were complaining about your edits here, and I saw you edit warring. Grandpallama hadn't made any additional edits on the article at the time I blocked you. Life is unfair like that. It also doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong when you're edit warring. This is explained in the policy itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring? They claimed in that edit's rationale "Explained by two editors AND an admin that this is inappropriate.", yet this most recent material to which Grandpallama was referring to there that I added at the time which included a new secondary source that supported the material, which is what both you and Grandpallama said was needed, was (and remains) content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked? None of the involved editors here put forth any effort whatsoever in discussing it.

Was I guilty of vandalism in that edit? Was I guilty of inflammatory comments? Where is the disabusal process from you on this series of actions from my edit - "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)".

I can admit that throughout this process I have been overly verbose, which is generally advised against in these sorts of processes. (It does mean that I am trying, though.) But as I have continually tried to make improvements on the material in question by further qualifications and articulations with an increasing body of sources that supports the material I add, the language directed against me by both Grandpallama and The Hand That Feeds You, that I "force" edits in, escalates, as does Grandpallama's warning of sanctions against me.

If I continue to make improvements, which I have done consistently, that means that I realized that, to a certain degree, I was wrong in the past, but can you or any other involved party here admit to having made any mistakes throughout this whole process and consider that I might be being punished unfairly or that the article is being prevented from being improved by me? So far, I have seen no indication of that. QuakerIlK (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself. I think the problem here is that you refuse to hear what people are telling you. If you continue down this path, the end result is an indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure NinjaRobotPirate wants to be done with this (so my apologies for pinging him), but a few of these claims merit response, especially since they are directed at me.

• can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring I reverted you a grand total of three times. The second time I reverted your edit, it was because a discussion was ongoing here (which I very clearly explained/referenced above, in this very thread), per WP:STATUSQUO. The third time I reverted you, it was to again restore a policy-compliant version of the article after you were blocked and the problems with your edits were explained to you. I will not put words in NRP's mouth, but I don't think most admins would see those reversions as disruptive; on the other hand, after you initially inserted your problematic material, you reverted eleven times. Do you really not see the difference?
• I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question You absolutely did not. You added a secondary source that supported a claim about the ethnicity of the actor who portrayed the character in live action, which you used to continue the attempt to push your original research into the article. At no point did you provide any sort of sourcing that supported your original research. The fact that you're not getting this is alarming.
• Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made Sure. You made a bold edit of which 80% was highly problematic. It's not the job of other editors to dig through that edit and preserve the "okay" parts; if you don't want them reverted, don't bundle them together with material you have been told is contentious. It is not the job of other editors to clean up after you.
• content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked If you haven't read WP:IDHT, you need to. Your content was discussed on the article talkpage (pretty calmly by Benicio2020, despite your constant needling). The fact that you don't like what other editors said about the content not being compliant with policy and that it needs proper sourcing is right there, on the article talkpage and on your talkpage and now at ANI. Please start listening and stop arguing.

If you had engaged in good faith on the talkpage, you probably would have avoided the first block in your long editing career here. Instead, you chose to bring this to ANI, which resulted in shining a light on your edits. If I were you, I would walk away from this before editors start scrutinizing some of the similar stuff you've added to other pages. Grandpallama (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your last 'point' on here is a clear-cut case of Hounding. QuakerIlK (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a point that even a casual glance at your editing history shows you have a pattern of adding unsourced material and opinion to articles. If you want to accuse me of harassment, go ahead and file another ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The "similar stuff" to which you referred in your 14:10, 30 June 2021 response has now been changed by me. That material is now even better sourced, and even an accusation of weasel words wouldn't stand up now. More responses from me on this overall discussion to come in the next few days. QuakerIlK (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? I looked at your diff and you are going to claim that this is not personal opinion?

It was late in the Bronze Age, however, when what is possibly the single-most-significant change in the iconography of Wonder Woman's costume occurred.

That's a blatant violation of WP:EDITORIAL. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

I think this bot is removing images that shouldn't be deleted. Unsure, check divine mercy hill edit log. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4103:940:80E6:94B0:85BD:FF8A (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be working correctly. It has removed five images from Divine Mercy Shrine (Misamis Oriental) (I'm guessing this is the article you mean), as the images have been deleted on Commons due to copyright issues. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by Huji

User:Huji called me an LTA here, and I consider that a serious personal attack. LTAs are blocked and locked, not granted admin bit and access to VRTS. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It would only be a touch more believable if they actually named which LTA you were supposed to be and what evidence they had. As it stands, it is frivolous. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for User:Huji to respond here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

An LTA on fawiki may be granted admin rights in another wiki.

4nn1l2's block log on fawiki should be self explanatory. I can also share his main account ——— which is indef blocked ——— with you but I would do it by email (let me know which one of you wants to receive that email); that account's name matches his real life name and despite him being an LTA, I still prefer not to make that information public here. huji—TALK 12:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Be careful with that block log as there are many unblocks their too. They block users over petty things such as using the word "ridiculous", using the English term "Whac-A-Mole", and now raising a Palestinian flag on the userpage (which is why we are here on Jimbo's talkpage).

If I'm an LTA as you claim, block me as soon as possible on fawiki and we solve this over there. Talk the talk, walk the walk.

During my early days as a Wikipedian ten years ago, I made a mistake creating some socks, and got blocked for 6 months under the username User:Mondephile and after my block expired and I was in good standing, I made a clean start. Now, this user wants to shame me for my clean start and what I did over ten years ago as a teenager. Starting from 2020, they started blocking my current account over the most frivolous things. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I respectfully oppose this closure. I don't expect any actions against Huji, but I do expect the claim be taken back. Otherwise, they feel more confident to label me as an LTA from now on. We have been interacting for over 10 years almost every week, and now they call me an LTA for the first time here on enwiki where people are unaware of the fawiki's atmosphere (a rather small wiki), just because I have dared to inform Jimmy Wales how terribly fawiki is managed. The whole story is much more complicated. I own up to my past mistakes including creating socks (mostly innocuous and out of naivety) dating back to a decade ago, but I don't accept people calling me an "LTA". How can a "LTA" contribute more than 60K edits, make 20 featured/good articles/lists, and become the first winner in an ArbCom election (fa:ویکی‌پدیا:انتخابات هیئت نظارت/دور هفتم/نتایج)? As far as I know, LTAs are blocked and even locked immediately. Huji has the necessary tools to block me there. Why doesn't they act appropriately? I am also an admin on Commons and a VRT agent on Commons, fawiki, and enwiki.

Regarding my recent blocks, some of them have been reversed by other admins and some of them have been cancelled by the fawiki arbcom. One admin has been banned from taking any admin actions against me indefinitely and I have opened another case about my latest block (fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات هیئت نظارت/دوره یازدهم/Samuel T.Owen (چهارم)) in which I anticipate the blocking admin be admonished or de-sysoped. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have removed the closure. Good luck. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I updated my comment there: I struck through the word LTA (whose interpretation my be subjective) and added the word "sockmaster" instead which is more objective.

I had no intention to say something frivolous. I am sorry if my comment could be interpreted as such. I think the rest of the arguments above are unrelated to enwiki and should be discussed on fawiki. huji—TALK 20:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

72.230.249.71

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

---

A month ago another admin (User:Ponyo) blocked this ip (72.230.249.71) for a month for Unsourced or Poorly Sourced Content, Now on July 4th , this ip is back doing the same thing and adding massive hoax of content to articles, which were false. Even if this ip comes back and do the same thing over and over, I don't think this ip is not here to build an encyclopedia.. take look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.230.249.71 Chip3004 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Seconding this request. They vandalize in sprees. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2021 (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.

Harassment by User:Cladeal832

On June 27, Cladeal832 made a bold edit at Ian Fleming and over the next 24 hours was reverted a total of 5 times by 3 editors (me, Nikkimaria ([101]), and Black Kite ([102]). Cladeal832 was asked multiple times to discuss and WP:BRD and WP:3RR were mentioned.

On July 2, Cladeal832 does the same thing and I revert them thrice ([103], [104], [105]). I open a discussion on the talk page. They comment and then self-revert.

Instead, they proceed to comment on my user page. I found this passive aggressive and reverted them. On the third revert, I ask them to stop and threaten them with ANI. After that warning, they comment again. I revert. They comment again. I revert. They have made a total of 13 edits to my talk page. Cladeal832 has been editing since 2006. Can someone please address this disruptive behavior. ~ HAL333 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I read how Ian Fleming one-time fiancée later married the man who invented Velcro and added it the article. It was deleted. This user is being inaccurate in that my edits were not just reverting to what I had previously edited since agreed not to add information that this might be out of the scope of the article. The user kept removing citations stating he/she was unsure if Der Spiegel [among the largest news outlet in Europe] and IanFleming.com [used as citation within this article yet this user only deleted mine] were or weren't reliable sources. Whatever way this user found my messages [and I apologize since I went out of way to neutral in my language in accordance with guidelines[106]], all I tried was to have a civil discussion to improved the article, that the user requested again[107] and was just ignored[108] or threatened[109] and again[110]. I sincerely believed this user was unaware these were reliable sources and would stop once it was pointed out to them, and after they continued to revert and remove additional citations [again despite other parts of the article using the same sourcing[111]], I just tried to engage in civil discussion and was ignored and threatened. The solution would simply be for this user to answer the question I posed to them here[112]. Also there's not limit on how many edits on a Talk Page and most of it was just this user deleting it so I had to just asking them about how to improve the article. I can longwinded and also I'm a poor speller and make syntax errors and tried to correct them so unsure how many times I edited his/her talk page really matters.Cladeal832 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is an RS - I'm not so sure about the other. But if you wanted to discuss this, you should have done so at Talk:Ian Fleming. We're not here to discuss content but your conduct. ~ HAL333 05:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Your behavior has been mean and awful to me and totally needless. Because I try to compensate for my LD by correcting my spelling and grammar so I edited my message and that's means it's just I get insulted by being referred to as spam.[113] The other source cited is Ian Fleming Publications since as I pointed out is already cited on several article including the one you removed it from. All you had to say was I prefer to discuss this on Ian Fleming page as I asked if you would like, but you just came here to label it harassments or spam rather than just simply engage which you are still unwilling to do since what difference does it make on your Talk Page or not. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The way to avoid being accused of edit warring is to not do edits within 24-hours so of course I waited since I just believed the edit would stand when the rational for their removal, unsure if they were reliable sources, was shown to be wrong. I didn't expect to just be ignored by this user. I explained why I commented on this user talk page and would have been fine having the discussion on Ian Fleming Talk Page if requested, but that message was deleted[114] so unsure what that is accused of upsetting this user. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, it doesn't matter whether you are reverting the "same or different material". You've been editing for 15 years and have made over 11,000 edits and aren't familiar with basic Wikipedia policies? I find that hard to believe. And you don't need to know policy to realize that repeatedly commenting on a user page despite being reverted and asked to stop is harassment. ~ HAL333 05:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It should also be made clear that in the user's first and second edits ([115], [116]) the information was unsourced, and it wasn't until the third edit ([117]) that they added a source. From this edit on, they stopped adding the extra info but kept on adding the source to the already-sourced info that was already there. —El Millo (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Cladeal832 if someone keeps reverting your comments on their talk page it is not appropriate to keep posting there. Continuing to do this can result in a block for edit warring or harassment. A user removing a notice is taken as evidence that they have seen it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In 11,000 edits, nobody has ever reverted a message even once. It was especially weird to me since this user asked for a discussion repeatedly. I did look it up afterwards and didn't put back the same message, but only tried to engaged since the user was wrong about the stated rational for removing the edits. I was fine going over the Talk Page for the Ian Fleming article if they so wished. I don't get how it's harassment when the user repeatedly requested we discuss it and when I did, violated the civility policy by calling my response to his/her request as just calling me Spam [118] I don't believe you are being fair when this user asked for discussion, nothing I said was a personal attack or insult in my message [what does it matter it I edit my message for spelling and grammar mistakes since LD people are allowed on Wikipedia unless the rules have changed] and I read the policy and just requested he/she stop reverted my edits of reliable sources which are more direct than the ones currently cited. Why does this user get to ignore he/she didn't know what Der Spiegel is and didn't bother to look it up before stating they were reliable. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I am amazed in 11k edits this is the first time you have encountered this. Just today I had a talk page message of mine removed by a user with a snotty edit summary.

Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings says that this is allowed, it also states that returning messages that have been removed are not exempt from 3RR. You are of course welcome to continue whatever discourse on article talk pages but if a user does not want you on their user talk page then there is not much you can do about it.

At this point it is not harassment but if it continues it will rise to that level. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Amazed or not, nobody is that rude as what happened today just to avoid admitting they didn't know what was and wasn't an accurate source [still won't]. This isn't a particular shy user and had plenty to tell me in the edit summaries so unsure why he/she wouldn't respond which is why kept trying to get this over and done with, but that's on them and me I guess. I went to discuss on the article's talk page [unsure why he/she couldn't have just made that simple request instead of running over here]. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up question, if this user continues to refuse to discuss, can I add the citations back.Cladeal832 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally, refusal to engage in discussion in the course of a content dispute, means that said editor has effectively forfeited their position (an extension of WP:SILENCE, in a sense). But, unless an explicit refusal, a reasonable length of time should be extended (in most instances, days rather than hours). El_C 13:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add that if discussion on a respective article talk page reaches an impasse, there are other steps in the dispute resolution process which can be pursued (including formal requests). El_C 14:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not refusing to discuss. I opened an entire discussion about it on Talk:Ian Fleming. ~ HAL333 15:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has so far avoided any effort to make any compromises with moving goalposts and been trying to turn it into a campaign for votes[119] which is one thing and hopefully we can still try to resolve it, but also separately may I also launch a harassment complaint against User:HAL333 for writing on the Talk Page that he/she thinks I have a lack competency by linking to online dictionaries and writing he/she don't think I know what words mean because I've disagree with his/her assessment on a particular edit [120] which is a violation of civility guidelines[121]. I would hope he/she wouldn't do this to anyone else. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep doing this. My answers above, again, were general in nature only, as I've yet to review this matter closely at the time of my writing this (now). El_C 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Over 15 years, 11,000 edits: 750 to talk, 192 to user talk, 4 blocks (2 for edit warring). I can see a correlation between increases in your activity levels and either edit warring complaints on your user talk page (e.g. in 2019) or blocks (e.g. 2016). From this I conclude you revert too much and use talk pages not enough (which explains your unfamiliarity with them). I would say next time you are reverted to follow WP:BRD, but I can see people have been telling you that for years. :-/ Levivich 06:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well your conclusion is wrong. Mostly fairly minor edits like hyperlinks or typos corrections so unsure why you need to go to Talk Page for those. Any editors can be mistaken on what is and isn't a reliable source, but most of time they get it within the edit summaries [122] and are not as stubborn as this user. I barely ever revert, but others revert me. I point out the other users also got blocked to ruin your mean-spirited knock on me. Anybody, this is about what happened today rather you just judging me on prior acts and dismissing it. Insults and unhelpful criticism aside, I reverted twice today so calm down with the sanctimony on not knowing the policy and when I went to Talk Page [avoiding any personal attack and solely discussing on how to improve the article in question], it was called harassment. I get I have 11,000, but does every single comment really need to mention it again and again. What does it matter. I think one reason this user was keen on only doing this discussion at the Ian Fleming talk page rather than just discussing his or her mistake on reliable sourcing is to turn it into a consensus issue. Except they didn't cite the reason for removal as being a personal preference, but removal on a non-reliable source which was inaccurate and doesn't fall under the guidelines for a need of consensus. I get his or her motives are immaterial since they may delete and ignore whatever they like on their own Talk Page as you have already pointed out and just have to accept it no matter how bizarre.Cladeal832 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

to turn it into a consensus issue Everything is a consensus issue on Wikipedia. You were trying to skirt that by avoiding discussion on the talk page. ~ HAL333 19:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• When I reverted previously my edit summary was "I am astonished that someone with 11,000 edits does not comprehend WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Now discuss on talk page, please, or WP:AN3 will be the next stop". Since they don't seem to be able to understand this concept, I would suggest that a partial bock from Ian Fleming would be the logical next step. Though I also note multiple previous issues on their talkpage, including copyvio issues, so I do wonder if there is a competence issue here as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 74.88.193.39

Resolved

User has previously been blocked after being warned several times about making unconstructive edits on articles about highways in New Jersey. The block has expired, and the user is continuing to make unconstructive edits of the same style as before, most recently on Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) and New Jersey Route 33. I would suggest an indefinite block. Needforspeed888 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given them another 2 weeks. Same person, same problem. If they try to communicate then the duration can be reconsidered. Feel free to come directly to my talk page if this continues after the block has expired. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User wants me to be blocked

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.

---

• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs)

The section User:MjolnirPants: Incivility was already closed above with no action, however, the above user Hijiri88 continues to comment to try to get me blocked. The section was closed at 2021-07-01T17:11:57‎, since that time Hijiri88 continues to make comments like:

"Bishonen closed with no block but said that anyone who wants to open a new thread on TOA should feel free to do so / Do you wanna do the honours, or will I? FWIW, I've only filed two ANI reports in the last two years, and both of them were train-wrecks (Francis Schonken has since been site-banned, and his goons have mostly dispersed, but...)."

diff

I have no history of interacting with Hijiri88 prior to the discussion in that now-closed section. I request to not be blocked because I have not done anything to that editor that warrants a block.

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 07:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Further information:

Here are some relevant diffs of how Hijiri88 has been harassing me by following me to pages I have edited:

[123] [124]

Here are some attacks from Hijiri88:

[125][126][127]

And also, it should be noted that User:Ivanvector lifted a block on Hijiri88 with the warning "Hijiri, I'm sure you've been around the project long enough to realize you've already been given more chances than many editors get. I'm just going to say this bluntly: don't get in trouble again. Your next block is likely to be quite permanent." [128] User:Cullen328 had warned of such issues: "I believe it highly likely that, if this editor is unblocked, we will be dealing with another bitter conflict in short order." [129] User:Floquenbeam said: "Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here." [130]

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have not done anything to that editor that warrants a block.[131][132][133][134][135][136] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@The owner of all:: Support. I see the comments of this Hijiri88 as nothing than like full "blackmailing" and "taking off the dirty shirts" as we, Bulgarians say. I don't see anything in the links Hijiri provided to warrant a block of an established editor like TOA, rather than a personal attack, digging compromising information from the past and overall ugly attitude to a contributing editor that gives all to the Wiki encyclopedia. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

I note that Elan Morin Tedronai has now been blocked indefinitely. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Elan Morin Tedronai's comment was very helpful.

It is certainly not appropriate to insinuate that a user is a nazi. While they tried to back peddle and claim they did not make such an implication it was clear that they intended to imply that the 88 in the name was a nazi code. It is true that 88 is used as code for heil hitler(h is the 8th letter) but 88 is also a lucky number in Japan because it sounds like a word for wealth(I think that is it). This second explanation makes more sense and was what was provided by way of explanation.

The other comment that seems beyond the pale is "Also, Japan is non-white but they were not neutral during WWII. So there's that".

While the first comment may(but I doubt it) have been a legitimate mistake, I am really having trouble coming up with an innocent, ie not ugly, interpretation of this second comment. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Japan comment was not referring to Hijiri. The context was:

"my username, which is a reference to the year of my birth, as it is for probably 90% of Wikipedians who were born and raised in either [a] countries that were neutral during World War II or [b] largely non-white countries"

and I was clarifying that there are countries such as Japan that are largely non-white and are not neutral in World War II. It was not intended as an attack, I apologize if it was taken that way. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I agree that it is not appropriate to insinuate that a user is a nazi. However, prior to that first "88" comment, Hijiri did suggest that I had a "bizarre interest in [MjolnirPants]" due to his "NONAZIS" page. diff Which is an even clearer insinuation from him about me being a nazi. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The owner of all, Nice deflection, but it would be better to address your own behavior rather than pivoting to attacking Hijiri some more. You're in a hole here, you should stop digging. - MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so what else needs to be addressed? I explained the Japan comment above. I apologize if it was taken as an attack. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read Non-apology apology and rephrase that, for starters. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Japan comment from me was not intended as an attack. I intended it as a factual addition to the discussion that was taking place. I apologize for that comment. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Assuming an 88 suffix automatically stands for HH would be a grave mistake. This is very obviously not the case for Hijiri88 (or Jesswade88, for example). El_C 12:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• That was already addressed in the above now-closed section. It should be noted that I have not said anything about the 88 other than that one comment. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify: what I wrote above was meant as a general observation. I've yet to actually review this matter closely enough to comment beyond that note. El_C 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was about to BOLDly NAC this but given this (for which I cannot find any good-faith reading whatsoever) and the growing amount of community time and energy that has been wasted on this, a block for TOA would be prudent just to let the rest of us catch our breath. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • But that's the point, if you believe that I should be blocked then I would like to address whatever reasons there are for the block. Your two examples are from a couple of months ago and they were about a content dispute for the article Snopes, and after those discussions I did not continue to edit war or otherwise commit any policy violations there, I conceded that the consensus was not on my side. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • And the Japan comment I already explained above, I apologize if it was taken as an attack. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• You said "I said that your username has 88 in it. Your interpretation of my statement is inaccurate", okay I will bite. What did you mean when you said that? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I meant that his username has 88 in it. There was no attempt at a hidden meaning, it was simply me noting the irony that someone who thinks that I have a bizarre interest in MjolnirPants' "NONAZIS" page diff would have a username with 88. I did not make any further comments about the 88. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  The owner of all - Your comment here could've been easily interpreted (or misinterpreted) to say that you were trying to imply a hidden meaning or that you believe that their username also infers WP:NONAZIS. That's what I interpreted at first until I took a moment to understand that the comment may have just been an attempt at biting back. Let's avoid comments like this in the future, both for your sake and for the sake of the project. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• It was no joke when I collapsed the '88' comment and the ensuing 'discussion'. People don't like being associated with Nazis. TOA doesn't like it. Hijiri88 doesn't like it. I believe both were insinuating things they have no evidence for (or at least were not willing to address directly), though obviously the way in which TOA did it (the '88' comment and the remark about Japan) was much more inappropriate. Either way, the answer is to retract such insinuations and to move on. There are far more urgent reports sitting on this page and being obscured both by the previous thread and this one. So yes, someone please close this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, I am willing to retract the 88 comment, the Japan comment, and whatever other comment may have been offensive. The section was already closed so it would be inappropriate for me to edit the comments themselves to strike them, however that is my intent. I apologize for those comments and I concede that they were not conducive to discussion. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think closing this before the WP:BOOMERANG has a chance to come around is premature, judging from this and the previous thread. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Since the blocking policy states that blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive, I would like to know any reasons you think I should be blocked for so I can address those concerns. I understand that the 88 comment was unnecessary, but I also retracted it plus I didn't make any further comments about the 88, I was trying to stick to discussing the relevant issues. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  The owner of all - Yes, it's correct that blocks should be applied in a preventative measure and not in a punitive measure. However, the blocking policy also states that blocks can be applied in order to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" and can be applied to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior." Your comments above (diff, diff, diff) seek to apologize for the earlier comments you made and express your wish to retract them after community review. As of right now, I don't believe that blocking you would be beneficial nor would it prevent current disruptive behavior that is in-progress and occurring at this moment in time. That obviously can change depending on how you continue to interact with other editors. I strongly caution you to avoid making additional comments like the ones that were discussed in order to avoid more negative interpretations (or misinterpretations). You may not be engaging disruptively right now, but the behavior is expected to not continue. If it does, you certainly can be held accountable and administrative action would be justified to prevent further disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think a boomerang is appropriate, and I think that boomerang should take the form of an indef block per WP:NONAZIS, as this editor has both admitted to right-wing POV pushing and opposed an RfA because the candidate regrets having had fascist sympathies. You've got to read the question from Cryptic and the RfA candidate's response there to understand exactly what TOA is saying here; that they would have supported the candidate were they still a fascist. Also, I'm not above pointing out that a surprisingly large number of editors who have a vendetta against me (see here and here for evidence of that in TOA's case; I could dig up more diffs if needed, including making a list of indeffed editor's who've tried to get me sanctioned if really necessary, though I suspect that many admins will be pretty familiar with this trend) end up indeffed per that essay I wrote, which seems, itself, to frequently be the root cause of said vendetta. I suppose it doesn't hurt that I also regularly defend the scholarly consensuses at talk pages like Talk:Fascism and Talk:Race and intelligence; consensuses which undermine racist and far-right beliefs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have avoided interacting with MjolnirPants ever since the Snopes dispute [although I have commented on my experiences with him on 2 other occasions when other editors posted to ANI about him] and I will continue to avoid interacting with him here. However I must clarify some things that he is saying about me. No, I do not support fascism. I have been very clear in my edits to specify that my beliefs are conservative/right-wing and not fascist. Also, my oppose to the RFA candidate was withdrawn, which some are failing to note. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 14:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  I have avoided interacting with MjolnirPants The lie detector determined.... That was a lie. [137] [138] [139] [140].

  Oh, let's not forget when you asked for a brand new page on for you to try to get me sanctioned elsewhere. I mean, you're not even just forum shopping, you're literally trying to create new forums to shop. I don't think I've ever directly asked for an editor to be indeffed before, but in your case, with your fixation and your professed beliefs and reasons for being here, I don't think we have any place for you. As far as you withdrawing your opposition to the RfA: you said when withdrawing it that you still didn't even consider yourself neutral, let alone supportive. And I'd note that you also backtracked in the ANI thread where Jayron32 expressed interest in examining your behavior, only to then turn right back around and continue that behavior as evinced above. I'll admit that you've claimed you're not a fascist, but your initial opposition and even your withdrawal of that indicates otherwise. I'd also note that many fascists deny being fascist.

  I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I've said my piece, but I'll summarize for anyone here: TOA has repeatedly engaged in gaming the system, dishonesty and forum shopping in order to get an editor (me) known for his vocal opposition to neo-nazis and fascists sanctioned. You have expressed a favorable attitude towards fascism, and directly admitted to being here to push a politically right-wing agenda. All of these statements are facts, as evinced by the diffs I have provided in this comment and my last one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  • For context: Cryptic's question and Vami IV's response. I think interpreting that as opposing a candidate because they regret having fascist sympathies is stretching it a little (seems to me TOA is rather thinking of the candidate regretting supporting Trump). The idea that it is OK to oppose NPOV because it is biased to the left (it probably is), however, betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what NPOV really is and how it works. Still, calling for a block per WP:NONAZIS based on that is effectively turning that essay into an excuse to block each and any self-professed conservative or right-wing editor. Block them for trolling, for hounding, for tendentious editing (if you can show that to be the case), I don't know, but not for supposedly being a Nazi. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    It's not a stretch at all. The candidate never claimed to have become a liberal, or even a centrist. In fact, opposition to fascism and racism is something that once transcended political bounds. There's nothing in that answer which suggested that the candidate was no longer conservative, only that the candidate was no longer fascist. All the "clarification" TOA made after their initial oppose (note their comments upon "withdrawing" their oppose indicating that they still oppose the candidate, but won't push the issue) was done in the context of people reading their oppose the same way I did and asking TOA to expound on it. Also note that TOA backpedaled just as quickly at one of the ANI threads I linked above, only to come right back later with the same efforts. Given that context, they have both a history of lying in the face of pushback and motivation to lie in the face of pushback there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    • I don't oppose the NPOV policy, in fact I agree with it. When I say "input" I don't mean adding biased content to articles. Rather, I mean that in discussions such as on the talk pages of articles, there should be participation from right wing and conservative editors (for articles that are subject to left/right political bias). Unfortunately sometimes the participation is with the left wing on one side, and the left wing's perception of the right on the other side (as opposed to actual right wing beliefs). TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• The village pump proposal linked by MjolnirPants diff is not about MjolnirPants specifically. It can be taken at face value, it is about incivility in general. I even cited an instance of incivility that did not involve MjolnirPants at all. (Also, please refrain from moving my comment to suggest that it is a reply to MjolnirPants. I am avoiding interacting with him.) TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Also, once again, I did not violate FORUMSHOP. I reported edit warring to 3RRN/ANEW, then after that report was already made, there were incivil comments which I then reported to ANI. WP:FORUMSHOP says: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable". And there has been no "repeatedly", I have not done anything similar to FORUMSHOP since that incident. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The village pump proposal ... is not about MjolnirPants[141][142] I am avoiding interacting with [MjolnirPants][143][144] I did not violate FORUMSHOP[145][146][147] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• TOA, we're not going to preemptively vacate a discussion of your editing before it has even been opened. Moreover, editors are allowed to request sanctions against other editors for general disruptive behavior, not just for slights against them personally. I would suggest that you let this thread peter out, and only participate further at ANI if and when someone actually makes a proposal to restrict your editing privileges (and even then, just to quickly give your side of the story and then bow out). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It's in the original post that Hijiri and/or MPants were intending to get me blocked. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • And until they actually do start such a discussion, leave it be. As you can probably see from the tenor of this thread, trying to get ahead of this is likely to only make your life more difficult. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• @The owner of all: Pinging me in the "further info" you recently added at the top of this thread was not in your best interests. I saw this thread earlier, shook my head at what a timesink it was, and how likely it was to boomerang, and moved on. But if you are going to namedrop me and make it look like I somehow support your activities here, you should know that my gut instinct was to page block you from ANI for, I don't know, 3 months or something. My quick current estimate of the level of responsibility for the recent interactions between the 3 of you being so unproductive: MP 5%, H88 15%, you 80%. Go work on an article or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of my editing has indeed been to articles and to related discussions such as AfDs. I only added the further info section to provide evidence that Hijiri88 is failing to AGF regarding my edits as well as evidence that other editors have had issue with him. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was also pinged here and yes, I wrote that about Hijiri88 back then. But on this particular matter, I agree with Floquenbeam that The owner of all is about 80% responsible for this current train wreck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• If TOA responds to this post, then I support a block. Otherwise close this and let's move on. Levivich 17:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, there's a conversation ender! ;) El_C 18:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe anyone who replies here should be blocked? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I agree! Waitasecond... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 4 July 2021 (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 commented on my talk page and outed another editor

• 2603:7000:6b00:4b00:7817:8102:65b1:c182 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• User Talk:Mikehawk10
• User Talk:Horse Eye's Back

I was advised by Spencer at AIV that I should bring this here. And IP editor recently posted on my talk page, and that of Horse Eye's Back containing information that would reasonably be construed to constitute outing. The edits have been suppressed by oversighters, but the IP remains unblocked. I'm wondering if it would be possible to temporarily block the IP/64 in order to ensure that this information doesn't pop back on to the wiki in the coming days.

I'm not really sure how to provide evidence except to point to the now-suppressed diffs, so here's a list of the two contributions that they have made. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that was weird... Thanks for removing it from my page and seeking help at AIV, I was unsure what to do with it and would have just let it linger unresponded to on my talk page. My memory of the message is a little vague but was it technically outing? As far as I remember the claim being made was that a twitter account and a wikipedia account with the same unique name were under the control of the same person but unless I missed something (or the version posted on your talk page was more in-depth) there wasn’t anything regarding the identity of the person alleged to be behind both accounts nor was there any other personal information nor was there anything which actually linked the two accounts besides the unique name and similar areas of interest. When first interacting with it I was viewing it from a harassment angle rather than an outing one, I think thats still the safe bet. I think Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment is probably right and we should for the most part ignore Twitter etc harassment. But if it was outing they didn’t exactly do a great job of it, they managed to share zero personal information in forums. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:HassanTNTA

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.

---

HassanTNTA has been uploading non-free works claiming that they are the copyright holder. There was a previous ANI in which this user stated: Please don't ban me, I swear I'll not upload any more copyrighted works. However, they did exactly that with three images on Wikipedia today. I started a discussion with this user, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they just didn't understand how fair-use works. After, they uploaded two more non-free files to Commons: File:GGST Sol Badguy.png and File:GGST Sol Badguy.png. I believe, at minimum, a global temp ban should be put in place. — Pbrks (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Then just delete my account already.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HassanTNTA (talk • contribs)

No, but we can block it for repeatedly posting non-free images, and continuing to ignore requests to not do so. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2021 (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:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

I think this bot is removing images that shouldn't be deleted. Unsure, check divine mercy hill edit log. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:300:4103:940:80E6:94B0:85BD:FF8A (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Appears to be working correctly. It has removed five images from Divine Mercy Shrine (Misamis Oriental) (I'm guessing this is the article you mean), as the images have been deleted on Commons due to copyright issues. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by Huji

User:Huji called me an LTA here, and I consider that a serious personal attack. LTAs are blocked and locked, not granted admin bit and access to VRTS. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It would only be a touch more believable if they actually named which LTA you were supposed to be and what evidence they had. As it stands, it is frivolous. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to wait for User:Huji to respond here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

An LTA on fawiki may be granted admin rights in another wiki.

4nn1l2's block log on fawiki should be self explanatory. I can also share his main account ——— which is indef blocked ——— with you but I would do it by email (let me know which one of you wants to receive that email); that account's name matches his real life name and despite him being an LTA, I still prefer not to make that information public here. huji—TALK 12:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Be careful with that block log as there are many unblocks their too. They block users over petty things such as using the word "ridiculous", using the English term "Whac-A-Mole", and now raising a Palestinian flag on the userpage (which is why we are here on Jimbo's talkpage).

If I'm an LTA as you claim, block me as soon as possible on fawiki and we solve this over there. Talk the talk, walk the walk.

During my early days as a Wikipedian ten years ago, I made a mistake creating some socks, and got blocked for 6 months under the username User:Mondephile and after my block expired and I was in good standing, I made a clean start. Now, this user wants to shame me for my clean start and what I did over ten years ago as a teenager. Starting from 2020, they started blocking my current account over the most frivolous things. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I respectfully oppose this closure. I don't expect any actions against Huji, but I do expect the claim be taken back. Otherwise, they feel more confident to label me as an LTA from now on. We have been interacting for over 10 years almost every week, and now they call me an LTA for the first time here on enwiki where people are unaware of the fawiki's atmosphere (a rather small wiki), just because I have dared to inform Jimmy Wales how terribly fawiki is managed. The whole story is much more complicated. I own up to my past mistakes including creating socks (mostly innocuous and out of naivety) dating back to a decade ago, but I don't accept people calling me an "LTA". How can a "LTA" contribute more than 60K edits, make 20 featured/good articles/lists, and become the first winner in an ArbCom election (fa:ویکی‌پدیا:انتخابات هیئت نظارت/دور هفتم/نتایج)? As far as I know, LTAs are blocked and even locked immediately. Huji has the necessary tools to block me there. Why doesn't they act appropriately? I am also an admin on Commons and a VRT agent on Commons, fawiki, and enwiki.

Regarding my recent blocks, some of them have been reversed by other admins and some of them have been cancelled by the fawiki arbcom. One admin has been banned from taking any admin actions against me indefinitely and I have opened another case about my latest block (fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات هیئت نظارت/دوره یازدهم/Samuel T.Owen (چهارم)) in which I anticipate the blocking admin be admonished or de-sysoped. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay I have removed the closure. Good luck. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I updated my comment there: I struck through the word LTA (whose interpretation my be subjective) and added the word "sockmaster" instead which is more objective.

I had no intention to say something frivolous. I am sorry if my comment could be interpreted as such. I think the rest of the arguments above are unrelated to enwiki and should be discussed on fawiki. huji—TALK 20:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

72.230.249.71

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

---

A month ago another admin (User:Ponyo) blocked this ip (72.230.249.71) for a month for Unsourced or Poorly Sourced Content, Now on July 4th , this ip is back doing the same thing and adding massive hoax of content to articles, which were false. Even if this ip comes back and do the same thing over and over, I don't think this ip is not here to build an encyclopedia.. take look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/72.230.249.71 Chip3004 (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Seconding this request. They vandalize in sprees. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2021 (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.

Harassment by User:Cladeal832

On June 27, Cladeal832 made a bold edit at Ian Fleming and over the next 24 hours was reverted a total of 5 times by 3 editors (me, Nikkimaria ([148]), and Black Kite ([149]). Cladeal832 was asked multiple times to discuss and WP:BRD and WP:3RR were mentioned.

On July 2, Cladeal832 does the same thing and I revert them thrice ([150], [151], [152]). I open a discussion on the talk page. They comment and then self-revert.

Instead, they proceed to comment on my user page. I found this passive aggressive and reverted them. On the third revert, I ask them to stop and threaten them with ANI. After that warning, they comment again. I revert. They comment again. I revert. They have made a total of 13 edits to my talk page. Cladeal832 has been editing since 2006. Can someone please address this disruptive behavior. ~ HAL333 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I read how Ian Fleming one-time fiancée later married the man who invented Velcro and added it the article. It was deleted. This user is being inaccurate in that my edits were not just reverting to what I had previously edited since agreed not to add information that this might be out of the scope of the article. The user kept removing citations stating he/she was unsure if Der Spiegel [among the largest news outlet in Europe] and IanFleming.com [used as citation within this article yet this user only deleted mine] were or weren't reliable sources. Whatever way this user found my messages [and I apologize since I went out of way to neutral in my language in accordance with guidelines[153]], all I tried was to have a civil discussion to improved the article, that the user requested again[154] and was just ignored[155] or threatened[156] and again[157]. I sincerely believed this user was unaware these were reliable sources and would stop once it was pointed out to them, and after they continued to revert and remove additional citations [again despite other parts of the article using the same sourcing[158]], I just tried to engage in civil discussion and was ignored and threatened. The solution would simply be for this user to answer the question I posed to them here[159]. Also there's not limit on how many edits on a Talk Page and most of it was just this user deleting it so I had to just asking them about how to improve the article. I can longwinded and also I'm a poor speller and make syntax errors and tried to correct them so unsure how many times I edited his/her talk page really matters.Cladeal832 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is an RS - I'm not so sure about the other. But if you wanted to discuss this, you should have done so at Talk:Ian Fleming. We're not here to discuss content but your conduct. ~ HAL333 05:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Your behavior has been mean and awful to me and totally needless. Because I try to compensate for my LD by correcting my spelling and grammar so I edited my message and that's means it's just I get insulted by being referred to as spam.[160] The other source cited is Ian Fleming Publications since as I pointed out is already cited on several article including the one you removed it from. All you had to say was I prefer to discuss this on Ian Fleming page as I asked if you would like, but you just came here to label it harassments or spam rather than just simply engage which you are still unwilling to do since what difference does it make on your Talk Page or not. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The way to avoid being accused of edit warring is to not do edits within 24-hours so of course I waited since I just believed the edit would stand when the rational for their removal, unsure if they were reliable sources, was shown to be wrong. I didn't expect to just be ignored by this user. I explained why I commented on this user talk page and would have been fine having the discussion on Ian Fleming Talk Page if requested, but that message was deleted[161] so unsure what that is accused of upsetting this user. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:3RR, it doesn't matter whether you are reverting the "same or different material". You've been editing for 15 years and have made over 11,000 edits and aren't familiar with basic Wikipedia policies? I find that hard to believe. And you don't need to know policy to realize that repeatedly commenting on a user page despite being reverted and asked to stop is harassment. ~ HAL333 05:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It should also be made clear that in the user's first and second edits ([162], [163]) the information was unsourced, and it wasn't until the third edit ([164]) that they added a source. From this edit on, they stopped adding the extra info but kept on adding the source to the already-sourced info that was already there. —El Millo (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Cladeal832 if someone keeps reverting your comments on their talk page it is not appropriate to keep posting there. Continuing to do this can result in a block for edit warring or harassment. A user removing a notice is taken as evidence that they have seen it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In 11,000 edits, nobody has ever reverted a message even once. It was especially weird to me since this user asked for a discussion repeatedly. I did look it up afterwards and didn't put back the same message, but only tried to engaged since the user was wrong about the stated rational for removing the edits. I was fine going over the Talk Page for the Ian Fleming article if they so wished. I don't get how it's harassment when the user repeatedly requested we discuss it and when I did, violated the civility policy by calling my response to his/her request as just calling me Spam [165] I don't believe you are being fair when this user asked for discussion, nothing I said was a personal attack or insult in my message [what does it matter it I edit my message for spelling and grammar mistakes since LD people are allowed on Wikipedia unless the rules have changed] and I read the policy and just requested he/she stop reverted my edits of reliable sources which are more direct than the ones currently cited. Why does this user get to ignore he/she didn't know what Der Spiegel is and didn't bother to look it up before stating they were reliable. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I am amazed in 11k edits this is the first time you have encountered this. Just today I had a talk page message of mine removed by a user with a snotty edit summary.

Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings says that this is allowed, it also states that returning messages that have been removed are not exempt from 3RR. You are of course welcome to continue whatever discourse on article talk pages but if a user does not want you on their user talk page then there is not much you can do about it.

