Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

That RM discussion closed in support of exactly the moves I proposed. You did not participate; at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#More_discussion_about_dashes_in_sporting_event_titles you said the capitalized Men's Singles needed to be kept as a proper name: The sub-titles could always be justified as proper nouns, so MOS:SENTENCECAPS wouldn't apply. Why are you trying to rewrite history about that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I voted here (I voted for B or E. The winning option was Option B). Dicklyon's vote is clearly for A or D. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: You seem rather mixed up here. We were speaking about the RM discussion that I started on Jan. 8, and you're now referring back to the RFC that preceded it. I took the result of that RFC into account when proposed the moves in the RM. Rather than pushing my own preference, I proposed moves that looked like they would be more likely to get consensus, based on the rather mixed results in that RFC. So I chose one of the options that you had previously supported. In the RM, you didn't comment. I think I did the right thing here. Was there an issue? Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You changed your vote. I didn't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Tennis Project makes no edits, it cannot be hounded. Your bad-faith assumptions and wild accusations are pretty tiresome. Primergrey (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean no edits? A project can absolutely be hounded. Dicklyon never edited tennis articles before. They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop. If that's not hounding, then what is? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good faith-assuming version of that history is that he stumbled upon a capitalization issue in one set of tennis articles, fixed it, and then progressively found many more in other types of tennis articles (bios, draws, seasons) over time. I do agree though that he jumped the gun a bit in interpreting the consensus in the "Win–loss" discussion, and should revert himself if consensus ends up being for "Win–Loss". Letcord (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have said that I am prepared to put them back to "Win–Loss" quickly if there's a consensus to do so; but that won't happen, since it's against

MOS:CAPS, which says we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I think there's a non-zero chance that it will happen. I also think from the limited I've seen of your editing that you've not displayed "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as is required to post about someone here, so this public pillorying of you is undeserved. Letcord (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop.". "Nonstop" must mean something different than I think it does, then. Because his recent editing history is virtually all to NFL team articles and some MLB players. Does that mean he is hounding WP:SPORTS? You continue to be disingenuous in your lathered-up attempt to circumvent WP processes. Primergrey (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If one reads the discussion here and at
  WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. The "apparent" trigger for this "incident" would appear to be DL concluding and acting upon a consensus from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. If it is simply their volume of edits, there is no incident. As SchreiberBike observes: ... there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. Firefangledfeathers observes: ... the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. While Firefangledfeathers observe (and DL acknowledges), more time might have been given, one should consider the pattern of engagement at WikiProject Tennis. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? petered out in the same timeframe as the current discussion (ie just under 3 days) and, by my count, received 4 comments from card-carrying members of the tennis project. DL has regularly engaged with the project and in notified discussions elsewhere. If one reads the discussion fully, arguments about "W/l" are a red herring and the most recent comments at WikiProject Tennis are (IMHO) at best, novel but are clearly contrary to guidance and clutching at straws. Not even the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines were consistent in capitalising "win-loss" in tables (see this
  ).

I would remark on these particular comments at WikiProject Tennis: even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization and We would change it to W–L if it came to that. These statements (to me) signal petulance,

WP:BOOMERANG before, I think it should now be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I don't see how this is a legitimate issue. The discussion linked was not an RfC and did not need to be formally closed to find consensus for a change. I'd advise Dicklyon to be less hasty but leaving this ANI thread open is not likely to improve things; nor has Dicklyon done anything worthy of any sanction. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur with Elli. I'll add that what is going on here is that a handful of people (mostly along
  WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The attitude that the capitalization conventions in the MOS are a top-level priority, which must be aggressively enforced despite the strong preferences of the editors who actually create and maintain the articles in their fields of expertise, has over the years caused a great deal of damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CAPS violation, there are usually multiple options about what to change it to. Dicklyon does not just get to decide which one to go with. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    If I've done something where the Tennis Project comes to a consensus that there's a better solution, let me know and I'll be glad to help get it done (assuming it doesn't go against guidelines). Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" so that is of concern as well. Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) and was told as much before this ANI was brought to bear. But I'll tell you one thing... that boomerang statement tells me all I need to know and is probably a good reason why you failed in your attempt to gain administration level. That is ridiculous bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that it is accurate to say that: There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. I am not seeing any such comment at the tennis project discussion. The objections being made appear to be based on personal preference without any reference to how

  WP:NPA territory. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Pretty much agree with everything Newyorkbrad said above. It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're
  WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) as linked above is also very concerning, since those sockpuppets' edits involved MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc., and here we are in 2022 with complaints of disruptive editing by Dicklyon regarding those same types of issues. Some1 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Here we are in 2022, and you're digging up sockpuppet concerns from 2015?
    Calidum 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I didn't dig it up; it was mentioned earlier in this thread by Sportsfan77777 who said: Dicklyon has been blocked for
      WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS.[1] Some1 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• It's not a big secret that I oppose the lower-casing push on Wikipedia, that's been happening for roughly 2 years now. I believe that article titles & infobox titles are among the few areas left, that haven't been lower-cased (or at least not entirely). At some point, there's bound to be a push back, whether it's against one editor or a group of editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a lowercasing push so much as a push for congruence with the guidance of

  MOS:CAPS. Article titles and infobox titles are uniformly done in sentence case. Where there are exceptions, they should be fixed. But yes, it's no big secret that you oppose such fixing. And I've been doing it for over 15 years, so you're a relative newcomer to his area. Do you like to push your own style? Why? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The charges against Dicklyon are spurious. As others have said above, this is just another example of small groups of editors in particular topic areas attempting to assert control over what they perceive as their
  MOS:CAPS has been demonstrated time after time. Mr Lyon may sometimes be 'too quick to pull the trigger' when making these kinds of changes, but that doesn't negate the value of his tireless work to ensure our encyclopaedia meets a professional standard of stylisation. A topic ban would be disastrous for Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I rarely opine on this board and am myself no expert as to misadventure, but I was active in the 2015? thread when Dicklyon got blocked for sockpuppetry and since this enforcement tool has been mentioned, I am going to narrate boldly for perspective. I don't even remember the specific disagreement (likely similar to this one--MOS vs. local consensus), but I remember User:RGloucester tried lots of ways to get folks to recognize Dicklyon's socking (a very new and unexpected development at the time). My recollection is that RGloucester got himself blocked saying something inexplicable to get folks to listen. I actually remember screaming "noooo!" at the screen, reading RGloucester's words. Later we found out RGloucester was right the whole time. Dicklyon took his punishment, tried very hard to not edit, and re-applied for editing sooner than he probably should have. But IMHO if any editor on Wikipedia has a reason to hold a grudge against Dicklyon, it's RGloucester. If HE says such current charges are spurious, I'm inclined to listen closely to him THIS time. BusterD (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  RGloucester and I reconciled just fine (see his comments just above). My socking was designed to tweak him into accusing me, and it worked great. I'm very sorry I took that route, and I've done my time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the suggestion of a topic ban was made much too hastily. Despite the enthusiastic attempts by a few editors to personally discredit Dicklyon, he is at most guilty of overzealous enforcement of the Manual of Style. It would not be reasonable to impose sanctions here and this matter should have been handled with more AGF and less venom. While I don't think we are in boomerang territory just yet, cheap shots like this one are not okay.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I probably should not have written that to be sure. It stems from something in the past where he was reprimanded by administration for hammering on me at Wikipedia. I apologize for bringing it up but his statement about me and my motives is perceived as biased and unfair and I just boiled over in reading it. I'm still angry in reading his post again right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This should just be closed with no action needed. Wikiprojects exist to serve wikipedia, not the other way around. An editor enforcing the MOS (even in banal ways like this) is not an issue. Hell it should be appreciated by topic editors as something they don't have to do. If it is demoralising editors as suggested above, it probably says more about those editors than anything else. Aircorn (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How absurd can this get?

Now Sportsfan7777 is saying that I'm at it again by fixing the over-capitalization of "Strike Rate". See this revert. What crazy theory is behind such picking on routine case fixing? See WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tooltips, too for discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike rate refers to two different statistics in the sport of cricket. What does that have to do with tennis? wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know it means in cricket or even in tennis, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be capped. See n-grams. Or book search. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Dicklyon? You've exhausted all higher-priority tasks for fixing incorrect visible text, and now you're going after tool-tips that are only visible when you hover over them? How do you set your priorities? There's a ton of stuff worse than this lingering around the project that somehow you've missed. wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editing is my hobby; I don't aim to be as productive or efficient as possible, just work on fixing things I find wrong. Thank you for your concern. But if there are things wrong that you'd like me to help with, let me know; I usually aim to please (which got me into a bit of pickle with Letcord's suggestion as you can see above). Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think if editors were generally called upon to explain what they worked on and why the project would disintegrate. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest Dicklyon in working on clearing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations? This is something only I have ever worked on for any extended length of time, AFAIK. My time is too oversubscribed to keep it under control. There are over 400 links to Buzzfeed, that should link to BuzzFeed. Hundreds of links to Bachelor of arts that should link to Bachelor of Arts. Same for Bachelor of science and Bachelor of Science. A lot more where those came from, with more added most every day by drive-by biography writers. I don't follow how fixing some tool-tip in a table is higher priority than those. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you don't follow. No one needs to explain their priorities to you, let alone operate according to your priorities. Primergrey (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to remove the need for fixing Bachelor of science but Chris the speller refused to take it out of the queue. So I think it's reasonable to ask for help. He's not the only editor who keeps piling work on me. wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, I'd be happy to work on more tasks that others think are more important (in addition to what I do organically). Tell me more on my talk page about the nature of the problem and how you go about fixing it. Do you use JWB to generate list of articles linking to wrongly-capitalized redirects to start, and then just do the appropriate replaces? Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris the speller: so if you two disagree on whether "Bachelor of Science" needs caps or not, did either of you open a discussion on that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, you both had a word in there, I see now. But nobody cited a relevant section of

WT:MOSCAPS#Current, so nothing is resolved except that the two of you have different priorities, which is not novel. If we agree it needs fixing, I can whip it out in a few minutes with JWB. So agree first. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

wbm1058, it is categorically impossible for me to pile work on you. Please see

WP:VOLUNTEER. You are painting me as stubborn for marking a redirect as a miscapitalization 10 months ago. Dictionaries show "Bachelor of Science" as capitalized, as it is a specific, formal distinction. A "bachelor of science" is an unmarried man who plays with test tubes. Your fight is not with me, but with a bunch of lexicographers. Chris the speller ^yack 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, we three agreed, and I went through and fixed all those links to capped Bachelor of Science. In the process, I accidentally didn't restrict to main space, and ended up editing this conversation as I clicked through too fast. Sorry about that. I also noticed that I need to go and fix Bachelor of Science in Xxx to lowercase xxx. Will work on that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is complete BS. I didn't say the tooltip should be capitalized. I said either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely --- tooltip use is discouraged because tooltips are not very accessible on mobile devices. We moved the explanation of SR to the performance key to explain it there. Many of our articles don't have the tooltips anymore, but as far as I know there was never a discussion about whether to remove them from all articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, your edit summary did say either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely as you restored title-case Strike Rate. Sorry if I didn't characterize your revert exactly correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, with clear reason to remove the tooltip template, and make the dispute redundant,

WP:POINTy, since the actions required are rather trivial. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed, Why do we still, after all these years since National Football League draft (

this discussion was SIX years ago!) need to keep driving (at Talk:Norwegian First Division#Over-capitalization) home that MOS:CAPS does not decide whether a thing is a Thing that has a proper name or just a generic thing that doesn't? wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand why Dicklyon is allowed to keep carrying out these edits (changing "Strike Rate" to "Strike rate"). When I reverted one of his changes to the tooltip and told him what I wanted (either "strike rate" or the tooltip removed altogether), he stopped making the edits and opened the discussion pointed out above (WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tooltips, too). Now, I was going to reply to the tooltip discussion again, but I see Dicklyon has gone back to making the edits he wants on the tooltips (for example, this one from today) even though it has only been two days since I last commented. There are so many active discussions on tennis related to Dicklyon that I don't have time to reply to all of them every single day. At this point, I don't see the point of replying to the tooltip discussion because Dicklyon has already made the changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers commented above "I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion" and Dicklyon replied "Advice received", but he is still doing it. There is no end to this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an end to fixing over-capitalization in tennis, and we're nearly there, thanks to help from Letcord especially at

MOS:CAPS, and because the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Caps_in_tooltips found no support for an exception in tooltips, and because nobody has seriously suggested that the title case version is preferred, and because the tennis project uses sentence-case tooltips widely in their templates that use tooltips. There's still the open question of whether all lowercase would be preferred; or weather the tooltips should just be removed; I would not object, but wouldn't do it just for "strike rate" and not for the others. Your re-instatement of title case in a few cases, just to keep the argument alive, was quite POINTy as pointed out already by Cinderella157. Re the issue that brought us here, fixing the title-case "Win–Loss" in table headings and tooltips, most were previously fixed and I'm holding off fixing the rest until this AN/I discussion ends. But it never ends, with vague accusations being re-posted from time to time. Can we stop now? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The great majority of my edits in the tennis space (about 20,000 edits) can be understood from the discussion at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Bot for renaming/moving tennis articles. The only comments I got there were about things that I failed to fix, so I kept at collecting over-capitalization patterns and fixing them. All was fine until Sportsfan reverted a change of "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss" in a table header. So we discussed that at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, and appeared to have strong support (only Sportsfan and Fyunck objecting) for following MOS:CAPS instead of Sportsfan's variant style, so I went back to it. This is not at all the picture that he and Fyunck paint above which somehow has me harassing him or the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some other changes that ended up being partly reverted can be understood from User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task and WT:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task. Please read and you'll see I'm trying my best to be cooperative with the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I can't see how implementing a mass-change against consensus is in anyway being "cooperative with the project." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out when/where you think I did that? Maybe a diff or two, so I can see what you're accusing me of? As you told some above, That is a very serious accusation. You need to provide evidence, or withdraw this accusation at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HandThatFeeds: again, if you have evidence that I have been "implementing a mass-change against consensus", please link it here. Otherwise please retract this accusation, which is a wild extrapolation of what brought us here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is a "wild extrapolation" and will not be withdrawing it. Please do not ping me again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ask if you will be substantiating your accusation for the benefit of those of us who are trying to wrap their heads about this thread, but I doubt if you'll see my comment. If someone doesn't want to be pinged back to a discussion, they really shouldn't lob an accusation before leaving.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously he will not be substantiating his accusation, since I never did any "implementing a mass-change against consensus"; he just read too much into the complaint and extrapolated to that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the read the discussion above, Lepricavark. Dicklyon "implemented a mass-change against consensus" four times last week alone, including once after this ANI started. All but one of those changes are still being discussed, while the other one was reverted back to what it was before Dicklyon made the changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the massive thread, thank you very much. What I saw was a tantrum by the OP, who acted as if a series of minor stylistic changes was somehow the end of life as we know it. For example: We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. Fyunck unironically stated that reverting stylistic edits had become a higher priority than dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry. Do I agree that Dicklyon carried things a little bit too far and acted a little bit too eagerly? Yes. Did it justify the character assassination perpetrated above? Absolutely not. Also, I see no evidence of Dicklyon violating an existing consensus. He may have been too eager to claim that a consensus existed, but given that he was merely trying to bring articles into compliance with the MOS as he understood it, I'm not sure it was reasonable to expect him to seek consensus in the first place. I really don't think it matters if the tables say 'Win-loss', 'Win-Loss', or 'W-L'. But what I do care about is the manner in which this dispute has been needlessly personalized against one individual. Cooler heads need to prevail.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have no horses in this race whatsoever; if anything, I have viewed Dicklyon as a rather charitable editor who was kind to me when I first started editing.

That said, I think Dicklyon is wrong here, and I am wondering why he has forgotten that Wikipedia is this funky mundane miracle wherein everyone gets together to collate knowledge into an encyclopedia that most get to edit and everyone gets to use. Yes, there are rules in place to govern how we interact with each other, but the overriding unspoken truth is that without that collaborative effort to work together, it all falls apart.

And Dicklyon, your actions have repeatedly worked to sidestep that collaboration. Never mind why you have done it in the past, or why you continue to do it now. What matters is this single inexcusable truth: your actions - in not genuinely seeking to work with other contributors - have proven to be corrosive to the Project. I totally understand why you do it, but its an arrogance, Dick, and one that distances you from others in Wikipedia; it turns you into a Cabal of One. And that effing sucks, man, because you have a lot to offer the community, if you'd but listen to and work with others.

You need to cowboy up and change how you approach Wikipedia editing. You may not like some of the changes that new generations of editors have brought about, but you either adapt to those rules or walk away. The third option is you get kicked out, and that would be a shit legacy for you. YOU NEED TO RE-THINK THIS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the fact that your very long comment is just a series of generalizations that fails to address any of the specifics of this dispute, you are at least the second person in this megathread to bring up the importance of collaborative work without acknowledging the very real problem of the OP putting their own personal preferences ahead of the MOS. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand?

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Lepricavark: You said he may have been "too eager to claim that a consensus existed to change tennis charts" and that he had no reason to realize there may be debate on the issue. Even if true, it looks like his eagerness never abates per all his edits in the last several hours, in spite of this discussion going on. Many of those edits are exactly what is being discussed currently elsewhere and why it was brought here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not ideal. Whether or not these edits should be controversial, they clearly are. It would be prudent for him to refrain from making mass edits related to the 'Win-Loss' display while this discussion is ongoing. This is not a matter that is so urgent that it cannot wait for discussion.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

And this was my point above: there was no concensus for these mass edits, yet DI continues to make them. Even while this discussion is ongoing. This has become a repeat problem with him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you said I implemented mass changes against consensus, you wouldn't say which changes or what consensus you were referring to. You've softened it just a bit to "no concensus for these mass edits", but you still haven't pointed out what mass edits you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're actively still doing it. People are watching you do it and taking note. Are you so dense, so mired in your own ego, that you cannot sit back and accept this is a problem? You're just going to doggedly demand I point out the obvious? I don't see the point, as you're clearly going to just deny there's any problem anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am still actively editing Wikipedia, fixing case errors and other things. Getting no complaints, comments, reverts, or other indication that anything I'm doing is wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer here is

WP:FAIT, which sets expectations for exactly this type of situation. --Masem (t) 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If you think I've done something relevant to

WP:FAIT, such as large numbers of edits not supported by broad consensus, please do say what you're referring to. I have even stated that I'm prepared to immediately change all Win–loss back to Win–Loss should there be a consensus that that would be better (hard to imagine). Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Getting no complaints, comments, reverts, or other indication that anything I'm doing is wrong.

What the fuck do you think this entire discussion has been about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

• This section is extremely "mucho texto", and I got about halfway through reading it before giving up. But I am going to say some shit anyway: Dicklyon is a smart guy and a great editor, and I've been at odds with him before but I am opposed to him being kicked out of the project over this. That said: @Dicklyon: I really wish you would lay back on the capitalization crusade. I have seen you write stuff that's brilliant and useful, and thousands of words of arguments over capitalization is not really brilliant and useful. Even if you are right, this seems really pointless to me. jp×g 08:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be more specific in what I'm saying, you and I once had an argument about the capitalization of an article I created, which involved both of us typing out several paragraphs of text. Sure, you were probably right about that (and you are quite possibly right about this), but we spent at least a couple combined hours clacking out a bunch of inane dreck about capitalization on a talk page. Meanwhile, we appear to both be software engineers from Silicon Valley who've written multiple articles about landforms in San Francisco Bay -- in fact, one of your rivers (Miguelita Creek) touches one of my islands (Ogilvie Island). Both of these articles are kind of shitty. Surely, we would both be better off if we had spent this time collaborating on expanding them instead, or taking photos, or any damn thing in the world besides arguing about the capitalization of "extremely online". jp×g 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do spend a lot of time fixing capitalization according to the guidelines at
      WP:IAR without good reason, yes, I do push back, and yes, it does waste a ridiculous amount of editor time, especially if it gets brought to noticeboards instead of just normal discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • As for Miguelita Creek, I did track down more info on that and other East San Jose creeks, and found a wonderful map created by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. I tracked down the author of the rerport it was in, and talked him into saying OK to use it on Wikipedia, but so far have not been able to get him to send the explicit license statement we need. I haven't given up, though that too has been a big time sink. The map shows the original and rerouted creeks, explaining some of the naming confusion around there. And yes I have spent a ton of time driving around taking pictures of creeks (see User:Dicklyon#Creeks, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, bays); I can tell you who calls that a waste of time. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang time?

I suggest that the next user to post a vague accusation against me, without so much as a single diff of an edit that is in some way objectionable, be sanctioned by at least a short block. We keep seeing this behavior above. They say I'm "still at it" but won't post a single single diff to show what they're complaining about. Yes, I do a lot of editing, including a lot of case fixing in tennis recently, but none of it is controversial. Or if you think it is, show us which, and why. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been wiser to just let the thread die.

LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

But every day someone lobs another vague accusation. When will this stop? Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This board is often like "running the gauntlet" but stray individuals keep turning up to take their whack. I'm not about boomeranging but do see a value in closing this discussion sooner than later. This drama has run its course. I advise Dicklyon to button up and let some uninvolved closer tackle this. We've got more important work to do, I'm certain. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stakes in this argument, but here's what I think.

Dicklyon made some edits, which weren't inherently controversial, but his methods after the fact...

"Styling it [Win–loss] according to the guidance of our MOS doesn't make it an unusual outlier"- Dicklyon

I think that sentence pretty much sums up Dicklyon's point, and many people aren't fighting him on that. The real problem I have, and I think others have, with Dicklyon is not his logic or his claiming consensus maybe a bit too early. The problem is his blatant refusal to slow down and talk about the problem, and to stop editing while he does so. Honestly, if there is problem that needs to be addressed more on Wikipedia, it's this idea of no apology in any circumstance. Dicklyon is a tenured editor here, with many quality articles and pictures, but that doesn't give him the right to be a jerk.

"You're actively still doing it. People are watching you do it and taking note. Are you so dense, so mired in your own ego, that you cannot sit back and accept this is a problem?" - The Hand That Feeds You:, referring to Dicklyon's other mass changes without consensus.

First of all, I think

MOS:CAPS

and yet deny it when you think it 'looks weird', at least in this circustance, isn't fair, not to Dicklyon, not to Wikipedia, and not to the thousands of thousands of editors who agree with it.

The question is, does anyone actually object to his mass editing anymore? If no one objects now, why are we bringing up some of his other recent edits? If anything, that shows that the argument is no longer 'Win–Loss' vs 'Win–loss' vs 'W–l' (still makes me cringe looking at it) but an argument against Dicklyon's methods. And, overall, Tennis Project editors, is this really the hill you're going to die on?

All I'm saying is, coming into this ANI with no knowledge of any party, Fyunck and Sportsfan77777 made Dicklyon seem like some sort of scourge that plagued Wikipedia with his mass editing and his blatant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines, when in reality he is an editor following the rules (maybe a bit too vigilantly). Ten paragraphs in and I'm already rooting for Dicklyon's downfall, when in reality, a couple of disgruntled editors brought up a justified complaint and blew it up in such a way that it made Dicklyon look like a tyrant. Then the goalposts were slowly shifted away from the idea that 'Dicklyon's edits are unjustified' to 'Dicklyon is unjustified', and we're talking about indefinite topic bans because he's what? Why would we be banning him, exactly? Is it his personality? If we were to ban Dicklyon from anything, it would be a serious blow to Wikipedia as a whole. Dislike of a person is not grounds for an indefinite topic ban, in my highly unprofessional opinion.

