Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081

Dublin Airport and serial template removal by EireAviation

Dublin Airport is a rather troubled page in which the rather encyclopaedically questionable, but largely entrenched, Airport destination tables are suffering from the overzealous attention to random unreferenced and mostly unreferencable detail by editors. In an attempt to control this a number of editors and myself over some time have attempted edit and latterly to apply appropriate templates to the worst of these edits while hopefully influencing more appropriate editing. Unfortunately we have completely failed in this with the templates being simply removed. There is a large degree of non-comprehension of what is required of a typical Wikipedia citation and a large dose of WP:IDONTLIKEIT

typical of such reverts are: All by EireAviation

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048680375&oldid=1048658567

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048505570&oldid=1048479555

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048970077&oldid=1048966936

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048341871&oldid=1048330137

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1049032788&oldid=1048977893 (by an IP but corrected subsequently by EireAviation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin_Airport&type=revision&diff=1048434702&oldid=1048434148

There are plenty of warnings help offered and onesided discussion at talk EireAviation. I have had a long history of trying to help EireAviation - perhaps the best synthesis of advice I have given was on my talk page copied here

at EireAviation: The synthesis tag is a serious attempt at getting you to understand what you are getting wrong. Wikipedia can be a very counterintuitive place so you should listen to what is being suggested to you and not just assume ill will. You are baseing many of your edits on dummy searches against an airline's search engine, this practice is fraught with issues particularly when trying to derive start and stop dates for a service. Please remember Wikipedia is not a directory it is an encyclopaedia and encyclopaedia deal with tertiary information. The stop and start dates of an airline service are at best primary detail and are very questionable here. However assuming an argument can be made for such inclusion the consensus advice at WP:AIRPORTS is that such dates must be referenced, and references ideally should be WP:SECONDARY. There has also been an established consensus that temporary content - like the recent covid induced cancellations and reinstatements are not particularly encyclopaedic and as a rule do not really warrent inclusion. As a rule of thumb I usually think it is not important to add anything to Wikipedia that it would be likely I would have to reverse in six months time, other people will do things slightly differently but that is my level of comfort. Hope that helps. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC) Andrewgprout (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to the above, the user correctly points out that all material should be referenced however fails to point out that where-in it is stated ideally should be secondary, if this is not possible the requirement remains that the material is sourced. This has always been the case, with any of my contributions to Wikipedia. It is also made clear in WP:SECONDARY that secondary sources can't always be granted as independent either.

However, if the above user see's a secondary source they bulk remove edits, as you can see in recent behaviour from 08/10 up to this morning and much prior. For example, some recently published articles which are secondary in nature in relation to new routes etc use airports and airlines as the basis to validate their publications, as is normal.

The above user, views this as at odds to their interpretation of WP:AIRPORTS and WP:SECONDARY and bulk vandalises edits. It is very unfortunate as the user on multiple occasions has deleted positive edits in their haste to clench their fist over articles where they impose this incorrect self-interpreted policy. I remain available at all stages to work with this user to stop this and/or work with them to give them assistance in better understanding both referred to policies. EireAviation (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Greater Manila music disruption needs wide rangeblock

• Head Above Water (album)
• Tell Me It's Over (Avril Lavigne song)
• Dumb Blonde (Avril Lavigne song)

Somebody from the Greater Manila metro area has been edit-warring in music articles, especially topics related to Avril Lavigne and various Philippines-based singers. The person alternates between relatively benign edits[1] and outright nonsense vandalism: "...sold 100 billion copies..."

The biggest problem is with poorly supported or unsupported sales figures, chart results and certifications. This edit introduces chart figures based on a Weebly blog post, while another edit bases chart success on a Wordpress blog. This edit adds chart attainment based on a tweet from the artist (unreliable). This is a typical edit, introducing unreferenced sales figures, which, amazingly, followed the same person removing the sales figures as "unsourced".[2]

Another focus is on genre-warring, for instance adding a genre based on a sales chart, which is never a defining source for genre.[3]

Edit summaries get abusive: "Read the source befor u delete it b!tch", "Go to page 18 fckr!", "Dont u dare remove this again u better read btch! Good bless ur a$s", "Do not remove this its legit bitch" and "...not really pop rock u shit blueberry".

The problem has been going on for more than a year. Special:Contributions/120.29.71.236 was blocked in August 2020 for identical music disruption. I would propose a rangeblock but it might be pretty wide, causing collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

All the IPs under "List of involved IPs" are covered by 120.29.70.0/23 + 120.29.78.1. A quick look at those contribs makes it appear to be one individual who edits music articles. It's hard for someone like me to judge whether the edits are good or bad. For example the "Go to page 18 fckr!" link above shows the addition of a reference based on "Page 18" of a chartmasters.org link. Presumably the IP had been reverted before and, while unwise, the edit summary is frustration that the reverter hasn't (according to the IP) noticed that the cited information is on page 18—I haven't looked. I would want to see a strongly attended discussion somewhere saying that chartmasters should never be used and that the IP edits should be mass reverted. On the principle of WP:DENY, I wouldn't mind blocking wide IP ranges for significant periods if it helps to remove a provably disruptive person. Also, I would want to see some reasonable attempts to engage with the IP without templates. OTOH, someone who understands the topic might see the problem in a way that I cannot. Johnuniq (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible to engage this person in discussion when they don't return to an IP after using it. They haven't edited a talk page except this single instance of silliness; an IP block is sometimes administered to get the user to communicate. I would like to explain to them what sources are considered unreliable, and that there is a policy against original research. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic. In fact I think I have handled a couple of your requests at ANI by blocking problematic IPs/editors. However, I have no idea, for example, whether the IP is right or wrong in the "Page 18" incident. All I can see is that someone reverted them (from memory, I think with no explanation) and the IP's edit added a reference mentioning page 18. A polite explanation on an IP talk page is not just for them—it helps onlookers like me. If I can see an explanation that the IP has not responded to, it makes a block much more justifiable. Or, if there already is an explanation on some other point regarding the IP's edits, please point it out here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If this was a registered user, they'd long have been blocked for disruptively ignoring community concerns voiced on their talk page, and for edit warring. As a possible countermeasure, semi-protection is explicitly authorized for cases of "edit warring where unregistered editors are engaging in IP hopping by using different computers, obtaining new addresses by using dynamic IP allocation, or other address-changing schemes."^[WP:SEMI] The editor behind 120.29.70.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is blocked for two weeks for now, and Head Above Water (album) is semi-protected for the rest of this year. Block evasion or further disruptive ignoring of community concerns can be dealt with using a rangeblock and page protections. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Silafonso disruptive editing or WP:TWA broken?

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

This user has opened nearly a dozen blank edit requests at Help:Show preview, and their only other editing appears to be the same steps of WP:TWA over and over again. Is this user editing disruptively, or is there some possible way that TWA is leading this to happen? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: (Non-administrator comment) Not their fault, TWA is broken on steps that ask you to edit as they don't advance to the next step when you click edit source. Not sure if it's just because I"m using the New Wikitext editor or if this is an actual issue with TWA. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Although I can't explain the blank edit requests with that as TWA doesn't do anything with that. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I can confirm Blaze The Wolf is right and TWA doesn't work with the new wikitext editor. Since it's related to the visual editor (I believe) I'm not surprised. This doesn't seem to be Silafonso's problem since they made edits suggesting they are advancing. (Note if you look at the automated edits it's clear Silafonso isn't doing the same step, they were advancing.) If I had to guess, somehow Silafonso is ended up at Help:Show preview and since it's protected when they view source (which remember replaces the edit source button so is the button they are directed to use), they see the standard template with the box telling them it's protected and they need to make an edit request and the buttom for them to do so. And they follow through this which registered an edit for TWA so it proceeded. (If you're not aware of how the edit request system works for protected pages maybe log out or use private mode or a non logged in browser and try with some page like Help:Show preview. You don't have to submit to mostly understand. Alternatively if not an admin, it's similar for fully protected pages.) How they ended up at Help:Show preview, I don't know. AFAICT, TWA doesn't mention Show preview so I assume doesn't link to it, see also Wikipedia talk:TWA/Portal under the collapsed known bugs. I think Silafonso has finished TWA anyway so it's unlikely to continue. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Admittedly looking at the history I think Silafonso would either needed to have ended up at Help:Show preview multiple times instead of User:Silafonso/TWA/Earth, or been switching between tabs or something. Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

One guess at what might have happened. When Silafonso was editing perhaps they kept clicking edit summary next to Briefly describe your changes in the edit box thinking it was the way to add an edit summary. That's a wikilink to Help:Edit summary. Maybe they then try to add an edit summary in the box displayed at help edit summary or maybe not. Either way they can't because it's a help box not an edit box. Oh well, they ignore that and click on publish changes. That doesn't work either (still a help box). They decide they need to click on show preview. That takes them to Help:Show preview. Still not working, they are confused they click on view source, it tells them they need to make an edit request, they click on the button, to make an edit request, finally publish changes works and it registers. I'm surprised it would keep happening but I guess if they never figured out how they went wrong i.e. clicking on edit summary, maybe they just kept repeating what was working. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I appreciate the help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

One final thought, TWA requires you to make an edit to advance in those times when it tells you to. You can't just publish changes without actually modifying anything/making an edit. It does give you stuff to copy and paste but it's not otherwise automated in the editing part. And while it does sort of explain this early on you can't just publish changes without editing, I'm not sure a new editor will understand the problem as well as I did. Anyway since it loops if you publish changes without modifying i.e. if you don't make an edit and it mentions the edit summary thing, it's possible this helped compound Silafonso's confusion about what was going wrong if they were for whatever reason trying to publish without making changes. The edit request thing means they would finally ended the loop/advanced the script without typing/pasting since they made an edit, even if it was very far removed from what they were supposed to be doing. Nil Einne (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Editors inserting Historic Counties in Opening of Lead

User:Phil Bridger. Here is a perfect example of inserting Historic Counties into the opening of the lead; Tottenham. This editor has deleted the London Borough and copy-pasted in their text within the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex.

The guidelines are not ambiguous. The guide at WP:UK Georgraphy clearly states:

(Point 1) Name of settlement, type of settlement (e.g. suburb, town, city, civil parish), its present local government district / council area, present/ceremonial county (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), for the use of counties), and constituent country.

(Point 5) Historic county (if in England or Wales and if different from current county), and a brief paragraph about historical roots / founding

Additional guidelines at Project UK Geo/Counties Historical are also clear We should mention historic (or ancient) counties in articles about places and in references to places in a historic context, but only as an afternote.

This same user has made these edits on virtually all places in East London, which whilst reverted continue to spark edit waring. Note: it is this edit which starts the reverts. Other example places where this editor has made this copy-paste edit are Chingford, Walthamstow, Leytonstone, Edmonton. It is mainly the same editor, and exactly the same text; though others have done the same edit; suggesting a cohort or co-ordinated campaign.

This was raised on UK Projects London with zero action taken. This has also been a long RfC in 2018 with no support / resolution. There has been walls of discussion with no resolution at Project UK Geo/Historic Counties, which this editor and others are part of, so know the guidelines and that their campaign to change them has not been successful.

Deal with this or don't. I am leaving WP for good. Over to you. It is a shame, because I had loads of research on East London that I was using to improve articles before this was allowed to continue, with zero Admin intervention; Jonnyspeed20 86.14.189.55 (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've come across various articles where someone did this. Edward Heath's Local Government Act 1972 abolished many of the old counties in Britain, and replaced them with administrative areas that some people hated. However, there is little point in saying today that Liverpool is in Lancashire, because it hasn't been since 1974.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

86.14.189.55/Jonnyspeed20, you should have notified me about the ANI report you have filed against me here by leaving an ANI notice on my talk page. You did not make any effort to notify me - not even by pinging me. Having the historic county in the lead does not constitute a violation of WP:UKTOWNS guidelines. The "additional guidelines" you are citing are no longer in use as these no longer reflect consensus. You are claiming that it is my edits "which start the reverts"; there are a substantial number of editors on both sides of the long-running discussion about historic counties here that both insert and remove historic county information. My edits are overwhelmingly reverted by you specifically. There are plenty of stable articles with historic county info in the lead, not just introduced by me. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Jonnyspeed20, you're really not helping your case with how you're dealing with this. Notifying the subject of an ANI thread is required.

PlatinumClipper96, the current county guidelines state Use language that asserts past tense - We do not take the minority view that the historic counties still exist with the former boundaries.. So, how is saying (for example) "Tottenham is...within the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex" in line with those guidelines? Seems like it would be more appropriate to say "Tottenham is...within the London Borough of Haringey, and within the former boundaries of the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex." BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456, there's been quite a heated discussion about this on the UK geography WikiProject as to how we should write about counties - I'm not sure this is the place to continue that discussion. But it seems like you think Greater London is a former ceremonial county - it's not! It exists and is used for administration today, and the London Borough of Haringey is a local government district within Greater London. Middlesex is a historic/ancient/traditional county, but is not used for administration today. There have been many big discussions here as to whether the historic counties have been abolished or not, but many involved editors believe describing a place as being "within the ceremonial county of Greater London and the historic county of Middlesex" would still be appropriate whether the traditional counties do exist within their former boundaries or not, hence the use of the same wording in stable UK settlement articles across Wikipedia. The guidelines you cite here are for articles about the counties themselves. WP:UKTOWNS does not state the exact tense in which historic counties should be written about. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is it even up for discussion whether "historic" counties (a term that you seem to use only for one very limited period of history) have been abolished? Of course they have, by act of Parliament. That is the whole reason why they are historic and not current. That we carry on regarding them as real is totally in opposition to our our existence as a factual encyclopedia, rather than a site pushing irredentist nonsense. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It's up for discussion (and has been for years on Wikipedia) because the view that those Acts of Parliament did not abolish them is quite a common one. Those Acts created new types of county (which the government have distinguished from historic/"geographical" ones as a separate entity). The government itself has, on multiple occasions, affirmed this view. PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note this ANI thread from August, referring to an RfC regarding Template:Infobox UK place, which led to some agreement that a far more general discussion should take place at a more centralised venue that the infobox page itself (quote of closing admin Black Kite). Since then, checking the archives of WT:UK and WT:UKWNB; there are no discussions, while as Jonnyspeed20 pointed out WT:LONDON and WT:UKGEO have had discussions with weeks of back-and-forth arguing with no consensus. The idea of an RfC has been proposed at UKGEO but even the drafting of that has stalled after 2 weeks. They were not formally closed as such, but either way per WP:NOCON it seems that the status quo should be maintained for the time being.

I personally have no horse in this race but based on the ANI thread it seems undisputable that this topic is rather contentious and has often been disrupted by meatpuppetry as well as off-wiki canvassing. Pinging users @JimmyGuano, Owain, Songofachilles, John Maynard Friedman, Blue Square Thing, and Roger 8 Roger: as they participated on both that RfC and ANI thread (this includes everyone I could find on both sides of the dispute, if I missed anyone please do notify them as well). eviolite (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@86.14.189.55: You noted "this was allowed to continue, with zero Admin intervention"; I think perhaps you do not understand the role of an administrator. We're not some sort of super editor who gets to throw their weight around and make decisions about content disputes. We handle dealing with problematic behaviors such as edit warring, vandalism blocking, and more. Content is handled by editors, including IPs. I'm sorry you think admins are supposed to have a role in deciding the content dispute, and that apparently this is having a contributing effect in your decision to leave. With respect, you are misinformed. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP at Coaster (commuter rail)

This article has been subject to months of disruptive editing adding unsourced trivia about the railroad's rolling stock, and the latest perpetrator is User:2603:8000:6443:108c:3:f6e5:c55e:a5cf who has ignored three warnings [4] to stop adding material without any sources. [5] [6] [7] They need a block, since nothing else will make them listen. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly a sock of Workingepskeiskxkke, who was indeffed in August for this disruption. Given the lengthy history of disruptive IP editing on the article, semi-protection would be welcomed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I've requested it at RfPP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 2603:8000:6443:108c::/64 for block evasion. It looks like that was the only IP editor causing disruption so I don't think semi-protection is needed (yet). -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking the IP, I hope this is the end of the disruption but this user has been persistent in the past. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior from Tiredmeliorist

Per Newshunter12:

“@Tiredmeliorist made three official 'keep' votes […] in this one AfD. This is disruption akin to the sock onslaught at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age, and all of their votes and arguments, which repeatedly accused other editors of bad faith, should hold no weight.”

The AfD in question is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders.

Dronebogus (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The user is question has just under 300 edits. It is entirely possible they simply did not realize you should only make one bolded comment. The additional bolded "keeps" have been stricken already. I'm not sure what it is you want an admin to do here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• They’re also being very uncivil and repeatedly accusing other editors of bad faith, as can be seen in the above AfD. This is more of my concern, since it’s hard to assume good faith with someone who’s constantly assuming bad faith. Dronebogus (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• The three votes in question were: (Vote 1, Vote 2, Vote 3). Tiredmeliorist has also made the following uncivil accusations against other editors: (wow, surprised to see this come up for deletion -- who on the list are you working for?? ) here, (Man, all you deletionists are so ready to tear down other people's work simply because it's different from what you think Wikipedia should be. here, (And again, i wonder which people on the list are driving this campaign, because the edit history shows it's often targetted for political reasons.... here, (Deletionists secretly hate wikipedia -- its obvious) here. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would add that they were warned not to vote again here, yet they deliberately did so again. @Beeblebrox Deliberately sabotaging an AfD and from the get go accusing other editors of working for autocrats seem like serious violations to me, deserving of a lengthy block. Tiredmeliorist might have made few edits, but they have had an account for 13 years, so they are not new to Wikipedia and there is no reason to belive they did not know what they were doing. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Newshunter12, are you here for the reason I think you're here? Because there's a connection to the Bartolo SPI, but this is not a sock of that one. But Tiredmeliorist, you are treading on very thin ice in that AfD. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies I was checking the keep voters at AfD to see if any had been blocked (we both know the shenanigans some pull to try to keep that stuff) and strike those votes, since it's been a week since the AfD was started and a decision could come down soon. I noticed Tiredmeliorist had voted thrice and made many uncivil comments, and was going to bring it to ANI myself, but saw that a thread had already been started. It doesn't surprise me there is a connection to the Bartolo SPI, though I'm not 100% sure what you mean. There have been many corrupted age list AfD's of late, and more longevity related ones in the past. I fully understand just how toxic a topic it can be on Wikipedia, especially when it comes to AfD! Newshunter12 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies Or did you mean you guessed I thought Tiredmeliorist was connected to the Bartolo SPI business? In which case, no, I did not think Tiredmeliorist has anything to do with that, I just thought the AfD disruption comparison was apt. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• • What’s this Bartolo business? Dronebogus (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theotherscrubbythug/Archive and Loony Toons in action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of New South Wales by age. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am inclined to say Don't Bite. I realize the behavior is aggravating but the learning curve is steep here on the project. New editor needs more rope methinks. Lightburst (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I am indeed still getting used to the peculiar way Wikipedia handles arguments. And sorry, I didn't realize I was only allowed one "vote" (since it says the AfDs are not based on majority votes). I didn't try to remove the strike-outs or anything.

@Dronebogus brought me here after my last post, summarizing all the arguments while using all the appropriate jargon (I was quite proud of that, actually -- first time figuring all that out). It wasn't a vote, though, just another point in the discussion, of which many other users (least not @Dronebogus) has many more than me. I also have no idea what this "Bartolo" thing is and am simply a contributor to the page that was put up on AfD. Tiredmeliorist (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note The AfD where all of the above occurred, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current longest-ruling non-royal national leaders, has closed as delete. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

While the three !votes can easily be explained by Tiredmeliorist being an inexperienced newcomer, I have to question these comments:

• who on the list are you working for?? and;
• And again, i wonder which people on the list are driving this campaign, because the edit history shows it's often targetted for political reasons....

I think it would also be appropriate point Tiredmeliorist in the direction of WP:AGF. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks -- yes, for some context the list in question was of "elected" political leaders and their time in office. The impression when viewing it was that those in power the longest were simply strongmen (although there were interesting exceptions like Angela Merkel). Past IP edits to the page attempted to remove certain people from the list, which those of us editing assumed could be someone working for that leader.

So yes, thanks for pointing out WP:AGF -- I will remember that in the future. But also, in this particular case, there were valid reasons for implying that. And after reading WP:AGF, my interpretation is that it works both ways -- that perhaps the user who sent me here should review WP:AGF#Good_faith_and_newcomers and WP:BITE as well before dragging me through an admin censuring? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was recently accused of socking, COI editing, and UPE in connection with an AfD, so this honestly seems pretty tame in comparison. Sarcasm is par for the course at AfD (I'm certainly guilty of it myself), and this doesn't seem egregious enough to be actionable. Considering that the impetus for this report was a misunderstanding which has now been cleared up, I suggest that the report be closed. Mlb96 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and persistent adding fake info about broadcasting in Malaysia by User:Md Nur Hanif

I request global lock for User:Md Nur Hanif (talk) because he doing disruptive editing and persistent adding fake info about broadcasting in Malaysia. See details - 04:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

CIR and total lack of communication from JHICKS1809

• JHICKS1809 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A lot of you will be familiar with this user if you are on NPP. They have just come back from a 2 day block by User:JBW for persistently creating unsuitable articles. The articles created since the block are just the same if not worse than before. They don't communicate in any way (unless deleting talk page notices counts as communicating). Their behaviour is disruptive and borders on WP:CIR. For example, they have removed useful redirects and replaced it with material that appears to be hoax material; see Blowing dust advisory where they have created an event that supposedly happened at 5pm today and Brisk wind advisory where they have done the same. Their edit history will show you a ridiculous number of articles, all created today, about apparently fictitious extreme weather events that happened.

Given that they have recently been blocked for this and they haven't improved in any way nor shown any intention of improving, I am concerned about this editor. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

We can also add copyright violations to the list with Beach hazards statement being an example Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Spiderone, it looks like the forecast example and definition are from the National Weather Service which states "The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain" (see the disclaimer here). -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, but it certainly isn't helpful to just be copying weather reports into article space. I describe exactly this sort of behavior (shamelss plug ahead) in my essay WP:RADAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC).

I've partially blocked them from article and draft space, leaving them free to come here and comment, should they choose to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

When I partially blocked from article editing for 48 hours I strongly suspected that a bigger block would be along soon. JBW (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Disappointed that this was not a shortcut to WP:Wikipedia is not radar. jp×g 19:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I agree. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, they removed a number of things from their talk page several hours ago, so they know they have been blocked again, but still apparently refuse to communicate. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I had never seen WP:RADAR before, Beeblebrox, but it describes exactly what I had in mind when I placed a short-term block on mainspace editing, including both my hope for what it might achieve and my expectation of what I thought was, unfortunately, more likely. JBW (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent bad-faith behavior by User:Quidster4040

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

---

This particular user has consistently made accusations of acting in bad faith at AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Ohio State Buckeyes men's soccer team. The user is accusing multiple other users arguing in favor of deletion as arguing for deletion as purely arguing based on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale. This is despite the fact that, in almost every case, those arguing in favor of deletion are making arguments based on WP:GNG, and not simply because they do not like the subject. This is not the first time this has happened. It is part of a pattern in AFDs regarding college soccer that spans back multiple years. It happened three years ago here, two years ago here, four years ago here, and two years ago here. It has also happened in the past at other discussions here, here, here, and here. Now I understand that this user has experienced some significant pushback in some of these arguments, and it is likely that they were involved in the creation of a lot of these articles. And I think most of their contributions have been positive. But this continued accusation of other editors nominating articles for deletion solely because of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationale is incredibly uncivil behavior and not productive for a conversation on deletion. I have asked this user to drop their accusations, but they have not done so, so I am bringing this conversation to ANI. I would appreciate some additional input on this issue. Jay eyem (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, quick note, this user's conduct has been brought up at ANI before, so this is not the first instance of such behavior. Jay eyem (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jay eyem:, if you wanted me to drop the accusations, you should have asked more politely and explained it the way you have now. I have no problem dropping an accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I do have a problem when you tersely come to my talk page and harass me. That is not acceptable. If you promise me to be more civil towards me when you feel that a claim I am making is unfair or not in good taste, please just say that instead of being rude on my talk page. We both have a mutual interest in American soccer and collegiate soccer and we shouldn't let two different interpretations of WP:NSEASONS when it comes to WP:CSOC cause such friction. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Quidster4040: the fact that you view what I did as harassment shows that you did not read WP:HA#NOT i.e. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. I mentioned this in the AFD multiple times, and you ignored it. I took it to your talk page, and you simply reverted it without responding. When you continued to dig in your heels on the matter, and since this pattern of behavior has gone on for some time now, I felt it appropriate to take this to ANI. To me it is the definition of chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Jay eyem (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jay eyem: The posts felt like an attack on to me for what I believed and for having a difference in policy interpretation. That was why I was upset, and that was why I reverted your edits. Quidster4040 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Quidster4040, that something feels like an attack doesn't make it so. You have to stop accusing other editors with the weakest of all arguments, "you don't like it". The reverts on your talk page are fine, you are allowed to do that, but they also suggest you are unwilling or unable to engage in a conversation. Because "you just don't like it" is, in the absence of any evidence at all, a violation of good faith. So I am hoping you will drop that, for good. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: User:Quidster4040 made a booboo by creating User:GerryLenhart42069 (get it? 420? 69?) and fucking around a little bit. They're both blocked, as is User:Twwalter, and the range, cause there was a ton of logged-out editing as well. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 11 October 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.

Motorcycle Action Group again

Motorcycle Action Group was featured here very recently (archive discussion).

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

Now one of the people involved in edit-warring in that article, and with a COI as a director of the organisation, has been posting about the group on other editor's talk pages. This has included "outing" of some of those involved, e.g. this edit.

Surely outing is wrong? At the least his outing edit(s) should be struck from the record and his continuing antagonism must be grounds for a topic ban. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@10mmsocket: Incidents of outing should be emailed to the oversighter's mailing list, following the instructions at WP:Oversight. Posting them here on one of the busiest noticeboards on the site will only draw attention to it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour, I have merely sought to remove the libelous comments made about me on 25 September by my (losing) opponents in the recent chairmanship election. Any breaches such as the 'outing' you suggest are inadvertent for the simple reason that this is not a community I frequent and with whose customs am therefore unfamiliar. I am a UK Registered Independent Financial Adviser with a reputation to protect. The abusive edits made about me were clearly in breach of your policy re' libelling living persons. (Redacted) I refer you all to 10mm socket's white-knighting where he called me a 'potentially corrupt person'. Nice. Just compound the libel, why don't you? Anyhow, do what you like, but Wikipedia has seen the last contribution it will ever get from my company. We have donated substantial sums year in and year out for many years. Wikipedia can whistle for money in the future, and next time they ask for some, I'll tell them why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBirdNeil (talk • contribs) 10:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For transparency, I have oversighted 109 words from the section above (marked (Redacted)), and a further 300 from Woodroar's user talk page. This was done per provision 1 of the oversight policy. The overall meaning of the message above by TBirdNeil has not been significantly altered. Please do not restore this content. Many thanks ~TNT (she/her • talk) 16:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Given TBirdNeil's repeated claims that statements made were libel, I'd say a WP:LEGAL block is in order. The fact they have an admitted COI is secondary, but still troubling. And then there's the outing... yeah, I can't see any reason to leave that account unblocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DOLT sounds like an insult, but it isn't. It's germane. Let the bloke make his case. We have rules against libel. All that's at issue here is whether they apply.—S Marshall T/C 09:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Having just seen the BLP violations and outing which were contained in the edit summaries at Motorcycle Action Group and which weren't redacted (I've revision-deleted them now), I similarly don't see any point in leaving this account unblocked, especially as the ranting above doesn't seem to indicate any intention to edit collaboratively. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, look at it from his point of view. We've published what he understands as libellous disinformation. He's tried to work out who was responsible for it, and he's tried to find the right levers to push to make us change the content he's unhappy about. This isn't someone who's here to build an encyclopaedia, this is someone who's here to stop us smearing an organization that's close to his heart. Of course he isn't here to edit collaboratively. Of course he hasn't read and doesn't care about our 150,000 words of rules and guidelines. To treat him like a troll or a vandal is to totally miss the point.—S Marshall T/C 10:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sick and tired of seeing people blocked for simply asserting that something may be libelous. Saying that's little different from saying something's a BLP violation or a copyright violation, and is not a legal threat. A legal threat is a legal threat. EEng 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Agreeing with some other commenters above, objecting that content is defamatory is not by itself a blockable legal threat, any more than objecting that content is a copyright violation is. It is preferably where possible for editors to use different wording, but that is not something that newcomers to our site have reason to know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I have to flatly disagree. The second someone says "You must remove this libelous material" the unspoken implication is "or else I'll sue." You don't use the terms "libel" or "defamation" unless you're trying to make people afraid of the legal system crashing down on their heads. WP:LEGAL is a thing because of the chilling effect that kind of accusation has on editors. This is someone with an explicit COI and who attempted to out people they were in a disagreement with. I am not inclined to give a charitable reading to their use of the word "libel." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Except everything you're saying about WP:LEGAL makes it seem like you need to reread it. EEng 02:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Our own article on defamation describes it as "the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation". Surely, one of the world's most popular websites calling a person "disgraced" with no source could be reasonably expected to unjustly harm his or her reputation; this seems like a word that would pretty naturally spring to mind when describing such a situation. It seems strange to use it as evidence of hypothetical future guilt, especially against people who have already gotten hosed once to begin with (i.e. if our articles contain random untrue claims that insult them). jp×g 03:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is no legal threat (at least, I don't see a diff with one) and HandThatFeeds is wrong. Describing a living person as "Disgraced" based on a personal website (aka not WP:RS) is accurately described as libel and has correctly been removed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  But if we don't apologize and appease this person, regardless of possible infractions, the WMF stands to lose "substantial sums" of money. Outing that is "inadvertent" is an exception to the rule right? While not an SPI there is certainly an ongoing WP:conflict of interest (COI) that I don't see resolved. I do see a problem with "I have not engaged in disruptive behaviour", followed by "Any breaches such as the 'outing' you suggest are inadvertent for the simple reason that this is not a community I frequent and with whose customs am therefore unfamiliar." I would hope using "Persistently" (Primary definition: "continuing firmly or obstinately in a course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition") in a warning means the next time rather than the primary or alternate definition of "continuing to exist or endure over a prolonged period". If an editor is notified of an issue it would seem an egregious violation to "accidentally" do it "persistently". -- Otr500 (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Saying you'll withhold your donations is also not a legal threat. People just gotta stop seeing legal threats in every expression of dissatisfaction. EEng 06:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow this thread has everything:

• Conflict of interest: TBirdNeil has a conflict of interest with this article and shouldn't be editing it.
• BLP violations: TBirdNeil also has a right to object to BLP violations on this article or any other, and to have those objections taken seriously. The offending comments have been removed, which hopefully resolves the issue: if it happens again it can also be reported confidentially via the email address at WP:LIBEL or at WP:OVERSIGHT. I mostly edit articles on elderly sailing ships so this is easy for me to say, but let's all also be more careful with BLP editorialising.
• Threats to stop donating to the WMF Donate or not as you choose, no one cares and it doesn't change article content.
• Legal threats per WP:LEGAL, A discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat. Actual legal threats can chill discussion, but so can accusing people of legal threats where they haven't made any. In the absence of any actual legal threats it's time to drop this claim. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Error in annotated link

Don't know where to take this for resolution, so figured I'd start here. Saw this annotated link on the Corn Ranch page:

• List of rocket launch sites

and had a WTLGB ("What the Let's go Brandon") moment. The linked page is a Wikipedia list article, not a "Wikimedia list article" whatever that is. I'd revert it if I knew how but don't, and it may a one-item thing, a closed discussion somewhere, or indicative of a larger labeling problem. Can an admin edit it back to 'Wikipedia list article', thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Annotated links show the short description of a page, and are too often added where they aren't necessary or helpful at all. In such cases, they can be changed to a regular link without any loss of information. Specifically for the "Wikimedia list article" stuff, this is one of the more ugly remnants of the mass copying of Wikidata descriptions to enwiki. In nearly all cases, such descriptions for lists can best be removed from the enwiki article, as they add nothing of value and are only confusing. Fram (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• The text "Wikimedia list article" appears on more than 15,000 pages[8], either as the short description or through an annotated link. "Wikipedia list article", which is only marginally better, appears on more than 60,000 pages[9].
• A typical example: List of cheeses#See also, which through annotated links produces three more or less good descriptions, and 22 useless "Wikipedia list articles" ones. A nice cleanup project! Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, I know that and have edited many of these annotated list redundancies, but the change is to the wording. It used to be "Wikipedia list article" and now says "Wikimedia...", so a universal edit has been done somewhere and should be changed. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• No, both versions always existed, but the Wikipedia one is more common than the Wikimedia one. Fram (talk) 11:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• E.g. here from mid-2019. Fram (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The point is that for accuracy the 'Wikimedia' language should be changed at its source to 'Wikipedia' (or better yet the redundant language removed entirely, as 'List of...' is obviously a list). A Wikimedia/Wikipedia issue. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Ifeomanwaka spamming a person

This account is a single-purpose account which is doing nothing but spamming a BLP of Monday Sunday Adiaha, including putting that name in lists, and resubmitting a draft BLP after it has been rejected.

• Ifeomanwaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Monday Sunday Adiaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Monday S. Adiaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The draft with a middle initial was an attempt to game the name and see if the reviewers were not paying attention, but a reviewer correctly redirected the draft. The principal draft is now pending at MFD, and can continue to be discussed there, but that is a content forum, and the conduct of the user is what is making the deletion debate necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Ah! Robert this seems to be Nigeria related oh boy! You should have pinged me, in any case I have added them to my watchlist. I agree they are spamming, I’m going to some deep web search for possible UPE or socking. Celestina007 (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• I try to do corrections from suggestions from a reviewer of my submission and resubmit it. Sources of information I present can be verified, then why do you use the word "spamming" I only immediately corrected a draft and resubmitted the correction when I noticed a mistake (Reference appearing in the sentence) in an initial submission. Ifeomanwanka (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Ifeomanwaka - The draft has been deleted, so I cannot review the sources. (If you disagree with the deletion, you can go to DRV, but that would be likely to waste your time and that of the DRV regulars and to result in a solid Endorse.) However, you ask why what you did was spamming. Here is why:
    • • You added the name of the subject to list articles when the subject has not been found to be notable and does not have their own article. That is list spamming.
      • You resubmitted the draft after it was Rejected and after you were told not to resubmit the draft. If you thought that the rejection was a mistake, you should have discussed with the reviewer instead of just resubmitting.
      • You submitted two versions of the draft with different forms of the same name. That is gaming of article titles, and is done in order to try to sneak past the reviewers. It usually doesn't work, and is not permitted.
  • You asked why this was spamming. That is why. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Yes you were spamming as expressly stated above my senior colleague Robert McClenon, if you are genuinely oblivious about spamming, then please read our policy on spamming, go to the WP:TEAHOUSE more often to ask questions before editing articles, furthermore you are likely not a new editor, for example what’s your connection to the editor named Adiahachristy? Are you surprised we independently made that connection? Anyway That account with a similar edit pattern of yours was also an spa promo for the subject of your article. I’m sorry but it is my candid belief for someone like myself who has dedicated two yes of my life to studying UPE in Nigeria and have dismantled several UPE rings, i have become somewhat of an expert on it is my belief that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Thanks to all technical editors & functionaries like Primefac who painstakingly taught me & the entire anti spam/UPE editors & MER-C also who taught me, and of course Kudpung who has always taught me tricks to fighting UPE. I’m afraid UPE cannot fly under the Radar anymore. Celestina007 (talk) 10:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Close with Warning

The spamming has stopped now that the articles that were being spammed have been deleted. Can this thread be closed with a warning that future spamming will result in an indefinite block? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, Robert, are the SPI results out yet? Celestina007 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Celestina007 - No. As we know, SPI is backlogged. If this thread is closed with a final warning, and sockpuppetry is found, I am satisfied that the CheckUser will impose appropriate sanctions on the master. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat in Criticism of Tesla, Inc. page history

An IP user attempted to add language to Criticism of Tesla, Inc. and then stated the following as their reasoning: "Kept you from getting sued for falsely suggesting that the carges leveled are all true. If the disclosure is reworded, that's fine if removed and criticisms put forward as truth with no counter, I will refer the issue to the Tesla legal department. If it is legal, then all is well." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/66.189.117.145 QRep2020 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Although you have not notified the user of this thread, I blocked them for a week for an unambiguous legal threat.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sir, we need to exchange information, there's been an accident. El_C 00:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Albaredd file a lawsuit againt me and an another user

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

---

as you can see (using an online translator does the job) here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PedroPistolas the user filed a lawsuit against me and another user, an admin on italian wikipedia. The crime is to enforce wikipedia guidelines and prevent spam. He has already been banned from italian wikipedia

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Albaredd

--PedroPistolas (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Machine translation of the comment posted in this diff reads "Hi PP, I let you know that this morning I filed a complaint with the Police both for you (or rather whoever is behind it) and for your Administrator." This seems like a clear case of WP:LEGALTHREAT to me. -- The Anome (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've now blocked User:Albaredd. -- The Anome (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

puoi dirlo alla polizia della malefatto
o manda una minaccia dal ta avvocato
o presentare denuncia con chiunque affatto
ma meglio stai bonaccia o sarai bloccato
Burma-shave

- Levivich 00:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Burma-Shave-a EEng 02:26, 14 October 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 at Queen of England

I spotted some vandalism and began looking back to see if I could spot a last good version. I couldn't find one. This seems to be a target page for schoolchildren or something going back months (at least). The normal vandalism reporting pages don't seem to cover this. Perhaps an admin could semi-protect the page for a bit? --Pete (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe 1 good edit in a year. WP:Rfpp probably better place to ask for indefinite protection Slywriter (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The latest burst of vandalism does not seem to be typical of the history. Alexf has semiprotected the article for a week, which seems right to me. Bishonen | tålk 08:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC).

Persistent disruptive editing by Vallabharebel and IP socks

Vallabharebel is a persistent socking editor, using both new accounts as well as IP editing, using addresses starting 2401:4900. When I check on edits by a given ip address, I see that there is already a block on a set of unrelated articles. Would it be possible to extend this block to anything falling under the remit of WP:CRIC (by use of categories?)? From what I have seen the editor has 2 main sets of edits:

1. Hijacking defunct T20 cricket teams of many nationalities to make them into an entirely fictional Vizag Victors (which has been WP:SALTed). [10]
2. Disruptively editing both Category:National cricket teams and Category:Indian Premier League teams (and related seasonal articles) to add either false or irrelevant staff members in a format that goes against the MOS.

I've tried reporting a few of the individual ip addresses, but that just leads to temporary whac-a-mole blocks, so I think something more wide ranging needs to be done. Spike 'em (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Another new account : Jikbg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and more ip edits : 2401:4900:4CA0:F0B2:E90A:6164:5A62:B9FB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Spike 'em (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by two users at Talk:StandWithUs

OzMulik and Norelc19, both accounts with very few edits, have been engaging in tendentious editing over several months at Talk:StandWithUs. This editing is largely centered around lobbying for the characterization of the group as right-wing to be removed. This is baseless, because the group is defined as right-wing and pro-Israel by various reliable sources, as has been explained on the talk page – but (and this is the core of the issue) they don't seem to have heard that. Diffs below.

OzMulik: Initially requested removal of the "right-wing" characterization in February, using unsuitable sources to support the request [11]. Began a section with the same goal in March, arguing that the source used to support the characterization was biased and unusable [12]. The source was eventually changed. OzMulik then supported a suggestion that the article be "deleted due to misinformation" and provided more unsuitable sources to support their claim that StandWithUs is a nonpartisan organization [13]. In July, OzMulik again commented "Please remove right wing in lead, StandWithUs is non partisan" [14]. They again said today "StandWithUs is not left nor right wing. They are a non-partisan organization" [15]. In addition to the clear IDHT going on here, they consistently fail to follow norms for talk page collaboration and do not sign comments despite having been asked to do so in May. Competence is required, no?

Norelc19: In May, created the "Delete article due to misinformation" section mentioned above as an edit request [16]. Went on to make more short unsupported (and unsigned) comments in that section including "Please remove "right wing" in lead" [17] as well as this. In August, Norelc19 again commented "Please remove "right wing" mention in lead. Stand With Us is an international non-partisan Israel education organization that combats antisemitism" [18]. Early this month, they again said "Please remove "right wing" mention in intro" and suggested that it should be removed because the author of one of various sources used to support it has been fired after being accused of antisemitic comments [19], and continued to argue for its removal [20].

Not represented in these diffs are the group of several editors who have worked to explain the issues with the requests by these two editors and several IPs, and have sadly been unheard. Some form of outside intervention seems to be needed here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Note: In addition to OzMulik and Norelc19, I've notified Nableezy, Selfstudier, Freelance-frank, Huldra and ScottishFinnishRadish since they are the "several editors" I referred to above who have interacted with the two aforementioned users. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, the elephant in the room: There has been consistent off-wiki campaign these last months for removig the "right-wing" label from the StandWithUs-article; especially one noxious blogger has been active supporting it. (I will not link to the blog; as the blogger also (attempts to) WP:DOX various Wikipedians who isn't pro-Israeli enough (according to the blogger). Anyone wanting the link, can email me.), Also, see my edit on Talk:StandWithUs, at 20:39, 22 July 2021. "WP:MEAT" is a relevent policy here, me thinks, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish I didn't know what blogger you're referring to, Huldra... In that case, maybe ECP is warranted for the talk page as well as the article itself, which is already protected at that level? The ArbCom remedy for the IP topic area says putting a blue lock on the talk page is permissible on talk pages where disruption occurs. There's definitely disruption occurring here. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That would seem to explain this removed comment. That user's contribution patterns are interesting, to say the least. clpo13_(talk) 23:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Clpo13, I don't want to veer too far off topic, but this sudden return to editing by Alaskan wildlife fan after more than 6 months of inactivity definitely seems strange. I'm not familiar at all with WP:SPI – do you think one would be appropriate here? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s actually been brought up before. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive#16 March 2021. There’s probably not enough evidence at this time to bring it up again, though. clpo13_(talk) 04:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Seems to me like content dispute --Shrike (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, this issue is absolutely related to a content dispute, but this report isn't about the dispute. I'm not asking for an admin to say whether SWU should be described as "right-wing", but for a response to the tendentious editing behavior by these two editors specifically. I hope that's clear from my initial post? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any signs WP:TE they didn't make any edits on the page itself.Yes the make the request several time but it doesn't rise to disruption level --04:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 18:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Iirc, this all started toward the end of last year and since then a group of non ecp editors, including the two mentioned here, have persistently requested the removal of the "right wing" designator for SWU even though this is well sourced and even though discussion after discussion reaches the conclusion that it should remain, WP:IDHT is an understatement.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User:198.98.29.237 long-term stealth vandalism to historical college football season articles

In the 2 years since November 2019, the only edits of 198.98.29.237 (talk · contribs) are vandalism to historical college football season articles. The problem is that his edits are stealth vandalism that are difficult to catch: he changes statistics to false-but-still-plausible-at-a-glance numbers in years-old football season articles which are not frequently patrolled by other editors. For example, this replacement of his on April 20 with false numbers went uncaught for half a year (about 6 months) until I noticed and reverted it today.

Additionally, since his vandalism is difficult to catch, there are often other intervening edits that make undoing/rollback impossible when his vandalism is finally noticed, thus requiring tedious manual reinsertion of statistics to correct his vandalism. He has been repeatedly warned on his user talk page, but he just ignores the warnings. In summary, the difficulties here are that this is long-term but continuing stealth vandalism that is tedious to correct. Is there anything that can be done?

—Lowellian (reply) 13:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• I propose we block the IP for anon editing. Courtesy ping to Lowellian —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 23:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP in question has made a total of 17 edits over 5 years. The first five were childish edits, and the remaining twelve, since November 2019, are the stealth vandalism of football team results. None of the edits are constructive, and the IP has been warned on numerous occasions. I also think they should be blocked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Wojak6 urgently needs to be blocked due to Uncivilized language and continued destructive editing

Wojak6 has continued his destructive editing habits of content removal from articles without providing rationales and also not providing edit summaries for most articles he edits. Also uses uncivilized language in some articles such as "great lakes bantu languages like Hema are spoken in the DRC so i dont know why they removed it. i also provided a peer reviewed historical book. Nyanza cushites is biased towards his own personal views against Bantu languages. seems to desire to be a cushite. They're long extinct in the Nyanza area unnfortunately for him. lol" on the greatlakes Bantu languages. This seems an attack directed to an editor. It is not clear why Wojak6 included this in his summary as it does not seem to make sense. The attacked editor does not seem to have removed the Hema language other than reversing the article to an earlier form which was later reversed by Wojak6 and there were several other edits by Wojak6 after the reversion hence the attack does not seem to make sense. The editor seems to make negative comments about a group of people that is the Nyanza cushites claiming they are long extinct. The editor clearly shows his hatred towards an editor and a group of people that is the Nyanza cushites. There is also unexplained deletion of content from articles such as Luhya people, Kiga people, and luo people and also unexplained addition of content to articles. The editors by Wojak6 need to be reviewed and possibly reversed because the editor simply vandalizes articles or edits them destructively. This editor needs to be blocked urgently. His edits are simply unhelpful to articles and he mostly criticizes most articles and never provides solutions.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: Why did you not notify Wojak6 that you filed this report? —C.Fred (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: the user is already tagged in the report and should get a notification about it. Is that right?Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, please provide some specific edits where these problems occurred. I'm not seeing them in looking at the user's contributions. —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: the user has deleted content from sections of the Luhya people, Kiga people and luo people articles without providing summary for removal of such content on edits from October 12. I can see that on the user's contributions. how comes you can't? The user also does not provide edit summaries for a majority of his edits. The editor also used uncivilized language on one of his edit summaries on the greatlakes bantu languages. The user states that,...."great lakes bantu languages like Hema are spoken in the DRC so i dont know why they removed it. i also provided a peer reviewed historical book. Nyanza cushites is biased towards his own personal views against Bantu languages. seems to desire to be a cushite. They're long extinct in the Nyanza area unnfortunately for him. lol"....this is an edit from October 11 2021 at 12:43. if you also review most of the other edits by the user you will notice that he mostly never leaves edit summaries for a majority of articles and he normally deletes content from some of the articles without providing reasons for doing so. The editor mostly criticizes articles and does not provide solutions. The editor also interferes with content of articles such as the Niger-Congo languages which he mostly edits like creating non-existent language families some of which have been reversed. The editor's editing habits are simply destructive and unhelpful to articles. The editor has continually ignored feedback from other editors on his talk page regarding his editing habits and continued doing destructive editing of articles.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 01:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: Failure to leave an edit summary does not make an edit vandalism. I'm not seeing clear evidence that their edits are disruptive. I'm also not sure which is worse: their non-/ limited use of article talk pages or some of the messages you have left.[21][22][23] —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: You have only mentioned part of the report. What about the edits on the greatlakes Bantu languages where the user states that ....""great lakes bantu languages like Hema are spoken in the DRC so i dont know why they removed it. i also provided a peer reviewed historical book. Nyanza cushites is biased towards his own personal views against Bantu languages. seems to desire to be a cushite. They're long extinct in the Nyanza area unnfortunately for him. lol".... on one of his edit summaries. is that acceptable language? The user has basically intimidated me and also intimidated a group of people as long extinct. To add onto that it is not clear why that was included an edit summary that is about Greatlakes Bantu languages. what about the removal of content from the luhya, Kiga and Luo peoples articles without clear explanations. Isn't that vandalism and distructive editing? is it okay for the editor to continue editing articles the way he does without living summaries? I imagine the editor has access to his article talk pages since he frequently edits many wikipedia articles. there is no way he can have limited use of his own talk page. there are feedback on his talk page about his editing habits and since he has continued doing some of the things he is being told on his talk page, then he must be ignoring the feedback. There is nowhere on this report is the Kisii people article. so how come you are suddenly talking about it? The editor has also made some inputs on there which I replied to. you have not even addressed the articles reported on the report. you seem to be defending the editor rather than solving the reported issues. what is your stand? should the editor continue editing articles including removal and addition of content without providing summaries? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nyanza Cushitic: That particular edit summary is not good practice, but I don't see anything that justifies more than a warning about personal attacks at this time, which I just left.[24] —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: thank you for doing that it is needed. Maybe the editor will pay attention to the warning. Also you should leave a warning about editor's tendency not to leave edit summaries for most articles. There is already a lot of feedback from other editors regarding lack of edit summaries for most articles he edits. That will help the editor pay attention to leaving edit summaries because they are critical to help other editors understand rationales for changes made on articles.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

User, and talkpage redirect to mainspace

I just realised that a three year old editor with more than 10k edits hard-redirected their userpage, and talkpage to two different articles in mainspace. I went through their few previous edits. It is not clearly visible if they were having issues on wikipedia, neither there were any signs of retirement. Is it possible that the account has been compromised? —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 14:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

What is a three-year-old doing editing Wikipedia anyway? EEng 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: I think what they meant was that they have been editing for 3 years, not that they're only 3 years old. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. EEng 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@EEng: For future reference, it's quite unlikely that three-year-olds are editing Wikipedia in a way that involves proper redirect syntax (although, doubtless, some of them do possess the ability to read and even to type on a keyboard). Hopefully this is a helpful rule of thumb for the future, by which you might avoid instances of confusion such as this. jp×g 19:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

On reflection I think a three-year-old can't do redirects but probably can participate in AfDs. Another good job would be turning down protected-page edit requests, since on those all you have to do is say "Please get consensus first" over and over and over. EEng 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

And what account are we talking about?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• ​‎Jeromi Mikhael (talk · contribs · count) is the user in discussion. Should we notify them? —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 16:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  the template above pinged them anyways. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 16:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are any policies or anything that prohibit redirecting pages in the userspace to mainspace (outside of maybe drafts in the userspace) however I do find it kinda inappropriate to redirect their talk page to a mainspace article as the talk page is the main way editors are able to communicate with each other and if redirects to somewhere else then the ability of communication is essentially lost. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I have been thinking. —usernamekiran (talk) (guestbook) 16:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk pages cannot redirect to mainspace. I removed the redirect and alerted them of this discussion, as did Ivanvector, but we've been reverted. Something very strange is going on.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I edit-conflicted with Pawnkingthree leaving them a notice about this discussion, which is required. Per the gold message: "The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." I also advised them not to redirect their talk page. I don't think redirecting their user page really matters but they need to have an accessible talk page.

  I also ec'd with Pawnkingthree here. If they've restored the redirect they should be pageblocked. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I reverted again and left a stronger warning, which they responded to by replacing the entire page with a poop emoji. Mission accomplished? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  They've now redirected it to this discussion. I know them from WP:ITN/C and they are normally a constructive editor; I think a compromised account is a possiblity.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed the redirect again and replaced it with a notice that they are now blocked from the page. I don't see any evidence of a compromise in CU data, they've been using the same one or two devices and their geolocation has been very consistent over the past few months. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 17:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Gosh, I don't know how much I should thank you! I've been having difficulties studying due to the constant pinging from this wiki Now that I'm blocked I won't get distracted anymore. Really really thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromi Mikhael (talk • contribs) 17:42 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Jeromi Mikhael: You've only been partially blocked as evidenced by your recent edits. Look at your settings. You can disable cross-wiki notifications if pings here are causing problems when working on other projects. You can't disable talk page web notifications locally, so when visiting the English wikipedia on the web you'd either need to log out or use a script. (You can disable e-mail or app talk page notifications if they're causing problems.)

  And no disrespect, but most of your recent notifications have been for recent activity from what I saw. If you're doing stuff here when you're supposed to be studying and people are posting on your talk page because of it, the obvious solution is to stop editing. Either ask for a self-imposed block or use a wikibreak enforcer, or just stop editing here yourself. If you need some gadgets for your reading experience, perhaps create an account you only use for reading. If you need to be able to edit other projects while only reading on en, well it's complicated.

  That said, as I mentioned below a lot of those notification/talk page posts have been ITN, DYK etc credits. I don't see why these need to be posted, so why don't you just ask those who keep posting them to stop? (From what I saw it's only a few.) And also maybe put a message on your user talk page asking editors not to post them. If that doesn't work, consider an edit notice. If you want the credits posted on but only to your archives pages well you can ask but IMO it's more onerous to demand editors post them somewhere specific so some editors may just not do so. Frankly if it's a temporary thing, an alternative is a polite request on your user talk page and perhaps in an edit notice, something like "If possible, please don't post on my talk page in the next month as I'm trying to study" (or however long your study period lasts) would also greatly reduce posts.

