Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Hello everyone, I was topic banned from editing Indian poltics about 6½ months ago by

Here it is-- Conditional to unblock, Junior Jumper has agreed to a topic ban from Indian politics. They may however add parliamentary diagrams to articles. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The proximate cause of the topic ban seems to have been some light edit warring at Sangh Parivar, where Junior Jumper twice changed "militant group" to "youth group" in the description of an organization: [4], and 10 hours later, [5]. JJ's user talk page response to Doug Weller's original revert was definitely far from ideal. The literal "how dare you?" on his talk page, aimed at the ignorant "foreigner" clearly showed that JJ didn't really get how our neutrality policies worked in that context. I am also fully aware that this topic area has long been a contentious one.
  That said, was there more history here that's not immediately obvious? An indefinite block that rolled into a six-month-minimum topic ban feels...abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day. Unless there's something else, I'd support lifting the topic ban; it looks like JJ has been at least as productive since the ban was imposed as he was before. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst JJ did add an image, I didn't see that there was edit warring, incivility, white washing, tendentiousness, or POV pushing. Is there any indication of any of those things, perchance? in my Tom Ellis (actor) voice --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose lifting. The issue of agenda-driven POV-pushing editing is significant in this topic area; if it isn't nipped in the bud early, just as Bishonen and Dougweller have done here, the issues pile up over a prolonged period. I would prefer for the restrictions to remain until Junior Jumper can at least clearly demonstrate that he makes substantial edits, consistent with NPOV, in areas he is not banned from. If he cannot stay committed to the topic ban, let alone his agreement not to edit the article again about a group he admits he is a member of, I do not have faith we can rely on his assertions that he will edit in this area appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Dougweller: Not sure if either of you were notified, but what are your views? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• OMG, a TenOfAllTrades sighting! El_C 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not the editor you're looking for... * waves hand * (But seriously, aside from the one article revert and subsequent ugly back-and-forth on his user talk on 29/30 December, have there been any issues with JJ's conduct?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  KOMPAKTOR DEFEATED. El_C 16:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I quickly skimmed Junior Jumper's contributions since the topic ban (1 January 2021). The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures, however all I can see are adjustments to images. Most of that activity appears to be within the topic of Indian politics, as agreed. Without better reason, I do not support lifting a topic ban in such a contentious area which already has enough enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The lead sentence of
    WP:GAMING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • ” I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.” I think this is an absurd claim about the article that inspires very little confidence for me that this editor either understands the issue with their problematic past - and now seemingly ongoing behaviour, or shows they’re intentionally willing to bend their understanding of the rules using implausible reasons to justify their POV pushing. It’s a no from me. Mkdw ^talk 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I changed the lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi just now, from "political figure" to "civil servant and government official," which I think is more accurate. I wouldn't have phrased this response the way JJ phrased it, but I don't think it's an absurd claim that BLJ was not a politician. Levivich 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The absurd claim is the apparent claim that the topic ban does not cover the position of a governor. Whether BLJ was a politician or not is being only debated by the OP instead of accepting the topic ban violation. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To use an analogy: Louis Susman was US ambassador to the UK but he's not a politician. Would someone who is TBANed from America Politics be prohibited from adding or changing the picture in Louis Susman's article? I don't think so, or if that's a TBAN violation, it's a pretty peripheral and minor one. Just because a person received a political appointment at the end of their career doesn't mean every part of their biography is related to politics (nor does it make them a politician). Levivich 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I blocked Junior Jumper for persistent tendentious editing, a block that was after discussion converted to a topic ban. They had changed the well-sourced description of Bajrang Dal as a "religious militant group" to "religious youth group" — which was hardly heinous in itself — but the edit summary was "How dare they said Bajrang Dal 'militant'. Bajrang Dal is not a terrorist group. They had sacrificed a lot for country's welfare".