At this point it is not harassment but if it continues it will rise to that level. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Amazed or not, nobody is that rude as what happened today just to avoid admitting they didn't know what was and wasn't an accurate source [still won't]. This isn't a particular shy user and had plenty to tell me in the edit summaries so unsure why he/she wouldn't respond which is why kept trying to get this over and done with, but that's on them and me I guess. I went to discuss on the article's talk page [unsure why he/she couldn't have just made that simple request instead of running over here]. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up question, if this user continues to refuse to discuss, can I add the citations back.Cladeal832 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally, refusal to engage in discussion in the course of a content dispute, means that said editor has effectively forfeited their position (an extension of WP:SILENCE, in a sense). But, unless an explicit refusal, a reasonable length of time should be extended (in most instances, days rather than hours). El_C 13:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll also add that if discussion on a respective article talk page reaches an impasse, there are other steps in the dispute resolution process which can be pursued (including formal requests). El_C 14:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not refusing to discuss. I opened an entire discussion about it on Talk:Ian Fleming. ~ HAL333 15:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion has so far avoided any effort to make any compromises with moving goalposts and been trying to turn it into a campaign for votes[166] which is one thing and hopefully we can still try to resolve it, but also separately may I also launch a harassment complaint against User:HAL333 for writing on the Talk Page that he/she thinks I have a lack competency by linking to online dictionaries and writing he/she don't think I know what words mean because I've disagree with his/her assessment on a particular edit [167] which is a violation of civility guidelines[168]. I would hope he/she wouldn't do this to anyone else. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep doing this. My answers above, again, were general in nature only, as I've yet to review this matter closely at the time of my writing this (now). El_C 17:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Over 15 years, 11,000 edits: 750 to talk, 192 to user talk, 4 blocks (2 for edit warring). I can see a correlation between increases in your activity levels and either edit warring complaints on your user talk page (e.g. in 2019) or blocks (e.g. 2016). From this I conclude you revert too much and use talk pages not enough (which explains your unfamiliarity with them). I would say next time you are reverted to follow WP:BRD, but I can see people have been telling you that for years. :-/ Levivich 06:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well your conclusion is wrong. Mostly fairly minor edits like hyperlinks or typos corrections so unsure why you need to go to Talk Page for those. Any editors can be mistaken on what is and isn't a reliable source, but most of time they get it within the edit summaries [169] and are not as stubborn as this user. I barely ever revert, but others revert me. I point out the other users also got blocked to ruin your mean-spirited knock on me. Anybody, this is about what happened today rather you just judging me on prior acts and dismissing it. Insults and unhelpful criticism aside, I reverted twice today so calm down with the sanctimony on not knowing the policy and when I went to Talk Page [avoiding any personal attack and solely discussing on how to improve the article in question], it was called harassment. I get I have 11,000, but does every single comment really need to mention it again and again. What does it matter. I think one reason this user was keen on only doing this discussion at the Ian Fleming talk page rather than just discussing his or her mistake on reliable sourcing is to turn it into a consensus issue. Except they didn't cite the reason for removal as being a personal preference, but removal on a non-reliable source which was inaccurate and doesn't fall under the guidelines for a need of consensus. I get his or her motives are immaterial since they may delete and ignore whatever they like on their own Talk Page as you have already pointed out and just have to accept it no matter how bizarre.Cladeal832 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

to turn it into a consensus issue Everything is a consensus issue on Wikipedia. You were trying to skirt that by avoiding discussion on the talk page. ~ HAL333 19:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• When I reverted previously my edit summary was "I am astonished that someone with 11,000 edits does not comprehend WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Now discuss on talk page, please, or WP:AN3 will be the next stop". Since they don't seem to be able to understand this concept, I would suggest that a partial bock from Ian Fleming would be the logical next step. Though I also note multiple previous issues on their talkpage, including copyvio issues, so I do wonder if there is a competence issue here as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 74.88.193.39

Resolved

User has previously been blocked after being warned several times about making unconstructive edits on articles about highways in New Jersey. The block has expired, and the user is continuing to make unconstructive edits of the same style as before, most recently on Interstate 295 (Delaware–Pennsylvania) and New Jersey Route 33. I would suggest an indefinite block. Needforspeed888 (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have given them another 2 weeks. Same person, same problem. If they try to communicate then the duration can be reconsidered. Feel free to come directly to my talk page if this continues after the block has expired. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User wants me to be blocked

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.

---

• Hijiri88 (talk · contribs)

The section User:MjolnirPants: Incivility was already closed above with no action, however, the above user Hijiri88 continues to comment to try to get me blocked. The section was closed at 2021-07-01T17:11:57‎, since that time Hijiri88 continues to make comments like:

"Bishonen closed with no block but said that anyone who wants to open a new thread on TOA should feel free to do so / Do you wanna do the honours, or will I? FWIW, I've only filed two ANI reports in the last two years, and both of them were train-wrecks (Francis Schonken has since been site-banned, and his goons have mostly dispersed, but...)."

diff

I have no history of interacting with Hijiri88 prior to the discussion in that now-closed section. I request to not be blocked because I have not done anything to that editor that warrants a block.

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 07:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Further information:

Here are some relevant diffs of how Hijiri88 has been harassing me by following me to pages I have edited:

[170] [171]

Here are some attacks from Hijiri88:

[172][173][174]

And also, it should be noted that User:Ivanvector lifted a block on Hijiri88 with the warning "Hijiri, I'm sure you've been around the project long enough to realize you've already been given more chances than many editors get. I'm just going to say this bluntly: don't get in trouble again. Your next block is likely to be quite permanent." [175] User:Cullen328 had warned of such issues: "I believe it highly likely that, if this editor is unblocked, we will be dealing with another bitter conflict in short order." [176] User:Floquenbeam said: "Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here." [177]

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have not done anything to that editor that warrants a block.[178][179][180][181][182][183] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@The owner of all:: Support. I see the comments of this Hijiri88 as nothing than like full "blackmailing" and "taking off the dirty shirts" as we, Bulgarians say. I don't see anything in the links Hijiri provided to warrant a block of an established editor like TOA, rather than a personal attack, digging compromising information from the past and overall ugly attitude to a contributing editor that gives all to the Wiki encyclopedia. Regards: Elan Morin Tedronai (talk)

I note that Elan Morin Tedronai has now been blocked indefinitely. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Elan Morin Tedronai's comment was very helpful.

It is certainly not appropriate to insinuate that a user is a nazi. While they tried to back peddle and claim they did not make such an implication it was clear that they intended to imply that the 88 in the name was a nazi code. It is true that 88 is used as code for heil hitler(h is the 8th letter) but 88 is also a lucky number in Japan because it sounds like a word for wealth(I think that is it). This second explanation makes more sense and was what was provided by way of explanation.

The other comment that seems beyond the pale is "Also, Japan is non-white but they were not neutral during WWII. So there's that".

While the first comment may(but I doubt it) have been a legitimate mistake, I am really having trouble coming up with an innocent, ie not ugly, interpretation of this second comment. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Japan comment was not referring to Hijiri. The context was:

"my username, which is a reference to the year of my birth, as it is for probably 90% of Wikipedians who were born and raised in either [a] countries that were neutral during World War II or [b] largely non-white countries"

and I was clarifying that there are countries such as Japan that are largely non-white and are not neutral in World War II. It was not intended as an attack, I apologize if it was taken that way. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, I agree that it is not appropriate to insinuate that a user is a nazi. However, prior to that first "88" comment, Hijiri did suggest that I had a "bizarre interest in [MjolnirPants]" due to his "NONAZIS" page. diff Which is an even clearer insinuation from him about me being a nazi. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The owner of all, Nice deflection, but it would be better to address your own behavior rather than pivoting to attacking Hijiri some more. You're in a hole here, you should stop digging. - MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so what else needs to be addressed? I explained the Japan comment above. I apologize if it was taken as an attack. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read Non-apology apology and rephrase that, for starters. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Japan comment from me was not intended as an attack. I intended it as a factual addition to the discussion that was taking place. I apologize for that comment. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Assuming an 88 suffix automatically stands for HH would be a grave mistake. This is very obviously not the case for Hijiri88 (or Jesswade88, for example). El_C 12:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• That was already addressed in the above now-closed section. It should be noted that I have not said anything about the 88 other than that one comment. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• To clarify: what I wrote above was meant as a general observation. I've yet to actually review this matter closely enough to comment beyond that note. El_C 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was about to BOLDly NAC this but given this (for which I cannot find any good-faith reading whatsoever) and the growing amount of community time and energy that has been wasted on this, a block for TOA would be prudent just to let the rest of us catch our breath. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • But that's the point, if you believe that I should be blocked then I would like to address whatever reasons there are for the block. Your two examples are from a couple of months ago and they were about a content dispute for the article Snopes, and after those discussions I did not continue to edit war or otherwise commit any policy violations there, I conceded that the consensus was not on my side. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • And the Japan comment I already explained above, I apologize if it was taken as an attack. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• You said "I said that your username has 88 in it. Your interpretation of my statement is inaccurate", okay I will bite. What did you mean when you said that? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I meant that his username has 88 in it. There was no attempt at a hidden meaning, it was simply me noting the irony that someone who thinks that I have a bizarre interest in MjolnirPants' "NONAZIS" page diff would have a username with 88. I did not make any further comments about the 88. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  The owner of all - Your comment here could've been easily interpreted (or misinterpreted) to say that you were trying to imply a hidden meaning or that you believe that their username also infers WP:NONAZIS. That's what I interpreted at first until I took a moment to understand that the comment may have just been an attempt at biting back. Let's avoid comments like this in the future, both for your sake and for the sake of the project. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• It was no joke when I collapsed the '88' comment and the ensuing 'discussion'. People don't like being associated with Nazis. TOA doesn't like it. Hijiri88 doesn't like it. I believe both were insinuating things they have no evidence for (or at least were not willing to address directly), though obviously the way in which TOA did it (the '88' comment and the remark about Japan) was much more inappropriate. Either way, the answer is to retract such insinuations and to move on. There are far more urgent reports sitting on this page and being obscured both by the previous thread and this one. So yes, someone please close this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, I am willing to retract the 88 comment, the Japan comment, and whatever other comment may have been offensive. The section was already closed so it would be inappropriate for me to edit the comments themselves to strike them, however that is my intent. I apologize for those comments and I concede that they were not conducive to discussion. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think closing this before the WP:BOOMERANG has a chance to come around is premature, judging from this and the previous thread. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Since the blocking policy states that blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive, I would like to know any reasons you think I should be blocked for so I can address those concerns. I understand that the 88 comment was unnecessary, but I also retracted it plus I didn't make any further comments about the 88, I was trying to stick to discussing the relevant issues. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  The owner of all - Yes, it's correct that blocks should be applied in a preventative measure and not in a punitive measure. However, the blocking policy also states that blocks can be applied in order to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" and can be applied to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior." Your comments above (diff, diff, diff) seek to apologize for the earlier comments you made and express your wish to retract them after community review. As of right now, I don't believe that blocking you would be beneficial nor would it prevent current disruptive behavior that is in-progress and occurring at this moment in time. That obviously can change depending on how you continue to interact with other editors. I strongly caution you to avoid making additional comments like the ones that were discussed in order to avoid more negative interpretations (or misinterpretations). You may not be engaging disruptively right now, but the behavior is expected to not continue. If it does, you certainly can be held accountable and administrative action would be justified to prevent further disruption. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think a boomerang is appropriate, and I think that boomerang should take the form of an indef block per WP:NONAZIS, as this editor has both admitted to right-wing POV pushing and opposed an RfA because the candidate regrets having had fascist sympathies. You've got to read the question from Cryptic and the RfA candidate's response there to understand exactly what TOA is saying here; that they would have supported the candidate were they still a fascist. Also, I'm not above pointing out that a surprisingly large number of editors who have a vendetta against me (see here and here for evidence of that in TOA's case; I could dig up more diffs if needed, including making a list of indeffed editor's who've tried to get me sanctioned if really necessary, though I suspect that many admins will be pretty familiar with this trend) end up indeffed per that essay I wrote, which seems, itself, to frequently be the root cause of said vendetta. I suppose it doesn't hurt that I also regularly defend the scholarly consensuses at talk pages like Talk:Fascism and Talk:Race and intelligence; consensuses which undermine racist and far-right beliefs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• I have avoided interacting with MjolnirPants ever since the Snopes dispute [although I have commented on my experiences with him on 2 other occasions when other editors posted to ANI about him] and I will continue to avoid interacting with him here. However I must clarify some things that he is saying about me. No, I do not support fascism. I have been very clear in my edits to specify that my beliefs are conservative/right-wing and not fascist. Also, my oppose to the RFA candidate was withdrawn, which some are failing to note. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 14:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  I have avoided interacting with MjolnirPants The lie detector determined.... That was a lie. [184] [185] [186] [187].

  Oh, let's not forget when you asked for a brand new page on for you to try to get me sanctioned elsewhere. I mean, you're not even just forum shopping, you're literally trying to create new forums to shop. I don't think I've ever directly asked for an editor to be indeffed before, but in your case, with your fixation and your professed beliefs and reasons for being here, I don't think we have any place for you. As far as you withdrawing your opposition to the RfA: you said when withdrawing it that you still didn't even consider yourself neutral, let alone supportive. And I'd note that you also backtracked in the ANI thread where Jayron32 expressed interest in examining your behavior, only to then turn right back around and continue that behavior as evinced above. I'll admit that you've claimed you're not a fascist, but your initial opposition and even your withdrawal of that indicates otherwise. I'd also note that many fascists deny being fascist.

  I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I've said my piece, but I'll summarize for anyone here: TOA has repeatedly engaged in gaming the system, dishonesty and forum shopping in order to get an editor (me) known for his vocal opposition to neo-nazis and fascists sanctioned. You have expressed a favorable attitude towards fascism, and directly admitted to being here to push a politically right-wing agenda. All of these statements are facts, as evinced by the diffs I have provided in this comment and my last one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  • For context: Cryptic's question and Vami IV's response. I think interpreting that as opposing a candidate because they regret having fascist sympathies is stretching it a little (seems to me TOA is rather thinking of the candidate regretting supporting Trump). The idea that it is OK to oppose NPOV because it is biased to the left (it probably is), however, betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what NPOV really is and how it works. Still, calling for a block per WP:NONAZIS based on that is effectively turning that essay into an excuse to block each and any self-professed conservative or right-wing editor. Block them for trolling, for hounding, for tendentious editing (if you can show that to be the case), I don't know, but not for supposedly being a Nazi. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    It's not a stretch at all. The candidate never claimed to have become a liberal, or even a centrist. In fact, opposition to fascism and racism is something that once transcended political bounds. There's nothing in that answer which suggested that the candidate was no longer conservative, only that the candidate was no longer fascist. All the "clarification" TOA made after their initial oppose (note their comments upon "withdrawing" their oppose indicating that they still oppose the candidate, but won't push the issue) was done in the context of people reading their oppose the same way I did and asking TOA to expound on it. Also note that TOA backpedaled just as quickly at one of the ANI threads I linked above, only to come right back later with the same efforts. Given that context, they have both a history of lying in the face of pushback and motivation to lie in the face of pushback there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

    • I don't oppose the NPOV policy, in fact I agree with it. When I say "input" I don't mean adding biased content to articles. Rather, I mean that in discussions such as on the talk pages of articles, there should be participation from right wing and conservative editors (for articles that are subject to left/right political bias). Unfortunately sometimes the participation is with the left wing on one side, and the left wing's perception of the right on the other side (as opposed to actual right wing beliefs). TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• The village pump proposal linked by MjolnirPants diff is not about MjolnirPants specifically. It can be taken at face value, it is about incivility in general. I even cited an instance of incivility that did not involve MjolnirPants at all. (Also, please refrain from moving my comment to suggest that it is a reply to MjolnirPants. I am avoiding interacting with him.) TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Also, once again, I did not violate FORUMSHOP. I reported edit warring to 3RRN/ANEW, then after that report was already made, there were incivil comments which I then reported to ANI. WP:FORUMSHOP says: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable". And there has been no "repeatedly", I have not done anything similar to FORUMSHOP since that incident. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The village pump proposal ... is not about MjolnirPants[188][189] I am avoiding interacting with [MjolnirPants][190][191] I did not violate FORUMSHOP[192][193][194] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• TOA, we're not going to preemptively vacate a discussion of your editing before it has even been opened. Moreover, editors are allowed to request sanctions against other editors for general disruptive behavior, not just for slights against them personally. I would suggest that you let this thread peter out, and only participate further at ANI if and when someone actually makes a proposal to restrict your editing privileges (and even then, just to quickly give your side of the story and then bow out). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It's in the original post that Hijiri and/or MPants were intending to get me blocked. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • And until they actually do start such a discussion, leave it be. As you can probably see from the tenor of this thread, trying to get ahead of this is likely to only make your life more difficult. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• @The owner of all: Pinging me in the "further info" you recently added at the top of this thread was not in your best interests. I saw this thread earlier, shook my head at what a timesink it was, and how likely it was to boomerang, and moved on. But if you are going to namedrop me and make it look like I somehow support your activities here, you should know that my gut instinct was to page block you from ANI for, I don't know, 3 months or something. My quick current estimate of the level of responsibility for the recent interactions between the 3 of you being so unproductive: MP 5%, H88 15%, you 80%. Go work on an article or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of my editing has indeed been to articles and to related discussions such as AfDs. I only added the further info section to provide evidence that Hijiri88 is failing to AGF regarding my edits as well as evidence that other editors have had issue with him. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was also pinged here and yes, I wrote that about Hijiri88 back then. But on this particular matter, I agree with Floquenbeam that The owner of all is about 80% responsible for this current train wreck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• If TOA responds to this post, then I support a block. Otherwise close this and let's move on. Levivich 17:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, there's a conversation ender! ;) El_C 18:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe anyone who replies here should be blocked? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I agree! Waitasecond... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 4 July 2021 (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.

Demand by IP

Admins eyes please on 106.204.234.208, who has made an ultimatum(?) for 500,000,000RS (6 million dollars and change).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a 500,000,000 year site ban?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Also a revdel is very necessary. Lot of people aren't very tech savvy and for someone like that it could appear very frightening. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, not that I am sure how or why they would pay up anyway, so its just trolling.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, yes of course it's likely just trolling. But, um.. I think you should remove the NOTDUMB message from the recipient's talk page. I don't think it would help them if they aren't in on it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I will claify why I posted it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

How did I end up blocking both 112.79.110.143 and 106.204.234.208? What a mystery! El_C 13:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

37.212.0.0/17

I tried to report this at AIV, but an edit filter prevents me from doing so with the message "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed."

Vandalism across multiple articles (primarily, but not exclusively in BLPs with edits like unsourced add/change of birthdate, years_active, spouse, nationality, occupation, etc.) over at least the last several months. Might be LTA/VCV. Favonian blocked the range from editing one BLP article for one year and blocked two sub-ranges (see list below) entirely for 6 months (also for BLP violations). However, the vandalism is widespread across more than just that one article or those two sub-ranges, with a spike in last 30 hours or so from 37.212.65.33 (e.g., against Shaun Fleming, Eleanor Noble, Oz Perkins, Spencer Fox).

Action requested: The 37.212.64.0/20 range should be fully blocked and perhaps extended to the entire /17 range. I note, however, that there are hundreds of recent edits in the 37.212.0.0/18 sub-range on volleyball-related articles, that, upon a cursory review, may not be vandalism or attributable to LTA/VCV. Consider, too, extending all of the blocks to one or more years.

Below is a partial list of 37.212 IPs/ranges that have these sorts of vandalism edits.

• 37.212.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – blocked on May 11 from editing Oliver Grainger for 1 year for BLP violations
  • 37.212.48.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – blocked on June 25 for 6 months for BLP violations
    • 37.212.53.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 37.212.62.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 37.212.61.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 37.212.80.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) – blocked on June 19 for 6 months for BLP violations
    • 37.212.84.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 37.212.88.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 37.212.93.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 37.212.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
    • 37.212.65.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – 14 vandalism/unconstructive edits in the last day or so
    • 37.212.66.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 37.212.78.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

– 108.56.139.120 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Trying to limit the collateral damage, I have blocked 37.212.64.0/20. Now 3 of the 8 /20 sub-ranges of the /17 range are blocked, so it may only be a matter of time before all of it is blocked, and there'll be much rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth. Favonian (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack by user Future Perfect at Sunrise

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 don't think there is much to tell. This edit shows everything.--V. E. (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• It does. It shows that you complained about a source being removed from an article, FPaS agreed with that removal and called the source "bullshit". He called a source "bullshit" - there was no attack on an editor. For that, you slapped him with a badly-formatted civility warning. Frankly, if I were FPaS I don't think I'd have been as polite. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Are there any civility limits when commenting on sources cited by other editors? For example if someone else said "This fucking source which is ought to be burned in hell is unreliable" to describe another source cited by another editor, would it still not violate civility? Or should I assume that in this case the word "bullshit" is on the lower end of civility spectrum? I'm just asking to know for the next time.--V. E. (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Black Kite, am I allowed to say fuckin' on this website? Asking for a (fuckin') friend... El_C 14:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No, not really as we can say what we like...about a SOURCE, what we can't do is say what we like about an EDITOR.Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been a number of discussions about using "fuck" on Wikipedia. Generally speaking, it seems to be okay to say "fuck", but not to direct an epithet containing "fuck" at another editor. That is to say, telling a specific editor to fuck off is a personal attack, and sanctionable. No comment on the merits of this report. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Calling an editor "fucker", sure, but isn't saying "fuck off" just a vulgar "go away"? I don't see how that's a personal attack. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, but that was not how the last discussion I participated in went, as I recall. Could be that consensus was that it's "uncivil" but not a personal attack? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, don't forget about fuck head — endless variation. El_C 14:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These racist apologist sources are a disgrace — not that this reflects on you in any way, dear editor, I would never dream... El_C 14:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the merits: FPaS' opinion that a source is "obvious bullshit", posted below a request for opinions on that source, is so far removed from a personal attack that it calls into question the motive of this report. Yes, when a source is bullshit, we should call it bullshit. If you were directly addressing the author of the article then maybe it could be construed as a personal attack, but that's not even close to what happened here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:48, 5 July 2021 (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.

Complaint

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 make a complaint against Alex 21 for repeatedly undoing my edits in The Flash (season 7) page. The thing is, I've added 'Interlude I', with a Twitter link as source and a screenshot because the Twitter is private. He simply refuses to accept it, even though 'Graphic Novel 3' has the same kind of source. I hope you can put an end to this. Thank you. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You must notify any user that you discuss here about the existence of this discussion- but this forum is not for resolving content disputes. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok. So where do I report him for abuse? 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have placed the required notice on the user's talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

190.89.167.143 requiring a source for an addition to an article is not abuse, it is good editorial discretion. It is part of our standards that things be sourced. I suggest that you stop trying to add things to the article and instead go to the talk page and present reliable sources.

Continuing to post the same thing to the article over and over day after day without presenting a source can result in you being blocked from editing for edit warring. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I did present a source. Eric Wallace's twitter. It's not my fault if the guy can't acess it, but other people can. That means it's a valid source. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read our reliable source policy rather than just its title. Twitter posts are not a reliable source, nor is it a secondary source. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Then how about the Graphic Novel 3 source that he just removed? That thing is unsourced now. Someone warn him that. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The screenshot of the twitter post? Are you even reading what is being said to you? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I have asked them to read the RS policies, IP I suggest you drop this before there is a boomerrang. Screen shots are not RS, it is arguable if even the Twitter post would be.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Have reviewed it and Alex has done nothing wrong. As previously discussed above, Twitter is not an appropriate source to use. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

IP added sales links of Amazon as sources to American Pie (film series) diff. I reverted. They reinstated it and left a message on my talk page stating " I just put the same sources as the other four movies" which is brings in the issue of WP:OTHERCONTENT. Additionally, their statement is false, as only one other minor American Pie film articles had Amazon links (that weren't added by this IP). I removed the Amazon links and a link to another sales site from that article here and cited my reason as WP:ADV. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

This IP editor is not listening to the community and has become disruptive because of that. I think a block is in order. They keep repeating their incorrect opinions and ignored everything said by other more experienced editors.

Their disruptive edits have continued since this discussion has given them feedback. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for disruptive editing. As always, welcome review of the block by all. Daniel (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Given the long term that the IP has had the same owner I think this is an appropriate length to get their attention. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:32, 4 July 2021 (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.

Christoforos18

Christoforos18 (talk · contribs) - blocked previously for adding unsourced information to BLPs and disruptive editing; talk page littered with warnings for the same; still at it today. Worth a longer block? GiantSnowman 20:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a main-space block? It appears in the 6 years since they started editing they have not once noticed that talk pages exist. 2001:4898:80E8:38:B5B4:7B2B:FABF:3D (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: I'd endorse that. If they haven't learned despite the warnings etc. (and 2 blocks), they clearly either are NOTHERE or there is cause for valid CIR concerns. I'd say probably worth an indef. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I am under ER related to this so cannot block them myself... GiantSnowman 17:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Mesut Ozil

• In Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Noticeboards_2, it states that "you may ask an administrator to evaluate the conduct of the user." If the following item of mine is inappropriate here, I would be grateful if you can instruct me to other dispute resolution methods.
• I have interpreted the following dispute as a conduct dispute rather than a content one. Please correct me if you think my interpretation of this dispute is wrong.
• In Talk:Mesut Özil ([[195]]), the honourable editor User:Walter Görlitz accuses me of being a nationalist. Despite my categorical denials based on my supporting evidence (I deem some of my previous edits are sufficient to disprove this honourable editor's claims on my personal view of the world - nationalism - which I reject completely and utterly. e.g. I have been trying to improve anti-Turkish sentiment and anti-Greek sentiment articles at the same time - for which I have also draft content for both articles' improvements.), I have still being kept accused and labelled of a nationalist, which makes me extremely uncomfortable and unhappy.
• I can accept if I have made an editorial mistake causing these personal accusations, but such edits do not reflect my political view. However, the honourable editor User:Walter Görlitz thinks, otherwise.
• I kindly request you to guide us in this dispute, if possible. Many thanks for your time.

17kuti (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any such accusation. In this diff, Walter Görlitz even clarified that he's not accusing you of anything, and only meant that your edit is similar to that of Turkish nationalists. Also, maybe don't use phrases like "Kurdification attempts" because it's not a good look. Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. That was the purpose of my edit. I have seen similar edits, but the sources speak for themselves. I probably should have just written, "sources do not support rationale provided with removal". Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. I believe and think that the honourable editor Walter Görlitz had said everything necessary to label me as a nationalist apart from directly stating that "you are a nationalist."

However, everything has been resolved from my point of view now since this honourable editor conceded that his/her first edit summary has the potential for the culprit and could be written without involving any presupposition of my personality, my view of the world and my intention for this edit. In addition, I understand and imagine the honourable editor Walter Görlitz's frustration due to dealing with all these nationalists on such a trivial item - and his immediate skipping of many steps in Graham's hierarchy of disagreement - possibly I would do the same if I were him/her. Nevertheless, I kindly want to remind him/her the principle of presumption of innocence. One million edits/reverts by nationalists on the same item cannot and do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I am a nationalist if I edit the same item posteriori. I couldn't care less if Mesut Ozil is a Kurdish or a Turkish or a Malay. My motivation for this edit has been clear: I had seen two extremely unreliable sources regarding a living person while I happened to be there to add something about his public relations to some of the politicians. My mistake was the edit without discussion that I had safely assumed that this extreme non-verifiability could be apparent to literally anyone -novice or expert user- and safely considered some of the Wikipedia rules stated in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (e.g. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page.) Yet immediate revert by the honourable editor Walter Görlitz, and the content of the edit summary (which I deemed personal rather than to the topic) led me to defend myself in terms of my personality as well as the verifiability of sources. Finally and unfortunately, I ended up doing a research on a topic which I literally did not care before. (I decided to finalise the research, but this is for another discussion on content.) I believe that the issue of the conduct of the user has been resolved.

Lastly I kindly remind the honourable editor Walter Görlitz again that the principle of presumption of innocence is a real and a not-rarely-happening notion; my solid understanding of anything does not make me of that thing (re:"imply a solid understanding of Turkish nationalism"), and please put a right amount of effort to acknowledge and disseminate the different choices of identities made by groups of people since Kurds had suffered a lot from many denials to their identities (e.g. Denial of Kurds by Turkey) (re:"I know that Turkish and Kurdish nationalists see a distinction between being both Kurdish and Turkish, but the real world does not.").

I believe that the honourable editor Woodroar is right about stating that the phrase of "Kurdification attempts" in that edit was very ugly; yet I am afraid it also was intentional. My personal experience on reading the ugly fights on "Turkification/Arabisation attempts" on Saladin or "Kurdification attemps" on Ismail I etc. was led me to coin a term that (which I decided to never use again) the item in question is so very poorly resourced that it looks like virtually fabricated by a nationalist of the sort. It was my mistake, and learned my lesson thanks to your feedback.

Many thanks both of you. I wish you a very pleasant experience of Wikipediaing in the future. 17kuti (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruption, adding copyright violation content

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.

---

First as 24.164.122.97 (talk · contribs), now as Ariesday (talk · contribs). Rev/delete, please. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2021 (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.

Isvind

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

User keeps altering/removing sourced information that doesn't suit his POV, notably at Pan-Turkic related articles such as Nihal Atsız and Pan-Turkism, where he keeps coming back to edit war.

Nihal Atsız;

[196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202]

Pan-Turkism;

[203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: What POV? In the Nihal Atsız article I just replaced the schools he attended with a more accurate information, also included in the source. In the Pan-Turkism article, which I explained my reason in the talk page, I just wanted to get more attention to reach a consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Turkism&oldid=1028908303

As seen here, you said earlier that I should take it to talk page. But when I do it, no one cares.

Regarding the other edits I always explained what I do and included the sources. Where did I do POV edits?--Isvind (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Is that so? "He studied for some time in French and German schools, then entered the military medical school in 1922, but abandoned it three year" page 205, Ultra-Nationalist Literature in the Turkish Republic: A Note on the Novels of Hüseyin Nihâl Atsiz. How does omitting information make it more accurate? If there were more schools he went to, why not add them?

No one cares, or perhaps no one agrees with you? Also, you created a section on the talk page on 1 July [213], and proceeded to continue edit warring in the same day, not even waiting a day and completely ignoring WP:CONSENSUS [214], that was certainly not part of the advice I gave you. Edit warring does get you attention indeed, hence why I reported you. And how does this justify all your other edits? "Explaining" your edits does not make them constructive. I'll let an admin deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The last time I editwarred with someone (also in the Pan-Turkism page) someone came to talk and we discussed, ultimately to reach a consensus which I'm not violating since. However, this time, it doesn't happen. Someone says I should explain myself in talk, but when I do, no one cares. At first I thought they didn't see, this is the reason of reverting. But apparently they just don't care.

Regarding the last Atsız edit, I still don't understand the reason for reverting.

Regarding other Atsız edits, I added new information and expanded existing information about both his personal life and political views. How and why isn't it constructive?--Isvind (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If there were more schools he went to, why not add them?

I saw it now. I'm adding.--Isvind (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The pan turkism article has 172 watchers, of which 23 have recently viewed the edit history. If 22 people besides yourself aren't bothering to answer or to agree with you then that's a somewhat clear indication that your edit is in the far end of the "no consensus to do so" area of edits. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Bonadea

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 am having a hard time with this used Bonadea after we disagreed on a topic related to a page names LGBT propaganda. I created the page and after my edit was reverted I wanted by Bonadea, I just wanted to discuss the problem with him and see what I did wrong and if we can agree on something. The main issue was that in his opinion propaganda had a negative meaning and that would break the neutrality of a page. While it is true that propaganda refers to a unfair way of transmitting information, as i explained on Talk:Gay agenda the fact that propaganda is an unfair way of transmitting informations about LGBT doesn't transfer it's negative attribute to LGBT itself. For example: Christian propaganda, while we can all agree Christianity isn't a bad thing, when it is promoted through propaganda, Christian propaganda becomes something unfair. Everything was peaceful until this point before, this used started calling me a "bigot" here [215] (he used the edit description to insult me by saying bigots not welcome) and deleted my message from his talk page where i was trying to discuss the issues with him so we can solve it. The word "bigot" is a slur [216] meant to categorize me as someone exaggerated and unreasonable and it offended and discouraged me. The 2nd thing this user did was to call people who oppose same-sex extremists here [217]. Why would someone use such a bad word to describe others who have different opinions, taking in consideration the European Court of Human Rights stated that art. 12 of ECHR guarantee the right to marriage only to heterosexual couples and countries have the freedom to legalize same-sex marriages or not. Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. This user's attitude was aggressive towards me meant to discourage me and intimidate me by associating me with extremists. I am really sorry if I didn't address the complaint right, but i rarely edit on Wikipedia and I am not an administrator and i have no power when it comes to someone as Bonadea who is an administrator. --JOrb (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: I have never pretended to be an administrator. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Basically, it means that JOrb would vote Support, thought they already were one :D ——Serial 16:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I considered you an administrator by mistake since I thought mostly they are the ones who have the power to delete an Wikipedia page.--JOrb (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hold up. You're arguing at Talk:Gay agenda#What has Wikipedia become? that the word "propaganda" isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a plain old neutral word to describe something. Now here, "bigot" is always a negative, no doubt about it. So which is it, do words matter or don't they? Woodroar (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you don't know word "propaganda" is used on many Wikipedia pages XD. It's not forbidden word, there s even a dedicated page for it - Propaganda.--JOrb (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to type up something longer, but realized that it's a waste of time. This ANI report is a nothingburger. The best outcome you can hope for, JOrb, is that it is closed without action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, sir! I am waiting to see other opinions, maybe some that are supported by arguments. Cheers! --JOrb (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

while we can all agree Christianity isn't a bad thing Hmmm. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

that's one of the things I decided against typing up above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please keep your hate towards Christianity out of Wikipedia. Thanks you! --JOrb (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

JOrb, I identify as Christian, but I thought the same thing. The above good editors (and myself) aren't hating on Christianity, they are joking about our vast diversity and, well, inability to agree on anything at all. Please WP:AGF. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. Grandpallama (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, same-sex marriages aren't. That's what ECHR decided.--JOrb (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be careful when invoking judicial or quasi-judicial decisions: English Wikipedia encompasses many jurisdictions, and they don't always reach the same conclusions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You should stop talking. Jorm (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I was expecting someone to say that ECHR is only for Europe, but at the same time, have you identified another international court and another international convention of human rights that give people more rights that ECHR? On other continents, even the right to life isn't fully protected since they allow death penalties. Also, the reason why I invoked it is because only because of ECHR we talk about LGBT rights.--JOrb (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So, to be clear, your position is that all law other than the ECHR is invalid? Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

My point is that no other international convention guarantees a larger protection of human rights than ECHR. You can check this fact.--JOrb (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@JOrb:, if my colleagues were not clear enough: This is going to stop now. If you can not stop yourself, I will help you with a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Since it continued, I blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. --Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

JOrb, Bonadea is not an administrator but I am. Your comments here are coming across as offensive for the sake of being offensive, and not for any purpose that would improve the encyclopedia. Take your bigoted arguments against non-heterosexual relationships to some other website, they are not welcome here. If you continue this, you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. I stayed mostly away from Wikipedia last night, and had an early night so most of this discussion happened while I was asleep, but it looks like my input wasn't needed here at all. FWIW, I tend to have a fairly high tolerance for other non-native speakers of English (and native speakers of different English varieties) when it comes to different discussion styles and/or misunderstandings based on semantics, but this was way beyond that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

JOrb topic ban proposal

Since JOrb has already appealed their block and seems not to understand why it was done in the first place, indicating they are likely to continue this disruptive line of argument if unblocked, I propose that they be indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning LGBT matters. They had already been warned about discretionary sanctions for gender disputes but I think a broader ban is warranted here.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite site ban. Point 1 of WP:NPA prohibits abuse based on gender identity. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like this is pretty much moot; based on their most recent comment on their talk page, even if they try another unblock request I doubt it will be accepted. Not opposed, but it feels a bit like a dogpile. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have just declined their unblock request. In the very unlikely even that they are ever unblocked they certainly need to be banned from any topic related to gender including LGBT. But I support and prefer an indefinite site ban by the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support any of the above.--Jorm (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support This person is not capable of editing LGBT topics neutrally. This is just another attempt to WP:RGW. I have no opinion on a site ban. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  More like Wronging Great Rights. EEng 20:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  Whack! Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban per Chillum. ——Serial 07:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban - User is clearly NOTHERE and we don't need someone who is just here to start arguments that LGBT people don't deserve human rights protections. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban. At this point, since the subject has already been indeffed, discussion about any lesser sanction is probably pointless, but a site ban will affirm the block (and constrain unblock requests). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support Site ban, to affirm the block.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Hand and Robert. Oh dear. -- a lad insane (channel two) 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support their edits are not productive or useful in a collaborative environment. Also, WP:NOBIGOTS really shouldbe re-targeted. Star Mississippi 17:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment Once in a while I think we should have a museum of boomerangs to deter people from opening threads like this. But then I think, Why stop them? It's so convenient when they walk themselves into the jail cell and practically beg us to slam the door shut on them. EEng 21:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, yes we should. Also perhaps an uninvolved admin can close this? There has not been any opinions offered in several days and I think there is a consensus. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:41, 6 July 2021 (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.

Persistent disruption by Nuevousuario1011 on Napoleonic articles

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

---

Nuevousuario1011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, since they began editing, been disruptive on Napoleonic related articles, constantly attempting to change the results and other information to make the French look better, always against the manual of style and infobox instructions, and frequently despite the references saying the opposite. Some general examples of this.

• Battle of La Rothière Changes the result from "Coalition victory" to "Coalition tactical victory, French strategic victory". Repeated in this edit.
• Battle of Eylau Changes the result from "Inconclusive" to "French Tactical Victory, Russian retreat". Also similar change from "Inconclusive" to "French Tactical Victory", with an edit summary of "read the sources who you cited and you will got this result" (more in-depth analysis of this article later)
• Battle of Austerlitz Changes the result from "French victory" to "Decisive French victory". Also see identical changes
• Battle of Ulm Changes the result from "French victory" to "Decisive French victory"
• Battle of Quatre Bras Changes the result from "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory" to "Strategic French victory, Tactically Indecisive". At same article also makes repeated attempts to change the result from "Coalition victory" to "Coalition tactical victory, Strategic French victory". Also attempts to change the result from "Coalition victory" to "Inconclusive", and even attempts to change the result from "Coalition victory" to "French victory"
• Battle of Toulouse (1814) Changes the result from "Indecisive. Allied victory and French victory are both claimed" to "French victory"

At the Battle of Eylau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, the "Inconclusive" result was originally added in March 2019 by an IP editor, with four different references. I have provided quotes from three of them at Talk:Battle of Eylau#Fabricated claims which prove they support the added result, so I have little doubt the fourth reference will as well. Despite this Nuevousuario1011 has repeatedly changed this without any references at all.

• 17 September 2019, with an edit summary of "Changed the result from indecisive to French Victory, as all the sources including Wikipedia in all the other idioms say, as well as the analysis from a military point of view, and as it was before the last edits of this page"
• 13:57, 24 July 2020, with an edit summary of "read the sources who you cited and you will got this result"
• 11:26, 27 June 2021, with an edit summary of "Well the battle was a french tactical victory, we could argue about what it really achieved to say "strategic", but as the new rules does not tolerate mixed results, the defacto result is the one who at leas won in either category, thus the French won. They were checked but not defeated, they took the field, etc" (while also adding back all the references that don't support their change at all)

Their "reading of references to obtain results is best demonstrated in the next article, Battle of Quatre Bras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Per the diffs above, they have repeatedly tried to change the result of this battle, see Talk:Battle of Quatre Bras#Making it up as you go along for more extended details on this. The different versions include one of the following additions each time; "Strategic French victory", "Inconclusive" or "French victory". Each time they cited the same reference, pahe 378 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica which can be seen here and contains nothing clear about who won that particular battle. Their similar interpreation of source material to try and claim a French victory at another article can be seen in this talk page post, where they say Acording to the sources the battle of Redinha was a succes by the Frenchs and a failure for the British, (also known as) French Victory, followed by a bunch of quotes that say nothing like that.

Last but not least, we have their edits at Battle of Friedland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which resulted in an IP editor complaining at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Battle of Friedland Page (for full disclosure, I have reverted to Nuevousuario1011's incorrect version several times, believing some unexplained IP edits were introducing errors, when in fact they were attempting to fix the deliberate errors introduced by Nuevousuario1011).

• 21 December 2019 with edit summary of "Numbers as presented in wikipedia in french spanish italian, etc with references, cleaned repeated sources", changes the French strength from 80,000 to 60,000 and the Russian strength from 46,000 to 84,000, adding a book reference by David Chandler to support the figures (the several pre-existing book citations contain quotes which confirmed the previous figures were correct). The IP editor and Djmaschek have both confirmed the claimed Chandler citation is false, his figure is 80,000 for the French strength.
• 10 July 2020 Reverts back their incorrect figures
• 23 September 2020 Reverts back their incorrect figures, with an edit summary of "Restoring the numbers before last modification, respect the sources please, and remember first than all the order of battle, to made estimations, the Russians deployed more than 60.000 on the western bank of the Alle river, but overall, there where more than 80,000, the French on the other hand where understengthed". The "respect the sources" statement is particularly breathtaking.
• 11 November 2020" Reverts back their incorrect figures, with an edit summary of "the other way around, i already explained". This was after the previous editor (visible on left hand side of diff) said "There was a small but very major mistake in the page, Russian vs the French numbers were flipped, as clearly indicated in the sources"

Since then they have made several edits changing infobox figures, which I have detailed as problematic at Talk:Battle of Friedland#Infobox (which the editor refuses to reply to directly) and User talk:Djmaschek#Seeking help from an expert, and validated user. (yet again) (where the editor makes a series of bizarre claimes, saying an order of battle claims a Russian strength of 77,000 and that a university professor published a "break down" of the respective strengths, neither of which are true).

