Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086

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

This editor has repeatedly resubmitted this draft and been advised to wait until the film is released. It was declined on 7 September, 11 September, 16 September, 21 September, and 11 November. Maybe the editor thinks that if they submit it enough times, the community will get tired of the requests and will accept it instead. The reviewers have gotten tired of the requests. I reported the submitter to

partial block

: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084#User:ZX2006XZ_and_Buck_Wild

An IP address, probably ZX2006XZ logged out or their

thread was archived with no final action.

Now ZX2006XZ has asked at

.

This may be a breaching experiment. No action was taken three weeks ago, and so now they are trying again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not doing any breaching experiment, with all due respect. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I haven't been resubmitting it constantly since it got declined on November 16, 2021. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger (talk

) 20:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

) 20:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:FILM to chime in. I also haven't resubmitted it for AFC. I've been an editor for about 15 years and don't do much over in Films. (My area of focus is Fraternities and Sororities)Naraht (talk

) 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like now we have an investigation on our hands; which would be who submitted it for AfC. I’m asking out of curiosity, can’t the admins just check who did so? I mean if they can’t, I wouldn’t really know why not. You would think that they could be able to check who did, but if not, I think we should take a better look into this, seeing as one user has blamed another in-which the accused has denied doing so. I’m not sure if admins will need to intervene here, but that’ll definitely be the case if this de-escalates any further.

talk

) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick look at the draft's history declares that Naraht has never submitted this draft for review, and only edited the article once to leave a comment noting to check in with

WT:FILM. This editor might've just been under the false impression that this comment meant they were submitting it to WP:FILM to review themselves, and that WP:FILM was something that would review it. Was that what you meant by Naraht submitting it, ZX2006XZ? Panini!^🥪

13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course. That was what I meant. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

future films section states that animated films need sources that confirm they are out of the pre-production process, and that might be what WP:FILM is referring to as passing their film notability guidelines. The film simply needs more before posting, and reviews when the film releases will satisfy that. I suggest leaving the draft be until then, and take their advice and wait things out. It might also be safe to mention that when the film releases, make sure the reviews are included in the draft before submitting again. Panini!^🥪

17:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: No one has actually submitted the draft since 16 November, when I rejected it after

little brothers. Robert McClenon (talk

) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am not trying to blame anyone. ZX2006XZ (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you are not trying to blame anyone else. You,

film notability. If you aren't trying to confuse the community, you could leave this film alone until it is released to the theaters rather than bothering someone every few weeks. Robert McClenon (talk

) 16:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This IP editor appears to be editing in good faith, but a large proportion of their edits are significant additions of unsourced material. Since being warned on 28 November their edits have continued unabated. I have reverted quite a few, and other editors have reverted or undone others. I suspect that the editor has not seen any of the warnings, and that this editing pattern will continue without a short preventative block. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has made roughly 100 edits over the course of one week since their first edit (1). Their edits usually go towards Chirstmas and world culture-related articles, but other topic edits, such as walk-in closet and sponge cake, have been made. While some of their additions are minor grammar fixes and word rephrasing (which has the lowest revert rate of their additions), the bulk of their edits come from new content addition, sometimes creating new sections entirely, and none of them were backed with sources. They've been warned 9 times on their talk page, 4 times on the 28th and 5 today, and 8 of them are from MichaelMaggs and 1 from Melecie. And yes, I looked into all of this before saying that, so trust that I'm right. I had all the diffs ready and proceeded to accidentaly close the tab and I didn't want to do it again. Panini!^🥪 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The edits are continuing. The very next edit after this report was this one. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like now this user has been doing only grammar fixes and genuine other additions since this thread, including these to Visa requirements for Australian citizens (though slight problems with unsourcing still exist). I think they may have gotten the message; I would keep this open for a little while in case other problems arise. Panini!^🥪 15:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • An unsourced edit by them which not only contravenes our English dialect policies but also contradicts the
    invention of writing section. There's also this edit. I've blocked them. Graham87
    01:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I've encountered this editor before as 121.212.200.1. Graham87 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

A recent ANI discussion went unresolved, and now the talk page disruption is continuing at Talk:Cedar Point and spilling over to Talk:Cedar Fair in the form of adding walls of text and attempting to discuss behavioral concerns in an inappropriate forum. Perhaps the editor truly wants to improve the articles, but their interpretation of policies and actions resulting from those interpretations are distracting and disruptive. In addition to loose claims about "rule breaking" in almost every talk page post, they are now dropping an unfounded accusation about paid editing, which is an unnecessary escalation of tensions. Seeking some assistance in the matter, thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Sinebot must be getting wore out, as the IP continues to not sign its posts. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And this comment was just added by the IP:

As a result, I don't expect much actual progress there, or here, from either of you. Prove me wrong. And also, don't pretend that you haven't repeatedly impeded multiple contributors' efforts to constructively edit these Articles, by forcing incessant discussions about edits, where no discussion was ever necessary. Your hypocrisy is so glaring, that I honestly cannot understand why either of you have gotten away with your nonsense for so very very long.
— User:2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of what we're dealing with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And now the user has moved on to personal attacks.—JlACEer (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well that escalated quickly! Knew it was a matter of time before they cracked. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP for two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• TE(æ)A,ea. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The diffs are as follows, the date and time is in IST.