Dicklyon should stop mass editing until this ANI is resolved.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument should explicitly state whether they are against the edits or indifferent.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument should explicitly state whether they are against the edits themselves, against Dicklyon's methods, or for Dicklyon's methods.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument, say you're sorry. Please.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument, admit any possible wrongdoings you may have commited pertaining to this discussion.

Move from there. This discussion won't close until A) people sit down and actually address the problem, or B) people get tired of arguing, which I don't think is the way to go. 2ple (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying I refused to slow down. On what? I've stopped on the Win–Loss issue that brought us here. I stopped on the "Strike Rate" tooltip thing until after the discussion at

WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips made it clear that there was nobody at all arguing that the title case way was in any way preferred to sentence case (not even Sportsfan who brought it up). Was there anything else that Fyunck or Sportsfan or anyone else complained about or asked me to slow down on? No – or show me. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If someone would like to helpfully point me to whatever existing policy we have regarding this, I would appreciate it.- jc37 08:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know or care what the alphabet soup is, but mass edits are not ok and continuing to mass edit when you know it's controversial is very much not ok. Is the answer here some kind of topic ban from capitalization-related edits?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "alphabet soup" do you mean "the relevant policy or guideline"?Primergrey (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, not yet at least. I think this whole ANI has silently shifted off the topic of 'controversial edits' and onto the topic of 'controversial editing'. I don't think what Dicklyon is doing is the problem anymore, it's how he does it. 2ple (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like

WP:FAIT is the appropriate reference, as noted by Masem, and its content seems adequate. However, I haven't noticed anyone really successfully impeaching the nature of the edits, and there was a volunteering to help fix them if they proved to be against consensus. The edits seem to be helping Wikipedia follow its own guidelines more consistently, and I don't see a reason to complain if that's done quickly or affects a lot of articles. It seems a bit risky, and a bit unfriendly to a minority group of opponents, but not actionable as a clear problem. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for the link.

And the thing is you express a valid point, one that concerns me.

BRD is: be bold, then revert, then discuss. What is being said here is that it's Be bold, discuss, and if concensus forces them to, then revert. Sounds a lot like fait accompli to me. And definitely does not match BRD at all. - jc37 19:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pick on the quantity of my work; just the quality. Mass edits are OK when not controversial. If someone reverts one edit out of a mass, or complains or comments on it, we stop and discuss. We continue if there appears to be a clear consensus. What I've mostly been criticized for above is making that determination a bit quickly. Since then, nobody has shown any of my edits to be wrong or controversial. So why state things like "sounds like" and "seems to be failing here", without any indication of what you guys are complaining about. Go trout yourselves. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that is not why this report happened and not why people continue to pile on. You do not do proper BRD's when you put the cart in front of the horse. You did mass changes and multiple editors complained and told you to take it to talk. You pretty much refuse to do that and continue to make those same mass changes, right or wrong. Especially against long-standing consensus. And when we did have something at talk, there was discussion about doing it differently but after a few days you arbitrarily declared a consensus where none was forthcoming as of yet and start mass changes again. That is wrong and will always be wrong. If you make a change and someone reverts you, you do not add it back either. You have personally declared capitalization as your own "Pet Peeve" and it has blinded you to procedure around here. If it was one time then no big deal and people work things out in talk. But it is far from one time as the multitude of complainers here indicate. This is a long-term issue that needs to be addressed so it doesn't happen again where editor after editor feel bullied by your implementation style or that they have no voice and leave editing Wikipedia altogether. Wikipedia does not need to keep bleeding good editors because of your "Pet Peeve." You don't seem to listen and plow ahead like a bulldozer, and that can't be good for Wikipedian's moral. It simply can't be that hard to post on a WikiProject that you would like to change 10,000 article punctuations. And what happens is that people may stop complaining that your edits are wrong and controversial because they throw up their hands in disgust and weariness and simply give up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you provide not a single example to illustrate what you mean by "You did mass changes and multiple editors complained and told you to take it to talk. You pretty much refuse to do that and continue to make those same mass changes..." It's bullshit. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Cleanup edits #2 that I've continued with a few thousand more case fixing edits, with help from User:Letcord mostly, all opening discussed at the project, with zero pushback. Fyunck and Sportsfan have found nothing to complain about, as far as I can tell, and nobody else has had any problem with these either (including from the fans of baseball, football, squash, badminton, archery, cricket, etc., whose articles had a lot of the kinds of over-capitalization I was working on). If it turns out I made any mistakes in there, I stand ready to fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - "I don't want to undo them without consensus" - That is the issue. Full stop.

I'm sorry that it may mean more work for you. But you chose to use an automated tool to make the edits.

If you refuse to adhere to BRD, are you surprised that people are expressing concerns?

As I said above, I really don't care about the current situation. So the "quality" of your edits is immaterial to me. This is purely a behavioural question. Which is, I presume, why it's being discussed at AN/I.

However, my concern is less with your actions in this particular instance, but rather, whether the current policies are clear enough to help you or anyone else making mass edits. If not, then we need to clean up the policy right now.

And from your comments throughout this discussion, apparently

WP:FAIT

are not clear enough.

Am I misunderstanding you? - jc37 21:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so. BRD doesn't say that I have to undo every edit that might be in question; it says that if others revert, we discuss. And as I said, I stand ready to return "Win–loss" to "Win–Loss" is there's a consensus that title-case works better there, or to "win–loss" if there's a consensus that that's preferred. I think the policies are pretty clear. You're saying there's a "behavioural question", but it's not clear what the question is. I'd question the behavior of Fyunck and Sportsfan for trying to win at ANI when they're clearly on the opposite side of consensus in the normal discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As every admin is probably aware, topics surrounding the former Communist bloc region are a subject of

Content dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not used to this. I don't think I have been on this page before. I thought it was a behavioural issue for two reasons, the relentlessness with abandon, and the ACDS factor. Are you sure it is definitely Dispute Resolution? --Coldtrack (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably bad behaviour by HEB who certainly knows there are proper channels to handle a content dispute rather than edit warring. Quite unbelievable to edit away from the status quo, have this questioned by three editors and then suggest other editors need to prove consensus. I also thought this edit was quite sneaky. It was made shortly after Edin balgarin, the main editor disputing HEB's edit, was indeffed (for unrelated disruptive editing) with a handwave to the talk page which in no way showed support for the edit. The attempt at a boomerang below is not a good sign either. On the heels of this incident, I think a good trouting and a topic ban might be in order. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I was aware of this discussion, I had little interest in getting involved in it, as I had the aforementioned negative interaction with HEB. I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address histheir unnecessarily confrontational behavior. The user sees dissent as a personal attack; and this retaliatory 'Request boomerang' subsection below is highly indicative of that. Note that HEB cherry-picks comments of others but in no way apologizes for their own, "suboptimal" comments and behavior (to quote @Floquenbeam:). One such instance is coincidence; twice is enemy action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to "cherry-pick" comments of mine from Talk:Kosovo which you feel are suboptimal you can do so, I would appreciate knowing what there you think I can improve on. Also please use the singular "they" when referring to me, my gender is undisclosed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not playing your game of distraction, HEB. However, please feel free to point out where I have, in this conversation, applied a gender to you. Additionally, others have fully addressed your 'suboptimal' interactions with them. I've only pointed out where your comments in our previous interaction triggered an unconstructive interaction. Just like this completely different situation with an entirely different group of people. What's the common factor in the friction from both conversations?

The answer you might be struggling with is facing you in the mirror, pal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address his unnecessarily confrontational behavior." The common thread seems to be editors completely ignoring

WP:RS in favor of their own opinions and then escalating to WP:ANI when they can't win a policy based argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

☖ 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahh, so I did let an accidental 'his' slip into the post where, at every other point before and since, used their preferred pronoun. I could care less as to the user's gender; my complaint addressed their behavior, not which restroom they used. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI but I was the one reverting to the status quo, it had been steady from 2 February [3] to 8 March when it was changed by Edin balgarin [4] (who was indeffed for *related* disruptive editing BTW, the case is above this one) and I partially reverted Edin less than twenty minutes later[5]. Not really sure why Coldtrack is omitting that part of the narrative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edin was blocked following a bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage (admins feel free to correct me). Unless I am completely misunderstanding the content dispute here, this is not related to Kosovo's borders. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage in a conversation discussing this exact issue at Kosovo, the conversation can be found at User talk:EvergreenFir#‎Kosovo and 1RR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone commits a murder in a post office it doesn't make them guilty of mail fraud. This is a good opportunity to show some contrition and self-reflection...just some friendly advice. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their rant was a two-parter, half was posted on a personal talk page and half was posted on the article talk page[6], if they hadn't been indeffed for the one they probably would have been sanctioned for the other. If someone commits a murder in a post office but is killed by responding officers and were also committing mail fraud they will never be charged for mail fraud, but that doesn't make them innocent. You can either advocate for a topic ban (what topic exactly?) or you can offer friendly advice, its kind of hard to do both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request boomerang

"Kosovo is not Serbian irredentism because it has never recognised the breakaway of this region, and as such, Serbia's claim over Kosovo extends beyond nationalists to the whole of ethnic Serb society."[7]

"Nobody is interested in your unauthenticated appraisal of what is a "puppet state" and what you decree to be "sovereign", and while you are unable to corroborate any form of "puppetry" outside of your Russophobic mainstream media, everybody that knows Kosovo, famous for Camp Bonsteel, knows that it is nothing more than a western outstation. Its streets and squares shamefully honour contemporary US political figures in a way not even known in the US, and where the Kosovo "flag" flies, so too does the US flag."[8]

"You don't get to appropriate this policy to violate delicate NPOV matters. That would firstly be in breach of

"The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border" as a consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate. Al Jazeera did not waste time here as within three days of the declaration of independence, they put out a report titled "Europe's Newest Country", filled with the usual vexed anti-Serbian rhetoric."[10]

"No. You have had this explained to you a gazillion times now. NPOV is about reflecting conflicting viewpoints. You need to know what RS is and is not. RS is about choosing which of two diametrically opposed claims to treat as factual (e.g. round earth, supported by science vs flat earth, supported by pseudo-science). RS is not a trump card to oust NPOV. If it were, then there would be no such policy as NPOV."[11]

"If you wish to dodge questions then this conversation is finished ... You are basically saying "RS says this so we should discard MNPOV". That is appropriating one policy to conceal the elephant in the room, which is not how this project works. Any more WEIGHT violations to the article and sidestepping of longstanding consensus, and you will be reported. Bye."[12]

"The conversation with Horse Eye's Back has gone as far as it can go. Three editors including you have now spoken to him and he clings onto the tassels of "Reliable Sources" out of sheer desperation to push a slanted viewpoint. So if he removes "uncontested territory" again, I will report him and in doing so, will alert you to the discussion."[13]

When someone is trying to dismiss all contemporary reliable sources as unreliable for a given space I think its pretty clear that they shouldn't be editing in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang for what? I haven't touched the article since God knows when. I can revert you right now and lock you out of restoring your partisan revision for almost 24 hours, except I haven't. So where does Boomerang come into play? You've argued with three editors. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should specify, the request is either for a topic ban regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans or a general

WP:NOTHERE ban given your complete dismissal of mainstream WP:RS as "Russophobic" and for "pre-existing advocacy." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll allow the admins to deal with it. Your singular point you raised after it was debunked time after time after time did not mean you had to play around with the article. I've kept off it, and nothing has prevented you from doing so while seeking a third opinion or making a request for comment inter alia. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the boomerang took a while to double back (see

WP:ANI#Unusually_nasty_and_unfair_personal_attack). El_C 04:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@El C: How are these two incidents related? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were, but the OP is indef blocked all the same. El_C 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I am being obtuse here but Coldtrack is the OP of this discussion. It appears you blocked a user called Caltraser5 as a result of the discussion you linked to. I just don't see the connection. It doesn't appear Coldtrack has been blocked? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shit. I can't read. Sorry! El_C 04:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is indeed a content dispute, but I am concerned by edits like this one which basically state that Kosovo (a state recognised by over half the UN) has the same position as Somaliland or Transnistria (states recognised by precisely zero other countries). That's obviously a POV issue, but I'd say it's even more a competence one (and I agree that someone whose worldview is that skewed should probably keep away from editing in that area). Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update request

"looks good to because it fits your narrative. But the change was without consensus and this does not conform to other articles such as Serbia and Outline of Serbia"[14]

"I have never in my life seen such a one-sided and flagrantly loaded misrepresentation of the matter at hand anywhere ... If there is to be a credible RfC, it needs to be written by someone like me who objects to the current wording, and in doing so, I would have built a dam stronger case that the loaded overture ... The fact of the matter is that the above "choice" is a false dilemma fallacy since a true RfC should be open-ended ... It is flat out mendacious to pretend that dealing with "confusing wording" is remedied by satisfying one of two POVs ... I suggest scrap this section and allow me to rewrite the overture more comprehensively and without such restricted options."[15]

"partial undo. I have rewritten the first sentence to explain what this article is actually about. Information such as the capital city and the partially recognised status of the "Republic of Kosovo" should not be removed."[16]

"I argued for months about the diametrically opposed appraisals on the White Helmets. Al Qaeda linked terrorists posing as rescuers? Or benign and benevolent cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics? The so-called "reliable sources" claim the latter, while the rest of the world's media, state-owned and private, point to the former. I argued with scores of anti-Syrian government apologists for possibly more than a year on and off, and had to leave because it was like pissing in the wind. The discussion ultimately came down to what is and is not reliable, and I was a one-man gang representing radical changes to the whole of en.wiki. That was never to be on the cards. I don't know if we are dealing with the same category of mainstream gatekeepers here. There is a certain symmetry about the two: one version permanently on display, 1RR per day, and an army of editors on hand to "revert the reverting editor" so their preferred version stays for the best part of 24/7."

"It is all good and well saying "reliable sources call it the Serbian border" but that has two problems: A) it rides roughshod over the disputed status and moreover breaches the neutrality of the source in question since its editors have fostered a position of advocacy, and B) Saying "Kosovo's border with Serbia" - which is half right due to it being Kosovo's border however you dice it - is being erected as a wooden dummy to create the illusion that the community has chased the gigantic elephant out of the room. Tomorrow, "we'll, we've agreed Kosovo borders Serbia, therefore we operate on the basis that Kosovo isn't a part of Serbia, and if it isn't a part of Serbia then what it is? It must be independent. So let's start calling it a country of the same standard as India and South Africa, and move "disputed territory" to line three, etc. when ElderZamzam has already explained Kosovo here is being singled out for special treatment as other comparable examples are all worded differently."

"The fact that it is state elsewhere on the article that Kosovo is disputed does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources."[17]

"RS is a tired argument and if it the one and only response you have for every challenge made to it, then you'd best go read

"No, you agree that. Many others share the position that Kosovo is occupied by local rebels and their western handlers such as those based at Bondsteel ... The reality in the case of Abkhazia is the same as Kosovo's."[19]

"There is not one scintilla of "nationalism" behind suggestions that Kosovo is in Serbia (which incidentally is not implied by A, C, D and all other alternatives mentioned). Apart from more than half of the globe recognising Serbia's territorial integrity, this is the position of the entire Serbian society, from left-wing to right-wing, from moderate to extreme, from sectarian to secular, and from native to diaspora. There is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo's recognition in some fringe corner of Serbian society."[20]

The POV pushing/competence issues continue. Really looks like they can't be relied upon to edit Kosovo related articles dispassionately however they appear to be suggesting that their disregard for our reliable sources policy extends beyond that topic area. The most disturbing to me is the characterization of the portion of Serbian society which supports the recognition of Kosovo's independence as a

RFC launched at Talk:Kosovo#RFC: Kosovo-Serbia border. (But not just because El C said so! ) Levivich 19:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How dare thou! I am the leader of the BBC, still. 🍔 El_C 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

• I'll mandate an RfC as an
  Log. To clarify: until an RfC is closed with consensus to include, that passage is prohibited. El_C 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No such user (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm not sure why we're tying ourselves in knots trying to find the least convoluted wording for a sentence that probably doesn't need to be there at all. Why not simply replace the sentence with a map? Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I will just reuse Fut. Perf's answer from the same discussion: I don't think that would be a good idea. "X borders on Y" sentences are pretty standard in our country articles, for good reason – they provide an easily understandable geographic reference frame for readers unfamiliar with the region (and speaking of maps, the one we are currently showing at the top of the infobox is so small you can hardly see Kosovo anyway, let alone what other countries it borders on). I dislike the idea of sacrificing a piece of plain, uncontroversially useful factual information for our readers just because some entrenched Wikipedia editors keep reading non-existing and quite unrelated POV issues into one bit of wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC).
  No such user (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, run the RfC nonetheless. The preceding sentence already reads: Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008,[14] and has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 97 member states of the United Nations. It is bordered by Serbia [etc.] Again, get affirmative consensus if you wish to reiterate that distinction in the next sentence, too. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough. As for the map: Abkhazia is about the same size as Kosovo (i.e. half an Israel), and it resolves its tininess on the continental map well enough (like Israel), I think, so have a look-see at those examples. El_C 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACDS is that it allows uninvolved admins to, sometime, skirt the line between content and conduct (i.e. normally indeed an over-reach). Now, whether that action crosses that line would be subject to appeal in the usual venues. Hope that clears things up. El_C 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That's not skirting the line, that's a blatant involvement in favor of one side of a content dispute.

No such user (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The venues for appeals are: yes,

WP:ARCA by the Committee itself. El_C 13:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I dislike that passage not because I have a content preference. I dislike it because it reads awkwardly and, arguably, restates the sentence that precedes it. I have no opinion on any changes that qualify (or not)... whatever in relation to describing the borders, in text or visually, with a better map. El_C 13:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Since when are admins supposed to make content choices in their administrative capacity? You're being helpful like a bull in a china shop. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough – since when we need a RfC for every wording, and every single discussion needs to be closed? In that discussion, nobody (except the last poster, Let's keep it neutral supported unqualified "borders Serbia" wording that you're trying to impose now; I announced I'll change it to "uncontested territory" wording, nobody objected, and it was in the article ever since HEB's incursion. I'm not in love with that wording either, but the onus to open a RfC is on the one(s) advocating the change.

No such user (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just like the ACDS

WP:ONUS, argue your case on the RfC, not here. El_C 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Putting the content issues (on which I’m agnostic) aside, there is still to my mind an issue with HEB’s recent conduct and edit warring on this article in particular. This was an uncivil and unhelpful way to go about something that clearly had pushback at the local level. Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir.copic, I looked at that and had found subpar conduct from multiple parties, but opted against sanctions in the end in favour of the RfC. I suppose you could try to seek admin intervention just against HEB alone, to be carried by a different admin, here, in a new subsection (for some reason). El_C 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the discussion on the Kosovo talk page and it brought me here. For transparency, I haven't had any interaction with the users involved and I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the content dispute. However, I do think it's striking that several experienced editors (No such user, JuicyOranges, Coldtrack and Jack Sebastian) have expressed concerns regarding HEB's conduct. To me HB's comments + edit-warring show an uncompromising attitude and arrogance which might be the reason why it rubs other editors the wrong way. This is contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia which is cooperation, civility and respecting consensus. A warning would be well-deserved here. --Griboski (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've alerted

Wait; so you've been edit warring on an article for the past few days and you want the other guy to be blocked?? If I'm looking at the edit history right you've made almost the same removal five times in a row in the past 3 days. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] You have not engaged in any discussion on the talk page at

WP:BOOMERANG

block on Onel5969.

Also, you're not allowed to draftify articles that have already been draftified.[26] Take it to AfD or go home. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to say that "but unsourced content!!" is not a listed exception to

WP:EDITWAR unless it's BLP related and you nuked a whole lot of non-BLP stuff in the diffs I had to post for you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Onel5969 was also just here last month in a thread about edit warring. [27] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost as if when the community enables a policy violator's policy violations, that person will continue to violate policy. Who would've thought? I expect this thread will similarly end with everyone encouraging Onel to continue edit warring. Mlb96 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is one of those rare "block both editors and delete the page" occasions. Levivich 05:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• How about you self-important bunch stop trying to put the blame on the person who spends all their time shoveling crap at the dark end of the NPP queue? There is a fundamental difference between "reverted too often to add unsourced material" and "reverted too often to remove said unsourced material" - that difference being that one of these is harming the encyclopedia and the other is protecting it. A bit of perspective please, and less stentorian "pox on both of their houses" blather. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with you, Elmidae - I was just at his UTP mentioning the time sink that article has become, and mentioned a potential redirect to the company. I look up, and see this block against one of our hardest working reviewers - it's a thankless job as it is. Atsme 💬 📧 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw your note on Onel's talk page, recommending a redirect. Had they taken your advice and done that, or put a note on the talk page, or filed an AfD, or otherwise made an attempt to cement a consensus and resolve the issue, then that would have been fine. But they edit-warred repeatedly over the issue, and given Onel's been at ANI for this sort of thing recently, I don't think we've got any choice. I agree that Onel does a lot of work on NPP, and on the occasion we've disagreed (usually over the application of a CSD criteria), it's been polite and fruitful. I think occasionally they just get carried away, and that's why we are where we are in this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my end, I appreciate your double page block as an impartial admin's sensible compromise between acknowledging the impetus for multi-reverting this stuff, shutting down the unsourced additions at the page, and upholding basic editing rules. (Sorry, Onel - I've been there too :p) Thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've never done NPP myself, but I'm pretty sure edit warring is not part of the page reviewing process. Levivich 12:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't just exempt people from policies because they're productive in other ways. Every single time we've done this we end up with editors who feel they are

  WP:EDITWAR because they're right is creating someone that feels it's OK to editwar when they're right. We've had this conversation before at ANI dozens of times but with different people on each side. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I have blocked Onel5969 and Kurisumasen from
  List of Mixels characters for 72 hours after repeated edit-warring between the pair of them. I have no idea what to do with the article, but if anyone thinks it should go to AfD, I won't object. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I am unconvinced about blocking someone for removing unsourced crap from an article, but it's only a partial, so whatever. I do notice that
  WP:CIR issue here in that despite 10K edits they clearly have no idea of the concept of sourcing the trivia they shovel into items, so I've given them a heavier warning for that. Meanwhile, This was the original List of Mixels page they created (sources: two fandom pages) and this was the state of it when they moved it back into mainspace from the draft that Onel5969 had placed it (Only source: an online Mixels game on the Lego website - I wish I was joking). Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It wasn't unsourced, and if it was, then what was left behind wasn't sourced either. Onel's version is no better than Kuri's. How does that video game "source" Onel's version? The source for a list of characters in a fictional work is the fictional work itself. Pretty much every relevant policy and guideline says (a) it doesn't need an inline reference, (b) don't edit war, and (c) even if it needs an inline reference, don't edit war unless it's a BLP. An NPP should know this, especially one who was just at ANI. A non-disruptive editor would have taken this to AfD for notability reasons, or started a merge discussion, not edit war to remove content that didn't have an inline citation (because it doesn't need an inline citation, because the source is the fictional work itself). This is like edit warring to remove an unsourced plot summary only to leave a shorter, still-unsourced plot summary behind. It's a pure content dispute that has nothing to do with verifiability. Levivich 13:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • According to this diff, the link failed verification. When you click on it, you're taken to a game. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) ^{Adding: the curation tool shows: Possible issues – Blocked user - This page was created by a blocked user. Previously deleted - This page was previously deleted. Copyvio - This page may contain copyright violations. 13:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)} [reply]

      WP:V, and what was left behind (listing just one character), actually didn't meet V, because there are, indeed, more than one Mixels character (and no source is needed for that beyond Mixels itself). Levivich 14:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