This editor is either deliberately adding false information to Wikipedia, or completely lacks the competence to edit. I do not know which and don't particularly care, but something needs to be done to stop this editor from damaging the encyclopedia any further. FDW777 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is my answer to the warring from the acusation from the same user in no more than an hour ago. Please take a look, the same who i told before, i ask cordially to you to look for.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Every edit who i made is warred by FDW777, thus is imposible not to war about it. I tried to explain, show sources and everything within a month, if commited a mistake then i apologize, but the user take this as a sign of incompetence from me. The rivalry seems to be from early June when i contested a change who he made at the Quatre Bras article. In any case he got what he wanted, and i asked him if he could help with another articles, and just used it to speak against me. Please look at everything, edits, talk pages, third user talk pages, wiki project talk pages, and the only constant is the user FDW777 reverting my own edits, using credible words to defend an inaccurate fact. By the ways on the article of Berlin i talked to the user who made the change and told me who indeed there was no confrontation.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I was also asking other users especially admins for help, and the one who give me the welcome (who didn't answer) help regarding the rules of and what is aceptable or not. However again the same user just revert edits, and when i move them back he reverted them, or when i make my own edits he revert them, last time 46 seconds he took, impossible to even made a major edit. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if someone here oould look for what happen since early june, will understand my problem on taking serious the corrections from this user. I don't complained because i believed who at some point the user will acpet somee of his mistakes. And let me alone, but that didn't happen, so i use this to put fowards, the reasons of the multiple edits. and please do not doubt in asking me something. If you need.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

my question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ruedi33a&diff=1032027773&oldid=1032004487

my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1032130791

the current edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Berlin_(1806)&diff=next&oldid=1032140031 Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Another source of dispute with the acusing user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=1032000328&oldid=1031995931

notice the comentaries please.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Other case of the user reverting my edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1030552220 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1030954407

Current form, with my edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Valdepe%C3%B1as&diff=next&oldid=1031083525 Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Besides the fact of not having power to edit because i am geting reverted by the user. Last night i made some edits to put in line cites, and today already reverted. Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

right now the article of Friedland is exactly as FDW777 wanted it to be. Yet here are the edits. Who i made and he reverted. (the first one ironically was me acknowledging the problem with Chandler source, yet the user FDW777, instead of help, just used it to revert everything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=1031305363&oldid=1031293374

The sources who i used detailed in the edits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031308267 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031311097 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031312093

And here is FDW777 four days later

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Friedland&diff=next&oldid=1031894574

He claim i do not use the sources, however when the sources back what i edited, he soon try to find a way of discrediting it. The talk pages are also imposible, it is just the user FDW777 saying who everything is wrong, and never a third user. But having a "published book", a "military historian order of battle collection", a "university profesor with prestige, in a public detailed article", who said something different, must be considered. I didn't in my edits, denied who in the past i made a simplisitic asumption when i begun editing. But my last edits are only based on sources. Those edits, never removed a source, it just expanded the range of posible numbers, (even if i would want to make a paragraph detailing the sources) i at least cited them. As you may notice i am not a good english speaker, but i can comprehend things well.Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Austerlitz and Ulm always said "Desicive" until you changed it, i changed it once, because it was not what it used to be, and there was no explanation. Once he explained it to me i never edited that again. (of course he end in a warring edit with another user, but it was not me)Nuevousuario1011 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Nuevousuario1011 temporarily blocked for edit warring for a week. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:29, 6 July 2021 (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.

Persistent vandalism by IPs on Islam-related articles

• 2409:4063:2315:5A3F:60C6:9503:888B:6A9 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4063:418b:13b6:4c60:c163:5c60:5ab8 (talk · contribs)
• 2409:4063:418b:13b6:19c9:3ba5:be4c:5704 (talk · contribs) and similar IPs have been targeting a multitude of Islam-related articles for several weeks. Articles include Rafida, Islam in Iraq, Anti-Sunnism, and many others. They typically change "Shia Islam" to "Shia faith", "Islam" to "Sunni Islam", change percentages of Islamic groups, always increasing the number of Sunnis. They seldom give edit summaries, but if they do, they reveal a strong anti-Shia POV, e.g. "Rsk6400 you rafidi Shia." here ("Rafidi" is a slur for Shia Muslims used by Sunni Muslims), or "Most Sunni Muslims don't consider Shias to be Muslim. Just go to pew research center survey. I'm not spreading hate just telling you the truth. Now report me" here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• 2409:4063:2315:5A3F:119D:B1B8:C729:2B87 (talk · contribs) is the most recent IP repeating the same kind of edit at Rafida. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• 2409:4063:2315:5a3f:cd81:c518:ac1:5325 (talk · contribs) made disruptive edits at 9 different articles including Rafida,
• 2409:4063:2315:5a3f:cd81:c518:ac1:5325 (talk · contribs) at Rafida and another article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Racist and Disruptive Right Wing Hindu Nationalist

A disruptive IP user;

• 2402:3A80:1102:E15C:A867:8C24:49C6:AA9E (and his other IP addresses beginning with 2402:3A80... which can all be found on the Talk:Love Jihad page contribution history)
  • 2402:3A80:113A:F442:E43F:F91D:4117:2AF4
  • 2402:3A80:112A:BB03:9C24:AECB:5D97:5D2B
  • 2402:3A80:113F:194:E07A:47B0:2C86:2244
  • 2402:3A80:112A:C814:D1BC:941A:6FC6:928A
  • 2402:3A80:1102:861F:8140:C253:71C7:530A
  • 2402:3A80:110B:3915:71DD:BB9A:9BFE:354B

...is causing significant disruption to Wikipedia. The user is repeatedly not engaging in good faith, and on the contrary is repeatedly engaging in petty and racist identity politics. The user is clearly a right wing Hindu nationalist who keeps trying to cause drama and hound productive members of the Wikipedia community.

He first came to the community's attention in the talk page of the Love Jihad article (where he clearly believes the conspiracy theory is real along with the absurd idea that Wikipedia editors are "paid" by some shadowy organisation) where he has repeatedly been accusing others of being "unbelievers", "Islamists", "destroyers of Hindu civilisation" and a whole host of other nonsense (such as "He has joined Wikipedia to support Islamists, Muslim fundamentalists and Pakistanis").

He also seems to have a particular dislike of White people.

He is now going around WP:CANVASSING other users in an attempt to try to bully me to stay away from articles that have grabbed my interest (effectively engaging in Witch Hunting). On top of this he is assuming my racial identity, being extremely racially abusive and does not seem to want to participate a positive member of the Wikipedia community.

He also seems familiar with Wikipedia's policies which makes me strongly suspect that he has previously been banned from wikipedia before. His IP sock accounts are also causing significant problems. Can someone please help me out with this? NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Since that range has produced nothing but garbage for at least the last couple weeks, I'm blocking Special:Contributions/2402:3a80:1102:e15c:a867:8c24:49c6:aa9e/42 for 3 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sanctioning the IP. However, I feel given the nature of his actions a 3 day block seems rather tame...? He simply does not engage in good faith editing. Rather he always ends up causing disruption as he repeatedly tries to derail threads. NarSakSasLee (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty large range, and before the last couple weeks there were some useful edits from someone else there, so I want to see if something shorter works. If it resumes I'll at least double the duration. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That is understandable. I will report anything further here. NarSakSasLee (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Barlan Samson

Seems to be creating ridicules content like List of Blocks on Minecraft which is completely unsourced, and it seems the user has created numerous versions of the page before that has been deleted. This too me seems disruptive to wikipedia and I can't see it being stopped unless an admin takes strong action. Govvy (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

User hasn't edited in a month. Unless they return and start doing this kind of thing again, I don't think there's a need to do anything. (Non-administrator comment) I'm dumb. – Rummskartoffel 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rummskartoffel: Incorrect, they created the now delete article, which I assume means their recent contrib got deleted also. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't pay attention to that. Struck. – Rummskartoffel 11:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It's also a copyvio - it's an unattributed copy paste of a page from the minecraft wiki. For some reason they've also been copying and pasting the talk page across, compare Draft talk:List of Blocks in Minecraft to https://minecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Block. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have deleted all of their Minecraft pages; the images alone would fail NFCC, let alone the text (such as it is ) being a copyvio. All were completely unsourced, as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Perhaps the user does want to add blatant Minecraft content in Wikipedia which is illegal per WP:NOT. A quick response from the admins is possible for him not to post "oh no, not another Minecraft content in drafts" thing.

I also nominated one of his now-deleted pages before in the MfD but it was kept per some obvious reason.

As for the image thing I still don't encounter such thing before (I'm not in Commons, sorry).

As for the copyvio thing said by a fellow IP above I'll better ignore it as it might lead to another or such a bad thing around us.

Look at the user's talk page especially the names of his deleted drafts it is all Minecraft-related. A topic block, specifically a block on any video-game related articles would have been feasible for this action... But still keep an eye on him. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 15:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

And their response to the draft being deleted has been to vandalise someone else's user and talk pages by moving them to draftspace and blanking them. Can someone move User:TheWikiholic's user page and talk page back to their proper locations? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

User page has been brought back. I want to say something that Barlan Samson is editing Philippine-related articles in his contributions page. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 03:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not a lot of editing going on, but going and vandalising another users, user-page, is another red-flag. Govvy (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Good day and the user removed the notice of the speedy deletion nomination of one of his Minecraft-related drafts, uh oh... User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 09:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Can we just block them already? -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 05:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: For me, as he created several (or two) Minecraft-related drafts that were deleted, a topic ban from video games is my first choice as a precautionary measure. But still keep an eye on him. User:Ahthga Yram_{Talk with me! I want to change my name!} 11:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

SethRuebens

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.

---

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

SethRuebens is a single-purpose account whose only purpose is adding his personal accusation of plagiarism to Britannia (TV series).

SethRuebens began editing in December, 2019. All of his edits are about his insistence that Britannia (TV series) plagiarized his work. The sources he provides fail WP:RS (see related discussions at Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Britannia (TV series), and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#BGlobal Quoting Robin Mukherjee, as well Talk:Britannia (TV series)). SethRuebens was blocked 31 hours 24 Jul 20 for disruptive editing, blocked indefinitely from editing the article or its talk page on 31 Jul 20, then blocked for sockpuppetry 3 Aug 20. On 4 Mar 21, he was unblocked after an appeal to ArbCom (with a restrictions against editing the article).

SethRuebens resumed editing 8 Jun 21 at Talk:Britannia (TV series), posting the same arguments multiple editors rejected last year. He continued the arguments at Talk:Britannia (TV series) and RSN[218] this week, as well as disputing with Slatersteven on User talk:SethRuebens.

SethRuebens, who admits to being Ben Krushkoff, the person making the accusations of plagiarism, has made one minor constructive edit to Wikipedia not related to Brittania. SethRuebens is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and is solely interested in promoting his claims against the show's creators. His tendentious editing has used up many hours of multiple editors' time as they try to explain WP:RS and why his personal websites don't suffice to support adding a criminal accusation against other people to an article. I propose a site ban for SethRuebens.

Note: I have set up news alerts for both the TV show and Ben Krushkoff; if reliable sources give coverage to the plagiarism claims, I'll add it to the article myself. Schazjmd (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Administrators,

I was granted permission to re-join the site after the Arbitration Committee looked into this very matter. It was agreed, by them, that I could rejoin and make edits, and continue the debate on the talk page of the Britannia article, which is what I’m doing now. The fact that other editors don’t want to engage in a debate is not a reason to ban me! I have started to make edits on other pages (and as a language teacher, MA grad and someone who has been paid to edit others professionally published work, I am more than capable of doing so).

Please note, thousands of people across the world, including a number of subject experts and academics, agree with me that the article on Britannia is inaccurate: referring to Jez and Tom Butterworth as originally creating the series is simply not the truth. Naturally, as the person who has been accredited as creating the material which this show was substantially been based on, I object wholeheartedly to the article being left as is (as do others, even if they’ve had no experience of editing on here).

In the words of another user, quoting Wikipedia: articles should include facts on a subject that are of historical, societal, scientific, intellectual or academic significance. The letter from the Head of Scriptwriting at the UK’s leading Creative Writing course, and a number of other references from highly respected academics, supports the notion that this it is, unquestionably, a matter of academic and intellectual significance. How can a $100 million show based on plagiarism NOT be??

2000+ people have signed the petition supporting me on Change.Org. It is therefore also a matter of societal significance.

A three page article about the case, written by an IP and business law specialist, has been published in a national/internationally distributed business magazine. This is a tertiary, reliable, independent source.

I have noted that a small clique of editors have continually tried to ban me from the site, both before and now (including most of the names supporting a ban for me). WP:LAWYERING has been used at every opportunity, when nobody has been able to answer my questions on the matter. I have my own suspicions as to why. There are a number of vested individual and corporate interests who would want to keep the truth from being told: there IS a dispute over the creation of this show, Sky HAVE been served with a Cease and Desist Letter on the matter, and hundreds of thousands of people (at least) now know about it. Reliable sources have commented on it.

Attempting to ban me from the site and/or from making edits to Britannia’s talk page would be a clear breach of my right to freedom of speech and just supporting an article that is not neutral in its views. Why would anyone want to do that, especially when it’s been made clear that I have the support of the vast majority of people (almost exclusively) who have looked into the case and from a number of expert sources about this matter?

A very expensive legal battle will continue and this debate will go on. The only logic about stopping it from happening on the talk page is because certain people don’t want the truth getting out there. SethRuebens (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

SethRuebens, a few points I'd like to be clear on. First, and probably the most important: what did you mean when you wrote A very expensive legal battle will continue and this debate will go on? Are you suggesting that you will take legal action against the Wikimedia Foundation, or against individual editors here, if you were to be banned from this topic?

Second, you need to recognise that you have no freedom of speech on this website. As is made clear in the Terms of Use (which you agree to abide by every time you click 'Publish'), editing here in any form is a privilege which may be withdrawn. Freedom of speech is not a concept that has any relevance to this environment; you are not in a public forum, you are editing content on a privately owned website, hosted on privately owned servers. You are required to abide by the rules, or your editing privileges get revoked.

I haven't reviewed the sources myself, but it seems pretty clear that everyone involved in the dispute except for yourself (and a single new account created very recently with an exclusive interest in this subject, which is in itself rather suspicious) is of the opinion that the material is not well-sourced enough to be used on the page. Around here, we would normally call that a consensus to exclude the material. You would normally be expected to accept that and move on to editing something else. To be honest, you are giving the very strong impression that you are here to improve the encyclopaedia; I think that you are here to right an injustice, which is not our purpose. Is there anything you can say that might make me think differently? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, I was referring to the legal battle with Sky (UK) Ltd and the people who were responsible for taking my work, only.

In terms of my rights to edit on Wikipedia, I have been granted permission to edit the talk page of Britannia and continue the debate there by the Arbitration Committee, as well as edit other articles, which I am starting to do (which is really what I meant by 'freedom of speech'. WP:WIKIHOUNDING from a small clique of editors, is both disrupting to me and annoying: it's affecting my enjoyment of editing and debating, as are the threats to try and ban me based on my desire to discuss the sources in a fair and constructive way.

I am not responsible for the action of others here, but naturally I would be happy to hear others from outside the small clique (who are hellbent on keeping me from even discussing the matter) to join in. Who wouldn't

Here's a question for you: why do you think it's so important to a small group of editors to stop me discussing this issue on the Britannia talk page, when I'm not making any changes to the article itself? Even if what I'm saying annoys them (unintentionally) or they disagree with me, surely there is no need to kick up such a fuss or try to ban me using any means necessary. Either debate me with me or don't. SethRuebens (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

SethRuebens, thank you for clarifying the point about the legal battle.

The accusation of HOUNDING does not apply: you are not being followed from one article to another, all of your issues are coming from a single talk page, where you are not being allowed to get your way, and in continually arguing against consensus you are stretching people's patience.

Freedom of speech, and the lifting of a block, are two very different things. Arbcom lifted the block on your account, but that action does not give you licence to ignore our other policies and guidelines, including the sourcing requirements for making controversial assertions about living people. It also does not give you a free pass if the community decides to ban you, either from the subject area, or from the project (as has been proposed below).

To answer the question you posed: I think it's important to them because you appear to be using Wikipedia to further an external agenda, rather than to help write an encyclopaedia. Or, to put it another way: they believe that you are being motivated here by your own sense of injustice and a wish for 'the truth' to be known, rather than a dispassionate interest in ensuring that Wikipedia has accurate and well-written articles about a wide range of subject. There is no reason why you would know this, since your experience here has all been about a single article, but the people you are in disagreement with are widely-respected and experienced editors, who understand our editing guidelines very well, and who have a diverse range of editing interests stretching back years. The idea that they have some nefarious purpose in attempting to prevent you from adding this stuff is, frankly, preposterous, and you should withdraw it. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Re. the hounding, it’s more a case of members from a small group of editors attempting to get me banned, at every turn possible, for having the audacity (!) to do something I have now been given permission to do by the Arbitration Committee: i.e continue the discussion on the talk page. If it’s not hounding, it’s WikiLawyering, or just being done as a way to try and silence me in my quest to find out why the sources aren’t acceptable to them and this site.

Wikipedia’s WP:BLP policy states that ‘any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source’. Nobody has explained, satisfactorily in my opinion, why the 3 page Bglobal article, dedicated to this matter, cannot be considered a reliable source (it most certainly was published, which can and has been proved). It was being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, but rather than answer all my questions on the matter, or debate it to its conclusion, I was banned from the site (at the bequest of one of the same small clique of editors who have constantly been against me even discussing the matter). Following the policies and guidelines, I appealed, won that appeal, and yet the same thing is happening again.

It’s not an assertion to say that multiple academic and experts agree with me that this television show was based, substantially, on an unauthorized adaptation of my work. It is a fact. On top of the published magazine article which references this, (independent and reliable), there’s a University Law Faculty’s online newsletter, as well as a number of independently published letters and posts from academics and experts, that confirm this.

Given what I have mentioned above, and looking at the actions of editors who are grouping together to try and ban me, as opposed to providing clear explanations as to why reliable independent sources aren’t deemed reliable and independent by them, I feel I have every right to question their motives. To suggest that the people (both individuals and corporations) who so many others believe took and used my work don’t have a vested interest in keeping a reference to the fact off Wikipedia would be far more preposterous, in my opinion. But you know what they say about opinions! I’ll not mention mine on the matter again, as obviously it will be used against me and I wouldn't want to hurt anybody's feelings.

Sticking to the facts, rather than accept the one about me being allowed to discuss this matter on the talk page of the article - and edit other pages (which I am now doing) - it is clear that the easier option is to try and ban me. That seems totally against Wikipedia policy and guidelines; against what this very site is about. SethRuebens (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The irony is if you do take this to court it will get the very kind of coverage that would enable us to include it (as you have been told, more than once). As to why you should stop discussing this, first off (as has also be said to you) wp:blp applies to talk pages as well. Secondly, you have added nothing new to this discussion since coming back, it is the same arguments over and over again. There comes a point when you are no longer in fact discussing the topic, but badgering Wikipedia to get your way (I have already, I believe, pointe you to wp:tenditious). Nor are we trying to stop you discussing it, you have discussed it. What we are is fed up with telling you it can't be added (and read wp:not and wp:talk talk pagers are not wp:forums to discuss the topic, they are there only and solely to discuss improving the article), and you are just making the same arguments over and over again. You have been allowed your say, its now time to move on.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no irony in the fact that's getting this to court is something I am doing my utmost to make happen. It is a costly and time consuming process that is ongoing. It doesn't take away the fact that hundreds of thousands of people know about the dispute, and that is supported by numerous academics, experts and thousands of people (nb all majority and significant minority views should be included in articles). What makes no sense to me is why you would say you are not trying to stop me discussing it and that the matter has been discussed to its conclusion, when key questions remain unanswered. Instead of answering them, I have been threatened with and am indeed facing being banned by the people who I am asking the questions of (far more ironic, don't you think?). SethRuebens (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

No the irony is if (and when) this goes to court you would get your way, so wait until it does, and you will get your passage in the article. You have discusses it, and all you are now doing is just saying the same stuff over and over again, that is not discussing it is wp:badgering, in fact, a year discussing it. And all of your questions have been answered, every one of them, you have been told wp:undue means multiple RS must say it. you have been told that SPS is not RS for this kind of claim wp:blp. You have been told that anything published on your website is not an RS. you have been told it does not matter how many people know about it, what matters is how many RS have reported it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

With respect I have asked questions on the reliable sources noticeboard about Bglobal that were never answered, before I got banned the first time round. And as for 'anything published on my website is not a RS', I would ask why: I have republished references and links to reliable and independent sources who support me or have referenced the news. I don't want to waste your's or other editor's time, though (as much as I don't want to waste my own). I'll maintain my absolute belief that the article is, in its current state, inaccurate and and does not represent all majority and significant minority views that have been published on the matter. My fight for justice outside Wikipedia will go on. SethRuebens (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would something that is published by you not an RS about you? Really? We have no way of knowing if you have edited those "testimonials" or if indeed they are even real, can you really not understand that? As to your last statement, is that is not a clear statement you are wpnothere nothing will be. We are not here to wep:rigthgreatwrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

SethRuebens This noticeboard is for issues surrounding conduct, rather than content matters. You have asked a number of times why nobody has addressed the BGlobal article, so I've left a comment on the article's talkpage with my tuppence worth on that matter. I know it's not what you want to hear, but I hope that it will at least partially explain why people appear to be so averse to accepting your proposed changes: in short, what you are trying to do is not how we write articles. Instead of accepting the judgement of multiple experienced editors who have reviewed your sources and found that they do not meet the requirements for content of this nature, you are accusing them of being a clique who are acting in bad faith to frustrate you: that combativeness, and the fact that you keep bringing up sources which you have been told repeatedly that we cannot use (like a Change.org petition or an open letter published on your website), is why people are losing patience with you and calling for you to be banned. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

SlaterstevenHow can I possibly have edited a 3 page magazine article that was printed and published last year (not by me!) and distributed nationally/internationally? Or the posts made by Industrial Scripts to their 50,000 users?? Or the University of Westminster’s website??? In terms of the other testimonials, links to which I’ve posted on my own website, the suggestion that I have edited these to benefit myself is absurd (just check the links provided). Any suggestion that I could or would have edited the letter in support, from a world- renowned subject expert (who gave me permission to re-publish it), is also, quite frankly ridiculous.

Don't forget, I am not hiding my identity here, Slatersteven: alongside writing and editing, I am a lecturer and teacher who has volunteered for NSPCC campaigns, nationally, and coached children’s sports voluntarily. Why would I risk my career and a clean criminal record by falsifying documents and sharing them publicly? It makes absolutely no sense. The people involved would have attempted to sue me for libel or get me arrested!?!

For the record, I’ve even offered to share the original magazine article (in PDF format, provided by the publisher) and the email and letter from Mukherjee on WP:SHARED and remain happy to do so. As stated the other links can all be verified. It's seems, for some, that's it's far easier to spread mistruths and try and get me banned rather than look into the matter and accept the fact that it's not just me reporting it, but a number of independent and reliable sources. SethRuebens (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it, how do we know you really are Ben Krushkoff? You might actually be some enemy of his trying to embarrass him by making a pest of yourself on Wikipeida. EEng 11:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would you do what you are doing here, which is not exactly looking good for you right now? And by the way not only have you sock puppeted (which is hiding your ID) you are not in fact using your real name, and have described what happened to you as "outing". So yes it might well be you tried to hide who you were until you were (in your words) "outed". We do not know, nor can we confirm anything, that is why we need RS to report it. THis is my last word here, its clear there is a consensus here for sanctions, and nothing you have said indicates you get or care about why people are saying this. This should really be closed now.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and feedback, Girth Summit. I will respond, if I'm still allowed to (!), later, but I'm glad to see someone has actually taken the time to read the article and provide some constructive thoughts, as opposed to jumping in with a blanket criticism of the sources provided (and note I'm not suggesting Change be used as a reference, but the fact that 2,000 people have signed a letter of support clearly indicates this matter is of societal significance).

EEng#s hilarious, but am sure the Arbitration Committee can confirm it's me based on the email I used to communicate with them. Debating an article that thousands of people clearly think is inaccurate, and that involves my own work and reputation, will never embarrass me, in spite of the hounding and lawyering. Article 27 of the UN Charter of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

It's obvious what parties should be embarrassed here and I'm not one of them. Regards, Ben. SethRuebens (talk) 12:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Joe jobs always say that. EEng 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven Fair enough, but I still see this as you (and others) leading a posse trying to sanction me, as opposed to finishing the debate to a fair and reasoned conclusion. Just as below and the comments on the Industrial Scripts reference: you've asked if there's a COI with them, which I've answered there isn't, and then have gone silent. They are subject experts, a reliable and independent source, who have been proven to have reported on the case to their 50,000 followers. Given that they're one of a number of sources to have done so (University of Westminster, BGlobal, other subject experts and academics), I can see no reason why it's a bad look to point this out and let people know (via the talk page) that the article doesn't accurately represent all views. You also haven't responded to the logic in suggesting that I could have altered people's posts, which I responded to and is blatantly preposterous. Anyway...

If I have to wait for further references to come to light, then so be it. I'll bide my time, edit some other articles in the meantime, and wait (Should I not be banned). However, taking away my right to debate and talk about the article on its talk page is akin to stopping me participating in the cultural life of the community and taking away my right to protect my moral interests resulting from a literary production of which I am the author. It is, in other words, a breech of human rights. Well done. SethRuebens (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You have no human rights to edit any website. Your "right to debate" is protected from interference by public authorities, which Wikipedia is not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I consider Wikipedia to be a valued part of cultural life of the community I live in; the one we all do. I am quite sure that committee members and the site founder would agree that it should adhere to the UN Declaration of Human Rights (just as Sky UK say they do, but are ignoring for the sake of profit). I'll have a look to see if it's enshrined in any policy documents, at some point. Thanks SethRuebens (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

You would be incorrect. The site's stance can be summed up at the essay WP:FREESPEECH. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand and accept that I don't have the right to edit here if I've broken the rules (but I had been allowed to edit the talk page here, as well other articles, prior to doing so). However, with the article remaining 'as is' Wikipedia is also infringing on my rights as set out in the UN charter, just as Sky UK are: I, like anyone, has the basic right to the protection of the moral interests resulting from any artistic production of which I am the author. And I have been acknowledged as being such by the UK's leading Creative Writing faculty, at the time, and a number of others. If people think I'm embarrassing myself, or am being (unintentionally) annoying to others by trying to defend these moral rights, then sorry, but not sorry. I'll leave it at that. SethRuebens (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The UN charter or Declaration of Human Rights are not legally binding documents on individuals or private entities. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No all of the above is what the courts are for, not Wikipedia, and that is where he needs to take this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: AFAIK the UDHR is not legally binding on anybody, including governments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

They are, however, the universally accepted moral principles or norms that apply to a human's rights (which 'are commonly understood as the inalienable, fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being'). If you don't think that Wikipedia or corporations should respect human rights, then that's down to you. Personally, I do. SethRuebens (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but it becomes really hard to take a discussion seriously anymore when the UN's Human Rights Declaration is cited at ANI to excuse misbehaviour. I must admit it's the first time I've seen it here, though. I suggest acquainting yourself with the right to remain silent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

SethRuebens There is no human right to edit any website and no human right to enter private property and speak your mind; I can't enter your residence against your will and do or say what I wish there. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbor-treeish break

• Support ban as timesink editor using Wikipedia to further an external dispute. Only today they claimed here that Just as there are references to sources who are reporting my certainty that my work was taken and used without my permission (BGlobal, Industrial Scripts and others). The Industrial Scripts claim relates to a single social media post which says Is this "arguably the biggest case of intellectual property (IP) fraud in the history of television"? Ben Krushkoff thinks so.... and links to one of SethRuebens' websites without taking any stance on whether the posed question is true or false. FDW777 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

So, a world leading script editing company, a 'reliable source' (subject experts), posts a reference to the case to 50,000 followers 'independently' - I don't even know them and didn't ask them to - yet this is not somehow reliable and independent? (they also referenced'staggering' and 'non-coincidental' elsewhere, btw). You're basically confirming my point, here, yet suggesting I get banned in the same post. OK. SethRuebens (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The only claim that these are "independent" comes from YOU, which, automatically makes them NOT independent. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not a claim, it's a fact: I have no sway over two academic faculties, the world's leading script editing company and a respected business magazine's editorial staff. Believe what you like, but please don't write mistruths. SethRuebens (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of COI with the world's leading script editing company?Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have never worked for them, have no personal relationships with anyone who works there (or any of its directors) and didn't ask for the link to be shared. SethRuebens (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no sway over... That's nice, but irrelevant: You -- yes, YOU -- are the one claiming that you are getting this support. You. YOU ARE THE SOURCE OF BOTH THE CLAIM AND SUPPOSED SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIM. YOU. You can't even get the Daily Mail interested in your claim. --Calton | Talk 11:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support action. If this person believes as they do, then they need to pursue that in the proper forum, which is not Wikipedia. They don't really seem to be here for any other purpose. If they are interested in editing in other areas, a complete topic ban from this matter might suffice, but otherwise a NOTHERE block may be needed. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The clause which claims that the Butterworths created Britannia is disputed by thousands of people (academics, experts, Joe Public and myself). It is highly pertinent to the article and already was agreed it could be discussed by the Arbitration Committee. Without a reference to the fact, how does the article accurately represent all majority and significant minority views? SethRuebens (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Weird how this "widespread abuse" supposedly opposed by thousands of people, including academic experts, has somehow escaped the attention even of the Daily Mail, nor have these academic experts spoken out on their own -- and no, scanning pieces of paper and putting the images up on your website is NOT them speaking out, it's you, the guy trying to sell the world on your claims, trying sell the notion those unverified and unvetted pieces of paper as evidence.

You've claimed some of this "proof" i being "republished" on your website, yet you have completely avoided the question of WHERE they published in the first place, And I do mean published, not typed out and printed out: published. In a journal, newspaper, etc, NOT your dodgy website, places (plural) independent of you. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is about an article written by a well-respected IP and business journalist, printed and published in Bulgaria (which is in the EU), and distributed nationally and internationlly: BGlobal; #1; 21.08. - 20.09.29; pp 123-125; BGlobal Media Ltd; EAN 9770273869611. Likewise, the user above has linked to a reliable source posting news of this to their 50,000+ followers, and there's the link to the University of Westminster's Law Faculty newsletter (published online).

When have I written this involves "widespread abuse"? This is about a small group of people and the unauthorised use of my work. Over two thousand people have signed the petition supporting me, which is also easy enough for you to verify (so not 'supposedly' at all).

Your above post is a total misrepresentation of the facts. Why would you do that? SethRuebens (talk) 08:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

PS. The fact that Sky spend millions in advertising in the UK press, and that this involves another media house (News UK), is it any wonder that the UK media are reluctant to print a piece exposing those responsible, that pits a foreign sounding individual against a much revered British playwright? The Daily Mail is no long considered a reliable source by Wiki, anyway, right??? It doesn't change the fact that it's the accepted academic opinion that my work has been heavily plagiarised, and news of this has been featured in reliable and independent sources. SethRuebens (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Brittania and its talk page, and from discussion of that TV show anywhere, broadly construed. If multiple reliable sources report on what this editor is obsessed with, then other editors can add it to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support T site ban (as an involved editor) I have no idea what Arbcom thought when they unblocked a pure SPA whose only reason to be here is to push a (BLP busting) agenda, and it would be nice if we could see the reasoning. Thus I am unsure just a TBAN is any good, as they are not here to do anything but fight for this claim to be added (so will in effect be a full ban anyway, so why not give them one?). They have refused to listen, when policy has been explained to them, and have exhibited a total battleground mentality. In fact, they have breached (as far as I can see) a number of policies. All to try and get us to include a claim, that no significant RS has deemed note-worthy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Changed to Tban as they have expressed a desire to edit elsewhere, that might be for the best.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• And given the UN bullshit and their "right to fight" I think now a full suite ban is in order, it's practically a manifesto they will continue to fight for their rights here. Why has this not been closed now?Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban. We've already had one Bogdanov Affair; we do not need another. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 09:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that my name ends in +off/ov is pretty much where any link to The Bogdanov Affair starts and end. They were accussed of taking someone else's work and faking PHD's. I am the one who academics, experts and thousands of people believe has had his work taken. But sure, I am off part Eastern European heritage, so guess that makes me somehow a bad person or a fraud. SethRuebens (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support (at minimum) topic ban (involved) SethReubens's is WP:NOTHERE. Nothing has changed, there is simply no credible sourcing here, and he is simply using Wikipedia to try to enhance the credibility of his widely ignored claims. This has been an enormous time sink spanning almost exactly a year now. Enough is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • On further reflection Support site ban outright. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The article in Bglobal (reliable and independent) wasn't published until August 2020, and was not part of the original edits. As for them being widely ignored, just because the MSM in the UK/US hasn't picked up on them yet, doesn't mean they've been ignored. Academically, they haven't (I've lectured on the case, as confirmed by the University of Westminster, and been supported publicly by a number of academics). They haven't by society either (hence 2,000+ people have signed the petition in my favour). I'm not trying to change the article myself; but taking away my right to discuss it on the talk page is in breech of what the Arbitration Committee have allowed me to do and also, I'd argue, goes against my basic human rights. If you don't want to join in, then don't (nobody is forcing you to). SethRuebens (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban as a completely uninvolved editor who's just wasted about an hour trawling through the history of this... 'dispute' - community time and energy is better spent elsewhere. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 17:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is the umpteenth time the user has claimed some kind of (specific) permission to discuss this matter. I think we need to know what they were told by Arbcom, exactly what the terms of their unblock were. As I find it hard to believe Arbcom would (in essence) say "you can ignore wp:forum and just discuss this in any way you like", if they did we need to be made aware of it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is the Arbcom announcement. The "archived discussion" consists solely of a link back to the announcement, so it all seems to have taken place in email, I presume. Schazjmd (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I checked that, It is why we need Arbcom to say what was agreed, as I find it hard to believe they would have given blanket permission to treat a talk page like a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this is an exact copy of the body of the email (I've withheld the committee member's name who sent it, as I don't know whether that would be permitted):

The Arbitration Committee has been discussing your appeal and we have come to a consensus to grant your appeal subject to conditions, specifically:

1. You are restricted to one account

2. You are restricted from editing Britannia (TV series but you will permitted to edited the associated talk page

3. You must comply with the COI disclosure guideline - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI

Please let us know if these conditions are acceptable, and if so, which account you will be using. Also note that an on-wiki record will be made of these restrictions.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee (...) SethRuebens (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Siteban It's incredible the time we spend on stuff like this. It's perfectly obvious this guy's here to push his own personal and (likely) financial interests. There's zero possibility that he can contribute usefully. Full site ban and be done with it. EEng 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support ban per EEng and Allie. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  When a user starts citing the "UN Declaration of Human Rights" to support their "right to protest" in the form of editing Wikipedia articles to promote their personal/financial interests, my support for a site ban only grows stronger. WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTADVOCACY etc. Seems like a nice person, but their purpose is not compatible with the purpose of Wikipedia, and thus are a WP:TIMESINK as far as Wikipedia is concerned. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban or just a TBAN if there's interest in doing something other than self-promotion. This editor is wasting our time. I'm also concerned they're working with BillsonBobletian. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Tban just in case he's actually able to constructively edit in other topics, but given he constantly brings up the fact that he got "2000+ signatures" on a Change.org petition as if that proved notability, I'm afraid there might also be some WP:CIR concerns here. —El Millo (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban. He's an SPA who's shown himself utterly incapable of understanding or willing to acknowledge anything which contradicts his self-serving spin on policy, guidelines, acceptable behavior, or common sense, really. Given that track record, I CANNOT imagine how he could contribute productively in general, given hs inability to learn anything which isn't self-serving. --Calton | Talk 00:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

From someone who has written a load of untruths about me, the sources being referenced and the nature of the discussion. Fair enough. SethRuebens (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban I was granted permission to re-join the site, this is far different from being "granted permission" to resume a POV battlefield approach to push one's own agenda on the site, and I'm not seeing any change in that regard. — Ched (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban - Per Alfie, EEng and Calton. They have shown zero interest in anything other than pushing their own agenda, the very definition of not being here to build an encyclopaedia. We have wasted quite enough time on these shenanigans already. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• I note that they have still only made one edit outside this one cause (not even subject, just their cause). I still think only a Tban, so they can show they are here to create an encyclopedia and not just use us to strengthen their claim (and I suspect if we did include this that is what they would do use it as a bolster to their claim) in a court of law.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  I can't parse that bit in parens. EEng 16:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  That they are not only interested in just one topic area or even topic (as are most SPA's), but a very specific issue within that topic. That they are here for one reason alone, and that is to promote their grievance against the writers of the show, not even to improve the article itself.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ban, utterly uninvolved admin already worn out by this user's posts all over the place about his pet project. I'd have already implemented it myself if it weren't for the arbcom unblock. It is clear that this editor is not here to contribute productively to this encyclopedia. Maybe there will eventually be coverage of his lawsuit, but there is no consensus right now that there's reliable sourced coverage of his accusation and therefore it does not belong. If he wishes to edit logged out, there's no reason this shouldn't be a violation of his unblock and therefore be reblocked.Star Mississippi 16:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Extended comment given arbs' comments below, it seems that any admin can ban without fear of ArbComm should they see consensus to do so. As I've since !voted, I won't, but my advise to you, SethRuebens is quit digging. Asserting your moral right is another flirtation with no legal threats and further proof that you do not understand the sourcing and cannot navigate your COI and edit responsibly. Star Mississippi 01:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• OP comment The continued arguments by SethRuebens display either an inability or an unwillingness to understand and accept Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. An editor who cannot recognize the difference between reliable and unreliable sources cannot contribute productively, which is why I believe the site ban is preferable to the topic ban. Schazjmd (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Ban, as is obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. What on Earth were Arbcom thinking of by unblocking such an obviously disruptive editor? I think we should be told some time before the next election to that body. Is there a way to ping Arbcom generically, or do I have to contact a member individually, which I prefer not to do because I dislike doing anything that smacks of personal privilege? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  While I can't answer what ArbCom were thinking with this unblock (I was inactive at the time, and I'm unwilling to speak for anyone else), it may be worth clarifying that nothing in ArbCom's unblock gives this editor permission to act disruptively, nor should it be construed as preventing the community from dealing with them accordingly. In particular, taking up contributor time by fighting one's legal battles on the pages of Wikipedia is not behaviour that should be tolerated. – bradv^🍁 18:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: to your other point about pinging: as far as I am aware there is no way to ping the committee. It would certainly be handy but I just can't think of how it would even work. Closest thing we have is emailing the committee, but as you can see you've already got at least some of our attention here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, couldn't you use a group ping template? The FA coordinators have one, {{@FAC}}. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  We could; the arb clerks also do at {{@ArbComClerks}}. It's currently possible to ping all the arbs by including everyone individually on {{re}}, but people don't often do that because it's quite disruptive. If we had an official template, I'd worry about over-use (oh, this is an official option, let's use this for any minor thing). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  @ArbCom:

I created a notification template. I'm a little concerned that this pings a lot of people, but if it ends up getting used frivolously or abusively we can always disable it. – bradv🍁 00:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi everyone. If I were here not as an arb, I would be voting to siteban – indeed, I would've imposed a full site block myself. As an arb, I'll step forward and apologize for this one. I also won't speak for any other arbs, but I voted to unblock because SethRuebens had credibly resolved the sockpuppetry part of block (the sole siteblock reason, in which two accounts were used and convincingly disclosed to ArbCom in the appeal) and committed to avoid further sockpuppetry. In retrospect, I should have voted to deny the appeal, but I think it was a closer case than we can see in retrospect. When ArbCom unblocks a user, especially with restrictions, we aren't trying to confer "immunity" of some kind on the user: my hope is exactly the opposite, that it be treated as a last chance, super ROPE unblock. The instant SethRuebens became disruptive upon return, I would've wanted him blocked without question. That clearly isn't the message that we sent here, especially if admins are saying they would've blocked had we not earlier unblocked, and I'm sorry about that. I take full responsibility for all the trouble this has caused. If anyone has any feedback on how we can better convey it's-a-last-chance-not-immunity message beyond imposing restrictions, please let me know. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @L235: Thanks for explaining this. IMO WP:AC/P is less than clear about what the community and/or admins can/can't do with respect to arbcom blocks/unblocks, and I think it would benefit from some revision. Levivich 20:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

KevinL Please note, I have not set out to be 'disruptive on my return' at all and am sorry that you think this is the case.

Please note I was banned (from what I can recall at the bequest of a user, who I believe had a credible link to one of the opposing parties in this debate), prior to having simple questions answered on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Given that I was specifically allowed to rejoin as an editor and make edits to the talk page of Britannia, I had simply presumed that the debate could continue until it's conclusion. It was never made clear to me by the Arbitration Committee that it couldn't.

Of course, I am not happy that a number of editors have tried to misrepresent the sources I have provided (above and on other pages) and have gone straight for the jugular (i.e. people have been saying it's only me or a website I've made that references this controversy, which is simply not the case, and immediately set out to have me banned again). However, I have noted that some of the editors have come up with one or two valid points that I'm prepared to accept on the matter and will refrain from making further edits on the talk page until the matter is resolved (one way or the other), at least after responding to the last comment made there.

I do, however, stand by my statement above regarding my human rights. Sure, I might not have the right to edit on this site, and it can be taken away from me (fair enough). But the article will be infringing on my moral rights as a creator as set out in Article 27: I have the basic right to the protection of the moral interests resulting from any artistic production of which I am the author. I am supported in my certainty that Britannia was based on my work by thousands of people, including from within academia and the industry. A failure of Wikipedia to recognise these rights would be morally wrong in the eyes of those people, and a growing number of others. Thank you for your time, Ben SethRuebens (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, just because you're not satisfied with the consensus outcome doesn't mean the discussion hasn't concluded. It has, and your continued insistence that you're owed some additional explanation ad infinitum is highly disruptive. 2600:6C60:6A00:1B2:7C23:D112:B70C:1FCC (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am supported in my certainty...