  My more general point would be that it looks like this has been going on for months, yet I didn't see where you ever asked for help. Instead you just did weird stuff like the redirecting to archive pages stuff, culminating in this. It seems to me while not eliminating the problem, there's a far chance it would have been substantially reduced if you asked for help.

  Nil Einne (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) It looks like the editor was first redirecting their talk page to monthly pages [25] which might arguably be acceptable although still quite likely to be confusing. The better option would be to simply move the talk page after each month. I'd also note if their were going to do this, it seems to be it's incumbent on them to be checking the archive pages and requests for pings are at best a courtesy. (I.E. If someone doesn't ping them it's still their responsibility to ensure they don't miss important talk page messages.) Anyway later the editor tried redirecting to their English Wikipedia talk page to their Indonesian Wikipedia user talk page [26] which doesn't work and isn't acceptable anyway IMO. (User page sure. User talk page no, since editors can't be expected to discuss something at some other project. At most they can ask users to consider posting on some other language talk page.) Eventually they gave up before eventually today doing that recently. I'm not sure but it looks like the editor was unhappy [27] [28] editors were still posting on their talk page, often with DYK, ITN etc credits rather than to their monthly archive pages and maybe the frustration boiled over. However I don't understand why they didn't just ask people top stop posting those credits point blank, perhaps with an edit notice if necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not going to ping them, since excessive pings are apparently what is bugging them, but this 31 hour partial block isn't going to solve their problem. If pings from en.wiki are annoying, they can turn off cross-wiki notifications, and all email pings from en.wiki, in Preferences-->Notifications. I'd also note that if this a usually productive editor who is stressed out, let's make a really strong attempt not to ping them here in this thread, even if they're handling this suboptimally. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Surely, if someone needed to send them a message, they could do so and remove the redirect. Was there an issue with that here? jp×g 19:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone posting here, sure. It's unreasonable to expect new editors to understand how to do such things, or even understand why they ended up on some weird article when they were attempting to contact another editor. And communication is a cornerstone of editing Wikipedia. The community has consistently rejected editors being able to impose unjustifiable burden on new editors contacting them with concerns. (For example. We allow semi-protection when there is sufficient history or other reason to show non-confirmed editors causing problems, but not just because an editor doesn't like dealing with newbies. And we've forcefully removed talk pages messages demanding no one contact them or they need to jump through unreasonable hoops to do so.) It's not like this is someone who stopped editing months ago. As I said above, it seems fine to request editors not post unnecessary messages like credits, and such requests should be respected, which would seem to go a long way to resolving this and I'm all for finding this and other solutions to stop such unwanted notifications. I'd note that it's not like the previous redirects seem to have sufficiently helped the situation with such credits etc. So the editor is effectively imposing an unfair burden on new editors who may have reasonable questions while not resolving the actual problem. Nil Einne (talk) 20:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × 2) I'm not sure why, but saving over the redirect on the talk page seems to trigger an edit filter - it requires saving the edit twice. That's new to me, maybe admins don't trigger it. It does cause other unusual problems with tools: I'm not actually sure how bots behave when they encounter a redirect on a user talk page, but Twinkle sure didn't like it. After they redirected their talk page to this thread (after I had told them twice to stop) I blocked them, and Twinkle tried to save the block notice here and fortunately threw an error. The human-level functional problem with this is that any other user who clicks on their talk link would be redirected to a down-page subsection of an article, which conveniently hides the "redirected from" notice which lets you get back to the talk page. This user is also a sysop on idwiki (per SUL) and I know most projects don't have as rigorous standards for admins as we do (that's a dig on us, not other projects) I think we should still expect more mature behaviour from other projects' admins than responding to valid criticism with poop emojis.

I don't know if {{nobots}} would help? I'm not sure how DYK and ITN notices are generated. The advice to turn off cross-wiki notifications (or notifications at all) is good, but if it's just that they don't want notifications because of messages on their user talk, redirecting to a user talk subpage (e.g. User talk:Jeromi Mikhael/noping) would work. My alt's talk is redirected to my main (like lots of other users with alts do it) and I only get one ping for talk messages, not one for each account.

Here's another thing I didn't think of: if I parblock a user from their user talk page, but don't disable their talk page access, can they still post on their talk page? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No I can't. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Surely the answer here is to move protect User talk:Jeromi Mikhael? Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

How would it prevent him from redirecting his talk page to other pages? Kleinpecan (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood the situation. OK, let's try for an editing restriction instead.

"Jeromi Mikhael is prohibited from redirecting his user talk page (User talk:Jeromi Mikhael) to any other page on pain of an immediate indefinite block that cannot be appealed for two years". Mjroots (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Minus the strange non-appealability clause, that's what practically is in action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• The user is back from their block today and has blanked their user and talk pages again as well as adding a DISPLAYTITLE which hides the page title. ToBeFree and I both removed that code prior to the block, but I don't feel strongly about it being restored again. Does anyone else see hiding the page title as a problem? Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Wikipedia:User_pages#Simulation_and_disruption_of_the_MediaWiki_interface would say such css hacks can be a problem, we typically give a bit of leeway on this to active, constructive, editors - but in this case it appears to be solely being done for disruption purposes. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  The main issue was the redirect; Jeromi Mikhael seems to understand that redirecting one's talk page to different pages is a kind of "red line". I've seen a lot of strange DISPLAYTITLE formatting on user pages and would ignore this case to avoid feeding the fire at the moment. We seem to have reached a situation that is agreeable to both sides: Jeromi Mikhael has their desired bit of eccentricity and the rest of the community has their desired functional communication venue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Problem is a lot of users could come to their talk page to engage in communication (you know, it's required around here) and think there's a problem with the talk page as it now no longer looked like any other talk page in the encyclopedia. I know some people play with the display a bit, but to completely remove it makes it look like the page is actually just broken and could be interpreted as any talk messages won't work. Canterbury Tail talk 17:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

With their current activity level and expression of stress, this is rather hypothetical. When it becomes an issue, e.g. because a new user asks for help elsewhere after failing to leave a message, we have a good reason for fixing it. At the moment, uh. It's practically a decision between "not caring enough" and "indef block", with not much in between. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

As an IP from the peanut gallery I just want ot say this is reminding me a bit of User:Centrx, a long term constructive editor who apparently got disillusioned with Wikipedia and decided to go out with bizarre disruptive behavior rather than simply retiring. Not saying I think the two accounts are at all related, but bringing up the Centrx situation as a precedent to something like this. 50.110.90.51 (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits again

Earlier this year, I opened a discussion here about Vjmlhds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) incorrectly marking their edits minor, which they had done for years after another user first notified them not to do so. The consensus from that discussion was that people make mistakes and should be given the opportunity to learn from them, but based on these examples,[29][30][31][32][33] it seems Vjmlhds didn't take advantage of that opportunity. KyleJoan^talk 01:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seriously - This is REALLY starting to look like WP:Hounding. It's like you're just watching my every move, taking notes, and looking for any excuse to start an ANI...is any thing pointed out REALLY ANI worthy? I am truly starting to think KyleJoan just has a personal vendetta against me. KJ, you need to stop, and you need to stop this now. What is your problem with me...seriously? What is it about my editing habits that compels you go to these extremes over things that aren't worthy of it. Please convince me this isn't just some personal issue you have with me, because quite honestly, you're the only one who has ever had an issue like this with me. This really is getting silly.Vjmlhds (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

No personal issue on my end. It would be great, though, if you could stop misusing the minor edit box. As Colin M said in the previous discussion, this is more of a failure-to-communicate issue than anything else. KyleJoan^talk 04:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed something...you only came after me after I made an edit to the Kenny Omega article. It's like if you see me get anywhere near that article, the knives come out, and you go looking for blood. What is the endgame here? Why are you so quick to do ANIs? If it isn't personal, then why do you feel the need to study my contributions so intently? This really is getting into Barney Fife/Gomer Pyle "Citezen's Arrest" territory here. Quit hiding behind Wiki-speak, and answer the questions honestly. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the other times you've come after me, it's after I made edits to Omega's article. You really are protective of that article, and it's like if I dare to touch "your baby", then you go into Ivan Drago mode, and "must break me". If that ain't WP:Own, I don't know what is. God's honest truth - I have more of a case against you for WP:Own and WP:Hounding then you do against me for anything I did, but unlike you, I'm not gonna make a federal case over it, because it just isn't worth it. I suggest you go back into your corner, and I'll go back in mine, because this is just not necessary. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do not use the minor tag when removing references and their supported text. It is also prudent to use edit summaries when taking such actions. CMD (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis If you're referencing the edit regarding Dolph Ziggler and Robert Roode in the List of WWE personnel article, that was because they were listed twice (in 2 different sections), and all I did was remove the duplicates. (They collectively got drafted to Raw, someone else put them on their new brand, but forgot to remove them from their old brand of SmackDown, which is where I came in) Thus I didn't think it needed a big spiel in the edit summary, as all it was was housekeeping, which I saw as a minor edit. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It takes less time to type "remove duplicates" in the edit summary field than it takes other editors to work backwards from the diff and figure out the intention behind your edit. Colin M (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you seem to have some difficulty in understanding what is and what is not a WP:MINOR edit your best option would be to not mark any of your edits as minor. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

At the end of the day, we're talking about an edit done at 11:45 p.m. in which the most egregious thing one could say about it was that out of absentmindedness/haste (or perhaps some combination thereof given the time of night) it was marked as minor when it perhaps should not have been if sticking to the pure letter of the law. Is that really worth an ANI? ANIs are for edit warring/vandalism/personal attacks/threats and true blue legit hardcore transgressions...not stuff like this which really is (pardon the pun) minor. As I stated earlier, I truly feel like one editor in particular is targeting me because I edited an article viewed as his "precious", and - to that editor - that is a sin that can't go unpunished. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting that you're firmly defending that one diff when there are four other examples of misuse. In any case, you wrote: But for - the 4th time - I've now read WP:Minor, I know exactly what to do, and I'll make it a point to be more conscience of it, and we can all live happily ever after. Was this a lie or do you just not care about correcting this issue? KyleJoan^talk 00:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in this? Those edits I didn't feel needed a big spiel in the edit summary, because I didn't think they were major edits. If something is a major edit, I always put a summary in, if it's a minor edit, I use the checkmark like it was designed to be used. The Ziggler/Roode thing I went into more detail over because that was the one specifically referenced by CMD, so the fair thing was to explain it. The others as I said I just viewed as minor, because I thought they fell within those parameters. I really am starting to think you just did this to give me a hard time about the Omega article. If someone truly had an issue with these edits, they would have addressed it with me right then and there, not wait days/weeks and after those articles had been edited multiple times over since I was there. If I never touched the Omega article, we wouldn't be here...tell me I'm wrong. I'm just gonna straight up say it...you're just doing this to harass me because I dared edit the Kenny Omega article, which you are uber protective of, and it's not just me....just about any time anybody edits that article, you are right in their back pocket reverting them (just look at the edit history). You don't want anybody touching your baby, and if they do, you go after them. Vjmlhds (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Minor edit or not, why would you not put something in an edit summary? All you had to do was write "removing duplicates" and it wouldn't have even mattered whether or not you indicated it as a minor edit. I can't stress this enough with you and I've said it for years: you do good work here, you're a net positive to the project, but when you make a mistake, you plant your feet firmly in the sand and refuse to budge. Do I think KyleJoan should have brought this to ANI? No. But it doesn't absolve you ether. Personally, I think an admin should invoke a two-way IBAN between the two of you. Kjscotte34 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

My whole issue was the ANI. KJ could have easily just put a note on my talk page saying "You forgot an edit summary" or something like that, and it would have been done. If I clicked something as minor that maybe I shouldn't have in late night haste, OK I'll own that...called a slip up - comes with being human. But what I don't appreciate is being dragged into an ANI and feeling as though I have to defend myself, because let's be real...you do ANIs in hopes of getting someone blocked because they did something over the top outrageous (edit warring/vandalism/personal attacks/threats/bringing up religion or sexuality/etc.) This wasn't that. A 2-way IBan would be fine with me, since I never interact with KJ anyway unless I'm forced to in situations like this where I have to defend myself, because why do you ANI someone unless you're looking for a block? And as I said before (and honestly believe to be true), this ANI was only done out of spite because I edited an article KJ has clear WP:Own issues about (Kenny Omega - just check the revision history), and the need was felt to "teach me a lesson". Vjmlhds (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

172.58.128.0/17

172.58.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) enjoys posting long, polemical, unreferenced or poorly referenced posts on talk pages related to politics that have no meaningful proposals to improve the article, and edit-warring when they are removed:

• Glenn Greenwald:
  • 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • 15:48—reverted by Daveout
  • 19:52—first restoration
  • 20:17—reverted by Daveout
  • 13:06, 29 April 2021—second restoration
  • 14:18—reverted by Daveout
  • 14:02, 30 April 2021—third restoration; Before this section is once again censored ...
  • 14:03—reverted by NonsensicalSystem
  • 14:08—fourth restoration (he also removed another, unrelated section)
  • 14:12—reverted by NonsensicalSystem
  • 03:24, 11 May 2021—fifth restoration
  • 04:53—reverted by Daveout
  • 15:44, 14 May 2021—sixth restoration
  • 04:34, 23 May 2021—reverted by TheTimesAreAChanging
• Hamas:
  • 00:04, 23 May 2021: The 'entity' was created by Israel to legitimize violence under the ruse of defense to preserve strategic interests.
  • 01:05—reverted by ScottishFinnishRadish
  • 17:48, 26 May 2021—first restoration with additional rambling added
  • 17:49—reverted by ScottishFinnishRadish
  • 01:56, 27 May 2021—second restoration
  • 04:58—reverted by Nishidani
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
  • 21:04, 17 September 2021: AOC votes and confers support to militarism, inequality, unemployment and poverty. ... AOC represents an obedience to tyranny that is mostly hidden. The references provided are Jonathan Cook's blog and  World Socialist Web Site (RSP entry).
  • 16:55, 2 October 2021: Our politicial [sic] system responds to money and politicians are very capable of deceiving and mis-guiding many of those mistreated by the system into fighting against the very forces that might help them. This may apply to Ms Ocasio-Cortez, as much as it does [sic] Bernie 'Lockheed Martin' Sanders or Joe 'Huge Oily Coal' Manchin.
  • 00:37, 4 October 2021: AOC reliably supports military spending, the poverty it creates, the extraordinary wealth for a few it creates, including apartheid and violence in the Middle East. Profit for American defense corporations is sacrosanct, with the requirement of indemnification by the theater of democracy.
  • 00:37—reverted by LuK3
  • 20:36, 5 October 2021—restored
  • 20:45—hatted by MelanieN as an [o]pinion post, unrelated to article content.
  • 21:33, 6 October 2021—hat removal
  • 21:40—hat restored by Firefangledfeathers
  • 21:43—posted the hatted-but-not-removed rant again
  • 21:44: MelanieN engages in censorship.
  • 21:48—removal of the duplicate post by Muboshgu
  • 10:51, 8 October 2021—reverted archival bot's edit as vandalism
  • 15:02, 12 October 2021—hat removal
  • 15:56—another rant
  • 16:02—reverted by Muboshgu

And so forth, and so forth. It appears that they have also been active on other IP ranges before, including 173.153.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) and 184.221.128.0/18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), going back to 2020 and recognizable by the same behavior.

Kleinpecan (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Zzuuzz: as I think they know who this is and the limits of what can be done to stop it.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Because this IP has been engaging in the same WP:NOTAFORUM type of disruption on and off for at least three years, I have blocked the IP for one year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• (I was pinged). I'm not sure if I have a name available. There's a few problems on the range but from what I can see this doesn't appear to be one that I'm thinking of. I will however take the invitation to observe that big T-Mobile blocks are usually relatively ineffective as well as a cause of huge collateral. Is a whole /17 block really currently proportionate? T-Mobile often splits into smaller ranges, and this user appears to be currently inhabiting one or two /24 ranges. And if you're going to block a significant slice of the United States for a significant period of time, please at least add a block log template which will make sense to the majority of users who will see it, like anonblock or rangeblock. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Cullen328—it seems that 172.58.188.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) is where most of the disruptive edits come from. I also wonder whether it would be better to only block them from talk page namespace. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Kleinpecan, is there any evidence that this person is a productive contributor to this encyclopedia? The behavior described in great detail above leads me to think otherwise. If narrowing the range reduces the collateral damage, it is OK with me if any administrator adjusts the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I am not sure what you mean by this person. If you mean 172.58.128.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), it is a range of 32,768 IP addresses assigned to T-Mobile, so it is almost certain that there are many, many persons behind that range, some of whom are disruptive and some who are not. I originally specified this range because it captured all of the disruptive IPs and because I was too lazy to care about collateral damage; but, after some time, it seems that most of the recent disruptive edits could be stopped by blocking 172.58.188.0/24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) (and maybe 172.58.191.0/25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)), which only have 384 IPs in them, combined. Kleinpecan (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blu30Top Disruptive editing on Saturday Night Live (season 46)

Blu30Top has repeatedly engaged in disruptive editing on this page. This user has repeatedly been warned in the last 24 hours by myself and at least one other editor to discuss the version of the content the user would prefer on the talk page. Those warnings have been repeatedly ignored by this user, who is unwilling to follow established Wikipedia policies on providing sources and established consensus. I respectfully request that administrative action be taken against this user unless he/she immediately explains his/her conduct, and why he/she refuses to discuss this and establish consensus on the matter in question. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in this report and I don't see any discussion on either the article or user talk-page. (Ok that's not true, Blu30Top has begun a discussion on the article talk-page after this notice.) Nothing about their last five edits looks problematic. --JBL (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The ongoing problem at the various SNL topics is far too many violations of WP:No original research, especially lots of comparisons between several episodes and analysis across a great many episodes.[34][35] This was discussed at ANI: SNL NOR from Pontiac a week ago, resulting in blocked IPs from Pontiac, Michigan. Blu30Top has made a few unsourced edits[36] but mostly bases their edits on references, or at least stuff that can be easily confirmed in media reports. Edits such as these ones are problematic in the exact same fashion as the Pontiac IPs, so I would caution Blu30Top against further analysis of this sort, counting how many episodes someone has been in, noting who is first in some category, et cetera. Let's return that job to the media, and we can summarize the media for our readers. Binksternet (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This has been going on more than a year on SNL-related articles. User has been given at least eight warnings during that time, just got off a block for making unsourced edits, and has completely failed to try to communicate. Sadly, I think we've reached a point where the damage to Wikipedia (including wasted time by several editors who have tried to manage the problem) outweighs the benefits from the good edits. Sundayclose (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Exact same disruptive edit made 7 times under 7 different IP addresses

The following IP addresses have been used to make the exact same unexplained edit to article List of accolades received by Carol (film) -- seven times as of today. No summary is given for the edit. No explanation of what award is being changed and why. All the awards in the article are verified with reliable sources, and listed in the order given by the award organizations.

2601:1c0:c700:3030:7844:6361:113b:7708 on May 26

2601:1c0:c700:3030:f81d:132d:b3a6:324 on May 30

2601:1c0:c700:3030:f88d:3db7:5498:7ce1 on June 12

2601:1c0:ce00:4b70:892:2fde:7119:bdd2 on July 3

2601:1c0:ce00:4b70:702f:48e0:c204:763 on July 3

2601:1c0:ce00:4b70:6988:a42a:30ef:9b64 on July 12

2601:1C0:CE00:4B70:BD06:54A5:502E:54C4 on October 14

IP 2601:1C0:CE00:4B70:702F:48E0:C204:763 was warned on July 4.
IP 2601:1C0:CE00:4B70:BD06:54A5:502E:54C4 has been warned on October 14.

All these IP addresses can be warned (as has been done) about Wikipedia policies, but obviously this particular IP editor just doesn't give a _ _ _ _. It's a game for whoever is doing it. Perhaps the only solution is to page protect the article. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 18:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Article semi-protected for a month, and both the /64s blocked for the same length (which is probably pointless, but may make the point more clearly). Black Kite (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

South al-Mutlaa article deleted by User:Scope creep without following the Wikipedia deletion policy and due process for article deletion

Hello Wikipedia administrators and editors. As we all know, Wikipdia has a range of rules and guidelines regarding article deletion. There is a specific process that must be followed by all Wikipedia editors. Unfortunately, the user:Scope creep has ignored the due process and policy by quickly deleting the South al-Mutlaa page himself and then moving it to the draftspace. The AfC draftspace move is contested. In September 2021, the AfC draftspace move was contested; accordingly, the established reviewer user:JalenFolf moved the article back to the mainspace. The user: Scope creep seems to have a long history of ignoring Wikipedia policy and he was previously blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please help restore the South al-Mutlaa article to the mainspace because its deletion and AfC move is contested and this user:Scope creep (user talk: Scope creep) is not following the Wikipedia policy for article deletion. This user did not even bother to discuss the deletion in the article's talk page nor did he bother to discuss the AfC draftspace move (which is contested). There is nothing promotional about the article nor is there any evidence of COI; the user: Scope creep has failed to provide evidence to back up his allegations. Moreover, he has failed to discuss his concerns in the article's respective talk page. 10:07 PM (UTC), 13 October 2021 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 (User talk: 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5)

It is not deleted. It is in draft, where you can work on it there. The article was reviewed as part of NPP and turned back into a redirect as it is promo and POV article with many many issues, a brochure article. This editor is a UPE. scope_creep^Talk 22:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:DRAFT#Objections the thing to do if a move to draft space is contested is to nominate the article for deletion, not to unilaterally move it back to draft space. I'm getting rather tired of saying this every time I see such a problem caused by the existence of draft space, but we would be much better off following the original concept of a wiki, which is that articles should be developed in main space where everyone can see them, and deleted if they don't follow policies and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes that is true. Thank you very much User: Phil Bridger. 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 (User talk: 2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5) 22:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: This is not the first time Scope has thrown around unfounded claims that someone is a UPE/COI editor. Just last month they incorrectly took me to WP:COIN over a clear content dispute matter. ––FormalDude talk 22:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Same here about two weeks ago, although I wasn't actually taken to WP:COIN, I was just baselessly accused of UPE. They also don't seem to be familiar with deletion policies. A unilateral WP:BLAR or draftification is essentially the same as a WP:PROD; if someone challenges it, you do not revert them, you nominate the article at AfD. This is made explicitly clear at WP:ATD-R and WP:DRAFTOBJECT. scope_creep does not understand that, and simply reverts when challenged. I question why they have NPP rights when they aren't familiar with probably the single most important policies for a new page patroller to know. Mlb96 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• I may also see a clear misunderstanding of notability guidelines here, from also looking at the comment history and the approaching consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saxsquatch. Is it worth trying for a CBAN proposal here? Jalen Folf (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: scope_creep says they draftified the page as part of NPP. Presumably they followed Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Drafts, which does not contain WP:DRAFTOBJECT. I suggest the solution is probably to add WP:DRAFTOBJECT to "New pages patrol#Drafts". TSventon (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would think that someone shouldn’t be draftifying articles if they haven’t read WP:DRAFT. Mlb96 (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Non-admin comment: it's rather a pity that when User:MrsSnoozyTurtle first moved this to draft space as part of the review process, no one addressed her legitimate concerns through calm discussion on the article's talk-page, but instead everyone plunged into a move-war and a lot of fighting. Although technically AfD might have been the right venue after the article was moved back to main space, it's still not the best venue (and here definitely isn't) because AfD tends to focus on delete/keep, and often gets emotive. In this case, the subject is probably notable, but the article has very real problems that need sorting out, so if User:Scope creep had done the right thing and taken it to AfD, we'd all be complaining that "AfD isn't clean-up", and quite possibly making critical comments about the good faith of the nomination. Elemimele (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Afd no longer works, except for the most extreme cases, even though this is a classic example of a paid for article. It is stoked with socks from PR agencies. This article is sourced from PR. The editor could have worked in draft for a couple of days, fixed it with help from myself and then moved it to mainspace after a quick review by myself, a couple of days at most, as happens numerous times by myself and other Afc editors, every day. Another editor user:Bidoon who arrived at 1.59 on the 14th October 2021 moved it back to mainspace, which is indicative a paid outfit, an PR agency, wanting it there. The whole thing is PR effort. I have left a note on his page to say his name is mentioned. AFC/NPP have increased the quality of articles on wikipedia immeasurably since it has have been created. People who create articles, value Afc/NPP. No publishing house should would accept such a approach to publish half finished articles and offer them to the reader in 2021, most of it from corporate land and wee shouldn't either. I've been doing NPP since is started in 2008 and have had no complaints except from those whose articles I sent to Afd or comment on, or those that end up on the noticeboard. Most editors, those who are in earnest and looking to improve their article, know they will get extensive help to improve it. scope_creep^Talk 11:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfounded claims by User:Scope creep. As for the non-admin comment by Elemimele: This is the article South al-Mutlaa can you elaborate what "very serious problems" are in this article? Both users (Snoozy and Scope) have been reported and warned so many times against this type of behaviour (check their talk pages and block logs). They do not assume good faith and automatically accuse editors of COI without providing a single shred of evidence to substantiate their unfounded claims. Apparently, volunteers interested in editing Wikipedia are all COI according to them. This is offensive and defamatory on so many levels. These editors should not be allowed to unilaterally overrule Wikipedia policy without going through the proper due process. As User:JalenFolf, Mlb96, and User:FormalDude rightfully pointed out, User:Scope creep seems to misunderstand notability guidelines, regularly falsely accuses people of COI/UPE, and he also misunderstands draftify and article deletion guidelines. Also, it is interesting that User:Scope creep is accusing me of being a "paid stock [account]" I highly recommend that you do IP address sock puppet investigation because these are unfounded allegations. Where is the PR in South al-Mutlaa? Where are the PR articles? What evidence do you have to back up these strong allegations? Please provide evidence instead of just throwing accusations around and assuming the worst in people. There is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits volunteers from editing articles they're interested in and there is no policy that prohibits people from making edits without logging-in. AfD is the proper due process, not one or two people overriding established Wikipedia policy because of their personal opinions and unfounded accusations against me (I repeat: You should start a sock puppet investigation on me). User: Scope creep is always falsely accusing people of UPE/COI. Oh yeah, literally everybody on Wikipedia is 'paid to edit articles' according to User:Scope creep. Please look at his talk page, contributions page and block-log. Very colourful. Why do 1-2 people get to override established Wikipedia policy? Why not follow the original concept of Wiki as Phil Bridger rightfully pointed out. Bidoon (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bidoon: I don't want to make this into a content dispute, and I'm not taking sides on this, but the issues are those in the multiple-issues box at the top: the references are almost all routine business press-release stuff that can be summarised as "We are proud to be spending/receiving lots of cash for this major building project", or primary, and the tone of the writing is currently rather advertisement-like (it would be better to state baldly how much has been constructed, not to speak positively of how well the construction companies have done to remain on schedule despite Covid). MrsSnoozyTurtle is an experienced article reviewer, and raised concerns in good faith on draftifying; I see the merit in them; my statement (above) is that to do the article justice, those concerns should have been addressed on the talk page. I'm not defending or attacking any individual editor: I'm just saying that collectively, friendly discussion would have led to a better article. Elemimele (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying and raising valid concerns. I wholeheartedly agree with you. Yes it is definitely true that collectively a friendly discussion would have led to a better article. I am going to reverse the main space move if that's okay with everyone. Bidoon (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried reversing the initial move and couldn't. Is it possible for a user here move the page back to the draftspace because Elemimele has raised valid concerns about the quality of the references in the article. However IMO, I don't think that we will find references of better quality even if moved to AfC so I propose the deletion of South al-Mutlaa because draftifying it won't help in the long-run (the references will stay the same). There aren't any suitable references online (currently). It's all construction firms, PR releases in UAE-based online newspapers, and Kuwait government news agencies. As Elemimele rightfully pointed out, Wikipedia articles should have suitable references. The current shortage of high quality references necessitates its deletion IMO not draftification. Perhaps in 2025 when the project officially finishes construction we can re-create the article because this city will have an actual population living in it and better-quality references. Bidoon (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not necessary to go for all-out deletion yet, it might be possible to trim it down to a few of the more reliable references and keep the text neutral. Obviously it's risky to guess what's going to happen, but this is clearly a very large building project (probably already notable) and is highly likely to become a significant city, so there will be an article sooner or later. Maybe with trimming, the current article will act as a seed that will grow over coming years. @Bidoon is right that once the city has an actual population, it will have news and events, culture and people. Can I suggest discussion on the article's fate should now move to its talk page (unless someone particularly wants to nominate it for AfD and do the process that way, which is also fine)? Elemimele (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks Elemimele that's a good idea. I started a new section at its talk page for continuing the discussion on its fate. Bidoon (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this particular article is the subject of UPE or not, but a word of advice, @Scope creep: accusing an editor of UPE is not a light accusation. I will readily admit that I dislike you, and the reason I dislike you is the UPE accusation you made against me. It pissed me the fuck off, and it will piss off any good faith editor who receives the same accusation. If you continue throwing it around as casually as you have been, you're going to make a lot more enemies than just myself. Mlb96 (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Having another go at me. No it doesn't piss off good faith editors. All good faith editors, 95%+ know what UPE and paid eding is, before they even come on Wikipedia. It takes about six seconds to either say, no I'm not been paid. Coolio, that great. Thanks, or Coolio, you will need to undergo disclosure per WP:PAID. Thats cool. Thanks. That is it. That is the extent of a good faith transaction and the vast majority of transactions are like that. That is the nature of it. Your transaction was different because you went off the deep end, which I found really odd and your articles are chock full of PR. You said your a fan, fair enough, I accept that. I've been working in NPP/Afc and the Coin noticeboard for 10 years and the spam noticeboard for 4 years. I don't throw accusations of UPE around and I've never accused anybody of being a UPE, unless I'm absolutely sure. Experience tells. It takes roughly 3 years to learn to differentiate between an editor who is in earnest and those want to subvert or game wikipedia. At start of the process, I was like anybody else. I didn't believe it. Slowly by instruction by other editors, admins, the evidence sank in, over years. It takes times, by like everything else it takes time. It should be like this. I shouldn't be here. There should no paid on Wikipedia. Probably the best project for humanity since the enlightenment is being subverted for want of a technical solution that can stop a particular sub-group coming in. It ruining the place, the vision, the idea. We are owned by corporate land. In the last 10 years, they organised a complete industry with their nomenclature, they own conferences, they're own ideals, at our expense. scope_creep^Talk 17:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is bullshit : at least 3 editors in this conversation have said you accused them of UPE without you providing any proof. Either put-up or shut-up. Spike 'em (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right, those editors making the accusation need to prove that they were accused of being UPEs and not just make the accusation. At this point there's a lot of he said, she said being thrown around. Diffs or it didn't happen. Canterbury Tail talk

@Canterbury Tail: Another user and I have already provided diffs of Scope making unfounded UPE/COI claims here and here. ––FormalDude talk 20:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The first link you provide seems perfectly reasonable given the edits but yes could be open for interpretation, it's easy to see it that way though. (Incidentally the link doesn’t work properly for some reason so it’s not apparent what it is we were to look at.) And the second one is not an accusation but the wording of a standard and community agreed upon template that is perfectly normal to place on a users talk page in these circumstances. Canterbury Tail talk 21:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This link should work better: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive_177#Milt's Stop & Eat. ––FormalDude talk 06:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't seen Scope Creep accuse anyone of UPE here. This is not an accusation, it simply says their edits look like they might be a conflict of interest. Maybe because it's a template it feels like an accusation - if someone asked me "hey, do you have a COI with so-and-so", I wouldn't be offended at all to answer that question. Scope Creep is a bit more enthusiastic to move articles to draft-space than I am - and I'd suggest they don't move-war and instead take take the article to AfD - but I don't think that in general, they're being unreasonably strict. They do a lot of good work to keep a lot of UPE out, work that needs to be done, and work that is inherently not perfect. We should err on the side of protecting against UPE, and I view "asking if someone is a UPE by using a template" as a pretty low cost to do so. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the fact that it was a template made it seem less like a question and more like an accusation. It's not like my reaction was unreasonable; enough people have reacted in a similar way that an entire essay was written on the subject. Mlb96 (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mlb96, I hate to be that party pooper but yeah! that’s why it’s just that; “an essay”. Celestina007 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Im not sure I understand why this is being blown out of proportion, following the title of this thread then I believe scope creep by now has learnt not to re-draftify articles. Furthermore I’m in agreement with Elli, If it’s because they “accuse people of undisclosed paid editing without evidence” then that is a false narrative as the {{UPE}} tag is a question and not an accusation. If that is what all this is about then this thread should be closed as we would be making arguments on a horribly wrong premise. Celestina007 (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Considering both user:2A00:1851:8004:A55:FCF7:5239:864C:9BC5 and user:Bidoon have been blocked, there is no need to keep this open. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

IP-hopper adding unreferenced controversial BLP material

• Ashley Blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP-hopper persistently re-adding birth date sourced to IAFD, an obvious user-generated or self-published website. I have a hunch that in addition to not being reliably sourced, the personal info of porn performers on sites like this originated in the AIM data breach several years back, bringing serious privacy concerns. I've warned the user and already requested page protection. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid the range those IPs come from is too big to block, Sangdeboeuf. Fuzheado has semi'd the article for a week. If the IP disruption starts up again after that time, feel free to come directly to my page and request some more. Bishonen | tålk 09:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

Stonewalling a botched manual revert

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.

---

FlightTime is in error when he cites WP:CONSENSUS while WP:STONEWALLING and ignoring WP:EDITCON. All the evidence of the incident can be found in the talk page section.

This has caused disruption in the Death of Gabby Petito article, which I find urgent enough a cause to report here, with an eye to quick and painless resolution. This is not about the merits of the content change (bio vs. event-type lead), but about maintaining a normal collaborative ambient. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI ? really ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this because of one revert? Please see WP:BRD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

FlightTime, if you give me a normal substantive rationale for the change (even if I don't agree with it whatsoever), I'll help you on the technical side of things to revert, selectively, my changes that you dispute, while not reverting the changes of other editors that your botched mass-revert has also affected. Then I'll ask for input and seek consensus, and we'll discuss normally. Alternatively, I can even revert on your behalf changes by other editors that you also dispute. Substantively dispute. Since the burden is on you as the reverter to offer a substantive rationale.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: FlightTime is acting as if he's not aware of BRD. It isn't about a single revert, but about a disruption to the collaborative process that needs outside help to resolve. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

What disruption? I see a single revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Damage to the article, which can't be addressed except by reverting his revert, which would produce a strong appearance of edit warring and would likely only make it harder to undo the damage short term -- see my comment in talk: "you deleted the date from the lead, you broke a reference, reintroduced bolding against a clear WP:AVOIDBOLD rationale (while not even moving it out of the body, meaning the name is bolded twice in the article), you did not delete an inline note asking editors not to bold causing it to make no sense now, and now you are simply stonewalling. Please self-revert, and let's go back to the normal editorial process." — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, so there was a single revert, there's a discussion on the talk page, and you brought this to ANI with no diffs. Got it. This should probably be closed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

You could have a discussion to gain consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: diffs... October 6, October 7, October 7 (this is when the lead had stabilized), October 14. They're already in the talk discussion which I linked /edit: added another diff so not all are/. Please tell FlightTime about EDITCON, BRD, and STONEWALLING. — Alalch Emis (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

So there were three reverts over a month ago, there is still no consensus for inclusion, it was added again and reverted? I'm just trying to figure out the exact problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems resolved via talk page discussion. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:27, 15 October 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:Charles Juvon and WP:PROMOTION

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.

---

Charles Juvon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) This user posts links to their facebook group in various places across the wiki, sometimes in unrelated discussions, but mostly in only tangentially-related ones. It's an anti-biowarfare group. This seems to me to be a blatant violation of WP:SOAPBOX, WP:PROMOTION, WP:FORUM, etc. I first noticed this when they posted a screenshot of a post from the group to Talk:Biological agent as "of future interest for this article to show public interaction with the topic" [37].

See also other examples: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

Also youtube videos: [52]

Plus: [53] speaks for itself

Here are all the times I have warned the user about this exact thing: [54] [55] [56] [57] I would say that the sharing of the facebook group actually increased in frequency after I cautioned the user about this.

I would say it is quite clear to me from this behavior and the attitude towards it after my repeated warnings that this user is WP:NOTHERE.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it is worth explicitly mentioning that just 3.1% of this users edits can be found in article space; the rest are on talk pages and in user space - I'm not entirely sure what they are here to do, but looking at their edit distribution, and looking at their recent contributions to article talk pages, I think WP:NOTHERE might apply. BilledMammal (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

We have millions of editors ~95% devoted to article space. Does no harm if one guy "behind the scenes" occasionally and politely reminds even a fraction of the community that biological warfare is something worth curtailing. If he can't do it, someone more suitable should replace him, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of which user is doing it (and frankly, regardless of the topic), it's a violation of WP:FORUM (see #4) and, in some cases, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

We should have 100% of editors devoted to article space (even if not directly editing it). When have we ever said it was ok to be here, politely or otherwise, for the purpose of reminding the community of any cause, however worthy. WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE is an understatement. NOTHEREATALL would be more like it. I was the victim of a violent crime, and it has taken years to recover. When I did recover sufficiently to get back on a a computer, I tried a few WP edits and got yelled at. Then I started writing Userboxes. Someone followed me back to my Talk page and started complaining. By then, I had recovered sufficiently to handle a FB group. We were gathering references, and I thought they would be useful to WP. Now I have a better idea. I will start a subpage off my directory and load in references. Each reference will have ~10 keywords picked by an expert (me). That should help with references - given other search mechanisms are highly overloaded for keywords associated with the pandemic. I'll give you an example: Let's say you wanted to find the first "gain of function" research article ever published. I don't think that search is possible. First, the GOF term is more recent than early publications. Second, there is a dispute over what qualifies as GoF. In one version, GoF is defined as beginning with a human pathogen. So, mutagenizing a bat coronavirus into a human pathogen doesn't qualify. In another definition of GoF, one makes a human pathogen regardless of the starting virus. Thus, mutagenizing a bat virus into a human pathogen would be considered GoF. This is topical, as you heard in the discussions between Paul and Fauci. When I hand-index articles, I will take such disparate definitions into consideration. Here is an example of this indexing:

$First $GOF $Human $Pathogen $Polio $Chow $MIT $Epitope $Antibody https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1714663/

(I am fully aware that a secondary reference is needed for priority, but this will help with literature searches.)

Here’s another example. Let’s say you wanted to know about potential lab leaks from a BSL-4 lab. One entry might read:

$LabLeak $BSL-4 $NBAF $K-State $Manhattan $Kansas $FBI $DHS $USDA $FMD $Jaax https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaLeE8WKcqk

A couple more for your consideration of tags:

$NYT $Retraction $Pediatric $COVID $Mandavilli https://www.nationalreview.com/news/new-york-times-retracts-massive-exaggeration-of-children-hospitalized-by-covid-19/?fbclid=IwAR3TfCzz1ZlfzH6UTi6gVO3pcjM4vvujbdPFcL4g6BYM5lvQtQEIrMOa_fc

$India $China $Delta $Unrestricted Warfare $Biowarfare $COVID Origin $General Bakshi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNWpblCGa3o

$Patent $COVID $Vaccine $China $Trade Secret $Graphene Oxide $Nanoparticle https://patents.google.com/patent/CN112220919A/en

$ADE $ZIKA $GOF $Dual Use $Krammert $Mt. Sinai https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aal4365

Please state your concerns. This will be a lot of work. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand any of that. What does it have to do with Wikipedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• CIR block based on the simply fact that he thinks the above is somehow communicative. EEng 01:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the user is claiming that positive coverage of coronavirus vaccines equates to biological warfare on wikipedia's part, and he's trying to counter that by running his "anti biological warfare group" and is promoting that everywhere to "fight the power" or something. I don't know. I don't speak conspiracy that well. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger founded Wikipedia. Sanger recently wrote an article entitled, "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased": https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Here are his recent comments on the COVID vaccine: https://larrysanger.org/.../the-astonishing-hubris-of-a.../ His points: "experimental vaccine, billions of people, at the same time". In my personal experience as a Wikipedian, I can't write anything without being attacked by a cabal of editors. At the present time, a Ph.D. virologist (who has done gain of function research on human pathogens) has initiated a process to ban me. So far, he has 100% support from other editors. In stark contrast, I started an (anti-) Biological Warfare Group on Facebook 6 months ago. Charles Juvon (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

A look at the facebook group this user is promoting is quite enlightening - coronavirus conspiracy theories, antivax nonsense, and personal attacks on other Wikipedia editors. We need to keep this kind of blatant misinformation off of Wikipedia, even as external links on talk pages. - MrOllie (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

From reading what the user wrote and reading his userboxes and talk page, this is obviously a deep, deep conspiracy theorist whose only activity on wikipedia is acting in accordance with and furthering said conspiracy theories. It's rather incomprehensible in aggregate, i'm afraid. Magisch ^{talk to me} 13:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be a curious intersection of WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE and WP:ADVOCACY. Indef x 3. DeCausa (talk)

If there's anyone whose opinion is respected less than Jimmy Wales's it's Larry Sanger. Please let's base this encyclopedia on what subject matter experts write, not those two. Wikipedia has been successful because its founders stumbled across a good idea, not because they know anything about vaccines. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm really excited for this to be the first time I've used this essay: Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Larryem. Very applicable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: @Magischzwei: Please post your evidence that I have ever posted a conspiracy theory, personal attacks on WP editors, etc. anywhere on the internet. BTW, I have never observed blanked User pages on WP, which coincidentally, you both have as relatively new Users. Charles Juvon (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: First of all, i'm not a new user. I mostly edit while logged out (mostly gnoming, that is) and read a lot. I couldn't help myself but comment for this occasion though. To the second point, your facebook group, your general demeanor, the things you link, your userboxes, they all spell "conspiracy theorist" quite clearly. It's hard to see that when you're neck deep in it, I suppose, but it's true still Magisch ^{talk to me} 18:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: @Magischzwei: Sorry, that was an error on my part. Only MrOllie has the blanked User page. I can no longer find the second. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It's all right there on the facebook link you've been pasting everywhere. But sure, here's a screen cap of something you posted just yesterday: screen capture MrOllie (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie: Concerning that particular User's Ph.D. thesis: Do you understand the consequences of doing Zika Gain of Function (GoF) research in an academic lab with little physical security and having someone walk out with the virus? We are now aware that the sequence data dumped by Wuhan on our database has contaminants of Nipah virus (70% fatal) in a genetic engineering vector. Remember ELE (Extinction Level Event) from the movie? This is no movie. The virologists are totally out of control and represent an existential threat to humanity. WP is contributing to this effort by defaming people like me as pseudoscientists, conspiracy theorists, and debunked people. Unlike nuclear weapons and MAD, a single virologist is all it takes. Thank God DARPA funded Moderna early. Charles Juvon (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Why hasn't this person been blocked yet? --JBL (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Please read this abstract very, very carefully. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542197/?fbclid=IwAR22UzX-_bSV2-L9smmCTgiTNtM2R9skgrmTWy3T5kB7UDMDXUD2FO7eJi8 The first of the two authors is Michelle Rozo, Director for Technology and National Security at National Security Council, The White House.

"The 1977-1978 influenza epidemic was probably not a natural event, as the genetic sequence of the virus was nearly identical to the sequences of decades-old strains. While there are several hypotheses that could explain its origin, the possibility that the 1977 epidemic resulted from a laboratory accident has recently gained popularity in discussions about the biosafety risks of gain-of-function (GOF) influenza virus research, as an argument for why this research should not be performed. There is now a moratorium in the United States on funding GOF research while the benefits and risks, including the potential for accident, are analyzed. Given the importance of this historical epidemic to ongoing policy debates, we revisit the evidence that the 1977 epidemic was not natural and examine three potential origins: a laboratory accident, a live-vaccine trial escape, or deliberate release as a biological weapon. Based on available evidence, the 1977 strain was indeed too closely matched to decades-old strains to likely be a natural occurrence. While the origin of the outbreak cannot be conclusively determined without additional evidence, there are very plausible alternatives to the laboratory accident hypothesis, diminishing the relevance of the 1977 experience to the modern GOF debate."

I should add there were 7,000,000 deaths. Of the three alternatives offered in the abstract, what is the likely conclusion? It took almost three decades for this conclusion to be revealed. The West did not want to destabilize the UN Biological Weapons Convention, signed only two years before this flu pandemic. Charles Juvon (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the name of all that's holy, we've got CIR and NOTHERE and probably several other block reasons all rolled into one here. Can some admin please put all those involved out of their misery? EEng 05:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Juvon/NBWD Charles Juvon (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed. CIR/Not Here, etc. Conduct not conducive to collaborative editing, however it's spun. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• What a pain, using Wikipedia as a web host, like a usenet forum, and as a personal playground. I deleted all his userboxes too. – Athaenara ✉ 22:07, 14 October 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.

Removal of Reliable External Links

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.

---

• avidemia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The removal of reliable sources happened to the following articles.

(1) A Course of Pure Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had added a website to the external links for this Wikipedia article. That source provides this book (A Course of Pure Mathematics) by G.I. Hardy in HTML format. The benefit of that source over the existing external links is that the newly added link contains HTML pages of the book, and can be read even on cellphones. No other external link provides HTML pages. That link was removed by MrOllie (talk · contribs).

(2) Calculus Made Easy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I had added a website to the external links for the article Calculus Made Easy. The added link provides that book in HTML format. MrOllie (talk · contribs) removed that link and decided to keep this source "http://calculusmadeeasy.org/" instead. The link that I have provided has two benefits over the latter: (1) It is a secured website (https) while "http://calculusmadeeasy.org/" is not secured. (2) Some notations are modernized (with a warning to the reader what the original notation was) for the purpose of readability of the book. For example, in today's books, nobody uses $\epsilon$ for Euler's number. Euler's number is universally denoted by e. The reader will be very confused when they see $\epsilon$ instead of e.

I had discussed these with MrOllie on his talk page but did not receive reasonable answers.

PS: My account was created back in 2011. avidemia.com is a free website and even has no ads. For the credentials of the creators of this website, someone can check https://avidemia.com/team in case there are any questions. Kamyar.d (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2021‎ (UTC)

Generally speaking, it is not advisable for people like yourself, whose edits are entirely focused on promoting a particular website, to draw administrative attention to themselves: see WP:LINKSPAM. --JBL (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This is a single purpose editor who is annoyed that links to his site are removed while preexisting links to other sites are left alone. - MrOllie (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My first edit goes back to 2012. Why was the external link to "A course of pure mathematics" removed when there is no alternative to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Your first four edits in 2012 look alright. There was then an eight-year hiatus; every single one of your edits since then, starting in 2020, have been either adding links to avidemia.com, edit warring to reinstate those links when they have been removed, or discussing the links with people who have removed them. That does indeed make you look a lot like a single-purpose account, regardless of when you registered this account. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on your user name and the page linked above, you are involved with the website in question, so there is a clear WP:COI in you adding links to this site. WP:LINKSPAM also cautions against excessive solicitation of others to to add links to your own site, which I think you are crossing by badgering everyone who disagrees with you. Spike 'em (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it seems you're promoting your website. We have links to the books in question, full versions, just not HTML versions. At the end of the day Wikipedia isn't a collection of useful links, and we only need a single link to the book whatever format as long as its accessible. Though I would be honest to say the HTML version is useful and much more useable even if it's not quite original format. Ultimately though since they appear to be links to a website you own and run, it's not appropriate for you to add them and you should also follow the guidelines in WP:COI. You should post suggestions as to adding the links to the talk pages of the relevant articles instead of adding them into the articles yourself. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think what happened here is against the spirit of Wikipedia to provide good and reliable information and perhaps external links. Look at the logic that MrOllie (talk · contribs) used to remove the links. First, he said the source is not reliable because they are not peer-reviwed. When I mentioned that I am talking about the HTML versions of two well-known books, he said the books are altered. When I made it clear that only one of them was slightly modernized, and only some confusing notations are changed with a note to warn the readers of the original notation, again he changed his logic (see his talk page). You are so concerned that the links that I added may promote a website that the involved editors completely forgot to check whether or not the external links add something to the content or not. The articles that I added the links to are not popular articles and I don't think that website received more than 10-20 page visits (not even user visits) per day from Wikipedia at max. This extra number of users even for a commercial website means nothing. The expense of keeping a free website is way way higher than some extra visits even there were google ads. Focus on what happened here and not my motives that you guess:

(1) A secured reference with modernized notations was removed in favor of an unsecured with the old fashion notations. For Calculus Made Easy

(2) No HTML version of the book by Hardy exists anywhere else on the internet (to the best of my knowledge). But the involved editor(s) preferred to deprive the Wikipedia users from a reliable source in fear of a website may receive very few extra visits. For a course of pure mathematics

I complained about these two issues, but for the other pages that I added and you keep bringing them up and accusing me of promoting a free website: Many of the external links for those Wikipedia articles were old and outdated. Some of them were to archive.org pages and many of them were to the pages created in early 2000 where equations were low-quality images and they were not updated for about 20 years. On the other hand, look at the link (Shell Method)that I added to Shell integration article and (Disk Method) to Disc Integation article. Those pages contain 3D figures that a reader can rotate, zoom in and out. Are the other external links (existing then) provide such beautiful and informative graphs? I think some of you may say that the 3D interactive figures are informative but the source is not reliable and that is OK, although there are still some not peer-reviewed external links to those Wikipedia articles (there were so many and now most of them are removed now). Again I have to mention that I did not complain and did not discuss the removal of those links with any editor. I complained just about the HTML versions of the books.

I think it's best if every editor focuses on the facts and what is useful versus not useful info or link instead of reading too much of other people's motives whom he/she has never seen or talked to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamyar.d (talk • contribs)

• Regardless of what they were, it's clear Kamyar is now an SPA dedicated to the promotion of his website, and shows no indication of changing the behavior, so I have indeffed. Star Mississippi 16:35, 14 October 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.

Intimidation and Insulting me on the Norwich pages

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

---

I think there is intimidation and abuse going on towards me on the Norwich and Talk:Norwich pages. All over a collage with two editors calling it "Depressing" and "Mediocre at most". Also one editor got my Username wrong and are picking issues over a bunch of photos which quite frankly in the previous collage were badly zoomed in and badly edited ratioed. But of course I'm in the wrong not them I guess. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC) DragonofBatley (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Goldengnomee has commented in the edit summary "the old collage was so much better, i'm not even from norwich, but i was suprised to see it got and replaced by something so depressing". And an anon commented something similar. Not just that but also on the talk pages I have seen the following comments.

@Menacinghat: commented

" I think the old photos used on the other language Wikipedia pages for Norwich are better and the new photos uploaded by Dragonofbaitley are grey and mediocre-looking. The old photos were bright and close-up which meant you didn't have to open the image, while the new ones are zoomed out and largely taken in poor weather.

Thoughts?

The collage made by Deu is far superior."

So they basically are saying Superior as in better and yours DragonofBaitley which they called me is crap.

So these editors and anon have issues whereas at least one editor on there is decent enough to disagree in a professional manor.

These two cannot it seems one can't even get my username right. I admit my outburst on there has likely been seen as bad but when your being criticized for no apparent reason other then over a few photos in a collage. It's understandable if you feel intimidated and insulted even bullied and vulnerable.