      ]

• Personally I would have just redirected it or draftified it, as Onel actually did, only for Kurisumanen to resurrect it with even worse sources than it had in the first place. I do have some sympathy for Onel here, but they should have simply done the obvious and sent it to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, Black Kite - in fact, I wish One had seen my post before the situation escalated. I did the redirect hoping to start a discussion on the TP. Atsme 💬 📧 14:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that Onel5969 has appealed the block. While any admin is free to unblock without consulting me, I am concerned that the unblock request is basically accusing Kurisumasen ‎of vandalism without evidence. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, calling it vandalism isn't going to fly I'm afraid, and there's no exemption to 3RR for simply removing unsourced material (unless it's a BLP issue or similar). Ironically, it was the IP whose edits are indistinguishable from Kurisumanen's who actually called Onel a vandal [28]. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add on that I don't see Kurisumasen's edits as vandalism. Since the 4th exemption criterion under which Onel5969 is citing says "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism" are not covered under

WP:EDITWAR, well-intentioned users disagreeing would be pertinent information to a reviewing admin. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I’m Kurisumasen’s guardian (he is disabled, which is about as much detail as I want to go into here). I’m not asking for special treatment, but you’ll notice from his record that if a consensus on revisions is reached first, these kinds of reverting problems don’t come up. I appreciate that editors doing cleanup are busy, but there is a tendency to swoop in and make a big change, then post a note after. He finds that difficult because he gets very invested; when there’s a discussion beforehand it’s easier to assimilate. It might be worth bearing that in mind. I don’t need a response, but I wanted to add the information to the discussion in case others have similar issues. (PS I don’t think the IP edits are his by the way, he hates to be logged out.) BantamBird (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "if a consensus on revisions is reached first, these kinds of reverting problems don’t come up" is and should be the default. I don't see why Onel5969 should be exempt from

  WP:BURDEN). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Hi BantamBird. I think the main problem is that Kurisumasen doesn't realise that when they add material to an article, they need to source it. This isn't something that consensus should be reached on, it is simply something that they shouldn't be doing. If you could help us out here by helping them to understand that, I'm sure the issue won't arise in the future. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MINREF, an inline citation is only required for four types of statements, and plot summaries (and lists of characters in fictional works) are not one of the four types (MINREF says "Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards."). Levivich 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• So you're suggesting sourcing an article entirely to a primary source? Don't get me wrong, what you're saying is completely correct for plot summaries as part of larger articles that pass GNG. This one doesn't, because there are no sources apart from primary ones. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the article is a list of characters in a fictional work, then yes. Now I'm not saying such a list should exist for every fictional work (it wouldn't pass

  WP:PAGEDECIDE), but to the extent you make a list of characters in a cartoon, you don't need a source for that, because the cartoon is the source. Similarly, if we had an article that was a stand-alone plot summary, it probably wouldn't pass WP:N or PAGEDECIDE, but it would pass WP:V, with no sources other than the fictional work itself. There is no rule against a list sourced entirely to a primary source. (Compare navigation lists, which don't require sources at all, primary or otherwise.) Levivich 19:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Remember: the condition in which Onel left the article was still sourced to the same sources as the article before Onel's edits. So this isn't about GNG, it's not about notability, this is about Onel wrongfully removing content because the content didn't have an inline citation (not because it was unsourced), and then edit-warring to keep that uncited content out. What's makes it worse is that the cited content was cited to a bad source anyway, so Onel in no way improved this list through their edits. Levivich 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this edit summary from Onel: Special:Diff/1076683343, it's "remove uncited material", not "remove unsourced material". The mistake here is in believing that uncited material must be removed. Levivich 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are lists of characters with no references apart from primary ones even tolerated? They violate

• It seems as if the consensus is moving towards deleting the article. If so, I will suggest that he recreates it in his userspace, where he can edit it to his heart’s content. There are primary sources (the cartoons; the mobile apps; ‘making-of’ documentaries), and some secondaries like news and fan sites, which can be cited, but if the article is going to be removed anyway I shan’t bother putting them in. I will also talk to him about sources again (I am a doctor in research methodology, believe it or not). Apologies for the disturbance. BantamBird (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Fram this is an issue I've been thinking about for a while. I started a discussion at the Village Pump last year which prompted a good discussion, but haven't taken any further action. Perhaps the time is right to think about changing our policies in this area. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Just to wrap this up, we have moved the page to Kurisumasen’s userspace now the block has expired, and left a redirect to the main Mixels page. For the record, I don’t think it need have come to this if Onel had started a discussion on the talk page. I would have been able to engage earlier, and could have addressed their concerns by adding sources to the page. There would have been no need for blocks and administrators, although I believe the administrative decision taken was the correct one following the escalation that occurred. Hopefully this is the end of it. BantamBird (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goodness! When I asked for the page to be created, I didn't expect it to show up on the drama board! Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 17:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It is even more frustrating to learn that he spent months creating this page at someone else’s behest. Now the page is gone and Kurisumasen has stopped using Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. I just feel that this kind of gunslinging, Wild West approach to page review is completely inappropriate. If there was time to repeatedly nuke and file a long complaint, there was time to discuss in a neutral manner. Anyway, I am just venting now. Apologies. I’m going to keep working on the page, for my own satisfaction, and if anyone feels it may be useful. BantamBird (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to not revert him more so there isn't an edit war, but he left an insultive comment against American officials, all because I added their assessment of Russia's campaign [31]. When I warned him about his behavior, he rudely told me to bugger off.

I ask the admins that they at least tell him to be civil, because my words won't have any affect on him. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Axxxion, RE: an american moron′s opinion is of no relevance here (diff) — who? You know unnamed official? Also, American always in uppercase. Please don't make it weird. Eep. El_C 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I never get to have any fun!. (Endorse block oop) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American moron says what? El_C 02:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"badda-bing, badda-bang" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I'm trying to get to the snacks. El_C 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you both are mad. 晚安 (トークページ) 06:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second! Axxxion is a sockpuppet of

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muscovite99/Archive. Should I reopen our investigation or we can deal with this here? --Renat 17:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User reported - Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I usually don't document users on first wrong but since Skyerise has been recently blocked for

• The article is about Königsberg which already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Königsberg. [35]

Please note that the article that has been proposed to be deleted by Skyerise is about the existing town in Russia.

The rationale from another originally proposed deletion:[36]

• The article is about Kaliningrad and already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Kaliningrad.

Such behaviour is highly disruptive per Examples at

User has been notified --> [37] GizzyCatBella🍁 13:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest

WP:BOOMARANG is appropriate here. If my nomination is 'disruptive', then so is the nomination of Königsberg. There was clearly an editorial decision to divide the history into pre- and post-1945, indicated clearly in the hatnotes on the respective articles. There is a distinct divide here: the city was not just renamed. It's entire culture was changed from German to Russian. We don't merge Ancient Egypt and Egypt for the same reason. One was a polytheistic culture, the other an Islamic culture. Skyerise (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Skyerise: where is this editorial decision you speak of? 晚安 (トークページ) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight:: the articles are pretty cleanly divided between pre-1945 and post-1945 and tagged with hatnotes. I don't need to see a discussion to understand that that was done by consensus. Skyerise (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight:: In any case, it's been discussed multiple time which anyone can see by glancing at the indexed archives (cute trick, I'll have to learn how to do that). For example, [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. The article is where it is because Kaliningrad is basically a new city built on the rubble of Königsberg. This is a longstanding position of the majority of editors of the article. Skyerise (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things. I note that Skyerise was recently warned by Oshwah - essentially, that there is absolutely no need to respond to vandals, trolls and sockpuppets with abuse and vitriol. Indeed, I would class THIS as vandalism itself. However, that doesn't seem to be directly relevant to this thread. I have closed

I mean, I was about to ask the same thing though - Skyrise, what is the meaning of this edit?? Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of that edit is that I've been targeted by a sock for eight months and nobody seems to be able to stop them, even though they are clearly taking advantage of having an employer with a large IP range (AT&T?). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat/Archive. My requests that their Internet provider or employer be contacted have been ignored. So I lost it. You would too. Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are being harassed. I hope it's resolved soon. But, I can say, with 100% certainty, that I would not, in fact, resort to posting a picture of a penis, in any circumstance on Wikipedia (or anywhere for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Sergecross73. Have you tried contacting Trust & Safety - it's what they're there for. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I wasn't aware that there was a separate team for that. I thought all that would be handled by the sockpuppet team. In my defense, the sock was responding at 2 to 3 minute intervals. I left it up for 3 minutes then took it down. It wasn't my intent that anyone other than the culprit be exposed to it. Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I look at that page and how to submit a request for action. When I clicked on the action for harassment, it sent me back to the English Wikipedia harrassment page. None of the reasons for action seem to apply, as they are not attempting to out me or make physical threats. There is a section strictly about harassment, but apparently it only applies to protecting administrators from harassment. Is there some other way to address this without applying for adminship? Skyerise (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The harassment pages don't really describe your situation - sustained attacks from an obvious long-term vandal. As an alternative, you could email Arbcom ([email protected]) giving as much information as you can - they'll know what to do with it and get T&S involved if necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Perhaps the section that applies only to admins could be broadened to apply to all users? Skyerise (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of LTAs whose modus operandi is relentless harassment (

that's already hellish) it absolutely should. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Doesn't that harassment link you provided say that outing an editors employer is harassment? Revdel please. Cup Spill (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Raxythecat: There is nothing to revdel above. --MuZemike 11:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cup Spill: Don't want the owner of the network you use apprised of your activities? Stop harassing me and vandalizing Wikipedia. Arbcom has been notified and may very well talk to your employer shortly if you continue. Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination of
  WP:POINT disruption, which is exactly what Skyerise was blocked for less than two months ago. I don't think it matters how many edits you've got, if you are continuing to disrupt Wikipedia, there's going to be a point where you're not going to be allowed to do it any more. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's funny, as certain editors seem to be specially protected by admins from reaping the results of their actions, even allowed to make multiple name changes to avoid consequences. Skyerise (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise Making snarky comments about Wikipedians who aren't even part of this discussion will win you no friends. I do not want to confuse the issue of having a harassing LTA with the issue of your conduct - they are two separate issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's clearly pure disruption. As is the edit pointed out by
  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If I can offer a thought here: I stumbled across Skyerise and the sock sparring a couple days ago while doing some RC patrol, made a couple of reversions, and suggested that Skyerise take a breather after seeing the contentious edit noted above. Looking at further issues pointed out above, it really seems like what we have here is a good and quite prolific editor who does a lot of positive work, but has some issues when stress builds up, sometimes ending in blocks. Might it be a good idea for admins here to issue a clear and firm warning, encourage reporting egregious problems like sock attacks to the appropriate noticeboards rather than engaging, and a reminder to step back and think about edits, edit summaries, etc., for tone and appropriateness before hitting the save button? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did receive a warning, and yes, being targeted by an IP is extremely stressful for me. I had a previous IP target for a similar length of time previously and had to have my talk page protected and my username changed to evade them (somehow they didn't manage to figure out my new username). I've left whole topic areas due to the behavior of one editor with an account who would stalk me to other articles if I unknowingly touched one of "theirs" to make an improvement.

And I have received a stern warning, archived to my 2022 archive and acknowledge that I went too far. Normally I don't engage the socks but he was twice as abusive as usual this time around. So yes, I will make more use of noticeboards and ignore the sock from now on if they come back.

I don't seem to get the same respect other prolific editors get, presumably because I edit occult topics as well as more respectable ones. Some of those articles are quite the mess. Yesterday I discovered that Church of Satan had been hijacked since 2016 - made to look extremely well-cited when it was not. None of the apparently cited sources were actually listed (it probably set a record for sfn errors) and instead of listing the actual sources, a promotional book list which I'm sure was intended to convert readers to Satanism was in their place. I'm not sure how such a state of affairs goes on six years w/o another editor noticing it. I only stumbled on it b/c I was expanding Magical organization.

Anyway that was a digression but I acknowledge my faults and will try not to repeat them. Skyerise (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - In light of the above testimony I (the complainer) plea with monitoring administrators to be understanding. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Skyerise, I have appreciated your contributions to

Women in Computing, an article that I have also worked on quite a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey thanks, @Ritchie333: that must have been some time ago as I don't even remember working on that article. I've re-watchlisted it. Skyerise (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ripomobo11 registered an account in mid-January and since then has made close to 200 edits. A very high percentage - approaching 90% - have been reverted. As is clear on the editor's talk page User talk:Ripomobo11, many other editors have tried to engage and instruct Ripomobo11, to little effect. The editor is contentious and obtuse. Competency is an issue. For examples, Ripomobo11 repeatedly inserted hyperlinks rather than references, makes subjective statements (_____ is the greatest _____ of all time), edit-wars, moves content away from verifying references, adds unreference content, etc. Ripomobo11 claims to be an expert on cricket, but has shown no progress in understanding Wikipedia rules and guidelines. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

from their comments, it seems that they do not have a good grasp on english and that could be one of the problems. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem combines disruptive and competency is required. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have

problem solving 15:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've attempted to help them out, however them not having a good grasp on English is a bit of an issue as it creates issues for me when trying to understand what they are saying. I might ask them what their first language is to see if they usually speak something besides English. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that you were trying to help them. I also see that most (all?) of their edits are on the mobile web browser, mostly using the visual editor. I don't think that helps their cause any. It makes it hard to cite sources properly, and people are yelling at them for just dropping a link in the middle of the text. Now they're confused as to if they can link sources at all.~

problem solving 17:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That does indeed complicate things. I would be able to help them easier knowing that, however I've never made an edit from the mobile web browser version of Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few and I absolutely detest the mobile web version, so I normally use the desktop version even if I'm on mobile. The problem is the quick citation tool just isn't there in mobile. ~

problem solving 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@ONUnicorn: Mobile-using cretin here. The quick citation tool is available in the visual editing mode (unavailable in source editing mode), represented by a quotation mark icon (") at the top of the screen. – ².O.^Boxing 18:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timesink and/or

WP:CIR issues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Blaze Wolf: I think the problem is @Ripomobo11: wants to praise his fav Cricketers in lead by writing statment .... is greatest player., he mostly do edits in lead. Whe we reverted his this kind of edits, warned to doing so without refrences, he started asking questions like - Why Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards articles have this kind of statements, and he gone on spree to remove these statements from these articles, which caus further problem. He said this and this Cricket personality said during a match ... Is best, gret player. I want to tell you in India, all these paid Cricket TV commentators call nearly every Cricket playe great, 1 of the all time greats, these folks are unreliable, this kind of statements confused 'Ripomobo 11'. He also don't have grasp on Eng, he also says that he is "Cricket expert".Success think (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Success think: Ah alright. From what I understand, cricket is similar to baseball here in the US. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Tom cruise, Serena Williams Mike Trout. For most of the Indians, Sport is Cricket is Sport, they absolutely don't know anything else except it. And Indian national team is one of the top team in the world ( have won 1983, 2011 world). I hope I gave you proper overview of Cricket and it's status in India.Success think (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:CIR block is needed. The attempt to make this problem go away by deleting this discussion was amusing... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ripomobo11 continues to make ~15 edits per day to cricket player biographies, mostly reverted. Problems include deleting referenced content. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David notMD: Hi everyone, @Ripomobo11: is back and he began his work of vandalism again. I and other editors tried to explain and help him many times but he is not willing to take help. I suggest all of you to keep eye on his edits or block him from editing.Success think (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They claim to be an expert in English, but their SPAG makes it apparent that this is not the case. I'm not sure their edits count as vandalism, but many of them need either tidying up or just straight reversion. CIR is my main concernSpike 'em (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree not vandalism, but consistently not proper grammar. Annoying like a dripping faucet. Editors who either watch cricket-player biographies or watch Ripomobo11 are burdened with a lot of clean-up. One example: at 'Ben Stokes he wanted to add that Stokes is English player, but was born in New Zealand. What was written was "...is a newzeland born English..." David notMD (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what about, yesterday they erased this discussion. As I understand so far they're Cricket fan and self proclaimed Cricket expert, their Eng is weak, they're from India. They want add Original research without adding cite, From their editing pattern I also understand that they only do editing in lead, they add .... Is great/ highly regarded/ best in the world cric plyr. And they want to same kind info in every cric related article.Success think (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea:, Ripomobo11, add unsourced material on South Africa related articles, I also suggest him to add reliable secondary sources at [45]. I suggest you to take further appropriate action.Success think (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're continuing to make edits like this which are not helpful. All their recent contributions have been reverted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up on what Lugnuts says there, I've had to revert Ripomobo11 at

WP:5P to try and understand what the site is about. I've tried to explain NPOV and NOR to him, too. Oh, well. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi @

Incomp and doing WP: editing war.Success think (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Success think This discusion remains open until an Administrator makes a decision. Until then, Ripomobo11 can continue to make edits and other editors can revert those for cause. A complaint could be made about Ripomobo11 at Teahouse, but the advice given there is likely that a complaint should be created at ANI, which is this discussion, started 16 March. Patience is advised. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As with what David said, they can continue making edits with this open. And I'm also not an administrator so there's not much I can do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At 15:27 20 March, Ripomobo11 left a note on my Talk page about leaving Wikipedia. Same on own User page. Will Watch to see if this holds true. Regardless, I am still requesting an indefinite block for all the transgressions and time sink of this

WP:CIR editor. David notMD (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support CIR block this discussion started 3 days ago, and in that time, they have continued with the same poor quality editing, and amassed 4 more warnings on their talkpage. They are a net negative to this project regardless of any good intentions, and
  WP:CIR means they should be blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support CIR block They also left a message on my talk page about leaving WP in broken Eng. They also indirectly or directly attacked fellow editors by naming them Brain less'’'.

Per

wp: CIR, he should be blocked from WP editing.Success think (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support CIR block per my earlier comment on CIR/time-sink and the above posts. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely per CIR. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ip disrupting Scott Baio

• 2605:a000:ffc0:d8:fdf2:3eb5:8751:7a62 (talk · contribs)
• Scott Baio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NPA

(see ip's article and user talk page comments). If there's work to be done developing new consensus in this BLP, and I think there is, this ip is creating a disruptive environment that prevents it.

• blanking sourced info to ip's preference
• restoring primary source Wikipedia:Citation overkill
• And then the BATTLE began on the article talk page.

As this is an ip, and the dispute is over a decade old, I requested the article be protected, which was declined [47] with instructions to warn the user and take it to AIV if it continues. The AIV request was declined as a content dispute [48]. --Hipal (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it is a content dispute, and framing the person who disagrees with you as "BATTLE" doesn't help win it. It seems a fairly straightforward request to show that this is anything other than an error in an article in TIME that has been addressed, and I can understand the frustration of an editor who finds that responded to with a blocking threat and "Let's get you blocked", bizzarre assertions that "splitting discussion isn't helpful" when it was you that split it. It takes two to tango, and in this case you have been doing some fair dancing around for 2 years, too. You could start by looking at the dates on the sources, and stop pointing to an inconclusive discussion between 2 people back in 2013 as if it solved the problem and should silence further discussion. TIME stated 1961 in 2008, Baio said that "the media has always had it wrong" in 2010. It seems quite reasonable to propound the view that this is an old error now corrected, as the editor without an account is doing. But responding to this with requests for page protection, and going to an anti-vandalism noticeboard is exactly why you aren't getting further and are getting another person's back up.

  People trying to settle the facts of an age based upon the idea that a magazine article simply got it wrong (and no doubt the person who runs the Baio website got an earful behind the scenes, too) are not vandals. And there is a wealth of difference between someone arguing a case with sources, and asking for evidence against the idea that TIME was simply wrong about this, and the actual biography vandals that haunt Wikipedia. Go and look at the edit history of Heera Rajagopal some time.

  Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here because of the behavior.

If you want to address the content dispute, spend some time looking at the talk page. From what I see, the best references prior to Baio's reality shows give 1961, but all four years from '59 to '62 are verified by other references. Baio fairly consistently said '61 in interviews, but '62 in at least one.

The ip's original research and hostility to anyone that he mistakenly assumes has a different point of view are the problems here, but if you want to dig up better refs, that certainly would help. Along the way we are required to enforce the content policy that we have to consider all quality references, not just the ones that favors a certain pov. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much easier to work out what you take issue with if you provided

not Original Research. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The very first diff above shows the ip's approach: From the ip's perspective, Baio's recent statements that he was born in '60 are to be given priority, any other statement from any other source is to be eliminated (as he did in his this first diff) or downplayed as he's shown in his subsequent edits to the article:

• [49] "restore reliable sources which Hipal inappropriately removed without explanation, which includes Baio in his own voice verifying the 1960 birth year on his official Twitter ("My birthday is September 22, 1960"). If you want to continue this silly debate and restore both years, do it without removing reliable sources."
• [50] Adds additional self-published source
• [51] "Do not remove clearly reliable sources simply to hide evidence from readers that counters your argument that he was born in 1961. A statement on a celeb's official Twitter account, from that celebrity, is indeed reliable, particuarly with regard to a personal issue such as DOB. You are the only editor (also as Ronz) who has been fighting this issue for years and have tried to control it. Baio stated on Twitter he was born in 1960, end of story."
• [52] adds a relatively poor ref that contains no new content
• [53] "Hipal (formerly Ronz) continues to remove reliable sources which provide clear evidence to support the relevant content. The editor has been warned several times now not to remove reliable sources."
• [54] "revert Hipal (aka Ronz), restore/continued inappropriate removal of reliable sources that support content with which he disagrees, which he apparently has been fighting for year. Also refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion on the talk page and continues to stand by his claim that Baio is a poor source for his own date of birth ---> https://twitter.com/scottbaio/status/512433275407990784"
• [55] "After hours of searching for and requesting any reliable sources for a DOB of 1961 __in Baio's own voice__, I finally found a solid one. It's from 20 years ago, which is yet more evidence that Baio portrayed himself as a year young many years ago for whatever reason, but then subsequently stopped doing it. I only want accurate content and in a dispute like this, the subject's own voice supersedes all." (Note that we have a ref for Baio stating '62 that this ip chooses to ignore [56])

This is not someone cooperating with other editors, assuming good faith of others, nor following behavioral or content policy. All in a BLP where sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [57] "rev Hipal. Tag misuse. Slapping on a tag questioning entire article's neutrality bc of your upset over a single issue (DOB refs) is inappropriate, disruptive & damages credibility of entire article. You seized control of article & talk page in 2018. Let go so others can improve. Uncle G addressed your complaint and summed up situation beautifully. You read but ignored it & are now fighting to "win". --> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077692619#Ip_disrupting_Scott_Baio}}
• The one "fighting to win" is the ip. If it's time to readdress the content, the only way to do so is follow our behavioral and content policies to create a new consensus. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

A statement from Baio might be reliable. Perhaps not. It was my attempt to direct the ip in a direction that might be helpful. The bottom line is that for most his life, Baio said he was born in '61, and reliable sources published the same information. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ip removed sourced information, then proceeded to add poor sources to promote his viewpoint based upon his original research. There's no starting point there for compromise when behavioral and content policy aren't being followed. Policy should not be compromised, especially when sanctions apply. Consensus is required per BLP, and consensus is not created by attacking editors, but by cooperating. --Hipal (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing: --Hipal (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [58] "This dispute over DOB started 8+ years ago (!) and therefore the number and type of sources is not only appropriate, but necessary. If you felt it was excessive, why did you wait until until now -- while in the midst of fighting other editors on the noticeboard complaint you filed -- to add it? With the inappropriate article-neutrality tag and now this bogus one, you are becoming a significant problem w/ regard to the integrity of the article, so please stop and cool off."
• [59] "per WP:ABOUTSELF -- another unequivocal statement from Baio about his DOB being 1960. It's vital info for readers bc of the dispute. The only source I could find for 1961 that was close to being in Baio's own voice was the AP one from 20 years ago about his 40th birthday, which I added yesterday; if I could find any others for 1961, I'd add them too. All the evidence we have over the past 10+ years that comes directly from Baio says makes clear, according to him, that he was born in 1960.