No, you're certain of your support, despite your complete inability to provide hard evidence of actual support.--Calton | Talk 11:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think it bears repeating, as this seems to be a very common misconception even among experienced admins: Arbcom unblocks are not an inoculant against further consequences. What we reviewed here was the aspect we had to review, the checkuser block. Anything that does not require the committee can be done by the community at will. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  I would echo what Beeblebrox said. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you to the arbs who have commented here. My question about this case has been answered perfectly satisfactorily. Maybe some of the more general issues need to be addressed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban This user is using too much community time. They are not listening. This bit about their rights being violated shows a level of ignorance that we just can't be expected to cure. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It is clear from here and this [[219]] that they are going to continue to push this agenda on Wikipedia. That nothing we say (admins, involved editors, uninvolved editors Arbcom) will alter or moderate that desire. It is also clear (with the whole Arbcom unblock) that they will twist whatever they are told to an interpretation that will give them a justification to continue. This has run its course, and nothing more can be added by either side that has not already been said more than once. Can we please close this now as a massive time sink? The consensus is clear and pretty much snowy.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban I've commented on the content and sourcing at the article talk page, so am not in a position to close this discussion, but I concur that the consensus is clear and that this is a time sink. SethRuebens has failed to recognise that every experienced editor who has looked at this has concluded that the sources simply aren't good enough, and has gone from accusing his interlocutors of bad faith attempts to silence him, to claiming that we are infringing his human rights by following our content and sourcing policies. I don't believe that he has any interest in editing articles that aren't about his campaign, and thus support a site ban rather than a topic ban. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 6 July 2021 (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.

Continued disruptive editing, copyright issues, from Kanto7

Kanto7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There has been persistent issues with the editing of Kanto7, most recently with regards to inserting large swathes of unsourced text into article with zero attribution or explanation. (Examples: [220][221][222][223][224].) These edits are very poorly formatted, with strange spaces before punctuation, and what even appear to be picture captions. My guess is that they are pure machine translations, but I can't be sure. On occasion they have noted they were copying off other wikipedias (Spanish, Dutch), but it's possible that they are also copying from elsewhere given this warning for the now deleted Danish Iceland (currently a redirect, perhaps an admin may be able to check a deleted version to confirm). These rare edit summaries, given only during edit wars, seem to be basically all of Kanto7's recent communication, even most of their reverts lack an edit summary. They have received numerous warnings, going back a year regarding communication ([225][226][227][228][229]), edit warring ([230][231]), and the need for sources/attribution ([232][233][234][235]) (examples are non-exhaustive). These mostly go unreplied to, and judging by continuing actions, apparently ignored. (They have replied on their talkpage before, so they do know it exists.) There have been two AN/I cases opened before (December 2020 and February 2021), but no action was taken in either. I'm not sure if this is WP:CIR or a deliberate refusal to communicate, but this disruption has taken up the time of numerous editors across many pages, and as of this third report it is well past the point where some administrative action needs to be taken on the matter. CMD (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning at User talk:Kanto7#Warning regarding collaboration and copying. The edits adding large amounts of text are obviously copied from somewhere but a couple of searches have failed to find them. Interestingly, this edit has seven occurrences of a heading including the bogus text "Edit" (search for "Edit ===" to find them). I propose waiting for a day or two. If there is an explanation or if problems cease, do nothing and wait for next time. Otherwise, block indefinitely with a note that they can be unblocked as soon as they explain their edits and agree to not edit war when others revert them. Feel free to ping me if any developments occur although I should see anything here or at the user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Kanto7 has been a problematic editor from day 1, particularly in their penchant for adding content without sourcing. I had the pleasure of welcoming them with a unsourced content warning ([236]), had to follow up later with an additional note on the lack of sourcing ([237]), and again last month ([238]). A quick perusal of their talk page shows that I'm not the only one concerned about their edits. For someone reverted so often, their use of talk pages is paltry (86% main page versus 7% article talk pages [239]). I think it is time to pull the plug. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree but what about their reply and my subsequent warning at User talk:Kanto7#Warning regarding collaboration and copying? That section could be evidence supporting an indefinite block on the grounds that their English is weak, their editing is problematic (e.g. "Edit ===" above), and thinking that unattributed copying of text was ok despite their talk page is the final straw. On the other hand, they did reply. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

It was a very limited reply that did not remotely allude to the issues of "collaboration" and "repeat contested edits" that you raised. The quite basic issue of WP:V also remains unaddressed. They have now made a small edit to Spanish Guinea which while not an issue in itself, does nothing to address the issues that have been raised with the text they have edit-warred in there. CMD (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

There are also definitely WP:CIR issues. In this edit (which both CMD and I reverted), for example, Kanto7 replaced a large chunk of well sourced content with largely unsourced content (possibly copied from the Spanish wikipedia but unacknowledged). This replacing of content on the engish wiki by copying from other wikis without examining sourcing of either the copied text or the removed text is not only symptomatic of an editor who doesn't understand sourcing but is also a symptom that they can't make meaningful contributions in their own right. Frankly, Kanto7 is just a time sink for other editors. --RegentsPark (comment) 03:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have just reverted another one of this user's edits at Spanish Guinea, where they appear to have replaced sourced content with a largely unsourced unattributed translation from eswiki. I would agree that unless Kanto7 gives a sincere undertaking to stop such disruptive editing that a block of some sort is warranted, if only to prevent a drain on editor time cleaning up after them. firefly ( t · c ) 14:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof - Misleading edit summary, deceptive editing, battleground mentality, personal attacks

In this edit [240], NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote as his edit summary "I disagree with these removals - neither of the sections in question were unsourced or poorly sourced." This was in reference to the two sections "Doxing" and "Credibility" that I removed according to my understanding of WP:BLP. However, NorthBySouthBaranof also reverted four three subsequent edits I made, that had nothing to do with those two sections, and were simply an attempt to re-word this highly embarrassing article for Wikipedia into something approaching an encyclopedic tone. [241], [242], [243], and this experiment gone wrong [244].

I politely asked if he would not self-revert his deletion of my subsequent edits [245]. He declined. [246] Whilst of course simultaneously admitting that he was aware that he removed additional edits that he did not mention in his edit summary. "Your other edits are also at least partially objectionable" - seems to me, a more than partially objectionable justification for reverting someone's good faith edits.

And to cap it all off [247] he makes the ridiculous personal attack/accusation "That you personally want to drive sales traffic of Ngo's book to Amazon is not a permissible use of the encyclopedia". TomReagan90 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to emphasize, that I believe my deletion of those two sections was compelled by my close reading of WP:BLP: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." Having a section on a journalist entitled "Credibility", and then just listing a series of attacks on his credibility - whether accurate or not - is not an appropriate tone for any encyclopedia article, let alone a BLP. TomReagan90 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Given that you have repeatedly refused reasonable requests on the article talk page to justify or explain your proposed changes to the article in question beyond a vague hand-wave at BLP (without detailing exactly what passages and sources you believe violate the policy) and instead ran straight to the dramaboards, I think it's clear to disinterested observers who actually has a "battleground mentality" here.

Introducing external links to a book's Amazon.com sales page is not a minor edit, is clearly an attempt to drive sales traffic, and is clearly prohibited by policy. That you do not like me calling a spade a spade is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

"is clearly an attempt to drive sales traffic, and is clearly prohibited by policy. That you do not like me calling a spade a spade is neither here nor there." - personal attacks continue. if only you knew my political allegiances! As I've said, for the third time now, I only heard of him in the last 18 hours or so, as a result of the Mumford & Sons debacle. So what is it you're accusing me of? Being on Ngo's payroll, or just a fanboy? TomReagan90 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What other reason could you have for including an explicitly-commercial link to buy a book on a particular bookseller's website? Do you just really, really like Jeff Bezos? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That too. We're all in cahoots. TomReagan90 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I described my justification perfectly in my edit summary. I quote it again, now, for the 5th, 6th time? "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." - TomReagan90 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you did not. You removed a 7,000-byte section with a multitude of reliable sources, including the Columbia Journalism Review, The Oregonian, and the literal freaking The New York Times. You removed a 1,000-byte section sourced to two reliable sources, Vox and The Independent. Neither of those sections are unsourced or poorly-sourced. The burden is on you to justify your removal, and by plain sight any editor can see that the material in question has reliable sources. It is not incumbent on other editors to read your mind to determine why you think the material is unsourced or poorly-sourced. If you are not justifying your removal under those terms, then there is no reason to remove it - rather, you should edit it, and explain your edits on the talk page. (And if you did not intend to justify your removal under those terms, why did you cite the "unsourced or poorly-sourced" policy section in your edit summary? It clearly does not apply to either section.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No, the burden is on you according to Wiki Policy. WP:BLPUNDEL Under the heading of "Restoring deleted content": To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Furthermore, in case you didn't catch it the first 7 times: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion... "The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." And most specifically and importantly to the deletion of the two sections ("Credibility" and "Doxxing"): "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." TomReagan90 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't have a "good-faith BLP objection" here - the material is clearly reliably sourced and there are no claims that it is false or misleading. The sections in question do not facially violate BLP. That section of policy is not read to mean that anyone can unilaterally remove entire well-sourced paragraphs of biographical material from any biography merely by crying BLP and demanding that a formal consensus be established for each and every word of a biography. If that was the case, our biographies would be essentially barren.

And again, you keep citing a section of policy about removing material which explicitly applies only to material which is unsourced or poorly sourced. You bolded the wrong section. You just admitted you don't claim the material is unsourced or poorly sourced. Thus, that part of the policy does not apply. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, so state your contention clearly: you believe that having a section entitled "Credibility", that details all the ways in which various people have attacked his credibility as a journalist, is suitable for a journalist's BLP? You believe that? Yes/No? If "No", my removal was correct according to Wiki Policy, and your revert was in breach of Wiki Policy. If you think that is OK, that that is encyclopedic and not in breach of WP:BLP, then please, say so. Yes or No. Very simple Jack. TomReagan90 (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do - I think the fact that a journalist's credibility has been widely disputed, and that certain evidence has been presented in support of those disputes, and that those disputes have been widely discussed in sources including The Columbia Journalism Review and The New York Times, makes clear that the question is certainly worthy of encyclopedic discussion. And if you disagree, the place to have that discussion is Talk:Andy Ngo because ANI does not resolve content disputes. If you can get a consensus of editors that the section is inappropriate, then your position will carry the day and the section will be removed. If you can't, it won't. Very simple Jack. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thankyou for having the honesty (or stubbornness) to stand by your convictions. NorthBySouthBaranof believes the section/sub-heading titled "Credibility" should remain, as is. Stated here for the record. We'll see how that turns out for you. (Tough day at work I gather?) TomReagan90 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Why would I work on a beautiful Thursday? Got girl-drink drunk, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(P.S. neither the Columbia Journalism Review - if the original article ever even existed, no one seems to be able to source it - nor the New York Times article, say anything even close to supporting your preferred wording "Ngo's credibility and objectivity as a journalist has been extensively criticized". Even if those two sources did themselves "extensively criticize" him (which they don't) that still wouldn't support your wording. But I guess that's where you and me differ eh? I won't speculate as to what you do for a living, or make any accusations against you personally as you have done repeatedly to me, all I will do is state the obvious: we clearly have very different standards for what kind of language and what kind of sources should be included and relied upon in an encyclopedia. TomReagan90 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC))

Why don't you just admit that your edit summary was deliberately misleading (containing 6 reverts, not 2), and that my 3 edits were constructive, an improvement, and you had no good faith reason to revert them? If not, tell us, tell us what's wrong with those edits? Are they not written in a much more neutral, encyclopedic tone? Why did you revert them? TomReagan90 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hang on. NBSB you're saying linking a citation to Amazon.com is improper? Can you explain that? Levivich 01:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Does this diff look like a citation to you, Levivich? Because it clearly isn't - it's a prohibited inline external link. Please read before commenting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that looks like a citation to me, in a section called "Bibliography". Since when is linking the title of a work in a bibliography section to Amazon or Google Books or whatever prohibited? Or is it because it's a work by the article subject, is that the issue? What policies are you referencing exactly? Generally, could you please explain your thinking instead of restating your position? Thanks, Levivich 01:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  The original cite had a link to the neutral ISBN template, which has multiple international options to find the work; they reduced it down to Amazon.com (which of course is useless outside the US for everyone else). Linking to one seller of a product clearly violates WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  Have you never read WP:ELNO #15, Levivich? It's right there in black and white - promo inline links to single bookselling companies are deprecated and have been for... decades? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My $0.02: you can put the book in the bibliography - that's not the issue. The issue is that you added it in the form of an external link, something that is explicitly forbidden by WP:AMAZON. And as for the accusation of advertising, I'll assume good faith on your part, since there's no evidence of intentional advertising. MiasmaEternal^TALK 01:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@MiasmaEternal: I personally could give approximately two-fifths of F.A about the linking edit - which I admitted above was an experiment gone wrong... and how in god's name am I supposed to know that such a thing as WP:AMAZON exists?! (I've made 200 edits in like 18 months, such is my Wikipedia career). What I would appreciate comment on from established editors, is the fact that NorthBySouthBaranof deceptively mass reverted my contributions, by attaching a deliberately misleading edit summary, and downgraded the quality of the article - the precious lede in particular - without any justification. He continues to refuse to provide any justification, because it's clear to anyone who looks at the edits, that they are an improvement towards establishing some semblance of NPOV. And he's also accused me three times now of having some personal or financial stake in Ngo TomReagan90 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First time I've seen WP:AMAZON (or WP:ELP)-- thanks for pointing to that. @NBSB nevermind, this was the explanation I was asking for. Levivich 01:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order here. If you're going to remove several sections of reliably sourced content, then you'd better be prepared to explain why exactly they're poorly sourced rather than just copy-pasting long passages of policy and expecting that to suffice. It's also concerning to see accusations of "downgrading the quality of the article" as if their edits are automatically better than someone else's. Judging by their misunderstanding of neutrality, it may be wise for TomReagan90 to stick to less difficult articles, refrain from "experimenting" with adding e-commerce links and avoid mass reverting until they have a stronger grasp of how things work around here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very constructive. Another personal attack. (P.S. It may be boring to read, but Wiki Policy is actually very well thought out, a lot of work has clearly gone into it. Please, just read WP:BLP, the whole thing, and then come back and argue - on the merits of content and policy - what I did was wrong) TomReagan90 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, our polices are well thought out. However, you can't just cite policy and delete something with no further explanation. You must at least explain why the material you removed is a violation of policy, not simply assert that it is. This is what Dlthewave is trying to impress upon you. Simply replying with "read BLP" is not helpful at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed boomerang

I would like to formally propose a boomerang block or ban for TomReagan90. I tried handling their related requests at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, when I and another editor pointed out a fundamental flaw in their argument they responded by removing our posts [248]. From what I can see if we’re talking about "Misleading edit summary, deceptive editing, battleground mentality, personal attacks” then the shoe fits TomReagan90 much better than it fits NorthBySouthBaranof (if it even fits at all). They’re also on the BLP noticeboard complaining about the supposed “clear breach of WP:BLP" over Ngo while at the same time using their user page to host disparaging comments e.g. "fringe publicity hungry hacks” about a living person comparable to Ngo. At a bare minimum they clearly don’t understand our BLP policy and refuse to learn about it, if that refusal to learn continues then the community really has no option other than to find them WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict. I didn't intend to remove your post/s. Look: https://ibb.co/njswzxT That's the article that comes up for me, no mention of Ngo. That's where the confusion arises from. And my User Page is not an encyclopedia article. Standards are very different, I'm sure you'll agree. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

*WARNING: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO OPEN LINK ibb.co just tried to nuke me with malware and is on the known threats list of my institution. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's::::You have identified the source that is being misrepresented. It's blindingly obvious that this editor is doing so, and, rather than using a lousy browser, has edited the output to misrepresent the source. Yes, calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation, and I am being very serious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Back]] (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

ibb.co is an image hosting site. I just checked the link out in a VM and it's fine. That being said, bad actors have used security flaws in the site to propagate malware, and it should probably be added to the blacklist here, for that reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You clearly accessed the right article [249] you just refused to read the whole thing. You knew what the first sentence was (it does not mention Ngo), but then you claimed that there was no mention of Ngo in the article which just isn’t true. WP:BLP applies to *all* pages on wikipedia, including user pages and talk pages. It is the exact same standard. This is looking highly disruptive at this point, either that or we have a WP:COMPETENCE situation in which case you still need to either shape up or ship out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd try refreshing the page, turning off adblock, or even a different browser. For some reason, I couldn't scroll at all the first time I loaded the page. But the CJR source does say discredited provocateur Andy Ngo about 3/4 of the way through the article. Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

In any case, if you come across a reference that you can't access (be it a book you don't own, a paywall you can't afford to pay, a broken link, whatever), the appropriate course of action is never to simply remove the content. You should assume that the editor who wrote that section was able to read the source and use it appropriately. And in this case, they even quoted the relevant passage in the reference! –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. But I am reading a completely different article! It has no mention of Ngo. None. The quote is not found. I can post you the screenshots of every single word. I can copy and paste the text of the whole article. It was not a mistake on my part, or your part, it obviously shows different content to different audiences (many news websites like the BBC, the Daily Mail (well, not really news is it...), etc, do the same thing, automatically, without you being aware of it. You can't assume that the content you have access to in the United States is identical across the globe. TomReagan90 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Here: https://imgur.com/Tz0QVAj You can see from my Search function, Andy Ngo does not appear. TomReagan90 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a minor rendering discrepancy on the right side of that search box. It could be due to a video card issue, but it could also be due to the search box being edited. I'm not confident that it's the latter, but it remains a possibility.

Regardless, Tom got the idea of posting screenshots from me, because I earlier posted a screenshot showing that the name certainly exists in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure it is edited. That same page has "ongoing" in the article twice that should have shown up in the search. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's edited. It's just that he has deselected the edit box and you cannot see the cursor. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts (which is, let's face it, an even money bet these days) that's what's in the edit box is "Ngo[BLANK SPACE]", which would explain it not finding "ongoing"... but also explain it not finding the actual invocation of Andy Ngo in the article, as his name is followed not by a space but by a comma. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's actually the exact possibility I had in mind when I mentioned the possibility that this is just a graphical glitch. Finding a substring in a larger string is such an old and well-tested function that the odds of a browser glitch causing this are virtually null. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support I just encountered this conflict at WP:BLPN. Tom's claim that North's edit summary was misleading was clearly false, and Tom removed sourced content claiming that the source didn't support it, despite the fact that the source is quoted in the citation. Tom claimed the link was dead, then after being shown evidence that it was not, changed his story to claim that the link was not about Ngo, except in doing so, demonstrated that they had, in fact, found the link functional, and found the correct article, but merely refused to read beyond the first sentence, apparently. I don't know whether this is the result of POV pushing or simple incompetence, but in the span of less than an hour, Tom's demonstrated a complete inability to edit controversial articles. A page block or topic ban might be appropriate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you're playing at. You just blanket reverted 15 of my edits. Each of which I gave a precise, policy-sourced justification for in the edit summary. And the article is supposed to be on 1RR. All I've received is accusations of bad faith, lying (I'm not seeing the same article, how many times do I have to say it), and reversion of every single one of my contributions. Fair enough, I'm done, you beat me. I give up. I've lost the will to live. Congrats. Improving the article was obviously of no concern to you, just hounding a presumed, assumed political enemy? (If only you knew my actual political allegiences! Never mind my nationality!). I certainly won't make the same mistake again. Ciao, Ciao! TomReagan90 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban or block per CIR. Even after being told to read the source and where to find the quote, TomReagan90 is still playing dumb and denying that it's there. This editor has no business working on BLPs. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Cheers buddy! (see screenshot above) WP:BITE TomReagan90 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw the screenshot. I'm guessing it's a browser issue, what with the badozens of tabs you've got open, or maybe Chrome being, well, Chrome. Which is why I (politely) suggested refreshing and trying a different browser, but also told you where in the article the quotation was located so that you could actually read it. That you still haven't just, you know, read the article with your own eyes says you're not ready for editing contentious articles like this. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I accessed the article from a New Zealand VPN, Andy Ngo was still there. It was the first time I have ever looked, so not a cache issue. Not sure what to make of it, quite honestly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support block as not here to build an encyclopedia. TomReagan90's userpage is an anti-Wikipedia diatribe containing a glaring BLP violation, which is ironic since this editor claims to be upholding BLP policy, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban or block, they appear to be either unable to read articles accurately, or willing to lie about it, neither thing should be involved in BLPs or Wikipedia in general really. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support block Their recent comments at WP:BLPN, WP:3RR, Talk:Andy Ngo, User:TomReagan90 and here at ANI show that TomReagan90 has no faith in our processes, is not here to build an encyclopedia, and is unwilling to even take the first step towards improvement by acknowledging the issues with their edits.

The whole story about an article displaying differently for users in New Zealand sounds extremely fishy to me but even if we're generous enough to take it at face value, an editor who causes this much drama over a minor source access issue probably shouldn't be editing at all and certainly shouldn't be editing BLPs. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction against TomReagan90. This editor is plainly here to build an encyclopedia (he quotes Wikipedia policy, for heavens’ sake!) and is transparently honest. But he is an inexperienced editor who has wandered into a contentious article, and doesn’t instantly understand how Wikipedia works. Why would he? Wikipedia is a very odd place – which could do with a policy such as ‘assume good faith’. Oh, wait…. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be more inclined to believe that if TomReagan90 showed any inclination to listen to people when they are telling them that they are wrong about the policy. It mostly appears that they are attempting to use policy as a sword to get their way in a content dispute. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between attempting to use policy as a sword to get their way in a content dispute and attempting to apply policy in a content dispute? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It's one thing to be a new editor and blunder into disputes. It's another to almost instantly open a dramaboard thread accusing a longtime, experienced editor of having a "battleground mentality" - when all that editor has done is ask them to justify and discuss their proposed changes to a contentious article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, being a longtime, experienced editor does not make anyone immune from having a “battleground mentality”. I don’t edit American politics because I don’t know enough about it (that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it) but I have a very strong impression that almost everyone who edits American politics develops a battleground mentality after a while, and loses the ability to assume good faith in anyone who disagrees with them on any matter. And your comment makes it sound as if on Wikipedia, all editors are equal – but some are less equal than others.

By the way, I see that the lede has recenly been changed to describe Andy Ngo as a journalist ‘per RFC’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Mostly that they don't seem to care about what the policy actually says or means, just that it might help them get the outcome they want. Seeing as several people have corrected them and they persist with the same incorrect assertions. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps they are just interpreting it in a way which is not informed by deep and lengthy experience of Wikipedia. After all, it is not obvious that on an article which has a 1RR restriction, it is permitted to revert 15 edits at once. I seem to remember reading some discussion somewhere about how unclear it is as to what actually constitutes one revert. I wouldn’t be confident that I would get it right. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody should need any rule to tell them not to tell lies. That is something that most people learn from their parents well before they become capable of editing any web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No. He is not "transparently honest". He is very transparently dishonest. Quoting policy says nothing about anyone's honesty or otherwise, but misrepresenting sources does. The policy on assuming good faith doesn't mean that we accept editors who tell bare-faced lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

What source is being misrepresented? If it’s the article about Nancy Cooper, then I tried it on my own browser (not sure if that’s the right word), and CtrlF found a reference to Andy Ngo buried deep in the article. When I tried it from TR’s link, it came up as nothing found. Having a lousy browser is not the same as being dishonest, and calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

If you're talking about TR's ibb.co and imgur.com links, those are just screenshots of the beginning of the article. CTRL+F (or anything, for that matter) isn't going to find "Ngo". In any case, if you're having trouble accessing a source, you shouldn't be using that as an excuse to revert editors who do, and you certainly shouldn't double down when your error is pointed out. And yes, the accusations against TomReagan91 are quite serious indeed, which is why sanctions have been proposed. –dlthewave ☎ 21:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) You have identified the source that is being misrepresented. It's blindingly obvious that this editor is doing so, and, rather than using a lousy browser, has edited the output to misrepresent the source. Yes, calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation, and I am being very serious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not ‘blindingly obvious’ to me that the source has been deliberately misrepresented. It is perfectly possible that the so-called ‘misrepresentation’ was a technical mistake. And if the source is being obviously deliberately misrepresented, there is no point in doing so, because the supposed misrepresentation would easily be discovered. Your certainty that a lie has been told does not make sense. You need better evidence before you make such an accusation.

It’s late where I am, so I probably won’t reply any more tonight. Thank you to all for your courtesy to me in this discussion.

Sweet6970 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I mean this with all due respect, but the argument that "your evidence must be false, because no one would deceive this way as evidence would be so easily obtained" is sort of like a Joseph Heller pastiche. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I would never attempt a pastiche on such a brilliant book. But I do sometimes feel that when I’m editing Wikipedia, I’m living in it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose TR90 doesn't have a history that says they will be disruptive and it's understandable that a relatively new editor might make some missteps dealing with an article as controversial as the Andy Ngo article. That said, this should be a clear warning to tone it down, slow it down! It might be the case that the editors on "the other side" are biased POV pushing, policy ignoring jerks who just want to make very article... [blah blah blah]. But far more often, far more likely "the other side" is actually a good faith editor who thinks they are working to make the article more impartial and better overall. It's good when a controversial article like Ngo has opposing views so long as everyone makes a good faith effort to follow the rules like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and critically WP:CIVIL. TR90, I think the ball is in your court. Take it break (you decide how long), then start thinking about what you think is wrong with the article. I'm happy to talk about it. I think editors like TFD would be and TFD is a very sharp editor who hopefully would be willing to help you take the things your gut is telling you is wrong and turn it into "wiki-law" (not WP:WIKILAWYER) compatible argument that can be used at the talk page to get things done. Yeah, that means sometimes things go slowly but the alternative is no change. So I oppose with the understanding that this can't repeat. Springee (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment: I wondered why I had his user page on my Watchlist so I had a quick look through his contributions to remind myself and I rediscovered this trainwreck of an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Sarkar. I leave it to others to decide whether this, taken in conjunction with the disparaging comment about Sarkar on his User page, is indicative of an ongoing pattern of disruptive and non-neutral behaviour with respect to politically sensitive BLPs. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • NAC: Not suggesting they're connected in any way, but their behavior on that AfD reminds me of E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs), who pursued the same type of WP:BLUDGEON against vote!rs to force an AfD into their chosen decision. Also, the dispute on the original page is now on AN3. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• NAC: I'm seeing some editors mention WP:CIR in the boomerang. The editor's clearly new; would them being assigned a mentor to teach them policies and provide feedback assuage concerns, or would this prove to be insufficient given other behavioral concerns? This could be coupled with a temporary topic-ban while the user develops skills in other topic areas. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This editor doesn't need to be taught about Wikipedia policies, but simply be taught not to tell lies. That is the job of parents in the first few years of life, not of mentors for adults. It is not Wikipedia's job to rectify such things. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

NAC No, this is clearly someone trying to 'right a great wrong', and these type of editors abuse the noticeboards and processes to try to do so. Their userpage throws up a 'be kind they're new' template...followed by a couple tract rants against admnis with bolding and small blockquote templating that suggests they know exactly what they're doing here. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked from Andy Ngo for three months. TomReagan90's editing of Andy Ngo is highly tendentious. In this edit, they removed the statement that Columbia Journalism Review has described Ngo as a "discredited provocateur" and also removed the source, an article in Columbia Journalism Review which calls Andy Ngo a "discredited provocateur". Their edit summary falsely states that "source doesn't even mention Ngo". Yes it does, and the sentence containing the phrase "discredited provocateur" is even quoted in the footnote itself, if one reads it. Then they go on to put "by whom" templates[250][251] on statements supported by eight sources giving examples of "whom". And so on. I have blocked them from the article for three months. This is per my own discretion; it's not an attempt to close this discussion, in case people wish to come to a more comprehensive determination. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC).

Support siteban, or at the very least a ban from BLPs. If you're deliberately attempting to misrepresent sources to fit a POV, that should be grounds for an immediate ban on editing the topic areas you're doing that in at minimum and the whole site at most. This behaviour is revealing about his actual goals here, and cannot be explained as anything but wilful and malicious ignorance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 08:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban or nothere block - And there are valid reasons to think it is not a new WP user, such as the typical wikilawyering... —PaleoNeonate – 15:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user Fahrurozi.86

• Fahrurozi.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I want to report this user for did not added sources in most articles editing by the user, especially in BLP articles. The user also did not describe the changes in edit summary column in most of user contributions. I already warned the user for multiple times, but the user keep on doing that disruptive edits. Stvbastian (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE behaviour from User:Bhushan m bhandari and also User:Bhushan mohan bhandari

Bhushan m bhandari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bhushan mohan bhandari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two recent blocks have been served under the 'm bhandari' account but still the poor behaviour persists under both accounts. In particular, he still insists on removing the AfD on Dharmathma (1988 film), despite serving two blocks for this behaviour. Annoyingly, he has decided to now do this under the 'mohan bhandari' account, likely because this account has a clean record and will start from the bottom again in terms of block length. Is there any way that these two accounts can be treated as one entity as it is clear that this user is using both accounts to 'game the system' and, when one account gets in too much trouble, he ends up using the other account to vandalise. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

See also WT:WikiProject Film/Archive 77#Tabulated data. I think this editor is trying to help; it may be a case of WP:CIR rather than malicious intent. Certes (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't label this editor's edits as vandalism, they appear to be editing in good faith. But, WP:CIR is definitely an issue here, clearly epitomized by their biography masquerading as a user page and their total non-use of article talk pages (except for 3 instances of removal of talk page headers for unclear reasons). A CIR block is probably warranted here unless someone has a plan for rescuing the editor. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the newer account as a sockpuppet. Doesn't seem to me to be a legitimate alternate accound. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:RedX8

User:RedX8 has been persistently creating Abdullah Sulaiman Al Rajhi, an article they have an admitted conflict of interest on, see User:RedX8. This has been moved to draft at least 3 times, and it has been explained, repeatedly, to RedX8 that they must use the AFC mechanism because of their COI. They have just recreated the article again. The article also contains an image which is a clear copyright violation, which they have uploaded to Commons twice, to avoid scrutiny. They have been given repeated warnings about both the COI edition and the copyright violations on User talk:RedX8. It seems clear to me that they are only here to promote the subject of the article and not to build an encyclopedia, and that they won't stop unless blocked. Laplorfill (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Drawing attention to the recent conversation on my talk page, where RedX8 first claims not to have a conflict of interest. When I show them the COI notice that that they put on their userpage three days ago, RedX8 claims first to have forgotten that, then not to understand what it means. This is a single purpose account whose first edit on en.wikipedia was to add a COI notice on the very subject that they now claim not to have a COI about. I will leave it to experienced admins to draw conclusions about that. Laplorfill (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Complain against user SpacemanSpiff

I was routinely editing pages..... Out of the blues this user SpacemanSpiff comes on my talk page and given me a block threat... admins are being requested to kindly control bullying to new users.. thanks in anticipation DavidWood11 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, SpacemanSpiff IS an admin. A brief look at your (David's) talk page shows multiple warnings by multiple editors. Posting here shines a light on that fact. You may want to consider the idea that if multiple editors have issues with your editing, then perhaps you need to change your editing. So no, I personally won't be talking to SpacemanSpiff about anything he's done since he hasn't done anything wrong. (IMO). Personally I suggest you heed the warnings, but YMMV. — Ched (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That warning is more than appropriate, almost every edit of yours is some sort of POV pushing. I had to bring up your conduct here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065 § User:DavidWood11 – Severe competency issues to which you said you needed time to respond but never did. It got archived and now you are back again after a month with the same issues. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay since DavidWood11 needed more time to respond last time his competency was brought up here, and has now decided to return to this board, perhaps now is a good time to address those concerns. You have had a few months since then to submit your "side in the defense against the allegations as levelled by Tayi Arajakate". HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@DavidWood11: last time you asked for more time and waiting for it to be archived. I think this time we should address the situation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay David, every attempt has been made to communicate with you about these issues. If you want to disappear when the community attempts to communicate with you about them then I will consider those attempts at communication to have failed. I urge you to take Mr. Spiff's warning seriously, I have added your talk page to my watchlist. If you do want to discuss these matters then this is your chance to do so. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Please block this IP

190.141.223.82 has vandalized Sevda Erginci muitple times. Please block this IP address

Ethan2345678 Instances of active and persistent vandalism should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is going on with that article? It's a complete, garbled mess, I've seen machine translations more coherent than that; I have no idea how anyone would determine what's vandalism, it doesn't look possible to make it more of a mess. Trying to think of a reason not to send it to AfD. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are commenting on the results of that vandalism. Here's the version from the article before the edits today, and, while short, it doesn't look like a complete mess. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

RGW by User:Crowell78 on Bill Cosby

Hi Crowell78 (talk · contribs) is engaged in WP:TE on the Bill Cosby article repeatedly adding non consensual content to the lede. I warned the user here. I would have taken it as a content dispute until I noticed today that the user is also reverted HawaiianHulaLog (talk · contribs) comments on the talk page here. TrueQuantum (talk · contribs) has also I think attempted to discuss the content with the user on the talk page Talk:Bill_Cosby#allegations_should_be_mentioned_in_lede. Its a pretty vanilla content dispute (not a bad one even), but the user should not just TE the content into the lede and then revert user's talk page comments. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute that's being discussed on the Bill Cosby talk page. There are several editors on there who believe that the accusations against Cosby deserve to stay in the lead as they have for a while, but TrueQuantum keeps removing it. So I'm afraid this is a disingenuous and misleading report by Jtbobwaysf.

As for HawaiianHulaLog, the editor is obviously here just to troll. That's why I reverted them. And I actually thought about reporting them. As can be seen by their contributions, they are making wildly sarcastic comments on talk pages about how all men are rapists and all women should be believed, etc. Their post prior was oversighted by an admin because it was so ludicrous and defamatory/libelous. Pinging Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) who reverted them, and TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) who warned them before they made the latest post on the talk page. --Crowell78 (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Btw, for clarity, if we're going by consensus which is what I think was meant here, it's 4 (Asaprocky, IP, Jpcase and DeCausa) in favor of keeping it in the lead, against 2 (TrueQuantum & Jtbobwaysf). Also TQ acknowledged on the TP that the consensus seemed to be in favor of keeping it in the lead and yet afterwards proceeded to remove it again.

All this mind you because of one measly sentence that summarizes in a neutral manner a key aspect of the body and the subject's notability as covered in RS, but yet doesn't even illustrate the severity and uniqueness of the allegations (50+ women and nearly all drug-facilitated sexual assault). --Crowell78 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't hold reverting HawaiianHulaLog's comments against anyone. Pure trolling, and I'd love to see a ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• There's a certain poetry in someone repeatedly adding non consensual content to Bill Cosby. EEng 21:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ugh, that's dark, EEng. El_C 05:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  But you laughed -- admit it. EEng 10:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hold on, let me read from this index card: I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to x me... El_C 11:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Even with the card there can be slipups. [252] EEng 18:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  That dog can sell anything. El_C 21:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just no. It looks like a couple editors have taken the Cosby conviction being overturned to try to remove other negative material from the lead and then accuse those restoring it of "righting great wrongs". The material in question in this particular case is information about whether to mention the allegations (not the conviction, but the many allegations that of course were not litigated). Crowell78 didn't add that material but rather restored it after TrueQuantum et al. repeatedly removed it. If there is POV-pushing going on, it doesn't appear to be Crowell78. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Just noting here that HawaiianHulaLog has been WP:NOTHERE blocked by Bbb23, which is a move I support and would've probably either gone the DS route of a topic ban from BLPs or blocked outright based on the latest comment had I seen it first. I believe holding the revert of their edits against anyone to not be the right course of action; I have revdel'd it as I did their last one yesterday. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Here because I was pinged. My involvement was one post to the talk page thread where the three editors involved have been getting into it. I can’t see that Crowell78 has been engaged in TE or RGW. This is just a content dispute which is somewhat heated. TrueQuantum and the OP, Jtbobwaysf, seem to believe that the overturning of the conviction should result in the stripping of all the allegations from the lead. Crowell78 believes they are still relevant to the lead. (My personal opinion is that TrueQuantum and Jtbobwaysf have a strong POV which they are trying to push through per Rhododentrites’ post above.) My post on the talk page made the simple point that those allegations were in the lead and had consensus support as not UNDUE back in 2018 before the conviction and I don’t see the conviction and its overturning alters that as there was no implication for the other allegations. (Although, to be clear, the overturning should be added). Crowell78 reverting HawaiianHulaLog’s post seems fine as that user was obviously trolling. This should be closed with a trout for Jtbobwaysf and instruction for everyone to calm down. DeCausa (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'm here because I was pinged and seem to be discussed as participating in a dispute. There is no dispute here in my perspective. I really couldn't care less about Cosby and am not seeking to push any personal POV. I simply want to follow our shared BLP guidelines and take into account the spirit of WP:BLPCRIME. The lede in 2018 was accurate and objective because Cosby at the time was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers in a court of law and convicted of aggravated indecent assault. But now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has overturned Cosby's conviction. That means that according to American jurisprudence Cosby is now presumed innocent. There is already whole entire sections in Cosby's biography that discuss all 60+ accusations in detail. But the lede is an especially sensitive place for a BLP. To argue that everything that was in the lede when Cosby was found guilty should still be there now that he is legally presumed innocent is contrary to our policies. It seems to be POV pushing to argue that nothing should change here when this is a monumental shift. TrueQuantum (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Just as a point of order: it does not mean he's "presumed innocent," it just means the process used to convict him was tainted & the conviction is no longer valid. Innocence & guilt are no longer relevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  You should actually research what you are saying here. Whenever any citizen for any situation is not found guilty, or if that guilty conviction is overturned, then that citizen is quite as a matter of fact PRESUMED INNOCENT. This is the basic foundation of a free and fair democratic society. Literally nobody is "found innocent" in a court of law because everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The only places where this is not true is probably North Korea and the former Soviet Union. TrueQuantum (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  No, you should cite that, since it's not true. Presumption of innocence has a specific meaning in legal terms, and you're stretching it beyond that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Oh for heaven's sake, it absolutely is true -- for formal purposes as far as the law is concerned. That doesn't mean we, in our article, can't recite the background facts, the fact that he was convicted, why the conviction was overturned, and so on, leaving the reader to make of it what they will. EEng 05:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @TrueQuantum: What you said about the lede in 2018 is irrelevant to my point, if it was in answer to that. I was referring to the lead as it was immediately before the conviction in 2018. Before his conviction, there was a paragraph in the lede on the allegations against him, which were not subject to his conviction and overturning. The overturning of the conviction has no bearing on that. 17:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• As DeCausa and Crowell78 have noted in their comments above, consensus had been in favor of including the accusations in the article's lede before Cosby's conviction had even occurred, and current consensus is in favor of continuing to include these accusations in the lede. In fact, upon looking through the Cosby article's history, I'm noticing that the accusations were included in the lede at least as early as 2015 - before Cosby had even been charged. If the accusations were notable enough for the lede at a time before Cosby had even gone to trial, then they should certainly still be notable enough for the lede now. The fact that Cosby went to trial and had his conviction overturned doesn't make the accusations against him less notable than they would be had he never faced trial in the first place. --Jpcase (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (3rd nomination)

Moglix has been deleted multiple times since 2016. It has recently been nominated (once again) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (3rd nomination).

To give a background on how this specific iteration got to the deletion nomination, Hayema K made the page for Moglix in the article space. Celestina007 moved the article to the draft space, telling [253] the article's re-creator that the article did not match the verifiability standards. Hayema K proceded to add sources, remove the AfC tag, and move the draft into the mainspace without going through the AfC process. After seeing the article in the mainspace DJRSD tagged the article with a potential undisclosed paid editing notice and nominated the article for deletion.

Several editors, including me, participated in that nomination discussion. Today, Hayema K made a !vote for keep, but also pinged three specific editors who had participated in prior discussions on the topic: Cunard, David in DC, and CNMall41. Hayema K stated that the aforementioned editors may want to give their opinions here as well.

It's pretty clear why only three editors were picked from prior discussions—the pinged editors had !voted to keep the page in previous deletion discussions, and were the only three to !vote in favor of keep in the most recent deletion discussion:

• Cunard placed a keep !vote in both the first and second deletion discussion
• David in DC placed a keep !vote in both the first and second deletion discussion.
• CNMall41 placed a keep !vote in both the first and second deletion discussion.

In fact, these three were the only ones who !voted for keep in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination).

There were four editors that commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) that !voted for delete/speedy delete. Hayema K has not pinged any such editors.

From the above, the actions above Hayema K show a clear intent to stack the discussion in their favor, by selecting only editors whose stance on the issue is known and lean keep. In my view, this shows that Hayema K is currently here to WP:WIN, rather than to build an encyclopedia.

In light of the above, I propose that Hayema K be:

1. Topic banned from deletion, broadly construed, for a period of 1 year and
2. required to submit articles they create through Articles for Creation for review, until the user becomes extended-confirmed.

— Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging other editors from previous discussions is not canvassing. However, being that Hayema K pinged only those they sought favor with, I would agree with Mikehawk10 and support the recommendation on this. There is also a strong smell of WP:COI and possibly WP:PAID with Hayema K. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Calm down 1. Topic-banning a brand new user from everything to do with page deletion over a single questionable edit would be an overreaction. Don't WP:BITE and so on. 2. All COI editors are required to go through AfC by default so we just need to make this new user aware of that existing requirement (as well as the requirement to disclose their COI). There's no need for any tailor-made sanctions at this time IMO; instead, an attempt to educate the user should be made and only if that fails should we be looking into other options. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The user is not new unless they are extremely fast on the uptake of rules and policies and general wikilingo. While it is a vague possibility, it's far more likely they either went from an IP account to a named account, made a new account, or do a lot of lurking (enough so that they should definitely know better than to canvass). Jcmcc (Talk) 13:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor who nominated the article for deletion also did some inappropriate canvassing (by pinging specifically the two editors who "recently declined the article"[254]) and even though two wrongs don't make a right, it's hard to ignore the fact that Hayema's canvassing merely restored the balance, if you will. They do seem to be a quick study, as you noted; it's therefore not unreasonable to believe that they arrived at the idea of pinging other editors who are likely to be sympathetic to their cause by looking at what the afd's nominator did; sanctioning them for it would be ridiculous. Instead, they need to be made aware of the fact that they followed a bad example. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging only editors who voted the way you want the current discussion to go is surely an effort to stack the vote. And, at least circumstantially, this looks like an editor who knows our rules, rather than an a actual new editor who deserves bite-insurance.

I think some consequence is required, to teach this editor and to protect the project.