DragonofBatley (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is intimidating or insulting you, but they are simply giving their opinion about which image is better, which, when it comes to images where we allow (even encourage) original research, is all we can go by. The author of the image you replaced could just as well say that you are the one doing the intimidating and insulting by claiming that your image is better. And the user name thing is just a mistake that anyone could make. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I never claimed mine to be better. I simply said you can see the castle and cathedrals better as theirs was too close to them and badly done. Didn't mean to say mine was better because mine isn't but theirs is not. Also there is insulting going on there Phil with use of words like Superior, Depressing and Mediocre at best. So those terms which as opinions are okay to say and be seen as important to make a change to a photo? also I never called the other one crap or bad. I happened to find seeing the castle and cathedrals more clearer essential then a small part of each. DragonofBatley (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And other people disagreed with you. Talk to them rather than claiming that a minor difference of opinion is intimidating or insulting. It is not. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So calling someone's work "Crap or rubbish" is fine. But not the editors contributions? Maybe you don't understand that I feel intimidated because I have autism. And others opinions are not opinions. They are using them to change the lead photo of Norwich too so that's not a different opinion. That's enforcing their opinion in the process and of course it's insulting to me to have my username mispell. If someone mispell your whole name you'd be annoyed. I know others would DragonofBatley (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I see neither insult nor intimidation in the history there. People (you included) are giving their opinions of the photos. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Yes, someone did misspell your name. With a complete dearth of other evidence suggesting bad faith, I am willing to WP:AGF, and I would urge you to do the same. You don't have the 'right' to get your own way, but you do have the 'right' to be treated civilly. It looks to me as though you have been. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Has anyone called your work "Crap or rubbish"? Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, but I can't see such a description. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing other than collegial discussion taking place on the talk pages there, and nothing too out of place in the edit summaries either. The absolute worst it gets is someone describing the photos of gloomy (they are gloomy) and a mention that the selection is mediocre which is an opinion and perfectly allowed. There are no attacks going around, there was one minor misspelling of a username which looks like a genuine mistake, and everything else is civilised discussion. OP is reading too much into things and taking it way too personally, as there are no personal attacks or even personal criticism going on there just some genuine comments on the choice of images. Canterbury Tail talk 12:50, 14 October 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.

Green Marble

Green Marble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• 9 July 2021: A long, unreferenced diatribe accusing Joe Biden of racism, containing no meaningful proposals to improve the article.
• 2 August 2021: A long, unreferenced diatribe accusing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of being far-left.
• 20 September 2021: Like most Democrat-run cities, Oakland has continued to suffer from serious violent crime problems. No reference given for this synthesis.
• 14 October 2021: Addition of a separate section consisting of a single sentence, Studies have shown that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release., sourced to the  Washington Examiner (RSP entry).

The rest of their edits, with the exception of three or five minor ones, are in a similar vein. The user is only interested in pushing their point of view rather than building an encyclopedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Bbb23. Bishonen | tålk 11:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC).

Insulting and threatening by SPA

I receive on my talk page insulting and threatening comments by an apparent sock account. [58] The comment is in Azerbaijani, making obscene insults, calling Azerbaijani people "fake nation", and promising to reincarnate again and again. For socking evidence, please see here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adelphopolis. Grandmaster 08:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed, obviously NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for dealing with this. Grandmaster 14:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and potential sockpuppetry on multiple articles.

This is my first ANI post, so apologies for any mistakes. I noticed that a couple of IPs were making identical edits to articles about subsidiaries of a company called Harman International (Harman Becker Automotive Systems, AMX LLC, Soundcraft, Lexicon (company), Crown International, Dbx (company), Revel Audio, A&R Cambridge Ltd, Infinity Systems, and Bang & Olufsen), removing mention that said company is itself a subsidiary of Samsung. As I didn't see any reason as to why that might be undue information (It's only a sentence and that seems like information someone researching the company might want to know), I reverted these per WP:BRD. These edits were changed back. I decided to revert them again, start a discussion on the talk page of the parent company's article (As I couldn't think of another place to put it), and notify all involved IPs of the discussion. These edits were simply reverted by a new IP, with my discussion not touched at all. I don't like escalating situations, but considering that this user (or users) have shown that they have no intention of resolving this dispute with discussion, I don't know what else to do but bring it here. For full disclosure, ignorant of the fact that IP only SPIs aren't allowed, I started an SPI investigation about this, which was swiftly deleted. If any of my actions aren't the right way to do things and I have mishandled this or made any mistakes in any way, I will take full accountability for my actions and accept any resulting consequences.

The IPs are:

1.38.221.164 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

2402:3A80:186E:C69:CC27:9764:9E81:C106 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

1.38.221.225 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

2402:3A80:186E:C69:0:48:223B:E01 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I'm not sure what else I can do here, I want to get consensus for this, but my talk page discussion on this matter wasn't touched at all, and I don't want to make any more edits before discussing this matter. JellyMan9001 (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a rangeblock will be necessary, see here and here NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 17:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize there were more. Good find. JellyMan9001 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked two ranges for one month each:

• 1.38.221.128/25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
• 2402:3A80:186E:C69:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If the IP editor does come back, I hope they will join the discussion at Talk:Harman International on whether to identify these companies as subsidiaries of Samsung. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

SquarePants122 - uncivility as an IP

• SquarePants122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.159.54.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2001:56A:F170:7200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 108.173.134.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As explained in the title of this section, the user in question has persistently been uncivil while editing as an IP, seemingly attempting to evade scrutiny on their main account. These interactions mostly occur after the user account edits something and is reverted- they then re-revert with the uncivil edit summaries

Such interactions can be found here:

• Edit as user
• Edit as IP two minutes later
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP

---

• Edit as user
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP

---

• Edit as user
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted again
• Another uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted yet again

---

• Edit as IP
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted again

---

• Edit as IP
• Reverted
• Uncivil edit summary as IP
• Reverted again

---

• Edits as IP
• Reverted

(other edit/revert between)

• Uncivil edit summary as IP

---

Standalone incidents:

• [59]
• [60]
• [61]

---

Only thing throwing me off is this edit followed by this edit, but based on the above examples and similar article interests (SpongeBob, Arthur, Nickelodeon, kids' cartoons, etc.), it may just be a WP:SELFREVERT.

With the above examples given, it seems clear (to me at least) that the editor is attempting to evade any sort of scrutiny against their user account by being uncivil under IP edits. Multiple IPs have been warned against this in the past (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and seems to have ignored each time, as the same exact behavior has continued to today.

Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I've looked at this and I believe Magitroopa to be correct. The only other explanation is that the IP(s) - who are almost certainly the same editor - are conducting a joe-job and inserting reverts with insulting editsums when they see one of SquarePants122's edits to have been reverted. The really odd thing is that when the IPs are editing "alone" so to speak, they are a mixture of what appear to be good edits, and vandalism. I am hesitant to block at this point - I think we need an SPI. If it turns out that SP122 and the IPs are one and the same, I would simply indef. Black Kite (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Just quickly looking, and from a glance, most edit summaries from the IPs appear similar to the user's edit summaries: starting with capital letter & ending with period (examples: "This still hasn't come out yet.", "Dead source.", "Removed a dead source.", and "This is the real order.") Also taking a look at the WHOIS, all 3 IPS come from Alberta, Canada with most of the same information. Should also likely be noted that both 2001:56A:F170:7200:96E:2AEB:878:79E (part of the /64 range) and 75.159.54.209 have recently edited List of longest-running American television series, so I would think that at least links those two together...

Should I be the one opening an SPI for this? Magitroopa (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Magitroopa Yes, I think so. I am really hesitant to block without a CU, even on very likely duck test. Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Alrightie, just wasn't sure if I should be the one to open it... now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquarePants122. Magitroopa (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: checkusers won't connect an account to an IP address. Still useful to have the SPI, but you should go with your gut on the available evidence here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 15:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

PatriotsFOREVER126

PatriotsFOREVER126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

This editor, for starters, seems to refuse to want to communicate. Just a look through recent edits and their talkpage, the seem to never respond to comments on their talkpage. Additionally, it seems like the editor has a habit of creating unsourced or poorly sourced articles. The editor also violates WP:OR on a regular basis. They edit NFL Player pages and roster templates adding numbers to players who do not have a number listed on their team's website and never provides where they get the numbers from. Another issue, is this editor has changed players' roster status from the accurate status to inaccurate roster status. This editor has had multiple warnings and posts on their talkpage advising of these issues and continues to ignore them. They had gone a while without doing the numbers thing, but it seems to have started back up. Thank you for your assistance.--Rockchalk717 05:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Years of problems, years of zero communication, I don't understand why things are allowed to get this bad. El_C 14:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Awesome! I appreciate it. I'm not sure either. Yeah the editor will occasionally make uncontroversial edits but the majority are one of the things I mentioned initially.--Rockchalk717 15:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Continual disruption by a user who refuses to heed warnings or obey policies

1. Pramod Bhagat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Sukant9993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sukant9993's whole presence on the Pramod Bhagat page[62] lately has been to repeatedly revert to his preferred version even in the face of the multiple warnings, and that without any regard to the consensus that had been forged through the discussion on the talk page ([63]). It has now come to light that he has been brazenly flouting the precepts and directives of WP:COI all along. ([64]) But much worse has been his double-talk on this: he has acknowledged his real life association with the subject,[65] yet has refused to own up to his flagrant violations,[66], which now appear to be just the tip of the iceberg (in light of this, and his creation of this). Sukant9993 has openly refused to cease his editing on the aforesaid page or heed the warnings, while continuing to engage in edit-warring and COI editing on the page. Sukant9993 has shown that he is WP:NOTHERE, that he is editing with a my way or the highway attitude. Kerberous (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Kerberous. The reported user has done reversions more than 6-7 times of two different users. Not at all intrested in following Talk page discussion and continuing the disruption. zoglophie 18:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that this discussion remained untouched by admins, and Sukant reinstated his disruptive behaviour which is gone unnoticed again here. It is actually 7th or 8th revert by him which is like a mockery of three revert rule. zoglophie 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I am having the same issue above. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User is blocked indefinitely from editing the page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Corker1 and WP:OWN issues at Washington and Old Dominion Railroad

User:Corker1 I stumbled upon this article while patrolling recent changes to railroad related articles, and was very unpleasantly surprised to discover it was a 286,000 byte collection of indiscriminate information, with highlights including over 200 external links, links to over a dozen youtube videos, no less than 36 maps linked, links to timetables, insanely large lists of stations, and in general massive violations of WP:ELNO and WP:NOT.

I raised the issue on the article's talk page [67] and Corker1 was initially uncooperative [68] (note that I did not delete most of the page, this was done by a different user). Their response makes it clear they do not understand what Wikipedia is and isn't. Just the same, I attempted to work with them to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policy, by deleting some external links and making the station lists collapsible. However, my attempts at any serious cleanup have been reverted [69]. This user has demonstrated clear ownership issues [70]. A look at their talk page [71] shows that they have a history of problematic editing.

I've brought the issue here because I am at a loss as to how to proceed. Corker1 has made it clear they will revert any attempts to clean up this massive article, which has a massive amount of indiscriminate information. Their rational is "Many readers (including rail fans) use the station lists and external links in this article in discussions and when preparing publications. There are no other easily accessible sources for this information..." Furthermore, in response to me explaining the policies the article is in violation of, their response was: "You cited a Wikipedia policy that states: "it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic" and cited another that discusses a policy on excessive detail. While these policies are often beneficial, they are detrimental when no publications or websites put together most or all of the information in an article." This is quite simply refusing to get the point, and acting as if policies can be ignored at a whim.

Wikipedia is not a publishing house, fansite, or museum. Much of this article needs to be deleted, per my understanding of Wikipedia policies. I am seeking outside review of this situation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue was resolved before Trainsandotherthings submitted the above request. I have concurred with the edits that Trainsandotherthings made to Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. See the most recent entry in Talk:Washington and Old Dominion Railroad#External links, which I made and which was time-stamped at 01:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC).

The above request is therefore moot. Corker1 (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue is most definitely not resolved. You don't seem to understand the issue at hand. I stepped back for a day to get some perspective and see if you would understand the issue, but that has not happened. The issues I mentioned are all still present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) (note: I was made aware of this off-wiki before the ANI was posted) @Corker1: ANI is not for discussing content disputes, but rather potential chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Discussion on this thread wouldn't just be limited to the state of the article (which in my opinion still falls afoul of WP:NOTREPOSITORY) but rather conduct at this and other articles.

As for the possible behavioral problems: IMO, Corker has shown a battleground mentality both at this article (where they state Please provide a summary or a specific list of changes to the article that you would like to make. I can delete many of those without reducing the utility of the article, including reducing the number of links to images, implying that changes should be approved by them first); in regards to Monarch butterfly (from user talk, wikilawyering about what falls under broadly construed DS in response to a notice); and when appealing an edit warring block: refusing to understand 3RR and using a similar rationale to defend their edits (that in [their] opinion, the removal of the section is seriously diminishing the utility of Groundhog Day).

While ignoring all rules is a policy, it is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia (from WP:NOTIAR). Using WP as a massive collection of extlinks, videos, etc can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia (from WP:NOTREPOSITORY), and treating it as a battleground is certainly not helping either. eviolite (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

(Specifically, I heard about this 2 days ago on the public Discord server. If people believe that constitutes canvassing, I am happy to strike my comment.) eviolite (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

To Trainsandotherthings: Please make any additional edits to Washington and Old Dominion Railroad that you deem necessary. We should be able to resolve the "issue at hand" in a collaborative manner, regardless of whether I understand it. Corker1 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, the issue has moved past content to your behavior in general. You would not be happy with the edits I would make to bring the page in line with policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I might not be happy about your edits, but I might concur with them after some discussion (if needed). Regarding my behavior in general or in this specific instance, I have offered to collaborate with you on editing of Washington and Old Dominion Railroad. What's wrong with that? Why not try it? Corker1 (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I just looked at that article. Oh my goodness. That will take a lot of effort to turn it into an encyclopaedia article. Canterbury Tail talk 01:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As an involved editor, it needs to be completely rewritten. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So you don't think readers want to know stuff like After initially planning to run their last train on January 30, 1968, a temporary restraining order kept the line open until August 27, 1968. On the last day, B&O switcher 9155 pulled two empty lumber cars to Potomac Yard from the Murphy and Ames Lumber Company siding in Falls Church. On August 30, the railroad shipped its three diesel locomotives to the B&O's Baltimore engine terminal, from which a salvage dealer purchased them? EEng 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, don't leave me hanging.. Which salvage dealer?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, too busy writing Murphy and Ames Lumber Company siding in Falls Church. EEng 17:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Further concerns

I've just reviewed another article Corker has been heavily involved with: Washington and Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park. Some of the same issues with indiscriminate information are apparent here as well. Furthermore, their recent comments [72] make it clear Corker1 still is exhibiting WP:IDHT and not understanding that not a single editor besides themselves supports retaining the massive amounts of indiscriminate information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

1RR or block proposal

• Propose 1RR for Corker1. Short on time today, but I'm relieved someone else brought up this tendentious ownership behavior by Corker because I had been dealing with it over at Monarch butterfly not too long ago. Especially since it now looks like the behavior follows them around to other articles, I'm more convinced that sanctions are needed to prevent issues from continuing, but I'm not sure what outside of maybe 1RR restriction.

What I've seen there mirrors this incident. Constant edit warring to keep content in almost as a sort of WP:GAMING of 3RR. Especially when it's content they introduce, they'll continue to edit war it back in in violation of WP:ONUS until other editors tire, wikilawyering, etc. as Eviolite points out in all the recent instances of battleground behavior on article or user talk. It's very clear their last block by Materialscientist for edit warring was not heeded at all, and instead they've doubled down.

Over at the monarch page, that has also included edit warring when editors are trying to clean up images. When enough teeth were finally pulled in regards to warning them repeatedly about edit warring and getting consensus for their edits, they did briefly revert their edits, only to restore them later in the day. As Eviolite alludes to, I could have requested a block for violation of 1RR at the article this summer on pesticide related content, and also for 3RR in these recent edits at the end of September. If I wasn't feeling so bludgeoned by this editor, I maybe could have saved the community more stress instead of trying to ignore it, but now does seem to be the time to ramp up preventative sanctions. Maybe it won't stop the why won't you collaborate with me language they use while being entirely uncollaborative like you can see even at this ANI, but at least it would help stop them from abusing the process and editor's time with edit warring. KoA (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I have a little extra time this afternoon afterall, so I'll mention one last thing, WP:COMPETENCE. While I hate to bring that up, blatant cases of it are a severe drain on the community. I tried to talk through a lot of that with Corker on their talk page without invoking it, but that culminated in this comment from Corker addressed to me from when we were discussing broadly construed pesticide DS and a related content issue:

@KoA: @KoA: You stated: "From your link: Change ordinances so herbicides, insecticides, or other chemicals used in the community are not harmful to pollinators.." That statement is not in my link ("Mayor's Monarch Pledge" at https://www.nwf.org/MayorsMonarchPledge/About/Pledge-Action-Items). Why did you cite it? Where did it come from?[73]

Anyone can click that link and Crtl+F the change ordinances piece about insecticides and pollinators. Corker claimed it did not exist at all in the source they were using and still denied it multiple times until finally admitting it much later on. That lack of basic competence, whether it's just bad wikilawayering or repeated sloppiness, coupled with the edit warring and plowing ahead behavior, even if they mean well, is why I'm now very adamant about protective measures being needed. KoA (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Disclosure; I found this through scrolling ANI, then removed the massive amounts of links from some sections, participated on the talk page, and came here again. Consider me involved.

On Washington and Old Dominion Railroad, Corker has thrice acted as if different editors have been doing actions that they did not do, implying disruption at the same time. Susmuffin made a bold edit that did remove a large part of the article, however here Corker says that Trainsandotherthings made the edit. Here, he replies to Susmuffin despite countering a post that I made and aims it at Susmuffin, then asks Susmuffin to explain a rationale that I made. I also find this post here to be extremely dismissive to the concerns presented by multiple editors. This also broadly accuses everyone of the same type of "damage" to the article. This is the third accusation, as it associates everyone with a blanket statement of "damaging the article". I can AGF the first one, but after being told that they have associated the wrong editor multiple times, I would expect it to not continue on the same discussion.

This string of diffs also shows Corker1 editing his message without noting. While all were made consecutively without interruption, this would never of been noticed without checking the talk page. I can also AGF on this, but it does not look good for an experienced editor to do this. With the addition of further points, this may be seen as potentially disruptive. This is just plain rude to Susmuffin in my eyes. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing that on top of what I've seen, I am definitely concerned. Repeatedly confusing people for someone else, being adamant something doesn't exist that does in the very source they are holding, etc. is well beyond simple editor quirks and into fundamental issues with views of reality. That all basically puts x's on 3/4 bullets at Wikipedia:Competence_is_required#What_is_meant_by_"Competence_is_required"?, and isn't something the community should be asked to shoulder so much anymore, especially since the volumes of text/edits they tend to generate make it harder to pick out to outside observers. It just becomes a timesink. KoA (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support I want to be clear I believe Corker is capable of making positive contributions to the encyclopedia. The history section of Washington and Old Dominion Railroad is fairly well done. The problem is that they seem to not understand the line between adding useful information and spamming large numbers of external links and extraneous information. Corker has been cooperative at times, but I think they needed this ANI thread as a wakeup call that their behavior needs changing. Corker has acted like their contributions are beyond the jurisdiction of Wikipedia policy - nobody is above the law. I support this proposed restriction, and I hope Corker will take what editors are saying to heart and learn to edit in a more collaborative manner, which respects Wikipedia's policies, particularly WP:ELNO and WP:NOT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll also second this. These views are why I don't propose an indef. We really just need something to keep them from going off the rails (pun originally not intended until rereading) on the behavior side to give them a chance to improve. KoA (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Corker's edits have been highly disruptive to the articles that he focuses on. The suggestion that his edits were done for the purpose of being used by railfans is both concerning and a violation of our policies. I am also concerned by their tendency to notify editors in response to statements that were made by other people. Either they are intentionally misreading comments or they are not properly reading them. This behaviour has expanded to repeatedly editing their own comments to introduce new material without giving a clear indication that this was done. More recently, he has replied to one of Sennecaster's comments by saying that she should revert her changes "before {her} edits become ancient history". This appears to be a direct threat to another user, which is intolerable. If this continues, I would support the implementation of editing restrictions on the subject of rail-related articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Indef disruptive editor is disruptive, and finds new ways to be disruptive when he's sanctioned in some form. There's no evidence Corker is a net positive although some of his contributions improve the encyclopedia-too much effort is needed to clean up. Star Mississippi 00:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

While I don't disagree they're definitely heading towards an indef (possibly even with 1RR as an attempt to help), I am a little hesitant to advocate for one now in terms of WP:ROPE given they've only had one 24 hour block. That said, if an admin did decide on an indef after seeing the issues here and seeing how Corker responded to the last block, I don't think such a block could be heavily argued against either given the time sink and disruption issues. If there are quite a few more like me that got frustrated and just gave up rather than going to admin boards, then maybe it is time for an indef. KoA (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I would not oppose an indefinite block. I see no evidence that this is going to end. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would have to reluctantly support an indef block for general disruptive editing and inability to follow Wikipedia policy. Corker's latest edit [74] broke a link in my comment, which on its own could be considered an honest mistake, but with everything else constitutes another example of disruptive editing and/or CIR. The threatening comment about "before your edits become ancient history" [75] was entirely out of line. Myself and other editors have given Corker plenty of rope. I'm no longer convinced they are compatible with the encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

As KoA said, there may very well be other editors who just got frustrated and gave up instead of going to ANI. I very nearly gave up and moved on to something more constructive myself, but ultimately decided the issue should be raised here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

KoA I'm not an absolute on an indef either, or I'd have done it, but my personal take is he doesn't seem interested in improving conduct, therefore 1RR or a shorter block is just delaying the inevitable Star Mississippi 16:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll admit recent posts from them are leaving me further convinced on your statement about not interested in improving conduct even if it appears they're laying low right now. I took a look at the railroad page and saw this recent comment from them. I suggest that you accomplish this by reverting your last edit to the article, by restoring the article to the condition that I considered to be satisfactory. . . While having a superficial polite veneer, it just shows more demands about their disputed edits because they consider them satisfactory completely ignoring why they were removed. This isn't WP:AGF level cluelessness anymore. KoA (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct, KoA and totally concur. This is clear ownership with a lack of understanding of why that doesn't fly. Star Mississippi 21:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

On that note, it looks like they've spread out to butterfly gardening and now are fighting with a bot (sort of a tilting at windmills problem) in this edit claiming it removed links. Looks like they didn't bother to see the bot was providing links in a much less redundant form. I don't think 1RR would do enough to fix that attitude now. We don't really have sanctions that can deal with this repeated level of cluelessness, so an indef maybe is the only realistic option. KoA (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Since we do not have a restriction like "someone personally babysits every edit made by Corker1", I see no alternative to an indefinite block at this point. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings: We do, it's called editing probation, but that's a lot of undue effort to place on the community when it seems that people are already burnt out from attempting to collaborate with Corker.

That said, with everything, I support an indef due to the disruptive editing, bludgeoning of the discussions concerning real policies that should not be IAR'd, and a general all-round of things (editing messages without noting, breaking other's messages, accusing one editor of another's actions, dismissing other editors' editing abilities and proficiency with policy, in just one discussion) that can be AGFed once or twice, but not to the extent that I have gathered from Corker. I have dealt with fraught and long-winded disputes at 3O, but I have been unable to find a way to communicate in a way that won't open me to responses that act like I'm some kind of bad cop destroying the encyclopedia. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, probation rarely works even with editors in better situations than this.

Now they're edit warring on butterfly gardening and looking even more confused trying to replace a simple link to a publication from the bot with a huge redundant url.[76] At this point considering the doubling down, just put me down for an outright support indef at this point. Even I've tried to be lenient, but only a block would seem to get any attention at this point. KoA (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I now fully support an indef with no prejudice against my 1RR proposal given the continued developments above. After now being warned for edit warring again, this is their most recent response. That response looks almost exactly like their failed unblock appeal the last time they were blocked.[77] As much as I would have preferred 1RR, it's getting clear they're going to keep pushing to cause messes for things as simple as even doi links. KoA (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for one week

I have blocked Corker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for one week for disruptive editing. Per diffs above from KoA and Trainsandotherthings et al above, the disruption has just moved to a new article. While blocks are not punitive, I'm hoping this time allows Corker to consider communicating collaboratively. If consensus emerges to lengthen or shorten this block, fine by me. This was a short term solution to a long term problem. Star Mississippi 17:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sun Ferry and user:HK19971118

• Sun Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• HK19971118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The last 5 edits of the user:HK19971118 is changing the website parameter to the old website. level 4 warning is issued a while ago. I am not sure that this still the time that assume good faith. Matthew hk (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. I considered indefinite, but chose 24 hours due to possible attempts to improve the article. There's a possible WP:COI or WP:PAID issue here, but nothing convincing as yet. If they continue the behavior after the block has expired, please re-report and note they were previously blocked for the same behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

IPv6 editor edit warring at Mariah Carey articles since August 31

• 2600:8801:1301:1900:D50A:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The person behind this IP range has been edit warring to add non-neutral language into Mariah Carey articles since late August. The edits mostly try to highlight Carey's poor album sales and removal of positive critical coverage. While some of the IP's individual edits may have merit, the problem is that the editor keeps trying to edit-war their edits into articles and won't or can't engage on their user talk page since they are editing as an IP editor using a mobile device. (I did leave several messages on their talk pages (plural because their IP address is not static) before I realized they were editing using the mobile editor.)

At Caution (Mariah Carey album), for example, this was the oldest edit I could find here from about August 31, this was the most recent, on October 15 (today). In-between are dozens of edits where the IP was trying to edit war similar language into the article]. The editor has made similar edits to other articles too, including With You (Mariah Carey song) (diff), A No No (diff), Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse (diff), Number 1 to Infinity (diff), Can't Take That Away (Mariah's Theme) (diff), Caution World Tour (diff) but the edit warring is most pronounced at Caution (Mariah Carey album) and to a lesser extent Caution World Tour and Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse.

Would it be possible to partially block the /64 range from Caution (Mariah Carey album), Caution World Tour, and Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse temporarily? Perhaps that would get their attention. Thank you, Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (sitewide). Not really suited for a partial block, although I suppose an article space block would do much the same thing. Oh well, I'm Bbb23'ing it, because... consistency. El_C 13:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to look at this. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Issue on Loudoun County Public Schools

Some information keeps getting posted to Loudoun County Public Schools by an anon. See [78] and [79]. I think it is inaccurate and not the right place for the information but I am not sure and so I wasn't sure where to bring this up to have more experienced editors make a decision on it. I also don't have much time to deal with this right now so trying to get other eyes on it to help address the issue. Remember (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The information is not inaccurate, and it is currently sourced to two sources which are listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP. This case is in the news at least nationwide [80], and is notable regarding the school district. Given that the story revolves in part around the behavior of the school board, it appears the school district article would be an appropriate location. Thank you for initiating a discussion at Talk:Loudoun County Public Schools. I don't think there's anything for administrators to do here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Hammersoft, but I think that some semi-protection until decent prose is hashed out on the talk page might be in order. This story is already making the rounds in those places on the internet that often lead to brigading and meat puppeting. The whole situation is pretty sensitive, so we might be better served with an ounce of prevention, rather than having to apply a pound of cure later. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

We do not preemptively protect things, per WP:PREEMPTIVE. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but no, considering this involves WP:BLP and minors, we should not be including it until there is more concrete reporting. I only happened across this cause it was on my watch list and subsequently found this thread but advocating to include mere accusations against minors is reprehensible, especially given the sources. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

[81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] This isn't exactly lacking in concrete reporting or sourcing. There's plenty more sources out there, and there will be more. As I said, we should probably try to get out ahead of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, removing this information on these grounds as you did here was improper. You stated that Washington Examiner is not considered a reliable source. That is true. The material you removed was also cited to Fox News (which you erroneously stated was not realiable; WP:RSP disagrees with you) and Washington Post which is also considered reliable per WP:RSP. Further, the minors are not named in either reliable source article. I do agree that Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent needs to be considered, but given that the minors in question are not named, I don't see a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Similar edits being made to Stone Bridge High School as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Spamming and possible undisclosed paid editing by Dfertileplain

• Dfertileplain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bukola Sawyerr Izeogu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• I believe the earliest iteration of this blatant WP:ADMASQ was created on August 27 2020 where Dfertileplain creates the article via draft.

• On October 19, 2020 Praxidicae moves the article back to Draftspace see here.

• It was moved back to mainspace and it was nominated for deletion and it got deleted On October 31 See here.

• The latest attempt to move the article to mainspace was negated by Nomadicghumakkad on the 31st of August 2021 see here.

• Having observed this, I check to see if they are spamming elsewhere & sure enough I observe this creation on Simple English Wikipedia created by them on August 27, 2021.

Furthermore they have other dubious edits which were negated by DoubleGrazing and myself see this & this respectively.

They have denied any malfeasance in the past but their words and actions are in variance as detailed above. Celestina007 (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

User 103.210.146.65 is back as 1.38.220.39 making the same WP:EW on Big Four accounting firms

@ El_C our friend 103.210.146.65 from my report a few weeks ago is back with what looks like a clear IP block circumvention as 1.38.220.39. I say this because I see 1.38.220.39 had made the same edit to add US flags to Big Four accounting firms with the same bad sources as last time.

1. Can we block this IP as well?
2. Or at this point, given he's willing to invest in getting very different IP ranges... what else can we do?
3. Throwing it out there as I'm not sure this is sufficient mischief to warrant taking this step, but curious to know at what point we would consider WP:SEMI... both for the page's sake, and also for my own understanding.

Courtesy pinging these other users that were involved/had line of sight into cleaning up this offender's last edits on the Big Four page. Kashmiri Mark83

Thank you! CDB-Man (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

---

1. For reference, I've manual reverted this entry: Special:Diff/1047902170 CDB-Man (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Refusal to debate

I added a comment to an article talk page, which I think was appropriate as per WP:TALK#SHARE. CorbieVreccan deleted my comment, which I think was against WP:TALKO (as I do object to that, and I don't think it fits any of the listed cases for removal.)

I tried to resolve this by discussing with CorbieVreccan, hoping to explain why my edits were in good faith and why I think this is okay as per WP:TALK - but they flatly refused to debate ("It's not a dispute." - "There is nothing to be debated." - "I'm not interested in debating this with you.").

Most of the communication is here (originally much of this was on CorbieVreccan's page, but they moved it to my page). - Some additional communication is here: out of abundance of caution, I went with the recommendation given in WP:CLEANHANDS and asked at Teahouse to make extra sure there wasn't some policy or guideline that I was inadvertently overlooking (without mentioning the dispute or the other party, just as recommended). Nevertheless, CorbieVreccan entered the thread and brought the dispute in anyway, accusing me of forum shopping (ironically, for doing the very thing recommended by guidelines).

During the communication, I was accused of using multiple IPs and a named account to circumvent policies, none of which is true. I would appreciate if an uninvolved admin could review this. I offer full cooperation to make things as transparent as possible.

What I know I did wrong: I did at first make an edit to the article which turned out not to meet policy, but I never contested the revert of that (that edit was still made in good faith, although I never had a real chance to explain that; I can explain to anyone interested). - Then, early on, I removed a "welcome" message from my page with an unfriendly comment; that was wrong of me. I regretted it soon afterwards; my very next edit was undoing that, admitting my wrongdoing, and offering an apology (which was never accepted, but I believe I did everything in my power to rectify this mistake). - Also, my final post was rather frustrated, and perhaps that was unnecessary; but this was already after CorbieVreccan explicitly refused to debate (hence the frustration), so I'm not sure if that had much of an effect on anything. Nevertheless, I am ready to apologize for the tone of that also.

Having tried and failed to resolve the dispute by discussion, I've examined other dispute resolution options (3O, DRN, RfC), but I don't think any of them are applicable, since I cannot show extensive talk page discussion (obviously, since the other party flatly refuses to debate), and also because the issue isn't one of article content, but potential WP:TALK violation, which I think is ultimately a conduct dispute, rather than a content dispute. I am also dismayed at what I perceive as being treated unfairly, despite my honest efforts to cooperate to resolve this, but in the end, I just want this resolved. - And if the outcome isn't in my favor, I am ready to accept that. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you should follow CorbieVreccan's advice and read and follow WP:LOUTSOCK. --JBL (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

So you've been editing for 16 years [88] [89], are able to spit out acronyms like 3O, DRN, RfC, and also know stuff like CLEANHANDS and still think posts by random people on forums are RS? Good faith or not, adding a forum as an RS in an article is clearly not a good edit. This is basic policy and no experience editor should even need to think about it. So maybe stop harping on about your experience as it's apparently been in all the wrong areas. Anyway if after all these years, you've finally learnt that forums are not RS, what dispute do you actually want to discuss? Whether there needs to be an archive link to a non RS mentioned on a talk page is a dumb dispute. Personally I would just leave it be since I don't think there's any privacy or copyright violation by posting it even if it's an archive of a Google cache rather than a straight archive and the source itself seems useless for anything even for help finding other sources. But ultimately it doesn't matter and is not something worthy of ANI or any dispute resolution forum. Nil Einne (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not add the forum as RS. If you examine the page history, you'll see that the forum was already cited as a reference for a portion of the article, long before I came along. If you check my article edit, you'll see that I did two things: I added an archive to the expired reference (which was already there), and I added another citation from that reference. My fault was that I did not stop and think and realize - wait a minute, that forum reference shouldn't have been there in the first place. Yes, this was a fault on my part, and I never disputed that, but I'd like to clarify that this is not the same thing as adding a forum as RS. I simply failed to stop and consider the validity of the reference already in the article. Everyone can make a mistake, and this was not intentional - and as I'm saying, I never contested any of that. The dispute has never been about the edit to the article, it was about my comment on the talk page, to which, I believe, WP:RS or WP:V has never been relevant. I just don't think there is anything wrong with that comment, and I think I should be able to add it and not have it deleted. But CorbieVreccan seems intent on deleting it, giving bogus reasons. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And of course I don't think this is worthy of ANI - that's why I tried (hard) to resolve it by discussion. Personally, I think CorbieVreccan's refusal to debate with an editor is a worse thing, considering their expected role here. But I'm not on a vendetta here, I just want this resolved at last. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably CorbieVreccan doesn't want to debate with you because you are long-winded, uninterested in absorbing what anyone else says to you, and dishonest (as can be easily verified by comparing your summary of the discussion to what actually transpired). --JBL (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think so. You're right, I am long-winded, I can't deny that. I don't think I'm uninterested in absorbing what people tell me; I'm hoping that maybe you'll see it differently in time. I believe there must be some misunderstanding - I didn't attempt to summarize or interpret the discussion. Originally I did, but that ended up being five pages long, and so I just deleted all of that to instead let people read through everything themselves and make their own assessment, without relying on my interpretation of it. Apparently you did do that, so I'm glad. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Simply put: you are not entitled to a debate. You've been provided answers for why your edits were rejected. There is no obligation on anyone's part to argue further. I suggest you take this as a learning experience and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

It's been a valuable learning experience. I've had a lot to think about these past days, and looking back with the feedback, I see more things in a different light. I appreciate everyone's response.

I think the whole thing was largely brought about by a set of unfortunate circumstances. I brainfarted at least twice in close proximity, and on top of that, some random coincidences happened to raise suspicions about my access. I think that primed the involved admin against me, and I guess I can understand that, given their likely experience with disruptive users. Maybe in a perfect world things would have unfolded differently, but alas.

I agree that no-one in particular is obligated to argue. I also think that needn't be a roadblock to resolving an issue, and it should always be possible to resolve things even if discussion with any individual fails.

As for the talk page post, I hoped for a resolution, but I think I got something at least partially. There's been one comment on it, and that didn't seem to find it really problematic. That of course doesn't represent consensus, but I think it does make it unlikely that the post was clearly inappropriate. So that's at least a piece of an answer for me.

In this specific case, I think I can agree that it's not overly important. The article content is not in dispute, and even though I think the archive link shouldn't have been deleted from talk, there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to insist on restoring it. So I stated this much, and perhaps with that the talk page dispute can be laid to rest and we can move on indeed.

A more important reason to resolve this would be to have more guidance for the future. And that is still true. But maybe it's not essential to resolve it right now. If, as I assume, posting an archive link to talk isn't really problematic as such, and the issue arose more due to unfortunate circumstances, then there's a good chance this might just not become an issue again. And so perhaps resolving it can be deferred, to be potentially revisited if it ever comes up again, which will hopefully be never. 89.176.230.207 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

49.145.38.157

49.145.38.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) always adding fake info about AT&T's WarnerMedia and Comcast merger... But, in reality WarnerMedia would be split from AT&T and woulf be merger with Discovery, Inc. to form Warner Bros. Discovery and scheduled to close the merger in mid-2022. So, please doing global block and global lock for 49.145.38.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)... Thanks.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdhiOK (talk • contribs)

• IP blocked by Materialscientist. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning

SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning and hasn't updated since 2021/10/7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chen Guangming (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chen Guangming: many bots that have obsolete code broke that day, the only one that can fix that is User talk:Andrewpullin, please follow up there. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Andrewpullin hasn't been active since July and has made only 7 edits this year. It's doubtful there will be a timely response, if there is a response. This is one of the great weaknesses of Wikipedia; bots run by editors who might disappear. Some of these bots have rather critical functions. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The answer, which is easier said than done, is, first, to rank bots by the criticality of their tasks, and, second, to identify people to back up the critical bots. The first part should be easier than the second. This sounds like a matter for Village Pump Idea Lab. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, Andrew is working on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chen Guangming (talk • contribs) 20:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

84.222.24.68

Could someone have a look urgently at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.222.24.68 ? This user seems to be making several edits per minute with edit summaries of "rb - not clear this revert", usually making changes that are difficult to diagnose as vandalism or real (changing titles of things, changing dates by one year, etc.). I think they may be leaving a trail of disaster behind them that will be difficult to clear up. Elemimele (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be in response to Tobi999tomas's reverts, which may well be justified as the reversion of block evasion. Perhaps Tobi999tomas can provide details. The IP address is blocked for two weeks to prevent further edit warring for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this situation, it already happened before with this IP address: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.96.87.18 It seems to me that the user is using multiple IP adresses to edit the pages. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

...which would be perfectly fine unless there is a block they're evading, and unless there was an edit war. Dynamic IP address assignment is common; you have probably used hundreds of IP addresses for your Wikipedia contributions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The edit war already happened. Even though it was already discussed in an discussion post, he's too persistent and he continued with the disruptive editing. --Tobi999tomas (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Addygorilla

History of personal attacks and incivility when given talk page warnings, usually for making unsourced changes to heights at association football biographies. See 1, 2, 3, 4. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I've indeffed him for disruption and personal attacks. This last edit he made wasn't "unsourced". He changed the height and left the source that contradicted his change.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I would note that I was about to do the same thing until Bbb23 got there first. As such it's an endorse for a block from me. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Darkwarriorblake

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 made a good faith edit of the Groundhog Day (film) page which User:Darkwarriorblake objected to. This: [90] This quickly escalated to the following language:

"Are you fucking stupid?"

"how are you so fucking stupid you don't understand that?"

"The access-date is for when you fucking last accessed the fucking website for fucks sake."

"How can you not comprehend such a basic fucking fact of editing and come here to tell ME how to fucking edit?!"

Link: [91] Second attempt at providing the correct diff: [92]

This level of incivility prompts me to go here straight away. There is no level of mediation left. The facts of the matter are no longer relevant, this kind of behavior cannot be accepted. CapnZapp (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It did not quickly escalate, you edit warred your content in to a Featured Article and when asked for an explanation were given one, then you ignored the explanation, re-added it, and said the explanation was insufficient, then came on my talk page again to tell me that I'm not allowed to undo your edits without opening a full discussion about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) They sure like the f word. (Apologies for my humor here) Although I don't think they used it quite enough.^[Humor], ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is one place humor is misplaced, surely it needs to be this place? Or are you trying to send the signal Wikipedia does not take abuse seriously? CapnZapp (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: If you want me to remove my comment I can. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: As I said if you don't think this comment should be here then I'm perfectly fine with deleting it, however unless someone asks me to remove it I'm going to keep it. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Since you ping me repeatedly, I will respond: Deleting your comments here serve no purpose and misses the point: for the future, please consider if ANI maybe isn't an appropriate place for levity? CapnZapp (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears that you added a second, unsubstantive source in the middle of the sentence that was synonymous with the one properly placed at the end - then edit-warred and demanded others defend why it isn't necessary (which it isn't). So far as content is concerned, you're treading dangerously close to a block. So far as Darkwarriorblake is concerned, I'd agree that he should have simply reported you. BOTTO _(T•C) 16:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a further look at your contributions beyond this little snafu on the Groundhog Day page. It looks like you're colliding with other editors in this fashion a bit more regularly than you let on - at least during the past month. I mean, after you started this discussion, you told Lordelliott that they accidentally reverted your contribution to Cher, rather than accepting that they did it deliberately, because your edit may not have been an improvement to the article. People here collaborate and discuss things to be reasonable - not merely for winning an argument. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to say a prayer and drink to world peace. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking this was from Scrooged for a minute, I don't know why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not defending Darkwarriorblake's language, which was out of line. That said, WP:ONUS puts the burden on CapnZapp for including the reference, and the way they did it (mid-sentence, and bare), certainly didn't help. I see that Masem has included the ref, in a reasonable place, and actually filled out. CapnZapp, if you had responded to the revert by moving the ref, and actually filling it in, then this whole thing could have been avoided. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This report is completely and wholly about the unacceptable language. CapnZapp (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah no. When you open a thread at ANI, you can expect your own behavior to be examined, and it may under discussion as well. This happens often enough that we've got a write-up on it: WP:BOOMERANG.— Diannaa (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Your actions can be examined too. There's a good chance that adding a bare url to an FA will be reverted, especially by the principal writer of that FA. Going their talk page and lecturing them on "stealth undoing" and demanding that they "do not revert a change under the guise of "correcting it"" just inflamed the situation.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, bare URLs are still allowed. Also, I have been led to believe there exists no article ownership. Unless that has changed, I can't make anything out of your comment. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Allowed but undesirable. Next time just use a citation template. Editing a Featured Article requires extra care; see WP:FAOWN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

So it's 78.26, the G-rated dude. We're treading water that's been well-trod. CapnZapp, it appears you really need to listen to your fellows. Darkwarriorblake, the first example given is most certainly uncivil, and the second is a direct personal attack that can't be excused. Please desist, if not apologize. Regarding the last two, those are not personal attackes, they are expressions of extreme frustration. Wikipedia is uncensored. However, "I think I'll diffuse an alredy-tense situation by inserting f-bombs into adversarial conversations" was never said rationally. This is a very different situation than explitives used as friendly banter between friends. So, can we close this without further acrimony, and perhaps be better going forward? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So he's been WP:Diffusing conflict? EEng 20:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't expect (or require) Darkwarriorblake to be suspended from this incident in isolation. I just needed to send the message that his behavior was unacceptable and that he heaped abuse over the wrong editor. I believe this mission has now been accomplished. Some other editor responses here, however, are frighteningly partial. While my hide is thick enough, is it really a good idea to allow an open discussion like this? I would have expected ANI participants to exercise restraint and treat ANI applicants/potential victims with twice the normal civility - but that is clearly not the case. While the number of responses meant solely to attack me, shut me up, and redirect attention away from the actual trangression, is very small, such input could be extremely uncomfortable for some other, thinner-skinned editor. There have been at least one comment here (not in this subthread) that come across as far more chilling and threatening than a bit of shouted profanity can ever be. But consider that a rhetorical question for the ANI regulars to ponder - my job here appears to be done. CapnZapp (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

"While my hide is thick enough, is it really a good idea to allow an open discussion like this?" Most definitely. His reaction was radioactive and your lack of collaboration was unconstructive. I think this has been edified, however, so this thread should be closed. BOTTO _(T•C) 20:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@78.26: I do agree the the amount of f-bombs is a bit unnecessary and not a very good idea because of how tense the situation was already. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am a passionate person who expresses myself with the art of "f". I'm fine to leave it, as long as there isn't any continuing edit wars and accusations when someone undoes the edit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

F Art? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just understand that, frankly, the second example is blockable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I am all for passion, and a few salty words never bother me, but Darkwarriorblake, I have to agree with 78.26 here. This is really over the top. You can be just as passionate while being 50% more civil and I think we'd all be happy. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The idea that "censorship" has anything to do with whether it's okay to say "The access-date is for when you fucking last accessed the fucking website for fucks sake." is ludicrous. WP:CIVIL is one of the five pillars, for god's sake. This sort of treatment of other editors is completely unacceptable, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of their edits. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

When it's the third time I've had to say it and the editor is saying I'm not allowed to undo the edits and I didn't explain what I just explained, it becomes frustrating quickly. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So should we understand from this response that in your opinion you did nothing wrong? Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

No, you should understand that the situation was aggravated by the other editor not myself. I undid the edit, he asked for an explanation, I gave an explanation, the user proceeded to ignore the explanation and leave two separate discussions on my page explaining why I can't undo their edits without gathering support. The point is it wasn't 0-100. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp made this genius edit [93] in a FA. A bare url link, unformatted, and he did it again [94] and again [95], even when he was warned about it. And then he expects us to believe his conduct was right? This is disruptive editing on a great article. Reason enough to have him step aside from the article. His explanation was insufficient. I disagree with Darkwarriorblake's language, but it is somewhat understandable when CapnZapp ignored Wikipedia standards on a FA.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with this substantive analysis; I just think Darkwarriorblake was over the top even when the 'provocation' was taken in to account. I don't think any sanction should be levied against DWB, but I do think he should try to be better. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I also support an informal warning for Darkwarriorblake. dudhhr_Contribs 21:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is about as WP:BOOMERANG-worthy as it gets, made all the more ironic by the fact that the boomerang is an Australian Aboriginal invention and the sort of language being complained about is common Australian workplace parlance. My neighbour uses that sort of language to describe his front lawn, without a hint of frustration. Racing here to get someone sanctioned for speaking fluent Australian as a cover for simply outrageous editing behaviour is absolutely block-worthy. And the disingenuous effort to refocus the discussion on the original (spurious) complaint shouldn't fool anyone. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This comment is one of the more moronic ones I have read here. how are you so fucking stupid you don't understand that? is not common Australian workplace parlance. Yes the OP was wrong with their edits, but the response received was way over the top. I am a little concerned that neither editor seems to realise this and clear personal attacks are yet again being defended here. Aircorn (talk)
    • @Aircorn: it is, to the point where language like that has been rejected as a legally valid reason for workplace dismissal. But I digress (and appreciate the irony of being called a moron, which I am equally un-offended by). By all means, take action for the language if Wikipedia has devolved to that point. Or take action for the comment without the profanity (which is still a personal attack). But the original edits are far more serious, in my view, and the response(s) should be read in that context; as a frustrated response to unanswered disruption. We've become obsessed with punishing people for language and incivility that results from frustration at disruptive editing, without addressing said disruptive editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I take the right to not discuss the actual factual matter here, since all that does is create the false equivalency "he was wrong but you're not spotless yourself". While I understand you all have to contend with personal feuds all the time, where nobody is right and everybody is more or less wrong, the response exhibited in this section should frankly be deemed utterly unacceptable. Even civil and level-headed editors start off the discussion with WP:BOOMERANG. As if only pure angelic editors have any business making ANI reports, even in as clear-cut cases as this one. How those of you that consider yourself well-meaning and genuinely helpful editors can fail to see how darkly chilling of an effect this has is incomprehensible to me.

You have probably noticed I have not defended myself during this conversation. Again, I absolutely refuse to discuss my individual edits in this forum unless you are prepared to argue they are trangressions worthy of ANI-reporting themselves. I do welcome you to visit the article talk page or even my talk page if you have questions regarding any of my editing activity (that does not merit ANI reporting). The focus here should have been laser-focused on breaches of conduct such as unacceptable incivility.

Instead I am greeted by inappropriate levity from a few jokers or hecklers. I am being warned my own behavior will be scrutinized (suggesting I should never have filed a report). My behavior is concluded to be in fault by a judge jury and executioner that does not even deign to ask me to give my version of the events that led up to the objectionable transgression. And finally I am being engaged with outright hostility from a few editors that choose to completely ignore that actual reported behavior, instead making veiled threats of blocking towards me.

To me it is clear ANI does not serve the purpose of being a safe harbor where editors can report transgressions. This section is clearly exhibiting justice more like an 18th century open court (complete with actual jokers!) than anything befitting the 21st century. There are several editors who openly commit the equivalent of asking how short a dress the girl wore here, rather than focusing on the assault reported.

Perhaps there is a single being among you who realize this needs to be discussed higher up the hierarchy. If so, remember this is a relatively mild case, where the victim (me) is able to fend for himself. But I shudder to think of how less thick-skinned editors are greeted... Let's just say if the Editor Retention WikiProject ever wonders why the project is losing editors, the answer might be simpler than they think...

Signing off, CapnZapp (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

To me it is clear ANI does not serve the purpose of being a safe harbor where editors can report transgressions.

It never was, and was never meant to be. Because people would take advantage of that to witch-hunt others while never being subject to reprisal for doing so.

suggesting I should never have filed a report

That is not the case. These users were correcting your belief that only the reported behavior would be considered.

Perhaps there is a single being among you who realize this needs to be discussed higher up the hierarchy.

What hierarchy? You seem to think there's a top-down authority you can appeal to on Wikipedia. There is not. This is a volunteer community.

Further, most editors don't wind up on ANI, so blaming editor retention on this single page is rather overblown.

Finally, the civility issue you reported was discussed and dealt with. The fact you are unhappy your own behavior got examined as well is beside the point. Your equating this with rape (the equivalent of asking how short a dress the girl wore) is just insulting. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There are several editors who openly commit the equivalent of asking how short a dress the girl wore here—Have you seriously come to ANI to complain about civility and then said this? No swear word is as offensive as this disgusting false equivalence, if you ask me—if you want to complain about retention have a look at the editor gender gap before you start throwing out nonsense like this which is only going to perpetuate it. I suggest finding a constructive project to focus on, redoubling your efforts on editing, and dropping the shovel before you dig any deeper. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:52, 16 October 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:Theponderinggiant and user:173.181.105.98

This named account and IP appear to be the same user tag teaming to continue restoring a contested edit. Both have been pointed to WP:BRD and asked to discuss the edit. I have started a discussion, but neither has responded. The named user has been warned about edit warring and making edits while logged out.

• Named account made edit at 23:29 [96]
• Named account restored part of edit at 23:54 [97] (I no longer object this part of the edit), followed minutes later by IP making a similar change [98] and then restoring the rest of the original edit [99]
• Named account restored this part again a few minutes later [100]
• IP restored it again a minutes after that [101]
• Named user returned to the article a few minutes later [102]

The disputed content should be discussed on the talk page so that a consensus compromise can be worked out, but what we have now appears to be editing while logged out to game the the system, while refusing to discuss the issue, Meters (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP has made no other edits to en.Wikipedia. Meters (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Also pointing out that Special:Contributions/Theponderinggiant is a litany of POV-pushing, which apparently continued unabated despite Meters' warnings. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If nothing else, can we get a revdel of Special:Diff/1050151188, which is one of the more egregious edit summaries I've seen? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Theponderinggiant has continued to push his interpretation with this variant [103], and then back to his original version again with [104] and [105]. Meters (talk) 07:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Which part of that edit summary justifies revdel, exactly? Mlb96 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week (partial), though I did seriously considered going with a sitewide one, instead. I guess we'll see if my instruction to them to better moderate their tone gains traction. El_C 11:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what's with the ponderings?