• 08:14, 1 December 2021 The edit restores a blacklisted url by bypassing it through Internet Archive. They are aware of the need for whitelisting. On 07:22, 1 December 2021, they had requested a different blacklisted url to be whitelisted for the same talk page which was declined.
• 19:49, 1 December 2021 Restoration of the same bypassed blacklisted url, this time in specific.
• Special:Diff/1058114237, I ask them, "can you explain why you are repeatedly bypassing a blacklist by using internet archive?" They respond in Special:Diff/1058131042 by stating that "I have not done anything "repeatedly."
• In reponse in (
  WP:OPINDIA) and ask them to self revert. They respond in Special:Diff/1058135346
  , by again asking me where the consensus is and saying that I am to blame for their reverts. Beyond this specific incident, through the entire discussion, they kept ignoring my comments and asked me the same question even after I have answered those questions in increasingly elaborated terms.

This also doesn't appear to be the first time something like this is happening, considering that they were previously explained in detail how to ping people and not to copy other people's signs (see User talk:TE(æ)A,ea. § Replying to someone) but they don't seem to care about it as can be seen in Special:Diff/1058044906. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The top of this page states, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." That is not the conduct represented here, even taking this user's assumptions as true. The above report misrepresents most of the events at hand. During the recently concluded deletion discussion regarding "Mass killings under communist regimes," a number of news outlets reported on the discussion. One of those was OpIndia. Upon seeing this coverage, I added the OpIndia article to the Press template on the discussion's talk page. I attempted to add the URL, but was unable to do so; the IA URL was added later, by a different user. Now, to the current dispute. The accusing user removed most (10/13) articles from the Press listing; I reverted this, as it came after no discussion. (This is the first revert in question.) After this revert, the user started a discussion regarding press coverage, in which I engaged. During this discussion, this user again removed most press coverage; this was reverted by a different user. Later, while the discussion was still ongoing, this user removed for a third time part of the Press listing. (This is the second revert in question.) In neither of these reverts did I consider myself engaged in devious, rule-violating behavior; I was merely maintaining the status quo while a discussion on such material's inclusion was ongoing. Regarding the word "repeatedly," I did not restore the OpIndia reference repeatedly; I restored it once, and multiple references were restored twice (once by myself, and once by another user, as I mentioned). The consensus regarding OpIndia refers to discussions regarding OpIndia's reliability as a source in articles; I did not use it in the "Mass killings under communist regimes" article, nor did I intend to. I asked this user, on two occasions, for the consensus regarding a different matter: whether source reliability is relevant to inclusion in Press template listings. This consensus was claimed, but not provided. As my relation shows, this user is to blame for my reverts, as it was his action that caused the reverts. You have repeatedly refused to articulate a rationale for not including the sources in question; you have not "elaborated" on them in any sense. I kept asking you the same question because you kept refusing to answer it. The incident mentioned on my talk page is not relevant, and I will not respond to the comment made so off-hand; but if requested I will respond. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Why do we need more Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) drama here? Can we just look the other way and move on? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't really pertain to the AfD itself but is about bypassing a blacklist on a url. I'd rather not have someone's IDHT/CIR issues or whatever this is, heighten the risk for editors that OpIndia has already doxxed or might try to dox in the future. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is not an article, and it's not even an article talk page. It is the talk page for an AfD which closed several days ago. It is hard to understand why this an issue of such great concern. Overall, there seems to be a lot of reverting and not a lot of discussion about the reverting on that page. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone to talk about their proposed changes to the page, and try to reach consensus prior to making these changes, including @Tayi Arajakate: and @TE(æ)A,ea.:. jp×g 02:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  JPxG, I can't keep repeating myself. What part of "links must be whitelisted before they can be used", do you not understand? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: I'm referring to these diffs, from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). jp×g 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, carefully read their edit summary. I guess, I'll repeat myself. What part of "links must be whitelisted before they can be used" and "do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content", do you and TE(æ)A,ea. not understand? As you say its the talk page of an AfD that's over so it's unlikely to receive further input. At this point, this is just status quo stonewalling for something that violates community consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about, as I do not have a particularly strong opinion about the dispute in question (both you and TE(æ) seem to be engaged in edit-warring). I am referring to the diffs I linked in the comment above (this one and this one). jp×g 02:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, I am referring to the fact that the press coverage includes an url to a blacklist website that has doxxed editors. Their personal information is still visible on their website. The url was not whitelist but instead inserted by bypassing it through Internet Archive. In addition, much of it violates both the general practice and the explicit documentation of the template. This is very clearly explained in the edit summaries there and I did try my best to explain that in the discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: I do not understand what this has to do with the issue at hand. The URL you're referring to is 135 bytes long, whereas both diffs show you removing 3,995 bytes from the template (containing some eleven sources). jp×g 03:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, alright, just remove the url then and I wouldn't be bothered to continue this. That's the only thing I have a strong opinion of, here. I did try it once but that was reverted (alongside with signpost since that is mentioned twice in the header). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The first comment is a technical requirement, not a policy concern. The second comment is, as I have already stated, irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: both users have now reverted each other four times over the press links on this AfD talk page (albeit not within a 24-hour period). jp×g 02:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I have some recent history with the named user, whose comment to the poster "The blame in those two reverts lies with you, not with me" [TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)] is a familiar enough approach. The unreliable sources they are stridently arguing has special emphasis on OpIndia, whose call to arms tags on the injustices against their organisation, and was amongst the most offensive to read. That said, it also should be obvious I am declaring coi due to having skin in the game. ~ cygnis insignis 03:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The OpIndia article was brought to the forefront of this argument by the accusing user, not by myself; I consider it of relatively equal importance to the other sources at hand (although slightly more valuable as an early, well-known source). In addition, I did not add the hyper-link originally. Also, I think you misunderstood me here; I don't have the capability of extracting images, and I would like you to do so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    Your first comment in the discussion was this one where you emphasise that OpIndia in particular must be included. This was before I had raised the concern regarding it in paritcular. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    Considering accusations of off-site canvassing especially, the other articles should be kept, OpIndia in particular 03:28 & However, none of the other Web-sites should be removed, especially OpIndia, as that article came at an important time during canvassing &c. 03:49 & I have already stated why OpIndia should be included; your only counter-argument was that "we certainly don't need to link" OpIndia. 17:19,