I take no position on whether the proposed consequence is too harsh, nor on the article in question. I hardly edit any more and defer to folks who do on those questions David in DC (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Having closely examined this saga, what I can say is I do believe it does our reputation a disservice, what message are we trying to pass across by voting to retain a possible COI article on mainspace? If an editor has a COI with their creation then they ought to know to pass it through the AFC process and not try to circumvent it and if/when circumvented it is behoove of senior editors to correct such. I really do not think we should be actively encouraging such behavior. It’s a slippery slope. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• No this is not a "new" user: their contributions show that immediately after becoming autoconfirmed, they plonked down a well formatted article about their favorite company Moglix [255]. The editor then comes to the AfD discussion and expresses, in perfect wiki fluency, I don't believe it qualifies for WP:G4. The 2nd discussion took place around 4 years ago and the topic has since received an abundance of significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG with ease. That's the typical behavior of UPE editors. AGF and BITE are not a suicide pact. JBchrch talk 12:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• And now there is an SPA IP (who also commented above), making accusations of me being disruptive. Sigh. Would request someone take a look and if I am disruptive, sanction me. If not, please block this editor as WP:NOTHERE. At this point, this is wasting too much of volunteer editors' time playing whack a mole with people trying to use Wikipedia to promote this company. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Your re-addition of the coi template to an article where it no longer serves any useful purpose (because the issues have been resolved) in an edit which also re-introduced several other issues, such as decapitalizing the first letter of one of the sentences (diff) was unambiguously disruptive and referring to me as an SPA (even though I'm clearly not, one look at my contributions is enough to determine that) constitutes a personal attack, but I oppose any sanctions. Instead, everyone should calm down and focus on what's best for the encyclopedia. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ortizesp topic ban

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

---

I was under the impression that Ortizesp (talk · contribs) was under an indef topic ban related to page moves (i.e. not moving pages without using RM). So was Ortizesp. This all flows from a series of unfortunate events, detailed at:

1. May 2019 ANI;
2. June 2019 ANI; and
3. August 2019 ANI.

The second ANI report did actually result in a two-month topic ban, introduced by @Kudpung:.

Anyway, I recently approached Ortizesp about requesting a loosening the topic ban. But if he isn't even under one, it's all immaterial...can anybody clarify whether or not he is? If not then great (although I still suggest he uses RM for all but clear cut/non-controversial moves to prevent further issues!), if so then I think it's time we discussed changing it. GiantSnowman 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• It doesn't look to me like they have any topic ban, GiantSnowman. An indefinite topic ban from page moves was proposed here (by yourself), but, by my count, didn't get consensus, nor was the discussion closed. So the two-month ban, long since expired, appears to be all of that nature that they ever had. This is supported by the fact that I don't find the username here nor here. Bishonen | tålk 20:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC).

Thanks for confirming my suspicions - in which case @Ortizesp: you are free! GiantSnowman 11:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thanks! @GiantSnowman:--Ortizesp (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2021 (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.

Please block this IP address

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.

---

86.129.94.255 has vandalized Wikipedia for a while now. They have added fake informations to various pages. Ethan2345678 (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

They seem to be adding highly pov commentary into articles. I have reverted a few qualifiers added by this user like "nazi recruited" and "pro-nazi" applied to various subjects. This seems to be a nationalist POV pusher. Given my reversion of their content changes I will leave it to another admin to decide if on the block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reviewed it, and it looks worth a block to me, so I'll block the IP for 3 days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

At least we got one good edit from them. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:28, 6 July 2021 (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 Katya1202x

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 Katya1202x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made personal attacks on their talk page on two occasions [1][2], I asked them to stop [3]; they removed the message without responding. Today, after being reverted by another user for adding incorrect information to an article, they went to that user's talk page and made another personal attack [4]. DanCherek (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor has made nine edits so far. One of them was a copyright violation which required rev deletion, and three of them have been obscene personal attacks. I considered an indef, but have decided to give them one chance to shape up: blocked for a week, with a warning that the next time will likely be indef. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (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.

Logged out vandalism has started @Midakanatti

Please look at the page Midakanatti which was heavily disturbed by the locals of that place and the main user was blocked recently. But now logged out disturbance has started. KINDLY PLEASE PROTECT THE PAGE BY not allowing IPs to edit.--Msclrfl22 17:04, 7 July (UTC)

I've requested page protection here. In the future, you can request page protection through Twinkle, by going to the TW in the editing toolbar, and choosing RPP. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitary editing and confrontational attitude by User:Bluerules

• Bluerules (talk · contribs)
• AnyDosMilVint (talk · contribs)

I just wanted to point out that Bluerules (talk · contribs) is unilaterally deciding what is superfluous and what is not, and is overall acting as though they own the article. The heavy text trimming was started by the user, not by me.

This is the article: [256] I don't want to engage in edit war so I'd rather tackle it here before it escalates any further. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute. Have you tried discussing it with the user on the talk page? See steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

AnyDosMilVint, both of you have already edit warred: please take a close look at WP:EW and WP:BRD. You added a load of stuff - that's a Bold edit. Bluerules disagreed with the additions, and Reverted your additions. The next stage is discussion, but neither of you have used the talk page yet. I suggest you go over there, and start a discussion about whether the content (which I haven't looked at) is appropriate for the page. If you can't agree, as ProcrastinatingReader suggests, you should take a look at the options in dispute resolution. A report here is very premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm editing the talk page. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

For context, this article once had an overlong plot section. I was the editor who trimmed the section to meet the length guideline. I am not opposed to further edits that improve the page - [the edits made by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creep_2&type=revision&diff=1032343959&oldid=1032300485] AnyDosMilVint (talk · contribs) have not been helpful. They include character interpretations/speculation, real world information, original research, and misleading details. A talk page has been set up and I'll see where it goes from there. Bluerules (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Threat of physical harm by User:CancerCunsellor

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.

---

Does this need attention? [257]. Courtesy ping Alexbrn. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Its been removed but any threat of violence should earn a ban.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

They've already been solipsism-blocked for it. A ban at this point would be unnecessary; I don't think they're going to be allowed back even assuming they're not some LTA sock. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 10:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I assume it's one of our less pleasant LTAs. A CU would be helpful. Acroterion (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2021 (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.

I should not for posterity the sockmaster appears to be Frional Leeman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), given the same use of song lyrics in edit summaries and focus on Alexbrn. Cases should probably be merged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Brigading or Meatpuppetry response

I couldn't find a more appropriate place to put this; I almost started an SPI, but the accounts came so quickly and had such diverse start dates, that it looks more like a concerted organized attempt to subvert consensus at Julia Salazar by multiple seemingly well organized users. In 2018-2019, there was a lot of edit-warring and bad faith accusations and many now-blocked accounts were involved in an ongoing fracas to either delete the page or include weasel words that violated BLP and BLPCRIME, and give undue weight to fringe claims, call her a liar and insinuate she was a criminal in Wikipedia's voice, etc. The issues were solved, some on the talk page, some via SPI, and some here at ANI two years ago and the page has been largely stable.

Then, last week the "she's only famous for lying" crowd came back:

1. 11:58, 30 June 2021‎ 74.64.43.66
2. 12:03, 30 June 2021 Competitionlawnerd
3. Because these happened within 5 minutes of each other, and dealt with the same issues, I left the named account a warning about editing while logged out with no accusation of bad faith but also warned them about adding poorly sourced info. They immediately deleted both notices, so at this point I had no reason to think that CLN wasn't the same user as IP 74.64.43.66.
4. CLN re-added both their comments and 74.64.43.66's as well as starting a conversation as requested on the Talk page

Here's where it gets interesting and seems so well coordinated, and why I stopped responding on the article talk page and why I'm choosing not to put ANI notices on the involved editors, because I had been harassed and hounded by some of these same types of editors from this page in the past. They are hewing very close to the rules and not making any individual violations, but nevertheless, the weight of the circumstantial evidence and timing seems clear something was afoot and I waited to see how many more accounts would show up.

1. within 20 minutes Bowmerang shows up and agrees
2. Competitionlawnerd comments again and agrees with Bowmerang by name
3. later that night Egawaryuki21 comments and agrees by name

This would not be that notable on a highly-trafficked page, but Julia Salazar is not. There had been no comments on the Talk aside from some assessments since the fracas mentioned above exactly 24 months ago. And it would not be notable if these were high usage accounts. But they are not.

1. Competitionlawnerd made the account in August 2019 (right after some others involved in disrupting Julia Salazar page were blocked, made two hundred superficial edits through November 2019, then one edit in October 2020, one in May 2021, and then a flurry June 30, 2020 about Julia Salazar.
2. Bowmerang account dates to 2011, and has not been much used at all or recently, with 4 edits since November 2018 and none since September 2020, but was on the Talk page to agree with CLN within 20 minutes
3. Egawaryuki21 account likewise is not tremendously active, but appeared here same day to agree with the movement

(Note, I think Freelance-frank made a good faith edit, despite suspiciously moving content out of a standard section for BLPs ("Early life and education") to make a larger section for this undue weight topic).

I bring up the 2018 and 2019 edits at this page, and allude to the harassment from those editors, because:

• how deftly Competitionlawnerd found this section of my talk page which they edited with a clumsy faux warning in media res of a talk page section originating from 2018. My talk is unarchived and over 530 kB, there's no way they found that section idly if they didn't already know it was there.

1. That section was started by Knowitall369 who edit-warred relentlessly on Julia Salazar and hasn't edited much since 2019.
2. That same section was also surprisingly "found" by a "different" editor again in July 2019 by ODDoom99, who has edited about nothing but Julia Salazar and me personally.

• And, all three of these users take the unusual step to refer to the subject as "Ms. Salazar":

1. Knowitall369 and again
2. ODDoom99
3. Competitionlawnerd

• It's also worth noting that some of the most vigorous voices for first deletion, and then for inclusion of overwhelmingly negative innuendo were the blocked-for-socking E.M.Gregory and Icewhiz.

The last time I got involved with this page to prevent it from becoming just a smear, named and anonymous accounts harassed, hounded, and gaslit me for months, fuller details found at ANI here and ANI here, with 24.47.152.65 undoing my edits on dozens of different pages and accusing me of anything that might stick on those articles' talks.

Just looking for how to handle this type of socking, meating, or brigading that seems unlikely to be organic. Since July 2019, edits of this ilk (e.g. lying about her record or being Jewish) have only occurred sparingly, out of only 62 total edits in almost two years:

• Only 5 instances from 4 accounts in those 23 months:

1. 13:32, 20 November 2019‎ 172.127.21.153
2. 21:05, 16 March 2020‎ 172.127.21.153
3. 00:08, 30 July 2020‎ 107.242.117.46
4. 14:50, 11 September 2020‎ 50.1.114.34
5. 20:46, 12 October 2020‎ 2601:646:9300:da80:d837:ddba:b08f:6528

• Compared to 5 instances from 5 accounts in 9 hours:

1. 11:58, 30 June 2021‎ 74.64.43.66
2. 12:03, 30 June 2021‎ Competitionlawnerd
3. 13:12, 30 June 2021‎ Bowmerang
4. 13:50, 30 June 2021‎ 4.16.132.250
5. 21:00, 30 June 2021‎ Egawaryuki21

If this is the wrong place, I'll move it, but seemed like it would be too open-ended for SPI, and they're seemingly backlogged at that. A lot of admins chimed in at previous ANIs linked above and on some of these suspicious users' talks, but don't want to canvass and ping any. Huge congrats and thanks if anyone read this far, kinda why it took me a week to post. JesseRafe (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Article talk page aside, main article Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Logged AE action. El_C 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I know this has been archived now and the EC should work (though not on Talk), but for posterity here, I see where this brigade was stirred up, by another Tablet author on Twitter: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1410254381849755650.html which calls out this page and specific edits and its talk page and me, my edits, and my talk page, which was posted, in part, by another EC user on the article talk page. JesseRafe (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

IP user doing mass "reverts" and edit-warring

The IP user 162.221.181.67 has been suddenly and rapidly removing Berber-language names from the lead sections of pages; they dubiously claimed that they were "reverting" the edits of a former sock user, which was true in many cases (though most of the edits were a while ago) but certainly not in all cases (such as here and here, where the material was a result of edits by others, including myself). They've since started to edit-war on two pages (here and here), after previously receiving a warning for edit-warring here and here.

The IP has also recently been editing other users' talk pages, mostly in old discussions in which they have no role and in which another was a sockpuppet or was investigated as a sockuppet, mostly by inappropriately striking comments from long-finished discussions (example), even in archives, or unnecessarily adding tags or other material on the pages of inactive blocked users (example).

They've been given many warnings on their talk page, but their reactions (like this one) suggests they will not listen. R Prazeres (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) "Striked" in their ESs is an unusual word. Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like the IP got blocked for 72 hours by HighInBC. MiasmaEternal^TALK 23:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Political reverts disguised as Neutral Point Of View.

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.

---

See the Government and Politics section of the Dunoon article. scope creep Talk is in my view using Neutral Point Of View as a disguise to make a political point. The changes I made to the Dunoon article were factual and had NO political bias. Greenfinchchick (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Also please read what scope creep wrote on my talk page. I feel he is using scare tatics so the article will be how scope creep wants. Greenfinchchick (talk) 13:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• In addition if you look down the Dunoon page history you will see they have has already had another editor blocked from the site, for editing the same topic. Greenfinchchick (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Greenfinchchick: you have not informed Scope creep that you have started this thread, as the big red banner at the top of this page tells you to. I will now do so for you. Scope creep seems has asked whether you have edited here before under a different account, and you have not answered that question: please say now whether you have used different accounts in the past. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have had different a username, however I have nothing to do with the editor scope creep had blocked, do not know them or ever communicated with them! Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Greenfinchchick, Scope creep is not an administrator, and cannot block anyone: which is the account that you say Scope creep 'had blocked', and why do you think he had them blocked? What was your previous username? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  User:Fionn12, was blocked after having an edit war with scope creep, for making a reasonable argument their edit on his talk page., in my honest opinion. Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Greenfinchchick Fionn12 was blocked by Bbb23, an administrator with huge experience in sockpuppet investigations, on the suspicion of being a sock. As far as I can see, Scope creep had nothing to do with that: he didn't raise a report at SPI, he didn't reach out to Bbb23 to express any concerns, unless I've missed something. You haven't indicated the name of your prior account. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, their prior user name can be found in the edit history of their user page. This is a re-named account. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This editor has come in with a political agenda, who I think it is the same editor that was blocked 4-ish weeks ago, Fionn who was themselves, another editor, the name escapes me, who was also blocked. They both had a NPOV approach to editing on Dunoon, the exact same pattern and on several other Scotttish articles around that time and one article had to be page protected. They add United Kingdon geographic location into geographical articles that didn't exist in the original consensus that was worked in about 2006-2007. The consensus was that there would two levels of location, for Dunoon it is Argyll and Bute and Scotland. For Scottish geographic articles its Scottish geographical info, for English geographic articles, it was English geographic info, for Wales... and so on. There is no need for United Kingdom level info in these articles, as it is already represented in country and county level article. Everybody who works on these articles follows that consensus. scope_creep^Talk 14:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• My username was changed because I chose an inappropriate username. Why this is relevant baffles me?Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• I strongly refute scope creeps assertion that I have a political agenda, my edit on the Dunoon article was factual and totally neutral!Greenfinchchick (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Greenfinchchick, please could you answer whether you have previously edited Wikipedia using a different account. A previous username for your current account is unlikely to be relevant. TSventon (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I feel there is a lot of distraction going on here! I raised a point about my edit being reverted, when it was not political, although that was the reason given for the revert! Greenfinchchick (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• I also object in the strongest terms, to scope creep publishing on my talk page that I have a political objective!Greenfinchchick (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• The master is User:Gaeltober, and the sock is User:Fionn12. I believe that Greenfinchchick is suspicious, but I am not sure enough to block them for socking. It would be helpful if someone, e.g., Scope creep maybe, would file a report at WP:SPI and request a CU.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• I refute in the strongest terms that I am a SOCK! There is a horrendous assumption of guilt on Wikipedia with NO proof!. I now request a full apology! Greenfinchchick (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• I will file an SPI with checkuser=yes. scope_creep^Talk 16:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Greenfinchchick, you were blocked for an inappropriate username and when asking to be unblocked, you said, "I used this username as I have been harassed by a Glasgow uni person in the past on Wikipedia." What was your past account? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

    Cullen328, that's an interesting observation. I, too, would like to know what account or IP this editor used in the past, and I'd be interested to know who the harasser was so that we can assess the backstory to this. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have twice joined Wikipedia and both times have been made unwelcome! I live on Cowal so could see information that was wrong/outdated, so joined to correct both times. I would just leave the history alone, I did, I left. I notice no apology as of yet? My original edit that was reverted has not been restored as they was no problem with it, it was not "political! I hope the editor that is disguising his reverts/edits with NPOF will be sanctioned as none of this would have occurred. Especially as there was NO justification for his actions!Greenfinchchick (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  Greenfinchchick, you have still not addressed the question that you have been asked several times now: what was the account that you used previously, under which you say you were harassed by someone associated with the University of Glasgow? Girth Summit _(blether) 08:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Like I said, I dealt with it I left and consider it finished. Considering doing the same this time (leaving). Wikipedia is not a welcoming place. Greenfinchchick (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  Greenfinchchick, you created an account with a username that clearly indicated that you had an axe to grind with someone associated with Glasgow uni; once you were unblocked, you immediately got into a dispute with an editor who declares in his userspace that he lives in Glasgow, at a page that has recently been the target of disruptive sockpuppetry. You are being evasive about the name of the account you used in the past. In short, you are making it very difficult for me to believe that you are acting in good faith here. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like Wikipedia has not changed, the harassment continues! See my talk page. As well as this thread. My original edit on Dunoon has yet to be fully restored. I say yet again it was not political in any way. Looks like I will be leaving again. Wikipedia has a reputation in my circle of friends, that Wikipedia is not worth the trouble simple edits entail. Greenfinchchick (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  Greenfinchchick, nobody is harassing you: Scope creep has even apologised to you for saying he thought you were connected to those blocked accounts. Now, as outlined at WP:ALTACCN, when you create a new account you are expected to provide a link between the new account and your old one, in the interests of transparency and accountability. The exception to this is described at WP:CLEANSTART, but since the username you chose when you created this account explicitly (and obscenely) referenced prior conflicts you have had on Wikipedia, I cannot see this as a legitimate 'clean start' account. If you wish to continue using this account, you will need to disclose your original account's name, or it may be blocked as an WP:ILLEGIT account. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is a time sink. I have indeffed the user as WP:NOTHERE. I see no way in which the user is an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and edit conflicts on Gadhimai festival page

In February 2021, I made a number of general fixes and copy edits to the Gadhimai festival page. Apart from fixing a variety of minor grammatical, markup, and formatting errors, I also corrected a few claims made on the page, based on existing references. User Georgethedragonslayer has recently gone ahead and reintroduced a slew of errors to the article and deleted at least one reference that supports particular claims on the page that this user has removed. After I reverted these changes, the user undid my revert, and at this point it is approaching an edit war. My sense is that the user has a motive for making these changes, and they are engaging me in bad-faith dialogue, both on theirs and my own talk page. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku:, this seems like a content dispute that is best handled on the article talk page (I don't see a discussion there). I see that Georgethedragonslayer is flirting with violating 3RR and have dropped a warning on their talk page but, ideally, this should be discussed on the article talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:, I'm not sure if you read through the discussion I've had with Georgethedragonslayer so far, but the individual has reverted my work in bad faith more than once. They have deleted two reputable references that demonstrate that the point they are trying to make is false. This seems like a clear case of someone obfuscating an inconvenient fact that they feel strongly about. How do I resolve this on the talk page? You can see that the individual is recalcitrant, refusing to engage in reasonable dialogue, and even making wild accusations about my own motives. How do I go forward with this? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Revirvlkodlaku: Ideally, the discussion should take place on the article talk page and, if you can't resolve it there, you should seek dispute resolution (WP:DR). I took a look at their contributions and I don't see any reason to believe that they have a particular POV or agenda on this festival (if I've missed something, please feel free to elaborate). Explain your position on the talk page, give them a chance to respond, and then see what happens. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:, Georgethedragonslayer has repeatedly deleted reputable references that demonstrate the fact that the festival has gone on despite being officially banned. They have removed these and claimed that the festival ended in 2015. How is that not a particular POV? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a particular POV. It could be their reading of the sources. Which is why, assuming your reading is different, you need to use the article talk page to explain your postion. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:, I don't understand. This individual is deleting references that demonstrate a claim he is denying. How do you not see how blatant that is? I get the feeling that you haven't looked at this thoroughly. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Revirvlkodlaku, I've started a discussion at Talk:Gadhimai festival#2021 Updates. The issue is that we don't resolve content disputes here at ANI. If you can reach a consensus and Georgethedragonslayer continues to revert—or if they refuse to discuss at all—then that becomes a conduct issue. Right now, it's just both of you reverting and warning each other over content. Woodroar (talk) 02:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

User:M-Mustapha appears to be misusing the rollback function by reverting good faith edits without edit summaries or engaging in the discussion on the Talk page. This instance reverts my edit (I'd forgotten to log in, apologies!) but looking at his user talk page and contributions it seems to be a recurring problem. --CaribouFanfare (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This is fine. There's obviously a content dispute that is being discussed on the talk page, but the status quo ante is to include the material, and the edit summary used is trying to twist policy to win an edit war. The appearance was that Endlesspumpkin was trying to evade scrutiny; while that was not the case I do not blame M-Mustapha for rolling back the IP edit. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, sorry! That wasn't the intention. I'll look over the policy again. CaribouFanfare (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

CaribouFanfare - On an unrelated topic, I went ahead and suppressed your IP address from that edit for you in order to keep that information private. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandalism of List of governors of Alaska

• List of governors of Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The article in question is List of governors of Alaska. Example: [258] Now, y'all may think, vandalism? What vandalism? But the trend, at least as I've been trying to establish and convince others of its advantages, is to remove such biographical information. That's not what this article is for. I would very much like to discuss this with them, but they aren't interested.

Looking back at the history of the article, you'll find an IPv4 come along in April and make the change. I revert it with a request to discuss. They did not. I protected it to force the matter. Right when the protection expired, another IPv4 popped up, leaving me a helpful message on my talk page: [259] Another protection, another expiration, and now an IPv6 (from the same part of Australia) has popped up to do the same.

So another protection, another expiration, and another dynamic IP. I'm tired. They don't want to discuss, they have a dynamic address, I'm tired of protecting it, I'm tired of trying to get someone to discuss, so, I give up. Y'all please do something. I would very much not like one of the governor articles to fall behind but if that's what our Australian friend wants, that's apparently what they're going to get. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Golbez, this looks to me like a slow motion edit war over a content dispute, namely whether or not to include birth and death dates in the tables. I see no vandalism here. Am I missing something? You have not explained your thinking on the article talk page. Instead, you have used your administrative tools to prevail in a content dispute. Have you read WP:INVOLVED lately? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how I'm supposed to resolve a content dispute with a dynamic IP whose only communication so far was "FUCK YOU". --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand how this is vandalism, it seems like a genuine dispute over if birth and death dates should be included in the list..Jackattack1597 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Then you are more than welcome to discuss the edit, as I have several arguments against that but I'm always open to discussion. However, this IP has made it clear they are not interested in discussion, and I can't force them into it, so. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Golbez, please explain why you called these edits vandalism and why you used your administrative tools when you are WP:INVOLVED. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring rises to the level of vandalism when the only response you get from them is "FUCK YOU". --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If Golbez thought the edits were vandalism it would explain why he used his tools while involved, since there is an exception to involved for obvious vandalism.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct. And seeing the reaction this is getting here, it would seem that was the correct action, since no other action is likely to be taken. Like, seriously, what are my options when a dynamic IP is making an otherwise acceptable edit, but refuses to discuss this change? I can't discuss with them, I can't edit war, I can't block, I can't call it vandalism, I can't get mediation because they won't respond, so pray tell, what option do I have? --Golbez (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Golbez, you still haven't made a case, according to policy, why these edits were actually vandalism. What you should have done then, and what you should do now, is explain the reasons why you oppose the edit at Talk: List of governors of Alaska. You should have used various forms of dispute resolution like a Request for comment or a Third opinion. You could have asked for input from other editors involved with similar list of governors articles. If you believed that the article needed protection, you could have asked at Requests for page protection. There were many options available to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The onus is on them to justify it, not on me to oppose. I gave them multiple chances to do so; they declined. I can't go to third opinion before we get a second opinion. I can only discuss with someone willing to discuss. If you would like to try, go for it. --Golbez (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Golbez, please read WP:ADMINACCT, and then please answer the direct questions that I asked you above about whether these edits were actually vandalism, and whether you were WP:INVOLVED when you protected that article twice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I've answered several times, and I have asked several questions and gotten no answers, so. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The edits were clearly not vandalism as Wikipedia defines that term, and therefore the exemption does not apply. As I see it, Golbez misused the admin tools to prevail in a content dispute and a few minutes later, the IP dropped the F-bomb. This is a content dispute exacerbated by Golbez's misuse of the tools, incorrect accusations of vandalism and failure to make a case on the article talk page. I am not saying that the IP's conduct was exemplary because it wasn't, but as a long time administrator, Golbez is held to a higher standard. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, the edits were clearly not vandalism, I was just explaining why I thought Golbez used his tools in the situation. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I've reverted the IPs additions. If the ever-changing IP can't communicate properly, then it's best he be range blocked. Or, the article protected. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Golbez, I think it would be helpful if you would confirm that you understand you're not to use your admin tools in a content dispute. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Golbez: Pinging you here to alert you to Ponyo's reply.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Yes, I understand I am not to use my admin tools in a content dispute. --Golbez (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance template removal

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

---

Could someone review this maintenance template removal. The talk page discussion about the template is here. Thank you. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems more like a content dispute, which does not require admin attention and might be better off discussed at dispute resolution if the discussion isn't currently reconcilable. Is there any conduct issue that you're concerned with? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Knight has been edit-warring with 4 other editors, in order to have the opinion that Mondoweiss is a "Hate site" in the lead, no less. See link link. Then he added "page's introduction does not sum up properly the content of this page. The introduction consists of self-descriptions exclusively by the people behind this website" instead. See link

This is not "Maintenance", this is pure POV-pushing, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is an edit war going on, I suggest you take it to the edit warring noticeboard. Otherwise, it's a good old fashioned content dispute. MiasmaEternal^TALK 01:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitely not about the content dispute, rather about the process of maintenance template removal. Is it appropriate to remove the template which was discussed, without addressing the issue? Infinity Knight (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, there was nothing wrong with the removal of the tag. You boldly added it; another user thought it was unnecessary and removed it; you're now discussing on the talk page. Bear in mind that the purpose of such tags is to draw attention to a potential issue with the article: it has done its job, attention has been drawn, discussion is underway. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid, unless it truly did not belong in the first place. see Help:Maintenance_template_removal. The template was removed 16 minutes after it was introduced. Was the issue flagged by the template remedied first? Infinity Knight (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, unless it truly did not belong in the first place is the crucial part of that quote. You added the tag, but another user thought that truly did not belong, and removed it. Now you're discussing the content - so go do that, there is nothing here requiring administrative action at this stage. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:13, 7 July 2021 (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.

Enforcement of actual policies - apropos ivermectin, lab leak theory etc.

This article : https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/wikipedia-and-a-pint-of-gin/article_22ffa0d8-dde9-11eb-be75-d7b0b1f2ff67.html provides rather strong evidence that enforcement of actual wikipedia policies and such, like WP:OWN, WP:V, WP:NOTCENSORED etc, are sorely lacking. Just checking if wikipedia admins are on the whole taking the stance they've been taking lately, or the one that Colin championed for years. I don't know who the involved users are, so I can't notify them. --50.201.195.170 (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any specific concerns that are not a content dispute? Your post is very vague. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• The thing is, the Wikipedia editor who wrote that linked article, who claims they are responsible for this edit is, by spreading conspiracist crap claiming that I (I am easily identified by their descriptions of me in the article) am "curiously aligned with Big Pharma, Big Vaccines, and Big Regulators", is part of the problem; the article gets re-tweeted by the article subject[260] and the rabble is roused. There have already been threats of violence against me, and it is likely that stuff like this is fuelling it. It's really something for arbcom to handle, surely? Off-wiki brigading against Wikipedia editors is one of the more unsavoury trends to have emerged during the pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• (Add) Also note Heterodox2021, another ivermectin WP:SPA, has discovered my twitter account and has been posting inflammatory (and, as it happens, untrue) material on twitter: see User Talk:Heterodox2021#Off-wiki activity. Alexbrn (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

In my defense, I did not create my account with the intention to be a single purpose account. Somewhere around 15 years ago I had an account, but I have no idea what it is at this point. It is true that the edits to Dr. Bret Weinstein's page motivated me to again create an account, but the intention was never WP:SPA. And while I admit that my initial twitter post was in fact inaccurate, based on a misreading of the diffs, that has since been corrected with indisputably accurate information. I turned to twitter essentially out of horror upon seeing the clearly paritisan edits occurring on the page, and even the restoration of those edits when deleted. Certainly there are partisan edits on both sides, but my attempt to suggest neutral language, indisputably more accurate, still retaining its criticism of Dr. Weinstein, was roundly rejected by Alexbrn. Purusing the history, it is also clear he is batting down any edit he personally deems either "disinformation", "misinformation", or attempting to tone down the rhetorical nature of phrasing. No lay user visiting Wikipedia has any idea how the sausage is made, so on the talk page I could suggest edits and have them batted down until I am blue in the face, and nobody would ever know what is happening. Thus I have taken it to Twitter, and I will continue to do so, with factual citations, double-checked, until this process is corrected.Heterodox2021 (talk)

Does this rise to the level of a WP:NOTHERE block? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNOTHERE -Heterodox2021 — Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I invite anyone here to review the discussion. My commentary starts at: The claim that there is "no evidence"...

(Non-administrator comment) I reviewed the discussion, and I'm inclined to agree with Alex's answer - "no good evidence" is not the same as the "no evidence" included in your suggested edit. And, just so you know, I'm getting more than just a whiff of WP:RGW in the paragraph above. MiasmaEternal^TALK 00:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for discussing editor conduct, in this case your opposition research and resulting off-wiki harassment. If you'd bothered to try even slightly to understand how Wikipedia worked before starting your scummy antics, you might have realised the Weinstein content is being discussed on four (!) noticeboards with wide participation. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Off wiki harassment is way past not here. The only thing that should be written about is how poorly admins support those, like Alexbrn,who hold the line against the conspiracy theorist everyday. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Heterodox2021, you are clearly just here to push fringe theories, the fact that they have been rejected is because your ideas don't deserve to be included in a fact based encyclopedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't actually know much about this ivermectin dispute. The little bit that I do know is that the OP (50.201.195.170) has posted a medium-length POV soapbox on the ivermectin talk page [261] about drug pricing. (as an aside, I would point OP to this RFC and this ArbCom decision about drug pricing which would both point to us not including that information).

It's also the same IP who's been on that talk page in the past (January 2021) pushing a POV about Ivermectin's efficacy and actually antagonizing admins in that context (for which they received their second block). And just a few minutes ago, accused me of a COI in a personal attack on a different admin's talk page [262].

They have also posted a userspace essay which I perceive as a vandalism/parody attempt at mocking WP:NOLABLEAK. They also recently accused me of "censorship" and "fabrication" when I replaced a CN tag with a set of sources including direct quotes that form the basis of a paraphrase [263]. In that same breath, they again requested admin intervention for a content dispute [264], as they have done in many many content disputes as shown above. To be completely frank, I am not sure what this user adds to the project except to instigate disputes and cast aspersions. I think OP is WP:NOTHERE. I would be happy to be proven wrong, the IP has acquiesced to argument and reason on occasion, but I fear the impacts of this IP that are counterproductive far outweigh those that are productive.

They are not, it must be said, a new user. They may be an IP, but they have made nearly 1000 edits since 2018 and have been blocked 3 times in that span [265] for this exact type of behavior (most recently in February of 2021, but as far back as July 2018, 2 months after their first edit). They do not appear to be improving their behavior. IP's edits have been a drain on editor time and admin time. Much like this ANI report is a waste of same, that resulted in the blocking of a different instigating editor. For all of these reasons, I propose that the OP deserves a boomerang topic ban from COVID-19 and associated treatments, or a 1 year block in my humble opinion.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

After warning them for personal attacks and placing a DS notice - by the way, Covid is subject to regular discretionary sanctions since 21 June - I realized that I'd blocked this editor before for a month for promotion of ivermectin as a panacea, and they'd been blocked for personal attacks before that. Since they appear to have moved back into Covid topic and returned to attacks on other editors, I've blocked them as a regular administrative action, for three months. I think a topic ban is probably worthwhile, but since they weren't formally warned of discretionary sanctions, it would have to come by some other means. The userspace material appears to be a POV content fork enshrined in userspace, under a pretense that it's an essay. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, Totally understandable re: DS, may have to wait for them to come back and do it again for it to be a TBAN? But if they learn a lesson and stop editing where they can't keep a level head, or they just start editing constructively, then everybody wins, no TBAN necessary!

Thanks for the mopping. Agree with your assessment of that user essay 100% but I desperately desperately don't want to propose the MfD myself 1) because I'm supposed to be on a wiki break (I keep tryna get out, but they keep pullin me back in!), and 2) because the other examples of these POV fork-y essays from users that have gotten banned or blocked have not gone well. The one I linked is a user that is indefinitely TBANned from COVID-19, and the essay itself was part of the reason for the TBAN. And yet people continue to vote keep. Never have I understood the importance of !vote as well as I do now.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The DS notice mostly serves as a means of enforcement if they return to the same subject after the block expires. I've deleted the essay as a POV fork pretending to be an essay, and a violation of WP:POLEMIC. Specifically, it's a misuse of userspace to attack groups of editors, persons or groups, and misuse of userspace for something that looks like something in project space, the figleaf essay header notwithstanding. Acroterion (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked Heterodox2021 due to their off-wiki harassment/canvassing campaign on Twitter (through an account they admitted was their own). We can't police what people do on Twitter, but nobody can behave like that and expect to continue editing here. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing, 'investigating' of AfD participants, at DRV

Hi all, can I please ask for more administrator eyes on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 28? Baffled by the influx of new editors to the discussion, I did some poking around and found a post canvassing contributions on Facebook (link in the discussion). From that discussion, there was another post linked, where an editor started to 'investigate' the editors who !voted for delete, as well as the closer (myself). Can't say the whole thing sits entirely well with me, and as such, I would appreciate a few more eyes on the discussion as it develops. Semi-protection may be required at some point if the canvassing continues. Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Doing... things... Give me a sec. El_C 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Okay, I did the thing. El_C 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering that OlivierAuber is essentially running background checks and posting personal information regarding the people who voted delete, disciplinary action against him may be in order. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already explained that this little investigation was motivated by the fact that the deletion of the P2P foundation article occurred precisely at the time when its founder Michel Bauwens was facing extremely violent personal attacks. I now think the two facts are unrelated and I am happy for that.--OlivierAuber (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As this is a discussion that concerns you and Mitar, I pinged you both on your pages - Daniel probably should have done so when creating this. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing any specific editors, rather just asking for more eyes on the discussion there, hence why they weren't pinged. I was not aware who was doing the off-wiki canvassing and if they had Wikipedia usernames at the time. Daniel (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that my suspicions were reinforced by the fact that Michel Bauwens told me that his IP was blocked by Wikipedia. It still is. Does anyone have any idea why and how to clarify this situation?--OlivierAuber (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that my actions were canvasing because: it was not mass posting (I posted only to two places, here and here), my message is neutral (I am asking for people to leave comments, I even provided link to official instructions how to do so, without instructing what exactly to do), I disagree that audience is partisan (I invited a general population of existing editors and people who I think are experts on this topic, so that they can provide missing sources), and it was done with transparency (they were posted in public/open Facebook groups; they were not posted on Wikipedia itself, because relevant experts on the topic of the article in question do not have access to it, e.g., some reported that they have been IP blocked, which I think is a relevant specific reason not to use a talk page; moreover, for editors in question I communicate with through Facebook and I do not know their Wikipedia names and I even should not be trying to figure them out, so messaging them through Facebook is in my the most reasonable way). I think community around the deleted article was baffled about what is happening and I wanted to help them. I am not affiliated with the P2P Foundation. On the list of appropriate notifications it is listed that they are "Editors known for expertise in the field" and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" which I think I did. Mitar (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor apparently has NOT been notified per "How to respond to canvassing"? There seems to be a lack of understanding. I don't think pleading guilty by confession will pass as an excuse. Is there an exception that off-wiki canvassing, to hopefully change a result of something, is alright as long as there is transparency and neutrality? I don't think so. IP blocked editors do need to know about these things but there may be a transparency issue with "they were not posted on Wikipedia itself" as well as a potential sock or meat puppetry issue. The main issue with canvassing is that even if seemingly well-intentioned it is counter-productive. Stealth canvassing is what is present when one of the "Appropriate notification avenues are not utilized with good reasoning and concerns of potential Votestacking is also a concern. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"My message is neutral" & "without instructing what exactly to do" - really???

• "The article on the P2P Foundation was deleted for not being notable, and the editors claim they could not find peer-reviewed articles attesting its role. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Wikipedia.../P2P_Foundation 'However, such articles do exist. I would appreciate if anyone could connect to them, and point to, for example, the following 2: Prophets and Advocates of Peer Production. By George Dafermos. . Excellent introduction to the role of the P2P Foundation in the context of the re-emergence of a commons movement that is linked to digitally-enabled self-organization. Digital Commons: Cyber-Commoners, Peer Producers and the Project of a Post-Capitalist Transition. By George Dafermos. [6]: Excellent introduction to the theoretical and strategic work of the P2P Foundation." (emphasis mine) - certainly seems like the bolded part is, um, "instructing what exactly to do".
• "Olivier has done research on the wikipedia editors responsible for the deletions, it is quite instructive"

And from other people on your post:

• "If you want to overturn the deletion, then leave a comment. See instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review... You can follow my example there. You can also add more references/links/comments in there, too." (emphasis mine)
• "Sounds like a nefarious attack.. P2P foundation is highly notable.. For many things.. But from populist pov, if only for where Satoshi first appeared! Just reinstate it.. But have a good look at who took that action." (emphasis mine)

Daniel (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki matters are, ultimately, the domain of the Arbitration Committee or Trust & Safety. El_C 14:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to overturn the deletion, leave a comment: provide requested information, as per instructions. I think you yourself said that if they provide two sources pointing to notability, that would change the decision, no? And please, I am claiming I have not instructed anyone, I am not claiming nobody suggested to no editor what to do. Moreover, the examples you are listing in fact are providing sources you are searching for and suggesting they should be propagated to the Wikipedia itself. Isn't this exactly what the original problem was? How is that canvasing? It is engaging community to obtain relevant sources to support the notability question. Mitar (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If you had simply linked up the sources on the deletion discussion page, it would have been fine, as it would have been based comprehensively on the strength of your case. Instead, you rallied supporters - whether you see it that way or not - and drowned a discussion with your allies, of both the versed and inexperienced variety. It gave the false pretense of there being consensus in your favor and as a result, you killed your own deletion review. Calling attention to your case, leaving an open door for biased community members to intervene, is a boilerplate definition of canvassing. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@OlivierAuber: if Michel Bauwens was physically attacked that's horrible. Physically assaulting someone because of their views is never justifiable. However that's a largely a matter for the police. And to suggest someone in the AFD was responsible for physically attacking Michel Bauwens is beyond ridiculous. Please don't make such a ridiculous claim again. Especially since the number of participants is so small, it's very close if not over the personal attack line. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not what they were suggesting, Nil. Rather, it seems there's a harassment campaign against this individual. That speaks to the motivation of the brigading. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: (Came across this when searching for where I was mentioned.) A harassment campaign while something horrible is clearly not "extremely violent personal attacks" (emphasis mine) and it's offensive to suggest it is for those who have been real victims of violence (thankfully not me). Perhaps death threats or other threats of violence could be considered such although frankly even then they really should be called threats rather than attacks. This is not to downplay the seriousness of such threats, but they are not the same thing. Again I don't know what Michel Bauwens has suffered but when someone talks about "extremely violent personal attacks", this to my mind clearly gives connotations of serious physical violence so I AGFed that this is what OlivierAuber was talking about. If it's not, then all I would say is if editors are going to accuse others of involvement in such actions, they should be clear what they are referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

71.8.186.153 personal attacks, legal threat

User:71.8.186.153 has made several edits to We Heart Seattle deleting or undermining criticism, deleting at least one source, inserting incorrect formatting, and violating WP:NPOV. Edit summaries have sometimes been accusatory. Examples:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Heart_Seattle&diff=1032564478&oldid=1032384724 — reinstatement of this edit with additional markup added.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Heart_Seattle&diff=1032615977&oldid=1032613544
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=We_Heart_Seattle&diff=1032619641&oldid=1032616191

This user and User:192.119.178.213 have made unconstructive edits to the page; this makes me consider requesting semi-protection for the article, although as the primary contributor to it I would appreciate a second opinion on the subject. Thank you for your consideration. White 720 (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've lblocked that IP and sprotected for 2 weeks. Feel free to redact those edit summaries above, I've already revdel'd em from the revision history. El_C 16:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! White 720 (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to help. I've now revdel'd em from here, as well, so you're all good on that front. El_C 16:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again! I really appreciate the quick response. White 720 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

187.87.77.43

This IP address is changing material in concert tour articles, including removing and reverting redirects that have already been deemed so, as they were undersourced. In the article End of the Road World Tour, he has continuously added misleading information about certain venues in the European leg of 2022, as well as adding shows that were not part of the tour. Outside of the article, when removing redirect from pages, he ended up threatening Richard3120 with another IP which I am certain is from him on the Ballbreaker World Tour. I have been reverting his material, but he continues to revert back, and not leave any reliable sources for his claims other than saying that "it is back". HorrorLover555 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

His IP address and the others he's used

• 187.87.77.43
• 2804:FEC:213:6700:5C60:CA05:7CA9:F815
• 2804:FEC:213:6700:7D12:A402:A5C7:A555
• 2804:FEC:213:6700:859:CFA4:F37B:307D

Blocked the /64 around the IPv6 address, and the v4 address. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 02:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. It does not look like the IP address has understood why they were blocked as shortly after, he proceeded to disruptively edit the Ballbreaker World Tour redirect, and try to dodge reverts that way, insisting on keeping the tour dates in, even for the album article which the redirected tour is supporting. He has also disruptively edited the Stiff Upper Lip album article and the redirect for its tour article, which I've had to revert. HorrorLover555 (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping HorrorLover555... the insults don't bother me, and I understand that any AC/DC tour is very likely to be notable (they are one of the biggest live acts in the world today, after all), but the IP doesn't seem to understand that you need the reliable sources first before you create the article, and not just make a list of tour dates based on fan websites. Richard3120 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editors on a 'mission'

• 49.207.134.142
• 49.207.138.151
• 49.207.142.150

These three (at least) IP editors, all in the 49.207. range and all geolocating to the same neck of the wood, are on a mission to brand Leif Erikson as a Catholic missionary. I don't know if the editors are one or more people, and whether being multiple editors (technically) amounts to edit warring, but maybe something could be done to prevent this? (PS: I'm notifying the first of the IPs on the above list of this ANI, but only the first.) Ta, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The range is a /20, so I decided to semiprotect the page for a couple weeks. I see it was configured to have PC indefinitely enabled, and my page protection skills are very rusty; if the PC falls off after the semiprotection expires just ping me and I'll reinstate it. (Also, underrated header!) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights - If you're not sure as to whether or not pending changes protection and semi protection interfere with one another, the answer is 'no'. Pending changes protection is a completely separate function, just like with move protection and edit protection. You can add pending changes protection alongside semi protection without issue and set them to expire at different times and it'll work just fine. It would be nice if we could do the same with different edit and move protection levels (such as adding two days of full protection to an article alongside an indefinite semi-protection so that we don't have to worry about having to re-apply the semi-protection after the full protection expires), but that's obviously a discussion for another time. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know! No matter where you go on Wikipedia, there's always someone who knows a whole lot more than you about something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights - You bet. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Bogadanbog

Bogadanbog (talk · contribs)

There is a user called Bogadanbog who is constantly adding ideologies without any sources, or without credible ones which don't even mention what he added. In other words he makes up ideologies, and when you roll back them, he undoes it. He refuses to use the 'talk' page, he never adds any reason to his edits and he actively changes things.