AleatoryPonderings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (joined June 2020)

Theponderinggiant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (joined Oct 2021)

Whatever the reason, it's weird and I don't like it. El_C 11:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking I was special. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 12:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Uniqueness is overrated. El_C 13:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A bit more pondering by Wikipedia editors would be welcome, but I'm not sure whether it should be aleatory or performed by giants. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it depend on whether aleatory involves polyhedral dice, or on the species of giant? Narky Blert (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Uncommunicative and disruptive beauty pageant SPA

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

I just posted the sixth warning to this editor regarding addition of unsourced content [106]. The first was almost three years ago [107], and they have never communicated on a talkpage as near as I can tell. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

‎Shel1983 tries to restore a low quality photographs

Shel1983 a new user, added two of their photographs to Porzhensky Pogost, which previously had no photographs. However, one of them is of really low quality, and there are much better photographs available on Commons. I therefore replaces one of their photos [108]. They started edit-warring and also went to my talk page saying that their photo is new and I am trying to add the new one and thus "deceive" users. None of the photos is mine, I have actually never been to the place. Could somebody please have a look. Whereas this is a content dispute, the user does not seem to listen to any arguments and just continues edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Reaction of the user here (I am not sure they speak English, at least they always answer in Russian), translation: "And you will be punished for uploading old photos which do not correspond to reality"--Ymblanter (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Deferring to others to deal with the edit warring and "punished" business, but I just added a 3O to the article talk page about the photos. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I have also commented on the talk page. FWIW, while the editor is unquestionably responding aggressively this may just reflect a combination of new editor confusion and a lack of English language skills. Do we have any uninvolved administrators with good enough Russian to provide a warning with the right mix of severity and friendliness? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that the poster here, User:Ymblanter, is a native speaker of Russian and an administrator here (but no longer uninvolved, although he was when this all started). I am not an administrator, but know enough Russian to be able to confirm that the above translation is accurate. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous editor refuses to answer my questions or answer my resolution ideas in regards to a source in a article

An IP User is refusing to compromise or talk about a compromise in regards to a Rolling Stone article posted about MeidasTouch and how they supposedly had no impact on the 2020 election. I decided to remove this mention of the article for 2 reasons. 1. It was a opinion article and was heavily biased. 2. It was in the "Timeline" subcategory in which the operations and actions of the company were discussed and did not fit with the other information there. Although I did revert edits twice (which I now regret) I gave my reasoning for the reverts, but the user strawmanned my arguments and didn't listen to them. I then took my concerns to the took page saying "@2600:8805:C980:9400:B519:21BC:C1D0:9F0F: If you want to add the Rolling Stone article to the page, create a "Criticism" category and collect some articles criticizing Medias Touch. The article does not belong in the Timeline category." He responded ignoring my points saying "Please provide sources that disprove the article thanks2600:8805:C980:9400:B519:21BC:C1D0:9F0F". I never claimed the article was misinformation, I only claimed it was bias and opinionated, therefore there is nothing to "disprove". My latest talk post is left unanswered. Eliegot (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting, that you've just changed your username to Perfecnot, during this report. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, ever-changing IP continues to edit-war at article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected MeidasTouch for a week. The discussion on article talk should follow WP:DR with consideration of WP:DUE etc. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Persistent unsourced opinion and style guide issues

• Jjfun3695 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new user has been advised and warned repeatedly about providing a source when they add controversial opinions on living persons, and about the use of honorifics in article content, but the multiple warnings have not improved their editing. I have just now reviewed about the past week's worth of their contributions and made numerous reverts, such as:

1. Special:Diff/1050059201: an observation about Elizabeth II being seen with a cane, added without a source.
2. Special:Diff/1049990708: a "some people" opinion about the International Olympic Committee and its dealings around the upcoming Beijing games
3. Special:Diff/1049207918: on a Catholic fraternal order's article, changed "anti-abortion" to "pro-life", and removed the link to the relevant article
4. This series of edits adding a number of controversial opinions on Amy Coney-Barrett's supreme court appointment, along with a plain statement that anti-Catholic sentiment in the United States originates with "atheists, secularists and satanists", all of it added with no sourcing at all.
5. Another series of edits about anti-Catholic sentiment this time in the UK, blaming an alleged rise in secularism (unsourced) on "atheists and secularists", and trying to editorially invalidate protests against a former pope's visit because Catholics also died in the Holocaust.
6. A series of edit-wars where they persist in re-adding religious honorifics, such as on James Massa, Edmund Ignatius Rice, and Fordham University.

More of their edits need to be reviewed for the same problems, but I've seen enough. I was going to propose a topic ban from BLPs, Catholicism, and American politics, but after taking a closer look at the rambling nonsense they added to the two anti-Catholicism articles about Black Lives Matter and the non sequitur linking of Catholicism with Hitler, I'm instead just going to propose they be site banned per WP:NOTHERE. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban as proposer. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked the account for 24 hours given the continued addition (even today) of unsourced content despite a final warning. I am not entirely certain a community ban is in order, given the lack of blocks to this point. I think they wish to constructively edit here, but their unwillingness to follow our policies and guidelines despite warnings is problematic. I've informed the editor that if they wish to contribute to this discussion while they are blocked they may post their comments on their talk page and I or someone else will copy them here. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Agree, too early for site ban. The diffs are unsourced, but not blatant enough to go straight to a ban. Escalating blocks resulting in an indeff, or going straight to an indeff, are more in line, IM(non-adm.)O. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  Anyone interested in evaluating the conduct of this editor should read the conversation at User talk:FyzixFighter#Edits involving Catholic Churches or figures where Jjfun3695 makes it very clear that they do not understand the core content policy Neutral point of view and have no intention of following the Manual of Style. I recommend extending the 24 hour block to indefinite, with the block to be lifted if and only if the editor recognizes that they have been on the wrong path and fully commit to following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  The discussion linked by Cullen is indeed telling, as are the diffs in the squirrel's original post. Note that all the diffs show unsourced text added to articles, not talkpages. For example from diff 4: "In the 21st century, that vast amount of anti-catholicism in the United States has come from atheists, secularists and satanists" and "the Church has always taught that evangelization is to be done in a loving and peaceful way". I support an indefinite block. Bishonen | tålk 06:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC).

  I would weakly support an indefinite block. Often new users are confused by differences between WP style guidelines and policies, especially when it disagrees with their personal preferences and biases. We all have biases, but we strive to check them and to participate in discussions towards reaching consensus. In the end, though, participation in this project requires editors to follow the agreed upon community norms. If someone can't do that, then maybe this project isn't for them. This issue isn't unique to Catholic or even religious groups in general, so this is not an anti-Catholic or anti-religion issue. However, I would like to give the user a chance to respond to this discussion before an indef block is imposed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

As WP:BMB notes, editors "are site-banned ... only as a last resort". This editor's actions haven't been in line with our highest ideals in many cases. That doesn't make them a bad actor that deserves banning. Yes, they've been given a number of final warnings and a block (by me). That doesn't add up to a site ban in my opinion. This is a newish-to-Wikipedia editor who is making mistakes, not an editor out to destroy the project as best they can. I am monitoring their edits. Since their block expired, they have made four edits none of which appear to be significantly problematic. That said, I really, really, really (we're looking at you @Jjfun3695:) the editor would contribute to this discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for unsourced material on pages. In many cases when the unsourced material has been removed I go back and source the material. Regarding honorific titles, I believe there should be a serious discussion about using honorifics when referring to clergy, whether it be Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, etc. Honorific titles are usually used in the secular setting when referring to clergy, at least in the USA. I believe this should be looked into. I thank you for your patience. Jjfun3695 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Simply put; you were warned many times about problematic behaviors and kept at it anyway. This is precisely what this board is for. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Let's Go Brandon and WP:NOTHERE

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

---

As their first two edits indicate, going from belittling to outright attacks on a talk page that generally gets 0 views a day and subject to discretionary sanctions seem to suggest some combination of WP:DUCK and WP:NOTHERE and I think merits a good bye to Let's Go Brandon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for either reason. nableezy - 15:18, 16 October 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.

It should have been immediately {{Uw-uhblock}}ed as an attack username (current right-wing political meme), but a sockblock I suppose works. --MuZemike 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oyin Bucknor Arigbede

• Oyin Bucknor Arigbede (talk · contribs)

I've been trying to help this user for the last month, but it seems like they're a case of WP:CIR.

The first issue was on Fox (African TV channel), a network that closed last month and had a completely unsourced programming list, along with other unsourced cruft that needed removal, which I did. However, OBA continued to insist that the last show ever aired on the network (a random rerun) and the entire programming list needed to stay on instead of sourcing either beyond the network's website. After again removing the programming list, they then proceeded to spin it off into its own article without adding sources, which I then put up for a successful AfD. OBA then again put the programming list in again despite the AfD which I have had to remove several times, along with a now non-applicable channel guide and the network's website, despite letting them know several times a channel guide was useless to a viewer now that the channel was defunct.

Within the last week, a couple more issues also sprung up. The editor uploaded the image File:Disney Junior 2019.svg to Commons, which was sourced to Logopedia/Fandom and is yellow-toned, and just will never appear well on the default white skins. I removed it from articles, including versions of the network which have been defunct for several years and never used that logo variation.

But the reason for this report is a list on List of programs broadcast by TV Tokyo. An out-of-control IP basically ran roughshod on the article over the summer, and without any kind of source, tried to assert that TV Tokyo has run every television show which premiered in the United States on every broadcast, cable and premium network since 1990, no matter its content. Keep in mind that TV Tokyo is a Japanese broadcast network mainly carrying domestic content, and it's very unlikely they'd not only carry Oz or Gilmore Girls, but all the films the Hallmark Channel has made. I removed it and asked for protection...only to see this morning that OBA, without questioning it at all, had restored the entire list (including a large amount of FAIRUSE violations), which the IP had now thrown on the TV Tokyo article.

I have warned them well beyond the ANI reporting limit. Outside a bunch of move requests which moved article talk pages, they have no talk page history in user or article space, and only communicate through editing summaries, so I'm asking for some kind of action to be taken now. Thank you. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Fox Africa was reverted again by OBA, this time with the addition of even more unsourced and unneeded info (channel replacement by an unrelated network on a pay-TV system; we generally do not add this). Nate • (chatter) 00:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, and not wishing to derail discussion about this editor, but... these list of program(mes) broadcast by [X channel] sections are unnecessary, unencyclopædic, almost always unsourced, impossible to verify, wrong both accidentally and deliberately, and a pain in the neck when reading an article on a mobile phone. It's time they were just removed from every [X channel] article. If the showing of a particular series or show is that notable and important, it can easily be mentioned in prose and sourced. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 13:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for one week for edit warring as prior block was 72 hours. No issue with this being shortened should there be communication that they understand the issue(s). Star Mississippi 01:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

San Francisco IndieFest

User:Cametzler, a single-purpose account creating and editing only articles related to Chris Metzler, has been logging out to repeatedly remove the db-spam tag from the blatantly promotional San Francisco IndieFest (director of programming: Chris Metzler). Multiple warnings on their user talk page have been ignored. 2A01:4C8:58:C7F5:D847:7BA5:279F:46FE (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that a few days ago and have now deleted the article. Deb (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. 2A01:4C8:58:C7F5:D847:7BA5:279F:46FE (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Deb: same editor has re-created the article at San Francisco Independent Film Festival, and removed the db-spam tag and templates: [109]. 2A01:4C8:58:C7F5:D847:7BA5:279F:46FE (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved article to draft pending improvement and blocked Mr Metzler indefinitely. I see from his Talk page that he's had multiple warnings, every one of which he's ignored. Deb (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Olrac625 not posting references

I've asked User:Olrac625 several times, through his/her talk page to add references and edit summaries to the articles, he/she edited. I didn't get a single response, and he/she keeps continuing to edit articles without adding references/edit summaries. Is there something that can be done to this?TheHotwiki (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU to me. Mobile web editor, no edits to user talk pages. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

She/He must have gotten notifications even on mobile mode. Here's a recent edit from the user.[110]. After being notified, to this noticeboard. The user is still making unreferenced edits, and doesn't even bother to discuss the situation here.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal in Chicago registers as Henry Hughes8

• Henry Hughes8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Date-changing vandal in the Chicago area
• 174.253.66.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.253.67.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.253.82.184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 64.107.48.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 64.107.48.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Fourteen months ago, The Anome blocked some IPs from the Chicago area that were vandalizing articles by changing dates and worse. Today, Henry Hughes8 registered the username and immediately began to make the same edits as blocked IPs. For instance, a long series of IPs have been edit-warring a maintenance template into a video game article, now joined by Henry Hughes8.[111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119]

A few minutes ago, Henry Hughes8 was blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter. Two months ago, Ohnoitsjamie put a much-needed rangeblock on Special:Contributions/172.58.136.0/21. Can we get further rangeblocks on the recently involved IPs, if there isn't too much collateral damage? This person is terribly persistent. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I gave lengthy blocks to Special:Contributions/64.107.48.0/30 + Special:Contributions/174.253.64.0/19 which cover all the IPs above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do it. The /30 block appears very focused on our date-changing friend, but the /21 range is going to frustrate some good-faith editors. The tradeoff in peace and quiet is worth it, though. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Also used IPv6: 2601:240:2:CF74:C1C0:B115:17C:C0AD (talk · contribs), which geolocates to Pittsburgh. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

They appear to be editing again from here as well 2600:1700:8641:2FA0:513B:BF64:6CDC:AEC8 (talk · contribs) Wieldthespade (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07 disruptive behavior

My first interaction with this user was from this RfC on Marilyn Manson that I closed. In the RfC, Homeostasis continuously made uncivil comments and cast aspersions on other editors, to the point where I felt it necessary to mention it in my closure. I feel their comments in that RfC alone are enough to warrant action. That is not the only disruptive behavior that I've observed from them so far though. They have also started badgering other users here, here, here, and here. I think Homeostasis should be, at the very least, Tbanned from Marliyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have gotten engagement yet, so I'll offer my view, although my comments should obviously be read with the caveat that I'm WP:INVOLVED as one of the users Homeostasis has been badgering. Taken as a whole, I think the user's behavior paints a pretty clear picture of disruption.

I first encountered them after proposing that Manson's article include mention of the sexual abuse allegations against him. They failed to assume good faith from the start, which is certainly not model behavior, but which somewhat comes with the territory when one edits in controversial areas. Their behavior persisted and worsened over the course of the RfC, as FormalDude (the uninvolved closer) noted.

Then there was their behavior giving me this edit warring notice. I'll copy my reply:

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested.

I find it highly difficult to believe that Homeostasis, an experienced editor, was unaware of the definition of edit warring and thought that it was genuinely appropriate. Giving another editor an edit warring notice to vent your frustration at them or attempt to sully their talk page is not at all appropriate.

Our next interaction came about due to an initially unrelated happening on my talk page, a pretty standard case of (now blocked) IP makes disruptive edits containing severe BLP violations, I (and others) revert, and IP turns around and accuses me of being the article subject. The IP's edits on my talk page were revdel'd per standard procedure for attempted outings, but Homeostasis then posted this, taking up the IP's cause and insinuating that their allegation had merit. At that point, I decided to give them a more forceful reply, warning them about WP:HOUNDING and asking them directly not to interact with me further. They ignored that request, first with a reply on my talk and then (after reverting the reply) with a ping on their own talk.

Homeostasis has certainly contributed quality content to Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to others to decide precisely how this should be handled, but I agree with FormalDude that some action ought to be taken to prevent them from causing further disruption. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

My involvement in this began on August 26, 2021, when I took a look at the RfC page for biographies to check whether I had done my first RfC correctly. I noticed the Manson RfC, something I hadn’t heard about before, started reading up on it, and made two edits to the body of the article: removing content not supported by the cite and adding content with RS.

Homeostasis07, an editor that—to my knowledge—I had never come across before, reverted the latter edit and accused me of edit warring in the edit summary and on the Talk page. When I asked them to assume good faith, I got high-horse lectured and or-else threatened ("before I take this further"). After I explained my reasoning, they accused me of "nasty misinterpretation of sources", a "completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence", "not paying close enough attention" to the article, the sources, and the case, and of incompetence in general, "expecially when it comes to controversial subjects." I then suggested the editor step away from the article until they had cooled off and examined their own POV.

Looking at my contribs page, I just realized that there was another interchange. Before my second edit of the main space, I voted and added a comment on the Talk page which was answered with the first edit-warring accusation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That obviously hasn’t happened. Seems to me that the closer correctly decided that a clear majority of the participants answered the RfC question (should the lead mention the allegations of sexual assault) with "yes", without a qualifier, MANDY or otherwise, and that they bent over backwards to accommodate Homeostasis07’s view. It also looks to me as though Homeostatis07 thinks they have some sort of ownership of the article. After the closer added the sentence per the outcome of the RfC, Homeostasis07 immediately added a WP:MANDY comment, claiming that there was no consensus for the closer’s version. IMO a time-out from the page would be appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

From the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have never threatened to "out" anyone, despite what's been insinuated above. As someone who was on the receiving end of one of those threats several years ago, I am keenly aware of the outing policy. I never threatened to do that, would never do such a thing, and if I ever gave anyone that impression, I humbly apologize. That being said, the now-banned IP did raise what I still believe to be one legitimate concern which, to me, can be demonstrably evidenced within Sdkb's contributions log. Sdkb was obtuse and threatening in their response. I emailed my concerns with corresponding diffs to the team at COI Noticeboard, per the template there. I'm sure we all eagerly await the results of their investigation.

Regarding the RfC, the key issue was not whether the allegations be included on the article at all – Marilyn Manson#Abuse allegations has existed since the story broke on Feb 1 – but instead how the allegations be presented in the lead. During the RfC, Sdkb argued that genuine policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE be disregarded in favor of the WP:MANDY essay, which argues against any denial being included. That an experienced editor would cite an essay in favor of genuine policies in such a serious matter is beyond my comprehension. In the RfC, six votes (including one yes vote) specifically argued against the proposal as initiated by Sdkb (to exclude denial). A maximum of 3 votes – Sdkb, Space4Time3Continuum2, and I generously include Idealigic's vote, who said "based on points provided by Sdkb." – supported. All other votes did not address at all how the allegations be presented, so how FormalDude came to his initial assessment that consensus of the RfC supported Sdkb's version of the lead is still up for debate. I was not the only user confused by how FormalDude came to their conclusion. I believe a close review is necessary at this point.

Regarding Sdkb's conduct, I would like to note that they have attempted to WP:CRYSTALBALL to include the allegations in Marilyn Manson's lead since the story broke on February 1; added an [htRtps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMandy_Rice-Davies_Applies&type=revision&diff=958666601&oldid=940798348 inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay], which they then cited in the RfC; tendentiously nominated a template for deletion just two hours after I placed it on Marilyn Manson's talk page as a means of deterring IPs and new users from adding particularly horribly-sourced and potentially libelous content (from Daily Mail, TMZ, Page Six, etc.). User has continually assumed bad faith on my part, arguing for several months at the RfC, the template for deletion discussion, and even here (above) that my status as the "top editor" of the article somehow precludes me from making constructive contributions to the subject or the entire project as a whole.

In response to Space4Time3Continuum2x, their statement above is misleading on several fronts. Their first edit to the article was a misinterpretation of the cited source. The source does indeed state that the "Mansonisabusive" Instagram page was set up in 2017, and that the accusers began contacting one another via that profile sometime later. It is an additional source (still included on the article) which confirms the September 2020 date (date always cited to that source). In their link above "explain[ing their] reasoning" (i.e., this one), Space4Time3Continuum2x said: "Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses." They proceeded to link to 5 different sources, none of which supported this highly-inflammatory and undue statement. During the RfC, this user also repeatedly claimed that Marilyn Manson did not specifically deny the allegations, which was categorically untrue.

Apologies for the long response. I've tried to be as brief as possible, but 3 users piling on in such a manner does not afford one much brevity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Here's the actual !votes from the RfC:

RfC !vote list
Users who supported mentioning the abuse allegations in the lead: Sdkb Space4Time3Continuum2 Idealigic Some1 FelipeFritschF RogueShanghai Loki JeffUK Total: 8 Users who opposed mentioning the abuse allegation in the lead: Homeostasis07 Spy-cicle ili Isaidnoway Sea Ane Total: 5

If you'll notice, the RfC was not about any specific phrasing–it was about whether or not to mention a section of the article in the lead. That is why my close ended the way it did. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In their RfC-initiating edit, Sdkb said the allegations "ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead". Substantial commentary during the RfC was then dedicated solely to how Sdkb introduced that content to the article; Sdkb specifically went on to cite WP:MANDY as a justification for their edits, which was directly supported by two (maybe three) users but opposed by six (see above, or the RfC). In your initial closing statement, you directly quoted Sdkb's version, which you immediately re-added to the article. But here, you're saying you reduced the entire RfC to simple yes/no numbers to re-add Sdkb's preferred version, tangibly disregarding the nuts and bolts of the RfC in the process and the lack of support Sdkb's version of the content received.

Since this is the RfC for which content added to the article will be dictated for the foreseeable future, I believe a close review is genuinely appropriate at this point, based on what FormalDude is saying here. It may not change much in the long run, considering FormalDude's subsequent edits to the talk page ([120], [121]), but there are serious questions here. That FormalDude also said in this edit summary: "I believe WP:MANDY is applicable here" is most worrying. MANDY is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and is not applicable anywhere on-site. Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand behind my closure of the RfC and am fine with it being reviewed. I think your suggestion of a TBan for me is ridiculous, but let's see what others think. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading through this RfC as an uninvolved user who has never, to my knowledge, edited the Marilyn Manson article, and did not participate or even know about this RfC until now, I support @FormalDude's closure. It is an accurate summary of the consensus there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that Homeostasis07 was making the RFC be about more than its advertised question, which was a pure yes/no on whether to include the allegation in the lead. And their "omit it from the lead" vote was based apparently on disputes and over the wording of the body. So yes, it's hard to question the RFC close itself because on the narrow question of the lead it's almost always correct to include and summarize sections mentioned in the body. There are clearly much wider disputes than just that question though, particularly reliance on an essay which appears to contradict BLP policy, which need to be addressed separately.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment – To begin with, I'd like to note that it's taken me a week to decide whether to comment on this as previously any interaction with this user has been hostile, and quite frankly I'm a little bit vary of what the reaction from him will be. That being said, I have been for a longer time concerned about this user's editing related to the Manson abuse allegations, and would like to bring this up given that this discussion gives the impression that these issues have popped up just with the RfC.

My first encounters with this person were in this February, when I edited Manson's and Evan Rachel Wood's pages related to the news on the allegations. Homeostasis was not just difficult to work with due to his aggressive and condescending manner, but more concerningly, it seemed that he was blind to his own bias while loudly accusing others of that/libel. Case in point: after the Manson allegations became public, Homeostasis added this section about Wood publicly commenting on the rape allegations against Kobe Bryant soon after his death. H's addition not only included incorrect details (Bryant was indeed charged), but left out details that should've been there to present the incident neutrally (e.g. the entire tweet) and thus presented it in a quite biased manner. The mistake about Bryant being charged was corrected by another user, but Homeostasis added it again with the comment 'Semantics', while later claiming it was a typo. He also kept adding quotes around the word 'underage' despite that not being in the source; another incidence of this; editing based on his interpretation of Wood's 'bad intentions', and left out main parts of the context to perhaps present things in a very different manner (e.g. leaving out that Wood was accusing Usich of blackmail, not just publishing unfavourable photos and that the party where the images used for the alleged blackmail were taken was Manson's; Wood is claiming the images were taken under pressure from Manson, so it's a key part of the allegations).

Please also see the discussion under the header WP:Undue on Manson's talk page, where Homeostasis talks about his views of the case, which is very much OR: "And please be aware that there's so much I'd love to spill my guts about right now, but there is god knows how many people reading this, so I can't. Maybe we could e-mail, but I doubt that would even make a difference in the long run. Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram? This is why Wikipedia BLP articles need to be as neutral as possible: things change, even from the perspective of the accuser. It's all pretty damn interesting, when you delve into it—no way in hell I'm posting links to it all, though." It's clear that Homeostasis can be an excellent editor given his contributions to music-related articles (so no, I don't think a complete ban on Manson-related articles is in order), but it does seem that he is unable to recognise his own bias around abuse allegations and is very quick to go into 'attack' mode. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 14 day block

A pause for reflection seems appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I held off !voting on this, since I had hoped that being brought to ANI would humble Homeostasis and get them to commit to better behavior, enabling us to go with a lesser sanction. But their long reply above contains no admission whatsoever that any aspect of their behavior was inappropriate, instead doubling down on it. I think that anything less than a block like this would all but guarantee that the behavior will continue and subject other users and the encyclopedia to further disruption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  In other words, sit back and not address what I genuinely consider to be inappropriate actions on the part of others? I did apologize for several things above. And will again here. I apologize to everyone involved for being argumentative, and sometimes downright rude, during the course of the RfC. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson Tban. After seeing Homeostasis double down in their arguments, which are mostly strawmen, I think a break is needed. I also think that at this point their outside feelings are preventing them from editing neutrally, and propose a topic ban from all Marilyn Manson related articles. I appreciate Homeostasis's apology above, but I still believe these sanctions are necessary. ––FormalDude talk 03:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, indifferent on block. It looks like Homeostasis can't step back from this, and has continued arguing the point above. Further, immediately calling for the RFC closer to be TBANed just strikes me as retaliatory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the statement below, I'm willing to withdraw my support for the TBAN and just see how things go from here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I find it difficult to take sudden reversals of attitude when a user is on the verge of being blocked as indicative of much other than the desire to avoid being blocked. The recent comments persuade me that a TBAN may not be needed, but I think it would be a mistake to go with nothing. Homeostasis has a repeated pattern of stepping across the line and then stopping/backtracking just enough to avoid consequences (e.g. at my user talk), and if we allow that to continue, we'll be back here again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Normally I'd agree, but for once the response seemed sincere. If not, this provides us with enough WP:ROPE for an indef block later. I do not see enough support for a temporary block right now, especially this long after the events in question, so that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

        The level of support is something for the closer to judge. They'll need to balance the late-breaking apology with the fact that numerically, there's still more support for some sanction than for nothing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson TBAN. This user cannot drop the stick, and appears very very invested in that article, to the point of badgering other users away from contributing, harassing other users about their RfC votes, and badgering away an RfC closer because, it appears, they did not like the outcome. This is precisely the situation in which a TBAN is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, per points I raised above, as a punitive measure against one editor when the other three editors involved displayed poor editorial judgement. At its heart, this is an issue of policy against the repeated use of an unvetted essay and resultant edit warring. I could have handled some things differently, and I apologized twice above for those, but I'm afraid I can't apologize for expecting other users to adhere to policy, and worry about the precedent being set here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I've had the pleasure of reviewing many of Homeostasis07's articles on Marilyn Manson, some of which were done as review trades, and some just because I enjoy reading his work. Over several years, we each have infrequently let the other know if we have a new FAC that needs comments. If you look at the diffs from before he started working on the Marilyn Manson articles, there's no denying his contributions have serious merit. There's also no denying he can be hot-headed when things don't go his way. I don't think the issue here is Marilyn Manson. I think Marilyn Manson is one of a broad selection of topics he is interested in, and the underlying issue is a lack of assuming good faith, and that by default he takes any opposition personally as opposed to constructively. When one of my FACs failed several years ago, he seemed to take it more personally than I did, and left a comment voicing his annoyance on the talk page of the main person who opposed my nomination, which I did not think was a constructive way of moving forward.
• Nevertheless, many of the Marilyn Manson articles were in extremely poor shape before he took it upon himself to improve them. I feel a topic ban does not take into account the overwhelming effort he has put in to genuine improvements in these articles, and therefore oppose such a measure. I do not oppose a temporary block on editing in general as I agree some action needs to be taken. A topic ban strikes me as nothing short of extreme for an initial punishment in this matter, especially when it remains to be seen if a temporary block may have a sobering effect on his ability to interact with others. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'd also like to say that WP:MANDY, as essay I'd not previously heard of before reading the current dispute, seems to have been treated as policy rather than an essay by others, a point which seems to have been lost along the way and (rightly or wrongly) overshadowed by Homeostasis07's response to it being used as such. I think the essay is an absurd opinion and could not oppose it more wholeheartedly, though that's a discussion for somewhere else. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced they won't react in the same disruptive manner when the next dispute doesn't go their way. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I understand, however, I don't see what there is to lose in giving him once chance before a topic ban. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm particularly concerned about this comment that they haven't retracted "Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate" which is completely retaliatory and unfounded. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN: I am in agreement with Damien Linnane. I understand that Homeostasis07 can be hot-heated and take matters too personally, but I feel a TBAN is too extreme a response for this, especially given the work he has put into these articles. He would ideally learn from this experience (and a temporary block if that does occur). I do not oppose a temporary block either as I do understand and agree that some action should be taken for this and that seems like a more appropriate response. I think it would be better to do the temporary block and then see how he grows from that.
• As an aside, I have also never heard of WP:MANDY. It doesn't help that I'm an American and I honestly have no idea who Mandy Rice-Davies is. I think it is slightly odd to treat this essay like a policy. I do not agree with the essay either, but as Damien Linnane, that is a different conversation entirely so that would be best suited elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  What Damien and Aoba have said here has certainly given me food for thought. Without even realizing, I have been taking things too personally and been a hot-head for quite some time, causing problems for even the people I've worked with on multiple occasions. I apologize to everyone here and promise to correct this behavior immediately. I'd even agree to a permanent site-wide ban should the behavior ever occur again, which I swear now never will. Sorry for all the trouble guys. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block or TBAN. No evidence of consistent disruption or any other history of incidents in the topic area. The only possible action that could be taken is a warning about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN or block. At heart, this just looks like a rather heated content dispute, which as far as I can tell was largely resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. At the bottom of the section [122], both Sdkb and Formaldude (reluctantly or otherwise) agreed to Homeostasis07's suggestion that Manson's rebuttals be included in the single sentence agreed to in the RFC. That should have been an end to the matter, with Sdkb and Homeostasis07 working together for the betterment of the article. So really, it looks like the more recent dispute boils down to this one episode. I don't think either Sdkb nor Homeostasis07 come out of that exchange looking good - if Homeostasis07 suspected a direct COI with one of the sources in the article then they should have filed a confidential report with paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org per the instructions at WP:COIN, to avoid outing, rather than challenging Sdkb in public like that. But on the other hand Sdkb's response is unnecessarily snarky too; gloating comments like "I gather that you remain very disappointed by the Manson RfC outcome" and accusing Homeostasis of being "picking up the amusingly inept attempt at outing" are not necessary, and a simple "no, I have no COI, you should follow the confidential procedure outlined at WP:COIN if you suspect otherwise" would have been a good response. As such, I wouldn't recommend a TBAN or block when all parties have essentially respected the outcome of the RFC and consensus on the line has been reached. But please, both of you, put your differences aside and continue with discussion rather than personal attacks on the content of the article going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Amakuru for the accurate summation of events. I promise to refrain from conduct that could in any way be construed as a personal atack. The only thing I'd like to make clear is that I never threatened to "out" Sdkb. I tried disussing my concerns about CoI on their talk page, but the response I got was, as you said, sarcastic and, IMO, threatening. It was at that point I emailed those concerns to the above email address, per the template @ CoI. I realize now that's probably what I should have done in the first place. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Amakuru, first, it is not correct that the problems were resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. Homeostasis's behavior began at the RfC, where the problem was not just the existence of a content dispute but the nature of their comments and their edit warring at the article, as FormalDude laid out above. It then continued with behavior at my talk page, persisting right up to when the ANI report was filed, as has also been laid out above.

  Second, when someone comes to my talk page making an aggressive accusation, it's my prerogative to point out the context of my interactions with the user, as that helps any others who see the accusation understand whether it should be considered serious or frivolous. The comments you characterize as gloating were my attempt to do that. Looking back, I do think I could have found better language, so I apologize there. But no other !voter here so far (well, except Homeostasis) has attempted to draw a parallel between my slight lapse there and the behavior that landed us here.

  It would be a bad outcome for Homeostasis to walk away from this concluding that it was just another content dispute and everyone gets in those from time to time. And from Homeostasis's reply to you, it's clear that that's what will happen if there are no sanctions. @HandThatFeeds, I would look at Homeostasis's reply as further indication that their apology above may not have been sincere: they have agreed with the statement that this just looks like a rather heated content dispute and have gone back to defending their actions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  That isn't what I said above at all. To repeatedly label a heartfelt and genuine apology "insincere", well... I don't know at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem very sincere to me either, considering you called for me to be topic banned and haven't admitted that that was wrong. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  That was 2 days before and made up part of the apology. It's yours and Sdkb's prerogative to feel however you want, but the apology was genuine, and included that. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you’re trying to change the way I feel, strike your unfounded comment against me. ––FormalDude talk 22:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose, given that it's been about two weeks since this thread was opened, a temporary block would be punitive rather than to avoid actual disruption. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• FYI: I've listed on WP:Closure requests. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• this is ok, for now 😗 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Esaïe Prickett: Are you supporting or opposing the proposal? Or neither? ––FormalDude talk 05:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• neither Esaïe Prickett (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspicious editor in kids' TV show editing area

The editor User:Mikolaj2008.11 has awfully suspicious edits that make me think they might be an LTA or someone with competence issues. Some issues include:

• Rewriting of Molang to the point where it may need to be rewritten altogether
• Constant use of this person's own name as their edit summaries

They also use the IP addresses 81.219.238.175 and 94.246.179.17

What should I do in this situation? Or am I just being overly suspicious? wizzito | say hello! 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good grief. I suspect the only way of rescuing that article is to nuke it from orbit and start again. And surely all of that description, characters, episode summaries etc. are simple copyvios? Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Computer says "Yes, definitely". [123] --Jack Frost (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, both! What else should be done, is a block or a warn needed? wizzito | say hello! 09:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Black Kite and Jack Frost, I've warned the user on their talk page. What else is needed here? A CCI report? A block? wizzito | say hello! 10:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• P.S. Besides Molang, these articles should also be checked as they've been heavily edited by this user: List of programs broadcast by Treehouse TV, Tree Fu Tom, Polsat Seriale - Also might want to check their contributions on Polish Wikipedia for anything weird: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wkład/Mikolaj2008.11 wizzito | say hello! 10:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a handful of LTA accounts that roughly match this, among them ItsLassieTime, Bambifan01, and Caidin-Johnson, to name a few. Perhaps a follow up is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B15B:FB4C:9422:304C:FA0:1C5 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1011:B15B:FB4C:9422:304C:FA0:1C5, I'm very familiar with Lassie, Bambifan, and Caidin, and none of them edit like this user. I'm pretty sure this user is in Poland and named Mikolaj, which none of these users are. wizzito | say hello! 14:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Judging by their username, they seem to be only 12 years old, so they are probably not an LTA as children will probably want to edit kids TV articles. dudhhr_Contribs 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Notice of harassment from User:101.127.139.158

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.

---

diff links reformatted, {{IP}} added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is 97.101.193.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

I would like to report User:101.127.139.158 and his alternate IP 2406:3003:2002:57:11DA:1CED:A437:57A2. Since yesterday (Oct. 16th, 2021) this user has vandalized my talk page with nonsensical edits and has repeatedly threatened to "Block" me & has falsely claimed that I have been "Blocked". He has no such power but still claims to otherwise. Here is a list of his edits:

2406:3003:2002:57:11DA:1CED:A437:57A2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [124] [125] [126] [127]

101.127.139.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135]

97.101.193.162 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to create a report with diffs.

Context: This was at WP:AIV before. I've sent the reporter to ANI because it's not a one-sided simple issue. The reporter favoured the encyclopedia with contributions such as Special:Diff/1043861255, Special:Diff/1043860093 and Special:Diff/1043860418. Their block log is extensive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, this is going to be difficult to deal with because of the lack of accounts on either side... What to do.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Warnings all around? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP addresses appear to be static enough for long-term blocks, though. I'd say the main question is whether either or both editor(s) are disruptive enough to justify that measure. And I'm afraid both are, but I didn't want to respond to harassment concerns by blocking the reporter without discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Warnings could do, both users use their talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Let's just go with that.

• 97.101 shouldn't vandalize articles and be uncivil.
• 101.27 / 2406:3003 shouldn't pretend to be an admin and harass 97.101 about their block log. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:56, 18 October 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.

Rangeblock requested

Rangeblock is requested to cover the following

1. 103.211.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2. 103.211.13.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
3. 103.211.13.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For disruptive edits to Talk:Tiny Banker Trojan. The three IP addresses are obviously the same user making the same 1,040 byte addition to the talk page reverted multiple times by Dawnseeker2000 and myself. This talk page has a history of disruption from users adding WP:FORUM and WP:PROMO type edits and this is the case with the edits from this range. It has been previously been protected twice due to this disruption. I have previously warned the .216 IP address and after the 4th level warning they switched to the .160 today. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the /24 range from editing that talk page for a week. There've been some useful edits to other pages from other IPs in the range, so let's try this before blocking it sitewide. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, whoever it is came back with a completely different IP, so page protection may end up being necessary after all. clpo13_(talk) 21:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Previously blocked IP is again edit warring with hostility/aspersions/personal attacks

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

---

Currently an IP user is engaging on Genetic studies on Jews page, edit warring, making relentlessly hostile and aggressive accusations of bad faith, and behaving in a WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.

Recently the IP user (69.157.143.2, User contributions for 69.157.143.2) posted a somewhat vague and uncivil message on the Genetic studies on Jews Talk page (here [[136]] (which seemed to violate WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM). Soon after, they substantially modified parts of the article dealing with one study, removing information with the claim that it was WP:OR (here [[137]]. I began a Talk page topic explaining that it was not OR but supported by the source (with link and quote) and reverted their edit (mentioning the Talk page in my edit summary)

They then replied in Talk with an even more hostile and uncivil reply (here [[138]), containing agressive assumptions of bad faith. They began their replt by ordering me to "stop lying" and accused me of "intentionally misstating the study concludes", they then accused me of conveniently excluding information "so that you [meaning me] can push your false narrative." And accused me of trolling. The talk page discussion is here: [[139]]). Then they reverted me, reinstating their preferred edit. I asked them to refrain from personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith/accusations, and replied to their points, includkng quotes and referwnces from the study. I then modified the disputed sections of the article to more closely follow the source and remove anything that could be seen as OR. Nonetheless, they reverted me yet again and left another reply on the Talk page (here [[140]]), with more personal attacks and accusations of "lying" and of intentional misrepresentation. They also accused the authors of the study itself of designing it to mislead people.

It seems likely that this IP user is the same person as an IP user from several months ago, 69.157.247.154 (with a similar IP) who engaged in a particularly egregious edit war on the Genetic history of the Middle East page (Their contributions here: [[141]]) and were blocked [[142]]. Their edit warring focused on the same genetic study as the more recent IP. Both that IP and the current IP geolocate to Montreal, Canada, and seem to focus information relating to the same genetic study. The old IP was warned by User:Austronesier and finally blocked by User:SQL.

This user's extreme incivility/hostility (and disregard for WP:AGF and WP:NPA and other policies) is also consistent with them being the same blocked editor. This user also seems unwilling to WP:LISTEN.

(As mentioned, the current IP geolocates to Montreal (see here https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/69.157.143.2) and the earlier one did as well (https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/69.157.247.154)

Any help is appreciated.

Skllagyook (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The current IP is blocked for two weeks for continued personal attacks after my warning. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 18:10, 17 October 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.

Irish/British/English disruption related to Francis Bacon

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.

---

FreddysDead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing British to English on articles mentioning the artist Francis Bacon (artist). On that article they changed "Irish-born British" to English, and in the process removed the note about previous discussion on talk page, and then promptly blanked that discussion. This has all been done without any explanation or attempt to seek consensus in what has been a somewhat contentious area. I have given Level 1 and Level 2 warnings for the actions at Francis Bacon. I would ask 1) more eyes, especially admin-type eyes, on this editor and their actions, and 2) should we revert all the related changes to other articles? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting that FreddysDead's response was to try to blank this section. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Best to escort the lad off the project. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Which has been done by GeneralNotability. I think I'll go ahead and undo the related changes. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Or I would if Drmies hadn't beaten me to it. Thanks Drmies and GeneralNotability, and also GoodDay and MrOllie. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 17 October 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:Londanfaqir9000

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.

---

Londanfaqir9000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an user with bit over 20 edits and seems to be exclusively engaging in vandalism-esque and trolling conduct. See these for example; addition of gibberish on a BLP, unexplained content removal, addition of a forumy comment, etc. I had placed a final template on their talk page and they have responded with what seems like plain trolling to me, see this and this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, run of the mill troll/vandalism account. Never going to be a constructive editor. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 18 October 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.

Editing my sandbox against my wishes

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.

---

@Cavalryman: has edited my sandbox against my wishes. I take this as hounding me.

Background: see this talk page and especially the RfC on the bottom.

These notices were posted at a list and at my talk page (thank you). I responded here. Since this time I have believed a discussion was taking place. I have edited neither list, thinking to change them during a discussion was bad faith.

Cavalryman has moved, changed the focus of, and continually edited to improve a list which was under discussion. The edit history is here. I believe the discussion started at 10:05 October 2021.

Instead I edited the older list in my sandbox. Where it was edited without my permission by someone who is in conflict with me elsewhere.

I have tried to discuss, including a RfC, here. I have proposed changes the older list's talk page. I believe that, in general, I have acted in good faith.

No matter what excuse they come up with Cavalryman edited my sandbox without my consent and while in conflict with me elsewhere. I don't know how much more bad faith he can show me. Sammy D III (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Cavalryman's contribs, they were removing all transclusions/uses of a now-deleted template, Template:US military utility vehicles. No comment on any other issues, but the sandbox thing is not a big deal. Cavalryman, would you agree to stop editing anything in Sammy D III's user space, even if it's to make a non-controversial change? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers. The sandbox thing happened while Cavalryman delete a large number of uses of the template. While it was the last deletion, there's a fair chance they didn't even notice it was Sammy D III's userspace. While they are responsible for ensuring all those mass edits complied with our policies and guidelines, removing use of a deleted template is largely uncontroversial. By the same token even if they did notice, there's no reason for them to think it would have been controversial whatever disputes they had with Sammy D III (unless the dispute was over that template which it doesn't seem to have been). I would not assume malicious intent if someone edited my sandbox to remove a template in the midst of a mass removal of a deleted template which was not the focus of the dispute, since the only real way that could arise is if the editor specifically looked for something they could mass delete so they could annoy me. The far more likely scenario is that the editor came across the discussion and/or deletion while dealing with the disputed articles and/or things they linked to, or yes looking at the sandbox; was wondering what was going on and investigated. As a result of that investigation, they decided to finish the cleanup from the deletion and knowingly or unknowingly but with no malicious intent edited the sandbox. Sammy D III you need to AGF more. Also most a bunch of your links do not work, I assume because of the moves you referred to but either way it's difficult to see most of what you're talking about. If you're just linking to a page rather than a diff or certain version, I'd suggest you use WP:wikilinks rather than external links in future, as that makes it easier to see the links are invalid. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC) 17:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking more carefully, the reason those 4 links don't work is because you included a period (.) at the end of the URL. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I found what I think is one of the discussions referred to Talk:List of soft-skinned vehicles of the United States Armed Forces. Looking at it, the thing that struck me was the RfC started by Sammy D III clearly doesn't comply with the neutral wording requirement as the the text is "Should a list that has been in place for years have been edited or replaced with a new list". Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if one diff doesn't work then none anywhere will. I guess it doesn't matter, although I've been personal I thought that RfC was pretty good (except for the damn links). I'm going to get AGFed and maybe-ed until I'm supposed to think this is just a mis-understanding. But you did spend your time on me, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sammy, as my edit clearly caused you distress I apologise, all I can do was assure you it was in no way intended to be malicious, it was part of a series of remedial edits after a TfD closure. Until the characterisation above of our interactions at Talk:List of soft-skinned vehicles of the United States Armed Forces as "conflict", I had assumed them to be cordial discussions between two good faith editors with similar interests who hold divergent opinions about these lists. Unless policy dictates I must (or in years to come forgetfulness overtakes this) I have no intention of ever again editing any of your user space, including your talk page. Cavalryman (talk) 22:18, 17 October 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.

Waylan Johnson Repeated unsourced genres, refuses to communicate

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

---

Waylan Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Received more than enough warnings from multiple editors, but completely ignores, refuses to communicate and continues to introduce and reintroduce unsourced material with almost every single edit. I also opened an SPI but the backlog there makes it close to useless. --Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 17 October 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.

Croatian Air Force

Hello. I want to report sock puppetry PTS 188 [[143]] which does vandalism from various IP addresses and deletes reliable sources. Please take a look [[144]]. Thank you. 89.172.36.100 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• PTS 188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefblocked by Bbb23. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 14:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked Special:contributions/42.188.91.65 for 3 days for block evasion. The article was semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

77.134.227.100

IP engages in persistent disruptive editing on a dozen articles, including Sebastian Kurz. They have a long record of desist warnings on their talk, refuse to abide by the WP:MOS, and seemingly ignore core policies like WP:Consensus and WP:Communication is required.

Regarding Kurz, I removed the succession box on the article, as its content was already included in the infobox. The IP reverted my edit with the explanation "Succession box for all political leaders (not justifiate exception)", I asked what guideline/policy establishes that, they reverted again, explaining this time that "this is what can be seen in all the articles about politicians. It's a fact. Why would Kurz be the subject of an exception?". I’ve attempted to compromise by retaining the succession box, adding additional content not included in the infobox, and moving it into a more compact navbox. I was reverted once again, because the IP unilaterally ascertained that "The main offices are more than sufficient".

To avoid a potential edit war, I started a discussion on the IP’s talk page and re-shared my point of view there. The IP replied and raised valid points. As the whole thing seemed to become increasingly tricky and subjective, I requested a third opinion. I concurred with the conclusion of the 3O provider on the condition that the succession box be contained within a navbox. The IP did not reply; the 3O provider thanked my reply, so I inferred that they would be ok with a navbox. About 24 hours later the IP still did not answer – despite user activity – so I presumed they were fine with the 3O and the navbox part; hence I opined that there was a consensus and went ahead to enforce that consensus. The IP did not revert or query within another 24 hours, thus reaffirming consensus. Four days after the discussion, the IP removed half of all the content agreed to by consensus, without providing an edit summary or explanation elsewhere, and without getting prior consensus.

Yes, I could start yet another discussion, and like so many others, ask yet again that they comply with WP policies and guidelines, but their whole conduct to date has proven over and over again that such an endeavour would be in vain. Hence, I’m here now, and ask that the IP be sanctioned with a page block or final warning. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

IP 207.172.244.20

This IP was blocked in June. Since returning from the block, they have gone right back to making edits with multiple issues. Some of these includes introducting deliberate factual errors (that player is indeed on the Cardinals now], Removing redirects (which has been done multiple times), swapping an image out because they hate the old one", and adding a non-existent image. While this editor, prior to my warning, has not been warned, it doesn't appear the person using this IP is here to build an encyclopedia. I know we can't permanently block an IP, but this IP appears to need another block.--Rockchalk717 21:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: 207.172.244.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not been blocked in the past, but since it's associated with a school, I have schoolblocked it for 1 month. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Is that what this was then? I only said that because the talkpage for the IP said it had been blocked. I appreciate that school block though! I'm just trying to figure exactly what that was in June.--Rockchalk717 22:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: Wow. I sure screwed up there. I blocked the wrong IP address (which was a school). I have no idea how that happened. Maybe it was a tab I had opened from WP:AIV, which was next to the tab I opened from your initial message. The address you're referring to isn't a school. I have blocked it for 1 week. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Lol. Thanks for clarification. I was a little confused, but it's all good. You probably aren't the first admin to accidentally block the wrong IP or editor and probably won't be the last.--Rockchalk717 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

119.93.40.241 repeatedly adding unsourced info

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.

---

Reporting this IP user repeatedly adding unsourced info on these articles: Balitang A2Z Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 and Honeycomb toffee. Need an action. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I was only restoring what Ctrlwiki has been removing. What with restoring uncontroversial additions by other users? These were cast members and segment titles that are easily verifiable. Which can easily be added a reference. The user is obsessively removing content without explanation--unsourced is not an explanation. Aren't we supposed to be building an encyclopedia? The guy is single-minded about providing a source. He could have verified the content added or provided the citation himself, instead it's no source, delete for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.40.241 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: Wikipedia says, it's your responsibility to provide a source, so don't push me to provide a source for the information that I didn't add. I explain and warn you at your talk page. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, he's removing names in the starring section of the tv show infobox because starring and main cast are different, really? I know English proficiency is not required but there's no getting through to him. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't let him to add a content without providing a reliable source, those excuses he makes will destroy the rules of Wikipedia. Please warn this user! He forces me to add references to those information he added. That user previously blocked here in Wikipedia for disruptive editings. If you don't block or warn this user, he will continue to add unsourced content and continue to disrupt any articles, the rules of Citation are mentioned in these pages: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Help:Referencing for beginners, and don't let him to break these policies in Wikipedia. Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:10, 19 October 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:Wufjdk

Persistent vandalism. Unresponsive on talk page. Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced contents. Removal of maintenance templates. Disruptive editing. These issues mentioned are all on this user's talk page. This user should be blocked. Jourdanescense (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Like the section above this one, looks like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Mobile web editor, no meaningful edits to user talk space. While certainly disruptive, I haven't seen any obvious vandalism. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is recent obvious vandalism: Miss Ugly Face, Fat Body, locale changed to Mars, etc. [145].

Can we get a block already? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Creation today of Home Econimic Education (HEE) Different types of Chart: probably not vandalism, but WP:CIR. Block please. Fram (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer

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 recently closed a report at WP:ANEW filed by Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) on Punding as "no violation" as it seemed somewhat vexatious. I also notice they have recently been edit-warring at WMPW. On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times. I wouldn't normally start a thread here for two isolated (albeit recent) incidents of mild edit-warring and a general battleground behaviour, but in this instance I need to ask the question - is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I did the math. With about 74k edits and 24 blocks that is a block about every 3000 edits. That is a lot. I have noticed this user around over the last 14 years but did not personally notice the disruption. The block log includes blocks for personal attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, block evasion, sock puppetry, borderline harassment, saying an editor "should be executed", 3RR, copyright concerns, wikihounding, misuse of twinkle, severe off-wiki harassment, and battlefield behavior. If blocks were pokémon this user is well on their way to collecting them all.

On the flip side a look through their user archives shows evidence of positive contributions throughout their 14 years here.

I don't know if they are a net positive or not. I do however think when block logs get that long and complete that further blocks need to escalate in severity going from days to weeks to months to indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick maths - perhaps this can be "solved" by making it clear the next block, for whatever reason, will be indefinite? Asking an editor to reflect on their behaviour and appeal their block if they want to edit again can often work wonders... ~TNT (she/her • talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Only three blocks in the last nine years. Levivich 13:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your point of only 3 of the blocks being in the last 9 years is well taken. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out what they think they were doing on Punding. Edit-warring to restore a problematic edit containing errors after the original editor ran out of reverts certainly isn't a good look. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be retaliation for this edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmm. That's not great. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh ouch, the ownership going on there is strong and, well, yeah. I don't see a discussion about that (though it could be elsewhere) but they completely ignored DrKay's very valid points in the edit history for that article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's condition leads to them being overprotective of various articles. They do have the best interests of the project at heart and can take into account constructive criticism but it takes repetition and patience. IMO a block would be punitive rather than preventative. As an aside this "it is a featured article and, thus, can't be altered" is becoming a real problem and probably should be added to the arguments to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across this editor, so I can't comment on their conduct and/or edits. Regarding the block log, you can't just look at the raw numbers of 24 blocks. The vast majority of those are more than a decade old, with one of the most recent ones stating "no reason to keep this user blocked over an honest mistake" in the unblock log. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with this to some extent, the block that stands out for me is the one placed in October 2012. Although nine years old, it was for "Severe off-wiki harassment" and sounds like the sort of thing we globally lock users for these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

But it was 9 years ago... GiantSnowman 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

^^^This. I don't know how to quickly find the edits, but the indef was rescinded six days later. I assume all parties involved at the time were happy (as they could be) with the outcome, otherwise they'd still be indef'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Details of the indef block on their talkpage. Not pleasant reading. Note this discussion, from 2020 (i.e. not nine years ago), is about both on and off wiki attacks.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: I'm not rehashing or dwelling on something that took place 9 years ago. It's over, buried, done with.

What happened in 2020 I referenced below. That was part of a MUCH larger incident that involved FAR more users than just myself. Harrassment, rule breaking, and other issues were on both sides. There were no innocent parties in that. I, in turn, was topic blocked, blocked for 72 hours (which I rightly earned, again, no innocent parties), and on-and-off-wiki attacked (which no one deserved), though nothing was ever done to that user. But again, I referenced that below. That's why it was a debacle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering that earlier this year they came to my talk page to bitch about being asked to drop an argument, then proceeded to try and drag out the argument in an ill-fated attempt to make a WP:POINT, I'd have say they're not a net-positive to the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm not a big fan of blocking people who are (mostly) a net positive, so I'd like to hear what they've got to say about the various issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I won't address everything. First, Ritchie333, no, it wasn't "relatiation" for anything. I saw something I thought was an edit war, it was. I was an uninvolved part in that discussion, inserted myself into that discussion, reverted, warned the user (manually), made changes, and the edit war continued by the user, I reverted, warned the user via a template (official), the user again reverted and I reported. That's not "retaliation", that's sticking up for another user who was being warned about other articles at the same time.