[6] Doug Weller reverted stating "It's described this way in its own article, this should match", and JJ reverted back without comment, the way we revert vandalism. This discussion followed on JJ's talk, and I blocked indefinitely. I see TenOfAllTrades considers my action "abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day"; I can only say I don't agree. Indeed it happened in one day, but IMO the edits are beyond iffy and the talkpage comments not merely ill-considered but militantly nationalist and indicative of a deep problem: "don't give me the link of BBC news. They have no credibility in our India. They are treated like bastards in our country", "How dare you to call Bajrang Dal a militant organisation? Are you Indian to decide so?", etc. I'm not going to argue about this; I encourage others to make up their own minds. I agree with Abhishek0831996 above that JJ's argument about editing Banwari Lal Joshi (Governor of Uttar Pradesh) is gaming their ban; on the other hand, the edit was nothing much, merely adding an image. A bigger problem is that JJ has edited very little during their ban; basically merely adding parliamentary diagrams and changing/adjusting images. These diagrams are useful, for sure, and are an explicit exemption from their ban. But there are no content edits that I can see. As Johnuniq says, "The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures". I did not leave JJ to figure this out; I explicitly advised them to edit other areas and/or other projects, as "it's important to be able to show in an appeal that you have been editing constructively".[7] JJ's appeal above is very bald, with no attempt to show the things they were told they need to show. As the banning admin, I won't put an "oppose" on this, but I'm a bit dubious. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• In response to the comments asserting that JJ has edited 'very little' since his ban, JJ's editing prior to his topic ban was also predominantly uncontroversial housekeeping work of exactly the same sort as he's been doing since his topic ban. His editing has, if anything, been at a faster clip than before his ban--he's made about as many edits in the first six months of 2021 as he did in all of 2020. Admins reviewing his contributions should also note that he has a substantial number of deleted contributions related to image maintenance work; indeed, those contributions outnumber his undeleted edits this year.
  To be clear, I absolutely agree that JJ's attitude required adjustment—but I also see enough 'sweat equity' and consistent beneficial behaviour to warrant access to some
  WP:ROPE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• TOAT's argument that JJ has been editing productively is reasonable. I also understand why JJ might have though Joshi was (just barely) outside their ban, but I'm not impressed with I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.. On balance, I'm for giving them enough ROPE, but JJ, adjusting your attitude includes knowing when to edit yourself. You could have just left that sentence out of your reply. You could have written instead "PS officers are not politicians." Instead, in your own ban appeal at AN, you impugned the competence of someone opposing the appeal. Do you see how that's counterproductive? —valereee (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @
    Junior Jumper (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Who said that Banwari Lal Joshi was a politician? They only said that you violated your topic ban by editing the subject's page. There are many subjects strongly associated with Indian politics such as Umar Khalid, Ravish Kumar, Arnab Goswami, Mohan Bhagwat but these individuals haven't joined a political party. Your claim that a subject has nothing to do with Indian politics if they never "joined any political party" won't convince anybody because it is simply wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @
  Junior Jumper (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that
  you are not getting it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd support per
  WP:ROPE. I don't think Bish's block+unblock-with-TBAN was abrupt. The comments on the "one bad day" were really bad; a block was justified, and unblocking with a TBAN condition was, IMO, the right way to move forward. That said, it was just one bad day. Their editing during the TBAN has been productive from what I can tell, and it was the same type of editing as before the TBAN (images). I don't agree with requiring an editor who edits images to do some other kind of editing (like writing prose) in order to have a TBAN lifted. We don't want editors editing outside of their areas of comfort/expertise/interest just to get a TBAN lifted, nor is it a fair requirement; after all, it's not about jumping through hoops, it's about the community being reasonably assured that an editor can edit without needing a sanction to prevent disruption. If an editor mostly adjusts images before the TBAN, then it's fine if that's what they do during their TBAN. In fact, if an editor normally makes image edits, non-image-edits don't really help us determine how they would behave during their normal editing. (The reverse is true, too: if an editor mostly edits prose, having them upload images during a TBAN doesn't tell us how they'll behave when returning to "normal" editing.) The BLJ image is arguably a TBAN violation ("broadly construed" after all) but a pretty minor/peripheral/harmless one. Six months of productive editing is long enough; let's give them a second chance (bearing in mind that a third chance may not happen if there is a second bad day like the "one bad day" sixmonths ago). Levivich 15:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Hey, everybody see which type of language
  Junior Jumper (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Junior Jumper, maybe it's because I read that in isolation, but I don't understand. What's impolite about it? I mean, criticism is allowed. El_C 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