I have had to undo two of his edits for disruptive editing, and I have received multiple thanks from users engaged in the content such as Autospark, member of wikipedia for 14 years and an extended confirmed user Barumbarumba. The whole community is always very civil, and we all work with each other for the best content and descriptions for wikipedia, however this user refuses to talk with the community, he does not add sources and makes up his own ideologies and undoes when someone rolls back his content. In other words he is very disruptive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bogadanbog

Bogadanbog already has multiple warnings by other rollbackers for disruptive editing. And we hope he stops doing this.

Older warnings: April 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Save Romania Union, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to USR-PLUS. Vacant0 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

--BastianMAT (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletions and misleading edit summaries

The user "Ghuaadg441" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ghuaadg441) seems to delete sourced content he dislikes related to East Asians. Not sure if a single purpose account or not, but action should be taken. I have already reverted him, but he again deleted large amounts of content and gave a confusing edit summary. I am reporting this event here (Genetic history of East Asians), as I don't want to start an edit war. I was told to report it here. Maybe its disruptive.46.125.250.23 (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see no evidence that there is a pattern of disruption by Ghuaadg441 (talk · contribs) or 46.125.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); this seems to be based entirely on a short-lived content dispute at Genetic history of East Asians (page history). However, this edit summary by Ghuaadg441 casts aspersions of sockpuppetry against a nonexistent "HunanZH", and it is unclear whom "Hideki" is referring to. Also, you did not notify Ghuaadg441 of this discussion on their talk page, as required. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

They are referring to the creator of this image ("HunanZH"), who is indeffed on Commons. M.Bitton (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is the images that were removed due to upload by a problematic user, then Ghuaadg441 might be correct to remove them if the images failed verification or present a fringe POV. But who is "Hideki"? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Additions of unsourced content by Sergio Skol

User:Sergio Skol received a level 4 warning for adding unsourced material in March (although they deleted it from their talk page along with subsequent & prior warnings); since then, they have added unsourced information to Teddy Bridgewater (violating WP:SPORTSTRANS), Tajae Sharpe, Bruce Hector, and Jaleel Johnson. For the latter two, Sergio Skol changed their positions, but left the references which state the correct information intact. Hatman31 (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR violations and ignorance of policy

KansasC785 (talk · contribs) seems to have a lack of understanding of WP:NOTDIR and insists on adding store directories to every shopping mall article.

The first time I called them out on this, they replied with "I know it was an expansion and clean up, thanks for sharing your opinion". The fact that this user seems to think an official Wikipedia policy is "opinion" shows a lack of understanding.

They restored the info to Bal Harbour Shops and claimed that the information was "important" and "not a list". Once again I have reverted the info for now.

I think it's clear from GA-class shopping mall articles such as Colonial Plaza or Great Lakes Crossing Outlets that you don't need to list every single store. Stores are prone to constant change.

I don't want to violate WP:3RR and could really use some intervention here. The user's dismissal of policy as "opinion" really seems to be the big one here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Did he provided sources for the changes? If so, I don't see a problem. :)--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You could, I dunno, check if you wanted to know.

The most recent one, yes, he provided a source: the mall's own website. This is not a good source, because a) it's not independent; b) it doesn't show any evidence -- which a reliable, independent source would -- that it's important enough to include; and c) it's unnecessary, because if someone wanted to know what stores are at the mall, they can go to that website themselves. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. Yep. I looked at the recent one. I will keep an eye on him.--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You will keep on eye on him? Maybe someone should keep on eye on you instead: you have all of 104 edits or so, starting this account in March. Of thos 104 edits, 95 or so are Welcome notices on new-user talk pages; you have all of three Article edits. What, exactly, are you doing? --Calton | Talk 01:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers

--- KansasC785 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

On the Shopping Centers portals it says it's nice to list several stores that may be of prominence, and speaking of which the sourced material was for posterity and I did source it with information not only from the center but in other cases local newspapers etc. I never meant opinion, I was WP:BOLD and looking again at the shopping center page it states as such. I apologize for "lacking" whatever it is that you have, but I have sourced and provided relevant sourced information.

In my view, the editor cherry-picked a bunch of names from a primary source, seemingly to push the POV that this is a "luxurious" mall. MollyPollyRolly, how do you interpret WP:NOTDIR in this specific context? Isn't that policy important? On the other hand this noticeboard does not resolve content disputes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I was operating under the assumption of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shopping_Centers not puffing articles, they were already made I simply was correcting ones that were not factually accurate as of the date I edited. Simply helping the project

Signed — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasC785 (talk • contribs) 01:05, July 7, 2021 (UTC)

I also don't believe I was given "Shortcut

WP:REVEXP

Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting.

Thanks User:KansasC785

A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony." when the reverts were made by User:TenPoundHammer - — Preceding unsigned comment added by KansasC785 (talk • contribs) 01:19, July 7, 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain the choices you made for this edit, where it's an alphabetical list of store, written in all caps (making the wikilinks worthless -- compare your "JIMMY CHOO with "Jimmy Choo") and with no bullets or even commas separating the individual (so "JIMMY CHOO LOUIS VUITTON PRADA"). By what I suspect is no coincidence whatsoever, the mall's directory page renders their store names in alphabetical order and in all caps, leading me to believe that your selection process was to copy the text from the directory page and run a macro to put brackets around copied text.

In other words, it's not encyclopedic content, just you adding a directory here. --Calton | Talk 13:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton I believe that you are attacking me and claiming bad faith, I did none of the such as you accused me of. In other words, don't assume anything simply because you hypothesize it, and alone peddle it. Sincerely

KansasC785 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I notice that you avoided addressing a single thing I raised, so congrats on helping build my case for me. Perhaps you could try answering without deflection? Or at least take some advice from other editors? --Calton | Talk 00:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Clarification regarding new IT rules (intermediary) of India

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 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.

---

Sysops are requested to plz clarify that whether 1. the new information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 is applicable to wikipedia or not? 2. If wekipedia comply with these guideline, then wipedia plz disclose the name of India based (a) resident grievance office, (b) Nodal grievnace officer (c) Chief grievance officer 14.139.114.211 (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You probably want to contact the foundation for a definitive answer[266]. My guess would be no, but I don't speak for the foundation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am in reception of various representations from the resident of India stating the status of Wikipedia should be classified as Intermediary. As it is understood that wikipedia is edited by general public and open to all. Here i am directed to contact the involved party about there say that, whether wikipedia shall be classified as intermediary in the recently drafted Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 of India so the words of any editors shall be counted as consensus. 14.139.114.211 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a legal question and is not subject to the opinions of administrators nor consensus of the community. Please contact the Wikimedia Foundation: https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This thread shall be considered as an official statement from Wikipedia and shall be enclosed as an Annexure to further file proceedings. Thanks14.139.114.211 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No significant response received, implies unresponsive 14.139.114.211 (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2021 (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.

May I suggest that the IP be blocked after their straightforward legal threat (This thread shall be considered as an official statement from Wikipedia and shall be enclosed as an Annexure to further file proceedings)? --JBL (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, if they're going to file some kind of legal action based on "please contact the Wikimedia Foundation" then I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that courtroom. But yes, they should be blocked: they've made a plain statement of intent to commence legal action, not merely a threat. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 18:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, I didn't pick up on that. El_C 20:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I've given them a week break for the obvious threat above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This may be the relevant notification (in English from p19). I am neither a lawyer nor an Indian (and would know better than to offer legal advice if I were) but if anyone is to be sued for being "unresponsive" by making two helpful replies within minutes to a query raised in the wrong forum, I'll fetch my popcorn. Certes (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I am fairly confident that this IP is not in charge of who gets sued under this rule. If it was anyone in a remotely official capacity they would have taken our advice regarding contacting the foundation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:32, 9 July 2021 (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.

Ignoring WP:ONUS and potential COI

RogueShanghai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly disregarded ONUS to include (and edit war over) disputed content while knowing that they needed consensus to include and not the other way around.[267][268][269][270][271] In addition, they have called themselves a member of the Barbz on Stan Twitter. According to Rolling Stone, the Barbz are an army of devoted fans willing to defend [Nicki Minaj] at any cost.[272] Is this not a COI disclosure? Nil Einne has cautioned them about their bias,[273] but it doesn't seem as if their editing habits have improved. KyleJoan^talk 03:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What does my personal life and the fanbases that I am in have to do with any of my editing work? WP:NPA. Also, Rolling Stone has it 100% wrong. Barbz are not a crazed army of angry fans willing to defend Nicki at any cost. That is a common misconception. We are simply a fanbase for the Queen of Rap, Nicki Minaj. Me stating that I am a Barb is no different than saying the words "I am a fan of Nicki Minaj," which there are plenty other editors who've stated the same thing on Wikipedia. I don't remove all the stuff about her controversies such as collaborating with particularly problematic men, because Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT, instead just trying to add context and correct facts to them. At least I am disclosing the fact that I am a fan of Minaj, because the people that don't say it, they're even worse. Which brings me onto my next point...

Hell, in fact, the only reason I joined Wikipedia to contribute to the Nicki Minaj article is because there's another editor on here, [274] who seems to be part of the Bardigang, constantly adding false information about Nicki Minaj. It's not just me either, I've conferred with other editors who've agreed that this person is trying to erase Minaj's impact. This editor has been accused of nonconstructive false edits before, [275] sockpuppetry, [276] and seems that most of their editing is unconstructive edits towards Minaj. I am trying to recontextualize the negative things that he is adding about Minaj, but he seems unwilling to collaborate on the talk page. You also need consensus for REMOVALS. For example, the "Queen of Rap" for Minaj is already consensus, as per decided by editor consensus a few months ago. [277]

Now, let's talk about your unnecessary behavior. You keep pulling ONUS out when YOU were the only editor who disagreed with the footnotes for the Pose (TV series) article, and as I said in my reply on the noticeboard, you were repeatedly rude, uncivil, unwilling to discuss changes on the talk page, unnecessarily snarky and immature. [278] I was willing to collaborate and have a cordial discussion, but you were rude and failed WP:5P4. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 06:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a reliable source per WP:RSP. ONUS says: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; it does not say disputed content gets included if there's only one dissenting user. KyleJoan^talk 07:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, you can't be invoking a consensus per an RfC when that RfC hasn't concluded yet. Not to be harsh, but that ought to be obvious. El_C 09:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I'd rather not go too much into the content dispute, but I only opened the RfC to be courteous toward RogueShanghai's view–even though an archived discussion had established that it was not MOS-compliant. Not only that, but a user had reiterated in the RfC's parent discussion that the issue RogueShanghai brought up, which led to their proposed solution, was not a real issue. The RfC has been active for almost two weeks, and it's pretty clear where users are leaning. Whether it results in a consensus to exclude or no consensus, RogueShanghai's proposed content is without consensus for inclusion, is it not? KyleJoan^talk 10:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, an RfC is a formal dispute resolution request. You can't half-measure it. Anyway, the longstanding prevailing practice is for a (non-SNOW, non-procedural -closed) RfC to be opened for a minimum of 30 days. Personally, I've closed a few at around the 20-day mark, but rarely if ever do I go below that. El_C 10:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: If I was wrong for referencing the RfC in my edit summary, I apologize, but that doesn't change how RogueShanghai created an issue despite having been told what the MOS directs users to do. It was never my responsibility to open the RfC, and if I withdraw it, the onus would still be on RogueShanghai and not on the users who had established the prior consensus. That aside, may I ask for your thoughts on the potential COI since you're here? KyleJoan^talk 10:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, again, you can't withdraw it, you can't half-measure it. You've launched it and now you're bound to that process. And, again again, you can't revert on its basis while it remains ongoing. About the COI: while I've yet to look at the evidence, it seems it'd be more connected to anything to do with Nicki Minaj, rather than this series (which, full disclosure, I've never watched). El_C 10:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I have no intention to withdraw the RfC–it was hypothetical. I've conceded that I shouldn't have referenced the RfC in my revert; I should have written that it was based on the prior consensus to follow the MOS and not mentioned the RfC at all. And yes, the COI would be related to the Nicki Minaj topic. I never even brought up the series until your response. I only used the diff as an example of RogueShanghai's refusal to adhere to ONUS, which has been more prevalent than what is shown in the five diffs. KyleJoan^talk 11:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

KyleJoan, ONUS is loosely enforced if at all — it isn't usually binding in a strict way like the Consensus required rule is, for example. Ditto for the MOS (unless egregious). Anyway, you should let the RfC run its course and not be edit warring over its contested content in the meantime. El_C 11:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I'll let the RfC run its course, but to reiterate, there was a consensus: it was to follow the MOS. It wasn't as if there was a random consensus unrelated to a random MOS. Can we now discuss the potential COI? Because I'd be happy to drop the stick if that part of the report is without merit. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 11:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Being a fan does not make a COI by wikipedia standards. Being closely connected to the subject such as being family or an employee does. So yes I think dropping the stick would be great. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Although still on Wikibreak, I saw I was mentioned at ANI since I happened to see it in my email for this account. Since this wasn't important I didn't intend to reply but I logged in to deal with another matter (at BLPN) so I'll just offer a quick comment. I stand by my comment that editors who are extreme fans (or opponents) of someone tend to create problems when they edit. And sorry but if you're giving yourself some name in more than jest, whatever you say you mean by that, by my book this puts you into the extreme fan category. These editors should extra take care when they edit something about whatever they're a fan (or opponent) of since their views may lead to poor edits and so a partial block or topic ban or worse. However it's also clearly not a COI, except in relation to that fanhood. I'd also note my view remains (even if it's getting extremely unpopular), that we should never block or topic ban someone for editing directly with a declared COI instead only if their edits are problematic (which is most of the time). We strongly discourage it but shouldn't be blocking for it. So even if there were a COI, while it may change things a bit, I would still say, okay but in terms of ANI, so what? In other words, either way I'd say you need to establish the edits themselves are a problem, not the nature of the editor. Nil Einne (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree in spirit. I would use the word bias, reserving the term conflict of interest for actual connection to the subject. However pedantry aside in spirit I agree. That being said I have not seen any clear evidence of excessive bias here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Nicki Minaj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), especially the lead, before RogueShanghai began editing it and now, I'd say the excessive bias is pretty clear. Here, the user removed the fact that Taylor Swift surpassed a record previously held by Minaj without explanation, which is in line with what Rolling Stone wrote about the Barbz. Along with that, they wrote that Minaj was "the only one of two female artists to have 100 entries or more" on the US chart, which remains unsourced. Why note an achievement that no source has acknowledged? After a claim about Minaj being the highest-paid female rapper of all time was removed due to the source not supporting the loaded verbiage, RogueShanghai restored the information with a new source that also does not support the claim. Even their signature is a Minaj lyric. These are just a few examples, but if they're not enough to demonstrate excessive bias, then go ahead and close this discussion. Thank you again. KyleJoan^talk 02:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Banned editor User:Daniel C. Boyer

...is editing as User:2603:7000:3800:C6CD:7D04:6C39:2F86:A8AF. See the two edits at Surrealist techniques for evidence, in which he added a link to one of his artworks. [279]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

/64 blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Krishnarthiindia aka Ansuman Bhagat

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

I have had many concerns about this editor since they joined about a month ago. They continue to attempt to push through the autobiography Draft:Ansuman Bhagat. Please note that Ansuman Bhagat is salted and has been for years. Every article that they create is promotional and about someone of highly questionable notability. They have failed to respond to any request to declare their quite obvious COI/UPE on their talk page. Tanuj Patel is a prime example of another highly inappropriate article cited entirely to press releases. They also keep adding copyrighted images to pages diff, diff and diff and also occasional removal of AfD/COI notices diff and diff. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat @ Talk:Ron Jeremy

A (likely) legal threat (diff) has been issued on page Talk:Ron Jeremy. Could an admin please review? Melmann 16:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It's the same as User talk:2600:1700:DDB0:2700:49AF:943A:3ED6:F80B. Blocking. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Kuatrero's unilateral page moves. Moving the articles back to their original names until the dispute is settled

User Kuatrero has now for some days been attempting to delete, merge or move the pages Prisoners of the Revolt and Anti-Barricade Law. He has done so unilaterally and without consensus or even discussing it. I would like to ask for the original names to be restored and the pages to be protected from Kuatrero's unilateral moves until a deletion, removal or whatever Kuatrero may be proposing is agreed upon by regular Wikipedia procedures. I also take note that Kuatrero is apparently not a new user and has migrated here from Spanish Wikipedia so he/she should by now be familiar with the rules. I am open to discuss changes but not to accept Kuatrero's behaviour and bickering. I have warned Kuatrero trice and he apparently does not like it and accuses me of "wikihounding" him.[280] Dentren | ^Talk 15:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dentren I've restored Prisoners of the Revolt. Jerm (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Jerm The name Dentren is promoting is non neutral and only used by some groups. Wikipedia needs to use a neutral title, which Prisoners of the protests is. I don't intend to engage in an edit war, however Dentren's actions seem like wikihounding. I urge them to stop harassing me and start contributing with neutral infos. Kind regards Kuatrero (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:E-960 topic ban violations

• E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• August 14, 2020: TBANed by the community "from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed." [281] Closed and logged by Wugapodes [282]
• June 29, 2021: blocked for 1 week by Girth Summit for violating the TBAN [283] (see contribs, note edits to The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and History of Jews in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))
• June 30: unblock request [284]
• July 3: unblock request declined by JBW [285]
• July 7: back to editing The Holocaust [286] and History of Jews in Poland [287] [288] Levivich 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

How this --> [289] belongs to Christianity and European secular politics Levivich? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

.. or this -->[290] ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Which of the words "European," "secular," and "politics" does not apply to The Holocaust? Levivich 17:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

None...Could you explain better? I don't grasp it.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly none of those edits were about Christianity. "European secular politics" is more difficult to assess because it's far from clear what that's intended to mean. I looked through the discussion which led to the ban to seek clarification, but didn't see anything there which clarified the question. (Though I may possibly have missed something due to a TLDR effect.) In fact it isn't clear to me how Wugapodes found a consensus for "European secular politics" in that discussion. Some of the editing reported here is perhaps in the spirit of some of that which led to the topic ban ( e.g. inserting the idea that the Holocaust in Poland was done only by Germans), and so some editors may think it should be covered by the ban, but given the vague wording of the ban I don't think it would be fair to treat it as a ban violation. I suggest that the best way forward may be to take no action now, but for editors to discuss possible ways to clarify the scope of the ban. JBW (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been almost a year and I don't have time to go through the discussion again. From my close it seems my thinking was that some people wanted a TBAN from European politics writ large, while others wanted it more narrowly tailored to European politics as it relates to religion (i.e., secularism). I agree that it's not clear, I even said in the close "Participants weren't clear on what that means", but we've since clarified it somewhat. For example, this discussion clarified that the TBAN covers "political topics with strong ties to Christian ethics" such as abortion and homosexuality. A week ago E-960 just blatantly violated the Christianity prong of the TBAN for which they were blocked (report), and the reporting editor also raised concerns about E-960's editing of The Holocaust article. I'm personally beyond the point of assuming a good faith misunderstanding about the scope of the ban; to me it seems like they're intentionally pushing the limits of what's allowed. The goal of bans is to stop disruption and wasting editors' time, not be an endless source of wikilawyering. I'm fine with clarifying the scope of the TBAN, but I doubt we could craft one that won't be so squishy as to allow continued breaching experiments. Absent an unambiguous TBAN, I'd suggest we impose the CBAN some editors suggested last August. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Folks, you have to be clear here. Seriously. Otherwise, it's a puzzle for the person that is under these unclear restrictions. Sanctions at this point would be more than unfair. I'm copy-pasting your evaluation Wug· while you were imposing the ban:

There is consensus for a community imposed TBAN from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed. Participants weren't clear on what that means but my understanding from the discussion is that it includes: (1) any edit relating to the topic of Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics. Since that's an interpretation of the discussion, I want to explain specifically how I came to that conclusion. The original proposal was a topic ban from all religious topics, not simply European religious topics, and some editors explicitly stated they wanted "Christianity and European politics" as more tailored to the area of disruption. In discussing what that area of disruption was, narrowing "religion" to "Christianity" was pretty strightforward, but participants tended to focus on European politics as it related to the editor's views of secularist politics rather than European politics writ large. Some people did suggest they intended the broader "all European politics" interpretation, but there's not a clear consensus for the broad interpretation. Either way, editors suggest E-960 take some time to cool off, and their willingness to enter into a voluntary TBAN shows they understand that necessity. Some suggested a cban, but there was no consensus at this time. Some suggested a block, but per the discussion and WP:COOLDOWN there is no consensus to impose a block at this time.

The user under sanction didn't breach any of the above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

First, I don't see how editing The Holocaust is related to the topic ban scope, unless it is the extremely broadly construed, where of course any edit to anything related to Europe is wrong. I mean, sure, The Holocaust was carried out by Europeans, some of whom were Christians, interested in politics, and Nazi Germany was obviously secular and political, errr... Yeah, so I don't see how this is a TBAN violation. Given that E-960 had not breached the ban for nearly a year, and has now been hit with this weird critique, I suggest that A, we vacate ban, and B, BOOMERANG is employed to examine those who reported him for BATTLEGROUND mentality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

E-960 was blocked just last month for violating the ban. It did not include (AFAIK, since I wasn't involved there), some of his edits on Poland and a couple of other articles: [291][292][293][294][295][296] (the IPN, mentioned in a couple of these, is a government agency). François Robere (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Last week's violation also broke the Christianity portion of the ban. This week's editing of the Holocaust breaks the "European secular politics" portion of the ban. The Holocaust was the state-directed murder of six million Jews by European Christians in Europe. The victims of the Holocaust were chosen on the basis of their religious background. The Nazi justification of the murder as being motivated by Scientific racism, is pseudo-scientific nonsense, the victims were solely selected on the basis of their religion and their ancestors' religion. The Holocaust falls within politics, and specifically secular politics, being a state act of murder on the basis of nullifying Freedom of religion. The Nuremberg Laws preceding the Holocaust make the religious basis of this murder obvious, as this source points out:

  According to the Nuremberg Laws, a person with three or four Jewish grandparents was a Jew. A grandparent was considered Jewish if they belonged to the Jewish religious community. Thus, the Nazis defined Jews by their religion (Judaism), and not by the supposed racial traits that Nazism attributed to Jews.

  State murder of people on the basis of their religious background (Britannica: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II") is an extreme case of anti-secular politics.--Astral Leap (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

This is stretching the definition/scope of the ban to the point where it’s hard not to question the good faith behind these demands for sanctions. This kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND and attempts to WP:WIKILAWYER really do eventually stray into harassment/griefing of the target. Volunteer Marek 06:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how my most recent edits even come close to violating the TBAN, it's a historical issue, not one related to Christianity or Secular European Politics (Abortion, LGBT issues, Separation of Church and State, discrimnation on the basis of Christianity, etc.). When someone says SECULAR politics it usually refers to issues which I listed above, otherwise it's just POLITICS, and the whole point of adding the word SECULAR is to differentiate from ALL POLITICS. So, let's deconstruct my TBAN which resulted from edits on the Religion in the European Union article. I would assume that it makes sense to impose a ban on topics related to Christianity or politics that involve matters connected with religious beliefs or secular/humanist ideas (as we have a clash between the two in Europe and elsewhere). However, based on the most recent charges against me, apparently I would violate my TBAN if I discussed the current and ongoing issues related to the Coal Mine Dispute between Poland and the Czech Rep., because a political dispute over a coal mine is SECURL POLITICS to some folks, and apparently it makes sense to accuse me of violating the TBAN because the issue of coal mines in Europe is related to the article from which my TBAN stems from Religion in the European Union. We all know how EU energy politics is related to EU politics on Religion. Same can be said for trying to correlate history with current Secular European Politics. --E-960 (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The definition of SECULARISM in SECULAR POLITICS states: "In political terms, secularism is a movement towards the separation of religion and government." So, how are my most recent edits related to this and fall under Christianity and European Secular Politics? --E-960 (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• "Secular" does not mean the same thing as "secularism." The TBAN is written as "European secular politics" but if it's meant to be "European secularism politics," that's something different. Frankly I wouldn't have filed this if it was "secularism" instead of "secular." Levivich 14:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're right Levivich, but in fairness to E-960, Secular politics is a redirect for Secularism. I don't know whether that's valid or not, but it could at least add to the confusion here about what the intended scope of the TBan was. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  IMO secular politics shouldn't be a redirect to secularism but that's neither here nor there. I agree there's enough confusion about the scope of the tban to merit some clarification. I also share Wug's concern about boundary pushing, given E made edits to the same articles that led to the block immediately after the block expired, but a clarification of the tban scope might help with that, too. I guess the Nazis were secularist as well as secular, so the entirety of The Holocaust might still be covered under a secularist politics TBAN, but I haven't thought enough about that particular point yet to make up my mind. Levivich 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is like moving the goal posts in the middle of the game. Wug clearly differentiated between Secular Politics and Politics in the closing statement, noting that some wanted to apply the TBAN to broader Politics as a whole, however the final decision was to impose the sanctions for Christianity and European secular politics. As for my recent omissions, I admitted to them and noted that they were not intended to be a statement of some kind to fight the power, prove a point, or disrupt Wikipedia... they were just my mistakes. I served out the 1 week block, and those omissions should not be viewed as some kind of an attempt to flaunt the TBAN, as some people interpret it to be. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Also, Levivich, please consider what was written in the closing statement: "European politics as it related to the editor's views of secularist politics rather than European politics writ large". --E-960 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes, JBW, and Girth Summit: what are your thoughts on closing this by changing the WP:EDR entry from topic banned from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed to topic banned from (1) Christianity, broadly construed, and (2) any edits relating to secularism, broadly construed, in European politics (language taken from Wug's August 2020 closing statement, quoted in full above)? Levivich 16:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich - How will this proposed little change make it easier to follow the restriction and help stopping shady reports such as this one? Would you please explain? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me and asking me sea lioning questions. Levivich 16:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

(?! excuse me?) Well, perhaps WP: BOOMERANG should be, in fact, delivered. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Look, this is silly. Given enough bad faith you can always make connections and stretch the meanings of words to connect anything to "secular politics in Europe". Joe Biden? He's a politician (check). He went to Europe (so?). And there was that whole thing with the bishops (so related to "religion"!... who cares). Would anyone seriously argue that this TB is meant to cover Joe Biden? Come on. Just change the TB to "anything related to homosexuality and abortion" and be done with it. Straightforward and hard to game. On either side, either by skirting around the edges or by filing bad-faithed ANI requests that border on harassment. Volunteer Marek 16:49, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella - please cool it with the accusations about bad faith and shady reports. Unless either of you care to make an evidence-based case that this complaint has been raised in bad faith, you should at least try to pretend to assume good faith. I for one am prepared to believe that it is a good faith misunderstanding between the various parties on what the TBan was meant to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girth Summit (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit - Yes, actually, after examining Levivich's comments on their talk page, I believe that they were indeed confused, which also demonstrates that the extent of the ban needs to be clarified. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich - I don't personally have a view on what the wording of the TBan should be at present, but I'd be interested in hearing Wug's view on the matter. If I get time later I may read through the original thread and the close properly to make myself better informed, but you know how I don't like giving half-baked opinions... Girth Summit _(blether) 17:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I'd welcome fresh eyes. I gave my thoughts further up, but to clarify somewhat, my main concern is cutting off the need for further discussions like this. Including the original TBAN discussion, this will be the third time we've discussed what the scope is within the past year which is eating up human resources that could be better spent elsewhere. The goal of community sanctions is to stop disruption, not be a source of endless wikilawyering (see WP:NOTBURO) which is why "broadly construed" is included: it empowers administrators to take action on edge cases where the spirit of the restriction is violated if not the precise text. No consensus for a TBAN from European politics, writ large, doesn't mean the community thinks the editor should still edit there, and we should take the stronger interpretations (which did not reach consensus last August) into account when understanding "broadly construed" especially when we are still dealing with concerns a year later. If nothing else, the TBAN discussion last August should have put E960 on notice that their behavior in the Euopean topic area as a whole is viewed as problematic by the community and should probably not be outright avoided even if not expressly prohibited. The sanctions last month should have demonstrated that they are still being observed and that perceptions have not changed much. Yet here we are, again, spending time trying to turn obvious "it is unwise to behave like this" sentiments into ironclad "it is prohibited to behave like this". I'm not necessarily advocating for increased sanctions---I'm not even convinced the behavior reported here is particularly problematic---but from the amount of time I've spent on this the last few weeks I'm not convinced the TBAN as it stands is preventing disruption so much as spreading it to new people and venues. That needs to be fixed in whatever way we think appropriate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW IMO there's nothing particularly problematic (certainly not ANI-worthy) about the edits I linked to if E is not tbanned from "non-religious European politics" (which would include the Holocaust). I was concerned with the edits that led to the previous block, which included removing the collaboration and medical experiments sections from The Holocaust in their entirety because they allegedly push a POV. After the block, the edits to the Poland article were about collaboration as well. But if E's tban doesn't cover the Holocaust then it's probably just a content dispute. I would ask for some official clarity one way or another about whether this tban does or does not cover Holocaust-related content (and I bet E would like that to be clarified, too). Levivich 21:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1. Levivich filed this in good faith.
2. The diffs are out of the scope of the ban.
3. The ban should remain in place, as it's been less than a year and there have been multiple violations.[297][298][299][300][301][302][303]
   1. The easiest way to clarify the scope would be to limit the ban to (more or less) recent politics - from the fall of Communism onward.
4. E-960 edits in good faith, if sometimes tendentiously.
5. The sort of bad faith that's been on display in this thread is the very tip of the iceberg that's WP:APL.
6. The fact that MediaWiki is unable to stop editors from interacting with subjects from which they're banned is ridiculous. We keep arguing about trespassing instead of having the landlord install locks.

François Robere (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wug, JBW and Girth Summit I would perhaps like to highlight a crucial point, since I started to edit Wikipedia back in 2014, I never really got involved in editing pages related to Politics, sporadically a minor edit here or there, but these were rare changes. My primary focus from the start was on matters related to history. The one exception came when I inserted the paragraph related to the marginalization of Christians in the EU on the Religion in the European Union page, it got reverted and this in turn kicked-off a discussion that just went too far. Having said that, when the TBAN was impose it made sense to tailor it to matters related to Christianity and Secular (Secularist) Politics in Europe — in other words religious viewpoints vs. secularist viewpoints, or "culture wars" as its commonly called. However, extending it to all Politics in Europe (as some editors suggested during the initial TBAN discussion), really made no sense, and I would argue it was over-kill. Because: 1. I never really got involved in topics related to current EU/European politics 2. Even in those few instances I did they never really resulted in an editing dispute. In the end, I always felt that the editors who pushed for the wider all Politics in Europe TBAN simply did not look through my history to see that I don't really edit much about politics, and that the dispute in question was very localized, limited just to the Religion in the European Union article and one streak of edits specifically. --E-960 (talk) 06:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• My tuppence-worth. I've now read through the original ANI discussion, including its close. It does seem clear to me that the ban was intended to stop disruption in the topic area of perceived marginalisation of Christianity and secularism in Europe, and not a wider 'European political history' area. As such, I don't think that the edits that Levivich reported here were a breach of the wording (or the spirit) of the ban. Since we seem to be repeatedly discussing the scope, perhaps it would be worth modifying the wording slightly: I'm not looking to broaden (or narrow) the scope, just set it out more clearly, which would be in everyone's interests. Levivich's proposal above seems clearer to me, so put me down as supporting that change in wording. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) In light of some of the comments above, I have listed the redirect "secular politics" at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 9#Secular politics (more-or-less neutrally, though with a preference). Narky Blert (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent disruptive editing by User:Ethan2345678

Reporting Ethan2345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) again since the previous report was archived without action. This time, the user is persistently removing useful links.[304][305][306][307][308] Their talk page is filled with warnings, to which they respond with brief thank-yous before proceeding with their disruption.[309] KyleJoan^talk 10:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This user has misunderstood MOS:SURNAME and other naming conventions, often citing it when making unrelated, needless changes despite multiple explanations. Other disruptive edits include ignoring linked policy explanations and providing useless edit summaries, even after warnings. They've also miscomprehended talk page posts (perhaps due to a slight language impediment), used arbitrary reasoning in discussion, and re-added personal information onto their user page despite a warning. At the very least, I think their talk page, littered with warnings that remain greatly ignored, is an indicator of the state of their contributions to Wikipedia. Reverting their disruption is getting repetitive.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not certain if it's relevant (apologies if it is not), but this recent edit to Basic English appears similar to some noted by Bettydaisies. I happened to note this ANI on Ethan2345678's talk page when asking about a subsequent edit that removed internal links, not unlike what KyleJoan noted. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to apologize on what I did on these articles. By now, I start to familarise on manual of styles and guidelines. And I’ve tried(I hope) to use edit summaries more proficiently and summarize about what I’ve edited on pages. I’ll be more careful in the future about this, especially about naming conventions, links and probably what other people warned me in my talk page. I want to just improve this encyclopedia, thank you. Ethan2345678 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet you've continued, even after this response. You've misunderstood MOS:OL by unlinking "somewhat familiar" phrasing, missed the MOS:DUPLINK policy on lead links, regarded England and Jordan to the same recognitive level as Japan (mentioned in OL), and, in the same edit, going for another irrelevant, unconstructive MOS:SURNAME citation you've been repeatedly warned against.--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bettydaisies, I don't understand your point, or your verb+preposition ("regarded to?). England and Jordan and Japan are all well-known enough to be unlinked. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethan2345678, Thank you for your response and we appreciate what you said about wanting to improve Wikipedia. But please consider this: YOU, as an individual editor can do very little to improve the overall quality of this encyclopedia. It's just too big, with too many articles and too many people making uninformed or destructive edits at the same time as you are trying to improve it. Therefore, it is only through COLLABORATION with other editors that we, working together and not against each other, can make a real difference. I only know this because at one time I, too, thought that I could make a difference by my own individual efforts, until I embraced the spirit of collaboration with others. Does that make sense? So, as another editor put it, please slow down and try to focus on a narrowly targeted set of articles to work on. Since you yourself have stated that your English language skills need a certain level of improvement, perhaps you should focus more on controlling pure WP:VANDALISM or improving articles that are mere stubs or even start-class articles that need a lot of work, as opposed to WP:GOOD or WP:FEATURED or articles that are already well on their way to this level of quality. Please, PLEASE consider these things and know that I am not criticizing you, just trying to offer constructive suggestions. I welcome your comments on this and I'm sure everybody else who is following this thread would love to read them as well. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 04:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What is “Start-class articles”? Also, I edited at a very high rate, so there’ll be some errors. I think my English is strong enough but I made many errors because I was too fast. So maybe I have to slow down. Ethan2345678 (talk) 04:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethan2345678, thank you for your response and for thinking about this. See Wikipedia:Content assessment for definitions of the different article classes. Feel free to message me at any time on my talk page for related discussion. This thread will probably be closed or archived soon by the people who run this page. Cheers, Johnnie Bob (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

And once again, making useless edit summaries and changing referential terminology for no reason. It's unfortunate this thread hasn't received administrator attention, which might encourage you to read this thread much more carefully.--Bettydaisies (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Bump. Ethan2345678 was previously copy-editing, despite what they admit is a less than perfect grasp of English and including many UK articles, where they ran into trouble changing the way members of the Royal Family are referred to based on a misunderstanding of the MOS guidelines on surnames; these two well-intentioned edits also show a lack of awareness of non-US context. Overall, the editor appears to be going mainly on personal taste; this edit, for example, added a link to New York City (surely as well known as the countries to which they have been removing links) to a plage replete with links, on the stated grounds of the page being underlinked. (I looked at that edit because the previous edit to that page was the last where they used the strange "Updated since your last visit" edit summary highlighted by Bettydaisies above.) They have since refocused on vandalism-patrolling, possibly based on a well intentioned suggestion, but they are reverting and warning for substantially good-faith edits such as this (corrects the team name to match the pipe; a player whose transfer has been recently announced, the article is being changed a lot and I'm not sure what the correct number of caps and goals for his previous team is so haven't edited it myself). Since Ethan2345678 was miscopying the warning templates, someone has now suggested using Twinkle, but I do not believe they are competent to do vandal patrolling, and they have already admitted above that they were working too fast. I am going to suggest on their talk page that they pivot again to much simpler maintenance tasks. Reverting people, they are doing as much harm as good and one reverted editor has already contested on Ethan2345678's talk page their very strongly worded objection to use of a non-English word. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethan2345678 has continued to misunderstand MOS:OL and MOS:SURNAME after multiple warnings, necessitating reverts. This is is getting tiring. WP:COMPETENCE is beginning to come into play here--Bettydaisies (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, thanks for weighing in here. I'm also leaning in that direction. What I find most troubling is this pretense at recognition, and yet the edits keep coming. Someone who keeps making mistakes and keeps apologizing for them should be editing at a "high rate", as they indicated themselves. "Updated since your last visit" is them copying a phrase, I think, but it is indicative of what is going on: a barely competent editor who uses crutches like copied phrases, who shifts to another area when they are criticized, but can't let go of their fascination with names, for instance. Thing is, I don't know what to do about it--they're clearly not listening. Should I block? Will that help in improving the editor, or are we just doing damage control? What would you do? Drmies (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there any possibility this editor could be convinced to edit in areas where they at least have knowledge of the subject matter? It's hard enough to edit in a second language without also adding in lack of subject knowledge. They seem to be in Thailand. Maybe editing on Thai subjects? —valereee (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that they don't seem to either be reading or understanding policy, and are being disruptive in literally everything they've been doing. They've just had a go at doing some clean-up tagging, the second edit of which was this ridiculous tag of a two line stub as having a lead too short to summarise the article [310]. It honestly seems like we have an intractable CIR issue here - the repeating pattern consists of them making problematic edits and being given lots of good advice on how to improve, to which they respond that they understand and they'll do better in the future, followed by them immediately going off to do more of the same kind of problematic edits. If they can't do antivandalism work properly, can't do copyediting properly, can't do cleanup work properly and are unwilling or unable to listen to advice what is there for them to do here realistically? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Also a look at their Thai Wikipedia talk page shows a page full of warnings related to similar issues they've had here (i.e. making a problematic edit, promising not to do it again, then immediatley doing it again), three blocks for disruptive editing and a notice that they're on their last chance to improve, so I'm doubtful that restricting them to Thai topics will lead to a miraculous improvement in their work here. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also noticed the 'warnings' Ethan2345678 is leaving on user pages, he is jumping straight in with a level 4 warning. As with the comment above, I have also removed a few 'too short lede' tags from other articles that Ethan2345678 has added, each one being completely unnecessary, it is clear that he has no knowledge of wiki policy and seems unwilling/unable to listen to more experienced wiki users. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've blocked them indefinitely. They seem to be editing in good faith, but simply too many errors, at too high a rate, and way too many false accusations of vandalism. And to top it all off, unwilling or unable to take on board other people's advice. If someone thinks they can mentor Ethan, I have no objection to an admin unblocking with some restrictions, but I'm not optimistic. Finally, can we please stop recommending to editors causing problems in one area to concentrate on vandal fighting instead!? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

↑↑↑Can I get an "AMEN" up in here?!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Just posting in the interests of transparency - I have offered to mentor the user following a successful unblock per WP:SO. I suggested the editor wait six months at least for an unblock, during which they could improve upon their linguistic skills and understanding of English (I am under the impression that it isn’t their first language). Patient Zero^talk 18:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will not recommend anti-vandalism work to anyone in the future unless I am reasonably sure they can handle it. Johnnie Bob (talk) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Autonomous agent 5's problems

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.