MarnetteD, "[my] condition" is called Aspergers, it was first diagnosed when I was 23 (I turned 40 this year). While I do appreciate most of your other comments (to an extent), I don't need time and patience. Featured Articles are held to a higher standard. It's in the rules. A few editors and myself worked very hard to get that article to Featured Article status. It is the only radio station article at Featured Article status, for which I am very proud. Being near the station, I have a special ability (so to speak) to gain updated information about it quite quickly. I also can access my local library in person, which has the information I need. I can copy it in person. So, you call it "protective", I call it upholding the rules of WP:FA. You can most certainly place that arguement within WP:AADP, I don't have the ability to stop you all, but that would change the fundamental foundation and rules of WP:FA, making those articles nothing more than something "special" with a star at the top and anyone could throw anything at them without consequence (just my opinion).

To the rest, it's good to see that I'm (he/his, for those using "they", apperciate that) not a net-positive. Yeah, I've had my problems in the past. Yeah, I have a block log. I've tried to make this place better in the 17 years that I've been here. I've created numerous articles, edited nearly 74,000 times, made a few offline Wiki friends (one of whom I will never forget), made 4 GA articles, 2 FA articles. I outed my own account off-Wiki (on Twitter) and worked with the Asexual Community when there was that huge Asexual Eraser debacle last year (involving Pauley Perrette's article and others), calming a firestorm that this community knew nothing about (for which I was topic banned, by the way) and in turn taught a slew of people, in real time, about Wikipedia. Yet, somehow my block log alone convinces you I'm not a net positive.

If that's all it takes, cool. Do what you wish. All I ask is you allow me 6 hours to get my affairs in order. I do want to have a trusted editor to watch that Featured Article of mine. Once that's done, you are free to do whatever you like. If my actual work can't convince the community I'm a net-positive, then I won't bother trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You're work is a net-positive; it's your soft skills that sink you. then I won't bother trying is part of the problem. Take a break, reflect, come back. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel that any action is needed at this point. I do however think that future blocks for future issues should carry an escalating duration. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that incident where Neutralhomer dug up a Wikipedian's employer, then called the employer to complain about what the person was doing on Wikipedia is appalling. So is the fact that even that block, after a long and storied block log, was lifted in a few days based on a sorry and an oddly narrow assurance that he wouldn't call anyone's employer again. If anything, how about an assurance about not exporting feuds off-wiki, not personalizing disputes, etc.? Of course, if that happened today and went to arbcom or trust + safety rather than ANI, I have to think it would receive a ban. Maybe we've grown enough, or at least the zeitgeist has changed enough, that ANI would be able to handle it, too. I don't know. But we're not going to relitigate something that happened almost a decade ago. It got some attention, and was resolved, for better or worse. Same goes for most of the other blocks in the log. There are [only?] three blocks since then, including one for "clumsiness". I dare we'd need one of those big, lots-o-diffs showing a pattern style of ANI threads that doesn't rely on old stuff for anything to happen. If this section has a take-away, it should be a warning about personalizing disputes. After blocks for hounding, off-wiki harassment, calling someone's employer, etc., there should be zero tolerance for that moving forward, but it's unclear what there is to do right now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I will mention the MFD discussion two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP. There were two problems. Neutralhomer was breaking attribution, in a way that appeared to be trying to claim too much credit. Second, when cautioned by SmokeyJoe, Neutralhomer was uncivil. They have been warned that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I am just mentioning this for those who were not at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• See related section below: #Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Wherein Neutralhomer objects to the singular they and calls another editor "buckwheat". Levivich 06:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Quickly repeating something I explained below Neutralhomer's response to the buckwheat IMO epitomises one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing here. They could have simply read the sources provided, learnt from them and undertaken never to use the term buckwheat again at least in Wikipedia and hopefully in the rest of their life. Preferably this would have come in the form of recognition here of their mistake, but I'd personally be fine with no reply if we could be confident it wouldn't be repeated. But frankly I wouldn't be, and I'm even less confident from the way Neutralhomer has responded. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them, unfortunately Neutralhomer seems to have great difficult doing so and hence has a tendency to create unnecessary problems and waste the time of other editors. While they can do great work when they're not wrong, although we all know even an editor in the right can cause lots of problems if they handle it poorly, the risk is their tendencies are pushing the balance of their contributions too far into the negative. As I mentioned in another reply, I'm even more concerned about they way it sounds like they're putting their desire to win an argument ahead of harm to our readers from their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • From the thread below: I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. I think that speaks for itself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Welp:

1. I don't like these WP:RFC/U-style ANI threads. is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? is a question that can only be answered by reading all or most of Neutralhomer's 74,000+ edits, which no one will do. The question is better stated as: Is there a chronic problem, and what should we do about it?
2. I also don't like judging people by their block log, as block logs rarely tell the whole story. Ritchie wrote above:

   On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times.

   Two and a half years ago, Ritchie wrote at AN:

   Unless the problems that led to the blocks are reoccurring, somebody's block log should be irrelevant, and certainly not an excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. In the case of Neutralhomer, the blocks from 2018 are for 3RR (generally a one-off, and obvious if it re-occurs) and "clumsiness" which AFAIK isn't part of the blocking policy (and, indeed, was overturned shortly afterwards).

   Neutralhomer has been blocked once since then (before today's block), in 2020. That's not good, but it's not particularly bad, either.
3. I also don't like judging people for how they respond to ANI threads. One person drags another to ANI, the other person flips out and next thing you know they're calling someone "buckwheat", and it's like "Ah ha! See, told you they were disruptive!" An ANI report is provocative for the person being reported, and I don't want to judge editors based on how they react to provocations. However, there have definitely been some gems, such as "buckwheat," "thick skulls," "the real world" and the one I just got pinged to: "Oh, I'm "bludgeoning" people, but personal attacks are A-OK ... Do you all even have jobs?" But that's still after the ANI thread, so I took a look at some stuff from this year, before the ANI thread:
4. First, on the issue that precipitated this report: |publisher=Cambridge |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts should jump out as an obvious mistake to any editor with ~75k edits, just as much as |publisher=Oxford |location=Oxford, Massachusetts. And that's just one of the problems with that edit. To edit war to reinstate such errors, and take it to ANEW, is disruptive. It's not only inserting error into the encyclopedia but also wasting other editors time. Worse, he continues arguing about it, even up to today.
5. In the 2019 AN thread quoted above, basically no one agreed with Neutralhomer, and this exchange shows some strong WP:IDHT:
   • An editor says to Neutralhomer: Remember when you wrote "I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along." in your complaint? Because your responses here do not reflect your words above.
   • Neutralhomer's response: Well, shouldn't I? You all went straight into "it's your fault" and "I'm going to block you for harrassment" without taking a serious look at what I wrote. No one really mentioned anything and when you did you spun it back on me. So, yeah, I am going to take it a little personal.
6. Some user talk page threads from this year are concerning:
   1. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#DO NOT edit other editor's talk page comments
   2. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Thanks - "I'm easy to get along with. It's people who just can't listen that drive me MAD!"
   3. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Question
      • Neutralhomer: "Because, under FA rules, it must show "format=PDF"... I intend to follow the rules to the letter to which they were written"
      • Editor: "Can you point me to those rules"
      • Neutralhomer: "You can find them within the links at WP:FACR"
   4. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WRND (disambiguation)
      • Editor: "You removed the PROD tag without explanation. I'll be taking it to AfD, but I'm curious as to why you removed it, as it seems an open and shut WP:2DABS case"
      • Neutralhomer: "Actually, it's the way we currently do things around here per NMEDIA."
      • Actually, it wasn't, and the AFD closed a unanimous delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRND (disambiguation). Except Neutralhomer's "Keep" !vote which he struck a few days later, thankfully.
   5. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Disruptive Editing - leading to an ANI in July
   6. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Draft:WMFH-LP - about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP, an MFD Neutralhomer started that he withdrew
   7. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WMPW - "Just for the record, the edit summary wasn't even close to "defensive", that was an explanation and a request. Even this isn't defensive. Snarky maybe, but not defensive. You don't want to see defensive. :)"
   8. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Files listed for discussion - all the files were deleted
   9. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#"Buckwheat"
7. Vandalism warnings/reporting
   1. This warning issued in August was uw-vandalism1 for this edit, which should have been uw-unsourced1 (or better yet, no template at all, and just an explanation in an edit summary or a non-template talk page message). Normally I wouldn't nitpick over use of the wrong level 1 warning template, but:
   2. This warning issued in September was uw-vandalism4im for this edit, which might have been incorrect or even disruptive but doesn't look like vandalism to me. Special:Contribs/75.109.70.8 looks like an editor attempting to edit in good faith, and
   3. ANI in April about bad vandalism reporting
8. I noticed also that Neutralhomer can be very nice when asking admins for help if he gets the help: 1, 2, 3, but less nice when he doesn't get the help: 4, 5, which are reminiscent of the 2019 AN thread linked above.

So yeah, I think there is a chronic problem here. Levivich 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Over the past year I've watched the ANI, I've seen enough of these threads to feel someone needs to say this- Are there users somewhere between [b]Useful upstanding Wikians [/b] and [b]"Not a Net positive- get rid of them [/b]? The answer is, obviously, yes. And Neutralhomer is a perfect example. YEARS of editing and GA and FA contributions should not be ignored, neither should YEARS of problems and significant ones at that. There has to be a better answer than "Sorry, you're no longer worth our time- get out." Surely there is a way to apply restrictions and/or moderation/mediation to keep these type of users contributing without returning time after time to the ANI. I realize that the current system is not working either- that we warn, block, unblock, ignore, repeat until exhausted and then indef. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think we owe it to the project to at least try to find a better way. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

We've tried to come up with better ways repeatedly over the ~15 years I've been on Wikipedia. From what I've seen, the only thing that works (and rarely does it work) are custom restrictions for the problem editor. But when it's behavioral like this, it almost always winds up being a temporary respite before they get the restrictions lifted and go right back to doing it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait until Neutralhomer's 48-block expires & allow him to defend himself, in this report. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No offense but this discussion gives a bad impression coming from the user with whom Neutralhomer had an aerated, but civil a day or two ago.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me. But I don't fully understand what you're posting about. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You aren't helping. Neutralhomer has dug his heels in very thoroughly both in this thread and the one below. He has insisted on finding fault with seemingly everyone but himself. There are significant behavioral concerns that he needs to address. If your intention is to divert the focus away from Neutralhomer by making vague implications about unspecified bad impressions, then I'm going to tell you right now that it won't work. The best thing is to give Neutralhomer time to reassess the situation and respond here once his blocked is lifted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

NH blocked indef with talk page access removed

For anyone who has not been watching his talk page, NH has been in battleground mode, flinging insults and accusations at everyone, for 3 days now, with no hint of stopping, and continuing after I gave him a very clear final warning. This cannot be allowed to continue. I tried to cut him a little slack because real life is apparently stressful right now, but it just kept coming. I removed talk page access because his talk page is where all the unacceptable behavior has been occuring. If he makes a request at UTRS, I have no objection to the UTRS admin restoring talk page access if they are convinced he is going to stop now, and they don't need to discuss with me first. I would, however, ask that any admin talk to me briefly before unblocking; I think we're beyond "he was just stressed out" territory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that renders this report moot. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If and when Neutralhomer requests an unblock that request can be handled in a fresh thread. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 20 October 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.

Ctrlwiki removing names in the infobox

Ctrlwiki can't seem to wrap his around the word starring, apparently starring means the actor playing the titular character that is why he keeos removing the names of the other actors despite being part of the main cast. Maybe the guy should read the instructions on how to use the infobox on television or compare similar usages on Supergirl (TV series) and Grey's Anatomy. 143.44.164.124 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove those names. If you will read the first sentence at the top of the article: "starring Jane de Leon", there is only one cast mentioned, but if you read the starring section at the Infobox, you will see a lot of names. So it is not the same? Other editors agree and removed those names you added for other reasons. Readers will confuse when they read the article. Let's wait for the admins response for this. Ctrlwiki (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Actually you just did. Main cast are listed as starring in the infoboxes. What's not clicking? Not only are you stubborn, you're a big liar. Your swift removal of warnings in your talk page clearly illustrates your stubbornness and unwillingness to listen. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be related. Also, you are required to notify the editor on their talk page when you open a discussion about them. I have notified them for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated at the page protection request this is a simple content issue that should be resolved on the article talk page. There is no need for admins to get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure we don't need to have a thread open for a week or two with back and forth bickering about content matters? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be what the editors involved want. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Ctrlwiki has been a regular fixture in ANI the last two months. Common denominator, clearly there's a problem, not the guy he reported nor the people who reported him. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the problem here. FYI, if I'll list your problems here: Edit warring in many articles, removing templates / content without providing a valid reason, adding unsourced information, not using edit summary, personal attacks, you've been reported here in May 2020, and you've been blocked once here. Protecting articles for disruptive editings is not a problem. Ctrlwiki (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Misdirection. Typical liar. You're claim" removing templates / content without providing a valid reason, yet you reported me for adding content. Adding and removing are two opposite things. Secondly, I was blocked in 2029, that was a year ago. That was a long time ago. Then again, I'm not the only one with a block history. Lastly, edit warring is two ways. It wouldn't be an edit war if you can comprehend what I was trying to add. Yet, you're very mind is closed. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

2029? I guess I was comatose longer than the doctors said. EEng 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This covid thing has really dragged on.. feels like I've been locked down for a decade.. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar, adding a content without sources (which what you are doing) is called lying. The problems I've mentioned are based on warnings you received on your talk page, so be careful with your words. Ctrlwiki (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have a choice here. Either this thread is closed quickly as a content issue and the editors involved talk about the issue civilly on the article talk page(s), or they talk their way here into blocks. Which will it be? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just close this nonsense issue, the discussion here is not clear. Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times before, anyone bringing a content issue here is already generally demonstrating they are a problem. Add to that the failure to notify, we have even more evidence. Then we compound that with the most serious problem namely Talk:Darna (2021 TV series) [146], Talk:Balitang A2Z [147], Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 [148] and Talk:Honeycomb toffee [149] having no relevant edit history and it's a triple whammy. So you IP are clearly one of the problems. To be fair Ctrlwiki is as well since the talk page discussion point also applies to them especially given the RFPP. However "we're both big problems" is never something you want to bring to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going to say that Ctrlwiki is wrong to be removing the main cast en masse; as far as I know it is fine to have the main cast in that section. I looked at a few TV Featured Articles and it is certainly the case there (i.e. House (TV series)). Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you and other IP users. The only thing I wanna know is if the first paragraph of the article mentioning that Jane de Leon is the only starring, but if you read the starring section of the Infobox, there are three names mentioned, so it is not the same? And please warn that IP user for not posting a reference for every content he added. Thank you. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove the main cast, I only removed the names in starring section in the infobox of the article, because it is not the same when you read the first paragraph of the article. Try to read the article so you can understand what I really want to say. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no helping this guy's comprehension. Per Black Kite (talk) I looked at a few TV Featured Articles and it is certainly the case there (i.e. House (TV series))., yet this user still insists on matching the lede and the infobox. I doubt he checked out the example mentioned. And we haven't touched on his fixation on sources. 143.44.164.124 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Redvince1 continuous disruptive behavior

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.

---

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redvince1, in forgoing further discussion for several days on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism (which I left alone to give them time to respond), had their contributions reverted to the purpose of reaching a consensus. Prior to this, the fellow Wikipedian and I were given notices to prevent a WP:edit war. As a result, they have been previously reported as evident in this archived discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account. Investigating the previous report, both of our personal talk pages, and the article's talk page, we were both assisted in attempting to reach consensus. Until today as of writing (14 October 2021), the article remained status pre ante until their WP:bold contributions which forwent any recognition of consensus. Better yet, in this, I would be willing to revert them a fourth time, but then again that would be seen as an edit war to which I reached out to Editor2020, Ermenrich, and AntiCompositeNumber on my talk page for further guidance. I could be bold as well yet be at risk of punishment alongside this contributor, and I refuse to be baited into doing so. They (Redvince1) were given warning on the article's talk page to self-revert their contributions on the basis of WP:NOCONSENSUS, as I still have yet to gain response pertaining to how their additions contribute to the history of the theological precept, in addition to their previous spurious source and previous biased terminology. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No administrative assistance yet before this goes into the dust bin (archives)? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're going to need to provide diffs and sort of explain the problem a little better. I've looked at the discussion on the article talk page and I can't really make head or tails of it.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

1) The following contributor (Redvince1) seems to have introduced polemic into the history section, rather than actual history; 2) They used blatantly biased terminology by using the statement "complain" in a following contribution; 3) I reverted their contributions; they then restore these contributions and claim to have made a contribution they did not (refer to the archived report listed above); 4) their contributions were reverted until a consensus could be reached by an uninvolved editor; 5) they blatantly disregarded that by restoring their contributions, and adding more as if a consensus had been reached; they also forwent any further communication with me on reaching consensus; 6) I revert their contribution on the basis of WO:NOCONSENSUS and with a lack of any action for communication; 7) here we are now. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have observed that this particular article Modalistic Monarchianism seems to have some editors who have a fairly strong Trinitarian bias. My new contributions to this article were merely to add relevant Scriptural passages and logical evidence from a Modalist theological point of view as well. In my opinion, a well rounded Wikipedia article on any topic should include evidence from editors with multiple perspectives. I have not deleted any previous content on the article. I am willing to continue discussion and try to figure out why the new content is so polemic to User: TheLionHasSeen. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop interjecting your responses outside of the pattern of conversation to confuse readers of this report. Next, on my talk page you admitted to being an advocate for this theological perspective. As for bias, where is it? All the article is stating is a historic documentation of the phenomenon; the only thing which you, as an open Modalist may deem biased is the statement: "By the 4th century, a consensus had developed in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, and modalism was generally considered a heresy." Note, however it says it was considered a heresy, not Wikipedia saying it is verbatim a heresy. As for Scripture and logical evidence from your viewpoint, that is also inherently biased furthermore. Wikipedia is not about multiple perspectives in the sense of polemic, rather, documentation with a WP:NPOV. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Just recently, they responded in the talk page which clarifies that they are indeed using Wikipedia for advocacy, not understanding how NPOV works. They even restored a source determined spurious by another involved editor to the encyclopedia. This is ridiculous at this rate! They disregarded more experienced contributors than both of us, because they merely opted to wait for consensus, and remove faulty citations. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What I am seeing here is one editor who appears open to compromise and discussion, and another, the OP, who responds in a belligerent and unreasonable manner to everything the other editor does - including the original filing of this report. I leave it to others beside myself to agree or disagree with this assessment and decide if any intervention is needed, but I think a WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted.—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Both users need to be blocked for edit warring

I decided just to look at the page history and these are all the diffs of edit warring: [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164].

This is all since October 7. I didn't look to see if 3rr was specifically violated, but I don't think it makes much of difference. Both users have more than deserved a few days block.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur. If I need to be blocked, so be it; I merely opted to WP:drop it and return to editing articles pertaining to settlements (ironically, most U.S. geography places still have the 2000 census results). Especially when someone publicly declares they have an advocate perspective, when none of the information is inherently dogging out the viewpoint they saw as biased. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia staff have done nothing. Editor2020 got involved, and the Redvince1 has placed information which nowhere involves the history nor development of that theology again by forcefully reverting (for the umpteenth time). Then, they had a article about Thomas Jefferson linked that makes no mention of Modalism or Modalistic Monarchianism, nor applies to the content of the article in relation. What is Wikipedia staff even doing at this rate? Counting sheep? If both of us have to be blocked, so be it, but I may just escalate this with Wikimedia via email at this rate. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is no way to email them about this type of issue unfortunately. I suppose the English Wikipedia just lacks administrators; anyways, on the talk page and latest edit summary where they staunchly reverted Editor2020, they labeled me and others as "critics." I have had enough, now we are growing into WP:Ad hominem attacks. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As of this writing, on the edit warring noticeboard they claimed I removed citations pertaining to David K Bernard; that is quite foolish considering I placed the citations pertaining to David K Bernard (a Oneness theologian) in the article, and collaborated to bring Oneness Pentecostalism to a NPOV and ultimately achieve good article status. In the archived report, they claimed my contribution which another user called them out for...now they do it again... Wikipedia, seriously? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins are volunteers, just like everyone else. And this looks more like an edit dispute than behavioral issue that requires immediate admin intervention. So I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction on this matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 20 October 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.

ISIL Anthem

Just a heads up that the ISIL anthem file is in an infobox on the Dawlat al-Islam Qamat, it was posted there by User:2601:192:4B40:7410:F877:650D:4234:17D8. Previously it was only linked to, but the actual file itself is now there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dawlat_al-Islam_Qamat&diff=prev&oldid=1050710370

Not sure if something should be done about this? 106.69.33.39 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany also has its anthems in the infobox. Levivich 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, sadly, Godwin's Law does not have an anthem. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

But Godwin does. Levivich 15:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The file (which is on the Commons) will be deleted soon, as there was no copyright info supplied.— Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• By far the quickest vindication to date of the WP:Iron Law of Infobox Ubiquity:

“ In any sufficiently long Wikipedia discussion, sooner or later someone is bound to invoke the Infobox Wars. Then Nazis. Then infoboxes and Nazis. ”

EEng 02:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of expression on my user 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.

---

"Holocaust enthusiast, not an expert by any means" -> this was removed by User:Bishonen. I've explained many times that what I meant is "A Holocaust enthusiast is someone who is interested in Holocaust studies but not at expert level, not someone who would like to participate in the Holocaust." I was questioned at length by multiple editors. When they're out of logical reasoning, Bishonen decided to censor any perspective/interpretation that he doesn't like. This is a gross violation of my user page rights. I request to delete my user page to restore to what it was (taken from Meta). Perhaps, a warning to Bishonen that his forceful action is unacceptable. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The self-explanatory thread on the OP’s user talk page fills in the gaps: User talk:Nguyentrongphu#Refactored from ACN. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have any appetite for arguing with Nguyentrongphu on ANI as well. I've said my piece in this exchange between multiple editors, which I recommend people to read. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

Everyone, please read! An admin cannot just remove any interpretation that they don't like, especially in a user page. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the OP, and I don't want to make a personal attack against them, but with all the good faith I can muster this post is indistinguishable from trolling. If you have to explain many times that a statement is not expressing your support of mass murder, you probably need not to have that statement on your userpage. I support Bishonen's action in removing that offensive phrase, and am flabbergasted that someone would come here to defend it. I strongly urge the OP to accept that the statement is unacceptably offensive, and to drop this. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I know the OP from a previous interaction. They’re not trolling. They have a significant WP:BLUDGEON/WP:IDHT/WP:STICK problem. Given that English is not their first language, using the phrase originally is understandable. The stubborn resistance when this is pointed out to them seems to be the underlying problem. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've dropped it since then. For the record, I've never edited Hitler article, not even once. I've done some good work on Hitler related articles before I moved on. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to everything that has already been said, I would point out that there is no right to free expression on Wikipedia, so nothing for there to be a "gross violation" of. If this user doesn't want to edit English Wikipedia without that statement on the user page then I would suggest that an admin helps him not to edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Enough people are confused by this that it obviously is confusing. And being clear enough that people understand you is kind of a requirement. Why not just rephrase it to "Holocaust studies enthusiast", which is probably still short enough for your purposes and clear enough for everyone else? Reyk _YO! 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reyk I accept your solution and ask that my user page be deleted for Meta page to take over. Thanks for a great idea! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:05, 21 October 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.

Post-close 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.

---

• I once was on a bus tour somewhere in Italy with a guide who was truly excellent despite her only moderately good English. As we pulled up to St. Someone's Church (on which she'd been rhapsodizing for several minutes) she was puzzled by the titters that met her exhoration that we "all get out now and see this marvelous erection!" Same principle at work here, I think. EEng 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. Indistinguishable from trolling sounds about right. Note that I'm considering contacting T&S (Steward?) to look into this user's contributions on the Vietnamese wiki, where they hold advanced permissions — I've said that much on that user's talk page (diff).

1. The English language is always changing. I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the future (could be a long time), more people would use "Holocaust enthusiast" with a positive connotation. I'm happy to participate in its evolution of becoming a popular expression one day. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

2. I'm also a highly respected admin on Vietnamese Wikipedia too. [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021

3. El_C Same-wise here. Your last phrase is up for debate. You got your buddies to back you up in the English Wikipedia. I'm at a disadvantage here. You should come to Vietnamese Wikipedia sometimes for a treat :D. We can agree to disagree. This discussion is done here. Adios. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

4. Bishonen We'll talk at ANI. Good luck being a star attraction. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Super weird. Add to that the naked hostility and repeated attacks as well as the relentless IDHT, and I'm troubled more than ever now. El_C 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

More:

5. I take "language gap" [...] the same way as attacks on my knowledge of the English language [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is odd, because though my command of English obviously exceeds this user, English is also my second language (my native tongue is Hebrew) and yet I still fall prey to language gaps all the time. Except, I welcome when native (or non-native) speakers correct me. That's largely how I learned to speak English, with a heavy dose of error correction. And it's how I continue to learn and improve my command of it. Also:

6. Bishonen I do not value your opinion. No thanks. [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021

These are not exceptional quotes. Pretty much the entire exchange is like this. And just now:

7. We respect editors more here in Vietnamese Wikipedia. I actually have a more advanced permission than you in Wiktionary + admin in Vi Wikipedia. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss here, honestly. El_C 15:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd let it go. Nguyentrongphu changed the questionable text. Not very gracefully, but to have it changed was the original request here. They have no admin functions here, and if their behavior at vi:wp is problematic, then I'm sure vi.wp will figure that out without the help from en.wp. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I already conceded. WP:DROPTHESTICK. You called me incompetent and bad faith indirectly + used Dunning–Kruger effect to low-key attack me. I didn't attack you from any of the quotes above. For example, how is this, "We'll talk at ANI. Good luck being a star attraction" or "I do not value your opinion" an attack? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a one-off bizarre WP:IDHT from Nguyentrongphu. See this ANI thread about these three threads at Talk:Adolf Hitler. There’s the same behaviour in both incidents with similar themes including the memorable “I'm sorry my seniority is higher than all of you”. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I think we can see how well that's been working at the horror show that is the Japanese Wikipedia, so I'm skeptical. And I don't know if, here at en, a free pass is called for. Especially in light of DeCausa's additional info directly above. El_C 17:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, I conceded both cases. I've never edited Hitler article (not even once) and moved on since then. Why keep digging up dead incidents? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Why? Because it establishes a pattern (i.e. concerns about future misconduct). Simply copying WP:DROPTHESTICK over and over again isn't gonna diminish from that. El_C 17:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You meant my pattern of making concession when I saw consensus wasn't supporting me? This continued discussion is unwarranted. You're trying to get me blocked for no reason. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If it has to take you that long to realize consensus wasn't supporting you — that's a major problem in my view. El_C 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Let bygones be bygones. This time around the realization comes fairly quick if you ask me. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow, but I suppose it's better than El_C Thanks! Our conversation is done here. I'm going to ignore you from now on. You're welcomed to visit Vi Wikipedia any time though to see a more civilized community. El_C 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course they are attacks. If you don't understand that then you have a much less than professional grasp of English. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone incompetent, bad faith and acute Dunning–Kruger effect is civility? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me give you some unsolicited advice -- simply step away from this thread, and say you'll be more collegial in the future. I don't think you are doing yourself any good. Your English is obviously excellent, but that is hurting you here to some degree. The phase "holocaust enthusiast" is so wildly offensive to any speaker of idiomatic English that questions about competence and good faith are bound to arise. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Except, I do genuinely think you lack competence in this matter (I linked you to WP:CIR). I'm allowed to make that criticism. I'm still not sure you're operating in good faith (I linked to WP:PACT), though perhaps you are. I'm not gonna engage in mental gymnastics to express that. Nor do I feel that calling your prolonged IDHT behaviour acute Dunning–Kruger attitude is an attack. You grossly overestimated your expertise, and then grossly underestimated the input of others. That is a fact. I'm allowed to call a spade a spade, especially when it concerns disruptive conduct. El_C 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• There seem to be two possible issues. One is perhaps overestimating their own fluency in English; my advice is that if someone with more advanced skills tells you a phrase is offensive on its face, you take them at their word. The second is perhaps not great online social interaction skills, which unfortunately isn't something one can easily fix. Nguyentrongphu, you're telling people to drop the stick, then immediately following that with further accusations. FWIW, no one here on enwiki cares that you have advanced permissions on another project (and actually it wouldn't impress anyone if you had them here and behaved badly, either.) Realize that things are done differently on different projects, and it may take you some time to understand how things work here on enwiki. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  First, I wasn't the first who brought up advanced rights. Second, the issue at hands was resolved, and I was happy to let it go until this diff. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I brought up your advanced permissions because it concerned me in light of your recent misconduct. The problem wasn't solved in my view, because I and others here have little confidence you won't behave like this again. I'm not sure I'm able to explain that any more clearly. El_C 17:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've been contributing fine (moved on from controversial topic) for the last 6 months until you brought up a problem regarding my user page, which was resolved fairly quick in everyone's views except yours. My advanced permissions in other Wikis are irrelevant to this project. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. El_C 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think that this should be reported to the Trust & Safety people. It's excusable for someone to not realise that something not written in their native language is bad, but for someone who claims to have a professional level of English to carry on in that belief after multiple native speakers have said they are wrong is inexcusable. If this kind of behaviour is accepted at the Vietnamese Wikipedia and other projects then that should be reported to the owners of all the Wikimedia projects. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Changed my mind. I no longer think my erection story is apropos; instead, I think Nguyentrongphu is just being a dick. EEng 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Is being a dick actionable? Nguyentrongphu seems to have accepted the main point, and the pile-on of dredging up mildly argumentative posts is excessive. Let the issue drop. Spike 'em (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Mild. Alright. Wow. El_C 17:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Whatever. Spike 'em (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  You sure showed me. El_C 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you can make snarky, dismissive comments, then so can I Spike 'em (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay. El_C 17:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If being a dick is not actionable, we need to revise some policies. Levivich 17:46, 21 October 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.

Post-close discussion addition

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

---

Blocked per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I've made several replies prior to learning of this action, which I (unsurprisingly) support. El_C 17:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A 1-week block from WP:ANI, would've sufficed. The userbox complaint was already resolved. Wish I had been around, these last few hours, so I could've advised the (now blocked) editor, to back away from this (ANI) discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay, maybe approach them on their talk about how to extricate themselves from bad situations here on enwikie. —valereee (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's too late. Unless, he isn't blocked from his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 22 October 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.

187.171.44.114 is an active IP relevant to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Urbanuntil

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.

---

Title, this guy edits very quickly. Attention needed. Zayul (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Zayul" is other account of Tbhotch. --187.171.44.114 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but @Materialscientist can confirm I have exactly one account. Zayul (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

? --187.171.44.114 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to overstate what a checkuser can confirm, but I can confirm I've checkuserblocked the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:19, 20 October 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.

172.58.128.0/17 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.

---

May an admin interested in range blocks take a look at Special:Diff/1049981274/1049982671? Kleinpecan (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've converted the /17 block into the two range blocks previously mentioned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 19 October 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:SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning (2)

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 bot is no longer working anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shujianyang (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § General query: I imagine this has been caused by the removal of some deprecated API parameters for obtaining tokens (see phab:T280806). There's nothing really we can do, the bot code will need updating. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• See a similar query on this page from 15 October, the bot operator is working on it. TSventon (talk) 13:57, 18 October 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.

Rangeblock/global issue

Following this discussion on a racist and disruptive user, I've periodically blocked IPs that are obvious socks of them. Recently they have started editing much more frequently and from quite a range of IPs (93.142.156.26 (talk · contribs), 93.143.100.86 (talk · contribs), 93.140.140.247 (talk · contribs), 93.140.140.84 (talk · contribs), 93.142.144.122 (talk · contribs), 93.140.158.79 (talk · contribs).

Occasionally when I've blocked them, I've had messages posted on my talk page on other language versions, commons[165] or meta[166]. After blocking another sock today, I had offensive messages posted on my talk page on over 30 different language versions of my talkpage (e.g. [167][168][169]) or random pages/files I had edited[170]. This particular IP has been globally blocked by Tegel (thank you), but I was wondering if any more could be done to prevent them editing here or globally. Cheers, Number 57 10:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Davide King disruptive behavior

This user (Davide King) does contribute to articles, I have nominated him once in my ITN nominations as he contributed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2021#(Posted)_2021_Czech_legislative_election). And I was thanked by him (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=122677475). However the recent edits have been getting severly worse and this is why I'm reporting this. Whilst if there would be a consensus in doing this, I'd understand but of course there is nothing in talk.

So he goes on to remove all the sourced ideologies in the defense that 'as a member of the PES, it is a centre-left, social-democratic party'. So now we are basing it only on international alliancies according to him. He removed in total 13 sources in the defense of that and 'bloated infobox', leaving only centre-left and social democratic because they are a'member of PES' with no consesus to remove the sources and just ignoring the sources totally. This was the first warning sign of breaking NPOV, putting his opinion (without sources) over how it should be displayed over everything else.

For BSP: This was his presented way: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Socialist_Party&direction=prev&oldid=1050817866 And this is how it was and with sources should look: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Socialist_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050817866

In conclusion, he removes all of these sourced ideologies without consesus in the defense of a bloated infobox to only keep 'social democratic and centre-left' on the basis of them being a European Socialist member. Democratic socialism[3] Social conservatism[3][4][5][6] Left-wing populism[7] Left-wing nationalism[7][8] Factions Pro-Europeanism[9][10] Russophilia[11] Position: to left-wing[13]

He not only goes on to remove the sources presented in this article in the infobox but, The same with PSD of Romania. He goes on to remove 20 sources and 5 key ideologies in the defense that it 'bloats up' the infobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)&oldid=1050522420 Another experienced editior responds with reverting it and telling him to go the far-right party AUR and do the same there and see what the response would be. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)&oldid=1050523332

In conclusion, he removes all of these sourced ideologies without consesus in the defense of a bloated infobox to only keep 'social democratic'. Left-wing nationalism[7][3][8] Left-wing populism[9][10][11] Social conservatism[12][2][13][14][15][16] Soft Euroscepticism[17][18][19][20][21]

He goes on to remove Pro-Europeanism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_of_Action_and_Solidarity&oldid=1050814172

He goes on to remove Republicanism and Eurosceptism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Left_Party_(Norway)&oldid=1050752545

He goes on to remove hard eurosceptism and socialism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Party_(Norway)&oldid=1050641517

Here's an even funnier one, this is how it looks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Șor_Party&direction=prev&oldid=1050820012 National conservatism Protectionism Statism Russophilia Euroscepticism[1] Populism[2][3] Regionalism[4] Political position Big tent[a] He goes on to change it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Șor_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050268754 He removes all the sourced ideologies again, and keeps 'big tent' in description, "big tent and regionalist party,[3] it promotes both left-wing and right-wing views. The party does not define itself as belonging to either side of the political spectrum and its policies mixes Moldovan identity with support for the former Soviet Union." But because the party is a member of ECR (European Conservative) he changes it to " A member of the centre-right, Eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists Party," and the politial position now is Centre-right based on his edits. He just puts in his own opinion without any sources, and removes all sourced ideologies. On the basis that the European affliation is all that matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_of_Moldova&oldid=1050268498 Social democracy[2] Populism[3] Pro-Europeanism[4] His edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_of_Moldova&direction=next&oldid=1050268498 He goes on to remove pro europeanism and populism sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSP_for_Bulgaria&oldid=1050816675 And again.. TO him an alliance with two communist parties is only social democratic.

Again from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec_Liberal_Party&oldid=1050123952 Canadian nationalism[1] Federalism Quebec autonomism Factions: Social democracy[2] Political position Centre[3][4] to centre-right[5][6][7]

To this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec_Liberal_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050123952 Removed centrist, removed the sourced stuff, and only centre-right according to his opinion now without any sources.

Obviously, reverting all of this will just lead to an edit war, and in my three years of Wiki experience, I look at how the big parties are lined up for me to make it as close as possible. I look at, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDU/CSU, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_République_En_Marche!, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

So to end this off, I am submitting this report in as he is 1) removing all sourced ideologies and positions that doens't fit him in the infobox to only keep one political position and one ideology in. Several examples up is that he only wants 'centre-left' and 'social democratic', the rest are completely irrelevant to him. He is trying to get rid of all 'Pro Europeanism' as can be seen in this report although it is well sourced and he has no consesus, on top of that the big parties use it in Europe. He is using the justification of 'European affliation' to political position as can be seen in BSP and SOR edits, the sources and consesus are irrelevant to him. He is also using the justification of the 'infobox being bloated' for removing all sourced stuff, but yeah, I have never heard of anything like that in my years. If he is so confident, he should remove all factions of the Republican party and democratic party and see what you guys administrators and editors say. So yeah, he is doing this to several parties, he has no consesus behind him and he is removing sources to only please his own opinion. Both of these clearly breaks NPOV and WP:SOURCES as he just completely discontinues them. If there was a consesus that we can only have 1 political position and 1 ideology, I wouldn't make this rpeort but he has clearly decided that he has to change the political parties to his own will, and that's the reason of this report.

This has to be looked into, one user should not be able to remove all sourced ideologies of an infobox in a political partyy for his own will (if there is no general consesus on Wiki regarding this).

Cheers, BastianMAT (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Involved user's response

First of all, you are resorting to other stuff exists rather than our policies and guidelines, or do not actually understand NPOV and RS, as I did not violate NPOV not any other guideline because ... say it with me ... no sources were actually removed from the article; that many infoboxes of political parties are bloated (as noted by Autospark and others who have supported my removal of bloating, including the view that policies should be removed from the Ideology parameter) is not an excuse or good reason to not improve it; our guidelines say they are for key, uncontroversial stuffs, and should be seen as a summary, which is why I took care to better contextualize it in the lead rather than use bloated, empty labels in an infobox; of course, you did not say this and falsely accusing me of removing sources (we actually have a references removed tag, which did not appear in my edits ... because I did not removed sourced stuff, I simply better placed and moved them to the lead to contextualize it!) In addition, some things put in there (pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, etc.) are not even proper ideologies but policy positions that I simply moved to the lead.

Second of all, I did not actually remove any source, I simply moved them to the lead, so your wall of text is clearly misleading, and of course you are mystifying things like me saying "as a member of the PES, it is a centre-left, social-democratic party", which you took out of context; it is sources saying it is a centre-left, social-democratic party and member of the PES, I simply summarized it as such rather than bloat it, like any other centre-left, social-democratic like-minded party. Second of all, several of those articles (e.g. Șor_Party) are not well-sourced; again, Political position (as the link says, it is about the political spectrum) is for left-wing, centre, and right-wing, not catch-all, or big tent categories, which can be easily put more appropriately in the lead; if you are opposed to the change to centre-right, we should leave it blank rather than put something that does not actually fit the parameter. Thirdly, you falsely accused me of relying of personal opinions rather than sources but I simply followed the given sources (academic books) in describing the Quebec Liberal Party; I was also careful to clarify in the lead, where ... you know ... we can actually contextualize and explain stuff rather than bloating the infobox, that the party is centrist by federal standards but centre-right in the context of Quebec politics, which is why I used centre-right in the infobox, since it is a party in Quebec.

In short, your flawed arguments boil down to other stuff exists, or are misleading if not outright false, while I am at least trying to argue based on our policies and guidelines, which say the infoboxes are for key, uncontroversial facts (they need to summarize, not be bloated) and it is much better to make it a prose in the lead. Finally, rather than engage in a discussion on the talk page, you took me here. You said "reverting all of this will just lead to an edit war", except that is exactly what you did here, again using a misleading summary; I did not remove any source from the article, I moved everything, with proper context, to the lead, and only left the key, uncontroversial facts in the infobox.

Davide King (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like the the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks are at it again. EEng 15:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, I get the reference but what is the point of your comment? This is serious, I have been falsely accused of removing sources when I did no such thing. I just trimmed the infobox (removing stuff that is a policy more than ideology, e.g. pro-Europeanism, or unsourced stuff, e.g. liberal conservatism at Quebec Liberal Party), which should be a key facts summary, and expanded the lead using the same sources but with context rather than empty label in a bloated infobox. I have been simply following the policies of WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:INFOBOXREF rather than a false-balancing equivalence of malpractice of other stuff existing (e.g. the whataboutism of malpratice within infobox of other political parties), which is an essay and not a proper or prescribed policy and guideline. Davide King (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  My point is that the wall-of-text complaint followed by the wall-of-text response looks, to outsiders, like one of those tiresome doctrinal debates no one wants to read. In fact had you not responded to me, this thread would probably have died a natural death, and no one would even have known (or cared) what you were being accused of. EEng 12:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, so I got the reference right. You are right but there was just so many falsehoods, so much misleading stuff, and lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I had to write one, and if that highlighted how those accuses of disruption are false, it is good by me. Davide King (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Davide King - Without wanting to comment on the content, an area with which I'm unfamiliar, I would ask you to bear in mind that, if you're a member of a political party, you can't be 100% impartial when editing on the subject, and it would be as well for you to avoid making any edits that might be considered controversial. Deb (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I strenuously disagree with this. "Membership in a political party" is far too broad and indirect to be any sort of serious WP:COI when such membership can include huge swaths of a nation (and you'd obviously have to bar anyone with membership in an opposing political party in the same way, which would rapidly spiral out of hand to the point where you're barring most people with detailed knowledge of or interest in the subject.) It is comparable to asking an editor to limit their editing in a particular topic because of, for example their religion - would you argue that practicing Catholics should not make controversial edits on anything relating to Catholicism or Catholic doctrine? Or that active Jews should not make any controversial edits on anything related to Judaism? Or that both Jews and Muslims should refrain from making any controversial edits related to Israel? If not, how is this different? Would we similarly bar members of the Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) from making controversial edits on either article? (That would be 84.6 million people, or about a third of the adult population of the United States - and it would be the third most likely to have an interest in or knowledge about those topics.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Aquillion, completely agree. As I wrote below before your comment, the real problem is that one actually has to comment on content rather than engage in such speculation; once one does the former and not the latter, it can be seen this is an issue of basic verifiability (e.g. BSP) which I have tried to solve, and I am the one who is respecting proper policies like WP:INFOBOXREF, and the other user is violating them. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Deb, with all due respect and understanding the point your are making, this makes no sense since I am not even a member of a political party, and those parties involved all come from the Eastern European region and Canada (I am from Italy and do not belong to any political party); ironically, your comment seems more appropriate for the other user who took me here (despite me opening a discussion on the talk page, e.g. Bulgarian Socialist Party, but got no response, only reverts, and now this), since they seem to be the one to be biased. The OP lacks context and contains clear falsehoods, which do not stand to WP:INFOBOXREF and is serious.

  In the case of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, as I wrote here, this is a simple matter of verifiability, since refs for social conservatism only say that the party leader opposes same-sex marriage (as shown in the lead, that is not the sole position), and the academic book source says that it is a social-democratic party with somewhat socially-conservative views, which is not the same thing, is qualified, and reflect the region's strong social conservatism), yet I have been falsely accused of removing sources and not actually following them when the reverse is true. Again, given academic sources describe the Quebec Liberal Party as centre-right, so I changed the infobox to reflect that, also removing liberal-conservative which was unsourced and not discussed at all in the body, and I am the one who is failing our policies and guidelines?

  I am actually standing by them (WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:INFOBOXREF), while the other user is resorting to an essay, and making such false accuses is not something that should be taken lightly. You should really comment on content, rather than engage in speculations, and you will see that I am not the one who is being disruptive. I am not the one who reverted, edit warred without citing any policy (I actually explained it), and took me here. I am the one who opened a discussion on the article's talk page, as done here and here, but all I got was no response, edit warring, and false accuses, so forgive me if I am pissed off by this. Davide King (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Davide King Could you please clarify - did you use the phrase: "as a member of the PES"? Deb (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Deb, at first I did not understand what you meant but I think this is a misunderstanding on both of us. I was not saying I am a member of the PES, I was saying that the Bulgarian Socialist Party is a member of the centre-left, social-democratic PES, so we can just have in the infobox Centre-left and Social democracy, both of which are supported by the academic book, while the other user misled and insisted on bloating the infobox (see diffs). Davide King (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Redvince1 reported by User:TheLionHasSeen

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.

---

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This incident published to the adminisrators' noticeboard has been summarized in a fashion to assist with its complexity.

Around 7-9 October 2021, Redvince1 contributed to the article listed above. Reviewing their contribution as a new Wikipedian, the article appeared to have content written like a novel. Within the contents of their contribution to this article, wording which violated a neutral point of view were found. One blatant example was making use of the term, "complain." Undoing their contribution on the basis of their initial workmanship to Wikipedia, information that had no relevance to the historical development of the theological position (rather instead, seemed as alleged polemic to justify it from their personal point of view, more on that later) was purged and term "complain" was replaced with "suggest." Doing so, they haphazardly claimed my contribution as theirs in the diff which can be clicked here. They also restored this information which was removed to the purpose of representing advocacy.

As evident in the previous report--Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account--Firefangledfeathers corrected them and vindicated my displeasure with them claiming my own contribution to the article (removing biased language) as their own, to which an apology of varying weight was given by Redvince1. Being personally notified that my responses instead of with grace were becoming WP:BITEy, I alleged that Redvince1 continued to deflect from the conversation, and gave my concern with their claims of my contributions being seen as an attention-seeking impersonator account; the incident was thereby archived.

Being contacted after much delay on my personal talk page which can be currently seen, I have been duly notified of edit warring warning alongside should have known better to initiate the discussion on the article's talk page. Redvince1 reaches out, yet clarifying my allegations of polemic, they indeed stated they were a Modalist perspective editor, and then a blatant Modalist. From their perspective, the information in the article lacked information from a Modalist perspective and "logic" (apparently the article lacks logic, to which it would have been duly deleted by then), however in all actuality, there were citations from well-known Modalist, David K. Bernard of Oneness Pentecostalism which I allege invalidates their argument on my personal talk page. I was invited to discuss, yet highly displeased with their delay with communicating while prioritizing an edit war which allowed me to shoot myself in the foot.

Nevertheless, on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism, I tried to clarify that their contribution to the article cannot be kept as in discussion there has not been a consensus reached yet; their response is that it takes multiple people instead of us to reach this consensus. The first uninvolved contributor (known for editing theological articles), Editor2020 reverted their contribution to this very purpose. Redvince1 against these desires while continuing to as of today claim boldness even in this edit warring report, and vowing to continue reverting every few days, reverted their contribution to dispute resolution. Then, on 14 October 2021 a second uninvolved party, Scrollsaficionado removed a source that was deemed spurious. Having realized they forwent additional contributors being involved, I reverted their contributions again on the grounds of there not being a consensus. They (Redvince1) continued to insist otherwise. They also restored the citation that was removed. I become involved again, and become aggressive out of angst for this situation remaining a stalemate at this rate. Redvince1 claims boldness.

16 October 2021 comes, and I revert stating in their boldness, discussion should still be upheld which they seemed to have promised to continue trying to do. They forgo this proposition and continue reverting. Becoming exhausted with this issue as seen in this diff on the noticeboard, I revert yet again which allows me to shoot myself in the foot on edit warring rules which I disregarded feeling WP:trolled. Later, I add quotations from the citations already listed pre-dispute and a third uninvolved editor contributes to the article. Editor2020 then improves upon the article as it was in its state, to be staunchly reverted by Redvince1 yet again; he then in the edit summary rudely labels me and others reverting his contributions as "critics."

Agreeing (as seen prior in the diff of my exhaustion on the noticeboard) that we should both just be blocked (me on the accountability of failing to have proper conduct in dealing with their advocation and now WP:POV pushing and WP:POV railroading me into oblivion), I took the issue to the edit warring noticeboard. Redvince1 then again blatantly states the following: "I am puzzled why TheLionHasSeen is unwilling to include or consider the content with references on modern day adherents of Modalism such as David K. Bernard and logical arguments that are made by those who adhere to the Modalist Christology perspective. I am reverting this article every few days to get more attention to this article so that more editors will get involved in adding content and so that TheLionHasSeen and myself are not the only arbitrators of what content goes on this article. I am adhering to WP:BOLD in doing so." I responded by clarifying I am the one to originally posit David Bernard into that article, and never removed him. The information on Thomas Jefferson and Arianism had no relation to the content of the article, and to show that I was not a critic I assisted in providing a NPOV for Oneness Pentecostalism which on its talk page was commended for (not directly) with countless contributors on Wikipedia. I then called them out for their claims that they placed Bernard in the article again and rebuked their action for making Wikipedia a background, and deliberately ignoring those other contributors that became involved for not agreeing with their advocacy.

As a result of this, I motion whether I am blocked on pretense of shooting myself in the foot while handling this or not, that this contributor is blocked from editing Wikipedia for the purpose of being an advocacy-only account, and for their blatant muddying of the conflict at hand to cause confusion toward all involved. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• If that's a summary, can we please have a summary of the summary? EEng 06:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• New user make edit. I revert edit seeing it as blatant POV pushing; they revert back and make tons of horrible arguments (even against others while focusing on me especially). They then label those that do not agree with their edits as critics, and lie about their edits as if they placed citations from certain scholars in that they never provided. I then get annoyed at the Wikipedia's 1,000+ administrators not being able to respond to this complex issue. I then will soon shoot myself in the foot again, by just blatantly disregarding all rules since the other contributor wants to (after I acknowledged two wrongs do not make a right), because the staff are not that active as of late, and revert their POV pushing as I did with a certain contributor to the P'ent'ay article for months. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the closed incident above: WP:ANI#User:Redvince1 continuous disruptive behavior, and should be closed as a duplicate of that report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair to me! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: you keep bringing Wikipedia "staff" but there are no such thing. The Wikimedia Foundation has staff but they don't generally concern themselves with the internal runnings of any project. AFAIK even the controversial UCOC doesn't seem likely to result in significant staff involvement especially on large projects.

Wikipedia has administrators and arbitrators but both are community appointed positions filled by volunteers. Neither rule on content disputes. Your complaint seems to be mostly content issues which you need to resolve via discussion starting on the article talk page and using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if needed.

In so much as there are behavioural issues which is something which administrators do deal with, there are enough problems with both of you to suggest if the solution is restrictions on editors, it would be for the both of you. But the far better outcome would be for both of you to stop without requiring restrictions.

I'd note at Talk:Modalistic Monarchianism#Dispute Over Additional Content I see some discussion which is great. Unfortunately far too much of that discussion seems to be over behavioural issues and frankly having skimmed through it I remain confused what the actual dispute is about. I'd suggest a reset of that discussion focusing on one or two proposed edits and going from there. Since there are only two of you, if you still can't come to consensus WP:3O is an option.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 21 October 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 POV edits by Bkuhar

Bkuhar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has worrying pattern of POV edits, for example adding words to claim the opposite of the meaning from the source, changes to apparently based on their beliefs and edits to an advocacy organisation despite claiming to be Executive Director with a WP:Conflict of interest including the change of "she complained to the store's management" to "she whined to the store's management" about a woman that conflicted with the organisation that they claim to lead.

They have not responded to the warnings on their talk page (the only response is from an IP) 2001:8003:34A3:800:2974:542B:3AEB:3B0B (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear POV-pushing to me. T-ban from abortion related topics would be a good idea. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. Recommend indef block. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point, EvergreenFir--done. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Jadidjw

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.

---

• Jadidjw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hazaras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has been disrupting Hazaras for months now by altering sourced info, as well as adding non-WP:RS to the article.

1 July 2021 Removed (sourced) mention of the physical characteristics that the Hazaras share with the Mongols and Turks, added obscure citation

23 July 2021 Removed mention that the Hazaras were Persian speakers in the lead

30 September 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect

5 October 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect again. Makes WP:OR claim that many Hazara does not speak the dialect anymore

6 October 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect again. Makes WP:OR claim that many Hazara does not speak the dialect anymore

6 October 2021 Added non-WP:RS source named 'khorasanzameen.net' to support the POV he had attempted to push earlier regarding his claim with the Hazaragi dialect

6 October 2021 Added tons of non-WP:RS (www.kabulpress.org, www.radiozamaneh.com, www.afghanpaper.com, etc) to push a claim that 60% Hazaras were massacred

I did revert those 2 edits right above me, only for the user to start edit warring. Thus I created a section [171] on the talk page for him to explain how those random websites are WP:RS. He failed to give an explanation, and I eventually reverted him after having waited almost a month. Yesterday, he once again added a random non-WP:RS [172], once again failing to explain why it is WP:RS, and once again started edit warring, without reaching WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, again.