The ip seems totally incapable of assuming good faith and working cooperatively with me, getting deep into OWN problems now [60]. --Hipal (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Psst. A primary source - New York Birth Index 1960 - says 22 Sep 1960. Unusable of course.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and

WP:DOB and the linked RfC there says to to include all birth dates for which a reliable source exists, noting discrepancies --Hipal (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Continuing: [61][62][63] [64] [65] [66] --Hipal (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by Chesapeake77

User:Chesapeake77 has been engaging in disruptive editing on Siege of Mariupol and baselessly accusing me of vandalism.

I had removed and modified some of his edits because they looked repetitive and unnecessary to me, especially as it contained single-para sub-sections and statements of various people directly copied from articles, or describing who a company has worked for.

One of his article concerning the death toll in Mariupol being 20,000 [67] was already mentioned under the "Siege" section. I removed this because of it being repetitive, along with other repetitive text [68].

He later re-added it by moving the civilian death toll [69]. I didn't realize he had simply moved it so I removed it as repeated info again [70].

Regardless it doesn't mean someone is being a vandal. And the information still should be up there in "Siege" section with other civilian death tolls to give more context. Even if mentioning it in "Humanitarian situation and alleged war crimes", it should be brief and doesn't deserve its own whole sub-section.

He also added about the destruction of the city and that company taking pictures of it has worked for US intelligence and military [71].

I removed it but very soon re-inserted part of his statement, because a separate sub-section for a single para and mentioning who the company works for seems irrelevant [72]. Regardless we have been using other sources like Ukrainian state-run Ukrinform that have potential for bias, I don't see a point in singling out one source. And it's not like those satellite images are faked.

I also removed and then re-added Cheaspake77's addition of ICRC statements by modifying them [73] because he had verbatim copied statements from its officials and he decided to create a separate section for it on his own [74], [75].

User:EkoGraf had previously told him it was not needed too. Chesapeake77 reverted him as well.

Plus his section titles seem unencyclopaedic and too descriptive like "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol" and "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis" which was a further incentive to modify his edits.

He reverted my edits as vandalism [76] despite none of it being so. And also removed the small additions I made in that revert. Afterwards he left a warning to have me blocked and accused me of repeated vandalism on my talk page.

I removed his warning because it wasn't vandalism. Although I had initially reverted him partly, I later self-reverted until the situation was resolved.

And I also left a message at his talk page about his accusations [77]. He didn't bother to discuss and just removed my message [78], in addition to threatening me again despite me not reverting him [79].

I've taken my issues to the article talk page but he hasn't bothered replying despite me even linking his name, please see [80]. He also removed templates I had added to the page about the content being too long and irrelevant without discussing it first [81]. He certainly noticed what I said because he has restored part of additions I made as I asked on the talk page.

This shows he is deliberately making unilateral edits and ignoring discussions. He has been warned for his disruptive behavior multiple times in past too as visible from his talk page. I request a ban or a block for him for his behavior. He's also been unilaterally deciding what goes where without bothering for a dicussion. Also sorry I couldn't make this shorter. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I've fully protected the article to enforce more discussion and less reverting each other -- TNT (talk • she/her) 07:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I made some reverts too but I've self-reverted to avoid an edit war. I hope there can be some discussion now. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw you can temporarily close this. If he refuses to discuss and/or is disruptive I'll open another complain and this can be used as an evidence. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AbsolutelyFiring:

Your noted edits have been added back in.

You wrote (on the article "Talk Page")--

"[You]...are needlessly creating sub-sections for every single thing you can find...".

That's a personal attack. Refrain from any further or you will be reported for harassment.

@The Admin Here and @AbsolutleyFiring:

As to the two subsection titles in the article-- 1) "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis" and 2) "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol"

Those subsections (and their titles) are appropriate because they are highly notable.

1) Reducing the article to a run-on chronology, while making no distinction for an extremely important major event-- like the ICRC warning of an immenent mass-catastrophe that could soon kill tens of thousands of people, lacks due perspective.

Similarly, satellite images that show extensive damage to apartments and homes in Mariupol also document mass-shelling (and massive targeting) of residential areas-- with casualties potentially in the tens of thousands.

In both cases, these extremely notable events warrant their own subsections, rather being buried in run-on chronologies with no distinction from far smaller alleged events.

Therefore your persistent removal of such extremely important subsection titles constitutes serious vandalism.

Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop falsely accusing me of vandalism. Disagreement on something or removal is not vandalism.

WP:VANDALISM

says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Even the general definition of vandalism isn't something I'm doing. If you don't stop with the accusations I'll be forced to report you again.

And this is asides from you initially not bothering to discuss this. Also please don't make the same comments. Keep it to the article talk page Talk:Siege of Mariupol. Plus you only restored part of my additions, not all of it. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, TNT, please also note that Cheseapeak77 has engaged in censorship of an image claiming multiple people have complained about it. [82] That too over it just showing some blood. And he is also berating an admin for locking an article now. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake77 has also been making a mess moving articles without understanding disambiguation and without opening a move discussion. We're still dealing with the mess they made by moving

conflict of interest with respect to one of the three Holly Williams they have been moving w/o discussion and are trying to get better SEO placement for their client? Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like to add that I think this user is

not here to build an encyclopedia. Skyerise (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

RE the last point: from what I've seen from this user, they seem to be acting more or less in-good-faith, but their edits tend to be relatively rough around the edges. Treads into

WP:NOTHERE. Curbon7 (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That could well be. Skyerise (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

24rhhtr7 and the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Can someone please pry this user out of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page, or at least issue a stern warning? Post after post after post is just dripping with piss & vinegar making an already-contentious discussion even worse.

• It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try.
• The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia.
• Oh, and Russiagate was a hoax that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, and the people who pushed it were CONVICTED for it. Keep pushing baseless conspiracy to "own the cons". That's so very mature and intelligent and not at all every bit as juvenile and pathetic as you claim MAGA people are.
• I'm not talking about Wikipedia. I'm talking about five years of nothing but the nonsense of people like you EVERYWHERE in media and in society in general all to "defeat Trumpism".

The latter is a tacit admission that they're here to argue the topic, not contribute meaningfully to the project. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment also confirms we're dealing with a fringe editor (defined as one who believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources). They create problems as they constantly oppose reliably-sourced content, denigrate RS, vandalize articles, and waste the time of mainstream editors. Also, they don't know how to vet sources, a primary requirement for all editors. -- Valjean (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference being excluding someone for espousing

WP:SOAPBOX. Arguing that this person needs to be "removed" because they're an editor who "believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources" and decides to "waste the time of mainstream editors" pretty much turns them into a martyr and proves their point. If an admin takes action they should make it clear it's not because of this editor's opinions but because of their habit of going onto talk pages for the sole purpose of debating them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That's literally what a talk page is for, bringing up or questioning something about the entry.

I "argued" because like in the cases of the other talk pages I "argued" on, it was full of original research and bias and editors who aren't even remotely adult enough to be objective and make sure the article is accurate. There's literally only one talk page you could claim I committed original research in, and that was on local basketball. I've made compelling points in every single Talk page I've commented on that not only challenged the asinine groupthink present in each talk page or article but also referenced credible things that completely refuted or called into question the assertions I was responding to.

Calling me argumentative rather than admitting that I was responding to baseless speculation and childish nonsense that I saw a grand total of one person even bothering to address or question is exactly what I expect from Wikipedia editors these days though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  WP:TEND.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You have literally done nothing but post baseless conspiracy theories and denigrate any story that doesn't fit the narrative you choose to believe. It's unbelievably hilarious to me that you have not only the nerve but the complete lack of self-awareness to accuse me of believing conspiracy theories. Comment after comment of yours on that page is literally baseless speculation about it being Trump or the Russians, and the people you all accuse me of being disrespectful towards projected being a Fox News viewer onto me as well as a MAGA type. I'm neither, and you all want to play victim because somebody dared to direct that same vitriol back at you while pointing out how NOT ONE claim you posted or source you linked has turned out to be reliable in the end.

If you had any integrity whatsoever, you'd edit the Wikipedia entry to reflect the fact that sources you consider reliable have now verified the "conspiracy" claims and directly contradict basically the entire first paragraph of that entry.

Instead you want to sling mud and point fingers like a child then play martyr when some gets slung back at you.

I've edited plenty of articles thanks and have kept the same consistent values my entire time here, unlike you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha that page is literally full of lies and baselessly conspiracy theories pushed from clearly biased editors who were disrespectful before I ever was but yeah absolutely blame me. So predictable.

I really don't care in the slightest. That page is a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia but par for the course these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? You're one person, and I have seen this exact same behavior from you in every single Trump related entry. You have done nothing but baselessly speculate, and your "reliable sources" include blogs written by people who are connected to left-wing extremists and constantly lie and attack others on social media and opinion pieces from people who have been wrong time and time again without so much as an apology or promise to do better? You want receipts? Try basically every single story they've covered over the past five years.

Steele Dossier. Russian interference. The 2016 election being stolen. Every single hate hoax and story they spun or video they selectively edited to misrepresent an event. The "good people on both sides" lie. The lie about calling soldiers losers. The lie about Trump doing literally anything for Putin. The pro Antifa propaganda and encouraging doxxing and glorifying violence. Calling everything under the sun misinformation. The Brian Sicknick cause of death lie. The "Hands up, don't shoot" lie. The blaming white supremacists for the violence and destruction during the George Floyd protests and subsequent riots. The claim people on January 6 planned to kidnap or murder politicians. The actively calling for Trudeau to send in the military over the trucker protest after calling Trump a fascist for protecting DC during the riots of 2020. The refusal to cover what happened to Antonio Mays Jr despite the evidence being out there for almost two years and the acting as a mouthpiece for the people involved with CHAZ/CHOP. Do you want more? It'd literally been five years of lies and the complete opposite of journalistic integrity. Your sources stopped being reliable almost five years ago, and that has been made abundantly clear with each retraction they're forced to make and updated article they're forced to write.

Who are you to question anybody's sources or accuse anybody of believing in conspiracy theories? And who are you to label anybody argumentative when I've yet to do anything other than point out inconvenient truths and challenge the ridiculous assertions you and others have made with zero proof?

You're literally the ones who started with all the behavior you're accusing me of. Grow up. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would pick out isolated bits of content to which you object, and then discuss them in the context of what RS you can cite say about the matter, THEN we'd all be able to have a constructive discussion with you.

In fact, you might even convince us to change our minds because, as it so happens, we hold our opinions because they are based on the RS used in our articles.

But you have not chosen to use such constructive dialogue. Instead you have accused, complained, impugned our intelligence, insulted us, and otherwise violated

WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. You'll have to do better than that. -- Valjean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I've combed this entire wall of text and literally the the only factual statement is the the January 6 protesters did not mean to kidnap or murder politicians. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As one can see in the rambling tirade above about Trump, Russia, CHAZ/CHOP, and the like, this person is just here to argue the topic, it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia. Also the Biden-Ukraine article has seen a 4 different editors in the last 12 hours, with similarly unproductive rants. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that articles like the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory are so hopelessly filled with bad content and muddled topics that it is thoroughly impossible to go back and correct everything. This dispute was kicked off with a new NYT piece. I am issuing an open call to uninvolved editors to read that NYT piece, read the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory page, and help make the relevant improvements. I can understand 24rhhtr7's frustration, even if I wouldn't phrase it the same way as they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the specifics of this case but there is a problem with that article and what it displaces, and extra questioning there is needed. The article should confine itself to "conspiracy theory" items but instead it is Wikipedia's main coverage of all of the real factual Hunter Biden Ukraine material from that era, thus having Wikipedia brand the latter as "conspiracy theory". And "groupthink" could be a part of the cause. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, I share your concern. The Hunter Biden/laptop content doesn't belong in that article. It only belongs on his biography. If any of that material ever impinges on the topic of the conspiracy theory, THEN that content can be used there. Currently it just confuses people. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the editor for unacceptable comments like this one, but there are more, including "insanity and childish behavior displayed on that Talk page and in that entry" on their own talk page. I have not looked far enough into their history yet (it took me a while to clean up their posts here, which were done in installments that messed up chronology and indenting), but this already seems one of these cases between CIR and NOTHERE. North8000, Mr Ernie, poor article quality is not a justification for blatant name calling and violations of AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On your latter points, I agree and did not imply otherwise. What's needed "there" is for somebody to start an article on the factual Hunter Biden Ukraine matters, fight off the people who will accuse it of being a fork, and than bring the two articles in line with their titles. But that's not my dance.North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIR/Copyvio concerns about User:ClaudeJTurner

• ClaudeJTurner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marta Vorobiova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This user caught my eye in my watchlist with this message on Jimbo talk being promptly reverted. After taking a closer look at the user's contributions, I saw 10 edits to project space in 2020 and 2021, and the rest of this user's edits since then focusing entirely on Marta Vorbiova, which is almost entirely copy-and-pasted from the subject's IMDB page. I also found this self-reverted edit to User:Jamiebuba, which I think is beyond the pale. This user has not responded to any of my requests to disclose whether or not they're a paid editor, and in my view, is clearly NOTHERE in either case. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OhKayeSierra, I had tagged the article for promo and A7 based on the contents that were added without properly sourcing it. Apparently he/she is angry about it and decided to leave a message on my user page before reverting back. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have messaged other Wikipedia users and let them know about prior deletions and added a comment to the talk page on the Article that was created to please not delete while it was being improved ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been traveling for more than two years, to where I have now had to begin using the computers at the public library instead of my laptop ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are to reference the other Ukrainian Female Models Category page you would see that the Model who I created an Article for has plenty of work and her page was created correctly ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree to you thinking that you are able to delete someones work while they are in the process of working on it

I have a limited amount of time on a computer at the public library while there was comments already added to the talk page asking to please leave the article while it is being improved

Other sources were being searched for on multiple search engines other than ones in the United States, such as Ukrainian, European, Russian, Asian search engines ClaudeJTurner (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LambdofGod

LambdofGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is showing an unwillingness to engage in discussion on talk pages and is instead edit warring to try to get their way. For example, at Arabs in Germany they have changed a population estimate four times despite being reverted and without engaging in the discussion at Talk:Arabs in Germany#Updated population figure. They have also resorted to personal attacks. This editor seems to have a history of problematic behaviour, judging by their talk page. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Problematic behaviour". FACEPALM

You simply have no argument against me posting the latest recent data from the German government and instead keep reverting to old census data from 2010 and beyond because you have a some problems with data. LambdofGod (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LambofGod: it would appear that you are the one which has no policy backed argument at least in the case of Arabs in Germany. Otherwise why is your name absent from the article talk page but Cordless Larry's name is present? My assumption is it must be because you know you can't defend your changes. If I'm wrong, prove it by discussing on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also now edit warring further at Germans, despite being warned by Rsk6400 yesterday. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gutting of articles at AfD

A suggestion has been made at

WT:AFD. Editors are encouraged to make constructive comments there. The AfD in question has been closed, so this discussion is now in danger of becoming a timesink. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Originally posted at User talk:WilliamJE#Syke aircraft shootdown

"WilliamJE, I think it is very poor form to nominate an article at AfD and then subsequently gut it, for whatever reason. If you nominate an article at AfD, as is your right to do so, then you should leave the article in much the state you found it so that editors can put forward their views based on the article as is, or as improved. Copyvios and BLP violations are the only exceptions to this, and may be removed at any time. Your future co-operation in this will be much appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: This is moronic. I removed things that weren't reliably sourced, weren't sourced at all, and a list of those killed in the crash. If you read my edit summaries you'd know that. Demonstrate one thing I took out that doesn't have one of these apply. What you said above is idiotic otherwise....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By leaving the article largely how you find it, it gives editors the chance to look at what is there, and maybe improve it, perhaps by finding references for stuff that is unreferenced. I did read your edit summaries, but it is the attempt to gut the article after nominating it for deletion that, to me, is unfair on the editor(s) that put time and effort into creating the article, whatever flaws it may have. Mjroots (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking this edit[83], the first paragraph wasn't referenced at all, the second had two references neither of which are considered reliable sources. I clean out this shit out of articles all the time, and I take grief for it too[84] when I haven't done anything wrong. If the claims about someone dead or alive aren't properly referenced, they don't belong in an article whether the person is dead or alive and whether its at AFD isn't a factor either. Cite me one thing on Wikipedia that says I did wrong or take me to ANI. Otherwise you're being idiotic....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC) "[reply]

Relevant AfD discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plane shootdown over Syke.

OK, As requested I'm bringing this to ANI. I will state here and now that I am not looking for WilliamJE to be sanctioned over his actions which I have raised with him, and am now raising here. What I am looking for is some clarification, and maybe an amendment being made to the AfD guidance.

I have no strong opinions either way re the merits of the Afd nomination. I can see merits in the arguments for keeping (unusual circumstances of a survivor) and the merits of arguments for deletion (one of millions of combat losses). The AfD nomination is valid.

My objection is that WilliamJE gutted parts of the article post-nomination. I feel that this is unfair because what editors who come across the article via AfD do not see a largely similar article to that which was nominated. Seeing an inferior article to that was nominated may influence the !voting, whereas if an article is left largely intact post nomination, an editor may come along, see the article is deficient in sources, and improve the article with new or better resources. As I stated to WilliamJE, if there are copyvios or BLP violations, there is no objection to gutting on those grounds.

So, moving forward, I think clarification at

WP:AFD is needed. Perhaps a paragraph on AfD etiquette saying not to gut article either just before or just after nomination, except copyvios or BLP violations. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The notice on the AFD template says "Feel free to improve the article", which is a good thing. Excess content should be removed if that improves the article. If an editor removes a lot of material, best practice is to make a very visible notice at the AFD to state that they have done so. —Kusma (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: - IMHO, this edit was not an improvement. The small unreferenced paragraph removed contains information which an editor may be able to reference. The larger paragraph is referenced. The source appears to me to be reliable. Mjroots (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that deletion removed the article's "claim to fame". Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still view this as a content issue, not a conduct issue. The list of exceptions in your proposal would need to be very long (removal of howto content, corporate speak or advertising can often lead to article being kept because they have been gutted). —Kusma (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Appear to be reliable you write. Neither source is reliable by any stretch. First is a paid obituary. The second source is a declaration authored by a member of their family. Neither is regarded as a reliable source here at WP. The other thing about Moran's fall, was referenced to something that said no such thing. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamJE: The article's claim to fame is the survival of the tail gunner, sourced to the Kreiszeitung, a news source which meets RS. Mjroots (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: Kreiszetiun[85] says he survived the plane crash, but not that he fell 8000 which is his claim to fame which is what it is being used as a reference for. False referencing is a big problem here at WP[86]. Why am I taking grief for removing this shit out of articles instead of the editors who put it in there in the first place? ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little bit of a moot point now, as the AfD has been closed. Better that constructive comments are made at

WT:AFD re my request there. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

(after edit conflict) I agree with Kusma here. Editing of articles should be allowed, and even encouraged, when they are at AfD, but if major changes are made they should be clearly pointed out in the discussion. In the case of large-scale deletion of content that doesn't need to be revision deleted the best way to do this is to link the pre-gut version from the article history.

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Phil Bridger: - is this something that can be achieved by a tweak to the nomination template? Maybe when an article is nominated, a permalink to the nominated version can be created, giving editors a chance to view any difference between the nominated and current version. Mjroots (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

First, this is the wrong forum. If MJ wants to change AFD policy, he needs to take it to AFD's talk page and start a RFC. Start a RFC somewhere.

Mj leaves something out. That Drmies, not once[87] but twice[88], voiced their concerns with the referencing in the article. Both times after I made the edits I did. @Drmies:

I've been saying for a long time, there is too much shit in WP articles. It is exacerbated by editors, some of whom have made hundreds of thousands of edits here, who then reference it with sources that don't corroborate what is said in the article. This I have discussed at this forum and multiple talk pages and if you read this[89], there is one admin who thinks there can be a ARBcom case about this.

This isn't the first time I have taken grief for removing incorrect info or fixing bad referencing. See this[90]. Bad referencing is what caused the Naomi Ishikawa disgrace[91]. Editors there didn't explore whether the article references said what was in the article. Instead they attacked the editor who tried to remove the lies. A admin even blocked them.

I'm going to be doing things the next few hours but will be back late morning/early afternoon my time (East Coast Florida)....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone start a proper discussion in the correct place, e.g. AfD talk, and link it from here (and preferably close this, to avoid the discussion going on in two places simultaneously)? This is an important matter, but it's not an administrator matter. It's something we as a community need to sort out. Elemimele (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, you told me on you talk page to bring this to ANI, and now you complain that I have done so! It's there in black and white, on your talk page and at the top of this thread. OK, it may not be the best venue, but this is something the community as a collective can sort out, and as the discussion has started here, we may as well continue. Mjroots (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, please, not here! This is an Administrator's noticeboard, and a rather intimidating and drama-laden place, and not a place where every editor hangs around. The basic question of whether it's okay to gut an article AND then nominate, or whether it's better to choose at the start between the two options, is something very relevant to all of us who are active at AfD, as well as everyone who's suddenly had "their" article deleted or gutted. With no prejudice against either Mjroots or WilliamJE, let's shift this to a friendly, civil, and generally accessible venue so we can do the basic question the justice it deserves. Elemimele (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that this is not the right venue, though I understand why William went this way. Mjroots, I've always appreciated your work, including in this case your desire to solve it in a collegial manner. I appreciate both of you. William has indeed caught a lot of flack for the type of decision that I have made also; in fact, I thought this was about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teal Sound Drum and Bugle Corps, which I nominated and where I (for a second time) removed inappropriate content. I usually place a short note about what's in the history on the AfD--but there is no rule that says we can't edit, or even gut, an article while it's at AfD, especially since often article content is just unacceptable. Thanks, and I second Elemimele's notion. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting my hat on as the author of the Project:Guide to deletion: The AFD notice was never intended to be a change freeze, and editors are always supposed to do the basic stuff that they would do when reviewing any article in any other context: look at the edit history, read the article, check out the sources, and so forth. The deletion tool deletes an entire edit history, so one should be looking at the edit history that is being deleted. The limitations are technical ones, where you must not blank the notice (including by redirection) or create attribution problems, and where you must fix up the various bits and pieces on the AFD discussion page to follow up any page moves. Uncle G (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Guide to deletion is linked from {{AFD help}}, which is transcluded on each AfD. The relevant section is WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated 3 long-standing articles in recent days after I gutted them of promotional material. What remained was not fit for an article and a before search seemed to confirm. The idea that I couldn't wander into an AfD and do the same is absurd. After all, any editor can see the history page.Slywriter (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that quite often, an AfD comes down to a disagreement on whether the gutted material should have been removed or not (often a disagreement on whether the sources were truly reliable). Many contributors to AfD don't look at the article's history properly, and during a complicated AfD, the article might undergo 20, 30, 40 edits, meaning that AfD contributors can often find themselves looking at the wrong version when they !vote.

Perhaps a compromise would be that if someone wishes to gut the article and then nominate it, they should state in their nomination what they've done, and give a courtesy-link to the version prior to gutting, i.e. they'd add something like "I have removed all material from the original article (courtesy-linked here) that was based on unreliable sources, and what remains doesn't indicate notability". This then means that subsequent editors know what to check, and won't be misled into !voting "delete" based on obvious lack of notability, while failing to realise they should check the nominator's opinion about the sources.