---

Autonomous agent 5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aa5 began editing in late April of this year and has shown themself to be problematic from the beginning. They also do tasks that a new user would not normally do, e.g., move pages. Early on, they also started creating new pages, sometimes immediately in draft form, and other times in mainspace, but other editors would move them to draft space.

Aa5 first came to my attention because of a report they filed at WP:AN3, which provoked this painful discussion at User talk:Autonomous agent 5#Warnings. As you can see, the user is obsessed with the declined report at AN3 involving Chainlink (blockchain). Cryptocurrency articles are a focus of this editor; see, e.g., Draft:Altcoins/1. I will now list some of the problems of the user, for which I recommend an indefinite block for WP:NOTHERE, failure to collatorate, inability to communicate clearly, and incompetence:

• Aa5 speaks of themself in the third person, i.e., "this user has done nothing wrong", making it very difficult to follow what they are saying because they also often refer to other users as "the user" or "this user".
• If there is a way to say something in one sentence, Aa5 says it in a very long paragraph that is often incomprehensible (I used the word "gibberish"). See this paragraph on their Talk page.
• They have a battleground mentality. Besides edit-warring on the Chainlink article, they have also edit-warred on other articles, e.g., Broccoli, Radiation.
• They add material to articles that is odd and rather tangential, e.g., these many edits to Night, which is should really revert but have not (part of the problem is the user makes many, many edits, some of which may be okay, making it hard to surgically remove the bad ones). My favorite addition by the user to this article is a subsection on Human that says "It is healthy for men to have a number of penile erections during the night", citing to a Men's health website.
• When Aa5 uses edit summaries, they are often odd (big surprise) and uninformative, "obvs.", "arc.". By contrast, many are unnecessarily verbose, e.g., "removed {{advert}} WP:WTRMT - this editor did not perceive WP:WNTRMT as applicable because 21:37, 6 July 2021 solved the problem of "UNESCO selected Chainlink" is promotional @ "selected", not shown at source, & "UNESCO" is not the case because is an org. not member(s) of the org. q.v. "UNESCO does not endorse..." (foot of source-page); q.v 19:31, 6 July 2021‎, 18:56, 6 July 2021".

I don't make these kinds of reports very often as I find them tiring, so the above is not an exhaustive list of the user's problems; nor do I use diffs in every instance. I can provide additional diffs if needed, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I concur. Added a pile of promotional, press-release and non-RS content to Chainlink (blockchain), insisted on edit-warring it back in, including bizarre claims such as "in the cyberspace dimension" in the intro. I looked at their talk page and their other edits, and it's a pattern in every interaction they have and most articles they edit. Their writing style is long, rambling, incomprehensible gibberish that fails to state a claim. It's not clear if this is performance art or something they just can't stop themselves from doing. In any case, the horse has been led to water repeatedly and only gets indignant at the idea they should drink - WP:NOTHERE either way - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Not to cast aspersions, but might this editor be an AI experiment? Perhaps semi-supervised? Their contributions seem quite...otherish. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Possible, but the focus on edit-warring promotional content into crypto articles leads me to think that's the underlying purpose - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support the recommendation for indefinite block for WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. It's impossible to communicate with an editor who says imagining that the energy of any thought in a social situation - in which decisions are made - such as in wikipedia - although the different users are in separate places to each other (accepting this as true for this argument) the energy of another user changes the energy situation (synaptically specifically) of any another wikipedia user in a situation where there is exchange of information between those users (i.e. written words) - localizing the problem at one user is an error therefore because for example David Gerard (A) and this user are in a shared energy situation - i.e. processing of sensory date (i.e. light and information from wikipedia contributions) - the situation is reactionary between the two users - not an example of the actual people as they exist exclusively, with regards (although JoJo's comment makes me wonder if it's some weird performance art attempt, Wikipedia isn't the place for it). Schazjmd (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

They even appear to be using the third person inconsistently. I see many instances of "me" and "I" sprinkled in to their replies, like they forgot to switch. Are you sure this isn't someone trolling? 2001:4898:80E8:36:D0F3:CB03:6C51:3DD5 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" - looking at my edit count page -

deleted edits is 0.9% ::*of the two reasons given for a discussion here - no-one prior to these two reports has included a complaint against this user here, so how do the two users hope to convince this user, at least, or anyone else that the problem is chronic? - given that my edit count is 2,623 - how would they know there is a problem if the edits are in thousands and the percentage of error is < 1 - doesn't indicate a chronic problem

with, regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of concerned editors here the fact of the behaviour of David Gerard @ User talk:David Gerard#Notice of_edit_warring noticeboard_discussion & User_talk:Autonomous agent 5#Warnings - currently at the second of these page links this user (that is autonomous agent 5) has written a reply (18:07, 9 July 2021) to 16:25, 9 July 2021 David Gerard which is on the subject of the current editorial situation @ Chainlink - which as an article is going in no direction of development and has reached an impasse between this editor and David Gerard; this editor (that is Autonomous agent 5) is not intending to make any changes which are in any way contestable at Chainlink until the current situation of conflict is solved - but given the comment written at Autonomous agent 5#Warnings 18:07, 9 July 2021 (reply to David Gerard) the user has not written a reply there and instead arrived here - but I haven't stated I'm intending to continue with changes @ the conflicted article - furthermore no-one else has thought to indicate a problem so in this users opinion David Gerard is trying to divert the consensus forming @ Chainlink because the user has no response possible to the questions/ criticisms this user (Aa5) has identified:

18:45, 6 July 2021 will not allow the "Publications" section

reverted the "Design" section @ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ containing only green sources WP: RSP @ 15:23, 6 July 2021 with the summary "rv promotional, crypto, deprecated content - ::*Wikipedia is not for advertising or promotion"

cite 6 @ this version "Chainlink is currently headquartered within the Cayman Islands" is yet again reverted from the article @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainlink_(blockchain) - the user has reverted this sentence @ 15:18, 8 July 2021, 08:57, 7 July 2021, ‎ 15:23, 6 July 2021‎ (please see the foot of this reply for a relevant comment on this particular aspect of this problem)

all I would like is answers to these queries from David Gerard, I don't intend to cause a problem to any other user and make a genuine and considered effort to improve wikipedia - so this situation and the criticisms are unfounded, at least to this degree - which is provable by looking at the article version @ Chainlink - which I don't hope to be a partisan of - I have already accommodated on numerous occasions the critical input of David Gerard @ Chainlink - and found his criticism valuable - but considering David Gerard has had no dealings with me prior to Chainlink, the problem is restricted to the situation identified by the fact of the Sanctions - which shows the subject of cryptocurrencies etc is conflict prone - is the reason for this situation - I don't know the reason for David Gerard won't engage in dialogue with this editor (that is Aa5) on the subject of Chainlink - when I can give my assurance there won't be any changes to that article until consensus is reached - this isn't that dialogue, if no other previously involved editor is having a problem then this discussion shouldn't be occurring - also - when my contributions to wikipedia began I might have made some mistakes, but considering the deleted % I can't agree that the problem is being represented accurately:

Talk:Chainlink_(blockchain)#reversions

c.f. It may or may not be registered in the Caymans, but that link does not show where its headquarters are - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

if you open the link the source shows explicitly headquarters Cayman Islands, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

the debated link is @ 13:32, 8 July 2021 version (which is before David Gerard has reverted @ 15:18, 8 July 2021‎ - cite 5 https://www.weforum.org/organizations/chainlink (World Economic Forum) shows exactly Headquartered Cayman Islands, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I answered these questions: use independent reliable sources on crypto articles, not promotional, primary or press-release sources, and stop edit-warring such sources back into articles.

The above text is a perfect worked example of what it's like dealing with Aa5 - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: if you would like to look @ the source https://www.weforum.org/organizations/chainlink tell me, and other editors here, if you see @ the source the information which I'm stating or the information you are stating, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Primary promotional description sourced from the company, absolutely not a third-party RS for this usage - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

that's fine, why put a message @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chainlink_(blockchain) which is obviously not reality or true?, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Implying a long and good standing editor is lying is not a good method of defending your actions. 2001:4898:80E8:36:D0F3:CB03:6C51:3DD5 (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not stating David Gerard is lying look for yourself! he has written at the Talk page discussion that link does not show where its headquarters are but the source shows exactly the contrary to David Gerard statement - I think David Gerard is stressed maybe, or presuming I'm lying - if you look you will see also that I'm not lying so the source is valid so the content should be in the article, and David Gerard has reverted the content 3 times, and is now stating something that isn't reality, idk the reason David Gerard is stating it, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. This editor appears to make problematic edits too frequently, including adding promotional content and edit warring it back in, and their responses in talk page discussions (and many of their edit summaries) are often nearly incomprehensible. I do not get the impression that they even realize there are any issues with their behavior. If this editor is genuinely acting in good faith, then there would appear to be significant competency issues that prevent them from being able to contribute constructively. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

how the previous editor is able to make that judgement? if my edits are in thousands but the deleted edits are less then 1% and no-one else has thought to comment of there being a problem - does not confirm the previous editors statement - If you would like to view the comments - "It may or may not be registered in the Caymans, but that link does not show where its headquarters are" David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2021 is not true and is written on the Talk page of the article Chainlink which is the article David Gerard and this editor were conflicting @ - that doesn't indicate my lack of competency does it?, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

who else is suggesting a block here in any case? wallyfromdilbert - you are escalating the situation without looking at the reality of the situation - the disagreement began @ Chainlink, and David Gerard and this user (that is Aa5) haven't had any other dealings on wikipedia before - and no-one else has previously thought to mention a problem with my activities on wikipedia - if you look to the problem it isn't actually my behaviour - the discussion was begun because David Gerard was repeatedly reverting at Chainlink which isn't allowed - while this editor (that is Aa5) hasn't reverted anything and has made efforts to change the article to respond to the indications of David Gerard, if you look through the editorial summaries you will be able to see that, with regards, autonomous agent 5 - version: prototype (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC) corr. 23:29, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• God, all that work and the user is blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Told you it was trolling. 2001:4898:80E8:36:D0F3:CB03:6C51:3DD5 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2021 (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:CRP violation needs to be reverted

Can an uninvolved editor please undo this WP:CRP violation by an IP? Thank you. Idealigic (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Idealigic, as I noted at the recently-archived thread about this, nobody wants to touch this, so you might want to consider an arbitration request. El_C 13:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like I actually semi'd the MEK page on July 6 till the 20th (hello, memory!). Anyway, this possible violation from that IP (dated June 25) is at this point Stale. El_C 10:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Nubia (character) article by Benicio2020

Over a period of the last 3-4 weeks, Benicio2020 and I have been involved in a conflict that is starting to know no end. Beginning on 31 May 2021, I have made 14 edits to the Nubia (character) article, most or all in the Nubia (character)#Long-term publication absence which is the particular area where Benicio2020 and I have have been having a conflict.

Benicio2020’s first edit on 19:38, 31 May 2021 was a simple revert, that deleted all of multiple interconnected points, in which he/she 1) claimed that it was all original research 2) neglected to contribute any discussion beforehand 3) did not attempt at salvaging anything or 4) did not attempt to add any references (which were already in the article or related articles that were wikilinked-to) that were relevant.

After a simple un-reversion by me, my very next edit on 03:55, 3 June 2021 showed improvements on my part with the addition of 3 references for a medium-sized paragraph with less than 100 words. This was followed up by Benicio2020 the very same day (3 June) in a series of 6 edits over a period of 4 minutes, beginning at 13:57 going to 14:01. Some of these edits included what I would call rather petty quibbles over language choice, including an objection to my using the word “full” in a quote “a full twenty years” in reference to a publication gap for the subject’s publishing history (actually, 19 years and 11 months), although I later did make this more technically correct by further qualifying the statement. It was also in this series of 6 edits in one edit on 13:59, 3 June 2021, when Benicio2020 1) started a series of contentions of his/hers over a particular item of material by calling into question the reliability of the cited source for that material and 2) deleted additional material without any explanation whatsoever.

In the next edit I made, on 18:05 4 June 2021, I changed the source from the one Benicio2020 objected to, to the primary source which, for this intent and purpose, was the best possible source. Benicio’s next edit on 20:15, 4 June 2021 was 1) a simple reversion 2) with the rationale that I was introducing opinions into the article and sourcing them to the new (primary) source, taking contention with the exact same material 3) in which he/she continued to delete accompanying material without any rationale, whatsoever.

Since that time, Benicio has undone that work a total of 5 more times (including 3 simple reversions) without once ever having demonstrated at all that he/she has done any fact-checking on the particular item of contention, despite on 22:06, 4 June 2021 on the article’s talk page, my calling to his/her attention on 22:06, among other things “Not even an hour-and-a-half went by between my making that edit and you 1) deleting some material for no stated reason, whatsoever, and 2) making a deletion without any demonstration of consulting a source to determine its relevancy” (something that he/she has continually repeated to do). I reminded him/her again on the article’s talk page on 19 June 2021 that an editor must fact-check, linking to Wikipedia’s fact-checking policy and citing that she/he “h[ave] the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content” before he/she can start to make a contention about the applicability and relevance of a reference to the material it supports in the article.

Benicio2020 has made repeated claims that I am injecting opinions, but how can somebody claim material in an article supported by a reference is an opinion if they have repeatedly and consistently refused to demonstrate that they have consulted that reference, themselves?

Also, after my 18:05 4 June 2021 edit, and after I made the explanation that I mentioned on the article’s talk page on 22:06, Benicio2020 made 3 more reversions over the next 24 hours (curiously enough, stopping just one edit short of the 3-revert rule), all the while completely neglecting to engage with my discussion on the article’s talk page.

Throughout all 5 of his/her reversions/edits since my edit on the main article on 18:05 4 June 2021, not only has Benicio2020 refused to demonstrate, every single time, that he/she has consulted the source to be able to argue the relevancy and applicability of the source to the corresponding material in the article, he/she has also, in all 5 edits, deleted other material for which he/she has failed to articulate any reason for deleting.

Can I please have an administrator’s oversight on this?

ETA: Sorry. Forgot to sign. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly simple case of QuakerIlK continuing to add their opinion to the article, in various phrases, while sourcing those phrases to a comic book (a primary source). I removed it because it is Original Research according to WP:OR. QuakerIlK has ignored me when I pointed out that you can't add your own personal interpretations of primary sources to articles. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly simple case of Benicio2020 failing to demonstrate him/her having fulfilled their basic editorial responsibility of undergoing basic fact-checking to determine whether the material a source supports in an article is actually an opinion. Benicio2020 fails to grasp that visual evidence is more proof of a person's appearance (and cultural identity association) than mere text is. If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source. Additionally, Benicio2020's rationales for reversions/deletions are inconsistent. On top of that, Benicio2020's reversions and deletions include deletions of additional material, beyond the debated appearance and possibly resulting cultural identity association of Euboea, for which he/she has failed to ever even once articulate a rationale.

I could be more helpful and more directly supply evidence to illustrate that the material in the article is accurate, making more irrefutable than ever any disagreement, but according to Benicio2020's rationale, which is faulty to begin with, there isn't anything I can provide OTHER than opinions, (because he/she actually wants text opinions from secondary sources to prove what the appearance and/or ethnic looks of Euboea are), which directly contradicts more objective and irrefutable evidence ever being applied, which puts me in a lose-lose position in Benicio2020's eyes, no matter what I do.

I think with an administrator's proper oversight, this could be solved very easily, but I have already spent too much time and energy on this matter to further invest more time and energy only to have the contribution I have made be negated for no good reason. If I can be provided with either an administrator's written advice as to how to proceed in order to properly support the material in the article OR if Benicio2020 would care to realize that he/she is putting me in a lose-lose situation because he/she fails to understand when/why different categories of sources are applicable, then I am more than happy to proceed. QuakerIlK (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source This is absolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works; we use established, reliable secondary sources. OP is a pretty clear case of an editor failing to understand WP:OR and pushing their interpretations of source material (or interpretations/claims sourced to fan wikis) in the article. Suggest QuakerIlK familiarize themselves with the relevant policy, because they are fully in the wrong here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"[A]bsolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works", Grandpallama? Your statement is both reductive and extreme, (in other words, wrong), and whereas you absolutely fail to quote any specific policies, I will not fail to do so. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Furthermore, as per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Additionally, that section states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and "[a] primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". (The primary source I ended up using that got reverted/deleted 5 times by Benicio2020 was an excerpt from a issue of the main series of the Wonder Woman comic book, published by DC Comics. It is 100% relevant to the article and the publisher is DC Comics, which was, at the time of the publication of this source in particular, A Warner Communications Company.)

As for the material, itself, fine. This shouldn't be necessary, but perhaps because of the audience, it is. Perhaps visual proof would help more than a bunch of text. Benicio2020, are you really going to claim, in light of this visual, that it is only an opinion that Euboea's “looks suggest perhaps East Asian or Hispanic ethnicity, rather than Caucasian ethnicity”? This is not an opinion, it is “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts”. Frankly, in light of this visual evidence, I could easily issue a stronger, less qualified statement.

If you don’t believe the context/sourcing, here is a video proving that this is from the stated source. [311]

Again, this is not how Wikipedia works; this is a textbook example of original research with what increasingly appears to be some WP:IDHT thrown in for good measure. Your interpretation of this character's appearance is just that: interpretation. If you continue to dig in your heels on this, prepare for the incoming boomerang. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, since you are quoting WP:RSPRIMARY, you might want to pay attention to the text immediately below what you quoted (that you seem to have conveniently ignored), which is relevant in this situation: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. The fact you just tried to edit war this back in while the ANI discussion is ongoing is unacceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am edit-warring is utterly inappropriate - Benicio2020 was the one who started repeatedly reverting my edits, plus I was the one who initiated this complaint and I made that edit a little while ago only after going through great lengths to provide greater transparency regarding the sourcing. We're still waiting for an administrator to weigh in on this, aren't we? You also fail to grapple with the actual material and the related sourceing at all.QuakerIlK (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong on pretty much all counts, and Grandpallama has explained the relevant policies to you correctly. Please just drop it. There is nowhere on Wikipedia where you can argue about the apparent ethnicity of fictional characters. If you want to include this, you have to cite a secondary source; posting your own interpretation of a primary source is against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Does being "wrong on pretty much all counts" include the fact that not only Benicio2020 (at least 5 times) but now also Grandpallama have made reverts that delete, in addition to the debated material, material for which no rationale for deletion has ever been articulated by either one of them? That is part of my complaint. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

More supporting material, including 2 new sources, have been added to the article. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Two editors and an admin have now explained why this attempt to insert original research is inappropriate. Please quit trying to force it in. If you have other edits you want to make, that's fine, but continuing to edit war to include your personal opinions is going to lead to sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You completely ignored the fact that I introduced new sources and material and all you did was a simple revert. Your rationale for making the revert you just did is 100% baseless because neither you, nor Benicio2020 nor NinjaRobotPirate has weighed in at all on either the newly-introduced material or the newly-introduced sources in the article section. QuakerIlK (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So, at this point QuakerI1K received a 24 hour block for edit warring. That should be a clear message that yes, you are edit warring QI1K. Once your block lifts, take your comments to the article Talk page, but do not resume attempting to force your edits into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to here at ANI, this has already been discussed at the article talkpage, at QI1K's talkpage, and at Benicio's talkpage. If we are advising QI1K to return to the article talkpage, they need to understand that it isn't an invitation to continue to push this particular edit; further attempts to argue that their interpretations and unencyclopedic language should be included in the article are just going to result in an escalation of sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Hand That Feeds You, Can either you or NinjaRobotPirate please explain to me why once I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question that Grandpallama reverted that edit without either a review of the source or discussion of it on here by any involved party? Can anybody explain to me how I was being charged with edit-warring and was blocked and not Grandpallama? Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made ( Black characters in animation and Category:Black people in comics ), and why those categories remain deleted from that article and why none of the reversions of the articles by any of the other editors, other than myself, involved in this dispute, included rationales for the removal of those categories and why the categories remain removed/deleted without absolutely any rationale whatsoever as to why those removals/deletions persist? QuakerIlK (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve content disputes; you need to use dispute resolution for that. You were blocked because people were complaining about your edits here, and I saw you edit warring. Grandpallama hadn't made any additional edits on the article at the time I blocked you. Life is unfair like that. It also doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong when you're edit warring. This is explained in the policy itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring? They claimed in that edit's rationale "Explained by two editors AND an admin that this is inappropriate.", yet this most recent material to which Grandpallama was referring to there that I added at the time which included a new secondary source that supported the material, which is what both you and Grandpallama said was needed, was (and remains) content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked? None of the involved editors here put forth any effort whatsoever in discussing it.

Was I guilty of vandalism in that edit? Was I guilty of inflammatory comments? Where is the disabusal process from you on this series of actions from my edit - "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)".

I can admit that throughout this process I have been overly verbose, which is generally advised against in these sorts of processes. (It does mean that I am trying, though.) But as I have continually tried to make improvements on the material in question by further qualifications and articulations with an increasing body of sources that supports the material I add, the language directed against me by both Grandpallama and The Hand That Feeds You, that I "force" edits in, escalates, as does Grandpallama's warning of sanctions against me.

If I continue to make improvements, which I have done consistently, that means that I realized that, to a certain degree, I was wrong in the past, but can you or any other involved party here admit to having made any mistakes throughout this whole process and consider that I might be being punished unfairly or that the article is being prevented from being improved by me? So far, I have seen no indication of that. QuakerIlK (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself. I think the problem here is that you refuse to hear what people are telling you. If you continue down this path, the end result is an indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure NinjaRobotPirate wants to be done with this (so my apologies for pinging him), but a few of these claims merit response, especially since they are directed at me.

• can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring I reverted you a grand total of three times. The second time I reverted your edit, it was because a discussion was ongoing here (which I very clearly explained/referenced above, in this very thread), per WP:STATUSQUO. The third time I reverted you, it was to again restore a policy-compliant version of the article after you were blocked and the problems with your edits were explained to you. I will not put words in NRP's mouth, but I don't think most admins would see those reversions as disruptive; on the other hand, after you initially inserted your problematic material, you reverted eleven times. Do you really not see the difference?
• I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question You absolutely did not. You added a secondary source that supported a claim about the ethnicity of the actor who portrayed the character in live action, which you used to continue the attempt to push your original research into the article. At no point did you provide any sort of sourcing that supported your original research. The fact that you're not getting this is alarming.
• Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made Sure. You made a bold edit of which 80% was highly problematic. It's not the job of other editors to dig through that edit and preserve the "okay" parts; if you don't want them reverted, don't bundle them together with material you have been told is contentious. It is not the job of other editors to clean up after you.
• content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked If you haven't read WP:IDHT, you need to. Your content was discussed on the article talkpage (pretty calmly by Benicio2020, despite your constant needling). The fact that you don't like what other editors said about the content not being compliant with policy and that it needs proper sourcing is right there, on the article talkpage and on your talkpage and now at ANI. Please start listening and stop arguing.

If you had engaged in good faith on the talkpage, you probably would have avoided the first block in your long editing career here. Instead, you chose to bring this to ANI, which resulted in shining a light on your edits. If I were you, I would walk away from this before editors start scrutinizing some of the similar stuff you've added to other pages. Grandpallama (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your last 'point' on here is a clear-cut case of Hounding. QuakerIlK (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it's a point that even a casual glance at your editing history shows you have a pattern of adding unsourced material and opinion to articles. If you want to accuse me of harassment, go ahead and file another ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The "similar stuff" to which you referred in your 14:10, 30 June 2021 response has now been changed by me. That material is now even better sourced, and even an accusation of weasel words wouldn't stand up now. More responses from me on this overall discussion to come in the next few days. QuakerIlK (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? I looked at your diff and you are going to claim that this is not personal opinion?

It was late in the Bronze Age, however, when what is possibly the single-most-significant change in the iconography of Wonder Woman's costume occurred.

That's a blatant violation of WP:EDITORIAL. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You're accusing material as being blatantly in violation of a core Wikipedia policy while completely neglecting to engage with the quoted statements from numerous sources that support said material. You also offer no analysis, whatsoever, to support your very strong claim. QuakerIlK (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Why the fuck are we still covering comic book characters, pro "wrestling, and beauty pageants? It's all so, so childish. EEng 04:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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.

---

103.203.72.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been purely disruptive:

• edit warring by continuously adding unsourced content in Journey into Mystery (Loki) (nine times: [312], [313], [314], [315], [316], [317], [318], [319], [320])
• edit warring by adding the phrase race-swapped to Ravonna (five times: [321], [322], [323], [324], [325])
• adding Black to Gugu Mbatha-Raw and Wunmi Mosaku lead sections, against WP:ETHNICITY (Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability), and reinstating it one time so far after being reverted (Mbatha-Raw: [326], [327]; Mosaku: [328], [329])

The IP has not attempted to start a talk page discussion in any of these cases. They only "communicated" once, telling Cardei012597 (talk · contribs) to Stop reverting my edits on Loki pages you right knob([330]). Note that the IP hasn't made any constructive edits (IP's contributions). —El Millo (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Does this really need discussed here at ANI, or just appropriately warning the user (already done) and then reporting to WP:AIV for disruptive editing? - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

More than once I've reported to AIV and the repeated addition of unsourced content was treated as a "content dispute". Should I report it there now? —El Millo (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, they have continued their disruptive editing after the final warning without any attempts to discuss their editing. As far as I am concerned, nothing more needs to be done, it is time for a block. - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The user has been reported to WP:AIV and blocked. —El Millo (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2021 (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.

Long term pattern of Wikilink vandalism from Jordanian IP's

While browsing some articles I've spotted what seems to be a long term spate of vandalism coming out of some Jordanian IP's. The modus operandi is to add piped wikilinks to the first word of articles, linking to unrelated or offensive terms. Some example diffs: [331] [332] [333] [334]. IP's I've found adding these links include:

• 212.34.11.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.34.12.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.34.13.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.34.20.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.34.22.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.34.23.161 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 212.34.23.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Could someone with more knowledge of IP's please figure out what the smallest range is that would include all of these addresses, and whether it would be feasible to block? This seems to have been going on since April. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The smallest range to cover all of those would be 212.34.0.0/19, which covers 8192 individual addresses. There are a handful of good-faith edits in the last 50 edits from that range, but the majority are not so good; a lot of obviously inappropriate WP:OVERLINKing like [335],[336],[337], [338], going back as least as far as April. A rangeblock is probably in order. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Two of those four examples link to DAB pages, to the aggravation of DABfixers, and all four violate MOS:BOLDAVOID. Narky Blert (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)′ The potential collateral damage could be reduced to 3072 addresses by covering a couple of narrower ranges instead: 212.34.8.0/21 and 212.34.20.0/22.—Odysseus1479 06:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/212.34.8.0/21 and Special:Contributions/212.34.20.0/22 for one month. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it worth considering an edit filter to tag linking the first word of an article? (Not a dab; that's normal.) I often revert test edits such as this. Certes (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Certes:That would be one option, but the filter would need some fairly complex logic I would have thought, because there's a load of frontmatter type material that can contain wikilinks that we'd want to skip (e.g. infoboxes, hatnotes, deletion discussion tags, cleanup templates). Another option that might be worth considering would be a filter that detects the addition of wikilinks to common words that should not ordinarily be linked, (e.g. the, a, in, as, an, is ...). It shouldn't be too complicated to impement - you'd just need to check for a pattern that looks something like [[foo]] or |foo]] to catch links that are set up to display as those words. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't want to digress too far from ANI matters but I monitor new links to A (example) and could add The, etc. However, I wouldn't catch bad links to normally legitimate targets as reported here. Certes (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Certes: The filter regex I suggested (checking for for cases where the text starts with double brackets or starts with a pipe) would catch both links to the word and piped links displaying as the word. I'll set up a request on the edit filter requests page. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the bandwidth such a filter would demand would be justified by the evil averted. EEng 04:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Shinjoya violating WP:COVIDDS at ZyCoV-D

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.

---

Shinjoya is continuously adding back World's first DNA COVID-19 vaccine WP:PROMOTIONAL statement in 'Technology' section, which the company have incorporated in their vaccine logo and which also violates WP:NPOV. The user is also engaged in adding bio-medical claims without WP:MEDRS and arguing I repeat that WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) doesn't apply to this. on Talk:ZyCoV-D. The user has been warned multiple times about this and WP:COVIDDS but still repeating the same. The user was recently community-imposed indefinite topic ban from caste-related topics for 90 days. The editor is now suject to WP:COVIDDS. Thank you. Run n Fly (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Toddy1: since the editor was also engaged in correcting the mistakes of Shinjoya and explain WP:MEDRS on Talk:ZyCoV-D. Run n Fly (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Run n Fly, I had already explained my edits on the talk page itself. I had added this which you reverted as promotional. Then I explained on talk page that the content is not promotional. But you removed the content again without responding on talk page. Having seen your revert a second time, I reverted you again. After that, I had already said that I am not going to re-add the content until the vaccine gets approval. So, the content dispute had already been over. You bringing the matter to this ANI was simply uncalled for. Shinjoya (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the references you added because it serves no purpose except WP:CITEBOMB non-medical references. See [339]. Also, we need to wait patiently for WP:MEDRS rather add non-medical references.Run n Fly (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to re-add the content until the vaccine gets approval is a misleading statement. The user is simply failing to comply with WP:MEDRS. This is not a content-dispute rather than ignoring rules set by the community for certain articles. Run n Fly (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It's less than a month since the editor was Tbanned from the caste area, I'm not sure there's much more rope to give. —SpacemanSpiff 18:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. I agree with the Spaceman. Topic ban Shinjoya from one controversial area they've been disrupting, and you apparently immediately get them disrupting another controversial area. I'm not up for topic banning a user over and over — in the case of Covid, it would obviously be for insisting on non-MEDRS compliant sources. I have blocked the user indefinitely for being a net negative to the encyclopedia. Bishonen | tålk 19:35, 10 July 2021 (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.

Concern about comment made by User:Supermann

After declining Draft:Stephen Hogan, author (User:Supermann) started personal attacks on my talk page, calling me that I have a myopic view (diff). I earlier requested them not to make personal attack (diff). I am very saddened by this incident and feeling insecure. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have just now declined their draft. Some of the sources are unreliable, or YouTube sources. The person doesn't seem to be enough notable as per WP:GNG seeing at a cursory glance. There is possibly WP:COI with the article creator. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 09:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think that this comment about your point of view amounts to a personal attack I will say that the real superman would never be that rude. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the draft, but I don't see anything approaching an actionable personal attack there. The creators of drafts are often disappointed when they are declined: to say that the reviewer has a myopic view is just figurative way of saying that they disagree with your position on the draft. It's a bit confrontational, but nothing that warrants a report here. If you're going to review drafts at AfC, I'd urge you to overlook comments like that and focus on the important point: explain clearly why you declined the draft and what they could do to improve it. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

What about this comment accusing decliners of Hibernophobia? This seems like a PA to me CiphriusKane (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

You are required to notify someone when discussing them at ANI. It says so in a big bright notice when you edit this page. I have notified them for you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is clearly a bit worse. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying that it would be a hate crime against the Irish if it is declined again is obviously very silly, but it wasn't directed at any editor in particular. I'll give them some advice on their talk. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• TBST, I do not see anything so egregious that would warrant an ANI be initiated that could not be solved by just ignoring them. Furthermore, it is a belief of mine that no one can make you feel insecure about your own self without your consent. Take it from someone who suffers from acromegaly. Celestina007 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  Many thanks for the support. As demonstrated by Girth Summit, s/he/they actually took the time to improving the article. I certainly can't afford all the paywalls out there like that of the Times, since I wasn't paid by anyone and don't have any conflict of interests. It's weird and frustrating when I see fellow editors just like shooting stuff down instead of making the effort of improving it. Btw, there is only one Youtube source not sources. It was just meant to help the readers visualize it, since not all readers may have seen the cult movie. I would argue it's fair use since it's of low resolution. I wish there was more camaraderie here to really make knowledge more accessible in one place, while I understand Wikipedia positions itself as a tertiary source. Supermann (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation

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

---

Truly liberal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Does Special:Diff/1032939259 and Special:Diff/1032938536 need a revdel? Claims a BLP is a white supremacist holocaust denier using blacklisted OpIndia (RSP entry) as a source. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocking per WP:NOTHERE. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Revdel'd too. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion, the following diffs may need to be revdel'd too, it's visible on the page at present. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Acroterion (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2021 (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.

Sacred Light Of Love

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.

---

Sacred Light Of Love (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The user was blocked for persistent WP:NOTFORUM violations at Talk:Legend of the Rainbow Warriors and using unwanted prophetic sweet-talk like in Special:Diff/1032947537. We request TPA revocation after continually spamming their own talk page with similar disruption. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, also, it appears that even after a 48hr ban has been issued, they have not learnt and are still using the language they have been asked (repeatedly) to stop! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 21:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's a particularly gross case of WP:NOTHERE. As the blocking admin, I was just about to up it to indef and revoke TPA, but as I was feeling rather annoyed, made the choice to back off for a bit and give them enough rope to make their attitude even more clear. Support upping to indef and revocation. I can do it, but I need a break. Fine with me if someone else handles it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:29, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support Indef and revoke TPA as clearly WP:NOTHERE Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 21:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked as nothere w/o TPA. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2021 (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.

Socking and Vandalising

User:Theobserver8991 and User:Redbutterfly0987 are clearly sock accounts are editing same content with fake edit summaries and deleting what they don't like in Breast Tax and Channar revolt and Nangeli with edit summaries with no meaning. The accounts are trying to suppress content they don't like. Admins ,kindly take action. 2402:3A80:518:EABA:0:45:C264:1001 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This should have been reported to SPI instead of ANI, and you did not provide diffs or warn the users. But, I have warned them. Sample diffs and talk page discussions:

• Theobserver8991 (talk · contribs): Special:Diff/1032759214, Special:Diff/1033053792, Special:Diff/1033058895, Special:Diff/1032673809, Talk:Channar_revolt#Unreliable_sources_and_twisted_information, User_talk:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards#Channar_revolt
• Redbutterfly0987 (talk · contribs): Talk:Ezhava#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_2_July_2021 (5 requests to replace an image), Special:Diff/1031636390, Special:Diff/1027528151/1032939549, Talk:Breast_Tax#Please_verify_the_contect_and_improve_the_languge_. (2 complaints about sourcing; several similar complaints higher up such as Special:Diff/1033049530), Special:Diff/1023727884/1033074817

That both users made similar edits to Talk:Breast Tax and attempted to censor negative langauge about Ezhava people is indicative of sockpuppetry.  Looks like a duck to me, but will seek CheckUser verification. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I was only correcting misinformation, as this is made to confuse names and topics. Channar revolt have nothing to do with ezhava then why unnecessary the name of the community is mentioned, everywhere to created confusions. Is it a genuine concern ? Also most of the references are mainly based on books related to religious conversions. How it is reliable in such disputed and sensitive topics?

Please scrutinize it as there are lot of objections regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbutterfly0987 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: It seems that Worldofknowledge121 (talk · contribs) is part of the sock ring as well. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Worldofknowledge121. Fortunately, other comments at Talk:Breast Tax seem to vindicate Redbutterfly0987's concerns about that article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Ipswich edit war

Hi I'd like to bring an ongoing edit and page owning war going on between me and user @LakeKnowledge:...they keep reverting after reverting my edits to the lead of Ipswich...I added for example the county town of Suffolk but they keep adding a historic county town in Suffolk which it is in theory but it is still the county town...I corrected the error and even provided a link and they gone on a tirade of accusing me of vandalism and not making grammatical sense...when his doesn't either...I haven't bothered trying to reach a concensus with them as they likely keep the same attitude of they are right and I'm wrong...the incident is can an admin or admins step in and tell me and him both who is correct in their edits and maybe monitor the Ipswich page as this edit war is really pathetic...they haven't explained why they have an issue with the lead just it makes in their opinion which is not valid reason doesn't make grammatical sense?RailwayJG (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG this looks like a content dispute, rather than a matter for ANI. If you want to change the lead of Ipswich and another editor reverts you, it is better to follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and start a discussion on the article talk page rather than edit warring. TSventon (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I am a bit of an expert on this, if someone needs some input. Just let me know! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have added to the article talk page would some admin be willing to input on it?

RailwayJG I would recommend using a format similar to the one in Template:Request edit, mentioning that you have been involved in a slow edit war and pinging LakeKnowledge.

• Specific text to be added and removed: ADD TEXT HERE
• Reason for the change: ADD TEXT HERE
• References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST TSventon (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay I will do cheers also LakeKnowledge doesn't have a user page to ping to and they are hardly active on their talk page so I only linked here :) RailwayJG (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

RailwayJG I don't think the absence of a user page makes any difference and it is important to try to inform the other editor. TSventon (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already put a link on their page to here so they be notifiedRailwayJG (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

IP disruption

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.

---

5.112.124.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps being disruptive on Khoy Khanate and Sarab Khanate. The references and quotes that keep getting added do not explicitly mention these two entities and I have given my reasons for my revert, asked them to use the talkpage and warned them on their talk-page. The page also falls under the decisions placed on Kurdish-related subjects Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

They are editing from mobile, so I think WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU applies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: So what should I do? --Semsûrî (talk) 08:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semsûrî Ask for page protection?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I will do that now. --Semsûrî (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Turned to page protection and got the two pages protected, so this can close. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2021 (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.

Peruvian date-changing vandal: music and BLPs

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.

---

• 200.121.230.230/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Somebody using an IP range in Peru has been changing to wrong dates for music releases and also biographies of living persons.[340][341][342] Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 200.121.230.230/25 for 3 months. Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2021 (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 user spamming/harassing 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.

---

I apologize if this isn't the right board, but IP user User:190.219.181.124 has left multiple messages on my talk page (I deleted the first one, they then reposted it. Link to their edits [343]) in which they call me a "son of a b*itch" and also link to some Pastebin post, which I refuse to read. I think it's in response to an edit [344] of theirs (using a different IP) I deleted months ago, but that does not justify their behavior. Coinmanj (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Coinmanj: The IP user in question has been blocked by Writ Keeper 31 hours, and their TPA revoked shortly after that. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There has been a further development. I will be extending the block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2021 (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.

Assassination of Meir Kahane

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. Shadybabs and Volunteer Marek are practically edit-warring to introduce POV WP:labels in Assassination of Meir Kahane (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), despite the fact that Wikipedia doesn't use loaded words like "terrorist" unless it's attributed to a specific country or organization that make such designation, and only when that information is relevant, appropriate for the reader to know and directly related to the topic. I request the intervention of an administrator. I don't see how we can solve this dispute without edit-warring and at this point it's really hard for me to assume good faith at this point.--SoaringLL (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, OP blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2021 (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.

Tspooky: Legal threats and COI

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.

---

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

This user is (or is persuasively imitating) Anthony Shaffer, the subject of Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This edit is likely Tspooky's most clear statement that they are Shaffer. I have been in a content and conduct dispute with them at the article, its talk page, my user talk, and his user talk. I am mainly posting due to a recent legal threat he made against me: "I will next been seeking legal advice for your continued posting of false and malicious information...". Prior to that there were issues of COI editing, most recently this edit, which is still live as of this posting. Working with them has been challenging. For context, the article in question is not our best work BLP-wise, but Tspooky's wholesale rewrite is not the change it needs.

Feel free to move this over to WP:COIN if it would be more appropriate there. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly an attempt to influence a content dispute with intimidation, meant to have a chilling effect. This is contrary to neutrality and consensus. I have blocked User:Tspooky accordingly. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:24, 9 July 2021 (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.

Paid editing from User:Sathish Kathiravan and socks

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.

---

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

I'm requesting to investigate whether the edits from all the accounts related would be considered paid editing. The accounts edit the pages related to Tamil movies and Tamil actors/actresses. Several edits from the accounts are reverted citing OR, unsourced, BLP or non-notable/un-encyclopaedic value. -- DaxServer (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• DaxServer, ANI isn't a venue for investigating, you haven’t provided relevant diffs that are required of you if you actually want to make a case. I would have told you to visit WP:COIN but now you are here, as aforementioned can you show diffs? Secondly if you suspect sock or meat puppetry then WP:SPI is what you may be looking for, if you have private cogent information that shows UPE then sending a mail to @paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org, is the best option especially if the information has the potential to ”OUT” the relevant parties involved. Celestina007 (talk) 14:31, 11 July 2021 (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.

Ireadbooks12 not adding sources

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.

---

Ireadbooks12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a talkpage full of warnings for addition of unsourced information (most are under User talk:Ireadbooks12#July 2021. In addition, they have created multiple unsourced articles: e.g. Alica Schmidt (Special:Diff/1032071202), Aiden Jackson Special:Diff/1030175015, Draft:2021 Azerbaijan Grand Prix tyre controversy (was created in article space, but now moved to draftspace, Special:Diff/1031901025 ​and Shilla (genre) only has one, possibly unreliable source. They have never acknowledged or responded to any of the messages on their talkpage, and so are not demonstrating competency to edit with verifiability and collaboration. I feel like a block is therefore in order, as they are being a time sink on other users, and their edits/creations are not beneficial as they nearly all fails WP:VERIFY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And they're still doing it: Special:Diff/1032736421, Special:Diff/1032756055. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2021 (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.