Looking at these diffs, I believe user has personal feelings related to these people, which is why he engages in WP:TENDENTIOUS. There might also be some WP:COMPETENCE factors behind this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "personal feelings?" Minkai ^(rawr!) _{(see where I screwed up)} 12:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I don't think I think there's anything to clarify in that regard. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

There's clearly a pattern of disruptive editing by Jadidjw on this article. I have alerted Jadidjw to the India, Pakistan, & Afghanistan discretionary sanctions and I would suggest that any future disruption result in a block under those DS. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

30 minutes later [173]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit is based on the source from a PDF book written by Basir Ahmad Dawlatabadi.--Jadidjw (talk) 21:24, 21 October 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:Zerbstill

• Zerbstill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• Glen Glens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

He is persistently making disruptive edits to the Piers Corbyn article. Someone else warned him on his talk page which he removed. He has been asked to reach a consensus via the talk page before reverting again, but he continues to ignore that advice and keeps reverting time and time again. If someone check his talk page then one will see that he's been warned in the past about making disruptive edits and then denied it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glen Glens (talk • contribs) 08:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Glen Glens: Looks like you are both edit warring. Think I'll partial block you both to stimulate the discussion. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Glen Glens, you failed to notify Zerbstill of this discussion. I will do so. Noting that Zerbstill's last edit was to the talk page whilst Glen Glens was to revert Zerbstill. We are still short WP:3rr . Perhaps we can discuss. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Someone who is not heading out the door 'cause they live in Florida and life's too short might want to review this more closely. Feels wrong. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Zerbstill's last edit may have been to the talk page, but it was only to inform people that they had changed the article before agreement was reached in the discussion. Glen Glens seems to have simply been reverting to the consensus version. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I did leave a disruptive edit warning on his talk page. This is the first time that I have had to use this reporting method. Thanks for informing him. I have not edited the article, I have only reverted back to the consensus version of the article.--Glen Glens (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I have attempted to reach a consensus on the talk page, however in doing so Glen Glens began going through irrevelevent previous edits of mine and became incredibly defensive. It went off-topic quickly. Based on this, I tried to rectify the situation by creating an edit to the Piers Corbyn page which took into the account ALL of the comments made in the Talk page, linking to the vaccine hesistency article which had been mentioned to satisfy all users. I do not believe the previous edit to be disrputive at all as it took into account Glen Glens comments. You have to understand, it is very difficult to stimualte discussion whereby Glen Glens is going off-topic. Please view my most recent edit to the article and compare it with the Talk discussion and I believe it to have met the consensus made--Zerbstill (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You did no such thing. No consensus has been reached yet on the talk page, and, at the moment, we have two editors supporting having "anti-vaxxer" in the article and just you against, but you removed the word. That is flying in the face of consensus, not "creating an edit to the Piers Corbyn page which took into the account ALL of the comments made in the Talk page". If you believe that the talk page discussion is not proceeding properly then follow procedures for dispute resolution. Don't put your own non-consensus version into the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I want to point out that I'm not too pleased with Zerbstill calling me and other people's edits vandalism in edit summaries. Likewise, I'm not a fan of them then going on to also call my entry on their talk page where I tell them to please not do this, vandalism. They've apparently done this before, so I could be inclined to suspect that this is them trying to browbeat their edits through. Whatever the case may be, I'd appreciate it if they assumed good faith. Eik Corell (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. Noting Zerbstill has received a DS alert for Covid 19. I see Glen Glens is blocked now. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Always love it when the OP is sock blocked. (sigh) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger - if you look at the edit, "anti-vaxxer" was included, though I changed it to "against lockdown and vaccination which more or less covers the same thing.

Eik Corell - I was reverse my views to good faith. Best, --Zerbstill (talk) 16:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements

Hi, My name is Carlos and I live in Mexico so English isn't my mother tongue and I apologize beforehand if this isn't the appropriate place to post the following issue: I recently registered in Wikipedia with the purpose of being able to better help improve the articles I can as many articles, for example, usually sport citations composed just of a last name and a year or very little information and sometimes with no citations at all. With that in mind, I set out to improve the sources and in-text citations of every article I read, I achieved this mostly by filling the most relevant parameters availalbe for each bibliographic source in the articles such as the editors, archive URLs, publishers, full dates, and others.

However, lately, a user named DrKay started to undo all my improvements in all the articles I edited, claiming it was wrong somehow (instead of offering a correction) and when I asked for a justifications he just copied and pasted some generic notice and links to citation manuals, after I insisted he threatened me with banning me or something and the last time I asked him in his talk page to please explain to me his reasons he erased the section I created and claimed in the log that it was "abuse" and melodramatically claiming that I was an editor "pursuing personal vendettas".

I just want to know why the parameters are even made available by the platform in the first place if the editors will not be allowed to use them in a clear way.

Thank you very much in advance, I hope I can get from whoever reads this the help, respect and attention I feel I was specifically denied (perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people).

Thanks again for your time and have a great day, Carlos.

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This would be the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct) to the Punding article (and apparently others), to which DrKay edit-warred to remove. Ritchie333, an admin, asked DrKay for a response and got the same one-line "go to this board" response (which was apparently enough for Ritchie333, see above). So, perhaps, it wasn't I who was "wrong" and "retaliat[ing]", but maybe, just maybe, an admin was in the wrong here. It does happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, The Exterminating Angel. The brightly colored warning at the top of this page and the big brightly colored box on the page for editing informs you that you must notify DrKay of your complaint. Since you have not done so, I have done it for you. Now, I will look into your complaint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, just to note, while I do agree about the note on the talk page, I did immediately ping DrKay immediately after seeing this post and with my reply. So, he was "technically" notified. Just sayin' and stickin' up for TEA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay's latest edit summary to that article says undo obvious faults like claiming that Cambridge University is in Massachusetts and not England, or that a country that hasn't existed since 1801 is extant, adding irrelevant details that no-one interested in and removing journal names that are required by the cite journal parameter. "Irrelevant details" is a matter of opinion, but the factual assertions appear to be correct. What precisely is DrKay's misconduct here? Neutralhomer, it is well established that a ping is not sufficient notice, because editors have the ability to disable receiving pings. I don't but some do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for help from Carlos The Exterminating Angel. Thousands of Wiki editors over the years have developed regular accepted policies regarding journal citations. These are based on the Chicago Manual of Style which is used by most academic authors, editors and publishers. You should familiarize yourself with the usual policies and you should not change good citations into bad ones. What happened it that you added lots of extraneous and often wrong information that will mislead the many thousands of students who use our footnotes every week. If they start copying you they will get lower grades. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I'm not sure where you get your information, but elementary/middle/high schools and colleges/universities here in the US are highly recommend that their students not use Wikipedia for any sources. If they use Wikipedia, it's only for quick lookups, not for sourcing anything. Even I wasn't allowed to use Wikipedia when I was in school....and that was a long time ago. So, Carlos/TEA isn't responsible for any "lower grades" and furthermore, that's not anywhere close to the subject at hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

students in fact use wikipedia a lot according to surveys. the teachers usually approve using footnotes so they can study published scholarly sources. Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Surveys". Not really a damning arguement. From what I've seen, they perfer the students actually use the actual sources (ie: the documents themselves) and not the Wikipedia articles. Meaning skipping Wikipedia altogether. Meaning, students are using Google, looking for actual sources, going to them, and taking them down from the actual source. Not lazily going to Wikipedia where the answers may lay there...if that page is up-to-date, hasn't been vandalized, etc. It's easier for teachers to teach students to look for the answers from the actual source, then from a source that may be up-to-date. Most of the time, it isn't.

Now Rjensen, I get you did a Wikimania talk in 2012 and you have your own article and you are an editor (that's a big deal), but you don't have to preach the Wikipedia gospel to me. I ain't buyin'. But we are still way off topic. This has nothing to do with students, teachers, or anything like that. It has to do with DrKay and his behavioral issues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I agree this students thing is a read herring. Whether students are using Wikipedia to find sources or finding the sources directly themselves, none of it excuses you damaging Wikipedia by destroying references making it hard for readers, be they students or anyone else, to find our cited sources because you add nonsense like claiming Cambridge University is located in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You do understand what a "red herring" is, right? There aren't any "students". There is just DrKay's behavior. We can deflect to this non-existant "students", to my block log or something I did 9 years ago, or because TEA brought up race (is he wrong?), but you all are still (intentionally, I strongly believe) overlooking the real reason for this discussion. DrKay's behavior.

Maybe the "Cambridge University" and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was noticed and was left in as a red herring of my own, just to see if DrKay would mass-revert all of those editors/authors once again. I did. See, your non-existant "students" aren't stupid and neither am I. I left that in to see what DrKay would do. He mass-reverted once again based on two things. Instead of removing those two things, doing actual work, he hit the revert button. He engaged in an edit-war over two red herrings. He is the one with the "personal vendetta" and now crying "victim". He violated 3RR, misused the revert button, misused the vandalism templates, misused his admin tools, threatened blocks he couldn't give out. Because he refused to remove two red herrings.

I'm not as dumb as you all think I am, neither are your non-existant "students", but DrKay's behavior and this group of editors and admins defense of this behavior is. He got caught, it's time he faces some consequences. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You should really disengage from this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're admitting to violating WP:POINT? As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I concur with JBL -- this argument is not positive for you (or anyone else, for that matter). eviolite (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eviolite: You call it whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, you all are still trying to deflect from the actual issue, DrKay's behavior. I know that you want me to stop saying DrKay's behavior, cause it will make it easier to archive this entire thing, bury me or TEA, and make it all go away, but DrKay's behavior is why we are here. So, let's discuss DrKay's behavior. Not me, not non-existant students, but DrKay's behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's very hard to find fault with the fact that DrKay reverted those edits given that you have admitted that they introduced patently false information, any editor who saw the introduction of blatantly untrue material into an article would likely do the same. Are we really meant to chastise users for reverting what is essentially vandalism? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Two small pieces of misinformation, which was intentionally left in to see if DrKay would remove just that information and leave in the actually correct editor/author information he intentionally removed repeatedly or blindly revert the entire thing...repeatedly. Yes, you are meant to chastise an admin for not going the extra mile and actually doing their job. Doing what they are supposed to do, the actual work, what an admin is supposed to do, instead of misusing their tools. Yes, you are meant to find consequence in an admin falling for two red herrings and mass reverting correct information...repeatedly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no more onus on an admin than on any other editor to sift through a vandalistic edit to find what's right and what's wrong. If you can see at a glance that it introduces incorrect information, admin or not, it is entirely reasonable to revert it. We absolutely should not be condoning in any way the idea of falsifying information to "test" other editors, that's just wrong conduct no matter who you think you're baiting with it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You're not getting it. I removed some of the issues on the Punding page, the initial issue, changed some things around. I knew he was still going to try and revert, but he could mass revert 4 edits from me. But he could just remove that two red herrings. Instead he removed that and the editor/author information. The editor/author information was correct. If anyone of you would actually look, all of those names are actually in the links to the documents themselves. He edit-warred them repeatedly, didn't bother to look and see, he was wrong. Just as everyone here isn't. I did that to prove he was just going to revert the edits regardless. It was an experiment and it worked. He didn't care about the edits, all he cared about was making an editor (or in this case two) go away. Now you are trying to make that go away too instead of focusing on that behavior. You just don't like how I got to it. I got one over on DrKay and you all. Too bad. Focus on the big picture and not me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm 100% getting it. You added "red herrings" (ie deliberately false information--vandalism, basically) to try to bait another editor. Now you want that editor chastened because they didn't sift through those edits to separate wheat from chaff. Well if you don't want someone to revert your edits, don't mix vandalism with constructive editing. If I've got three punchbowls and I see you take a turd in two of them, I'm not checking the third one, I'm throwing them all out, that's an entirely reasonable response. If this was about purely constructive editing being reverted en masse that would be a wholly different matter but it's not, you've set up a situation where any reasonable editor would have reverted those edits. I would have done so immediately if I saw them on my watchlist. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: No, you are 100% not. The editor is an admin, which are intentionally overlooking. That admin is held to a higher standard than I am. That admin must look before they leap. That admin must check for that "turn in the punchbowl" (as you so elegantly put it) and not throw all three of them out the window blindly with the revert button. But that's what he did. He removed perfectly legit information, didn't readd it, hasn't readded it even though it's been said multiple times, because they feel they are right. To hell with the rules. To hell with the fact that the actual medical papers list those names. The admin thought he was right and refused to admin he was wrong, edit-warred, warned a user, WikiStalked, and threatened a user with a block. When he could have easily removed two pieces of information. You might not like how I did it, you might want to overlook the fact that completely correct information remains off the page, that an admin broke the rules, and not "a reasonable editor", but that's what happened.

A situation was, indeed, setup. But had DrKay taken the time to look at it, he would have seen the situation at hand. But he flies by the seat of his pants, is rude, threatens, warns, and doesn't care. Focus on that, not on me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay being an admin has no bearing on this. No admin tools were used. Their edits are being judged by the same standard as any other editor because that's what an admin is in this case. Having sysop tools doesn't mean you have to hand-hold a vandal any more than any other editor would be expected to. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an admin here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue has already been raised and the reason for the reverts explained multiple times on talk pages,[174][175]][176] by edit summary[177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184] and at other noticeboards[185] by multiple editors. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay:: Not even close, dude. Not even close. When you explain, with directing people to a noticeboard, why you removed authors of papers, from references and did it repeatedly to the point you violated 3RR. Also why your snide remarks to just about every talk page post from "abuse" to "personal vendettas" and just rudeness with no reason. Then we can consider it "explained". Cause when you were asked anything, you just erased it and actually issued repeated vandalism warnings against The Exterminating Angel, an editor you were highly WP:INVOLVED with. I don't think you should have been throwing any sort of warnings out. This edit, perfectly fine] you removed portions of it and then issued a Warn4IM warning. The hell dude?! These are authors and editors on the papers. They are allowed to be used as citations and attributions within the reference. Do you know anything about referencing an article?

There are other examples of this, but I think this is enough. This is a prime example of extreme admin overreach, WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates (I know that one), misuse of admin tools. You should be TROUTed and thrown to ArbCom and you owe Carlos an apology. The hell dude?! You know better! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, maybe you should be a part of this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There are several things happening here that I want to separate out, as it may explain the issue more clearly:

• Most of what DrKay removed were things that were factually incorrect. I have no problem with these, nor should anyone else.
• The exceptions were, as Cullen328 suggests, whether to include editor names in a citation. AManWithNoPlan gave a reasonable justification with this comment "Just becsuse a parameter exist, do not mean it should always be used. For example there is a parameter to include where the author physically did the writing which is silly almost all the time. Also, execessive weight is given when there are 5 editors and 1 author." Personally, I can't get excited about the formatting of citation templates and think we have more important work to do around here.
• Help:Citation Style 1 says "Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style." I would suggest that if the formatting of citations is not to your liking, you raise a discussion about it - Talk:Punding would be a suitable place to start.
• In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive. (After all, it tends to leads to ANI threads like this one!) In this instance, a good response would be a polite follow-up question to DrKay along the lines of "Sorry, I don't understand the salient point in the conversation you linked to, can you clarify what you mean"? How to ask smart questions may be useful reading. That does not mean I'm excusing DrKay's conduct - admins should strive to communicate as helpfully and thoroughly as they possibly can, but telling someone to do their own homework is not really a sanctionable offence.
• Neutralhomer appears to be inflaming the situation. I advise them to step back and reflect on what their actual goal is here, because despite their protestations, it still seems to be centred round wanting to "stick it" to DrKay and hold it up as an example of "admin abuse". No good will come of this; in particular you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia.
• Do not, even in vague suggestion, accuse editors of racial bias, particularly when the dispute in question has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: First, it's not "they", it's "he". I'd thank you to get the pronouns correct. Second, I left examples above of how, yes, he is "significantly harming the encyclopedia". Third, nowhere have I said I was going to "stick it" to DrKay. I don't like to see admins going after users for no real apparent reason. Fourth, I don't like admins sticking up for admins, especially when they know they are wrong and threatening those who go after their friends (ie: "No good will come of this"). Fifth, if you can't operate with a clear mind (ie: "you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia"), then maybe you should have an uninvolved admin step in. Because you are "excusing DrKay's conduct". That is what you are doing. You did it at 3RRV then you turned it on me, you are doing it now against TEA, you aren't able to operate with a clear mind. Maybe it's time for you to step away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, if you don't want to listen to my advice, then I'll duck out of the conversation. However, I will just add that a) "In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive." is hardly "admins sticking up for admins" and b) if you carry on like this, you run the risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Neutralhomer: Here's some feedback from a non-admin: interjecting your commentary here isn't helping you or TEA, and is actually helping DrKay.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @BubbaJoe123456: How? Everyone has been coming to his rescue from the beginning. He didn't need my "help". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: No, I want you to actually do something more than tell TEA that he needs to form his responses to DrKay's rudeness in a better manner. Look at the evidence of his WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates, misuse of admin tools, his threatening a user with a block, and actually do something that doesn't involve threatening the other user. Do something to the offending user. Because when you "duck out", you are sticking up for admins. You can block me, I don't care. I fully expect it. DrKay will continue to bully other editors, you will continue to stick up for him. Nothing will change. Be the change, block me, or be a coward. You have three choices. Make one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A) Who's Carlos? & B) This is a content dispute, which should be settled at the artice-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Carlos is the name TEA gave both at the beginning and end of their post. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish to request a one-way interaction ban on Neutralhomer with regard to me. I consider the posts in this thread, which are not supported by facts, as prima facie evidence of a personal vendetta, which arose over me making two edits to WZFC (AM) which were so wholly trivial that they did not even noticeably effect the appearance of the page. However, on the basis of those single edits, he has pursued me relentless from talk page, to AN3, to ANI and clearly has no intention of stopping. His complete over-reaction to such trivial edits is concerning, as is his previous history of off-wiki harassment. I feel fortunate that I edit anonymously. DrKay (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop trying to force yourself into the role of a victim and agree to engage here what you refused to do with me even when I pled with you and which of course to hold a civil and rational discussion, please? No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations, let's just talk this over. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations": you mean like calling someone whose skin color, home life, life story, and nationality are a complete mystery to you, a racist? DrKay (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race but yes, I belong to a racial minority (I'm Hispanic and that can be easily surmised since I actively participate on the Spanish Wikipedia) but I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it; is it? I truly hope not for the sake of Wikipedia.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race—You literally said perhaps because of race-related reasons in your first post in this thread. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not? Where did I say that? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay Dude, you are not a victim here, so stop acting like one. You are an editor who refuses to communicate with editors in anyway but rudeness, snark, and one line directions to a noticeboard. Then, when you are actually confronted with your behavior, you play the victim card, say you are being "abuse[d]" and the person confronting you has a "personal vendetta". When your edits are open to the public and it's quite evident who the real bully is. You can bring my block log up all you want. I can bring up your actual behavior, your WikiStalking of TEA, your same one-line directions to another admin when he was asking you, basically, what your problem was. Now you want a "one-way interaction ban", meaning you can still bully me, but I can't do anything about. No. Interaction bans don't work that way, buckwheat. If any I-Ban happens (that's a BIG if), it will be two-way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Buckwheat", Neutralhomer? Really? Please explain your use of that term. What, precisely, does it refer to? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Have you ever heard of The Little Rascals? I'm not that old, but they used to play in reruns with The Three Stooges on TBS in the mornings. Also, I'm from the South (Virginia to be exact), "Buckwheat" is something you call another person. Yeah, it's an old term, but since my parents come from Preston County, West Virginia, which is home to the Buckwheat Festival, it's still used. It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. It has a place in two very distinct areas. The Little Rascals and The South/West Virginia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was what you meant. You are admitting that you used a racist slur. Not cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to epitomise one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing, their refusal to accept when they are wrong which leads to an inability to admit being wrong and more importantly learn from their mistakes. While I admit I'm a bit like that as well albeit mostly on the refusal to accept being wrong, IMO Neutralhomer tends to take it way too far. Especially considering they don't back down or disengage. (At least when I make this mistake I tend to post one or two long posts, and promptly ignore the discussion forever or at least days or weeks.)

I suspect most of us are fine accepting Neutralhomer was unaware of or didn't understand the racial connotations of the term and didn't mean it that way. However per the source provided by Cullen328 and even more by Schazjmd (which to be fair, I'm not sure if Neutralhomer saw even if it was before the above comment), it's a term that is considered racist. This takes into account the history including way it's been used.

Using such a term isn't a good thing, still the simple way forward is for Neutralhomer to recogise what the sources are telling them and accept that it's a racist term and therefore not use it anymore on Wikipedia. Ideally this would come forth in something like "Wow, I wasn't aware of the history of the term and didn't mean it that way. I apologise for using it and won't ever do so again.". Or at least some acknowledgement "Thanks for the link, wasn't aware of that.".

Instead we get this. As I said the thing that matters most is that they learn from this and so even with this reply or no reply, it wouldn't be that bad if we could be confident Neutralhomer wouldn't go around using the term buckwheat again. But the reply combined with my admittedly very limited experience makes me think we can't have confidence this is what will happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NBC, ABC, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and AP News all characterize it as a racist term (as did the Colorado legislature which reprimanded the member who used it). Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you think "Interaction bans don't work that way", you should read WP:IBAN, and learn about one-way IBANs. It most certainly CAN work that way.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: Like I said, if (and that's a BIG if) any I-Ban happens, it will be two way. I won't have a known bully of an admin being allowed to bully me and I not have recourse. It will be a two-way interaction ban, again if one actually happens. At this point, I don't think that will take place, not the way this discussion is going. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no bulling from me. I've not once posted to your talk page; neither of us edits in the topic area of the other. This would all go away if you left me alone. This has all happened because you approached me, followed me and are determined to push a false narrative in relation to me. Just walk away and you're very unlikely to ever come across me again. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Hello everyone,

I've decided to add a more complete explanation so you'll have the full context: My name is Carlos and I'm Mexican; Wikipedia is, to put it simply, my passion, (not a pastime, a passion; I feel true well being and satisfaction when I help improve an article. With this in mind, I created an account and never had a problem with anyone (other the occasional spelling mistake, as Spanish is, naturally, my mother tongue). I focused my efforts on adding new bibliographic sources (I won't use those which are more than 15 years old, unless they're considered classic) and trying to fill all the parameters that Wikipedia made available to me and everyone and which I suppose aren't there just for show; anyway (like the names of the editors, publishers, places of publication, full date when available instead of a year, among many others), because I believe that MORE INFORMATION IS GOOD instead of les information.

DrKay caught wind of this and undid my editions, when I complained he just put copied and pasted a text redirecting me to Wikipedia's manuals, then he tracked down all the articles I've ever made and undid those too, which to me, speaks of malice; when I complained again on his user talk page he erased my plea to just have a normal civil discussion about the issue and he arrogantly and disdainfully mentioned in the history log that he erased my posts because I was an editor "with a personal vendetta"; a smear. So I had no choice but seek other alternatives and I chose to complain here.

Now, he mentions race which I thought was not a factor in this issue, and even if he didn't know me is easy to see my contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia and my username which is the title of a popular Mexican-made movie. So, indeed, I belong to a racial minority.

For the sake of Wikipedia (which I would be embarrassed to see involved in a scandal), I hope DrKay has no ulterior racist motives of any kind, but he's the one that brought it up. Regardless of that, like I said, he just undid my edits even if it meant turning the article into a stub like with Punding; his mentioned motives? My sources I think because he refused to explain more and even threatened with having me banned from editing. And he remains rude and defiant as you can see. That's what happened, in a nutshell, and I hope I will find here the help and resolution I seek; and if some parameters in a source are not to be used, why are there on the first place? (Furthermore, when added a source with relevant parameters nobody complained and did the same for all the other sources so they would look the same).

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're proceeding from a misunderstanding about sources and templates. Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable. That's a question of norms and common practice. The related issue is that you apparently don't understand the distinction between the editor of a book with multiple chapters by different authors, and the editor of a journal. I explained all this to Neutralhomer in this thread. That's the main reason why you were reverted, and DrKay explained that in the revert.
• Regarding your claim of racism, please post a diff. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Break

Maybe I can chime in as someone who spends some time fixing {{sfn}} no-target errors, which often involves tweaking {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} parameters (and also has relevant IRL experience). Attempting to fill in all the parameters of the templates is detrimental to the reader experience and unnecessary inflates the length of citations; as a result it is pretty disruptive. In addition, and as with any work that consist mindlessly copying stuff, it also introduces a significant number of errors and imprecisions. And looking at just a single edit, the number of errors is pretty astounding:

• confusing the British Cambridge with the Boston-suburb Cambridge (as has already been mentioned);
• spelling out the UK the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" without mentioning Northern Ireland,
• Listing the Mayo Clinic as a publisher of "Drug-Induced Compulsive Behaviors: Exceptions to the Rule–Reply–I", which does not seem to be the case
• Using the current editorial board to fill in the {{cite journal|editor}} parameters of a 12 year-old publication
• Using the {{cite book|chapter}} parameter for a single-author book, whereas the docs at {{cite book}} indicates that it should be used in relation to books written by multiple authors (as is the practice in regular scientific writing).

I could go on, but I will stop. I think The Exterminating Angel's current editing habits are disruptive; they should stop filling out unnecessary parameters, and absolutely double-check or triple-check the validity of any information they are adding in those templates. JBchrch talk 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: TEA made mistakes on article-in-question. DrKay corrected those mistakes. Well then, what's the problem? What's this report about? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: DrKay engaged in a revert war, instead of actually "correcting" mistakes (which would have required removing a small amount of text), he removed all of TEA's text. He then WikiStalked TEA to other pages, issued warnings, continued to revert war, broken 3RR repeatedly, refused to discuss anything in a constructive way (even with an admin), and threatened to block an editor who he engaged in that revert war. DrKay did not simple "correct mistakes", he blindly reverted.

If JBchrch thinks these parameters are "unnecessary", then perhaps those fields should be removed from the infobox templates completely. TEA added all available information to the infobox template. Instead of working with the editor, we have yet again warned over and over and over again, insulted, and diminished another new editor to that of a child who knows no better. We have yet again had admin after admin circle the wagons around another abusive admin who is given carte blanche to do whatever he wants without consequence and the reporting editor(s) are the ones threatened and punished. When will it end?

Maybe TEA did make mistakes, but he is a new editor and English is, admittedly, not his native language. But we are holding that against him. We are excusing the behavior of DrKay, all the insults and rudeness, because, essentially TEA made a mistake. He wasn't "disruptive", he didn't "damage the encyclopedia", it's still standing, it's still running, no one was sued. We can stop being overly dramatic. He made a freakin' mistake. Maybe we should help the new editor instead of insulting and punishing him, just like we always do. Then hold DrKay responsible for his actions, actions even Ritchie333 "counter-productive" and "not polite and helpful".

Do I expect this? No. Do I expect you lot to actually do the right thing? Hell no! Will DrKay see even one sanction? Absolutely not. Will we lose yet another new editor to abusive editors and admins? Yes! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I think the parameters were unnecessary in context, not in general. Hope it clarifies. JBchrch talk 01:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: So the editor/authors listed on the front page of the documents in question are "unnecessary". I doubt they will be happy to know that "in context" or that will "clarif[y]" anything, but I'm not telling them squat. It's not like anyone who it's on a medical paper gives two shits what people on Wikipedia think anyway. They got published in a medical journal, they are far and above us no-name cretins (myself included). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Are you deliberately interpreting uncharitably what I write? Honest question. JBchrch talk 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: No, I'm not. What was removed was the editor/author names, which are listed on the actual medical papers. You said those fields (ie: names) were "unnecessary". I took that to mean you think those names are "unnecessary". 1+2=3.

If people would actually look at the history of the actual (ie: Punding) and what was removed, instead of focusing on me or TEA, maybe this would move a little bit better. Maybe I come off a little "rough", but when people focus on anything but the subject at hand, I tend to get a little bit cranky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

May we have a list of the article or articles being disputed over? Sources are either correctly shown or they're not. It can't be both ways. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I can only speak for myself (pinging The Exterminating Angel), but Punding would by my example. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in that case it's simple. TEA's version, which you reverted to, isn't correct (I'm looking at [186]). There has never been any such country as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"; there is no context in which that would be the correct way to refer to the United Kingdom. Not now, and not before 1801. Jon Stoessl, though quite distinguished, became editor-in-chief of Movement Disorders in 2020 (see [187], page 8), and was not editor-in-chief in 2006 when "Punding and dyskinesias" was published. Even if he had, the editor of a journal is not considered a co-author of a paper published in that journal. The same goes for Julio Licinio, who was editor-in-chief of Molecular Psychiatry when "Insights into pathophysiology of punding reveal possible treatment strategies" was published in that journal but is his name is not "on the paper" nor does he list that paper in his extensive CV. Confusing Cambridge with Cambridge, Massachusetts is a problem inasmuch as both have major--but different--academic institutions based there.

For those unfamiliar with how academic publications work, there are important distinctions between the editor of a book with multiple chapters submitted by different authors and the editor of a journal. In the former case, the editor is really another author, who has probably helped organize the book and more than likely will contribute a chapter themselves. They may have organized a conference panel or two which led to the book. In the latter case, they are overseeing the publication of the journal, organizing submissions, assigning reviewers, and such. It's a much more permanent role; lasting years. The key distinction is that they're the editor of the journal, not of the articles published in the journal, whereas in the former case the credited editors are the editor of the book (as opposed to the editor(s) who work at the publishing house that published the book).

To take this back to the original issue, citation templates have many parameters to help Wikipedia editors capture the many nuances of the publishing world. Not all are necessary or even appropriate in all cases, and using them incorrectly, no matter how well-intentioned, can convey inaccurate information to the reader, as in this case. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, Mackensen. Outside the academic arena, it is neither necessary nor useful, and actually counter-productive when citing an article in the New York Times for example, to add to the reference that Punch Sulzberger was the editor, and that the newspaper is published in New York City, the state of New York, and in the United States of America. The senior editor of a major newspaper is not involved with fact checking or copy editing routine articles, and the repetition of "New York" enters into blue sky territory. If the name of the city is part of the newspaper's name, then there is no need to repeat it elsewhere in the reference. And if you do add a location, be sure to get it right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: So, what you are saying is, because TEA used the wrong template, since he is a new user, English isn't his first language, and didn't understand the "nuances of the publishing world", that made it OK for DrKay to insult/warn him repeatedly and threaten him with an indef block. Is that what you are saying? Instead of DrKay being helpful and polite to the new user, he was rude and engaged in an edit war. What DrKay, an admin could have done was explain what TEA had done wrong, help him to better understand those "nuances", better use those templates. Is that not what admins are for?

Now, I have readily admitted that after I moved somethings around to help TEA out, I left the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Cambridge University" in as red herrings for DrKay (with no intention of leaving them in permanently, I'm not a complete jerk). The editor/authors were admittedly OK. I personally didn't see the Infobox book use as a problem. If the use of Infobox journal was a problem, DrKay could have certainly explained that too, again politely. He did not. But the use of the red herrings were to see if he would remove them or just revert all. He reverted all. That was a problem.

TEA was not helped, nothing was explained, and even I didn't see the Infobox journal issue until now. I think Infobox book was fine. Had DrKay explained that, I would have learned something new. I may have been here for 17 years, but I haven't learned everything. That was something new. But DrKay could have explained everything to TEA in a polite way and not just revert with rudeness. That's not helpful to anyone. It helps no one. It leads to issues like this. We all need to be better editors. That's what we are here to do, edit an encyclopedia. I think we have forgotten that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Actually Cullen328, when they are listed on the front page or top of the document (and it's an academic document, a medical article, not the New York Times), you do add the editors and authors. DrKay removed many editors and authors....repeatedly. Which I have said....repeatedly. This wasn't the Times, but medical articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, in your first contribution to this conversation at 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC), you wrote °the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct). Right? Now, a little more than 24 hours later, you are talking about two pieces of false information that you call "red herrings" that you deliberately restored, in an attempt to somehow trip up DrKay. You told incompatible stories. There is a word for that behavior and it is reprehensible. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Please study it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No, I actually didn't, if you would stop putting your own spin and interpretation on what I write. Read the words as they are and go from there. You and I said the same thing. You just spun it. With the exception of the red herrings, which show DrKay not doing his due diligence, TEA did everything right. DrKay didn't help a new editor as an admin should. No one wants to see that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, are you still trying to argue, 25 hours into this farrago that you created, that it is a good thing to add a list of the names of the entire editorial board of an academic journal to a reference to an individual article published in that journal? Where on earth is that considered good practice? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

First, I didn't start this discussion, TEA did. Second, yes, I am prepared to continue to argue DrKay's behavior until it gets through your thick skulls. I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. Third, it is always good practice to stand up for what's right, never back down to bullies, and always tell people when they are wrong. I will always die on that hill. Maybe I'll die alone this time, but I'm fine with that. Fourth, the hell is a farrago? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Farrago is a Latin word, meaning "mixed cattle fodder", used to refer to a confused variety of miscellaneous things, and several online dictionaries agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Several online dictionaries agree that you could just say "bullshit". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I make my own vocabulary choices, and anyone curious about a word I use can look it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Never said you couldn't. It is funny, though, that you get defensive about me using a thesaurus on farrago and coming up with "bullshit". "Mixed cattle fodder" is a polite way of explaining that, but a thesaurus does come up with the comparison just the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reading of my comment that allows that interpretation. I do think it would help this discussion if you gave concrete examples (with diffs) of the things you're talking about. From what you're saying above it's my impression that you're still confused about the author/editor distinction in academic publishing, but I could be mistaken. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Real quick, what part of my three paragraphs "allow[ed] [for] that interpretation"? From Punding and from Mexican Spanish. I would advise everyone to actually look at the individual links, click on them, and look at the documents. Remember that TEA is a new editor and that DrKay is an experienced editor and an admin before passing judgement. The "nuances" and what template to use and how to use it is confusing to a new user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Mexican Spanish, yes, TEA's edit is wrong, and wrong for the reasons DrKay gave. John M. Lipski is the sole author of Tracing Mexican Spanish /s/:: A Cross-Section of History. Crediting the editors of Language Problems and Language Planning is incorrect and would give a false impression of authorship. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia and everything to do with academics and publishing. María Rosario Montaño-Harmon is the sole author of "Discourse Features of Written Mexican Spanish: Current Research in Contrastive Rhetoric and Its Implications"; Karen L. Smith appears to have been the editor for the Applied Linguistics section of Hispania at that time; compare doi:10.2307/344576. It would not be appropriate to credit Smith. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: OK, Now look at this. First edit removed. He leaves some of the editors. If the editors aren't necessary, then why remove some, but not all? He also removes ISSN numbers. Why?

Also, he also removes is the publisher. Those are required, even in books and newspapers. Look at any article. Those are required. Not adding the publisher, etc. could get use sued. It almost did with the Nielsen Arbitron debacle (see WP:TVS). We didn't have the right publisher information and Wikipedia got slapped with a DCMA notice. So, yeah, it's required. Explain that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The editors of academic journals were removed. The editors of books and conference proceedings were retained. This has been explained already. The issns were replaced with journal names, which were otherwise missing causing a CS1 maintenance error. 'journal' is a required parameter. 'issn' is not required. Publishers of academic journals were removed. Publishers of books were retained. Again, this has been explained already. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you truly believe that listing the name of the publisher is required for newspaper, magazine and academic journal references, then it should be easy for you to provide a link to a policy or guideline spelling out this requirement. Please do so when you wake up. My own practice is to provide the publisher for references to books, but I contend that my practice of providing the name of the periodical is sufficient for references to newspapers, magazines and academic journals. Let's see your evidence for this requirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You lot are giving me a migraine and I have to be up at 8a for the real world. I know the vast majority of you don't live there, but some of us do. So, final punches.....and go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

...and that's time ladies, gentleman, non-binary friends. I look forward to more deflection later today. Let's try for after 3p EDT, shall we? Good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is TEA's report. Let him comment from here onward. Don't make yourself the focus/topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: you most definitely do not get to decide whether a one way ban is happening. Nor does DrKay. While your can feel it's unfair, and you can explain why you think it's unfair, it's our decision as a community of editors (generally for many of these discussions with a majority being non-admins) that ultimately matters. Although I don't personally think an iban, one way or two way is merited you continuing insisting it isn't going to happen isn't helping anything, in fact it's increasing the chances it might happen albeit only very very minorly. (Your other behaviour here is however likely having a bigger effect on the chances a one way iban might happen.) Frankly your apparent disdain for our readers, be they students or anyone else, which seems to be reflected in your comments here makes me think a better solution might simply be a site ban or indefinite block of you. (Redacted) What anyone editing here should care about is our readers not their ego. If an action makes the experience worse for them for no good reason, that is something we should all care about. If an editor keeps insisting on preserving or changing something despite the harm to our readers for no apparent reason other than a desire to win an argument, that's an editor who likely doesn't belong here per WP:Vandalism and WP:POINT. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ever since DrKay mentioned my race out of the blue (by the way and for the record, DrKay mentioned race first, not me) and because of how antagonistic he has been to me, I became paranoid about racism which I had never experienced in Wikipedia with the possible exception of this instance, and it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal). So I hope we can deal with this issue in-house, on our own, with my question being: If editors, publishers, places of publication, and others, are not to be used that means some parameters we can't use, and if that is the case, why and what are said parameters?The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay mentioned race first, not me—Would it be possible for you to provide a diff of this? Without seeing where this happened all we have to go on is that you first mentioned race when you started this ANI heading, and if anything has happened previous to this it hasn't been linked to here yet. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: No, for the record, he did not. In your very first post to ANI you said perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people (in which you not only mention your race, but also an assumption on DrKay's race based on nothing), and I haven't found anything about race in any of DrKay's prior edit summaries or talk page posts. Also, could you clarify what you meant by the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes? Votes in what?

In regards to citation parameters: please read the content guideline on what information to include on a source -- it conveniently presents what to present for each type of citation, notably excluding editors for everything except individually authored chapters in books (which these were not). Of course, you should not add blatantly false information either (Cambridge etc).

And when multiple experienced editors, all active for over a decade (I count at least 4: not just DrKay, but also Rjensen, AManWithNoPlan (here), and Philip Cross (here)), tell you that something should not be done, you should listen to them, not get into multiple simultaneous edit wars. That is not productive at all. Regards, eviolite (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I will listen to what I'm told, however I must add, science is not a consensus. Also, if attempting to use the parameters made available by Wikipedia is "detrimental" then why are they even there? Shouldn't they be eliminated? The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: I realized I should clarify something you might have misunderstood -- if you were worried about this "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mexican Spanish" -- Mexican Spanish is referring to the article you edited (as you can see by the link). These are standard warning templates people use when editors seem not to cooperate. No racial insinuation at all. eviolite (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: But you don't appear to be listening to what you've been told. The reason for not filling in all the parameters has been explained several times, including at least twice on this page by User:Mackensen at timestamps 02:13, 18 October 2021 and 02:44, 19 October 2021, e.g. "Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable." Extra details like the full name of the country "United States of America" are unnecessary in almost all cases (since the city and state will suffice) and distracts from the key information. Similarly, as was explained earlier in this thread (and elsewhere), listing the editorial board of an academic journal is unnecessary and extraneous, and gives excessive weight to people who have had no academic input into the work cited. It is also often wrong since editorial boards change frequently and indeed examples of where they were wrong are given above in this thread. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nail on the head hit by Celia Homeford, very patient and clear explanation. I'd put it a bit more bluntly: just because my QWERTY keyboard allows me to type profanity doesn't mean that it is useful to, nor does it mean that any of the keys should be removed. That a citation parameter exists means it is useful in at least one case, not useful in every case. — Bilorv (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Been around here for over 15 years. Gotta be honest, that this has been the most confusing ANI report, I've ever seen. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Neutralhomer for 48 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the discussion. The comment above gives me no confidence that he can simply walk away from a debate when he is being disagreed with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He mightn't see it that way. But, it's for his own good. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the condescension is necessary; it's for the good of WP to stop the disruption. I think the requested interaction ban (forbidding NH from interacting with DrKay) is also a good idea, for the same reason. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) An interaction ban makes sense but given the admission of introducing false content to "entrap" DrKay I would suggest a tban worded in such a way as to prohibit the knowing introduction of untrue material into articles for any reason (I can't believe we'd actually have to write such a thing out, but here we are) as it seems that this behaviour could conceivably continue otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary. NH said he hadn't read WP:POINT, so in theory he didn't know he couldn't do that. Now he knows and has been warned not to do so under any circumstance. Were he to do that again after unambiguously knowing he shouldn't, a block would be warranted. —El Millo (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an editor who's been here since 2007 with 66k edits to their name should need a specific guideline to understand why damaging Wikipedia to prove a point is unacceptable. (While technically it doesn't matter, the fact that it's IMO a very dumb point doesn't help matters to me.) The point I was trying but maybe failed to explain above is when Neutralhomer gets into these disputes, to me it looks like they get so focused on defending themselves and their edits and trying to prove they are right that they forget why they are here namely to create an encyclopaedia to serve our readers. To some extent many editors fall into this trap at times including me, but it seems to me Neutralhomer falls into it too easily and too hard. It's fine to think your preference is better for the encyclopaedia and our readers and defend and support it. However you also have to be able to accept when the community disagrees with you, including the level of discussion that may be reasonable to establish this depending a lot on how much it matters. And most importantly, you should never lose sight what matters is what's best for the encyclopaedia and our readers. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but their comments above where they didn't seem to understand the point being made by me and others that we are here to serve our readers is a major red flag to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems to matter a big deal to NeutralHomer I should clarify I meant live edits. I restricted it to live edits since these seem to be the best indicator of experience. I apologise for any confusion or offence causesd by my failure to make it clear I meant live edits above. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ironic. By bludgeoning the report (which wasn't begun by him), the lad made it about him, when he wanted it to be about another. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the word for a boomerang that seeks out vexatious bystanders? EEng 03:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Contempterang? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd call it a vex-byst-erang. JG66 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that may mean something very rude in Swedish. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's either a kind of dinosaur or candidate for the missing link. On reflection, see WP:VEXBYSTERANG. EEng 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Endorse, good block, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: despite the derailing of the discussion by another editor, you must have learned from it that your edits have been too error-prone to expect other editors to leave them stand, or to check each fact one-by-one. For instance, at both George V and Punding you introduced the misconception that Cambridge University Press is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, rather than Cambridge, United Kingdom. I can see how you'd make this mistake, but if you had a more thorough double-checking process when making these reference changes, you could have caught that before submitting your edit. Obviously you've now learned this particular publisher's location for future, but how else will you be changing your behaviour in future to increase your accuracy? — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Cambridge University Press and Cambridge University are the same institutions and that is obvious; and so is the fact that Cambrige University Press is an autonomous institution derived from Cambridge University, as the name says, I was just trying to be thorough and complete in the info about sources but no reasonable person would consider both to be the same; I agree it's wrong because someone might assume CUP belongs to CU and while this is financially true, functionally is a complete different institution. Either way, that would not warrant reverting an entire edit, just a correction and telling the editor to please not do it again (talking to the editor which is DrKay never did with me, and saying it politely, which DrKay has never been either).The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

To clear things up: the issue is not with Cambridge University at all. The issue is with the locations you placed. Cambridge University Press is not in Cambridge, Massachusetts as you wrote. It is in Cambridge, United Kingdom, a completely different city. eviolite (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A simple mistake and very natural confusion if you don't live in either country and it can be corrected, still no need to revert the whole thing.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the press does happen to be part of Cambridge University (which is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom), but I'm rather confused as to what The Exterminating Angel is saying because I never mentioned the university. Cambridge University Press is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. Simple as that.

Re-reading this discussion, I see a comment by DrKay that somewhat escaped me showing that, I believe, the primary concern with your edits is more a matter of excessive detail in sourcing (for which "the parameters in the template exist" is not a compelling argument). DrKay's diffs show a pattern of other editors raising issues with your edits. In this case, it seems to me like this needs an RFC or discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or somewhere, as ANI is not the place to decide content disputes (only conduct disputes). — Bilorv (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Where's ETA??? It's rather frustrating, seeing Neutralhomer going to bat for him & he's been absent from a report he began. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ETA's expected time of arrival is about 10-15 minutes. EEng 03:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to the OP

Folks. I was initially sympathetic toward The Exterminating Angel. I thought, a newbie misled by the WMF's instructional videos into thinking citation templates must be used ("the more complete a bibliographic source, the better; ESPECIALLY, in articles where the sources are just a title and a year"; several references in Mexican Spanish are {{sfn}} references referring to listings in the bibliography; a new editor is unlikely to be aware of WP:CITEVAR and the separation of notes and bibiography in many of our more sophisticatedly developed articles because, after all, the video just says to use citation templates) and jumping to the conclusion that the existence of a parameter means it should be filled out: "those parameters are available by this platform for a reason". See also his first post above. But now I'm getting a whiff of under a bridge troll. (NOTE: edited with strikeout and plain speech on 20 October, with apologies to anyone who misconstrued my allusive language; see below)

• On his talk page, in edit summaries, and here, several editors have attempted to explain the misapprehension about parameters, many in response to the initial query. The first attempt, by rjensen, precedes DrKay templating him. He rejects the information and accuses DrKay specifically of rudeness and vindictiveness.
• Some of his additions to the citation templates were also erroneous. Several editors have pointed this out, but his response here was to sidestep the issue with an assertion that Cambridge University Press is independent of Cambridge University.
• I have not seen rudeness from DrKay in his dealings with this editor. It is possible that the editor misinterpreted Template:uw-disruptive2 and Template:uw-disruptive3 as attacks, but a statement of terror seems overblown, and there is open hyperbole in the claim that DrKay reduced Punding to a stub. That makes me ill disposed to take the accusations of rudeness and vindictiveness at face value. Looking at Dr Kay's removal of TEA's last post at User talk:DrKay, I find "I already explained, multiple times, as have other editors, multiple times" quite a mild edit summary, especially in response to "Honestly, give me a legitimate and valid reason why should I heed that rule".
• From his first post here, this editor has suggested racial animus against him; added in the second edit: "perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people". After asserting repeatedly that "DrKay mentioned race first, not me", "I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it", he has now changed to: "I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM."
• Veiled threats to stir up a mob against Wikipedia on Twitter, or just to get us downvoted on Reddit or something: "it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal)"
• I see the username, which nobody but me appears to have had any suspicions about, is attributed to a Mexican film, but by this point I'm done assuming and need evidence of good faith. What is this editor here to exterminate?

I think we are being played. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You might have mis-linked to the Mexican film. This is what we say about The Exterminating Angel. The “comic horror” of a “slow descent from normality into anarchy” in ”a never-ending feast”. Hmmm… DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"The movie follows a group of wealthy guests finding themselves unable to leave after a lavish dinner party, and the chaos that ensues afterward." Hmmm, now that sounds familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of the key indicators of NOTHERE behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My 15+ years on this project, is giving me 'two' impressions about ETA. Either he's got WP:CIR issues or he's entertaining himself, which would fall under WP:NOTHERE territory. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll sum up for myself and state the following:

• I see no evidence of any racist comments by DrKay and I have no idea what the basis of the accusation is, despite all the words spilled above.
• TEA's edits were incorrect and unhelpful and DrKay was right to revert them, and DrKay explained themselves in a reasonable way.
• Neutralhomer inflamed and escalated what should have been a simple matter, and their contributions to this discussion were uniformly unhelpful, even after multiple uninvolved editors asked them to stop.

TEA is a new editor who got confused. Fine, that happens. Multiple editors have explained citation templates to TEA. They'll learn from this experience or they won't. Neutralhomer has been here since 2007 and has a history of blocks and warnings for battleground-style behavior. This is yet another instance. They show no awareness that there's anything wrong with how they approached the situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate summary of the problem. I'd suggest this report be closed with a warning to TEA to heed others when corrected on Wikipedia policy & procedures. We can seek sanctions on TEA if they repeat their behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My concern is, that accusing people of racism without evidence is a serious civility violation, and devalues the experience of victims of racism, and I have not found any evidence that TEA had any reason to make such an accusation; moreover, he's doubled down on it and been caught in an absurd equivocation over who mentioned race first. Since at least one person—NeutralHomer—found my reference to "under a bridge" susceptible to more than one interpretation, including racial bias, I've struck it out above and replaced it with "troll". Whether he was at the start or not, TEA appears to me to be trolling, and that's something we need to protect the encyclopedia and the community from. Ritchie333 already warned him against unsupported accusations of racism above, and he continued attacking, right here on AN/I. I think at the very least we need either evidence of bias in how TEA's edits were treated and how he was addressed (it's possible I missed something, but I found only mischaracterizations of all interactions as attacks), or a convincing apology, before we effectively express the message that preemptive accusations of racism, or accusations of racism in the mistaken belief that that is the most plausible reason his changes are not automatically accepted, or whatever it is, are ok. (I still think choosing the username "The Exterminating Angel" is indicative of a combative attitude to editing from the get-go. Even though he said in one of his posts here that he named himself after a film, presumably the Buňuel film (I linked to the diff where he explained his username; scroll down in it), the name is worthy of WP:UAA. We've bent over backwards to extend good faith to this person. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Neutralhomer, who had 14 years of service, was rightly indeffed for repeated, unsupported accusations of racism. I don't see why the consequences should be lighter for someone who hasn't really established a history of productive contributions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

More accurately, Neutralhomer was indeffed for complete loss of self-control for several days, ranting and raving about a wide variety of things, and engaging in many personal attacks against other editors. It was particularly striking to see this editor make "racism" accusations shortly after they lobbed the buckwheat slur at another editor. As if people routinely call other people a grainlike crop grown in West Virginia and Russia and a few other places. Intelligent people know exactly what it means, from its 1930s film origins to the outrageous 1980s parodies by Eddie Murphy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Pilgrim might have been a better choice. EEng 05:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

EEng, why oh why isn't John Wayne a featured article? If it was, we could all argue endlessly about adding or removing an infobox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir The racism accusations are definitely serious, I agree. But at this point, aside from a punitive block, I'm not sure what else we can do besides warn TEA. Hence my application of WP:ROPE.

As for the name, it does sound aggressive, but the explanation given makes sense. I have been accused of having a needlessly aggressive name myself, though I intended it to just be a silly play on a common phrase, and an homage to a Nine Inch Nails song I enjoy.

So that leaves me stuck at my previous stance. Unlike NeutralHomer, TEA seems to have quieted down, so I'd rather give them a strong warning and see if their behavior changes in the future. If they return to these kinds of baseless accusations, they get an indef. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, HandThatFeeds. I didn't propose any action because I can't think of any, either. TEA already received a clearly and strongly worded warning from Ritchie333, right here (emendation to 10:49 on 17 October by adding a link to WP:NPA). There were no consequences for his blowing right past it, partly because Neutralhomer was more or less blindly supporting him; and there remains the possibility his concerns were sincerely held. He's not so much quieted down as stopped editing after hurling accusations and making equivocations here. But he's done his damage, and its being a classic film does not excuse a username that gives the impression of having been chosen to intimidate (that's my concern, rather than implications of violence). I'm sure there are lots of classic films whose titles are also inappropriate as usernames. My impression is that not questioning the name is an indicator of how gently the community treated this person (who is very far from incompetent, received lots and lots of clear guidance, and declared on DrKay's talk page that they did not intend to follow our rules). I'm gutted about Neutralhomer but no, I have no suggestions. Horse, barn door, WP:NOTPUNISHMENT, etc. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Closure

Perhaps this ANI report should be closed, now. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Incivility/personal attack by User talk:Qwirkle

Regarding these posts at Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021 (unless otherwise indicated):

Revision as of 02:41, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Not particularly civil but not of itself a concern.

Revision as of 13:53, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Note that the edit posts at two places. I would characterise the second as ad hominem and feel it is quite inappropriate.

Revision as of 14:26, 20 October 2021 Cinderella157: I addressed Qwirkle at their talk page, expressing my concern that I felt their post was uncivil to the point of being a personal attack.

Revision as of 14:30, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Their response at their talk page: If that is all you can assume, then I suggest you take it to ANI. Goodbye.

Revision as of 14:54, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: I believe that this edit falls to casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

In consequence of this last post, I bring this matter here.

Revision as of 05:02, 21 October 2021 Cinderella157: Notification of this discussion

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

De minimis non curat lex. Bishonen | tålk 06:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

This apparently all relates to Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021. While I would support any effort to indefinitely block those who repeatedly generate disruption by arguing over pointless details (in this case Subway vs. subway), the claims of incivility are bogus. I'll take this opportunity to rant on my favorite topic—this is a worldwide encyclopedia where volunteers create and maintain excellent content. Bludgeoning such volunteers until they submit is not productive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo & West Africa issues

• Ppdallo (talk · contribs)

Ppdallo has caused a lot of disruption in the West Africa topic area. For this report, I don't want anyone to think about content disputes (which is so massively complicated) but instead let's focus on the conduct.