It would similarly help if anyone who makes a really major edit during an AfD would add a courtesy comment in the AfD discussion. Otherwise anyone wanting to understand the context of AfD responses needs to check the time-stamps to locate the matching version. Elemimele (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started writing a post about my and Mjroots past history but I accidentally deleted it. To summarize, we have worked together many times on aviation accident articles. We don't always see eye to eye. One of the times we agreed, concerned something similar to my concerns with

Plane shootdown over Syke. I was going to bring that up but my carelessness caused my post to disappear. The previous agreement and today's dispute are content related anyway, so this may not be the right place to discuss it. Should anyone want me to post it, ping me. I'm doing things today but I'm home and online so I will get back to any further queries....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment if an editor isn't taking the time to at least scan the AfD-nominated article's history, their vote could probably be better informed. There was a similar recently with different editors about a rename. It's !voters jobs to look into the article rather than a blind vote based on the nominator's statement, which is in most cases an opinion anyway. Star Mississippi 18:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty sympathetic to the complaint. Often the material removed is essential to notability, and could quite easily be properly referenced, but many editors at Afd are just not in that game, nor even tagging for inadequate referencing. We should amend policy to discourage gutting. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: which is exactly what happened here. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Of course anyone commenting should look at the article history, but that doesn't happen in practise and anyone pointing out that it hasn't been done is more likely to be sanctioned themselves rather than the offender being told that they shouldn't do this.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I think that this is a persistent problem with AfDs and with source deprecation generally. If an article contains a claim towards notability that is referenced to an impermissible source (e.g., "Bob Smith was elected to the New York state senate" referenced to the National Enquirer), the proper procedure is not to remove the claim, but to remove the source and add a {{citation needed}} tag. Removing claims to notability before or during the AfD process, to me, always comes across as fishy. There should be a rule on this. BD2412 T 20:03, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've asked at
  WT:AFD if a tweak can be made so that a permalink is created to the article as it was at the time of nominiation, which would then be displayed with the nomination. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• There seem to be four separate issues here:
  1. Does the content in question belong in the article? Discussion of this belongs on the article talk page, and is subject to normal consensus requirements such as
     WP:BRD
     .
  2. Is the article subject notable? Discussion of this belongs in the AfD.
  3. Should large-scale changes be flagged in the AfD discussion? This is an issue for editors in general, rather than admins, to decide, so discussion belongs at
     WT:AFD
     or the village pump.
  4. Has anyone behaved so badly that any sanction or formal warning is needed? This is the only issue that concerns admins in particular, so belongs here. My answer to that is "no".
     Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
     ]

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

"Juris Doctorate" vs "Juris Doctor"

The other day, I noticed that that the IP (2601:205:3:dee2::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is apparently on a mission to change all instances of "Juris Doctorate" to "Juris Doctor" with their latest edit summaries of I have changed Juris Doctorate to Juris Doctor. The actual name of the degree in Latin is Juris Doctor. Juris is Latin (with no exact English equivalent, “Jurisprudence” and “Law” both being inexact translations of Juris). Doctor is both Latin and English, and Doctorate is English. There is no therefore such degree as the Juris Doctorate. Using this term is like referring to an Artium Baccalaurens or Bachelor of Arts as a Baccalaureus of Arts. I don't really know the difference and I don't care, but I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#"Juris Doctorate" vs "Juris Doctor" to form a consensus (although only two others have given opinions so far) as it seems a bit disruptive to go changing all instances of the term without any discussion. The problem is, the IP is dynamic, so the notices I've left yesterday regarding the discussion look to have gone unseen and the IP continued on changing. Any thoughts on how to get the IP's attention? A block? I'm more involved than I want to be as I'd prefer to step aside and let smarter people figure it out. I've attempted to notify the user of this discussion on the last two IPs used. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A /64 range in that part of the world will almost certainly be assigned to a single user/household - the range can be blocked without fear of collateral, if this is disruptive editing. I'm not sure that it is though - our article calls it a

juris doctor degree, and the only place the phrase 'juris doctorate' appears in that article is in the name of one of the sources. I'm no expert on this sort of thing, but the IP may well be correct about usage. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know enough about it, either. I only came across this from

WP:NOTBROKEN. Then, I saw that the IP was doing the mass changes. So, agreed, the IP may be entirely right... but they probably could be going about it changing it in a better way. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I saw one of these edits, checked it and it seemed correct. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and multiple violations of

WP:CIVIL

by Thebrakeman2

Hi there.

David Bennett Sr. article, as well as other but they instead, as shown here, here, and here, have had a lack of civility regarding disputes on this website. They have told people to "fuck off" as opposed to actually talking to them. When @SergeWoodzing

: called them out on their lack of civility, they refused to have a sense of humility and try to change the disruptive and frankly immature behavior that they have been shown doing.

Thanks, and Cheers! Fakescientist8000 _{(did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing)} 14:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem with that is? Thebrakeman2 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is a policy, and you have violated that policy quite flagrantly. Therefore, I have blocked you for 72 hours. Cullen328 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I support this action. Was quite shocked by some of the terminology. OK, I've see a few others get away with that kind of stuff for years with no action taken, but that does not justify this one. A good example should be set in all (all) such cases so that new users don't imitate people they see and learn to behave like that. Checking a user page to find out that a user behaving like that has been very active for many years can be especially damaging to the work climate of this project. Favoritism needs to be excluded from these cases, and people who report them with clear proof should not be goaded, bullied and ridiculed for doing so, with article content, not user behavior, often taking over the discussions. A very skillful, highly sarcastic and adorable sense of humor should not sweep any such issue under a worshipful prayer rug of clueless guffaws. Sad to say that I decided long ago never again to try to report any lack of civility here, but glad some people still have the courage to do that, and that it does work at times. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus he overcapped Civil Tone [92], so he better watch it or Dicklyon will be on his ass. EEng 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PAs and IDHT from User:Yreuq at Talk:Eugene Parker‎

There is a lot of

WP:IDHT behavior and personal attacks going on at Talk:Eugene Parker, as well as a non-neutral RFC with personal attacks in the RFC statement to top it off. Bad RFC, IDHT, IDHT, PA, IDHT. Plenty more where that came from. Can something be done before this wastes any more time and effort? Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The case is simply that of global warming alarmist editors ganging up to redact (censor) Parker's statement opposing global warming. Wikipedia does not censor.Yreuq (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to add more to SFR's report but editor's above statement is better evidence than I can provide.Slywriter (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Does that mean you give up the ganging up? Yreuq (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Manifest
  talk) 16:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What competence does one need to include a public/written statement by a scientist opposing global warming? Yreuq (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The competence necessary to build consensus for its inclusion. Cullen328 (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This began as a simple content dispute: was a particular section

argued with each editor, and then when consensus was clearly against inclusion, opened an RfC with the most non-neutral statement I've seen in an RfC.[94] They also refactored other editors' comments to make it appear that we were not replying to his comment (in which he insisted that nobody who had already participated in the discussion was permitted to participate in the RfC).[95]

Yreuq has been an editor ~18 months with 200+ edits. They mostly make what appear to be constructive edits to science articles. This is not their first time of accusing other editors of acting as a group when multiple editors disagree with their interpretations of PAGs.[96] They appear to approach talk page discussions in a combative manner. For example, where Jonesey95 wrote Please assume good faith. I read every word of it. What is your goal? Please cite a specific sentence that seems ambiguous to you. I'm here to help., Yreuq responded with Please refrain from accusing others of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs.[97] I think they could be a productive editor, but they need to learn that discussions are not battlefields and how to work with other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I blocked them for a week to stop the ongoing disruption. If any better options become apparent, please feel free to lift/extend/modify the block without checking in with me. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have
  WP:RFCBRIEF. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• In retrospect, some of my responses to Yreuq were too aggressive which may not have helped the situation and for that I apologise. However I was and remain deeply concerned about their understanding of BLP or willingness to abide by it. Hopefully someone can get through to them since while it's common for an editor to blow of steam, their comments post block don't look promising that they understand the issues. Anyway, if this continues after the block expires or is lifted, a topic ban from Eugene Parker would hopefully resolve the immediate issue. If problems persist it could be extended to all BLPs. Both of these could happen under the discretionary sanctions process if any admin feels they're justified. (They're already aware of BLP DS, while I prefer alerts come from editors not in dispute with another, I felt it was important so gave one earlier. )Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

This unsourced allegation. I couldn't find any mention on the interwebs. Cheers. – ².O.^Boxing 19:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but as the big red box at the top when you edit says either email Oversight (if it needs to be suppressed), or reach out to an admin in private to have it done. It just draws a lot more eyes here when requested. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: I'm on a mobile device so there's no big red box. When you say reach out to an admin in private, does that include a (not so very private) talk page message? I've gone that route in the past but it can sometimes take a while. – ².O.^Boxing 08:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it does take a bit longer that way. I didn't realize the warning wasn't on mobile either, interesting. I just know bringing a RevDel request here gets a lot more eyes on it (including non admins), than a request at an admin's page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by User:Javierfv1212

WP:INDICSCRIPT because historically Sanskrit was used for Buddhist writings. The Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism for example will not accept any text for which there was not a Sanskrit original. In any case, there is no consensus for these removals, which go back some months at least. Skyerise (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment - I could see the case for removing Devanagari script on some articles (eg. if there's a lot of multilingual clutter, or the article is actually about a Chinese text), but that should be determined on a case-by-case basis. There's no valid cause for removing it indiscriminately when

WP:INDICSCRIPT makes explicit exemptions for articles on texts originally written in that script, articles pertaining to any of India's neighbouring countries, and for articles pertaining to Buddhism; in many cases multiple exemptions apply to an article. (Such as Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sūtra; an article of international scope on an originally Sanskrit text pertaining to Buddhism; all three exemptions listed earlier apply here.) – Scyrme (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Special:Contributions/202.84.42.187

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

I happened to notice from close observation that a majority of these IP edits have been nothing short of general disruption. Examples of behaviour include name calling within own Talk page editing ([98]), general vandalism ([99]), including on others' Talk pages ([100]), bypassing policies on GA and FA ([101]), falsifying deaths ([102]), and more recently, nonsense listings ([103]). Also, I don't believe this user, Jasmine2004, actually wanted to be welcomed by anyone (Request: [104] vs contrary revert: [105]). Not sure whether action should be taken or if I can ask an admin to further observe. Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. El_C 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hacking confession from Raxythecat

Not hacking, let’s not

give any more airtime to what blocked socks say. firefly ( t · c ) 22:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Not sure what can be done with this, but the latest sock of Raxythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just confessed to using hacking techniques that are likely Federal crimes, [106]. Skyerise (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, could we get a block on Janis the Cat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Skyerise (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an admission of hacking. I see basic knowledge of how to release a DHCP lease, and requests new one. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he's probably just trying to create a cover explanation for his actual business travel. Skyerise (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Related question to above discussion

Related question. Am I prohibited from taking the IP data in the checkuser filings directly to the service provider myself? I emailed arbcom several days ago and haven't even gotten an acknowledgement that they received it. Skyerise (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth a try, but ISPs have proved to be spectacularly unhelpful in most previous cases; if you are in the US yourself you may have more luck contacting the relevant law authorities in that state (Ohio in this case) if you believe they have broken their relevant cyberstalking/bullying statutes. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think Ohio? I've got Houston (and another location in Texas), Syracuse, and yes, Columbus, mostly. But their phone seems to be consistently in California. Remote logins? Skyerise (talk)

Ah, yeah ... I clicked on a few of the 107.x addresses from the September 21 SPI and they were all in Columbus, but you're right, the more recent ones are California. Those Ohio ones are interesting, though, as they're with AT&T Mobility, which is a business service and probably owned by a company. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too. Could be either a rep or a client. Skyerise (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There use to be a project that dealt with filing abuse reports 10-15 years ago Wikipedia:Abuse response. It was closed due to inactivity, AFAIK one of the reasons beyond the amount of time it took to collect evidence was due to the low rate of success being a strong disincentive for participants. IIRC many ISPs either said to just block them or seem to think we should stop allowing anonymous contributions or otherwise were confused over the whole thing. Being a volunteer often didn't help IIRC, there was a thought being an admin even properly disclosing your a volunteer might help but I can't recall if any ever really got involved. To be fair, quite a few of those reports were persistent vandals, if the editor has done worse stuff you might have more chance of success. But while I don't about AT&T, AFAIK even the WMF has had problems getting a suitable response. Hence why some seriously problematic individuals are still bothering us from the same ISPs. There are also some beans issues I won't mention here. Nil Einne (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this an abuse of CheckUser privileges? AFAIK it isn't meant to be used for stuff outside of Wikipedia. —

talk) 13:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There's no checkuser privileges being used here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources marked #1lib1ref #1lib1refcrs

Hello, over the last few weeks a number of users (most notably Man1ofhonour (talk · contribs), Fulani215 (talk · contribs), and Olatunbosun opeyemi David (talk · contribs)) under this project have gone through hundreds of Nigerian pages adding sources at random in the introduction. While some of these references are reliable, the vast majority are not relevant or reliable to the places the users put them. Most have not responded on their talk pages and one (Tolu io (talk · contribs)) has already been blocked but I would really appreciate swift action here because the rapid pace of these lazy edits means that dozens of pages are being changed every few hours making it impossible to fix them all. I don't doubt that their intentions are good but someone needs to stop this or contact the organizer of this project because these users have already added nonsense to hundreds of pages collectively. Watercheetah99 (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Watercheetah99: of note is the 1Lib1Ref project the accounts seem to be referencing. 晚安 (トークページ) 09:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like my post here a few weeks ago about w4hrng, these edits are highly problematic, adding nonsense gossip sources to BLPs, unreliable sources, redundant sources (literally identical repeats to existing sources in the article) and unrelated sources. Not to mention the MOS issues which are not easily cleaned up on articles that are already under-watched. CUPIDICAE💕 18:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want an edit filter tracking these, along the lines of the one for WPWP? firefly ( t · c ) 18:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a perennial contest issue, as the OP opened a similar query a month ago, another was made two years ago, and a discussion was held last year for another contest, which now has a filter that Firefly referenced. I believe the WMF people overseeing the contest are aware of the issue as raised in previous iterations, and there's a Feedback form button at the bottom of their splash page to submit feedback, though a lot of the questions pertain to participants. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is "#1lib1refcrs"? There's lots at meta about "#1lib1ref" but not this. Even Google is unhelpful. I wonder if something else is going on here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suffusion of Yellow as I understand it, a lot of these contests have “sub contests” run by local affiliates. So the main contest uses “#WPFOO”, but “Wikimedia Ruritania” has a sub contest for the most entries added about Ruritanian topics, using “#WPFOORUR”. Therefore people entering both contests will use both tags. WPWP certainly had these sub contests. firefly ( t · c ) 21:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't we just have a rule against playing such games on the English Wikipedia? If people want to actually improve articles then they should just do so, without involving themselves in childish competitions that only serve to disrupt.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• And I remember that a previous such contest was organised by someone who had been banned here, making all the edits proxy edits by a banned editor. I hope that is not the case here.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  But 1Lib1Ref isn't a competition, right? At least, there don't seem to be prizes based on volume of edits, which is why the #WPWP contest was so disruptive. Now this #1lib1refcrs (see Firefly's response above) might well be offering prizes, but it's apparently being organized in private, so who knows? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  From what I can tell, it's just an event to drum up hype and encourage editors to add citations to articles that need them; the main page at least links to

  WP:RS, but maybe it needs to be highlighted more. It seems users can set themselves up as organisers in their community, and an organiser's guide is provided, but there is no link to WP:RS there. What organisers decide to do is probably beyond the scope of any Wikimedia project.

  Anyone know who from the WMF is maintaining it this time around? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Avilich at Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

I am requesting that

disambiguation guidelines. Looking at the history of the article, Avilich has been reverted by four separate editors around 11 times going back to March 2021. The talk page does not show consensus for Avilich's version, and discussion has spilled over to Narky Blert's talk page, A previous ANI thread, RfD, and Avilich's talk page. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• The 'disruption' refers to the removal of entries that are made-up names and do not have articles, as per standard policy concerning verifiability and disambiguation. The heart of the matter is relatively simple, and the reason why the entries are bogus is explained at length in the talk page. The reason for such controversy is probably that I once tried to solve the problem in a non-procedural manner because other parties weren't quite cooperative, and some people took it personally enough that they then aimed to revert everything I did on purely procedural grounds, without ever refuting the core content concern. So now there is an impasse, by which a straighforward content problem cannot be solved (not by me at least) due to a procedural mistake of mine and tagteaming by others, even though the actual problem was barely even discussed. If I do get blocked, it will show how the community is able to rally together over some minor technicality while not being able to solve simple mistakes.
  Avilich (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You made a controversial change to the disambiguation page, and Narky Blert disagreed with change. I wholly stand by Narky's position and won't belabor that point, but unless there is consensus for your version of the page, further edit warring to force your preferred version is disruptive. Given the voluminous discussion on the issue at hand that I have linked, "barely even discussed" is disingenuous. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'discussions' you linked contain false statements or refusals by others to discuss, not genuine content disputes. You and others kept restoring unverifiable content, which is disruptive editing. You don't 'wholly stand' by anyone's position, not sincerely at least, not only because that position is based on a demonstrable lie, but also because your interest as an administrator is purely procedural.

Avilich (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:BATTLEGROUND in the bud. El_C 09:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

Avilich (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Lies claimed again without evidence? I'm noticing a pattern here. Speaking more on evidence: I don't see much evidence for 'battleground' behavior — the battleground should be apparent even in this very thread. Please note that I'm just about ready to convert your partial block into a sitewide one. You need to dial it down a notch, altogether. The aggression, it's too much. Like the above evidence-less

WP:ASPERSION: some people took it personally enough that they then aimed to revert everything I did on purely procedural grounds. El_C 14:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Avilich (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Maybe they thought you were wrong. Maybe what you perceive as their "lies" were good faith mistakes. Maybe you are mistaken on the content. But on the conduct you are very much mistaken. Edit warring against multiple users is a bad idea. Edit warring, period, is a bad idea. Acting aggressively is a bad idea. If discussion concerning sources reaches an impasse, the next logical step would be

WP:DIFF'less aspersions you continue to make. Something which I think is plain to all but you, even now for some reason. Please do better. Thanks. El_C 14:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Avilich (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess I just assumed you had sources to counter those pages / naming conventions. Doesn't matter. It's a content dispute, so there are other

dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of. El_C 15:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Would someone already care (no need), my thoughts on this topic are here. gidonb (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This conflict is unfortunately typical of the interactions between editors who specialise in disambiguation pages and those who focus on the content in a given topic area. I wish there was less battleground behaviour by the content editor and a greater willingness on the part of the disambiguation editors to abstain from restoring versions that they should be aware don't meet the guidelines for inclusion on disambiguation pages. I don't see much point in going on with the trench warfare on the talk page;

Avilich, assuming there are no remaining fictitious mentions of Claudias Pulchras within articles, I believe the obvious next step for you is to nominate the disambiguation page for deletion. – Uanfala (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This is what I suggested on my talk page. I do not oppose the banblock. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no ban. There's a

WP:DR avenues remains unrestricted. El_C 17:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, El_C. Fixed! gidonb (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any conflict between "disambiguation editors" and "content editors". Surely we should all be just editors who are here to make this a decent encyclopedia? The only conflict I see is between Avilich and any other editor who dares to say that they may have any opinion to offer about Ancient Roman subjects. The partial block simply makes that editor try to build consensus on the talk page rather than edit-war.

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"dares to say that they may have any opinion to offer" surely it's not too unreasonable to support a standard application of the verifiability policy and the disambiguation guidelines, and oppose any attempts to invent names in violation of those rules.

Avilich (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So do it by gaining consensus on the talk page, rather than by edit-warring.

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Impossible due to

Avilich (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Perfectly possible if you follow the principles that other editors follow all the time, which involve not accusing anyone who disagrees with you of lying, and otherwise following the general rules that apply to all editors, even omniscient ones like you. I get the feeling that you just don't get collaboration. I can't believe that any genuine subject-matter expert would behave like this, so the assumption has to be that you are merely claiming to be one and bamboozling other editors who might not be as blusteringly confident in their knowledge of ancient history.

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• The problem with nominating the page for deletion is that it legitimizes the whole opposition, even if it does get deleted. This is a straightforward case of a single article title that doesn't need disambiguation, so the correct thing is to clear the page of defective entries and then have it speedily deleted. Making this about 'consensus' implies that 'disambiguation editors' can invent or assign arbitrary importance to fake names by negligently or disingenuously citing sources that do not themselves support said conclusions, which is precisely what happened here.
  Avilich (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I had hoped not to have to post in this thread. However, Avilich has once again accused me of lying and of tag-teaming. I reject both allegations, which I find offensive. Narky Blert (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that such accusations are offensive. We seem to have an editor here who is so sure of being right that the usual rules don't apply.

  Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Avilich: "I only argued the DGRBM is unreliable before finding out it actually supports (pp. 761–62) my original point." from ANI@00:38, 7 April 2021. If a source agrees with me, it's reliable; if it doesn't, it isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reasonably confident it's against the spirit of some rule or other to promote a falsehood not once but twice, to filibuster and dodge the issue when questioned, and then immediately continue editwarring as if nothing had happened. I have never seen this person retract his false statement, by the way, so you tell me if some sort of agreement can be reached. While this isn't possible, I prefer to follow the wider community consensus concerning verifiability and disambiguation, which forbids editors from inserting or maintaining obviously false content.

Avilich (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I urge you to withdraw your aspersions, which grow increasingly remote from the historical record with each new repetition. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avilich I noticed this discussion yesterday and considered replying but didn't in large part because I found you had discussed on the talk page before albeit a long time ago and without a clear result. But your responses here have re-affirmed my original thoughts. When you insist that you're right and there is no need for discussion because you're right, you're going against core tenets here as we're a collaborative project that operates by consensus. In fact, as I told another editors very recently, the fact you seem so reluctant to discuss make me thinks perhaps you're not so sure you're right, otherwise why are you afraid to seek consensus? How on earth does an XfD "legitimizes the whole opposition"? Actually if it reaches consensus it shows these editors were wrong on the particular issue. (They may or may not be wrong on a wider policy issue, that can only be resolved via an RfC or something dealing with the particular issue.) As for the stonewalling claims, one or two editors cannot generally stonewall an AfD unless there's so little participation that it's difficult to see any consensus. As it stands, I only see 3 editors on the talk page besides you, so if you're still at loggerheads nearly 1 year later, some form of WP:dispute resolution perhaps an AfD seems the best way forward and again I'm going to assume any editor afraid of dispute resolution fears they will lose because they're argument isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sitewide block

See User_talk:Avilich#Sitewide_block. El_C 13:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User deleting well sourced paragraphs and removes inline citations from the talk page

Multiple IPs blocked for

WP:SEMI-protected. El_C 13:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Hello, the user @Austronesier keeps deleting well sourced paragraphs, including inline citations and references from both an article and the talk page, seemingly related to personal issues with an alleged sock IP. However, I hardly think that this behavior is ok. Especially the removal of the references and inline citations from the talk page is far from any encyclopedic behavior, because these are relevant for the article and review papers (secondary/tertiary). Regardless of sock or not, the argument that review/tertiary and secondary references have more weight than primary references is a Wikipedia policy, and this specific user has to follow these rules like any other person.