Adamant1 – incivility, aspersions, etc.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Community warning. While the community should work on being more accepting of and exhibit good faith toward neurodiverse persons, when disruption becomes chronic, it has to be remedied, eventually. WP:NOTTHERAPY is a super-offensive essay (which, if I had the stamina, I'd MfD the fuck out of), but its maxim essentially states that the non-typical can only be accommodated to a point, beyond which the strain becomes unsustainable. Adamant1, what can I say that hasn't been said already? Try to pace yourself. Assume good faith on your side, too. And check your comments for aggression. I, for example, have avoided like a million conflicts just by taking a ten minute breather, previewing my message, and then thinking better of it. Hope you take all this to heart and are able to apply it in practice, because a future complaint of this nature is almost certain to end poorly. Good luck! El_C 11:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Adamant1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Adamant1 was blocked for two weeks by Drmies after this ANI thread last December. This was "an old-fashioned civility block, in particular for condescending edits...and continued badgering". Drmies expressed his hope that "there won't be a next time". Regrettably, that hope has not been fulfilled. To the contrary, the incivility, aspersions, and condescending comments have continued almost uninterrupted since the block expired. Some diffs:

• Diff 1: "I find it extremely hard to believe you [Grand'mere Eugene] even care about the guidelines and aren't just cherry picking what fits your agenda when your citing such obviously horrible examples."
• Diff 2: "So, really [ClemRutter], spare us all the fake consternation about it."
• Diff 3: "No answer from either of you [Grand'mere Eugene and myself] huh? Go figure. It's odd how willing both of you are to fly off the handle at a moments notice, but then are completely unwilling to provide evidence for your spurious, nonsensical accusations. The same thing happened on the notability talk page. It was all good when you could gang up on me and go off, but then you both dodged out as soon as I asked you a few basic questions and other people who disagreed with you got involved. Lmao."
• Diff 4: "...you [Grand'mere Eugene] don't even care about or follow the things you give other crap about. It's nothing but massive projection."
• Diff 5: "I could really care less what your [Hammersoft] opinion is, because it's not based in reality and is completely non-nonsensical....Your exactly the kind of person I'm saying this project shouldn't be held hostage by."
• Diff 6: "At this point your [TheAafi] just talking in circles about nonsense to avoid the problem or answering my question."
• Diff 7: "So, I'm sticking by the fact that it [your edit] was bad faithed on your part and completely inappropriate. Both of you [TheAafi and Goldsztajn] seem to be deflecting a lot and making up a bunch of excuses for why the article should not be deleted."

To summarize: we have seven separate diffs accusing six separate editors of "bad faith[]", "deflecting", "making up a bunch of excuses", not "even car[ing] about the guidelines", "cherry picking what fits your agenda", expressing "fake consternation", making "spurious, nonsensical accusations", and holding the project hostage. And that's after a two-week civility block, an ANI thread, and an AN thread. I won't opine about what the appropriate remedy is, but one thing is clear: what we're doing is not working. Drmies said in his ANI closure "once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it". That's what I'm asking for here. Civility is one of our five pillars, and the "personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments" evinced in the above diffs show a "chronic, intractable" behavioral pattern that has the effect of discouraging or driving away good-faith contributors. I hate having to come to ANI – I really do. But I'm convinced that it's the only way to address the serious, repeated, and systemic issues with this user. Respectfully yours, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to address this in the most succinct way possible, Extraordinary Writ and Grand'mere Eugene have for weeks repeatedly made uncalled comments about me using the words private and public in my AfD votes. There was a discussion a few weeks ago that both of them were involved in where I explained why I was using private/public to evaluate the notability of schools, yet they both continued going off about it for weeks after. Two days ago I asked Extraordinary Writ both in an AfD and on their talk page to stop making said comments because I don't find them productive, their reply was to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist on their talk page. Which is rather rich considering their now accusing me of uncivility. When I'm the one that was repeatedly called out, even after explaining myself, and made it clear that the endless commenting wasn't productive and should stop.

As far as the specific examples, IMO they are extreme cherry picking.

Diff 1. I think I'm within my right to say to someone who has repeatedly called me out for not following the guidelines that they should stop doing so if they don't care about the guidelines themselves.

Diff 2. Clemritter had made an extremely personal comment to me before then that I was treating schools like boy bands. Then he went off about how AfDs shouldn't be personal. Which I was responding to and he agreed wasn't his best sentence. So he admitted it was his bad, we worked it out, and I see nothing wrong there.

Diff 3. Extraordinary Writ had started a discussion on the notability talk page where they and Grand'mere Eugene went off on me. Grand'mere Eugene accused me of ranting (which wasn't very civil), Extraordinary Writ went off on a side tangent about fruit, and then they both dodged out when other people came alone. Sorry, I expected people who repeatedly went off about something to be more involved in a discussion they started I guess?

Diff 4. Same as the other ones. Sorry for expecting people to be consistent and not dodge out on discussions they started as soon as people disagree with them.

Diff 5. This is neither great example of the extreme cherry picking going on here. Hammersoft was rather rude to me in the comment above mine. Including saying I was "choosing what you want to see" and that people who disagreed with them were giving them "a public flogging." So I said I didn't care what their opinion was. I see nothing wrong with disregarding such hyperbolic comments. I'm pretty sure Extraordinary Writ would have done the same thing.

Diff 6. TheAafi was being rather arguementive and dismissive toward me and a few other people in the AfD. They were clearly talking in circles. I'm not sure what Extraordinary Writ thinks it's an example of except for me responding to someone who had said such rude, dismissive things as "I don't see any merit in your questioning."

Diff 7. I find it rather odd that Extraordinary Writ is using me saying something is bad faithed and inappropriate as an example of incivility, or aspersion casting. Plenty of people, including Extraordinary Writ, call out others about being good faithed. Plus, Extraordinary Writ was perfectly fine accusing me of making up grand conspiracies and that somehow isn't incivility or an aspersion, nor was Grand'mere Eugene accusing me of ranting, but me saying someone is being bad faithed is? OK. I don't really have anything else to say about this. Sorry I so uncivilly expected The Aafī to answer my question about madrassa without them dismissing my question as meritless I guess? Sorry I told Grand'mere Eugene he shouldn't repeatedly go off about me not following the notability guidelines since he's not following them either? I mean, really what else is there to this? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to bludgeon this discussion, but I do want to address the accusations made against me. These evidence-free allegations (unaccompanied by diffs) against numerous well-regarded editors illustrate precisely my point: that Adamant1 casts aspersions and fails to assume good faith. And when there's a clear and long-standing behavioral issue, evidenced by a previous block for precisely the same reason, accusations of cherry-picking ring hollow. Courtesy pings to ClemRutter, Grand'mere Eugene, Hammersoft, and TheAafi in case they wish to defend themselves against these charges of "extremely personal comment[s]", "repeatedly calling [someone] out", and/or being "arguementive and dismissive". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

What do you want a diff for? I'm more then willing to provide them. I assume people can look at your talk page to confirm the "grand conspiracy" accusation that you made toward me when I asked you not to make comments about the public/private thing in AfDs anymore. Not that I won't provide a diff for it or anything else if need be though.

• Comment

Diff 1: TheAafi said there wasn't any merit in my question and mockingly called it a "curiosity."

Diff 2: Extraordinary Writ makes the "grand conspiracy" comment in response to me asking them to stop bringing up the public/private thing in AfDs.

Diff 3: Grand'mere Eugene accuses me "opinionated ranting."

Diff 4 Grand'mere Eugene votes keep because "I really like Bearian's standards (above)" while also calling me out in the same paragraph for not following the notability guidelines.

Diff 5 Grand'mere Eugene accuses me of attacking him, Bearing, and Extraordinary Writ. When I said absolutely nothing insulting about Bearing. Let alone him or Extraordinary Writ.

Diff 6 Then he is unwilling to provide evidence that I attacked any of them when I ask for it. Instead he responds rather uncivilly by saying "Life is too short."

Diff 7 Extraordinary Writ rather uncivilly accuses me of "sullying this discussion with straw men, ad hominem attacks, and aspersions" because I apparently wrongly thought he agreed with Johnpacklambert about something.

Diff 8 ClemRutter saying "Delete the fake concern then- not my best sentence.!"

Anything else?

--Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no incivility in any of these diffs, and I believe they speak for themselves in showing the clear bad faith that Adamant1 is assuming against his fellow contributors. But regardless, this goes back to something that was said in the last ANI thread: Adamant1 seems to think that "other editors are bad, so it's okay to be bad in other ways." Accusing people of "ganging up on" you, "fly[ing] off the handle", and "giv[ing] other [people] crap" is never acceptable, even if you somehow believe yourself to be right. If you really felt that myself, ClemRutter, Grand'mere Eugene, Hammersoft, and TheAafi were all incivil, assuming bad faith and doubling down on that perceived incivility is assuredly not the right way to resolve that. This Arbcom statement of principles expresses the concept well: "It is unacceptable for an editor to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause. Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution, a consistent pattern of making objectively unsupported or exaggerated claims of misconduct can necessitate sanctions or restrictions even if the editor subjectively believes that they are true." As the diffs I cited above show, Adamant1 has repeatedly deviated from that requirement. I think I've made myself crystal-clear, so, in the spirit of WP:BLUDGEON, I don't intend to respond further unless specifically asked to do so. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I totally agree with that guideline. How exactly did either you or Grand'mere Eugene follow it by repeatedly calling me out in AfDs about the public/private thing though? Where did either of you directly raise your concern about it with me? I don't see a discussion on my talk page about it by either of you. I wasn't the one repeatedly bringing it up in "votes" either. You were. How is that directly raising concern with the person in a civil manor?

There's really zero evidence that either of you attempted to work it out personally with me outside of just repeatedly making comments about it, telling me what to do on the Notability Guideline talk page, and then bouncing afterwards so you could open this. Let alone did either of you do any of that in a direct, civil manor. It's not on me to work out your personal problems. Nor was it on me to continue trying to resolve the issue with you after you called me a conspiracy theorist and Grand'mere Eugene said there wasn't enough time in the day to discuss it. Seriously, you can't just blow off a problem that's had multiple discussions you decided not to participate in or where actively hostile toward and then cry foul about the other side not raising it with you.

Both you and Grand'mere Eugene keep going off me about me not following the guidelines when your the ones that have been completely ignoring them. I followed them when I directly asked on your talk page not to bring up the private/public thing again. Seriously, your sitting here telling me I should have raised this directly with the editor in question when that's exactly what I did. You just blew it off and then reported me for doing exactly what your now saying I should have done LMAO. If that's not a clear example of how ridiculous this is, I don't know what is. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You should both step back and let others comment. 131.107.1.226 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

After seven years' editing here, this is my first encounter with ANI. I'm retired from a 30-year career teaching university students literature and writing courses. I had no tolerance for incivility in my classroom. But editors here sometimes react with uncivil responses.

Adamant1 responds with intensity, and in the instances cited by Extraordinary Writ, it's been disruptive. I did ask him to refrain, but he doesn't seem to have the emotional filters to be civil and argue the merits of his interpretations without accompanying personal insults. Conversations among editors go sideways because people get distracted by his walls of text that do not reason effectively or succinctly. Regrettably, here we are. Respectfully, Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Last time I checked there's no limit on the amount of text someone can have in a message. Still, I apologize if I write overly long messages sometimes, but there's not a clear line between to much text and enough to make the point. Plus, I'm a little on the OCD/ADHD/Autistic side of the spectrum. Which tends to get exacerbated when I'm being forced to respond to multiple people and messages at the same time. Like here and on the notability talk page. I likely wouldn't write long texts if it was just one person making one point at a time though. That said, IMO it would be more productive to stick to arguing the merits (or lack thereof) of the things that are being said though instead of dismissing people's opinions based on some arbitrary, imagined character limit that they supposedly went over.

JBL wrote a pretty long message on the Notability talk page. So did you. I still read over and considered both your messages though. I didn't just blow off what you said because of how long the message was. I assume people can show me the same courtesy. I haven't seen you calling JBL or anyone else, out over message length either. So it just comes off like a weird, personal, and specifically dismissive thing to take issue with. Especially because you never asked me to shorten my messages. You just called them "opinionated ranting." I would have been more then willing to chop them down if you had of approached it in a good faithed, civil way though. Instead of insulting me. I can also almost guarantee that if I had just ignored the discussions all together (like both of you did) that we would still be here but just be complaining about me not discussing things. I seriously doubt there was any amount of civility or discussion (outside of something along the lines of purely fawning supplication) that wouldn't have led to me being reported by Extraordinary Writ. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Do you really mean me? --JBL (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)^{[Confused editor?]}

Sorry, no. I meant JohnPatrickLambert. I didn't know there was an actual JBL. I'd probably be confused by that also lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND --Hammersoft (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I concur with the other users that User:Adamant1 is not complying with the four pillar of Wikipedia. The question is whether they are an editor who is a net negative to the project, and should be banned, or whether they are capable of moderating and improving their discussion style, in which case they should, nonetheless, be given a block for at least three weeks, because they haven't learned after the most recent block. My opinion is that we should assume good faith, which means that they should be given a block of three weeks for continued incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

What incivility exactly and what about the blatant incivility of the other people involved in this that I provided diffs for? Writing long winded messages isn't against the guidelines. Nor is asking people to stop referencing me in their keep votes or expecting people to be consistent about things. There's zero evidence I've done anything else that is worthy of being blocked for. Which is why neither of them were willing to provide evidence of anything they accused me of when I asked for it. Plus, they repeatedly brought me up and disparaged me after I asked them multiple times to stop. What's civil about that?

BTW, it's also pretty ironic that Extraordinary Writ had a list of my comments going back at least three that they were waiting to use against me at the right moment but then when I asked him to leave me alone on his talk page he said I was making up conspiracies. No way they have them to pull out immediately when they were needed unless there was some serious browsing of my edit history and past conversations going on before hand. How exactly is that OK, civil, or good faithed behavior that follows the guidelines? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Adamant1 - Read First Law of Holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hhhhmm, sure. I seem to remember you posting the exact same thing in another ANI complaint that hasn't been resolved yet any more then this one has. While I'm usually all for reading badly sourced stubs about cliché philosophical aphorisms, shouldn't you at least wait until there's clearly a hole being dug before you tell people to read the article? Otherwise, it kinds of defeats the purpose. How much impact or meaning is that going to have if this closes with me not being banned? Probably none. Whereas, if you really wanted to make a point the way to do it would have been to wait until this was closed and then post it on my talk page if I get banned. Wham..Then I would have been like "totally good adage Robert McClenon. If only I had of known about it sooner..Face palm." From like Mars, because that's literally the only place where no one knows what digging a hole for themselves is. See how much better that would be? Totally would have showed me. From earth. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, I mean this with all due respect and in complete good faith: the best thing you could do to advance your own interests is to ignore this thread completely from here on out. Just a bit of advice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I never interacted with the user outside the JTR AfD. Here they accused me saying I find it rather uncouth that TheAafi edited the term madrassa out of the article. It seems a lot like whitewashing in order to side step the discussion about if they are inherently notable or not. Here they again accused me something that I never did. I asked them where I changed or removed the word madrasa, and they said I didn't say you changed the word madrasa to seminary. I said you deleted it, like six times. (See this). I even explained to them the edit in the AfD that no sources supported the sentence Mufti Rasheed Ahmad Ludhianvi brought this madrassa to its peak and at the time of his death made Mufti Abdul Rahim the superintendent of the madrassa and hence it was removed in this. To this they kept being bad-faith in the AfD. At another instance, they say So, I'm sticking by the fact that it was bad faithed on your part and completely inappropriate. Both of you seem to be deflecting a lot and making up a bunch of excuses for why the article should not be deleted. I politely described my edit, and they kept on saying that Especially since it was being discussed here when you deleted it. I'm hard pressed to come up with a valid reason for you deleting the word considering the context that you deleted it under, and all you've done is strawman me and make excuses about it. Here again I replied them that none of the sources mentioned the role of Mufti Rashid (the only sentence that contained the word madrasa). I did say them, when they asked, it could've been rephrased, that, How do we rephrase something that sources don't support? like Mufti Rashid did so and so (See this). Now he was again bad-faith and said At this point your just talking in circles about nonsense to avoid the problem or answering my question. This was what I replied with that there was no merit in his questioning, because things were already answered earlier. (See this). I rest my case. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

In no way were you polite to me in that AfD. That said, I have zero issue with you. Also, I probably could have handled your bad attitude and obfuscation about it better at the time. I know AfDs can get heated sometimes and I take full responsibility for my side of that. Even if your unwilling to take responsibility for yours. So hopefully no harm, no foul. I know there's at least no hurt feelings on my side of things for how ridiculously you acted or your unwillingness to acknowledge it.

BTW, if TheAafi had a problem with me this whole time over how I treated them in the AfD they never said so or discussed it with me, when they were perfectly free to. More then likely I would have apologized for my side of things. Like I just did. It's rather odd that Extraordinary Writ is brining up a 3 month old AfD discussions that no one has had a problem with since then as part of a run around point about my current behavior. Especially considering how they quoted the guidelines that said issues should be resolved directly between the people that are having the problem.

How exactly is Extraordinary Writ following that guideline or respecting people working things out directly by pinging TheAafi three months later to go off here over something he never brought up to me at the time or since then? Same goes for Hammersoft and Robert McClenon. If either of them had (or has) an issue with me, great. Neither one of them ever contacted me about it if they did. So why should their issue with me suddenly be used as fodder now to dog pile me if people are supposed to contact someone directly at the time when there's an issue? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Adamant1 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the problem with Adamant1 after examining the diffs. Afd is an area where there is always been a strong and vigourous, cut and thrust, back and forth. It is worth noting that the editor does have an 85.6% accuracy rating on Afd. I don't see anything here that I have not seem dozens to hundreds of times before. scope_creep^Talk 08:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • scope_creep, I'm glad the user has such a high accuracy rating, but it's irrelevant. I just looked over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi, and Adamant is being exceedingly rude there. If I find more of that in the course of the day I will place a civility block. And if you tell me that you see that kind of commentary all the time, I'd appreciate it if you reported it because it is unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I agree that I was rather rude there. I should have handled it better. I guess apologizing and taking responsibility for it doesn't matter though huh? Nor does the context of how I was being treated matter either apparently. Good to know. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indef and move on The behavior presented here is identical to the behavior that got Adamant1 blocked before: insults, passive-aggressive attacks, casual casting of aspersions, questioning why they should provide diffs to back up claims, twisting the words of other editors, excessive bludgeoning, and rampant whataboutism whenever they are confronted with their own misbehavior. Robert McClenon suggested that we should ask whether they are an editor who is a net negative to the project. Adamant1 almost exclusively confines their Wikipedia participation to AfD and the occasional policy "discussion", so we're not talking about someone who also helps out with content contribution, or who also does copyediting, or engages in anti-vandalism work, etc. Is having an additional vote in school-related AfD discussions worth ignoring a constant generator of toxicity?

Most importantly, though, everyone should take a closer look, in its entirety, at the incident where Adamant1 decided to be nasty to Hammersoft in the RfC about the desysop policy, as well as Adamant1's follow-up when an uninvolved editor opined that perhaps he should consider striking part of what he said: I try not to edit posts to make them more moderate after the fact, because it comes off as back peddling, self censoring Etc. Etc., or I probably would have.[345]

This interaction with Hammersoft alone is enough for a three-week block; combined with everything else, an indef is merited. The notion that striking rude comments would somehow be perceived as backpedaling on a position sums up the battleground mentality and toxic attitude that is fundamentally incompatible with the collaborative and collegial approach that is required for Wikipedia. Enough is enough, and this constant generation of toxicity from someone who LMAO when they upset/insult another editor needs to be ended. Grandpallama (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose It is very easy to call for indef, when there is no cost to yourself. Another decent editor gone from Wikipedia and without sounding sarcastic, we have a vast queue of other editors waiting to come on, to work at the same rate as the original group. The reason I think Adamant1 gets angry, is because the editor is extremely frustrated at the state of play on Afd and the core problem with it, which is, its completly broken. The article in question at Jamia Tur Rasheed, Karachi should have been deleted, as there is 10s of thousands of seminaries in the Islamic world. They are virtually identical, teaching a slightly different a version of the Islamic word, but mostly identical. But for some reason it is now almost impossible to delete these types of articles, even those where the notability policy is clear on it. At the beginning of the week, I was reading an article on paid editor by a paid editing crowd. In the article they described a process of using long term socks to frustrate the Afd discussion and described how it could be subverted. That is likely the reason he is rude. scope_creep^Talk 14:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) scope_creep, that problem notwithstanding, it's usually not that difficult to tell who is a veteran editor in good standing. Most respondents in this thread reflect my own experience with Adamant1, which is a somewhat problematic one. I think, at the very least, there should be a commitment on their part to seriously cut back on the bludgeoning and the aggression. El_C 15:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: If you don't mind me asking since it's been on my mind for a while now, what qualify someone as a "veteran editor in good standing"? Because it seems like a subjective form of purity testing more then anything else. Personally, I rather side with whoever makes the more sound, evidence based arguement then go with whoever was lucky enough to sign up an account first. I think that's one of the reasons why there's so much obviously false nonsense being tossed around in this discussion, because long-term members tend to just be sided with no matter what they say. As long they toss some orthodoxy in between the junk (that they aren't going be called for "because long term member") to give their comment a veneer of legitimacy. How is that a good or fair way to decide these types of issues? Adamant1 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, I'd basically call every participant in this very thread a veteran editor in good standing. But my point was limited to and should be read in the context of what scope_creep had said regarding SPAs who purposefully hide their real single-purpose agenda through long-term subterfuge. El_C 21:39, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment; I've been pinged into this discussion a number of times now for Adamant1's comments towards me at the desysop RfC. I made a comment above where I simply said "WP:BATTLEGROUND". Since I've been pinged again, I think I need to expound on that. From my chair, Adamant1's approach towards me in the RfC was quite hostile. One can participate in a discussion and feel quite strongly about the topic without becoming hostile. I don't believe that Adamant1 does that. Adamant1 needs to take onboard this passage from WP:NPA; "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I don't know that we are at the point of a site ban. However, I've seen this type of behavior in other editors. Invariably, it never improves. I don't think Adamant1 is guilty by simply having the same style as these other editors. But, I do predict we'll be back here again. On my principles #4, I note that disengagement is a powerful tool. I chose to disengage from Adamant1 because of their behavior, and have avoided reading or commenting on anything they've said since. In short, it's ok to be adamant. It's not ok to be adamhostile. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies if my adding to the pings got annoying, but since much of my post focused on your treatment, I wanted to be sure you had a chance to address it if you felt I didn't represent something correctly. You write here that I don't know that we are at the point of a site ban, and if we were just talking about someone who exhibits hostility but (even if only occasionally) self-corrects when it is pointed out, I might feel the same way. But the explicit declarations that all the problems are caused by other editors and the notion that moderating their own behavior equates to some sort of surrender is what pushes me to the siteban. That attitude is diametrically opposed to how this site is supposed to operate, and we shouldn't shy away from taking appropriate measures when it's apparent they are needed. Grandpallama (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not being annoying, and you didn't represent the treatment I received incorrectly. I wanted to expound on my position since it seems how I was treated was becoming a bit more central to the discussion, that's all. For the other points, I do think that WP:BATTLEGROUND applies. We are going to be back here again, unfortunately. Still, I don't know that we should be indefing based on crystal balling the future. I'll comment below on this a bit more. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hammersoft: "In short, it's ok to be adamant. It's not ok to be adamhostile." Damn, that's good [346]. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)]

Damn, you so owned me. Totally, totally, owned. Next you'll probably be asking me where Eveant is at or something similar. In the meantime, I'm to reframe from makin the obvious jokes that I could about Hammersoft's user name if I felt like stooping to such a childish level. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indef and move on - per Grandpallama. The word that describes adamant's behavior towards other editors in the diffs presented is "abusive," and we shouldn't tolerate it. We are way too tolerant of editors who are routinely and unapologetically uncivil. We give them chance after chance after chance. It's how we develop a toxic environment. It holds back recruitment and the project as a whole. Levivich 15:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well put. Grandpallama (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment @Grandpallama: I was criticized by multiple people before for editing my comments, because they thought I was trying to hide something by doing so. Which is why I decided not to edit my comment in the instance your referenced. Clearly I'm going to be criticized and called out for my behavior no matter what, if it's appropriate or not. Your really damned if you do and damned if don't on here.

Also, there's nothing wrong with someone editing a specific area of Wikipedia that their interested in. I'm interested in referencing, because it's somethin I know a lot about from my schooling, and therefore AfDs. There's no guideline that says people can't focus on their area of interest and it doesn't mean I don't make worthy contributions to Wikipedia in the meantime. Plenty of people do the same thing. I find it kind of ridiculous and slightly insulting that your so willing to act like me or anyone else who focuses on a specific area have little value to the project as editors because of it. Those kinds of low-level, ultimately non-issue, things seems to be all this is based on. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, there's nothing wrong with someone editing a specific area of Wikipedia that their interested in. My comment didn't suggest that there is any problem with that; I said that when we weigh whether you are a net negative to the project, we should be considering whether the specific contributions you bring outweigh the disruption that you also bring. This is a pretty good example of the way in which you twist and recast what editors have said. Grandpallama (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And personally I don't think it weighs out or is even worth considering in blocking someone or not. In no way is my opinion that it isn't twisting and recasting what editors have said. It's just having an opinion about this and if I think the things being brought up are worth me being blocked over. Last time I checked I can do that. You treating me otherwise is a good example of how little good faith I'm being afforded here. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• One more thing, I take major issue with @Levivich: saying I'm "routinely and unapologetically uncivil." I've been more then willing to admit to my shortcomings and apologize when I've been in the wrong. I apologized for being overly sarcastic when I was blocked last time and I've apologized here for being a little overboard in the AfD discussion with TheAfi. I've also said I have a disability that effects my ability to communicate effectively when I'm forced to respond to multiple people and topics at once. Which is where most of the problem comes from. It's something I have and will continue to work on though. In the meantime, I'm more then willing to admit to my short comings at this and take responsibility for them. So I'd appreciate it if you either struck out your comment or at least admitted that it is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Are you referring to this: Last time I checked there's no limit on the amount of text someone can have in a message. Still, I apologize if I write overly long messages sometimes, but there's not a clear line between to much text and enough to make the point. Plus, I'm a little on the OCD/ADHD/Autistic side of the spectrum. Which tends to get exacerbated when I'm being forced to respond to multiple people and messages at the same time.? That's not an apology. Also, being a little on the OCD/ADHD/Autistic side of the spectrum is not a disability or even a thing. OCD, ADHD, and Austism aren't on the same spectrum, they're different things. Levivich 16:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

No. I'm refering my response to TheAfi I have zero issue with you. Also, I probably could have handled your bad attitude and obfuscation about it better at the time. I know AfDs can get heated sometimes and I take full responsibility for my side of that. Also, the last time I checked people can multiple disabilities at the sometime. For instance, my dad had schizophrenia, depression, and major anxiety for most of his life. They aren't mutually exclusive. Also, technically I have tourette's syndrome. Which has "autism-like symptoms" and 60% of TS sufferers have been reported to have OCD symptoms. True that's not autism or OCD per say, but I was trying to be brief/vague about it for the sake of brevity and my privacy. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling. Tourette's, a tic disorder, isn't causing you to be uncivil via text, and neither are OCD, ADHD, or autism (which are not related other than that they're all widely misdiagnosed and sometimes confused with each other but only by people who aren't educated about them). Levivich 16:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you translated that my disability makes it hard for me to respond to multiple people and topics at the same time to "It's causing me to be uncivil via text", but alright. As far as your other thing goes, do a Google search. I didn't pull that 60% statistic out of my ass. If anything your the one that's trolling by acting like you know more about a disability then the person who actually has the disability does. I always expect a certain amount of ignorance from people about TS when I bring it up, but never on that level. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of excuses here, but I am still waiting for an unconditional "sorry, I'll do better." Just a thought from an outsider. Cheers all, and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

"sorry, I'll do better." --Adamant1 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, I feel it is my duty to inform you that putting quotation marks around that statement considerably reduces its impact.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Originally I cut and pasted it on my phone and it was just easier to copy the whole thing and post it then edit it mid way. Are you seriously going to be that sensitive and nitpicky? Jesus. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to be that sensitive and nitpicky? Jesus. The irony of responding in this manner after just supposedly offering up a genuine apology and promise to be better is palpable. Grandpallama (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess I just wrongly assumed that people would treat me with a certain level of good faith, that if I apologized I meant it and that it was genuine. No matter how it was written. My bad for making the assumption. I totally agree with the comment by Reyk about the supercilious, baiting tone of these comments. Can I seriously not write one response where it's taken in good faith, not treated with a superior tone by the other person, or somehow used against me as bait? For all the talk of civility and assuming good faith there's a serious lack of either being shown toward me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Adamant1, you are probably best off disengaging entirely. If indeed someone is trying to bait you, any response from you is a victory for them. Just make your points as though you're addressing a larger audience and not responding to heckling. Much more effective. Reyk _YO! 09:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I haven't been particularly impressed with Adamant1's behaviour in this thread (though their response to my own comment seems fine), but with respect to them affirming with that sorry, I'll do better quote... from a perspective that is inclusive of non-neurotypical individuals, I feel like that's actually alright. I don't think there's a reason to ABF that it was done to get a rise out of people. Still, Adamant1, you should realize that responding by copying that quote does read weird — like an affirmation which is half-hearted (couldn't be bothered) or simply isn't genuine. HTH! El_C 09:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reyk: When I first created my account an admin said people can get blocked for not participating in discussions about them. So I try to respond to things that are directly related to me. Especially if I'm pinged. That said, responding to every one who tried to bait me in this conversation clearly wasn't effective. So sticking to the broader points and not responding hecklers is duly noted. @El C: I haven't been particularly impressed with most of the discussion. I appreciate the more level fair, balanced, and advice giving approaches that were taken by you, Reyk, and a few other people though. It does help. In retrospect I can see how directly quoting the apology could seem half hearted. I was pretty wore down by all the baiting at that point and wasn't putting as much thought into as I could have. Anyway, I'm off to (hopefully) less toxic things. Thanks for the feedback from both of you. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose- The incivility obviously isn't ideal, but I don't think it rises to a level requiring a permaban. I also note that many of the comments he's responding to have a supercilious, baiting tone that I do not care to reward. Reyk _YO! 17:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Can you point to any comments that have a supercilious, baiting tone? Pointing out, with evidence, that someone is wrong is neither supercilious nor baiting. Maybe you should just do what everyone else did over a decade ago and start evaluating issues on the evidence rather than through the lens of the childish "deletionism/inclusionism" spectrum. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Further comment I think it painfully obvious at this point that Adamant1 sees nothing wrong in their behavior. Nevertheless, quite a number of people in this thread have found fault with their behavior. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Adamant1's behavior, including the subject themselves, Adamant1 has to be able to see that continuing as they have before is not an option. This thread will eventually close. If a new thread begins a few months from now regarding Adamant1's behavior again, this thread will be referenced. If Adamant1 is not able to show improvement in their behavior from this thread forward to that one, it will almost certainly result in a site ban. This is especially likely given that there's been no real improvement since their prior block for the behavior. The choice is up to them. A person can be right about everything (as Adamant1 seems to suggest in this thread) and still be wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, have you even read the discussion? I apologized and said I will work on my behavior multiple times. Including right above your message. Why the hell would I do either of those tings if I don't see anything wrong with how I acted or think that I'm right about everything? The amount of gas lighting going on in this discussion is completely nuts. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It is perhaps ironic that in the same passage you claim you're going to do better you also accuse me of gas lighting. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Your not the only person I've talked to and I meant the discussion overall. I don't what else to call people like Levivich telling me I don't know the symptoms of my own disability other then gas lighting. It sure doesn't serve any purpose except to try and bait me into arguing more. Much like your comments. At least you didn't make fun of my user name this time. So, progress can be made. Anyway, have a good weekend. I'm off to better, less toxic or pointless things. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Warn, but oppose any block/ban Adamant1 needs to be reminded to focus on commenting about arguments at AfD, and not about people. They may need to be "encouraged" or "admonished" or even "warned" along those lines as well. The calls for a block look like the same old inclusionist/deletionist argument trying to knock people out of the debate. Some of the diffs are months old, and some are making valid arguments in a needlessly personal way. I don't see enough for a block, but if the behavior gets worse that may be a possibility the next time this shows up at ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some of the diffs were needlessly personal. I'll work on not being so needlessly personal in the future. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• • I do want to explicitly note that these diffs do not seem as bad as the ones that led to a block in December, though they are obviously not good. For editors looking for some sanction, I suggest (but do not endorse) a "maximum 1 edit per AfD" restriction; there are concerns about edits elsewhere but that may address the root of the problem. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Some of Adamant1's comments here do not give me confidence they will improve; hopefully they do not talk their way into an indef. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

There's been a lot of rather bad faithed baiting going that after a good nights sleep, reflection, and none baiting feedback I realize now should have just been ignored or at least so actively fed into. I'm definitely going to do less bait taking going forward. Hopefully that eases your mind. Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment A year has passed since my encounter. I find myself wondering if there has been any change. Kyteto (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'm tempted to close this, but I'll leave that for someone else since I gotta run--it's cocktail time. I don't see a consensus for an indef-block, but it's pretty close. I see some signs from Adamant that they'll improve, and I'm sort of holding on to that, hoping they will make it true. What I'd propose is what some admins used to call a final civility warning or something like that--I think one of our colleagues had a set of guidelines for that? Drmies (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Enjoy your cocktail. I'm fine with something along the lines of a civility warning. I agree I could have been more civil. Although it's just a request, I'd appreciate it if the closing admin also gave @Levivich: a civility warning for maligning me for trolling when I told them what the symptoms of my disability are. While I'm cognizant that they are uncomfortable with people citing their mental health conditions, accusing someone of trolling as a way to deal with the discomfort is particularly bad faithed and toxic. I'd like to think people (including me) can be free on this platform to express their cognitive shortcomings without such accusations being lobbied at them for doing so. Thank you. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But no, I am not going to do anything of that sort--in the comment they responded to, you said "I probably could have handled your bad attitude and obfuscation about it better at the time." (That's a kind of non-apology apology, of course.) This thread seems to underscore that every time you offer something that suggests good faith, you have to slip in a bitter pill of bad faith at the same time. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So it's fine that he be belittled me about a disability because I half apologized to someone else before that? If so, that seems like an odd take. Would you be as dismissive of warning Levivich if he had of said a racial slur? I'm sure you wouldn't be. Also, I'm pretty sure I'd be roundly and quickly condemned by everywhere here (and rightly so) if I had of told another user with cerebral palsy that they didn't know crap about cerebral palsy, because it would be wrong. No matter what they said to me before that. But it's cool that Levivich did the same thing to me, because I said some things beforehand....alright. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, I got gin and I got beer. Mix? What mix? El_C 03:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose indef/block(any form) — This is forlorn for me as two third of the parties this thread is centralized on, are all good friends of mine, I have worked with and still work with Adamant1 & Extraordinary Writ at AFD's. I have also extensively worked with TheAafi in anti spam/upe so I’m very much objective about this, having observed what led to this what I can see on the part of Adamant1 is sincere passion for the encyclopedia and when frustrated they have a propensity to lash out, the best of us, including Admins have exhibited similar behavior. An indef is counter productive, literally as Adamant1 does good work, could they tone down the invectives? sure they can, a block of any sort is moot and counter intuitive because I do not see any active disruption, thus, blocking now wouldn’t be preventative at this juncture, it basically would come off as punitive. On behalf of Adamant1, I want to apologize to Extraordinary Writ, TheAafi, Hammersoft and all other parties who are irate by the comments made by Adamant1, especially to Extraordinary Writ, please don’t be offended. Throwing away the baby and the bath water isn’t ever a good idea. That Adamant1 is a net positive isn’t deniable. I really hope all this can be resolved amicably without any harsh verdict on any parties involved. Drmies, El_C, please I beg of you both not to pass any harsh judgements. Celestina007 (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Celestina007, without addressing your plea at this stage, that just isn't how ANI complaints work. We can't call possible disruption from the subject of such a complaint Stale, even if the purported disruption gets suspended during the discussion (which I'm not sure has been the case here, anyway). This in contradistinction to the latest reported disruption itself being highly-stale in nature — then in most cases it can be summarily dismissed on that basis. El_C 14:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@El_C, no doubt you are correct, I do however want to see all parties involved come out fine and infact work together. I wish this was settled amicably between them and not having to rise to the level where an ani was evoked. I’m certain Adamant1 has learnt and moving forward would interact with colleagues here with more civility. Celestina007 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose any blocks/ban The comments made by Adamant1 are uncivil, but trivial compared to some of the stuff I've seen in other ANI cases over the years. It's not enough to warrant a block, especially to an editor who is net positive. Jerm (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2021 (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.

False accusations of sockpuppetry

Shadybabs goes around spewing false accusations of sockpuppetry against established editors. [347], [348], [349], [350], and so on (there are more, but you get the idea). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F

Yup, but Czello and Sirius85 are not indeffed right now. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Czello was (likely unwillingly) reverting on behalf of a sock, if he (or you) wants to claim ownership of those edits, that's on him. I haven't reverted Sirius85, in fact I reverted back to his edit while undoing the sockpuppet edits. Quit assuming bad faith and making baseless accusations.

(edit conflict) They aren't accusing either of those editors of being sockpuppets, in one case they're restoring the article to the version edited by Sirius85 to remove the edits by the sockpuppet, in the other they're re-adding content that was removed Czello by due to a talk page dispute initiated by the sockpuppet. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, now I get the idea. Anyway, putting Islamic beliefs first at Abraham could be seen as disruptive. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Edit warring and incivility at Pesaha Appam

Romancatholickochi is continuously adding unsourced and disputed content in article Pesaha Appam. The user was repeatedly warned for his or her disruptive edits. Meanwhile, Libraedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in an edit war with Romancatholickochi. Now they are personally attacking each other in the edit summaries.

• [351]
• [352]

Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

A warning needs to be sent out to Libraedit about WP:Personal attacks. Romancatholickochi needs to either be blocked for a week or topic ban seeing that the editor has a history of violating WP:3RR on the article. Jerm (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Romancatholickochi from editing Pesaha Appam and warned Libraedit to refrain from edit warring and personal attacks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems Romancatholickochi is back with a new account Romancatholickerala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

• Special:Diff/1033178998

Br Ibrahim john (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 More action has to be taken now that there's a sock. Jerm (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I indefinitely blocked Romancatholickerala (talk · contribs) as a duck sock and semi-protected Pesaha appam for a month. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Johnuniq & Cullen328 for the help. Jerm (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Portland Oregon date-changing vandal

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.

---

• 2601:1C0:5A00:4A50:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using Portland IPs for almost a year has been changing music articles to have the wrong dates.[353][354] Their first pattern of disruption was to unnecessarily add days of the week,[355] but this shifted to wrong dates in April.[356] Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Drmies gave 'em 6 months. DMacks (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2021 (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.

Why can't I do a toolbar at mobile

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.

---

?How do mobileOasis goy | Bruh 21:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User is CU blocked. Meters (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2021 (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.

Concern by IP

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 trying to resolve problems for Denniss, who does not following neutral point of view, only antisemitic edits for German radio article [357], removing information over edit warring on child's personality (but several) and certain misleading articles on World War II [358], [359], and others that would violates WP:3RR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:INCIVILITY, and WP:NOR. --2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think you're trying to resolve problems; I think you are trying to create them. Your diffs certainly don't indicate antisemitism (I mean, seriously--that's a ridiculous claim), nor do you provide any proof of the other charges. Are you familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? Drmies (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes you are, I warned to Denniss, if you engaged on antisemitic comments on KenFM. --2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Please proofread before you post. Update: that is marginally better. Also, rangeblocked. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
    • User:HighInBC, I think you know this guy--I'm going to drop a rangeblock. Thanks--I'm building on your earlier work. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes their particular take on English is a dead giveaway. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
        • A global rangeblock may be needed, they've been carrying on the same vendetta at Commons.Acroterion (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2021 (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.

Removing disputed edit indication and adding the disputed edit again.

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 this edit, Bastun removed the template that an edit was disputed and reinstated his version. Discussion was taking place here as well as on the talk page. Rather than participate in the dispute, he simple bludgeoned his own point and reinstated the disputed edit, while actually deleting the indication that a discussion/dispute was ongoing. There was no consensus for the edit and it flies in the face of due process. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Bastun is now attempting to reopen the solved dispute in which he declined to participate.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I highly recommend you withdraw this ANI. An admin will review your actions as well as your dispute and you run the risk of being sanctioned yourself. If your behavior isn't exemplary it's not a good idea to accuse others. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 11:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I am reporting Bastun for making an edit that deleted an indication that a dispute was taking place and reinstating the edit that started the dispute. NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And, FormalDude, if I want a lesson in exemplary behaviour, I'll ask someone else.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, I removed the templates, in good faith, as a) I had not been pinged about the DRN and only became aware of it a short time ago; and b) assumed the templates related to the semi-protected edit requests on the talk page, where discussion had been live. Given that one of the participants (NEDOCHAN) has been blocked from the page for a week for edit warring, I assumed the consensus of the original IP, FormalDude and myself to include the first requested edit would apply - NEDOCHAN was the only person to object to including the correct result, sourced to ESPN.

Given that NEDOCHAN's argument against the second edit was nothing more than Undone We source the official record to Sherdog., despite knowing about the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com RfC here due to participating in it, and it being referenced also in his edit-warring report, I considered it did not hold any weight, and in any case had already been previously done by FormalDude. Again, a consensus of 3:1, to include reliably sourced information.

And yes, I reopened the DRN discussion as I was mentioned in it, had not been pinged about it, only came across it when I noticed a link in an edit summary by FormalDude, and I wanted to participate - specifically seeking affirmation that community WP:CONSENSUS, as determined in the aforementioned RfC, trumps a guideline used by a moribund Wikiproject, to use only One True Source. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It is perfectly legitimate to restore the STATUSQUO while discussion is taking place. And you were informed of the DRN.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

NEDOCHAN, this was very foolish. Drmies (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2021 (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.