I am not the first user to notice Ppdallo's conduct issues. Chaheel Riens filed this report which ultimately led to Riens abandoning the topic area out of frustrating with Ppdallo. Specially, Chaheel Riens quoted Ppdallo as exactly saying [The Hausa language is] the second most widely spoken language after Arabic in the Afroasiatic family of languages on five different occasions. Ppdallo simply responded, i clearly did not claim that 'the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken'.The word 'popular' is absent there Okay, so that was the old dispute.

Fast forward to 6 September 2021, now Ppdallo is in a dispute with Oramfe over whether or not something or other counts as Yoruba. Here Ppdallo accuses Oramfe of irredentism and says they will be responsible for future conflict among Nigerians. Selected quote:

Your contiguous map of "indigenous Yoruba presence in Nigeria, Benin & Togo" reeks of wanton expansionism and can sow seeds of conflicts in future generations.Please take it down. WEST AFRICA SUFFERS FROM ENOUGH CONFLICTS, ALREADY.

Later in the month, more people come into the dispute as things escalate. Amid some in progress discussions, we see this quote from Ppdallo:

When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture. (bold in original)

After the many hours I spent reviewing this, all I know is that something needs to change here. For brevity, I have only included some of the more serious conduct violations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (uninvolved users)

• I find words such as “haters” and comments such as “You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.” to be incendiary as it pertains to Nigeria where ethnic tensions are at its all-time worst. See this and this & the country is currently on the verge of another civil war and collapse. So in essence, they are inadvertently doing what they are accusing another editor of. In any case, if this isn’t the first time they are being told to be more mindful of their conduct and choice of words then I think a strong warning should be issued to them. Celestina007 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• We have too much battleground editing in areas that are real battlegrounds. The most recently concluded ArbCom case notes the destructive character of nationalistic disputes. West Africa is not currently an area of discretionary sanctions. Maybe this editor needs to be put under an individual sanction similar to Horn of Africa or Iran. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (involved users)

In addition to above report, he seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view as attested to by the original complaint. Check out one such remark:[188]. line 740

He also disputes editor contributions based on personal hunch (of what he thinks/want to be right or wrong, rather than referenced facts) which majority of the time turns out to be wrong. Check out my reply to him on one such edits where he accused me of putting up a map based on Dubious assumption .[189] He further claims there was never an ethnicity called Yoruba or groups/languages classified as being 'Yoruboid' in history.. Furthermore, he went ahead and accused my person of ethnic irredentism based on a proper map citing peer-reviewed sources on Yoruba presence in southeastern West Africa.[190] which he picked another one of his personal issues with, and then went into an edit-war back and forth.

On the other hand, he was unable to prove the map dubious like he initially claimed or even show that there was any fault with it. After several replies in the article talk page, he eventually referred me to the Yoruboid languages article and implored me to use the map there (an altogether different map). An article on the same ethnolinguistic group he claimed 'never existed'. The ethnic agenda and inconsistencies of this user is glaring. User:Talisman-white can also corroborate incendiary statements by said user which I might not be privy to share. Oramfe (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Oramfe I am not here to (...to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask you, how then do you compare your statement in one of my discussions with you that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.") [191] Now who is claiming superiority over the other?

On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per yours here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[192]
Ppdallo (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oramfe, MJL, taking a closer look it appears Bbb23 handed them a two day block for conduct related issues, EW to be precise. Imho all this put together if either of you initiate a proposal asking for a T-BAN it wouldn’t be a stretch, I think this is sheer TE at its worst. Celestina007 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Please consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[193] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[194]Ppdallo (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 Here is Oluwatalisman telling his Oramfe buddy the reason why he created the multiple accounts! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[195]Dont you think that I really should sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect me to take him serious anymore??? He just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo I responded to this below. That message was not to Oramfe. That message was to Abal126 and split into 4 sections on the page [196]. In it, I am actually explaining that I was wrong. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I class as involved or uninvolved - so taking the safe option due to previous interaction - I'll say I'm involved. I believe that Ppdallo in their own mind is editing to improve the project, but they're doing so to the exclusion of anybody else's opinion and Wiki policy in a WP:GREATWRONG kind of way, itself a subset of tendentious editing. Even further, anybody who disagrees with their actions is guilty of vandalism and disruptive editing. As I said in my last interaction, I removed any page that may have connection with Ppdallo so I cannot comment on any editing since, but in all honesty based on my last experience I'm not surprised this has happened and their behaviour has been questioned. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens I never had any issue with you. You requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[197] and i provided it[198] yet you continued with your edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[199] and went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit[200] and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[201] while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [202] Ppdallo (talk) 10:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The first thing I want to bring up is his indiscriminate removal of other user edits while reverting any detail he has issue with. He has done so here, here, and recently here, damaging the ethnic infobox borders in the first two, and removing all the new param cleanup edits by Afernand74 in the latest. In this way, he takes the page hostage to his discretion. I know he is not unaware he can manually revert because [203]. The general attitude I find with this user is one of "my dispute is more important than any other changes others have to make and any other challenges others have to bring" so he continually makes demands like You keep out of the map discussion since Oramfe and myself have already reached consensus before you forced yourself in.[204] -- a consensus that Oramfe has continually denied (here and here) but he has no problem recycling the same assertions as with Chaheel Riens, and he keeps regarding several versions of a section that now contains a-whole-nother paragraph as essentially the same as 3 years ago, suggesting we could just as well revert to that version [205] in The Etymology section reverts to its original state (as it had essentially been for three years) to before your drastic edit and then we start over from there.

This seems to be where he is coming from on the topic of the Etymology section of Yoruba people: He is of the belief that THEREFORE WITHOUT THAT HAUSA WORD THERE WOULD NEVER BE A YORUBA TRIBE AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. THEREFORE THANK HAUSA PEOPLE FOR THAT [206] and it seems he will settle for little less than sections of this article being reflections of that belief. This is also correctly incendiary considering all the things that Celestina007 has pointed out in their presentation of the current affairs of Nigeria today above. His belief seems to be that entire credit for the existence of the Yoruba people should entirely go to Hausa people, for so far uncited reasons, and he seems pretty unabashed about using Wikipedia as a vehicle for that expression. As you might also see in that section [207], 2 years ago, Largoplazo noticed something wrong with that and it seems, 2 years later, I am here confounded. Besides his statement to Oramfe that there was never a tribe called Yoruba or Yoruboid groups in History. It was Hausa history. [208], he seems to have now also declared that, contrary to an Encyclopedia Britannica entry [209], There is no monolithic tribe called Yoruba..., somewhere in here, though he makes edits to the page. He has claimed that talking drums which are used by many a group in West Africa (as shown in the linked article) serve as evidence that Yorubas are indebted to Hausas since Yorubas, he believes for some reason, could not have made them, and implied that clothing elements which are worn through West Africa serve as particular evidence that Yorubas are indebted to association with Hausas in statements like The "talking drum" is called Kalangu in Hausa and they are the only people using it in the entire Sahel region, except the forest Yoruba, Do Yoruba have a history of leather tanning? How could they make the talking drum?, and Yoruba adopted Hausa clothing 100%. Yoruba have never interfaced with any Gur group in their entire history. All individual tribes comprising Gur groups are very small in population and they each neighbor Hausa people and their culture is heavily influenced by the larger Hausa. Name one Gur tribe using the Kalangu or the so called "talking drum" and what they call it in their language. implying other ethnic groups close to the Yorubas could not have influenced them, but it must all be the Hausas. All somewhere in here. So, when he makes statements like "...i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen."[210], he is making some kind of manifesto which holds that, to him, Yorubas only existed as elements in Hausa history, until they "stole" their independent identity, or elements thereof, from Hausa, or something. The only problem is that he has absolutely no sources for any of these claims -- zero shared so far!

He has recently taken to directly liberally doling out accusations of breaches to WP:ONUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV at the same times in place of other approaches to conversation toward myself and more recently in part toward Oramfe all in [211] and [212] and you can read to see if they were justified, nevertheless as one of the many things I could call him out for, he recently stated the following, ...it seems, you had no qualms violating Wikipedia's (WP:ONUS) to replace a content that had stood for three years and gradually been improved over that space of time, with a new content that is heavily biased and synthesized out of published materials to imply new conclusions. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's two of three core content policies(WP:NPOV and WP:NOR) and for your information Wikipedia says these policies are non-negotiable, and the principles upon which they are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus . In spite of all that you were given a chance to explain your edit, but instead you repeatedly went into abusive and even hate statements against certain tribe and religion other than your own, in clear violation of all relevant Wikipedia rules and policies guiding discussions between editors and editor neutrality. At this juncture, i am not sure if you still deserve the benefit of doubt that Snow Rise suggested in your favor, implying that the benefit of the doubt I had received as a newer user should be rescinded to give way to the actualization of his clearly stated goals in the Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs... section he had drawn user/admin attention to at the bottom of my talk page, while I, in fact, did painstakingly explain my edits to him which were met with ... I cant believe this is coming from you and You are not serious with these images, are you??? and general dismissal under section titled "Collection of your responses are as follows:".

There is a lot I could add. I could add to this in stages but probably the best way to get an idea is to do what MJL seems to have done going through the bulk of the discussions on the talk page, and recently under Suggested way Forward concerning 3 RFCs on Yoruba article talkpage on my talk page. Not that I have been perfect myself but the conduct itself is best displayed. Anyway so far, I think in addition to the edit warring already pointed to above, I think I have included at least one instance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing in reverting changes he does not disagree with while trying to have his points on another part of the article he does dispute thereby removing the previous contributions of others unless they return to review the page and by themselves notice that their changes are gone, and I don't know what the previous paragraph counts as but I think I read that Wikipedia policies should not be leveraged against others especially when it is clear that the user is advocating for the strictest interpretations toward clear ends. Thanks for the time. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oluwatalisman This is where you were coming from as well, ("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[213] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[214] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[215] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[216] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[217] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[218], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[219]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[220] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.
I would also refer admins/commenters to my discussions with you as in the link [221]concerning suggested way forward for the impasse. Ppdallo (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [222][223][224] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I also would suggest that the conduct of involved users, notably Oramfe and Talisman-white be taken into consideration. Pls find below some of Talisma_whites' below as well as Oramfe and my issue with Chaheel Riens:

("Hausa boys, stop trying to make Yorubas muslim by force. Lol, this is wikipedia not Nigeria").[225] Assertions like this ("...suggest that your intentions are as rotten as the edits you are making on the Yoruba People page -- If I don't see you change the title of this page to "Yoruba peoples", then I will have to call you out on inconsistency and hypocrisy and force you to acknowledge that you know you are lying.")[226] and this ("This is another showing of your hand that you are trying to Islamicize Yorubas through Wikipedia edits and forced relation with the expansionist philosophies that emanate from sects of known of your group.")[227] and this ("I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack")[228] and this ("..and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird")[229] and here where he willfully and wrongly accused me of introducing Ajami script into the content(I have already told you that Wikipedia is not the place to try to Arabize the Yoruba people or to add them to some Hausa/Arab Expansion pack. It is an encyclopedia for crying out loud, and all your post and revert are about this. What is with the new entry of posting an Ajami translation of the title to the page? Yorubas speak French even more! Yoruba will do, English will do, even French. That translation neither servers an understanding of the topic of the page nor the language of this Wikipedia version and you reverted my change to do it; this is English Wikipedia for crying out loud. Virtually nobody here reads or writes in Ajami. Please consider adding it to the Arabic translation of the Yoruba people. We cannot add every language to the text, other Wikipedias exist for that and stop trying to colonize Yorubas through Wiki. It looks weird)[230], when in fact this was his discussion with the user who actually made the edit as in the link[231]. I would like to encourage admins/commenters to read the Yoruba and Gur Group section of Talkpage,[232] as well as its three subsections for a full view of the context of of those utterances.

As for Oramfe, I am not here to (seems not to be on Wikipedia to improve West African ethnic and religious articles from a neutral point of view and the benefit of the Global reading audience, but rather from one of an ethnically motivated agenda of supremacy and foisting of identity from his own point of view). But i will ask him, how then would he compare his statement in one of my discussions with him that ("Hausas used to be slaves, domestic servants and menial job doers in old Oyo which was very cosmopolitan. Internal political rivalry destroyed Oyo-ile and the Fulanis came as the opportunistic vultures they usually present themselves to be. Hausas were inconsequential.lol.... All they did was cower in runaway refuge towns like Suleja.\ while the utterly defeated were used as willing tools elsewhere.")[233] At this point, i don't know who is claiming superiority over the other,
On the issue of the map, we have already reached a consensus as per his statement here ("-If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org").[234]

As for Chaheel Riens, I never had any issue with him. he requested for a reliable source (In a nutshell: Your sources are inadequate to support your claims, and the reasons for this have been given each time. All you have to do is find a reliable source that explicitly states "Hausa is the second most prolific Afroasiatic langauge" - and we're good.)[235] and i provided it[236] yet he continued with his edit warring(What in Hell are you up to? Are you intentionally trying to provoke some kind of reaction? Your behaviour is just unfathomable. You've actually provided a perfect source to back up your claim, and yet you're still trying to insert the inadequate reference. Just stop, please, for the sake of the soul of Wikipedia, just stop)[237] and he went ahead and reverted my well sourced edit while at the same time reporting me and this was how the discussions ended [238]
Finally I would like admins/commenters to realise that MJL quote is out of context and this is the full text (As an aside, i am not " a repeat offender on Nigerian/West African ethnicity articles here on Wikipedia" as you claim. You only find me hopping in and out of Hausa and Yoruba people related articles and that's because i see a lot of misinformation there.(When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen. You wont find me on Ibo/Igbo people page simply because they do not steal other people's culture.)[239] and it was just an aside, nothing more to it. That many kind of statements can be seen as in my quote of Oramfe as well as Talisman-white above. Please also consider the fact that both myself and Oramfe were blocked at the same time and for the same conduct.[240] So was Oluwatalisman too, who was blocked for creating multiple accounts for the purpose of edit warring[241] Ppdallo (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo, you edit-warred to keep your preferred version in place while discussion was ongoing, that was the reason for my response. I still maintain that your source did not uphold your claim of Hausa being the second most prolific, it only gave the number of speakers - which is not the same thing. However as the source was behind a paywall it was difficult to get that across to others. What pushed me over the edge was your ridiculous evasion by claiming that the difference between "second most widely spoken language" and "second most popular afroasiatic language spoken" being "widely" and "popular" - a discussion that can be seen in your link, so thanks for posting it. Once you did provide an adequate link that upheld your view you still insisted on inserting the original link, when it was not only unnecessary, but also still contested for reasons I explained above. That was the reason for the "What the hell are you up to?" comment. It seemed at that point that you were indulging in WP:POINT type editing, and as such I had no desire to carry it on, as it clearly wouldn't go anywhere, yet at the same time your behaviour would bring you to others' attention - as it has done now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, This was the correct diff of the source[242] i provided and immediately you reverted me to the very source you had earlier rejected[243] and then you reported me here[244] Ppdallo (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure those are the correct links? They show that you inserted the acceptable Babbel link, then re-inserted the original ethnologue link, which as a wayback link does not support the claim of it being 2nd most widely spoken - as I said all along. The genuine link (https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hau here) is a paysite, so cannot be easily verified.

I reported you for edit warring as much as anything else. You started talk page discussion,[245] but ignored the fact that I had already done so[246] - and pinged you that I had done so as well as informing you in a previous edit summary. As you used exactly the same terminology to reply, you must have been aware - you just chose to ignore it and make out you were the one being accomodating. That's pretty telling in itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo Your 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th quotes of mine above are in response to these of your edits [247][248][249] and the evidence I have laid out in my second paragraph above. In the 2nd quotation, you had actually just told me that Yoruba people didn't exist. And in regard to the 6th quotation, the discussion you have linked with Aabal126 as evidence that I tried to misrepresent you is not in regard to the Yoruba people article at all. All of that discussion can be seen at the view history of another article [250], the Yoruba language article. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo And in regard to the multiple accounts, no I was not blocked at the same time as you. More correctly, I was blocked back in July here as a much newer frequent user by Ponyo who has permanently dissuaded me from doing that again in the future. That was my first time warning and punishment all in one action and I quickly learned it was not the best way to go about disputing behavior on Wikipedia. This is the edit [251], all of which's changes I meant to repersist to the page. Much later, note that MJL did some reviewing on my account and dropped a kind suggestion as to how to go about conducting myself on Wikipedia [252]. So far, no one has seen repeated behavior on my part on Wikipedia. I found it vicious, however, that you asked that the benefit of the doubt I had received on Wikipedia be rescinded in attempts to leverage the strictest interpretation of Wikipedia policy against me all to the end of attaining your goals, as pointed out within the 3rd paragraph of my first response above. Thank you -Oluwatalisman (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Oluwatalisman Nope. This was you telling your Oramfe buddy the reason why you created that account! (The message you see by Ponyo above was a 2 week block on my account because I created another user account named Earthquake1087 to try to discourage Ppdallo from thinking he was contesting with only me at the time. I mean, he was lol but I wasn't trying to type up a bunch of explanations to explain why I though he should get lost; I just wanted him to get lost.).[253] I really need to sit down and think hard about the type of people i am interacting with on here. Do you expect

me to take you serious anymore??? You just used the word vicious on me on a noticeboard that is supposed to examine our individual behaviors. Hey, What is going on here????Ppdallo (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo What exactly are you saying Nope to? That was not my conversation with my buddy Oramfe, that was my response to Abal126 as part of this discussion talk spanning 4 sections. And that shows how new I was to operating Wikipedia as I actually thought I needed to create a brand new section for each response and did not know how to tag users, which is one of my reasons for not responding to your discussions earlier. I think you can see how cluttered my page was at the time. Abal126, who is also much newer, 's statement earlier was I will need you to stop reediting the Yoruba people webpage or I will have Ppdallo and Oramfe to revoke your editing privileges from you and you won’t get to edit webpages anymore, understand? to which I responded with your quote above, assuming he made his statement in connection with seeing the previous temporary revoking of editing privileges on my page. In case you didn't realize, I am stylishly admitting my wrong. Now I do believe this section was brought up about you for repeated behavior. Can you please speak to repeated behavior? And by the way, I do expect you to take me serisously. -Oluwatalisman (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

MJL, Celestina007 I would like to bring to your notice Oramfe's continued edit warring[254] on the same Etymology section content[255] under dispute, even though i have earlier reported[256] it to User:MJL (MJL, I have provided the necessary diffs and would also like to call your attention to Oramfe's newest edit[257] of the section under dispute also in violation of (WP:ONUS).) Ppdallo (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Firstly, what you call an edit warning to me does not apply because I wasn't adding disputed content. You can't hold an article hostage because you are involved in a disagreement with a third editor, wikipedia is an open resource where editors are free to contribute verifiable content.
• Again, you have the habit of dishing out irrelevant warnings and tags, and accusing editors of false wikipedia breaches. You accused me of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV on my newest edit simply because you didn't like it, which was quite funny and ridiculous to say the least because Wikipedia is not the place to promote your personal agenda. You went on to revert my edit. I took no issues with that and simply created an entirely different subsection unrelated to your ongoing resolution with User:Talisman-white here[258] so I don't know why you are bringing that up as some sort of proof that you warned me for breaching wiki policy. It is totally moot.
• As for my map, I don't need to remind everyone here for the umpteenth time that I never reached an agreement with you. This were my replies to you; (I am not engaging in this discussion with you to win. I am addressing your vandalism and why it wouldn't stand. It isn't your place to accept that the Mokoles are Yorubas, neither is it your place to accept a map that clearly depicts what it is labelled to be... and does a good job at that. In conclusion, I don't see the issue here. If at all I do change that map to use Ethnologue's resource, then the topic of any such new change will have to be altogether different since there is no way I can tell population sizes from the map, just immediate territory.-The midway agreement here will be to hybridize both maps and limit the extent of the Mokole in Northern Benin to just their immediate lands alone as shown on ethnologue while adopting the population figures from peoplegroups.org.[259] So yes, I tentatively said I might consider detailing the map further by incorporating information from Ethnologue, but THAT Ethnologue wasn't an adequate resource because it doesn't depict the same thing mine does. Summarily, I never reached an agreement with you. You can't simply pick up issues with verified works you don't like and try to force an agreement with/on an editor to suit your own unsubstantiated POV.
• Also (and In case you aren't aware), I was the one who reported you for edit warring. Before that, I issued warnings to you on at least two different occasions on the Yoruba people edit page as mandated by wikipedia policy, first here at 14:26h[260] and then again here at 14:39h[261] but of course, you ignored those warnings are carried on. I left you to your devices and then proceeded to report your unproductive editing activities, after which I dropped a user notification on your page - again as mandated by wikipedia policy. That notice can be seen here:[262]. Then User: SuperSkaterDude45 came from the notice board section to the article and reverted your last edit here[263]. On my part however, I didn't even realize I had gone over and violated the WP:3RR and when I was issued the block, I appealed it here[264] and the admins responded here[265]
• In summary, you initiated an edit war (In your usual fashion) and of course I abetted your violations too, and got the flack for it by being blocked for 2 days along with you (as should be)- but the blame laid largely on you. The mere fact that you are being testified against by multiple users from different time periods is a testament to the point that you have an unruly and bulldozer editing mentality on wikipedia articles. On your very own page you put it boldly there that you are on wikipedia for an agenda, and your mission statement was to revert what you described as; (When i started out, Hausa people article was completely mangled by haters but thank god i have managed to make some amends. I am doing the same thing with the Yoruba people article to save it from ethnic bigots who steal other people culture and then look around with scorn on those people whose culture they have stolen".
• This clearly shows that you seem to think that you have a monopoly on what is/should be right, and intend to enforce that opinion. That is clearly battleground editing: WP:BATTLEGROUND, which is one thing Wikipedia is NOT.
• Right from your entrance on wikipedia, you have been problematic. As far back as 2018 you were issued edit warnings on the Hausa people article for vandalism[266] by administrator Thomas.W and again here[267] by admin User:Largoplazo for violating the Yoruba article. These amongst others, and that has been your trend till present with no sign of maturation nor development. Oramfe (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• I am not going to lie, Ppdallo. I saw your diffs, and I reviewed them. Things weren't as what you purported them to be. That is part of the reason I took to looking into this further. Once I had a more complete understanding of this topic area (which was kind of difficult for me as an outsider), I resolved to write this report. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Restored

• I have removed this thread from the archive. I would like to see a formal close here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Generalrelative hounding and tendentious editing

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

User:Generalrelative is hounding me across numerous articles[268][269][270][271] with tendentious edit summaries and personal attacks (accusing me of "POV push[ing]" [272] and "inaccurately throw[ing] around the 'inaccurate edit summary' accusation"[273], and calling my additions "obviously unencylopedic"[274]). I asked them to please stop harassing me[275], but they have continued to do so.

This is not the first time this user has harassed me (they have previously admitted to "poking" me[276]). Nor is this is not the first time they've followed me around Wikipedia[277], although previously they did not do so in combination with personal attacks, so this new escalation is particularly distressing. Stonkaments (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment - Rarely have I seen such an obvious candidate for a war boomerang. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 16:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

+1, I second Roxy's comment. The four examples of "hounding and tendentious" edits by Generalrelative look like good edits to me. Stonkaments seems to have a habit of deleting well-sourced material or shortening and rewording it so that it no longer accurately represents the source, with an edit summary claiming it was "undue" -- and always in a way so as to skew the article politically to the right. It's Stonkaments, not Generalrelative, who's pushing a POV rather than accurately citing sources. NightHeron (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion; I take issue with the tendentious, accusatory edit summaries and personal attacks, not the merit of the edits themselves. I don't believe there's an exemption to WP:CIVILITY for otherwise good edits. WP:HOUND says: Even if the individual edits themselves are not disruptive per se, "following another user around", if done to cause distress, or if accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, may become a very serious matter... Stonkaments (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur that the four examples look like good edits. In particular, the second one really was necessary to fix a misrepresentation of the cited source. The bit about "poking" reads in context like "antagonizing" or "rubbing the wrong way", i.e., not a confession of malice but an acknowledgment that sometimes particular people have a hard time getting along. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the underlined addendum: I read the edit summaries when I evaluated the edits. They seem pretty tame. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: you can’t add to your post after people have replied to it as you’ve done here. If nothing else it makes it difficult for others to follow the conversation. I suggest reverting and posting your latest comment separately after NightHeron’s comment. Btw, there is no confusion. As others have stated your edits are problematic. WP:HOUND doesn’t apply if you need to be followed - which is the case. Generalrelative is protecting the Encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I thought I was properly following WP:TALK#REVISE, which indicates that it's appropriate to insert text with <ins>...</ins> after people have replied. Stonkaments (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

fyi, that’s for when you just want to exceptionally make an editorial adjustment e.g. typo, withdrawing a comment after you’ve changed your mind etc. Not for continuing the conversation. DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The encyclopedia is stronger because of editors' ability to notice that a problematic edit was substantively repeated over a range of articles and then revert those changes. I would advocate for making it clearer in WP:HOUND that this is an exception. Obviously personal attacks shouldn't accompany those constructive reversions. The claimed personal attacks here don't count. I doubt you'll find an experienced editor that hasn't accused anyone of inaccurate edit summaries or POV-pushing; Stonkaments has done both, and so have I. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As WP:HOUND currently says, Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. It seems like that that applies here, or at the very least, Generalrelative was within the bounds of reason to believe so. Moreover, The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason (emphasis added). Again, it wasn't out of line for Generalrelative to believe that an overridingly constructive reason existed, and I don't see how any of their edits mentioned here could constitute disruption to the project generally. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I strongly agree. I didn't mean to imply the GR's actions here weren't justified by existing policy. Hounding complaints here frequently begin with mass edits followed by mass reversions, and I think it's a particularly clear cut case of good-faith contributions-based work that deserves a mention to avoid a common complaint. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks. Accusations of POV are pretty common and although not nice, aren't really worth making a fuss about. Both editors are apparently bitching at each other through edit summaries rather than talking in the talk page. MarshallKe (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, both editers are not bitching at each other. Before making outrageous statements like that, you should read the evidence. Sheesh. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 21:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I read the edit summaries. Bitching is a pretty subjective thing, so be a little more charitable. MarshallKe (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, looks like there's not much for me to contribute here. And thanks to Roxy especially for pushing back against the allegation that Stonkaments and I were somehow equally guilty of "bitching". MarshallKe, I suggest that you remove that word from your casual vocabulary. Whatever your intention (and whatever my faults), it comes across as highly misogynistic. Generalrelative (talk) 21:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Just want to declare that I've become somewhat involved, as I've encountered Stonkaments purely by chance because I had been watching the Skeptical movement page for a while, and I reverted their removal of a bunch of quotes on the page. Figured that big of a change probably needs discussion regardless of the outcome. MarshallKe (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Not pointing fingers at anyone. But, I would advise using talkpages, rather then back-and-forth reverting. Lowers the tension, as seeing the little 'red' box appear on one's userpage, can be a trigger. PS - I always said, the project adding that 'facebook' characteristic, would lead to increase edit-warring. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation for "The Golden Verses of Pythagoras (Rowe/Firth translation, modernized)"

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 user Apaugasma has recently reverted an edit of mine.

The reason Apaugasma gave was that

" Rowe is probably more reliable than Westcott as a translator, given the latter's explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools"

By this reasoning, Apaugasma should delete all Christian edits that have allegiances to Christian theological schools. Similarly with other theologies.

And by the way, Wescott did not translate it. It was translated by someone with the initials A.E.A. Wescott was an editor of the volume the Verse was published in. So Apaugasma's reasoning is incorrect on all accounts.

So the reason for reverting was incorrect. Can I revert it back? Or should I just leave it?

The reason I edited it in the first place was the doubt I had about a potential copyright breach for the the modernized translation as no reference was given for that, and is still lacking. Usually, modernized versions are copyrighted by somebody. The Rowe/Firth translation currently on Wikipedia is a modernized version of the Rowe/Firth translation of the Golden Verses. The version I replaced it with is not under copyright. The reference provided for the modernized Rowe/Firth version does not state who translated the modernized version.

I hope I have gone about reporting this issue in the correct manner, if not please tell me.

Regards Daryl

PS. Both Rowe and Firth have "explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools." But we do not know about the translator of the modernized version because it is not given.

Darylprasad (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You should have notified Apaugasma of this discussion. I have done so for you. Additionally, this reads like a content issue to me. As you've already brought it up at their talk page, I suggest you wait for their response. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rummskartoffel

Thank you for that. I don't have much experience in "Talk". Darylprasad (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed entirely about content. I've answered the query at Talk:Golden Verses. The translation I reinstated dates from 1904 and so should be safely within the public domain. The copyvio accusation (also here) is thus entirely frivolous.

@Darylprasad: this noticeboard is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I may have set somewhat of a bad example yesterday by bringing you here after your point-y edits [278], but please take more care in the future before you wrongfully accuse a fellow editor and waste community time both here and on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Also, please try to finish your comments in talk pages with a few less edits: this clutters up the edit history, which many people use to watch the page. Thanks!

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.

Requesting an interaction ban between User:Benmite and myself

Almost since the day this person started editing this article HoYeon Jung, he has had an agenda (or should I say vendetta) to remove and censure any contributions I've made and make up reasons why they shouldn't be in the article and when I respond he starts this delusion of how I'm violating some policy. It's normal to alter edits here and there. It's not normal to spend a week constantly trying to undermine someone's output. It started with little things I was willing to look past, but it's been a week now, and over and over again. I've never come across an editor feeling the need to create not one but 2 different concurrent pontifications discussions about every single contribution I've made, as if they're not even valid. Then turn around and ask me, twice, to bring back something they removed. I'm not disrupting the article by moving a sentence or adding one, or hell, even moving a word. But he's actually disrupting it. This hypocrite Benmite believes he has omnipotence on any editorial decision on this article be it an added source or added content then accuse me of "ownership" or "bad faith" when I've broached this subject. This would be understandable if the article had been created last month and was in DYK territory, but we're supposed to be building upon something created 3 years ago from absolute scratch and here he comes with this crab barrel mentality every time the article expands practically beyond his own edits. It's frankly weird. Personally I'm glad to see that the article has evolved from the 137 or so words it began with in 2018, to now being C class and people actually wanting to read it and finally having a great wealth of sources for editors to use. Do you see me wielding a fictional red marker? Anyway, I've grown tired. Interaction ban. Trillfendi (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history and talk page, it looks like there are some content disputes going on which Trillfendi is making personal via assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks. e.g. "It must be tiresome being so pedantic, but remember it's not about you: it's for the interested reader's knowledge." Even this post is pretty pointed, in that it accuses Benmite of "delusion" and "pontification". The claim that This hypocrite Benmite believes he has omnipotence on any editorial decision on this article is contradicted by the fact that Benmite seems to be very patiently trying to initiate discussions of content disagreements at Talk:HoYeon Jung. Colin M (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

So, someone has finally challenged Trillfendi's claim to ownership of all of our articles about the fashion industry. I can't claim to know who is right here, but I do know that it's a healthy thing that that challenge has occurred. Such a large area of human endeavour shouldn't be dominated by just one editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I'd like to be pointed to any instance in the past 5 years where I "claim ownership of all our articles about the fashion industry" (at least stretch before a reach like that, good Lord). 2 years ago I'm told I make articles for "obscure" models.... Having the initiative to create models' articles isn't "claiming ownership of all our articles about the fashion industry". I don't get paid a dime for any of them, so in what way am I actually profiting of any of this? The only reason you call it "domination" is that I'm seemingly the only person, who has stuck around long enough (5 years since Van Rompaey) to keep creating these pages or routinely update them, partly because of Wikipedia's known, multifaceted gender bias problem; anyone else has the ability to do the same if that's what they want to do with their free time. Even you. But I do find it preposterous when Wikipedia editors who can't even tell you what board is which, what poaching is, why an exclusive matters, why one cover is more important than the other, etc. have so much to say about how I edit the subject of fashion on here. That's when I start getting dogmatic. Trillfendi (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Anyway, I've grown tired. Interaction ban." Yeah...that's not remotely how this works. The community only issues bans where significant violations of policy, leading to ongoing disruption, are taking place and the ban is necessary to arrest that disruption. Having just reviewed the article edit history and talk page discussion in some detail, I see absolutely no indication of policy violations or behavioural issues on the part of Benmite. On the contrary, it seems to me that they have followed a scrupulously civil and (wiki-)professional approach in all discussion on that talk page, avoiding personalization of discussion and keeping their commentary focused on sources and policy. All of which belays the rather strong speculation you make in your complaint here (with pretty absolute rejection of WP:AGF) that they have been "pursuing a vendetta against you from day one" for....reasons? Indeed, I think that accusation, based on what I am seeing on that talk page, is saying a bit more about your own approach to the dispute than it is about Benmite's, especially in light of the fact that your own posture has been somewhat less than perfectly collaborative in some instances. And not for nothing, but I note that at least one other editor, unconnected with this dispute, has reached out to you on your talk page in the last week to ask that you adopt a less aggressive tone on that particular TP.

Furthermore, even if we were in a scenario where the community was likely to endorse your perspective on the dispute there, IBANs represent a particularly situational sanction that really only works in certain contexts. Here we have two editors at a loggerheads over multiple editorial questions, which have seen no consensus as yet on the talk page. How would that situation be improved by making the both of you unable to communicate directly while you remain in fundamental disagreement about the content in dispute? Are you volunteering to leave the article or avoid all edits pertaining to the disputes? Because if you were just planning on getting the IBAN and then having it shield all of your edits from "interference" from Benmite, that's clearly not feasible: that would make the IBAN imminently subject to abuse and gamesmanship from both sides. Efforts towards consensus would be further complicated (not aided), and the virtually unavoidable calls for action on the IBAN from two editors still looking to engage at cross purposes would constitute increased disruption for the community, not reduced.

Let's be clear: from all indication on that article, this is essentially a straightforward content dispute, and yet you've come here asking the community to take the extraordinary action of a ban to resolve those matters without having made even the most rudimentary of efforts to avail yourself of the numerous community processes that are available to you to break any deadlocks in opinion: you haven't opened or proposed an WP:RfC on any content question, you haven't sought help at WP:DRN, you haven't requested input on a WikiProject or policy talk page, or put the questions regarding the sources to WP:RSN. You haven't so much as asked for a single WP:3O. All of these are steps that you should have contemplated before coming here to ask that the ban hammer be wielded to resolve a nexus of disputes that could easily be addressed through normal community consensus and dispute resolution processes.

I'll be blunt: I see very little likelihood that the community will endorse your claim that you are being hounded here, when the entire dispute has been contained to a single article and its talk page, over a very short period of time, with the other editor completely avoiding commentary about you, keeping their opinion focused on the content issues. This is my rather strong take on the matter as an uninvolved editor with no previous experience of the dispute, the article, or the parties involved, who is reviewing the matter de novo, as it were. So I would very seriously consider a different tact on this dispute: if you are as certain as you seem to be that you have the right end of the policy stick on these issues (and I'm not certain you should be, but that's a question not fit for ANI), then you should be seeking additional community input on the questions and building WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for your preferred approach on the talk page through sound policy arguments--not attempting to shut down another editor's ability to engage with you on those questions, just because they happen to critical of your approach on multiple editorial points, but have not in any way violated policy or collaborative principles in disagreeing with you. I can't see any realistic chance of an IBAN being implemented here under the current facts. Unless of course you want a unilateral one against your ability to engage with Benmite: I'm sure if you want an !vote on that, you'd be indulged: this situation already has strong shades of WP:BOOMERANG, frankly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: The move discussion currently in place was needed out of protection for the article. I have yet to see any contribution I have made require an RFC, whatsoever (but if you do, let me know). I do find the "every day removing someone's contributions after I edited the page" charade very strange. User Benmite seems to be the only one who has a problem with each individual thing and instead of "talking it out", finds reasons to rebuke them. Simple shit like moving a reference in a sentence is a problem to him. Mind you, all I did was move a sentence for this to have been precipitated. Trillfendi (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

A 1-way IBAN on the creator of this thread would be a neat example of poetic justice. Unfortunately I doubt it would be the best way to address this issue. For starters, an IBAN is meant to be a preventative measure. Given that this dispute appears to be limited to one article and short in duration, I don't see how an IBAN would be very helpful. That being said, I'd like to see a short-term block (like 24 hours?) for civility and wasting time at AN/I. The comments directed at Benmite such as "It must be tiresome being so pedantic, but remember it's not about you" [279] or the messages on the talk page of HoYeon Jung are wild. [280] Saying that someone doesn't "know shit about fashion" is sort of uncivil regardless of the truthfulness of such. Likewise with phrases such as "get your lies in order" and whatever else.

Speaking directly to Trillfendi now, I get that it's a heated discussion and you didn't feel that you were getting anywhere. That's exactly the time when you need to get outside opinions and input so you can resolve the dispute. It's necessary to recognize when you're not going to come to a compromise by debating with another editor and go get a third opinion or start an RfC. I'm directing the brunt of these comments at you because you started this thread, but Benmite also shares the responsibility for resolving the disputes, especially when they acknowleged "At this point, I'm just repeating myself" in the thread on the talk page. This whole thread could've likely been avoided if either of you took the initiative to seek a third opinion or start an RfC. The point of an RfC is to resolve disputes in a clear manner. You start the RfC, put in your reasoning, wait 30 days, and the issue is settled.

While you've done an excellent job at more or less single-handedly creating much of Wikipedia's coverage on fashion, you've also clearly not had many content disputes with other editors. As you've said yourself, Wikipedia has systemic bias and there's a lack of fashion editors relative to other subjects. You're the only person willing to stick around. But at the same time, for the systemic bias to actually be addressed, there needs to be more editors interested in fashion. Eventually you will have content disputes with those editors and you will have to resolve your differences with dispute resolution. Right now though, your behaviour at Talk:HoYeon Jung is the kind of behaviour that actively drives editors away from editing Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chess: And no one finds it a waste of time to just hang out on this page without any administrative usership? It's kinda sycophantic. The primary reason I haven't taken the formal route of doing an RFC over moving one sentence is that only one person has a problem with it because it contradicts his edit. That's the crazy part. He adds trivia, I dare attempt to build upon or substantiate it and he has a problem with it. I move a reference and he has a problem with it. A magazine says the subject is and he thinks this information is worthless because another magazine didn't say so. No one else. After 8 days of that one would just start to get pissed. If other editors had a problem with my contributions then I'd likely do an RFC about it. But making multiple 4 paragraph diatribes because I moved one sentence is ludicrous. The only person who was engaged in it is himself which is how I know my edits were not out of pocket. And for someone to have all these "problems" with an article they just started editing 3 days prior is illogical.

So am I mean? Sure, I guess. But it's coming from years of frustration having to defend the hard work carrying this on my back. If I don't put my foot down, editors will get away with trying to delete an article like Birgit Kos. I had the foresight to create an article for a girl in a Sephora ad (Jung), not because it would one day get a million views, but because I knew even back then it didn't have to take a tv show to make her notable... just to get accused of "ownership". And when I speak on it I'm called "begging for mercy"? I'm not the reason I'm the predominant fashion editor of Wikipedia's fashion area (and I do challenge my critics to make just one article. If I'm "dominating" and "owning all our articles" then give me an assist. Pick up a shovel! It's not just models who need articles or regular updates. Magazine editors, casting directors, photographers, businesspeople besides billionaire owners, products, etc. all need them too). The people that keep up with all the Vogue covers or check what models switched to which agency in what market this month or know what shoe dropped which season or what movie star wore what when, would rather do it on social media than an encyclopedia, on top of learning how to make an article. Trillfendi (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't come to AN/I very often, otherwise you'd know it's an "administrator's noticeboard" in name only. Admins don't decide to unilaterally impose interaction bans except in subjects under discretionary sanctions (where they discuss at WP:AE). There has to be a community consensus for the IBAN and that comes from discussion here.

You also note that there's "no other editors that have a problem". That's why you start an RfC for other editors to come and validate who is right. You're phrasing this like you're a legionnaire holding back the barbarians from pillaging Rome. That's not what this is, you and Benmite are just refusing to use the established processes that already exist for dealing with the exact issue you are having. You didn't have to argue with Benmite for 8 days, you could've started an RfC after 2 days when it became clear the discussion wasn't going anywhere and avoided becoming infuriated. But you've started this AN/I while being mean & aggressive about the issue and you're going to get a WP:BOOMERANG because of that.

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars contains a list of disputes of far less importance that have had far more discussions on them, most notably Star Trek Into Darkness/Star Trek into Darkness which has had so much controversy & lengthy paragraphs over the capitalization of the word "into" that it made the news several times. The point I am making is that disputes over inane problems are very common on Wikipedia. You are not the first to encounter the problem of feeling that a less informed editor that doesn't know what they're talking about is nitpicking your work.

You can either accept this fact and use dispute resolution like everyone else or you can continue to act like the rules don't apply to you and be blocked. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Trillfendi, since multiple editors have said as much here, and your user page seems to support the assertion, I'm just going to assume that it's true that you are one of our most productive editors in the area of fashion on the project, if not the single most active such contributor of recent years. It's certainly clear that you at least believe that, and I see no reason to argue the point. But what you must understand is that this fact does not, in even the slightest fashion, impart to you some sort of special credentials, even with regard to the articles you have created. You seem to believe that your proven devotion to this area establishes that your perspective should be granted some special authority. I'm sorry, but that's just not so. In any discrete dispute on this project, nobody is meant to get any advantage except that which they garner by way of a solid argument about the content, the sources, and the application of this community's consensus policies. In fact, it is in precisely the areas we feel a particular attachment towards that we should show an extra level of self-scrutiny of our perspectives and restraint in the face of conflict.

That said, what I really think we need to focus on here is another concern that this whole situation has raised. Because it seems to me that Chess has hit the nail precisely on the head when they observe that your operation in this partial vacuum of significant collaboration seems to have left your understanding of some critical policy areas, regarding both content matter and behavioural expectations/dispute resolution significantly and problematically underdeveloped. You seem to have very little understanding of how to handle editorial conflicts, and lacking an understanding of how unencumbered your efforts in the largely vacant fashion editorial sphere have been, you are now reacting to rather mundane editorial disputes in a manner that you would probably have already learned is completely unacceptable, had you been contributing all this time in more heavily trafficked and/or dispute-prone areas. Putting aside all other concerns that have been raised in this thread, here are some examples from just your last post--some of these misunderstandings regard nuanced procedures, but a lot of it is also stuff that I would say can be fairly described as "Wikipedia 101", which you need to come to grips with immediately if you want to contribute here, particularly if you are going to do so solely in an area you feel so passionately about:

"And no one finds it a waste of time to just hang out on this page without any administrative usership? It's kinda sycophantic."

You're betraying a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of the very process you are trying to invoke here. Not only is this page a community forum in which community members are meant to contribute irrespective of the level of their privileges, but the specific sanction you have requested is a community ban: IBANs are virtually always applied as the result of a community motion. In fact, to my knowledge, no IBAN has ever been applied under the authority of an individual community member operating in an administrative capacity. I can't say for certain it has never happened, and there is no community consensus stating that it's verboten, but most admins would not feel comfortable making such a pronouncement without community consensus first. So the "sycophants" you are talking about are the people you are meant to be making your case to, if you make such an extraordinary request as an IBAN with editor you are the middle of an editorial dispute with on a single article. And I'm afraid the sycophants don't really see the problem as residing with the person who came here to report...

"The primary reason I haven't taken the formal route of doing an RFC over moving one sentence is that only one person has a problem with it because it contradicts his edit."

In a word: tough. The process that governs here is WP:BRD: as the editor looking to introduce content or a change, the WP:ONUS is upon you to gain consensus for that edit if it is challenged. If gaining consensus is impractical because of a small number of active editors on the article and talk page, then we have processes by which you can summon additional perspectives. You don't just get to ignore those requirements and best practice because you feel you are being put to too much effort based on how certain you are that you are "really, really right" about the subject and are best positioned to decide what is right for the article based upon previous work on it. Do we really need to explain why a project that runs off the backs of millions of people of disparate backgrounds and perspectives needs to have a consensus-based approach, rather than accepting arguments from authority? Knowledge of the subject matter is the value that you are bringing to this project. But understanding of our content and sourcing policies is the more critical piece in an editorial dispute--which, frankly, is where you are running into trouble on that talk page in the first instance. And even having both sources of knowledge will avail you (and us, and the project, and the reader) absolute nothing without your also understanding how to engage in a discussion here without resorting to personalizing the debate, thus burning bridges where you might very well be building them.

"And for someone to have all these "problems" with an article they just started editing 3 days prior is illogical."

Why? What makes you think that is the least bit uncommon or unexpected on this project? People arrive at articles at different times, and aside from some niche WP:STYLEVAR matters, being there before or after another editor imbues absolutely no implicit preference for one party's preferred approach, nor extra weight to their arguments.

"So am I mean? Sure, I guess."

I don't think we would frame the problem here as being that you are "mean", so much as "non-collaborative, dipping increasingly into uncivil and maybe even disruptive behaviour", and all of it further complicated by a lot of WP:IDHT. Look, frustration is part and parcel with this project: feeling it doesn't abrogate you of your responsibility to follow policies and community standards. If you are getting to the point where you are saying something "mean", it's probably not the moment to be contributing anything to the discussion at all, but rather taking a breather to make sure you come at the situation cool as cucumber--which, incidentally, aside from keeping you from inflaming things with a fellow editor with whom you are in dispute, also is the approach that is most likely to win over other editors on the underlying content issue. You're not the only editor who works in areas which try ones patience. You're not even the only editor whose patience gets tried regularly by issues relating to women's representation on this project, trust me on that. But this project provides you with many tools to seek help and break through those problems. They don't always work flawlessly, but they are a great deal more effective than the strategies you are leaning into right now, I assure you.

"If I'm "dominating" and "owning all our articles" then give me an assist. Pick up a shovel!"

Two thoughts occur here. First off, no one is required to contribute any amount of work to any particular discrete content area in order to insist that you follow community consensus on editorial procedure and collaborative principles. Second, it seems to me this kind of help is exactly what Benmite has been attempting to provide. But then, given your following comments:

"It's not just models who need articles or regular updates. Magazine editors, casting directors, photographers, businesspeople besides billionaire owners, products, etc. all need them too)."

If by this you mean there are plenty of other fashion topics out there and people should just go work on them and leave you in peace on your fashion articles, that's just not how this project works. Volunteers choose where to focus their energies and if it happens to be on an article you created/were at first where you feel that they are stepping on your toes, that's just something you are going to have to learn to live and cope with--and all the more so if you get your (I presume genuine) wish that more editors move into this area with you. In many ways, you seem to have operated with some degree of freedom in this area by virtue of the lack of contributors, but you can't count on that always being the case, and I dare say you are learning some important things here about how this project operates, both as regards content requirements and dispute resolution.

Or at least, you are in a position to learn those things. At the moment, you're instead adopting an air of superiority and/or profound close-mindedness with pretty much everyone you are interacting with. Both at the first level of conflict on the talk page, and now with everyone here who is refusing to validate your assessment that the other editor(s) you are having run-ins with are not just the problem, but in fact are "harassing" you. Everyone here who has looked into those accusations has provided you with feedback that you: 1) have failed to supply evidence of compelling indicators that this is in fact what is going on; 2) that your presumptions actually seem to be an indication of failure to WP:AGF on the motives of other editors where there are abundant alternative explanations for their comments; and 3) that your own conduct has actually been subpar when it comes to civility and collaborativeness in the face of differences of opinion on editorial issues. We all arrived independently at some variation of those conclusions from our own un-involved review of the circumstances, and without Benmite benefiting from supplying so much as a single word in their own defense. I must tell you, that's not typically how things play out here. The uniformity of the feedback you are getting here from un-involved parties, despite you having the benefit of framing the situation with your complaint, ought to be taken as an indicator that you have problems here that need addressing, quite separate from any other contributor's conduct. I'm not saying that we don't get editors who do get fixated on other editors inappropriately here. Nor am I saying that Benmite's approach was ideal in every little detail, but a detailed review of the situation by several of your fellow community members has consistently arrived at the conclusion that Benmite's behaviour in your editorial dispute was not especially atypical or problematic, and that some of your own conduct suggests the need for self-reflection on your part.

So it's your choice if you want to continue to keep your head down and charge forward with your accusations that this all about you being mistreated and misunderstood, embracing a turtled-up WP:IDONTHEARTHAT approach, but I'm telling you that each of your comments here so far is only really serving to undermine confidence that you can contribute non-disruptively in your chosen areas of focus and moving you increasingly towards a boomerang sanction of some fashion. I would advise you instead recognize when to cut your loses, go back to the talk page, talk out the issues you can, RfC the ones you can't, and then live with the consensus results. The alternative to adopting this as your standard initial approach in situations such as that which brought you here, is to get into so many unnecessary arguments that you eventually convince the community that you need to be removed from the very area you have worked so hard to develop. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

System-gaming WP:HOUNDING and personal attacks from user who claimed he was stopping

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.

---

Me and Bkatcher had a dispute back on the 19th of September (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bkatcher ) in which we agreed to a detente. Ever since then he’s made a series of talk page edits to various users he agrees with (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Renewal6, User talk:Tiredmeliorist, User talk:76.11.71.40, User talk:86.144.76.56), which he all but admitted were meant as subtle digs on me on Chicdat’s talk page (referring to me as “DB”, he says: “I've been talking to a lot of users about his attitude.”, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicdat). He then sarcastically pretended he was “actually” talking about DB Cooper when I called him out. This is basically WP:HOUNDING that deliberately tries to avoid “naming names” to get around WP:NPA and I’m not amused by it. Dronebogus (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here. There is a larger concern here. Bkatcher is WP:Canvassing, and suppression of their email address may be necessary: [281] [282] [283] MarshallKe (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • And that. I guess I should have added that, it’s kind of obvious. I’ve warned Bkatcher, though it’s unlikely to do anything. Dronebogus (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• On first looking at MarshallKe's diffs I assumed that Bkatcher must be a naughty child who we should simply ask to come back in a few years, but I then saw that they have been editing since 2004. Some people just never seem to grow up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Nearly 23,000 edits as well. I'm a librarian and I give workshops on the importance of Wikipedia as an education tool (a very unpopular opinion in library circles, I might add). Bkatcher (talk) 16:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • All that and you still invite people to talk about someone behind the bike sheds where teacher can't see you instead of behaving like an adult and having an open conversation. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, perhaps I channeled my inner eight year old there. In my defense, I was attempting to take the conversation to a non wiki platform, and this is my first Admin notice in 17 years. In my defense, I mentioned no one by name in a single one of those instances. But (and I know I sound like a philandering husband asking for one last chance here) I will give it a rest. Unless DB would like to officially become arch-enemies? That could kind of be a blast. Think of it! We could be like Bond and Goldfinger! (I get to be Bond). Holmes and Moriarty! Mr. Pibb and Dr. Pepper! A rivalry for all times! What do you say, DB? You have my e-mail. Bkatcher (talk)
        • Attempting to take a content discussion off-wiki is a bad move and a strong sign that you are attempting to subvert the consensus process by excluding the wider community. Users have been banned for long periods of time for doing exactly what you have done. MarshallKe (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Then I shan't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkatcher (talk • contribs) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• As an uninvolved editor, Bkatcher's sarcastic non apology is probably more enlightening as to their attitude than any of these diffs here. What's even the point of challenging DB to be an archenemy of yours? DB obviously just wants to edit but Bkatcher wants to start fights with Dronebogus and provoke them. I'll also note that this isn't Bkatcher's "first Admin notice", so to speak, given they were just here a month ago and was already warned about insulting Dronebogus. [284] Convenient that they left that out. I agree with the philandering husband metaphor and would like to see a metaphorical "restraining order" in response, i.e. a 1-way interaction ban. At this point this is the second instance of harassment and Bkatcher has shown no remorse whatsoever. If we let Bkatcher off with no action here they're not going to listen to what we have to say. They're just going to continue to harass DB and try to needle them with bullshit like this. 1-way IBAN and a temporary block for JUST the harassing behaviour because we need to nip this in the bud before it gets worse. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey, c'mon, you're scaring me here. I'll leave DB alone forever, but I honestly am giving a workshop promoting Wikipedia in the near future at the Missouri Association of School Librarians conference. Please. I'm really upset here. Wikipedia has been a big part of my life for nearly two decades and I'm sorry I let my emotions get the better of me. I'll leave DB alone, but please don't ban me. I need this. Bkatcher (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe flippancy wasn't the ideal approach to take to the OP's complaint here. I'd suggest that you operate on Wikipedia as if you have an interaction ban with Dronebogus. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    Consider it done. Bkatcher (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Why do I not believe you? Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I guess I haven't given you reason. But I'm scared, DB. Wikipedia is a major part of my life, and I really can't lose it now. Please don't take it from me. You win. Bkatcher (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I think RandomCanadian once said “begging for mercy isn’t a good argument”, but fine. If I catch you misbehaving again you WILL be coming back here immediately and without warning. Dronebogus (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a one way interaction ban is the way to go against Bkatcher interacting with Dronebogus. Given this response I am going to take that as an agreement to such a ban. Please read WP:IBAN and follow it.