I must ask: What is the sense to remove quotations/inline citations? Does the specific user has personal interests, and simply takes advantage that the IP was once blocked? Currently the IP is not blocked and the SPI against it was closed without action!

Here:[107].

And here the edit at the article itself:[108]

It is an not an encyclopedic behavior, but simply harassment of an IP user, by another user.

I ask again the administrators, how can be the removal of references and inline citations be a good behavior in an encyclopedia? The user must not agree with the interpretation of the IP, but removing references is a no go, especially when he favors primary papers instead of secondary/tertiary ones, which is a violation of

WP:MEDRS.2001:4BC9:922:A9AD:718C:D5DA:35E7:7626 (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That is a case of

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. It does neither improve the article, nor is related to vandalism or any harm. It is simple dislike, or maybe the user follows some personal agenda?2001:4BC9:922:A9AD:718C:D5DA:35E7:7626 (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• IP, you've failed to inform Austronesier of this complaint, per this noticeboard's instructions. How would they know to respond if they don't know it exists? In any case, I have done this for you. El_C 14:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Thanks for the ping. I have little to add to what I have written in the last edit summaries, especially here. Our policies about block evasions are quite clear, regardless of the nature of the content that has been to article or talk space. And FWIW, this comment by RoySmith does not mean that the suspicion of sockpuppetry is void (c'mon, it's a big {{megaphoneduck}}), it just means that at the time of the comment, there were no activities related to these IPs. This has obviously changed at the present, and now includes activities like edit warring and filing this frivolous report. I suggest a range block. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User Austronesiers continues disruptive editing, spreading lies about me and does not wait for consensus and results of this report. Here, see this recent disruptive edit:[109]! This shows us that he has no interest in Wikipedia rules, and does not work in good faith, but simply personal agendas. Narrow eyed and ignorance has no place for Wikipedia users. This behavior is not acceptable, and must be sanctioned, according to Wikipedia policies!2001:4BC9:904:527A:9C35:4B1F:64A0:B07 (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User 2600:1700:3BD2:8C00:DC6:5242:CD67:D51B's action

Blocked the /64 for another six months, given that the disruptive editing resumed mere days after the previous block on the range expired (see log). Now to go clean up the mess... firefly ( t · c ) 17:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Hello everyone, sorry to interrupt.

This user 2600:1700:3BD2:8C00:DC6:5242:CD67:D51B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)seemed add a lot of templates to several pages. I'm not quiet sure is him a vandalism. Could any sysop take a look for him? Many thanks. Pavlov2 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C @Liz Pavlov2 (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTHERE

sock

Leonardox2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leonardox2002 (pretty obvious from the username). Creating A7/G3-worthy pages and drafts, needs to be blocked. wizzito | say hello! 19:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked but is not a sock of who the blocking admin says they are... thanks. wizzito | say hello! 19:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizzito I’m entirely unconvinced that this needed an ANI report; AIV would have worked for obvious disruption. Not sure it matters terribly whose sock it is either… firefly ( t · c ) 21:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thesickreservoir

Thesickreservoir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on several pages regarding Eastern Europe, even when multiple users have told them to stop. Their edit summaries are also abusive towards other users.2600:100C:A211:7C3B:54E6:28F2:8787:DC98 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1076869369 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Thesickreservoir&offset=20220313131310&target=Thesickreservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sochi&diff=prev&oldid=1075906253 POV pushing --2600:100C:A211:7C3B:54E6:28F2:8787:DC98 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those diffs shows any edit-warring, users telling them to stop, abuse or POV pushing. A little abrasiveness perhaps, but not the kind of incident that should be brought here.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Wikipedian India

@Bonadea:, @David notMD:, @Blue Star Thing:, This user says that it is non profit org, means he is not a individual who is editing wp rather than WI is a organization of more than 1 man. Is WP allow this, in which 1 account is operated by many folks? He made many pages about Indian Soldier are these pages notable to be on wp? Take appropriate steps on it.Success think (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikipedian India was blocked on 27 February for having changed User name from an individual account to the organization name. The reason for the block is explained to WI in the February 2022 section on Talk page. WI has not complied with a name change and has not edited under the WI name since 27 February. Before and after the name change, WI was attempting to create articles about every person in th India military who died and was posthumously awarded a medal. David notMD (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP block evasion

Not sure if this rises to an SPI level or not, but a persistent editor with a thing for disruptive edits on professional wrestling articles has been at it today, and is evading several blocks. User:Jdhfox (no relation) caught my eye earlier for a flurry of articles moving from draft to mainspace to Wikipedia space and all over the place; I pinged the pro wrestling Wikiproject to see if they could assist, only for the editor to be quickly blocked for evading a block issued to Special:Contributions/71.65.161.185. This afternoon, another IP has surfaced to make the same edits. Their edits have almost universally used "Revised" as the edit summary, and have almost universally been reverted by other editors. Current IP will be notified of this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE

by Wickelodeon

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Wickelodeon#Indefinite_block. El_C 11:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

[110] 3 March 2022 - Removed sourced information about the Iranian connection of the Azeris, no edit summary.

[111] 5 March 2022 - Altered sourced information about the DNA of the Turks of South Carolina from 'Middle Eastern' to 'Central Asian'

[112] 10 March 2022 - Removed sourced info about the Ottoman Turks allying with Europeans against another Muslim power, calling it 'irrelevant'

[113] Replaced the sourced 'Turko-Persian' with 'Turkic' with no edit summary, then attempted to remove it two times again [114] [115]

[116] 19 March 2022 - Added Modern Turkish with the Latin alphabet in the lede, even though it wasn't spoken/used till many centuries later.

[117] [118] 19 March 2022 - Attempted removal of sourced mention of 'Persian' twice

Last but not last, a typical

WP:RS because it clashes with his view, thus pretty much revealing his intentions; "But no, they funded by Turko-Persian goverment unlike our glorious Iranian storytelle.. historians. Also Turkicness of Xiognhu's are fringe theory as Iranianness of Sakas. Its one of the strong theories for predicted race of that state."

Judging by these diffs, this user is clearly on a

WP:NOTHERE. Countless users have been banned for less. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I did not anything with bad faith. If my changes looked like bad faith edits i will pay attention to it for not do same things. But there is absouletly smallize Turkic impact on every Turkic country that ruled Iran in Wikipedia and also my interest topic is Turkic history and my edits upon related articles for this. But as i said, i will pay attention and i am sorry. @Cullen328: Wickelodeon (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DBN

by HistoryofIran

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

• "Replaced the sourced 'Turko-Persian' with 'Turkic' with no edit summary" What i wrote that ("Persianateness of Seljuks is already written at the bottom of that sentence. Using of it in the first letter is unnecsesarily.") explain to all of my Seljuk related changes and other 60k+ change user agreed to me too.

• [119]. User HistoryofIran made
  WP:NPA against me and ignored my warnings about wikipedia policy numerous times
  .

• Edit removals of this user against me includes
  WP:DBN
  in everytime.

• [120] Proposal to deletion of highly sourced article about Turkic history.

• [121]
  WP:OPINION to removal of template from stable version of article. Wickelodeon (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Wickelodeon, you are required to inform any editor that you report here. Because you did not do so, I have done it for you. Now, I will look at your claims. Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wickelodeon, are you claiming that the phrase "silly accusations" is a personal attack against you instead of criticism of your edits? Cullen328 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing here that rises to the level of administrative intervention, or is even problematic at all. I would suggest continuing to engage with other editors at Talk:Turkic History. Mackensen (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First one is response to accusation to me by historyogyran Wickelodeon (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User "Wickelodeon" registered on 16 February 2022,[122] which is barely a month ago, yet is somehow able to form complex ANI cases and cite advanced WP policies. Peculiar to say the least. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And all that without the ability to write coherent and rational English language prose. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Cite advanced Wikipedia policies" perhaps the OP just looked at

  WP:ANI#WP:NOTHERE by Wickelodeon, so it's not like they did this out of nowhere either. [123] If you're implying Wickelodeon is a sock or perhaps not a new editor I don't think them starting this thread actually demonstrates that. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

"And all that without the ability to write coherent and rational English language prose." Dude, it was harsh. Sorry for my bed england. Wickelodeon (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you find the truth harsh, that's really a you-problem. This is the

competent command of the English language is required. El_C 11:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeffed. El_C 11:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

173.54.162.95 removing maintenance templates

Blocked by Cullen328 EvergreenFir (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

173.54.162.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a new ISP editor, has been removing maintenance templates. No explanation was given nor was any other edit made to these articles:

Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 Diff4 Diff 5 Diff6 Diff7 Diff8 Diff9 Diff10 Diff11 Diff12 Diff13 Diff14 Diff15 Diff16 Diff17

Twice at Checkpoint Charlie: Diff18 Diff19

After a level 4 warning did this: Diff20

To be fair some of these maintenance templates were quite stale, but some were BLP templates. A newbie is unlikely to yet be familiar with Wikipedia policies to know if the issues have been addressed. He/she seems unresponsive to warnings or perhaps has yet to find their Talk page. Blue Riband► 02:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so fucking important to you? 173.54.162.95 (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you from the article namespace (but not this page and related pages) for 31 hours to give you additional time to ponder that question. Mackensen (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm the one who asked the question, so ask Blue Riband to ponder it, you fucking retard 173.54.162.95 (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Xtreme o7 and Indian hate speech

• Xtreme o7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this hate speech against Indian people posted by

personal attack that obviously crosses the line. Bsoyka (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Bsoyka (talk · contribs) Thank you for helping me. —FoxtAl (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghhharanosi, NOTHERE, personal attacks, ethnic insults and edit warring

User blocked by me, tagged as sock by

E) 08:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Ghhharanosi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) If I was to give diffs, I'd have to link to basically every single edit, so I'm not going to bother. I reverted their unexplained, or poorly explained deletions and subsequently got lambasted with "Kemalist propagandist", "loser", and I think I even got called a "Freemason" at one point. They seem to be intent on pushing a anti-Turkish POV, and I say that from the viewpoint of someone who is hardly a big fan of the actions of that nation.

I'm not going to run Google translate on their edit summaries, but it is obviously not compliments that they are putting there. Clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia, indef block. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed some complete nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IM BRITISH AND GREEK. NOT AMERICAN. NOW LEAVE ME ALONE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] DANIEL GIANNIS KARAOGLOU NORTH WEST LONDON PLESAE DONT HURT ME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] FREEMASONS ARE WIKIPEDIA I WILL DEFEND BRITAIN GOD BLESS OURES — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] GHARANOSI MY GRANDMUM NAME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] I AM FROM CRETE GHARANOSI MY GRANDMUM NAME ŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghhharanosi (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell? 晚安 (トークページ) 08:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. But they seem to have had trouble finding anything worthwhile or interesting to do today. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

M4DU7 reported by Fishandnotchips

Moved from

WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meesho: [M4DU7's] actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. His AFD record is very strong. From starting he is only nominating the pages, no other participation. This accurate nomination can only be of an old player. He is a paid editor, In Meesho company AFD page he has written keep vote by saying, One of the most downloaded apps in India. & last valued at $4.9 billion although he was already aware that funding and top most download is not the criteria. He nom and deleted few pages due to the same reason [124], [125], [126]. Infact, In many pages he is removed neutral content calling them as promo but using such lang in keep vote and not removing promo language in his own created multiple company pages is again a question. Fishandnotchips (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPA). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

AFD behaviour evidence is very strong. With the same language, he is nominating the page while for Meesho he is writing Keep Vote. Fishandnotchips (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAID and the Terms of Use. Do you have anything to support your accusation beyond what you have already written? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Accusations of racism at

WP:COIN

We could use some administrator eyes on

MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked for 31 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: Baselessly accusing others of racism and vandalism; see the bottom of Special:Permalink/1078227271 and the latest edit summaries). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring the ref

WP:PROMO across multiple pages is also a major problem, even if it wasn't accompanied with egregious personal attacks. El_C 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Rinda Fergiawan/Fergiawan Rinda

BLOCKED

(

WP:COPYVIO. Appeal is only valid for one account. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

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

---

Fergiawan Rinda and Rinda Fergiawan are clearly one editor in the same, editing for a little over 3 years and just a look at their talk page shows a slew of copyright violations and absolutely no engagement or understanding of our policies. Aside from the poorly sourced BLPs (literally, sourced to PHOTOS and other wikis) I've found half a dozen copyright violations today after they edit warred to remove revdel and g12 templates. I think it's time for a block until they can sufficiently demonstrate an understanding of our policies and stick to one account. CUPIDICAE💕 15:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. El_C 15:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pestering from Atlantico 000

Atlantico 000 (talk · contribs)

This user has started a number of RMs about Polish football clubs; I have expressed my views on the same, mostly in opposition. Now he won't leave me alone. Yesterday I asked him to "stop pestering me" - I logged back on this afternoon to six notifications, all from him - two talk page posts on my talk page and four pings at the RMs. I have now explicitly asked him to stop posting on my talk page or pinging me - 1, 2 - he has ignored me and instead said he will continue to post, despite my numerous requests for him not to! Please can somebody else intervene? A one-way interaction ban would be ideal if nobody can persuade him to stop... GiantSnowman 17:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Objection! He is a party to the discussion and I can ask him questions, ask for suggestions on pending cases. Btw. this user has a description called "if you need any help or have any queries, then please feel free to ask". Maybe it's time to change it since the user doesn't have time to be on the wiki? Marking him several times is not bothersome, because my every contact was substantive, and if GiantSnowman is wrong, it needs to be corrected! Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I have told you I have no interest in further discussion, that means I have no interest in further discussion and you should leave me alone. And also you just sent me another ping!. GiantSnowman 17:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop writing to me in discussions and take part in discussions in which I participate, then I will not ping you, because you will not be a party to the discussion. Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. If editors comment on a discussion you started or are involved in, they are under no obligation to continue discussions with you, and you are not able to police whether or not they are 'allowed' to participate. I am becoming increasingly concerned about your

competence. GiantSnowman 17:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not concerned about your

Ruch Zdzieszowice's name change discussion) and instead of substantive reference - you are looking for help in administration. Nobody tells you to reply to messages, but nobody tells you to keep busy being a party in discussions. You can skip them, because you do not bring substantive value there! Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

All the incivility aside, why are you pinging a user whose opinion you aren't interested in anyway? I have removed your comment from the "Tamale17" section below for now because it was yet another unwelcome response to GiantSnowman. And yes, Special:Mute/Atlantico 000 exists, but repeatedly pinging and sending talk page messages to users who have explicitly requested you not to do so is a form of harassment. Can you please retract the announcement from Special:Diff/1078254372, where you seem to say that you'll continue to do so? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, the fact that I have pinged him a few times - is not a form of harassment, but a request for my views to be taken into account (here I will only indicate that GiantSnowman's incompetence may prevent some articles from being moved to the right place, since GiantSnowman does not read the talk page thoroughly). I never announced that I would write to GiantSnowman nonsensically, only that if there was a need to explain something with GiantSnowman as part of the discussions he is having with me, I will. Atlantico 000 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're literally trying to pester him in another thread on this page. Also, stop the personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban proposal: Atlantico 000 -> GiantSnowman

One-way IBAN imposed. El_C 21:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Proposal:

banned from interacting with GiantSnowman

.

• The discussion above is sufficient for me to propose and support this. It seems to be a necessary measure to prevent further incivility and harassment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I’m pretty sure that Atlantico is on their way out of here anyway at this rate. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If I see any further harassment from Atlantico 000, I intend to block that account. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and I'd also support a block based on their harassment in another thread on this page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (for the record, [127] had been reinstated in [128]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  Thanks for that, I'm on mobile right now, so copying multiple diffs is difficult. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  You should get yourself a better phone then. Atlantico 000 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Did you just when I wrote that I would not write to him anymore, because I don't feel the need (everything is explained), did you start a discussion to forbid me to write to him? Why should I write to him if he doesn't get in my way? XD And how is it supposed to be normal here. Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clear harassment. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support harassment and incivility.
  Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, especially after the section below.
  E) 21:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per
  WP:ROPE, under the proviso that any break is immediately turned into a full block, as I have little faith that Atlantico 000 will abide by it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not !voting, just noting there is a serious CIR issue. Had I stumbled across this before they were blocked and voting started, I would have been tempted to indef them for WP:DE and WP:CIR Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously. I agree with Dennis that there is a CIR issue as well, and would support an indef. GiantSnowman 09:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, at a minimum this is required. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Interaction ban proposal: GiantSnowman -> Atlantico 000

Clearly not going to happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Proposal:

banned from interacting with Atlantico 000

.

• The discussion above is sufficient for me to propose and support this. Inexplicable reporting, spoiling the atmosphere, inability to talk to others - this is what characterizes GiantSnowman. Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked; feel free to unblock once the IBAN is through, as that will resolve a main concern. If Atlantico 000 agrees to abide to the ban, that is, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that they've been editing for two months, and what appears to be the first real content dispute they've gotten into resulted in their harassing another user. I think they should have to address that behavior before unblocking as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, their first response to the block was making fun of my username. Some people. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I hadn't seen their small response to our small discussion above yet either. They've really been throwing incivility around and around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Atlantico 000 is the aggressive party here, and seems to lack the collaborative skills to be a positive contributor to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:2600:1004:B1E6:2C27:B97B:5EB6:5D3F/40 disrupting various BLPs

Moved from

WP:BLPN

2600:1004:B1E6:2C27:B97B:5EB6:5D3F:601C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

See the following:

• (T·E·H·L·R) Luc Montagnier [129] [130] [131] [132] [133]
• (T·E·H·L·R) Chaz Bono (cannot link to the 10 diffs during an edit war on 18 March as they were all suppressed)
• (T·E·H·L·R) Rod Stewart (cannot link to the 2 diffs on 18 March as they were both suppressed)
• (T·E·H·L·R) Reggie White [134]

Non-BLP disruption over same time span:

• (T·E·H·L·R) Window [135]
• (T·E·H·L·R) Interstate 270 (Missouri–Illinois) [136]
• (T·E·H·L·R) Talk:CNN Center (single edit suppressed with edit summary removed on 16 March)

As an aside, this /40 is also rangeblocked from editing Talk:Race and intelligence and User talk:Stonkaments until 2023. [137] After this thread here at ANI back in June 2021.

Why keep this /40 range? I propose at the very least a temp range-block to prevent this continued disruption. This IP range is creating a significant burden of work for editors while contributing very little to the overall encyclopedia. If one is to examine their contribution history, the non-reverted edits are mostly small neutral changes [138] [139] [140] [141] or later heavily revised changes [142] which do not improve the project. If this is better suited for ANI, let me know and I will happily move it over there. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) (edited 17:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

The Chaz Bono and Rod Stewart edits are from WP:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes (or some copycat; it doesn't really matter). Unfortunately; CH uses some other ranges. I doubt the other edits are CH. The same range is used by 16ConcordeSSC; I don't think they've been active in the last few days, but the partial block on 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41 is ever-growing. zzuuzz is familiar with both users, and wizzito might want to comment about 16ConcordeSSC.

I don't know what the best step is now. A Verizon Wireless /40 or /41 (or even /44) range might cover hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of customers. A block allowing account creation certainly won't slow down CH, but it might cut down on some of the other crud. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I typed all that thinking I was looking at ANI; perhaps this should be moved there? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm happy to move it to ANI, it will certainly get more eyes there! Will do it right now — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One idea I had was this: can we pend changes for this range, forever? Is that a thing? That would solve so many of these problems. I just don't know if it's technically feasible, since pending changes are usually applied to a page, not a user. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not possible, currently. WP:Deferred changes, if it were ever implemented, would allow this, but my understanding is that the PC extension is such a mess that no one wants to touch it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a shame. But I get why it's dormant, looks like a technical nightmare. My other thought was a partial block against all BLPs, but i think this is probably also not technically feasible, since "BLP" is not a technical category as far as I can ascertain? (i.e. not a namespace) I know it is a category in the edit filter (sort of duct taped together), but idk if it is in the block system.... Maybe we could just advocate for a partial block against the BLPs this range has disrupted thus far, for a long period if not indefinite? As, at the very least, a stop gap measure? I do not see any legitimate edits to any of these BLP articles in some time. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's technically possible to create a filter stopping a certain range from editing any page in Category:Living people. But, such a broad filter would be the worst option IMO; unlike with blocks and protections, people don't discover that their edit is disallowed until after they've clicked "publish". If they've just spent 30 minutes hunting down references, or struggling to get a table to format correctly, that can be really irritating. A filter would need to be much more targeted to cut down on false positives. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This recent SPI case involving the IP range may also be relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive#Gardenofaleph. In closing, GeneralNotability stated: I have blocked Gardenofaleph and will be keeping an eye on the /40 - their behavior does not currently justify the collateral damage in blocking the /40, but if I do have to block it I will. Pinging them in case they're interested in the current discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sadly think that this is a case similar to when a block on

one LTA, and now the range is blocked both globally and on here for years. wizzito | say hello! 18:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

As another example with the same ISP (Verizon Wireless), 2600:1000:B040:0:0:0:0:0/42 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is currently CU-blocked due to an LTA. This is apparently the subnet for the Boston, Massachusetts area and it affects millions, but the block is apparently needed here to stop this LTA. wizzito | say hello! 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just some extra context.. I am already monitoring the 'CH' situation very closely. It is not one of their usual ranges, hence the edits only go back a short time. I'm also monitorig the 16ConcordeSSC situation, which has calmed down. I feel it's important to point out that there are lots of other users on the range, and my opinion remains that there's going to be a lot of collateral from a range block. I'm afraid I don't buy the 'contributing very little' argument. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zzuuzz I appreciate your careful input and attention to this. And I agree the rangeblock is probably overkill. I was being rash in my statement that the range is "contributing very little." My apologies. If there is any way we could figure out to prevent this disruption, even if it's just protecting all these BLPs that they're disrupting with a lower threshold, that would be very helpful to me and to the project. But truly if you have any other ideas that are better suited for this situation, I would be happy to hear them as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate it can sometimes looks like the admins are doing very little. For simplicity, let's talk about the /40. You need to divide the disruption into at least five parts: 1) The 'race and intelligence' person, who is topic banned, and I'm not aware of any recent relevant disruption; 2) The '16ConcordeSSC' person, who has been quiet since the last actions taken against them (possibly because they're effective?); 3) The 'CalebHughes' person who used the range to vandalise two BLPs for 23 minutes, a few days ago. This is an unusual technical signature, and I can assure you I'm keeping a close eye on that; 4) The 'Luc Montagnier' editor. I don't know how much of a drive-by those edits were, but they appear to be drive-by and unrelated to much. The article is currently semi-protected for a year. 5) The rest. We are left with, apparently, mainly non-BLP edits without any structure or pattern to target, likely because it's different users. It is this fifth category that is outstanding. I appreciate not all of the edits are constructive, but that can be said of a lot of ranges. Anyway, I've had the opportunity to look at this range (and at least one of the LTAs) in some depth, but I'm not the only admin in town so don't want to monopolise the response. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamale17

Tamale17 (talk · contribs)

I recently blocked this user for repeatedly adding incorrect stats to soccer players. He has returned and it still at it - the correct edit would have been this (stats verified to a reliable source, date of update completed). Whether they are being deliberately disruptive or simply incompetent, their edits are a nuisance. I suggest an indef. Their response to the block was concerning. GiantSnowman 17:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamale17, I'd like to hear your opinion about this; please provide it before continuing to edit. And I'd be interested in where exactly the "60" in Special:Diff/1078260622 came from. Is there a specific reason why you're not updating the reference dates when updating the stats, as has been requested multiple times on your talk page? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, the user didn't just continue editing without responding to these concerns. Tamale17 additionally clearly continued to add stats not backed by the source, at [143], which failed verification through http://web.archive.org/web/20220321045700/https://us.soccerway.com/players/manuel-estuardo-lopez-rodas/394805// .

unsourced content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. GiantSnowman 09:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric

Can some admin convince Dsnb07 to tone down the rhetoric-laden battleground attitude (1, 2, 3 etc.) before I drag them to AE for a TBan. Admin Regents Park warned them twice and Admin Abecedare left another round of sage advice but they had little appreciable effect. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, they are trolling us but I won't have minded as long as a certain threshold of disruption in content-space (article and talk) wasn't breached. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of notes and warnings they have received and the persistence of disruption, I have topic-banned the user from all Kashmir-related pages and discussions. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban is unilateral and I should have given a notice to put my POV. Abecedare has mentioned on my talk page that he is uninvolved admin whereas S/he has certain point of view on topic and have beed involved on editing. Dsnb07 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any diffs to prove their involvement? If not, you're likely to end up with worse sanctions for casting aspersions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. What you claim as trolling was a reply to what (log) was reply to Kautilya3 accusation and I quote him "Your knowledge of Kashmir topics is minimal. Please don't act like you are the master of the universe."
   1. Was that not trolling TrangaBellam by Kautilya3? Will you act now that its bough to your attention?
   2. Am not allowed to respectfully answer Kautilya3's question bullying (if I say so)?
2. What do you mean by they are trolling us?
   1. I am alone and not work in any group. Can you please clarify on us? Dsnb07 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      You have set your pronoun to "they". And wiki-etiquette demands that I respect your personal preference for pronouns. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      TrangaBellam My question was "Can you please clarify on us?" and not on they - I had already replied on on they. Dsnb07 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Abecedare Please check my pointed reply to TrangaBellam and let me know where I am wrong.
2. Also on personal note, a sincere apologies for my previous reply, I was expecting a fair space to put my point forward before a ban and ban was least expected from you ( because I admired you for trying to give space to people). so I replied in emotional whim. Sorry again and hope you understand.