JJ, I agree with EI C. Opposition is an expected part of a ban appeal. There's nothing uncivil about telling someone not to misstate something someone else has said, if you think that's what they've done. I understand this is a stressful process for you, but your best bet is to simply not engage with opposers except to correct actual factual errors or describe how you've tried to address their concerns. Criticizing their input won't help you. —valereee (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The tone and content of JJ’s replies here leaving me wondering if they are a person we want to let loose in an already combative topic area. The whatsboutism is a bad sign. — AdamF in MO (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose lifting. I started out in favor and was willing to overlook the picture "slip". I'm afraid JJ has persuaded me to not lift the ban. Just not ready yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Abhishek0831996: If I was topic banned from editing Indian politics only not politicians then why are you saying that I have violated the T&C of topic ban by editing the page of BL Joshi?

You have said "Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal?" in your first comment. --

JJ, while I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, this response suggests that you are not prepared to engage constructively in this area at this time. Arguing that "politicians" are somehow not within the topic of "politics" is...unsupportable. I oppose this request at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Junior Jumper (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Junior Jumper your topic ban concerns Indian politics. The edit you made on Banwari Lal Joshi, breached your topic ban because that subject is significantly related to Indian politics. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abhishek0831996: Then why were you saying that Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it.?--17:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. There's a ~12hr backlog at

Sorry, I overslept. El_C 14:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El C. Try not to have the luxury of sleep again! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did we change the main RFPP page to just be transclusions? I can't find any recent discussion. Anarchyte (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but it's a pain in the arse that the helpful edit summary with all of the various {{RFPP}} codes is gone now. I don't have time to dig into why everything changed, but at the very least PLEASE have someone restore the group edit notice(s). Primefac (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion further up about the changes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Primefac, I thought I did at Special:Permalink/1034077480, re-creating the editnotice? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having extreme difficulty talking with DonFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) justifying his rewrites/revert over my edits. We have unresolvable conflicts of interest, and just like policy states, the repeated undos is aggravating and stressful. I would like an administrator's opinion, not over the content disputes, but as to whether his behavior constitutes to personal attack, particularly when he would slyly pick at old wounds, like mentioning the previous ANI incident, or smugly bragging that his edit would remain stable for the period of a page protection.

Recent:

[11]

Archivable: [Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 2] "brevity". I rest comfortably knowing that my improved version will be stable for the next four days.... :-) DonFB (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) {ping|DonFB}} 133 KB (14,999 words) - 12:04, July 15, 2021

Shencypeter (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this seems to be a content dispute between the two of you. I've asked at

WT:AV for others to join in and help find consensus. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I was going to start an RFC when I remembered that AN is just as effective or rather, an alternative to an RFC I do have a question and for the sake of transparency I do have an active case please see here. I have a question I do need you all to assist me with and would be eternally grateful if I can get a definitive reply from you all who have bestowed great trust on me of which I do not take for granted.

• My question is, is it against policy to leave a UPE tag on an article? I was advised off wiki by a functionary and sysop that when I leave a UPE warning I should also initiate a dialogue with the editor in question and explain to them why i think they are engaging in UPE, but an editor by the name of Kaizenify in that thread told me it wasn’t proper and this got me confused as the {{
  Upe}} is quite self explanatory. The OP classified me leaving a UPE template as making false allegations and I really do not see how leaving a UPE template is a “false accusation” . I have come here for clarifications because if indeed it’s against policy to UPE template an article effective immediately i wouldn't do that but if not I would like a feedback from you all on what you think. Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The template exists for a reason. There was a proposal to delete this template, but it failed. While it is technically not mandatory to start a dialogue with the editor(s) in question, I'd certainly consider it a best practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike, Mike, thank you for your response, I have placed UPE templates on dubious looking articles, which more often than not ended up as actually being UPE indeed but in the aforementioned thread it’s used as “evidence” against me, largely the narrative there is that me tagging articles as UPE is “making false UPE allegations” against editors even when the UPE template is precisely worded and straightforward. Celestina007 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:UPE
  are two different things. Apparently you seem to be assuming that users who have COI are UPE.