You are worried about losing Wikipedia fine, follow this voluntary interaction ban and you should not have any more trouble from this particular issue. Violate it and you are likely to be blocked. Dronebogus while this is a one way interaction ban you should probably avoid talking to or about this user short of addressing behavioral issues.

I suggest that this thread be closed with the voluntary one way interaction ban as the result. I will be doing so later if nobody objects, or if nobody else does it before me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to make two other requests: 1., that Bkatcher delete all his disruptive/offensive canvassing/hounding posts (or if he doesn’t I be given clearance to do so), and 2., that someone with privilege to do so expunge his email from public records. Dronebogus (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Special:EmailUser already exists. If Bkatcher wants to put their email up publicly that's their choice, the problem is the purposes they're putting their email up for. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 15:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  It is precisely because they have put up their email address for the purposes of subverting consensus that their email should be suppressed. It's not to protect the editor, it's to protect Wikipedia. MarshallKe (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I doubt WP:OVERSIGHT is meant to be used to hide a user's email against their will. It's been used in the past on editor request but I don't think WP:OSPOL applies to voluntarily disclosed information that the editor doesn't want removed unless the editor is a minor or something. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:57, 24 October 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.

Some LTA

Some LTA is going around and creating blatantly inappropriate usernames that are borderline offensive, with the clear intent to evade edit filters designed to stop such abuse. See here and here. Note the use of the extra "l" in the first word, which effectively bypasses edit filters. This is clearly some LTA (both of these accounts are without a doubt the same person) but I have no idea which one it is. Admin eyes requested for further account creations. Also, {{checkuser needed}} to figure out who this is. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there any other user names with the term "plenis" in them that need blocking? Does this need an edit filter setting up for? Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find a handful: Quarry 59451. Doesn't seem to be too common. If you do want to filter for it, User:AmandaNP/UAA/Blacklist might be a better way than using an edit filter. – Rummskartoffel 21:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Disabling your CU request since a check has been run at SPI. If you see more sox, you can report there. Let's try to give this person as little attention as possible. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Holy moly that's a lot of socks! Seriously, some of those usernames should probably be oversighted. And it seems like this started all recently in relation/response to the recent ArbComBlock of an RFA candidate, which means that it's perhaps not an LTA but some other new troll. Was CU able to turn up an older master, or is this case truly brand-new? Taking Out The Trash (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Those sock names sound like track listings from a certain extremely NSFW shock band. But yeah, oversight that crap. Dronebogus (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by LTA

• 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in March, and since then has periodically returned with an assortment of IPs. The user is active again using the 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, which had previously been under a three-month block earlier this year. Topic areas and editing patterns are still identical; another block on this range would be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits are still being made from this range, like the tampering with sourced data that Ninenine99 was known for. Is a block on this range feasible? --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Still going... Please check all current revisions for unsourced additions or changes to data. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sable232 and LaundryPizza03: Please be more explicit and spell out at least one example for dummy admins. For example, this edit given above shows 2603:8000:b00:386f:8d25:d46e:40c6:5aa4 fiddling with two lengths. If I were to check the article would I find an easily accessible source that easily shows the IP made the values wrong? I've investigated stuff like this before and it can be a wall of fog with model numbers not quite agreeing with the source and the source saying that variations occur. Something like this would make me more confident in issuing a block: "This diff [link] shows the IP changed 180.6 to 181.6 but the source [link] says '...180.6...'." Also if, without too much trouble, you can find a case where the blocked user made a similar change, please post a diff. Johnuniq (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: - the original account would make edits like this, changing the data that appeared in the cited source to something different. The diff you linked to, I don't believe there's a source in the article for that and I don't have time to search for one now. However, given the track record and considering the changes to sourced data by the IP that I linked above, all data changes by this person are suspect. The topic areas and editing patterns are identical: automobiles, professional wrestling, and the occasional foray into liquor brands. There is no doubt in my mind that this IP range is Ninenine99. --Sable232 (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Last straw - Jonnyspeed20 / 86.14.189.55

• 86.14.189.55 (talk · contribs)
• Jonnyspeed20 (talk · contribs)

Please see the previous ANI reports regarding this user ([285], [286], and [287]), the last of which was left unactioned.

A SPI may also be appropriate (as previously suggested by GoodDay).

Jonnyspeed20/86.14.189.55 has returned. In this edit summary ([288]), he wrote "PlatinumClipper96 is a complete retard. The twat will continue deleting boroughs and inserting historic counties for years. Gammon wanker. You're welcome". PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The edit summary alone, deserves the IP being blocked & yes, an SPI should be begun. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Jonnyspeed20 for their personal attacks/harassment - the IP is them, based solely on this admission. You may wish to open a SPI, but please note a CheckUser will not link the IP to the account on a technical evidence basis (but, given the above admission, this is hardly needed) ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 13:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Buenos Aires music genre warrior

• 170.51.104.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Partition (song)
• Find Your Love

Someone from the metro region of Buenos Aires has been using multiple IPs to engage in genre warring at music articles. They know they are causing trouble and have taunted a block: "Well, if you dare to block me ... do it if you can ...!"

A few months ago, the person was blocked twice as Special:Contributions/200.123.117.19. The problem was genre warring and personal attacks such as "Fuck You" and more. The two IP ranges made the same genre-warring edit at American Oxygen[289][290] and they are from the same geographic area. Binksternet (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I've blocked the /25 from article space for a week - they are able to create accounts through it (for now), so if you see any new editors popping up... ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 14:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the block and the heads-up warning; I'll keep my eyes peeled. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Joiedelacruz6 creating draft hoaxes

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.

---

Joiedelacruz6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating draft hoaxes such as Draft:A23 (TV channel), Draft:Studio TV, Draft:Sky Network Television Philippines and User:Joiedelacruz6/sandbox (that has the same edit of Draft:A23 (TV channel). These are hoaxes because these came from an opinion of the Solid Kapamila's or Kapamilya Fans from a FB Group called ABS-CBN ( In The Service of the Filipino Worldwide). They like this to happen if ABS-CBN will be given a new franchise on 2022. I cannot find their post about this topic because they posted on the FB group a few months ago (I always read their posts but I am not a member of the group). This discussion was originally discussed in a MfD, but a user said, it would be better if I report it here. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that any action needs to be taken against the reported editor. What has happened is that the reported editor has created unverified drafts reporting planned television broadcasting. My opinion is that the drafts are crystal balling with no references, and so they should stay in draft space. The reported editor hasn't submitted them for review. If they were submitted for review, they should be declined. The filing editor has nominated them for deletion at MFD. I personally don't see a reason to delete them as drafts. If they were in article space, they should be deleted or moved to draft space. I also don't see a conduct issue. I don't think that they are hoaxes. They are unsubstantiated plans or business daydreams. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question hasn't edited in ten days. But, in my opinion, the drafts are not worth the concern. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

These drafts are also WP:FUTURE, it needs to be deleted "ASAP" because as stated on the WP:FUTURE, Wikipedia does not predict the future. As I said above, these drafts were only an opinion from a FB Group. Please, delete it ASAP, no need to wait to die within 6 months if not edited because it is making Wikipedia violating WP:FUTURE. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

They are drafts- not articles. Therefor they are not part of the Wikipedia catalog of knowledge. So- they are not predicting the future. If a user wants to work on an article so it is ready to be published if/when it becomes true- that is on them. As long as they don't actually publish them into article space- its not a big deal. Just ignore it and move on until it does become a problem :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 25 October 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:CompactSpacez

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.

---

CompactSpacez has a light editing history, but the history is strewn with warnings for uncivil behavior. One of them resulted a week-long block. Most recently, he voted in an article discussion for deletion in which he made a baseless and insulting statement about the nationality and motivations of editors calling for the deletion of an article: [291]. I propose that the editor be blocked for a longer period. Display name 99 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ugh. And the history has stuff like this, so NOTHERE is not totally inappropriate, given the recent edits. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked them indefinitely as not here to build the encyclopedia. While looking at the basis of the various warnings on their talk page, it became clear that this editor has repeatedly engaged in very malevolent behavior. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why was this user not indeffed a year and a half ago after posting this? Better late than never, I guess. Mlb96 (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That comment was a major factor in my decision, Mlb96, although I only became aware of it minutes before I blocked. Fortunately, the recipient of that abuse was not bullied off the project and still contributes occasionally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:45, 24 October 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.

सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs)

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 user सत्यशोधक (talk · contribs) is known for disruptive edits. Almost every edits were reverted and sufficient warnings and blocks are in talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.49.173.117 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah. You didn't sign this, you didn't notify them, you didn't discuss the matter, so no, you can't ask us to get involved with this. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Drmies Although, on further investigation, the IP that started this (which has now been blocked for disruptive editing) does appear to have a point. सत्यशोधक's talk page is littered with warnings, and their latest thing appears to be repeatedly removing any mention of "Hindu" from Pongal (festival). In this edit, they actually changed the quote from Britannica (which says this). The same appears to be happening elsewhere (i.e. Satavahana dynasty). I don't have a lot of tolerance for religious warriors who actually subvert sources, so I am minded simply to indef them. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, Black Kite, that is probably all true and I appreciate the time you put into this. But anyone who reports here should not expect us to do all the work for them. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Very true. But I'd noticed the username before, so I investigated it. Anyway - indeffed. Black Kite (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC):
        • @Black Kite: The block did not work. Please check. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I carried out the block per Black Kite's clearly expressed intentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Thanks for doing that. I definitely pressed the button, but clearly something didn't work. Black Kite (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
              • I keep clicking and clicking. Why am I blocked? El_C 14:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
                • Oh no, did you self-block again? Bishonen | tålk 05:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
                  • The moon must be in klutz [292]. EEng 06:03, 25 October 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.

Darylprasad & Platonic solids

• Platonic solid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Classical element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Darylprasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on Platonic solid [293] [294] [295] (the attitude of the other edit warriors there was less than optimal, but I'll move on). When it became apparent the content would not be accepted there, they tried to insert the same content in Classical element [296]. When I objected to this on the talk page [297] and reverted it [298], they started mass-removing other content from the article repeating a sentence from my talk page comment as an edit summary [299]. I think they need a cool-down period. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (as non-involved). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it appears that all non-sourced material has been removed from the article "Classical elements". And we quote Apaugasma who says quite rightly that "Writing sections based upon no source is original research, which again in itself is a great thing, but which is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia" Have a nice day. Regards Daryl Darylprasad (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This may be resolved for the time being [300]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope you're right. Darylprasad strikes me as someone who has the capacity to improve WP, but who doesn't understand very well what encyclopedic writing is about, nor various cultural norms here. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL, I will try to do better next time. I will use the talk pages first before making large contributions. Once again, thanks for your comments, I am just trying to do my best to improve Wikipedia. I am new to "Talk" page etiquette.Darylprasad (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

While this editor has been very tiresome to deal with at Classical element, I think this mainly stems from inexperience. He has been editing for a couple of years, but not very heavily. He needs to learn to listen to others and not cause disruption when he doesn't get his way. This report should serve as a warning to him that such behaviour can get him blocked from editing. SpinningSpark 07:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Per this editor, see also Talk:Cerberus#Massive insertion (pinging Doniago, who was also involved in that discussion). Paul August ☎ 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I think that discussion speaks for itself, and it was a year ago or so, but it should probably be noted that Daryl inexplicably (literally given they didn't leave an edit summary) deleted the thread on October 23 (i.e. after this ANI discussion was initiated), though another editor subsequently restored it. DonIago (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The user is now asserting on his talk page that all messages will be deleted unread and that he won't engage on any talk page. We have two behaviour problems here; WP:COMPETENCE and failure to work collegially. SpinningSpark 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I left a warning at their talk. Please let me know if problems arise. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

To me the current state of their Talk page represents a WP:NOTHERE problem even after you gave your warning. DonIago (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

قيس الهوازني

قيس الهوازني (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Virtually all of this new users edits have been WP:TENDENTIOUS and been reverted. Some examples;

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Persian to Arab

Changed Iranian to Arab

Changed Persian to Arab

Etc etc.. all this done in this very month. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked قيس الهوازني as WP:NOTHERE ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on The Patrick Star Show

There has been an IP range disruptively editing on this article for months now, many of their edits randomly removing words with no explanation other than, "______ gone". Primary range is 2003::/19, and they've previously been doing it at 188.146.0.0/15. Some edits (such as this recent one) also adds in information not supported by any of the sources whatsoever.

At this point, it's becoming blatantly disruptive. Is there any sort of block that can be issued, or not given the ranges are too small? Would prefer a blocking (somehow) rather than a page protection, because it will likely just continue on after the protection has expired, and a new one will need to be applied once more. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

And again, another disruptive edit from the IP. Magitroopa (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: I've semi-protected the article again for two weeks. In the future, you may get a faster response by requesting page protection ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring, incivility, and addition of OR and SYNTH by Coinissuer

• Coinissuer (talk · contribs)

Coinissuer has been adding, re-adding, and edit warring about a section in the obscure article Phanes (coin issuer). Basically, they are adding wp:OR and wp:SYNTH arguing that this pre-Christian coin is a prophecy about Jesus. See the following diffs:

1. [301]
2. [302]
3. [303]
4. [304]

Additionally, he has been very nasty and uncivil on the article talk page:

1. [305] When you read User:Caeciliusinhorto's comment, you realize that she starts lying from her first sentense.
2. [306] You have to be completely ignorant to question them, so there is no point in talking to you.
3. [307] Do you have any reliable sources that think that a religious interpretation is impossible ? If not, then you are a vandal

When asked not to perform personal attacks, they have claimed that others are performing personal attacks against them:

1. [308]
2. [309]

Additionally, the material they are adding and expanding on apparently was originally put there by a sockpuppet of a banned user, see their contributions here. It was subsequently removed by ian.tompson ian.thomson, readded by another sock, and then deleted again.

I believe that this user is wp:NOTHERE.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

edit The user has also been edit warring at Sappho, see [310], [311], in addition to adding the rather absurd form "Pphsappho" to the lead.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lets start from the end. ian.tompson tagged as sockpuppet at 2019 a user that stopped talking in 2013 !!!! This is a preview of the quality of the arguments of Ermenrich Coinissuer (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoever is interested in this story, lets talk about it in the talk page of the article Talk:Phanes_(coin_issuer). Coinissuer (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Minor correction to start with: ian.thomson (an admin in good standing) was the one who first noticed the weird editing on Phanes; ian.tompson is confusingly similarly named, but is the sockpuppet of an indeffed user.

As for the issue in question: I believe Ermenrich basically sums it up accurately. The nitpicking about minor typos in this very thread is indicative of how Coinissuer has behaved throughout this dispute, quibbling about minor things while refusing to engage with the actual core of the points being made (e.g. here), and using these minor mistakes as a pretext to attack the users they are in dispute with, rather than deal with the substance of the issue: on talk:Phanes (coin issuer) repeatedly calling me a vandal because I disagreed with them ([312], [313]. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am calling you a vandal because you delete a whole section, without providing reliable sources. Coinissuer (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

As has been said to you repeatedly, the wp:BURDEN is on you to provide reliable sources (i.e., not Homer, various ancient theological treatises in Greek, and some completely unrelated scholarship) to prove your claims, not on us to disprove them.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop disturbing the admins and discuss about it the article's talk page? Coinissuer (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I, and others, have discussed it with you on the article's talk page. You, however, are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU-type behavior.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop disturbing the admins and provide your reliable sources that state that the wealty merchant is the only possible interpretation for the coin's inscription. Could you please stop vandalizing a whole article section? Coinissuer (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Coinissuer basically admits to WP:SYNTH: " I have reliable sources that associate this coin to Phanes, and reliable sources that associate Phanes with holy trinity ". Schazjmd (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stopping disturbing the admins and talk about it the article's talk page? Coinissuer (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about the article, this is about your behavior. I agree with Ermenrich that there are serious concerns about your contributions and behavior. Schazjmd (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you interested in my behavior more than of contributing in the creation of a correct article? This is a sign of your behavior Coinissuer (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Your edits show an unfamiliarity with verifiability and reliable sourcing, and your comments on the article's talk page demonstrate an unwillingness to listen to other editors who are trying to explain the issues with your edits. Both of those can be overcome with effort on your part, but unless you demonstrate a willingness to listen and learn and to adapt your editing to Wikipedia's policies, you won't be able to contribute productively. Schazjmd (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

An IP intervened in support of Coinissuer, who first agreed with them and then argued with them. I asked if they'd forgotten to log in to their account, but they didn't respond. NebY (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Coinissuer has continued to edit war over the inclusion of the section while this discussion has been ongoing, see [314], [315].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Only one way to deal with such behaviour, while getting the individual's attention. Apply a block. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked him for 24h for edit warring.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

My forecast tells me, longer blocks will eventually be required. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

If the behaviour continues, they may be blocked for longer periods of time. Hopefully, it will not be needed.--Berig (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I wrote this up while Berig was blocking; hopefully this now makes it irrelevant but I'm going to put it here anyway in case things resume when the block expires. As Ermenrich has now brought up the editing on Sappho, I thought I might as well weigh in on that too. I would argue that none of their edits there are productive, but Ermenrich particularly noticed their weird editing around the Greek spelling of Sappho's name here and here. It's once again indicative of problems with editing. Not to get too deep into content territory on ANI, but they add the spelling "Πφσαπφώ", and cite it to the inscription on the Sappho Painter's kalpis. Aside from the fact that there's no need to include every idiosyncratic spelling of Sappho's name in the lead (of which there are many!) they are misreading the inscription, which says "Φσαφο": note the two missing π's, and the fact that the final vowel is an ο rather than a ω. It's yet another case of misusing a primary source, and making a claim which is not supported by the citation given. (Aside from that, it's pretty odd that after having registered in January and apparently edited consistently on Phanes and not much else since then, they suddenly decided today, after I started the talkpage discussion which led to this dispute, to start editing Sappho, a topic on which they have shown no prior interest and yet is my most-edited page.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

He might be a sock-master or a sock. Is exhibiting WP:CIR issues, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Might be a good idea, to have both articles 'semi-protected'. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done.--Berig (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• His first actions after coming off the block: resuming his edit warring [316], [317].--Ermenrich (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also further personal attacks [318] Obviously the member who are reverting the article belong to the same religious gang..--Ermenrich (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Partial blocked from article 30 days for the edit warring. Wondering if that needs escalated to a siteblock, and maybe an indefinite one. —C.Fred (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User confirmed it for me via two edits here at ANI. Indefinite sitewide block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict, as I was adding a proposal for indefinite site block. I see no signs that Coinissuer has any interest in becoming a productive Wikipedia editor. WP:CIR and Coinissuer is WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Come on that's enough snark. It's a wiki, change happens, change gets reverted, change gets discussed, it's all good. Levivich 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

For pinging these templates onto ANI without any actual notification as to how to change their status or for that matter who decided what their "status" is? I've worked it out now, but, yeah, thanks for that. Black Kite (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Shite, I've just realised this one needs a "status" as well. Here you go, enjoy. Black Kite (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Yeah... I was wondering what the hell these were and when we suddenly decided to start using them. Reyk YO! 22:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC) I'm quite tempted to just remove them all again but presumably someone will complain. So anyway, where did we decide to start using these? Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Yes please. I find the colors distracting and a nuisance (should I ignore a section that an unknown person has colored green?). I don't mind trying it for a couple more days but my first thoughts are that decorations don't help. What's needed is more focus on resolution. Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (ec) The template itself was created just a few hours ago by @TheresNoTime: but I can't find where rolling it out everywhere was ever discussed. Although I appreciate that sometimes ANI discussions end up archived before they're properly dealt with, I don't think this garish thing is productive. Maybe I'm just predisposed against "flag" templates after years of being hounded by a sovcit wikilawyer with a great enthusiasm for such things.Reyk YO! 22:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Well yeah, that's exactly the point - any editor, including those that are involved, could colour a section in green without it having actually been sorted. TheresNoTime - can you explain this, before I revert the whole lot? Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC) There's a thread over at WP:AN about it. --JBL (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Black Kite, someone could just as easily {{atop|Resolved ~~~~}} without it being sorted, so I'm not sure I buy that particular argument (though maybe we could have people sign on status change? idk). GeneralNotability (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict × lots) @Black Kite: Come now, you're very aware that if you're going to complain about an editor on ANI, you need to "notify them on their user talk page". Here's (WT:AN) a discussion about it from a month ago , with my follow up (WT:AN) 8 hours ago, and that of my proposal (WP:AN) to add a preload to ANI about 5 hours ago. I also linked to these discussions on {{ANI status}}'s talk page. Feel free to revert them all if you're so inclined, but please at least contribute to the discussion about them if you do. ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 22:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I do apologise for not noticing your post - what was it, 6 hours ago? on WP:AN, obviously that's plenty of time to discuss the issue in hand with the 600+ active admins, after all I can see that many of them have noticed it and made their comments (*rolls eyes*). Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (edit conflict) So snarky Black Kite! I've reverted my changes to the preload etc so no more will be inadvertently added. You must have missed the discussion from a month (and 18 days!) ago, don't worry, it happens! Which bit of {{ANI status}} was confusing by the way? ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 23:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Because, as I've mentioned above, it's too easy to abuse it. A quick look at any ANI will show those sections that no-one particularly looks at ... and no-one will notice if they suddenly go "green". But, whatever - it's past midnight here and I'll leave the rest of you to discuss it. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Ah, well, since you've apologized and seem to think the discussion was long enough, then I suppose we can go ahead and close this section. clpo13(talk) 22:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC) Yes, clearly my fault that a major change to ANI wasn't discussed with anyone before being implemented. I am incredibly apologetic. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC) How's about we all just take a deep breath, AGF, recognize on both sides that (other person) is doing what they think is best, and have a nice chat about this instead of deploying the heavy sarcasm? GeneralNotability (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

User:David_Gerard

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.

---

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

David Gerard's recent edit history seems to be exclusively and extensively an effort to remove conservative non-traditional media sources as unreliable sources. Targets include sources I would personally consider unreliable but also those I would not. I'm not a very active editor anymore but figured this behavior should be reviewed by an admin. I don't plan on crusading against the user or complaining any further. Jpers36 (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a reliable source that was removed? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

See [319]. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's just a history of the OP's user page, which hasn't been edited since 2016. It tells us nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

First example: I don't consider The American Thinker to be RS as a whole, but I think its opinions can be somewhat representative of a certain voting bloc. [320] This revision removes them as a representative example of a conservative reaction to the Super Bowl LIV halftime show. It's taking time getting past the American Thinker removals in the edit history since I agree that they are not RS, but this one stood out. Jpers36 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think there are very few places where AT should be cited for anything, even attributed opinion, and that particular removal was a good call. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

So this user is following policy by removing non-RS sources, but is doing it wrong somehow? Should he promise to make sure he removes an equal number of crap sources from each part of the political spectrum? Gamaliel (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe it's a mix of RS and non-RS being removed. Working to find examples. Jpers36 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure not any RS removals, except by accidental typo. The sources are somewhere between definitely unreliable and probably deprecatable if anyone cared, e.g. American Thinker, whose last discussion, detailing its white nationalism, birther conspiracy theories, etc; I confidently predict American Thinker would be explicitly deprecated in short order if there was actually a need to push for it.

Some are likely not deprecatable in their entirety, but are absolutely not RSes for the purposes they're being used for, and tick all the boxes on WP:QUESTIONABLE. The term "non-traditional" in the user's complaint is a giveaway here.

Some editors have issues distinguishing "not explicitly deprecated" from "a great source I should totally use". This is incorrect. I feel confident in stating that anyone who thinks American Thinker is a useful or even usable source for Wikipedia has greatly misunderstood Wikipedia sourcing.

As usual, all my edits are by hand one at a time, and up for discussion.

In my efforts to make our sourcing suck a bit less, I tend to go a few sources at a time. As a well-meaning suburban liberal of hopelessly centrist and incoherent ideology, I wasn't going for a political theme. Deprecated and even questionable leftist sources tend to get removed from the wiki very quickly, but there's still quite the queue for CounterPunch, if nobody gets to it before I do - David Gerard (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

My biggest disagreement so far would be PJ/Pajamas Media, especially pre-Trump. For example, [321] the removal of an opinion piece by a notable person that happened to be published there in 2012. Or [322] a review of Snakes on a Plane from 2006. Or a [323] statement from 2011 regarding Newt Gingrich's support of a bill. PJ Media may have fallen off a reliability cliff in 2016 -- I don't know, as I try to avoid political websites nowadays -- but I disagree with the idea that they were fringe or unreliable before that. Again, I don't plan to crusade on this; if the admins disagree I'm fine with that. Jpers36 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I remember PJ Media's 2011 article claiming that the hashtags - literally meant to be the Twitter hashtag - displayed on clothing at Occupy movement sit-ins was actually a stand-in for a swastika. "Bizarre neo-swastika reminiscent of "The Great Dictator" used as power symbol by OWS leaders". I thought at the time "this is the absolute stupidest thing I've seen all week, and I'm from the Internet." I do not believe that it would be the least bit difficult to find similarly clearly unhinged material in the PJ Media archives from before Trump - David Gerard (talk)

This [324] is the edit that grabbed my attention -- Victor Davis Hanson's op-ed piece criticizing Pat Buchanan as a pseudo-historian was removed because it happened to be published in PJ Media. Jpers36 (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I did look at the original of the dead link in question in the archive, and editorially it struck me as "so what?" material that adds no useful opinionation to the article. YMMV - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will also note clearly that I think PJMedia is a source that is the sort of thing we deprecate. Not because of its politics - we have plenty of right-wing RSes that somehow aren't put up for deprecation - but because of its fondness for conspiracy theories (most recently on COVID and election counts), weird nonsense through its existence (as above) and that it hardly even bothers with pretending to be a NEWSORG, instead concerning itself explicitly with culture wars and owning the libs. But it hasn't come up much at RSN as an issue in active question - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This removed an attributed view of Benny Morris. Now I know I have a minority view on "deprecated sources", but the idea that Benny Morris should be removed from Palestinian right of return because what he wrote was in the American Thinker or if he wrote it on a napkin to me is incorrect. Also Mr Morris views very much do not mirror my own, if anybody thinks that is a POV issue. nableezy - 20:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument in its favour, though I'd question why a holder of noteworthy opinions specifically chose an absolutely toilet-tier outlet to say it in, rather than one that wasn't absolutely toilet-tier - if he had confidence in this opinion, surely there are non-sewers to express it in - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the same problem as CounterPunch, which I think you re-closed. It ignores that actual experts also choose to publish there, and it has resulted in actual experts being removed wholesale across a range of articles. American Thinker might host a bunch of dogshit. It also hosts actual world leading experts. And you keep trying to throw those out instead of just throwing out the dogshit. nableezy - 21:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I had no particular knowledge or opinions on CounterPunch, and seconded the previous deprecation close because it was clearly the consensus of the deprecation discussion. You could take it back for a de-deprecation if you like, but I would say that you would need some pretty convincing arguments that would overcome the existing ones - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

We are already awash in people's opinions, especially in these political articles. Including something because a notable person said it without exercising editorial judgment (which includes weighing the value of the outlet) is just opening up the floodgates. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That isnt some notable person, that is among the five most cited experts on the topic of that article. nableezy - 21:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, its inclusion is absolutely an editorially arguable point. Why did he choose to put it in a sewer, though? - David Gerard (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly he doesnt have the opinion that you do. Does that make him uncitable? I saw people arguing that if some person had chosen to publish something in CounterPunch, which in the topic I spend the most time in has ranged in opinions from Alan Dershowitz to Norm Finkelstein (literal polar opposites), that they should not be cited at all, much less that they shouldnt be cited in CP. That is, to me at least, an abjectly bad idea. That he chose to publish it there means that we should keep it cited as an attributed view and not a fact, but does it mean we should be removing expert's attributed views? I dont think so at least. nableezy - 21:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly he doesnt have the opinion that you do I have no idea what his opinion is, and I don't care. Why on earth are you presuming I do? - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The opinion in question is that the outlet he chose to publish his view in is a sewer. nableezy - 21:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I am quite confident in stating that American Thinker is indeed a sewer, and no reasonable Wikipedia editor who understood Wikipedia sourcing would argue it wasn't. Indeed, anyone looking for somewhere to place an opinion should reasonably realise it is a sewer.

More broadly: you seem to now be talking about CounterPunch, which I closed the deprecation discussion on. Are you arguing that that was a bad close? And moreover, that it was such a bad close that it's a matter in need of immediate administrator intervention, which is what ANI is for? - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Youre right, forget CP. As far as sewer, Im a reasonable Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia sourcing policy, and I understand that when one of the foremost authorities on the causes of the Palestinian refugee crisis in the world writes something that it is perfectly reasonable to include his or her position at the very least as an attributed view if he is expressing opinion. Regardless of how you feel about where he published that opinion. Even if it were on MySpace. nableezy - 21:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is often seen by those who run fringe sites as a way to gain domain authority through being linked to from Wikipedia. Regardless of political orientation their news reports and especially opinion pieces are skewed, incomplete, and misleading, if not downright false. They like to present themselves as publishing news that mainstream journalism dare not print or is somehow covering up. If a source for a statement in Wikivoice cannot be found in a reliable journal of high standards, then we might ask why. Is the statement credible, truthful, accurate? Conversely, if we can find sourcing in multiple outlets, then we should use those that have the higher standards. If we are covering a topic that is notable, then there will be multiple sources to select from.

If we are transferring domain authority and credibility to other sites simply because we have worked hard over the years to become a trusted information source and Google ranks us highly, then I prefer that we shine that reflected glory on those who deserve it, rather than those peddling partisan poo. --Pete (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 21:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly this. To use the Benny Morris/Palestinian right of return example from above, if there is anything WP:DUE for inclusion in that article, it'll be published somewhere other than American Thinker. If it's only published in a non-RS like American Thinker, then it's not DUE for inclusion, no matter who wrote it. So if American Thinker is the only one conveying Morris's opinion, it should stay out. But of course they're not, and we don't need to use American Thinker for Morris's view, because we have other, better sources, such as "The Israeli Historian Benny Morris and the Changing Politics of the Palestinian Refugee Debate" published in Australian Quarterly. Levivich 23:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That might be what you wished our policies said, but it isnt what they actually say. nableezy - 02:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've seen David on my watchlist making these edits on various pages and found them to be fine on inspection. While specific ones may be worth discussing, that's a content issue for article talk pages. I recommend that this be closed with no action unless someone points out something that needs urgent administrator attention. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually do disagree with the types of removals discussed in this section, generally speaking. Attributed quotations, even those attributable to "sewer" quality publications, still pass the sniff test. Is somebody trying to argue that X author did not write a blog post or opinion piece (or whatever the case may be) in Y publication? Why do we care what the quality of the publication is if the author and the author's opinion are the salient matter? This is obviously to be distinguished from statements made in Wikipedia's voice that lean on Y publication; I don't take issue with removals such as those. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the piece by Benny Morris was a response to an earlier article in the American Thinker by Efraim Karsh critical of Morris. As such, it was not only appropriate but necessary that Morris should write in the same outlet. I agree with the editors who have described AT as a sewer, and my opinion of Morris is probably close to Nableezy's - but in this case, I do not think that it is correct to criticise him for his decision to write there. RolandR (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is clearly a content issue at this point. Somebody else please put this thread out of its misery? Whatever the issue here, it clearly is one where reasonable editors could disagree and one which should more importantly be discussed on the relevant article talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 26 October 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:Sandry Sm being difficult about accepting his sources are not RS

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 considered EWN for this, but it's become a conduct issue. User:Sandry Sm has been adding increasingly poor quality sources at Run for Cover in support of a release date, none of which satisfy WP:RS. These range from Last.fm to Rateyourmusic, and some absolute junk website which specialises in celebrity gossip rather than music. I'm certain that the latter have simply lifted the dates previously removed as unsourced from WP.

Via edit summaries and user talk page discussion I have tried to make him aware of this, but he's having none of it. Instead, he resorts to ranting at me on his talk page. Remarks like "You animal!" and "It seems to me that you're doing this either for personal taste or for a fetish" just ain't gonna fly with me. I've been editing music-related articles since 2008 and know full well what WP's guidelines are by now—hey, we all have to learn sometime.

Also, deflections such as "If you're not satisfied, go find your Kerrang or Rolling Stone source. [...] If you think you can do better, then do it", upon my request that he find some reliable magazine publications, says to me that he has no concept of WP:BURDEN. Therefore, instead of ensuring that his sources comply with WP:RS or omit them altogether, he flies off the handle and expects others to do the work for him.

Finally, a quick glance at his previous talk page interactions regarding the same complaints about poor quality sources would suggest WP:CIR issues. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Now he's parroting himself like a child, as well as telling me to "stop talking like a robot. It's making me itch" and to "Don't be stupid". He obviously has no idea why his conduct is wrong, and now seems to have issues with communicating in correct English. Not civil, not constructive. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: The edit-warring/poorly sourced contributions are one thing (which probably would require a sanction regardless), but the personal attacks are just plain not needed. I've blocked them for two weeks ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

And if he's unrepentant upon returning? He's certainly not going to listen to me when it comes to the WP:RS and WP:BURDEN issues. It may be the language barrier or just his style, but we don't have much of a rapport, shall we say. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well if their behaviour doesn't change, then they'll get indefinitely blocked... I normally lean indef for personal attacks anyway, but fingers crossed ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 21:59, 25 October 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: Wojak6 Needs to be stopped from misusing article talk page. Editor needs corrective action.

Wojak6 is misusing the Kisii people article talk page (refer to recent inputs on the talk page by editor). The editor is using the talk page to express his personal views and his inputs to the talk page are full of negativity and appear to express hate speech to an editor and a group of people. The editor appears to be using the page to fight another editor rather than using it for a discussion to improve the encyclopedia. The editor posts unnecessary content to the page and does not add anything rather than continuously criticizing an article without providing any solutions. I am personally tired of having to reply to the editor's rather irrelevant posts which seem to be getting out of control as the talk page is now getting overfilled with a lot of unnecessary content. It is also getting tiring to report on this editor and long term solution is needed. I don't want to engage in any more discussion with editor as he appears to be fighting me. The editor need to be stopped from posting irrelevant and unnecessary content on the talk page. The editor seems to post anything he feels like on the talk page. The editor also seems to ignore the feedback and warning on his talk page since he repeats some of the concerns on his personal talk page. Serious intervention is needed to help stop the editor from misusing the talk page. The posts by the editor on the article talk page need to be removed to clean up the page which is now overcrowded with unnecessary discussions. The editor needs corrective action.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea if you were previously the ip editor(s) who have bloated the article into an unreadable wall of text over the years, but ever heard of "less is more"? Wojack6 isn't communication great on the talk page but your long posts on Talk aren't exactly helpful either. Additionally, while you managed to get an admin to previously protect the page as edit-warring, even got Wojack6 warned, a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions. The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter The article has been edited by several IPs and for some reason you seem to assume I am the one who edited the article over the years. That is simply not true. As much I have mostly worked on the article, it does not necessarily mean that I am the one who has edited the article over the years. "a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted....." I have no idea of what you are referring to and I have only done very few reversions on this editor and I have always left reasons for reversions. I only restored earlier to earlier version of the Kisii people article this morning and did not quickly restore content and seek sanctions as you put it. There were intermediate edits between the edits by the editor and my edit where I restored an earlier version. So I did not quickly revert as you put it. The report is about the Kisii people article talk page and not the actual article and was filed yesterday. It does not make sense to claim that I should provide sourcing not restore content and seek sanctions. You are not addressing the report but defending the editor and blaming me and even wrongly accusing me of being the editor that bloated the article on an article edited by several people before I even started editing.

The long posts were just unavoidable. What are your suggestion for the talk page? Should the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page as they are mostly irrelevant and a number of them have negativity. Are editors allowed to deleted content from the article talk pages, or is that the work of the administrator? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1045663114 where you accuse the Wojack of vandalism and restore content, half of which is completely unsourced. And I did not blame or state you were the ip editor(s), in fact I said " No idea if.. " I was pointing out that both the article and talk page are suffering the same problem which is dense walls of text, which make it difficult for a reader to comprehend the article and difficult for other editors to get a grasp of what the issues are without committing significant time. Wojack isn't without guilt as they are removing sourced material as well as unsourced but as other editors have noted here, their concern about the article is not without merit. Slywriter (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter I still don't understand why you state that ...."a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".....That is very biased and one-sided view. The point is that Wojak6 was blanking entire sections and parts of sections and not providing any solutions. The reasons provided for deletion were not good enough to justify deletion of entire sections of the article. And on the basis of the claims on some of his summaries and on the talk page indicate that he did not read through the article for starting blanking it of content. The best solution was to reverse the article as the editor was not helping the article rather than making it even more worse. Why did you even talk about this issue as it was already resolved?

What the editor did to the article was vandalism because he was basically blanking the article without sufficient explanations. Your claims that half of the content was unsourced are also not correct and biased. The editor continuously continued deletion of content despite being reversed several times and then the page was protected. I was basically reverting to safe the article as the removal of deletion of entire sections of both cited and uncited information was not constructive. Was it wrong to seek administrator intervention to stop what was happening on the page? Was the reversion wrong? Should have been left to blank the entire article of content because that is what was going to happen if the page was not protected.

I basically only did the work of reverting the article that was being blanked of content. Why do you then claim that ..." WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions.".... You seem to be assume that I am the only editor who edits the article that is edited by many. Why should I be the only one responsible for providing sourcing on an article that is edited by many? I did not restore content and seek sanctions as you claim as I only reverted an article that was basically being vandalized. Blanking of articles is really vandalized as both sourced and unsourced content were removed and no solutions provided. It is very surprising that you think an administrator intervention should not have been sought.

Your claim that ...." The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard.".... Indicates that you support what the editor was doing blanking entire sections of the article. Why do you assume I was guarding the article when I was simply saving it from losing entire contents? Was blanking the article a solution? You should admit that you are biased and have only provided one sided views. You have also mostly defended the editor rather than addressing the report. You have only talked about an issue that was already resolved.

What are your stands? should the editor continue with his current editing practices. The editor mostly never leaves summaries for most of his edits, deletes and adds content without providing any summaries and if he provides then they are not good summaries. I suggest talking a look at his talk page to see concerns from other editors. I mean you mostly defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

My stance is simple... you see enemies everywhere, which is not in collaborative spirit this encyclopedia is based on. Even here, you are making accussations against me and accusing me of bias. WP:Vandalism means something very specific here and WP:AGF is not optional.

The talk page is covered in long winded rants by you. Even here, you still insist on writing novellas as a response. And I have repeatedly started there are concerns with Wojack's editing but I do not see them as the only problematic editor on the page, you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.

And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic . Slywriter (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Slywriter What do you mean I see enemies everywhere? I only expressed my concerns about your one sided-view in your replies which I found to be unfair. Of course you had bias in that you mostly defended the other editor and made blaming statements that I quoted in the earlier reply against me. How does that apply to collaboration on Wikipedia? I have not accused you anywhere but expressed my concerns about what you said earlier which I quoted. There is no battleground mentality here and there are no disagreements between you and I on anything. I have just expressed my concerns. Please clarify this statement...."you are adopting a WP:battleground mentality to anyone who disagrees with you.".... what are you referring to? ..."And yes, I think the article is a bloated mess that involves original resource and excessive details that require massive rewriting to make something actually useful to a reader. We aren't here for editors or personal views on a topic.".. which topic are you referring to? you are confusing me with the quoted statement. The report was about the talk page and not the article itself. How come you are now talking about the article and not the talk page? Are you trying to imply that I am the one who wrote the Kisii people article and/or it is based on my personal views and so I have a battleground mentality on whoever disagrees with me? Because if you are assuming that then it is wrong because the article was not written by me. The article was there long before I stated editing and there are many people who edit it. There is no accusing you are having a battleground with you. I am just offended by the statements you have made on your replies which I have quoted. I will appreciate if you can use a neutral language rather than the one you have used in you replies. The only thing that I have done on that talk page is replying to threads by Wojak6. How come you think I am developing a battleground with those who disagree with since the threads were not mine and I just replied to them? Shouldn't be the other way round because it is the other editor who started the threads? Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is grossly lacking citations for much of its content. From a quick look, it would appear that much of it is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the 5th time you've brought this editor to ANI in a month [325] [326] [327] [328] [329]. At this point this is simply becoming harassment. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User talk:192.76.8.77 Like I said I am not going to be engaging with the editor anymore. I only had a choice of reporting him and I am just tired of doing so.

I do not see that Wojak6 has been any less constructive on the talk page than Nyanza Cushitic. Both editors need to base their arguments on the sources rather than what they "know" themselves, which seems to be informed by misplaced ethnic pride rather than facts. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Thank you for your input. I have just tried my best to reply to the editor on the talk page and just got tired and don't want to engage with the editor. Can the threads by Wojak6 be deleted from the talk page? Is that the work of the administrator to delete threads from article talk pages? or Can an editor go ahead and delete the threads. If the threads were never posted, I possibly could have not even replied to them. It is the threads that led to replying. Can they be deleted? I believe that will help remove unnecessary discussions and some negative threads from the page. If you can please help delete the threads from the talk page. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If you want to edit an article then you have to be prepared to discuss issues with people who may disagree with you, rather than come running to a noticeboard whenever that happens. I don't see anything so egregious that it warrants deletion from the talk page. Instead of going off on long rants just say in a sentence or two what reliable sources you have looked at and what they say. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Phil BridgerWhy do you for some reason assume that I am the only one who edits the article. The edits put some input on the talk page which I tried my best to reply. Why do you assume the editor was disagreeing with me and the editor too seems to assume I did this and that according to the input on the talk page. What do you mean I run to the noticeboard? was it wrong to file a report about a misuse of the talk page? The editor put some input which I replied to, so how come you say he was disagreeing with me? I mean the article is edited by many people and for some reason you are assuming that I am the one who wrote the article and the editor was disagreeing with me. That simply wrong. The article is editing by many people and has been edited for wrong before I even started editing, so how come you assume that I am the writer of the article? You claims are simply biased and unfair. So do you probably believe that I did not have or don't have rights to seek administrator intervention? You should accept that some of your claims are wrong. You have also very much defended the editor.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody misused the talk page, so it was wrong of you to say that anyone did. Your only complaint is that you disagree with what someone said there. Talk about it there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I just read through that talk page and Nyanza Cushitic, I highly recomend you review WP:NPA because you have been incredibly uncivil and have made some unnecessary personal attacks towards the other user. There is no need to question their intelligence or understanding of English because they disagree with you. You must be WP:CIVIL when you interact on WP. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle I asked the editor understood English because he posted content unrelated to the thread being replied to. It was not meant to attack the editor. Is asking whether one understand English really an attack? I don't remember questioning the intelligence of the editor anywhere on the article. I have not attacked the editor other replying to his threads. Your claim that I was incredibly uncivil is simply an overstatement. Is asking whether one understands English really uncivil? I don't remember question the editor's intelligence in the talk page, but to claim that those two claims are incredibly uncivil and personal attack is an overstatement. I have mostly replied to the threads and nothing more than that, unless replying to the threads is an attack. Your claims of attacking the editor could be misplaced. Has Wojak6 been civil in the talk page? The editor has mostly assumed that I am the one who I wrote the Kisii people article and even quotes content from the article assuming that I am the one who did this an that. Whenever he read anything on the article that he does not agree with he assumes I am the one who put it there. isn't that also an attack against me then if asking if one understands English is an attack? It could be great if you can clarify by personal attacks because I could not see any attacks made other than replying to the threads. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

You ask at least 3 times if they understand English..... and yet nowhere does there appear to be a language deficit on their side. Their syntax, vocabulary, and grammar all indicate a total understanding of the language. The only problem is- they differ in opinion from you. So yes- that is 100% a personal attack. And Wojak is remarkably civil to you- far more so than I would have been if I had been ridiculed for my opinion by you as they have been. I, again, recommend you review WP policies on civility and cooperation and WP:dropthestick at least- preferably with an apology. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interaction and topic ban proposal

It is clear from this discussion that although Wojak6 (talk · contribs) has made inappropriate edits at Kisii people and its talk page, Nyanza Cushitic (talk · contribs) (NC) has also behaved unacceptably toward this user.

• The two users had an edit war about a month ago where Wojak6 blanked content regarding the origins of the Kisii people. While their edit summaries were clearly based on their personal opinion about the topic, the content they deleted contained lots of unsourced OR, and NC's reverts contained unambiguous personal attacks, including accusations of vandalism. The section in this particular edit was recently removed by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) on the correct basis that it was entirely OR, with no references that were actually about the genetics of the Kisii people.
• More recent edits to the article by NC, such as the first edit after unprotection, have been focused primarily on making genuine improvements such as removing unreferenced content and redundant statements. Hence, NC should not be topic-banned from the Kisii people.
• They have discussed this issue on Talk:Kisii people, beginning around the same time as the edit war, concerning the article's POV. NC repeatedly asserted that Wojak6's concern should have been brought up at Talk:Gusii language, which is incorrect per WP:NOTFORUM since the original concern was about a POV issue in the Kisii people article. Both users' statements are tainted by personal opinion: While it is obvious in the case of Wojak6's statements that their POV is heavily based on the Niger–Congo hypothesis and a misinterpretation of the Bantu expansion hypothesis with unreliable sources (as asserted by NC), NC's arguments were also based on OR with no attempt whatsoever to back up their claims with reliable sources. NC also made a few personal attacks such as, Your assertions [about the Bantu languages and the genetics of the Bantu people] indicate that you clearly lack knowledge on so many things as most of your comments and assertions are absurd.
• NC continued to attack Wojak6 after both users (along with a few others) turned to revising the article and deleting unsourced content and OR, such as on October 13 where NC once again dismissed Wojak6's concern about poor grammar, and order them to fix the claimed grammatical errors themselves. An overview of the later Special:Permalink#1051310691, the last revision before I started deleting OR and redundant content in the History section, clearly shows a number of grammatical errors, mostly missing commas such as, The Abamaragoli though close to Abagusii, their relationship is only tied to having similar oral traditions. Other than that, they are distinct in terms of culture and language and the Lulogooli is very distinct from Ekegusii language spare some lexical items shared through interaction and intermarriage. A recent thread that lasted from October 11–20 repeated many of the assertions from before with new claims (unsupported by RS) about the Khoisan peoples, plus a new personal attack by NC where they told Wojak6 twice to stop putting words in my mouth. Since this started with an off-topic question by Wojak6 about the speakers of the Omotic languages, with zero relevance to the Gusii language or the Kisii people, I think Wojak6 cannot edit productively about this topic area.
• On October 14, C.Fred (talk · contribs) warned Wojak6 about a personal attack about NC in an edit summary at Great Lakes Bantu anguages 3 days prior; Slywriter (talk · contribs) complained about Wojak6's lack of participation here and (without specific examples) that they use rude edit summaries or none at all.
• The fact that NC has filed 5 ANI threads about the aforementioned dispute, including this thread, is a serious behavioral problem in and of itself, as pointed out by the 192 IP. Harassment is often grounds for an interaction ban.

In conclusion, I propose that Nyanza Cushitic and Wojak6 be banned from interacting with each other, and that Wojak6 be topic banned from the migration history of, and linguistic or genetic relations between, African peoples and languages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) I don't know what to say about the interaction ban, but it might be a good idea to prevent edit wars and other things that have happened from being repeated in the future.

In terms of Wojak6 being topic banned from the mentioned topic areas, it is probably a wise and good idea. The editor has not been able to edit that topic area productively on the basis of feedback from other editors on their personal talk page and their contributions in that topic area. On the basis of their contributions, they mostly edits articles on that topic area and have mostly left no edit summaries for most of the articles and if they left a summary it is not necessarily a good one. They also delete or add content to some of the articles if not all without providing rationales for doing so. The editor being topic banned from the mentioned topic area will allow them to possibly explore other topic area where they may edit more productively or are more comfortable in editing. Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree here. I don't think that an interaction ban really addresses the underlying problem, which seems to be one of neither contributor fully understanding Wikipedia policy, particularly in regard to original research and the need for sourcing. Certainly their behaviour towards each other wasn't at all appropriate, but it seems to me that it arose in the first place because of the poor state of the article as they found it (for which neither seems to be directly responsible), and to neither contributor seeing the fundamental issues with how it had been written. I'm inclined to suggest that the more appropriate action here is to suggest that both contributors read up on policy and guidelines, not just on WP:OR and WP:RS, but on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and the options available when two contributors cannot reach an agreement. Maybe I'm being overoptimistic (not my usual habit) but I'd like to think that given a better understanding of how their interactions might have gone more constructively, they may now be capable of still working together. Wikipedia clearly needs contributors capable of creating appropriate content in this topic area - our coverage of the complexities of ethnicity in an African context is sorely lacking, and what exists is often of questionable merit - and an interaction ban that prevents two such contributors from working cooperatively together may not be in anyone's best interests. If they don't wish to work together, they clearly aren't obliged to, and if we find that they can't, without causing further drama, maybe an interaction ban or other sanctions will prove necessary. For now though, I'd say give them a chance to see if they can work together if they wish to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

While I don't know if I'm fully for a topic ban, I wanted to chip in with my two cents, as someone who edits in the same niche (and was the other editor on the Kisii people page): it's confirmed on Wojak9's talk page [[330]] that he has been warned several times for his little to non-existent edit summaries of his edits to African languages and ethnic groups on his talk page. A fraction of his edits are accompanied with summaries, and often times these summaries are very accusatory or hyperbolic to the previous material and/or editors. Unfortunately, despite all these warnings, he doesn't appear to be changing his behavior. It would be lamentable to lose a fellow contributor to these topics often lacking in information, but he doesn't seem willing to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. Wdonghan (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh

Neel.arunabh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I closed an "AFD" filed by Neel.arunabh because he wants help in formatting a table. This is after edit-warring to inappropriately remove the content, and after discussing the topic with 4 people on the talk page. He also requested help at WP:Village pump (proposals) for this issue. His talk page has a mile of warnings, and he was recently blocked for edit warning. I think administrative action may be needed to address WP:CIR issues. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I was contemplating opening a discussion here myself. Neel.arunabh has taken to blanket reverting articles, sometimes to quite old revisions. In addition to the AFD'd article, Tesla Model S, examples: Proton, Pluto, Comparison of American and British English, Speed limits by country. Apparently the reason for this is that the current versions of these articles aren't formatted well when viewed on an iPad. I'm not sure that a block is necessary, but somebody needs to find a way to communicate that this isn't collaborative behavior. - MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I will resolve this very soon. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

力, but I have thanked you for closing my useless AfD. Next time, when there is any technical issue, I will neither make a blanket revvert, nor will I bring it to AfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I still can't get around my mind how the Tesla Model S was brought to "Article for Deletion" tho, despite the title "Article for Deletion" conveys what it means. — DaxServer (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Neel.arunabh does have a bit CIR issues, perhaps a great reluctancy is a better phrase, but that was back in June when resubmitted a Move Review because he disagreed with the outcome [331]. I don't see any further disruption of this kind in his contribs, but the reluctance seems prevalent, looking at the edit warring and blocking last month. — DaxServer (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC) (Updated with link 06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC))

I am facing similar technical issues in List of prime ministers of India too. Neel.arunabh (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neel.arunabh: I don't see anything out of the ordinary on that table, which tells me the issue is with your configuration. Expect many eyes to be on you as you proceed with getting assistance with this situation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)