Dsnb07 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam Where my tone was wrong or rhetoric later in 1, 2, 3 etc. (mentioned by you)? Please see my reply on context (and as whole) and if you still find it so please point me to exact line. Dsnb07 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dsnb07, there really is no point arguing the issue with TrangaBellam. Since I am the admin who imposed the sanction, you can ask me about anything I said in the

WP:AE

as I explained on your talkpage.

I am loath to do so myself, but perhaps this section at ANI can now be closed since any next step would have to be at

WP:AE. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Abecedare now that I brought Kautilya3's accusation (or bullying, if I say so) in your kind attention , what is your POV? Dsnb07 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:NOTTHEM. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed. Sorry, but per

Contact me | Contributions). 04:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:TheDragonFire300 Sir Thanks for understanding and your reply. I did not troll him I replied stating my background around topic i.e. Kashmir and its history. I am still not sure "how it is trolling" and it will be great If someone helps me to understand the same. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal

Discussion

First of all, I apologise for the length of this entry. This case has already been raised at

WP:SOCK

.

The BilledMammal account was opened on 24 April 2019 and the first edit was published same day. This was a new article, created in one edit and displaying instant knowledge of drafting, image parms, linkage, ref name, cite news, cite web, citation parameters, article structure, heading formats, and reflist. He even knew not to include categories in a draft. Only 31 edits were done until 6 December 2019 when the account became a sleeper for nearly 18 months until it was resurrected on 18 May 2021. In the ten months since then, over 7,500 edits have been done but only a mere 29% of them are mainspace because this editor spends so much time in forums and the like where, despite his apparent lack of experience, he has such a lot to say about policies, guidelines, procedures and so on.

In those first 31 edits, he twice opened AfD cases and knew exactly how to go about it. I find that surprising, to say the least. In the first one, he displayed familiarity with

WP:ACADEMIC

, writing with confidence about whether the subject qualifies for the latter. Again, he apparently performed a BEFORE and knew which deletion discussions would be interested.

BilledMammal returned on 18 May 2021 and, editing fairly regularly, made about 100 contribs to 27 May and then disappeared again. He was back on 19 June and immediately returned to AfD. Apart from short breaks, he has been a regular editor for the last nine months during which he has been using AfD and other forums as a deletionist.

In July, BilledMammal opened this ANI discussion and began by saying: I was regrettably unaware of this forum. Fortunately, one of the editors at AFD was kind enough to point me in the right direction. I find it strange that someone who was so obviously comfortable with AfD and other WP concepts had never heard of ANI. He seems to have been at home in ANI as he proceeded to outline his case. Soon afterwards, some of his edits there had to be permanently deleted because he made alterations to change message context and invalidate another editor's responses. He was full of apologies, of course, and finished by asserting: I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself, and am only here after being directed by an editor at the AFD that I was in the wrong forum. Are there guides in regards to submissions on these pages that I can read? I searched for them before posting, but unfortunately could not find any. Again, it is very strange that someone so well-versed in AfD and other site concepts should have such difficulty with ANI and finding useful guides.

BilledMammal appears to have stayed clear of sport until posting this revert on 22 January this year. He then began an argument about canvassing with Cbl62 and, despite his supposed inexperience, was talking throughout as if it was anything but new to him: for example, this, and so on. As a follow up, he goes to the VP and raises a fuss about canvassing there. This becomes something of an obsession with him – it seems he cannot bear to have other people knowing about something he wants to change or challenge in case they oppose him.

Two days later, having made several edits at the NSPORTS rfc and related pages, he arrives at Lugnuts' talk page for the first time with an AfD and this becomes a flood. Eventually, Lugnuts had to issue this complaint about hounding and stalking. Even so, BilledMammal has continued to post unwanted messages at Lugnuts' page. It seems very strange to me that someone with only 7,500 edits can claim to be so much more competent than someone with well over 1 million edits.

An example of BilledMammal's animosity towards Lugnuts is this proposal at ANI on 3 February. Remember that this is someone with relatively few edits and, of those, only 29% are in mainspace (so,

WP:GNOME

activity.

On 9 February, BilledMammal created

WP:HARRASS

.

Another CIR issue has arisen at

WP:NOT and it concerns the context, structure and usage of the article, not the sourcing. He has already been blocked by Bishonen for abuse of process in October 2021. He was warned about his attitude by GoodDay in this discussion and, in this message

to the project concerned, GoodDay summarises BilledMammal's attitude very well.

During the last seven days, at

WP:RSN, BilledMammal was accused by other parties of harassment towards Ebergerz following this unwarranted accusation on the 17th. This again arose from the obsession with canvassing and it is not the only problem he has caused in that discussion. As a result, he was warned about disruptive editing and harassment by Guy Macon

.

At the SPI, Shibbolethink rightly commented: they are certainly very disruptive, and did come into several spaces already with a huge amount of wiki-lawyering knowledge and then that My inclination is to suspect that BilledMammal may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm. I would be in favor of a CU. In response, Lugnuts said: "...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. RoySmith stated that: Behavioural evidence needs evaluation and Blablubbs suggested that the case should be taken to ANI.

BilledMammal, whether he is a

WP:WL

. Whatever limited pros there might be are completely wiped out by the overwhelming avalanche of cons and I contend that the account must be blocked indefinitely.

Again, I apologise for the length of this entry. If you have any questions, please ping me. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My brief encounters with BM, gave me the impression that he argues for the enjoyment of arguing. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support block - This editor has been a huge headache in a few different places.

1. First, on
   WP:NCNZ [144], this editor campaigned to remove a paragraph from the page regarding dual names (successfully, I must admit) but now is also interested in removing any such mention from the infoboxes of any pages. When several editors informed them that there was consensus against this, they stated repeatedly that they will advance it to an RFC despite any such consensus. @Turnagra
   noted "As mentioned on that page, that RFC leaves a poor taste in my mouth. It seems in very poor form to wait until a consensus is emerging against your view to open an RFC in another location without any prior discussion of such an idea." BilledMammal replied, in part: "from the start I had believed an RFC would be required."
2. BilledMammal has been blocked previously (48h) for filing vexatious complaints against editors they disagreed with. [145]
3. Other editors (notably, @Nableezy) are suspicious the editor is a sock [146]
4. Adding last reply and closing a discussion in one stroke is never a good look [147] (and this is another editor accusing BilledMammal of harassment and failure to AGF)
5. A long history of calling others "involved" "canvassed" when they disagree with the user. [148]

Overall, I actually think BilledMammal has been uniquely disruptive in a number of different areas of the wiki (sex/gender, sports, new zealand naming, skepticism/pseudoscience). I think they actually are a generally nice demeanor editor (perhaps rising to even

WP:BATTLE-like fashion. I think a temporary block would be ideal to prevent future disruption and show that this behavior needs to be heavily reconsidered if they are to remain a productive editor moving forward. I am suspicious that they are a SOCK, but I don't have more than the circumstantial evidence presented here to go off of, and I don't personally think that's enough for an indef SOCK block. But it shows the editor should tread carefully, regardless. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I would like to clarify two things. First, for #1, on NCNZ the current proposal that some editors believe there is a consensus for is to use only the dual name in the infobox and the lede, excluding both individual names even when one is the article title. My position is that we should use the dual names and individual names similar to how they are used at

WP:CANVASS

, and I wasn't the only editor to have that concern.

Beyond that, though it is not my intent, and I believe most of the specific concerns raised are inaccurate, it is clear that in general how I engage in discussion is not ideal, and even if this discussion is closed without action I will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust my behaviour to address it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted wrt INVOLVED vs CANVAS, and I have corrected my comment to reflect that! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Too long and not well organized, but I did read. Just want to address one point in this post. The "evidence" you've posted is useless for the purpose of blocking him as a sockpuppet. There are legitimate reasons why people have more experience than they should for a new account. Lost account. WP:FRESHSTART, etc. Socking is about abusive use of the two+ accounts and I'm not seeing clear evidence in what you are presenting. They aren't as new as their edit count indicates, but that isn't proof of violating policy by itself. And also, this is NOT
  WP:SPI. Yes, we will block obvious socks here from time to time, but for cases that require deep analysis, you have to go to SPI. I clerked SPI for some time, blocking many hundreds of socks (300 in one case, which is still the record), and I couldn't block based on this. The rest of this needs looking at, just not now by me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for that,

WP:SOCK so I'd rather prioritise the other concerns. If you should be right about lost account, etc., I must ask why BM hasn't declared that on his user page as required. He does say in his first ANI, as quoted above, that he is a new editor. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Many freshstarts may say they are new editors, meaning their account is new. That isn't so uncommon. It's how you use the language and doesn't always imply deceit. If this has been to SPI, rehashing the evidence is pretty useless because we are always going to say "take it to SPI", so it muddies up the report is all, and actually hurts your chances of getting enough eyes. Reports need to be concise, with diffs, clearly (and briefly) explaining the problem, and preferably, suggesting a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this just seems to be complaining about an editor who has played a part in discussions with outcomes you disagree with, rather than actual disruptive behavior. The two+ whole paragraphs devoted to his "hounding Lugnuts" just boil down to Lugnuts objecting to the automatic AfD notices generated by Twinkle--which he should honestly be expecting given he created an enormous proportion of the microstubs on non-notable athletes--and BilledMammal not having the "builder status" you think is necessary to propose a (unanimously supported and enacted) sanction against Lugnuts.

Plenty more experienced editors have bundled sportspeople in AfDs that are procedurally kept with "no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages".

And then there's the active AfD you link where "the CIR problem" seems to be his invoking NOTDATABASE...for a microstub on a GNG-failing, NSPORT-failing subject that is exclusively sourced to databases. That argument doesn't seem incongruent with To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

The CANVAS issue highlighted was regarding one oppose editor leaving non-neutral RfC notices at projects where members were absolutely expected to !vote oppose in large numbers, and then repeating this. That is totally in the realm of

WP:CANVAS

.

And I find it pretty ironic to on the one hand label a question I am curious how you discovered this RFC; I notice you have very few edits on this Wikipedia (most are on the Spanish Wikipedia) and you have never participated in formal discussions here, nor have you participated in Wikipedia-space here as an "unwarranted accusation" while on the other make very similar accusations here toward BilledMammal.

I have no input on whether they're a sock, but if the only evidence is that they had precocious familiarity with wiki mechanics then I think CUs would be orders of magnitude busier processing all the accounts fitting that description. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Joelle summed it up nicely and said most of what I was going to say. No Great Shaker seems to be the one with a battleground mentality here, viewing normal disagreements and interactions as personal attacks and even stalking. The complaints are all over the place but most of these diffs seem pretty normal; they're only objectionable if you believe that mass stub creation is productive and stub deletion is disruptive, a position that has been rejected by the community. One exception would be this which seems to be a personal attack/preemptive canvassing by GoodDay. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no policy against stubs. In fact, we have a

  guideline which describes stubs and implicitly approves their existence. Seeking to have a stub deleted solely because it is a stub is disruptive, and you're spreading misinformation by claiming that the community has taken a contrary position. Mlb96 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Indeed, there is no policy against stubs. But as dlthewave references, the community has sanctioned an editor participating in this discussion from creating sub-stubs, because the community not only felt it obnoxious that the editor was creating many thousands of them without showing any interest in improving them, but kept on doing so after being warned against the practice and promising not to do it any more. Me giving you a light punch in the arm might or might not be a problem. Long before I'd delivered more than nine thousand of them, you'd rightfully have me up on assault charges. Ravenswing 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought there were a few oddities in the account, so asked if it was their first account, and have accepted their answer and not been inclined to look into it further. I remain disinclined. nableezy - 05:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll add my full thoughts later, but I thought it important to point out that
  Please ping me! 07:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  WP:PREC. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Please ping me! 13:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note that BilledMammal specifically challenged me to take them to ANI[149] but I declined to do so.

Re: "He was warned about disruptive editing and harassment by Guy Macon", it seems self-evident that the accuser needs to actually provide evidence that [A] someone is a member of a particular group, and [B] that that group has been canvassing. BilledMammal provided no evidence for either claim other than that they are a new editor, that they found an RfC that was widely publicized,[150] and in essence that BilledMammal somehow just knows that GSoW members have been stealth canvassing. No evidence required. [151]

Even if we ignore the many reasons why someone might legitimately start using a new username, Ebergerz has been editing in skeptical areas since 12 Aug 2019, mostly on commons, wikidata, and en.wikipedia.org.

Likewise, all of the evidence in the recent Arbcom case points to GSoW carefully avoiding behavior such as canvassing and Arbcom chose to not place any special restrictions of GSoW members. It is likely that GSoW members are also interested in Wikipedia pages related to skepticism and would watch such pages. Skeptical Inquirer is listed in the following templates:

Templates

Also strange: changing "The editor BilledMammal has expressed a concern that Ebergerz has been canvassed to this discussion" to "An editor has expressed a concern that Ebergerz has been canvassed to this discussion"[152] Why try to hide who "expressed a concern"?

So what is to be done? IMO BilledMammal's harassment of Ebergerz justifies no more than a 30 day block, and I would be fine with 3 days. I will leave it to others to evaluate the other areas discussed in this case and decide what the response to all of the reported behavior should be. --

talk

)

Please ping me! 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

A. C. Santacruz Is there a specific reason for which you are omitting to mention the fact that I explicitly explained that I followed the ArbCom case and that as I've used SI as a source dozens of times I keep an eye on this discussions precisely because SP WP does not have a list of reliable sources as such, so we tend to use the english one, and this time I decided to finally participate? [154] After which BM continued to demand evidence and an explanation from my side, instead of providing any themselves. [155]. As I've mentioned elsewhere, By this reasoning any user who is new to the formal discussions and is judged to be part of GSoW (or any other group) has to be by default canvassed and would seem that there is no chance that said user could have a legitimate interest in the discussion. So, if a user is new to this discussions (myself in this case) is not judged to be part of GSoW, then there is no reason to believe they are canvassed by GSoW, but if they are judged to be part of GSoW (or any other group), then immediately the conclusion is that they have been canvassed. And it would seem no evidence is needed to back that claim. Such logic seems a bit circular to me. With this shifted burden of proof and circular logic, what defense would remain for me or any other such user? What sort of evidence could possibly be be exculpatory? Should I remain forever excluded from any such discussion because I never participated in one before?Ebergerz (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please ping me! 15:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I see, so that is why, in your opinion, no evidence was needed to back up the accusation of me being canvassed: If I give no answer, I'm canvassed, and if I explain exactly why I know about the RFC, and why it is of interest for me, then I'm under even more suspicion of being canvassed. Also if I'm reading your reply correctly, if only I had stay put, and not argued with an accusation with no evidence to back it up, then somehow "that wouldn't have mattered". Again, you seem to also subscribe to the faulty logic I described before: If you are judged to be a member of GSoW then you are canvased, no evidence needed (and no defense is possible either). You seem to forget that the ArbCom case evaluated such claims of coordination to affect discussions, and found no evidence of such practice (and as has been mentioned by Guy before, they found plenty evidence of the opposite). Ebergerz (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me! 16:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

A. C. Santacruz I find quite ironic the reference to the "dramaboard" and to discussions that "are all just a group of editors making a big shadow out of a small figure that is much less serious than you... are making it out to be." coming from you. Regarding the analyzing of my contributions, I have nothing to hide, not had ever had anything to hide. And of course, I don't take well to being aggressively accused of false things with no evidence ("more"? there was not any presented). In other matters I tend to very much avoid aggressive discussions and favor respectful argumentations to seek agreement. As you seem to be fluent in spanish, you could check it is so in the talk pages for some articles I've been involved in. But I'll stop here, as this thread is getting out of topic. Ebergerz (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Re: "You could have literally just commented 'I am not a GSoW member nor have I been canvassed here' ", they did declare that they were not canvassed. Repeatedly. As for declaring non-membership,

WP:OUTING

is clear: do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information.

And yes, being asked to reveal personal details like where you work or what organization you have joined is definitely covered by our outing policy. Refusing to answer when you are not a member helps shield those who refuse to answer when they are members.

Also, there are good reasons why one would not want their GSoW membership revealed. See the case of

talk) 18:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I can see a clear commitment from BM to change their communication style, earlier in this thread. The rest belongs at SPI.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge the complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Place you complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Dates fit. Targeting Nableezy is shared with Icewhiz. Just look at BilledMammal's top edited talk pages: Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes and Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis are Palestine. Talk:Łódź is Poland.219.89.87.76 (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that I'm not the only person whose mind this had crossed. Being anti-NSPORTS was another Icewhiz trait, but doing a load of mass edits, then editing an IP article shortly after passing the 500 edit mark is often a giveaway. Number 57 11:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If BM is a sock, we will need to re-visit the recent NSPORTS RfC given they were a significant contributor. GiantSnowman 11:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a completely undue action due to the wide participation and length of discussion.

Please ping me! 11:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not, and your assertion that I am is incredibly ABF. Clearly, when discounting BM's arguments and contributions at the RfC, the consensus will not remain the same, even if the overall eventual outcome does. GiantSnowman 11:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is, like, the Platonic ideal of looking for reasons to relitigate a discussion whose outcome you didn't like. --JBL (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the topic overlap is significant enough to indicate being the same editor (unless Icewhiz is South African, which is something I don't know), and there are so many "anti-NSPORTS" editors that I don't see that as a particularly significant smoking gun. What do you mean by "IP article"

Please ping me! 11:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That’ll be Israel/Palestine, I expect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense,

Please ping me! 11:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, also the

WP:SPI. But it needs to be carefully examined. Any witch-hunt like process which prematurely blocks BM would only further serve Icewhiz's intent to disrupt the wiki. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Wow! Never expected anything like this. I'm struggling for time right now but I'll certainly take this forward when I can. Thank you very much to

A._C._Santacruz. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see the new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

• Oppose The above is acting like Lugnuts is a net postive to the encyclopedia and needs to be protected. He is a net negative. He has been banned from creating small articles because he flooded Wikipedia with literally thoudsands. Billed is one of the few editors who has shown a willingness to run the gamut of harrassment and road blocking Lugnuts puts in the way of those who seek to remove his huge excessive number of permstub articles that do not in any way approach being biographies. If we find it surprising that new editors do AfD right, we really need to consider making AfD a simpler process, because its pure difficulty is one reason we have articles that have existed for over 15 years with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"He is a net negative." - Lambert please retract your egregious

personal attack. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Please ping me! 13:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • I was trying to oppose the proposed block. I figured if I reached the bottom of the section that was connected with the complaint, it would be a good place to place it. Which made sense because there was so much wall of text here, and I did not realize there were sub-sections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnpacklambert, it's not at all clear to me what it is you think that you're opposing above, but you have added your statement to a thread suggesting that BM is a sock of Icewhiz, an editor who has been globally banned by the foundation for, amongst other things, doxxing and off-wiki harassment. I have no comment to make on this particular case at present, but I can assure you with my CU hat on that Lugnuts is the regular target of at least two LTAs with a penchant for harassment; I hope that you and I can agree that all users need to be protected from people like that, whether or not we like them or their editing style. I'll go further than that though: I think that your assertion that Lugnuts is a net negative to the project is unnecessary and distasteful; you are under two separate editing restrictions yourself, does that make you a net negative? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @

    ad Hitlerum - guilt by association) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    That's an egregious accusation of bad faith editing, RandomCanadian. I'm not sure who it's aimed at, but it surely can't be Lugnuts, whose only comment to this thread is to complain (reasonably, in my view) about being insulted. Sniping at one another at ANI will not hope resolve this. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Girth Summit: WTF? I was just pointing out the obvious fact that this is just a continuation of a previous dispute (one which you are probably aware of), which has been exaggerated out of proportion at the Dramaboard (something which doesn't require any bad-faith, and happens far too often in any case - often time just as a natural consequence of what the Dramaboard is), and that being on opposing sides of a dispute does not give anyone (read "no exceptions") the right to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I am not aware of any previous dispute. However, if one were to accuse someone of being the sock of a globally banned LTA because you were in dispute with them, and not because you genuinely believed that they were such a sock, I would most consider that to be bad faith editing of the worst kind. That seems to be what you are saying is happening here - have I misunderstood you? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, well, in that case, without the context, the confusion might be understandable. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#NSPORTS_closure_review and related threads. I still find it an uncannily convenient coincidence that this thread was opened at this time in light of that context... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure whether or not I am confused (is that meta-confusion?). Are you, or are you not, suggesting that the person who started this thread has accused BM of being Icewhiz not because they had a good-faith concern that they were the same person, but because they wanted to win a dispute about NSPORTS? I'm not calling on you to agree that the suspicions are well-founded - you're welcome to reject them as a load of old rubbish in your assessment - but you should be clear about what, if anything, you are accusing people of. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be confused myself, but wasn't it just yesterday that the OP was convinced that BM was a sockpuppet of Störm, instead? At least enough to file a SPI complaint to that effect. While we're talking about clarity of accusations. Ravenswing 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just note that the CIR stuff about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi is patent nonsense (and, on top of that, the article was indeed deleted for failing WP:NOT, so...). That obviously puts this into perspective. I guess BM might have been a bit abrasive in their recent actions, but looks like they have accepted some of it needs to change. Disagreeing over the technical interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not CIR; and taking the literal wording of something and ignoring the spirit of it is not recommended either (much less so when used to argue somebody else is incompetent), but that's another issue.
• As to the "deletionist" issue with Lugnuts, BM wouldn't be the first person to have a fundamental disagreement over this with Lugnuts and some other editors. The inclusionist vs deletionist debate is not something that's going to be resolved by dumping bad epithets on others at the Dramaboard, anyways. Unless there's any substance to the SPI complaints (and, frankly, given the whole context of what preceded, and the fact the one which has gone ahead so far did not find any evidence to support this, I wouldn't have much confidence in that), this should probably be closed with no action, and, along with the existing notice to BM to be less irritating about what they have been doing so far (since being right does not give one the right to be annoying about it), a reminder to the OP what CIR is and isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh good grief. Listen. I've had a clash or two with BilledMammal myself. But this is absurd. There's not only nothing sinister with getting into it with Lugnuts, enough editors have had enough issues with Lugnuts for him to be brought up before ANI on multiple occasions, leading ultimately to him being community sanctioned. (What, is the OP going to go after every other editor involved in that as well?) There's not only nothing sinister about being knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works 7500 edits in, I rather wish all newbies studied their brief. Nor is there anything sinister about the majority of an editor's edits being elsewhere than mainspace -- that can be said of quite a few productive editors.