If a user writes about their university professor or about their uncle who is a lawmaker, that person would be violating our policy on WP:COI regardless of the tone of the article (promotional or not). In most cases, there is no way we are going to proof their connection with the subject unless there are off-wiki evidences. Tagging the page with the WP:COI template without evidences that connects them together is inappropriate and against policy let alone tagging with UPE. If there are offline evidences, you could advice the user to refrain from making further edits on the page. If they continue, you could give them a final warning and this could be followed by a WP:NOTHERE block if they continue. If the user is the sole contributor to that page and engaging in sockpuppetry after the block, the page may now be tagged with the WP:COI template. Police do not kill a suspect before taking them before judges. It's a crime. For

@Kaizenify, umm calm down, I’m trying to establish a fact. In any case I think the template is worded precisely. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaizenify not quite, did you read the documentation? You are literally saying the inverse of what the template states. Celestina007 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The tag does not say the contribution is actually proven to be from a UPE. The tag says it is "for articles where there appears to be a significant contibution be a UPE." "appears to be" is a fairly loose criterion. Perhaps there could be a separate tag for " articles where there definitely has been a significant contibution by a proven UPE." In more usual terms, I think "appears to be" is not even equivalent to "preponderance of the evidence" but an even lower standard, perhaps "reasonable suspicion". It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader. (FWIW, since I do specialize the university professors, most articles with coi are indeed UPE by the labs or university's PR staff, which is certainly UPE; there are indeed some by enthusiastic students, but it is generally possible to tell them apart; this in;t the place to give the distinguishing signs, but I can expand on this elsewhere. The more troublesome cases is when someone honestly writes and article, but copies the style of promotional editors, thinking that this is what we want--some have in fact said exactly that when challenged. That's the reason for using the very weaj wowwrding "appears to be". We cannot necessarily determine someone's motives, but we can see what they write. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to situations where there there has been definite paid editing, we have Template:Paid contributions. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DGG says what is sometimes easily forgotten, perhaps: "It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader." And I agree with his analysis of who writes up professor's articles, though I will add that in my experiences it's frequently the PR people who write up the administrators, rather than the professors. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and DGG: my comments here are probably better held at Talk:BLP or VPP or something but since it came up here I'll mention this. The complaint/s which lead to this seem to be mostly related to unfairness against the editors involved I think. Frankly I'm not so concerned about them since anyone who can work out who was involved would hopefully be able to understand that the template is an alert not an accusation. But I've had concerns about this from a BLP standpoint for a while which I was reminded of recently due to this BLPN query. While I should have made this clearer in my response, (I was thinking someone else might respond), I do have great sympathy for the subject there. While they didn't comment why they wanted the tags removed, it's easy to imagine they feel the tags reflects poorly on them whenever people see the article.

Whatever we may intend by and understand of the templates, the reader may see things differently. While I've seen people argue even generic cleanup tags are harmful, IMO this is likely a minor thing since realistically I can't imagine many readers think that negatively of a subject just because the article has generic cleanup tags. Other than perhaps assuming it's unimportant because no one bothered to fix it. However COI and paid editing tags are different since I wouldn't be surprised if readers do interpret them as reflecting poorly on the subject thinking they themselves wrote an article or worse they paid someone to do it for them, effectively a tag of shame.

In reality, I expected, and your experiences seems to affirm, that there's a fair chance many of the subjects had little to do with what lead to the tags, they may not have even been aware of the attempt to make an article on them. I suspect it isn't just in academia either, I wouldn't be surprised if similar stuff happens even for CEOs and the like. Even where the person is technically in charge of the people involved, it still seems a bit harsh to blame them for it without knowing a lot more about what went on. (And so while I think it's a terrible attitude from a BLP standpoint, if any editor does feel "serves them right" for having something seen as a tag of shame on the article for years, an important reminder you might be punishing someone who may have little to do with it.)

But on the flipside, these articles will often be a problem that needs to be checked and until we do so, we probably should alert readers of the fact. And as a volunteer projection I think it's understandable there are often few takers to cleanup an article which only exists because someone did something they shouldn't have. So I don't support removing these without someone bothering to check who feels confident in removing them, rather than just removing them because they've been there a long time as I believe someone advocated when this came up in a prior discussion).

I suspect deletion is also likely to be controversial, especially since some of these may have had a fair amount of editing from others before the COI as detected. I wonder if the best solution may be to draftify any BLP which has had the tags for maybe 1 year or more. Perhaps this will end up being a back door to deletion if 10 years down the track, someone complains that we have an ever expanding list of drafts from likely paid editors which no one is getting to, but it might still be better than leaving these as is IMO given the potential harm to BLPs from having these tags for many years. (The case which reminded me of it has had them for 3 years and 9 months.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously not, since we use it all the time. The
  UPE}} is useful, has broad community consensus behind it, and that it functions as a maintenance tag. In other words, it exists primarily to indicate a problem with an article, not with the conduct of its contributors. As such I can't see any reason why you should feel obligated to discuss it with the paid editor. The anonymous functionary sounds like they're making policy up as they go along. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is no point in draftifying if there is nobody around who is likely to improve the article. Usual practice is not to draftify if the user is no longer around, especially if it's more than a year old. It inevitably leads to deletion without discussion unless someone like me decides to improve it a little at the 6 month mark and put it back in mainspace, but whoever draftified it could save a good deal of work for the reviewers if they did it themselves. It's just as bad as deleting it automatically, except it has an even higher overhead. Having coi does not mean an article is necessarily improper. At the very least anyone who intends to draftify or delete an article needs to consider whether the coi tag is even justified, and then whether the effect of it on the article is significant. The only exception the community has ever accepted is completely unsourced BLP--and even they get adequate special exposure a tProd, much more than individual drafts get. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I Chose AN as opposed to RFC as both are effective. I understand perfectly how the {{
  UPE}} works, The documentation is worded fairly, and very precise and in no way translates nor necessarily means that the article creator is actually engaged in UPE infact the tag is so fairly worded that it requires a discussion and I believe if the editor replies with a “No i don’t/did not receive nor intend to receive financial rewards” should suffice enough for the editor who put the tag there to remove it and if unsatisfied by the response take the article and the relevant diffs to COIN or if there’s a long-standing pattern of possible UPE from the same editor, the ANI should be the place to visit. I know it isn’t against policy, neither does it translate to “unfounded accusations” especially if the rationale for putting it there is plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5

The editor is particularly obsessed with the Rutland Railroad where he made sequential edits with only the subject's web home page as a bare url here:

• diff6

which he then added back after another editor reverted his changes:

• diff7

This editor refuses to respond to warnings from other editors and shows disrespect to the work of other editors with comments such as "fixed grammar", "my edit should never have been deleted", and "sloppy commas and run on sentances" here. It's very difficult to discern what is a useful edit and to clean up the article without picking through each and every one of his "minor" edits.

Per

@Blue Riband: I see they are using edit summaries but still marking edits as minor. I've blocked them from editing articles indefinitely until they respond here (or possibly their talk page) and convince another Admin to unblock them. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's choosen to leave Wikipedia as indicated by this message left on my talk page. Blue Riband► 11:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BITEn what could have been a productive newbie editor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I think it's a new account of DonPevsner (talk · contribs), who has edited for many years. DrKay (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the editor was starting to attempt referencing after their short block expired, as indicated here, but it didn't happen until the block got their attention, and in edits like this one, they add elements not explicitly backed by the source. Nothing in the timeline about a "two-year delay in bankruptcy court", although one might make that assumption. Couple this with edits that actually make punctuation worse, and now you have multiple editors spending time sifting out the good from the bad. Overall, it was disruptive to the project, and had the editor been willing to discuss or engage on their talk page using a fraction of the energy they dedicated to dropping nasty talk page messages, some of these relatively minor issues could have been worked out. To presume they may have missed the warnings is a big stretch, considering the slight change in behavior after the first block. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR competance includes ..."the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus...Blue Riband► 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

16ConcordeSSC's first edit was to the talk page for DRN, next two to the talk page of centralized discussion, fourth to a user talk page, fifth to DRN talk again, then four to their own talk page and one to their user page. They were given advice, help, and links. They are now insisting (repeatedly) on their talk page that they had no idea they even had a talk page until today. At over 1400 edits and after ignoring multiple warnings and failing to explore any of the resources provided to them, they need to start taking responsibility for their actions on wikipedia. This user talk page comment, this comment to an article talk page, and this edit to an editor talk page are all uncivil and belligerent. Being new does not excuse those comments. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with GoneIn60 and Blue Riband. In addition to his problems with sourcing and his belligerence, most (but admittedly not all) of his grammatical "fixes" actually introduced errors which necessitated subsequent clean-up. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]