  And shall we turn this interesting line of scrutiny onto the OP? No Great Shaker's third edit had the edit summary of " modified this section to remove unsourced material." Is he seriously claiming to have mastered the need for sourcing, three edits and 34 minutes into editing Wikipedia for the first time? On his first edit, he added a citation, and used the proper template to do that! He spent his whole first day on Wikipedia updating citations, fixing broken links ... and the next day he was correcting an edit filter and chatting up other users! How did he know how to do those things, that early, if he wasn't a sock himself? And if BM Knows Too Much for having only been on Wikipedia since April of 2019, then surely No Great Shaker Knows Too Much as well, for having created his account a mere two months before BM. Is that how the OP wants to play it?

  Honestly, this is

  utter bullshit. That complaint is a heap of "isn't that strange?" on a repeating loop that just supports the contention of the editors above who feel this is more vendetta against a philosophic opponent than the presentation of a policy-violating complaint, and my feeling isn't assuaged by No Great Shaker launching yet another SPI complaint on top of the failed attempt he filed yesterday. Until and unless the OP comes up with solid evidence that BM has violated policy, backed by solid diffs and not innuendo (either from him or any other editor), I oppose any sanctions against BM. Ravenswing 15:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ravenswing, I'm quite at ease with scrutiny and it's only fair that I should be investigated too, if I'm prepared to open SPIs about others. Not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Would you be happy about it, yourself?

Anyway, I've never made any secret of the fact that I edited WP as an IP for about 14/15 years before I finally opened an account. Information about my earliest edits used to be a fun piece on my userpage (I'll restore if you like). I opened the account soon after I retired from full-time employment – until then, I'd been too busy and could only edit occasionally. I knew HTML/XML through work because I had a phase of web development and wiki-markup was never a problem. I'm afraid your three edits and 34 minutes is well short of the actual figures. I remember inline citations being introduced (ages ago) and I decided that I would use them so I read WP:CITE and learned how. I don't recall the edit filter thing but I obviously followed a link and filled out the form. I see my edit was accepted, so all good. As for "chatting up other users", it looks as if two guys had helped me and I thanked them. Everything else I did in the first few days seems to be mainspace editing, with which I was already familiar. I do remember I decided to improve Bury F.C. as a starter project, as I had much more time for the site, and I was interested in the 10th millennium BC then too.

I think, though, that you'll find it was a long time before I became bold enough to venture into AfD and ANI and suchlike because I didn't have the confidence. I remember going to the

WP:TH

about that peer review I requested and, again, I have professional experience of reviewing so why should I worry about that?

The point about BM, by contrast, is that he plunged straight into AfD twice in his first 30 edits and I think that takes some doing even if you have been an IP for a long time, so I think an SPI for him is fair enough and others evidently agree. If BM isn't a SOCK, I will apologise to him – as I did to another editor last week who was not guilty. Okay?

If you want to ask me anything about my early WP career, please go ahead. Not a problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of unrelated fact, I edited Wikipedia as an IP for a while, and even participated in some AfDs. That some editor might have been seemingly experienced from their "first" few edits does not make them a sock. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unrelated and it's a fair comment. In fact, I just looked at your first edit and you mention it there: you were an IP for four years. Unlike you, though, I never took part in any discussions except occasional questions on article talk pages and user talk pages, so I wasn't familiar with AfD and whatnot when I opened the account. As I said above, if BM isn't a sock, I will apologise as I did with the other person last week.

Anyway, I think this ANI should be postponed while the SPI goes ahead. What do you think? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In similar fashion, I edited as an IP for several months before I created an account. But that being said, I think you should worry less about apologizing yet again for a false socking accusation (if that's how it spins out), and more about whether you ought to enjoy the privilege of filing SPI complaints at all. Filing one in the first place is serious business, and editors who are trying to run other editors out of Wikipedia altogether damn well better have some strong evidence to do so. What two failed SPI accusations in three days would be strong evidence of is that you have no business filing such complaints. Ravenswing 17:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to copy a part of a comment made by Ravenswing at the second SPI filing. I'm not alone in feeling that this complaint involves a great deal of innuendo, largely without merit or evidence. Especially given the prior failed investigation and the ANI complaint, it seems that the OP and his cadre are looking for some excuse, any excuse, to run BilledMammal out of town. I agree with what Ravenswing has said here. At the moment this feels like a witchhunt to remove BM. This case has now involved two sock puppet investigations, this thread at ANI, as well as some spill over into
  WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against No Great Shaker. At a minimum in some form of an IBAN between BilledMammal and Shaker is warranted due to the disruption being caused both here and at SPI, as well as a warning or probation for vexatious SPI and ANI filings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose I do not see any clear evidence for sock puppetry here, and the attack seems to largely be built around objecting to behaviors that are clearly not sanction worthy. There is a less confrontational way to address people using wording in AfD nominations that people do not like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So there have been two failed attempts to prove this editor is a sock pupper of someone else. That looks to me like behavior that borders on harassment. Going around and falsely accusing an editor of being other editors who are banned. That seems to me to be one of the cases of truly problematic behavior occuring here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring

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

Just a little over a month ago, I had started a discussion regarding the same user, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc. While I had hoped that this could possibly lead to a change in behavior from the editor in question, it appears to be quite the opposite occurring.

Since that previous ANI discussion, there have been many more edit wars/content disputes involving the editor,

casting aspersions

about other editors.

All the latest warnings/issues can be found following this thread onwards. Quite frankly, the amount of disputes/issues involving the user in the past month alone is a bit troubling. It appears even when suggested to cool off/take a break from editing, even more issues start to arise. Hoping something can be done at this point, as I have a hunch even more will happen in the future, given the continuing behavior here. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they involve me doesn’t mean I am the perpetrator. @C.Fred: can attest that I have been directly attacked and antagonized by multiple users. I am sick of the undue antagonism. It doesn’t matter how hard I try to mind my own business or follow the rules, I’m still being put up on the noticeboard. With my luck, I’ll be told my frustrations are invalid. If you’re troubled by my behavior when I’m not the one randomly throwing homophobia accusations, I don’t know what to tell you because then I’ll be accused of being uncivil. The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While you may not be the primary(?) perpetrator in every case, this continuing behavior is still a problem. Putting aside any personal attacks sent from other users towards you, there are still issues continuing that was brought up in the previous ANI thread, including edit warring. Your comments (including the above, such as, "The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.") is yourself continuing to attempt to remove any blame from yourself whatsoever, and say that every person is against you, which again, is just more bad faith assumption (and possibly assuming good faith onto yourself?...) Not every single issue is to blame on one person alone, but at this point, it's starting to look like you're just trying to cause new issues/disputes. This needs to stop. Magitroopa (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have two people who have openly stated they’re working against me, and somehow I’m still the problem because I acknowledge that it happened? You are only taking into consideration piecesof the disputes into your reports, continuing to frame me as the problem, and accusing me of trying to cause new disputes? Without any evidence? My comments are 100% factual. You just stated that you’re putting aside the evidence that I’m not the issue in order to insist I’m the issue. How is this in any way a fair assessment? You created another dispute about me to claim that I seek them out. I didn’t ask for this to happen, let alone at 2AM CreecregofLife (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, whether you want to believe it or not, you seem to downplaying your involvement with all of this. Even if you didn't start every single issue, you tend to continue them, and then (as you are here) claim to be entirely innocent and accuse bad faith of others, whether they were actually acting in bad faith or not.

And yes, I have seen some attacks against yourself, but I do wish to know if everything you believe to be an attack against you actually is or not. For example, where do you see the personal attack against yourself in this (as you have previously claimed)? Do you mean just the, "...weird stance to take"?... Magitroopa (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open the collapse. You claim I’m downplaying when I’m describing exactly what goes on. If you didn’t exacerbate my wrongdoing you wouldn’t be accusing me of “downplaying”. You harp on the negative, reframe my involvement as seeking it out, while disregarding every behavioral improvement. Again, you’re not playing fair.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the collapse, yes, that is clearly put into a collapsible due to the personal attacking. However, you seem to be confusing the two. I am referring to this specific edit from Historyday01, which you claimed to contain a personal attack. Everything in the collapsible happened later on and didn't exist at this point (check the timestamps of the comments). Magitroopa (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where they accused me of being a corporate shill, basically out of nowhere--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the first thread, I share Magitroopa's concerns. It's clear this editor just doesn't get it, with their continued edit warring and disruptive editing and behavior. They are right on the border of

WP:NOTHERE, but, quite frankly, they are probably past it. I would support a block at this point. Amaury • 07:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

How is any of that “clear”? If you only see me for what you perceive to be my disruptions, of course you’re going to see it that way, but your perceptions are wrong, and a block shouldn’t even be in the question--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I also agree that this editor seems to have a

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem, which does not seem to be improving. Though I have doubts that ANI will do anything about it, as that's the usual pattern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

So what am I to do when multiple users throw personal attacks at me, while several other users disregard it to portray me as the bad guy because I spoke out against them? Sit there and take it? You'd rather put me on the admin noticeboard than actually work with me and try to see things my way. It's very apparent that the

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem is not mine. Because you didn't hear my efforts at being a better user, you came in here with old and outdated perceptions to say it's okay for me to be punished for the abuse I've taken, otherwise it's I'm too "combative"--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

When multiple, multiple editors are reporting problems with you, doubling down on "[I am] not the problem, they are" is usually the wrong direction to go in. The fact that you can admit absolutely no fault here really makes me wonder if editing Wikipedia is right for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only had limited interactions with this editor, but in addition to the

WP:CIR issue here as well. Their discussions on sourcing is problematic because of this. This personal attack is just another example as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I would agree that this is also partially a

WP:CIR issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Peng Shuai protection and FobTown

Background: On Feb 21, FobTown rm an entire paragraph (henceforth Lede Para) from the article's intro (diff 1). I believe the stable version since Feb 9 (diff 2 compare with diff 1) better reflects most editors' intent. When Deepfriedokra protected the article, FobTown's version was locked into place.

Request: A protection should not favor any side. An impartial version of the intro, neither by myself nor by FobTown, should be in place for the duration of the protection. There are many reasonable picks available from the article's history.

Additional reasons: Other editors have criticised FobTown before (link 1). I will highlight some of my experiences here.

Transplanting admin comment out-of-context:

I was wondering why, out of all their comments, Deepfriedokra repeated a particular one from their Talk page (link 2) again on Peng Shuai's Talk page below protection (link 3). The top line "The administrator who imposed page protection made the following observation", together with Deepfriedokra's signature, gave the impression that an admin placed the quote there and questioned my edits, but that was not the case. Deepfriedokra did not question anyone at the time (diff 3). It was FobTown who picked it out afterwards before I could reply, proceeded to add their own line on top, and sandwiched the quote in with the rest of their edit (diff 4). This was a very deceptive practice, to prejudice a discussion right off the bat using an out-of-context quote from an admin. AGF? You decide.

Reluctance to respect BRD:

The latest row began with FobTown's Feb 21 edit (diff 1). Their removal of Lede Para from the intro has been reverted by me and once by Floydian, but they persisted in re-instating their removal. FobTown did not initiate BRD. They gave some excuses after I notified them on Talk (link 4). My previous interaction with FobTown was in Dec 2021. After they edited the intro (diff 5), I rv because the content was not verifiable. I ended up initiating Talk (link 5) for them that time as well. After some tangents, it settled down with FobTown's version (diff 6) on Dec 29. Now, almost 3 months later, with no new source and no new discussion (before admin intervention), they've gone back to make changes again (diff 7). AGF? Again, you be the judge.

Not getting the point:

FobTown keeps claiming they are against so-called "my changes", even resorting to using Deepfriedokra's comment (see above and link 3). It is actually FobTown who still insists on removing Lede Para, along with other changes (diff 7). I'm not proposing any content different from the Feb 9 version; see (diff 8) and (link 4). Yet FobTown continues to go back to an error that's been fixed (see link 2 and link 3), re-hash or unilaterally undermine previously settled BRD (see above and link 3), generally pretending that they are somehow still unresolved and chalking it up to "my changes".

Disregard for collateral damage:

In the course of their reversions, FobTown does not respect other consensus or editors' contribution. For the sake of the intro they want, they've repeatedly re-introduced citations (diff 9) that had been moved to the body (link 6). To change content about Peng Shuai, they reverted good edits to cite and punc (diff 10). Similarly, in another article they followed me to, they re-inserted outdated content about Peng (diff 11) and later reverted my edit about Li Qi as well (diff 12). More worryingly, their edit copied from their version of Peng Shuai's intro, even though in the new article, it would no longer be fully supported by citations and a body. Lastly, they are willing to advance certain arguments to justify what they want to add (despite previous BRD), but ignore the same reasoning when removing content from other editors (link 3 near bottom).

Summary: Besides benefitting FobTown, the locking-in of their version unintentionally rewards their long-standing, borderline (if not worse) behavior and inauthentic editing, can create a misperception of consensus the longer it remains in place, and provide grounds for FobTown to repeat their tactics across other articles. I recommend that admins weigh in on this seriously and arrive at a better solution. CurryCity (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the protection on Peng Shuai. It was supposed to be two days. A month is/was ridiculous. In my head it was for two days.
  • This is a content dispute. My impression is that CurryCity would have been much happier if it had happened to be their preferred version that had been protected. The version CurryCity asked me on my talk page to restore was one of their edits. Protection is not endorsement of the protected version. It is happenstance. This a content dispute. The next step is to copy their discussion on my talk page over to the article talk and seek a
    dispute resolution
    .
  • Each is intransigent. Neither is perfect. IMHO. The next step is to partial block them both from Peng Shuai for a month. That'll give someone else a chance to edit. Looking at the edit history, there are a lot (I did not count them) of reverts between the two. We'll see what happens now that I removed the protection. Back to bed. Maybe I'll go back to sleep. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree with your impression. I did not ask you to protect any version in particular (diff 13) on Mar 19. Just informing you that FobTown's was a major change from stable version. I was upfront about who had been involved with that version, but there are other versions from that day to pick from. In fact, I didn't contribute any more to the intro than other editors had. After you raised concern about not picking a side, I have twice suggested rv to a neutral version (see diff 14 and diff 15). If both of us were blocked, FobTown's edit is still left standing for now, basically a revert of editor contributions from around Feb 7 ~ 9 and most of the concerns raised above still valid. CurryCity (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CurryCity, admins are supposed to protect the wrong version. I have partial-blocked FobTown and CurryCity from the article for a month for edit warring and battleground editing. Both are still free to edit the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

(Ew. a button. Will this add the reply template?) Thanks, @

third opinion request. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Like wot I sed B4. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

An admin must not take sides in a content dispute and exercise their admin powers. That's a very good way to not be an admin any longer. I find dealing with content disputes unpleasant, and always marvel at the extremes to which they can/have been taken. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The reason I opened here is because it's not just about the content but also whether FobTown's tactics is getting what they want (which for now is true), and whether it should be overlooked again (link 1). Past blocks have not changed FobTown, despite editors including myself trying to AGF and engage with them through discussion. They come back again and again, revert even months old BRD, ignore discussion as much as possible, what more could I have done? 3O is not mandatory, would that even help? CurryCity (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might or might not help. The only way to find out is to try it.

Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

FWIW, is just added to MeToo movement in China to FobTown's partial block. Any admin can undo if they see fit, but this looks like the sort of battling CurryCity is talking about. I invited FobCity to discuss here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I agree that your protection of Peng Shuai isn't an endorsement, so I have been justifying my rationale on talk page and hope other editors chime in, as I wasn't not aware that the one-month page block was removed until today. As for MeToo movement in China its that segment on Sports (Peng Shuai is the example) that I focused upon, since that would lead back to Peng Shuai.

@CurryCity: you use a lot of those tactics on 2022 Winter Olympics and other contentious articles, and got called out on it by numerous editors. [158][159][160] You continued to battle some of these editors on Peng Shuai too, perhaps they gave up after your persistence.[161][162]

2022 Winter Olympics and Peng Shuai have been the subject of attacks from accounts that have since been blocked. [163][164] FobTown (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FobTown. (sighs) So now we have conflicting accusations of battlegrounding. Both combatants have been partially blocked as regular admin action. Noting both have received

WP:ARBBLP discretionary sanctions notices. Both are again called upon to let an objective third opinion decide their dispute(s). Not sure where we are to go from here, but both are headed in the direction of editing restrictions via discretionary sanctions if they don't stop fighting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I just wanted to point out that I was the one who asked for article protection after witnessing at least two editors back and forth edits for a couple months, but especially in the last couple weeks. I didn't really see any MOS or BLP violations, just a heavy content dispute. My own personal views as part of WikiProject Tennis don't really align with either side as the two subset sections of the article (the lead but especially "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance") are way over-trivialized with undue weight for this tennis player bio. For a 20-year tennis career this allegation now takes up 1/3 the readable prose in this encyclopedia. I'd get a couple of other tennis editors to help trim the sails on the info but not while we have a couple editors going back and forth multiple times a day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry for not messaging; I didn't know you initiated the protect, not just opening Talk afterwards. CurryCity (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes edit war happens, which I regret. But equally importantly, I sincerely engaged in Talk and respected agreements afterwards. Contrary to FobTown's accusation, the other editors they cited actually persisted to the end of BRD; I was the one who gave up afterwards. @FobTown: Do you see a difference? Never did I sandwich an admin comment into a discussion, or skip BRD to edit changes in article content months after a settled discussion. Please also go light on reflexively counter-accusing other editors with untrue projections and casting aspersions. We all know what battlegrounding for its own sake really looks like (linked at open).

FobTown followed me to MeToo movement in China on account of Peng Shuai. There's now [165] a copy from their version of Peng Shuai's intro lacking full support. Propose: undo our edits back to [166] + add an outdated template to Sports section + restore their citation fix [167] + restore my touches on Li Qi that they reverted [168]. If implemented, I also won't edit about Peng in Sports section until FobTown's partial block there extinguishes or new agreements in her article's Talk, whichever earlier. @FobTown: Is this fair? CurryCity (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessentquirk and OR at Maria Zakharova

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

Could we please block the user from editing Maria Zakharova? After this edit did not go anywhere (and I blocked them for vandalism), they started to add original research to the article such as this calling it "factual".--Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Quintessentquirk#Indefinite_block. El_C 09:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Josh Parris

Josh Parris (talk · contribs)

On 2006, Independent business was created by Josh Parris, and has been protected since 2016. but on 2021, I have nominated for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent business. The {{Notability}} or {{Original research}} has been tag since 2021, and it was redirected to Privately held company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.137.4 (talk)

What's wrong with any of that? What action are you asking for? Josh hasn't even edited since that perfectly civil AfD, in which he agreed with the consensus.

Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Block: per nom 180.246.137.4 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nom. What is your complaint, exactly? — Czello 14:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OP also says that he nominated the article for deletion, when in fact it was Piotrus (and I doubt they are the same person). I'm doing my best to AGF in case this is just a communication issue but I'm unsure what else to say here. — Czello 15:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone has something they wish to investigate surrounding this IP, I think this is just a spurious waste of time troll and should be ignored. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article Ketto

Hello admins, kindly have a look in Ketto the article has been nominated for deletion for 3times. I am the nominator of the 3rd time. I saw other 2 AFD and found the discussion was not very professional neither effective. I hope this time it will be helpful. @@@XyX _talk 13:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meh --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Tomicki

This user has an obvious COI with Bill Tomicki, based on their insider knowledge not available in any source and extreme puffery. When I called them out, they denied it and responded:

"I truly believe you only bothered it because my name is blackbeauty let me find out your a racist and are only bothering my article because of my name! I will definitely be filing a lawsuit" (Talk:Bill_Tomicki)

They revert attempts to fix problems, including deletion of all cats (multiple times) and removal of the COI and cleanup tags at the top of the article. The article is in serious need of cleanup work: unreliable sources making wild claims about Tomicki. NPOV language. Unsourced BLP claims, puffery, etc.. but I can't do it when there is a hostile user reverting edits, calling me names and threatening law suits. -- GreenC 14:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are also likely a sock. Talk:Bill_Tomicki: "this not my first or tenth article". The account has edited two. -- GreenC 14:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Somewhat cut-and-dried; this is a
  legal threat and merits indeffing. Ravenswing 15:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've indeffed them for both calling other editors racists and making legal threats. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that's also a

WP:CORPNAME. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Disruptive editing by an IP range

IP address starting with 106.204.00.00 is disruptively editing multiple wikipedia pages and adding everywhere Koli caste pov. He removed redirects of

WP:EDITWAR on Parihar, Parmar and Rathore (surname), on all these pages his single aim is removing the name of others and adding his caste name on every page. I couldn't find other pages, but maybe there are pages as well he disruptively edited. The ip address is dynamic hence it keeps changing. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Realme233

Realme233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Hello, This user has been posting the same or similar content on random users talkpages, which appears to be spam, or (stretching it severely here) potentially advertising. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm seeing what I can do for 'em. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I left them a message to visit Teahouse with clear queation, feel free to revert me if the double-messaging is confusing.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

anks okra, good to see you again by the way.h PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User: The Gentle Sleep

Peacenotwar (malware)

has been inappropriately enforcing POV, reverted the page many times either explicitly or manually, and misused the page protection procedure to try to lock in the POV changes, claiming "vandalism".

The original article wikilinked to "hate crime", an original claim not citing any sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1077915502

After this was removed, the user restored the link to "hate crime" with the disingenuous edit summary "removed biased language". After further disputes the user eventually changed phrasing to "racial profiling" which is still POV and doesn't citing any sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&diff=prev&oldid=1078184894

The user further edited the page to say the malware was protesting the "Russo-Ukrainian War" (started 2014) instead of the recent invasion of Ukraine, which started shortly before the malware appeared: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_%28malware%29&type=revision&diff=1078287148&oldid=1078279675

The user requested to lock the page over this content dispute, which was denied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2022/03#21_March_2022

The user has repeatedly removed cited mentions of denials by the living subject relevant to the article partially denying the claims, claiming "The accused frequently deny their crimes". Whether or not the denial is truthful, it's relevant and supported by sources. In particular enforcing POV regarding a living person is problematic (BLP issues) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_%28malware%29&type=revision&diff=1078459784&oldid=1078411729

From a content dispute perspective User:The Gentle Sleep and User:GhostOfDanGurney have discussed extensively at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peacenotwar_(malware)#Racial_profiling_vs_hate_crime but shows no sign of resolution. At this point I think it's gone beyond any reasonable assumptions of good faith and would like an administrator or a third party to step in.

Reverts (there are other manual edits I haven't included): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078459784 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078327085 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078323193 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078279675 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.163.135 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as yet on any possible behavioural issues, but, on the content issue, I see no secondary sources either cited or that I can find, but just some news reports and the usual automated stuff that gets generated for any malware, all primary sources. Shouldn't we just delete the article and have done with things?

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]