    is what they said. ~ cygnis insignis 04:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    Also note that their comment (

    Love Jihad, etc etc, none of which mentions them in press coverage. They have also doxxed Wikipedia editors and one of the reasons for its blacklisting was to avoid furthering their doxxing effort, i.e leading more people to be able to access their attack pages. That justification still stands here.) What does one call this other than IDHT? I don't know how one is supposed to proceed after they respond like that, to me it looks like a plain attempt to frustrate in order to stonewall the discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk

    04:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    • The above is an objection to the use of OpIndia as a source for articles, which I have already allowed as true; what it is not is an objection to the reference of OpIndia in this case, relating to the deletion discussion. The cases are differentiable, and I asked for your objections to this OpIndia article used here. On the topic of not getting the point, you refused to answer this question, and repeatedly removed the content while a discussion was ongoing regarding the content. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

      It is an objection against using it in press coverage. As for the specific article "used here", this is the first time you have asked this and I assume taking cue from Elli's comment below. I had explained why you should not link to the website, that should have enough, but instead you pretended that I had not. I doubt this is going to receive further attention from sysops and all the revisions with the url has been revdelled anyways, but for the record since I'm sure you'll be brought back for something else, this kind of continued reality denial is typical of tendentious editors. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

      • This is false. Any inquiry about the use of an article is necessarily fact-specific, relating to that article. After I noticed that you were objecting to OpIndia in general, I asked for your clarification regarding the particular article at hand. I cannot provide diffs, as they have been overwrited; and the page itself is locked. I believe this discussion is now irrelevant, as the source at hand has been unilaterally removed. Again, your objection to linking the article was actually an objection to linking to OpIndia, not to the specific OpIndia article in question; and the article in question had no relation to your objection. I have tried to engage in civil discussion, which was easy enough during the deletion discussion, but your general assumptions of bad faith are the cause of the silly and unnecessary proceeding. "I'm sure you'll be brought back for something else"? "[T]his... is typical of tendentious editors"? These are clearly personal attacks, with no basis in the reality you accuse me of denying. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

        Please do not use this language: "source ... unilaterally removed", "links oversighted", "page locked". I "unilaterally" removed the link which you added because it was a link t a blacklisted attack site, there is a long-term consensus that the site must not be cited on Wikipedia, and you disregarded this consensus and evaded the blacklisting by adding an arxiv reference. Another admin, after evaluating the situation, revision-deleted the links, and the third one locked the page. You must consider yourself happy that your account has not yet been blocked, and that you still have an opportunity ranting in this thread and insisting that what you have done is correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

        • I did not add the link; and it is not an arxiv link, but an IA (Wayback Machine) link. I did not imply, (at least, I certainly did not mean to imply,) that one person had committed all three actions. I can see your objection to "unilaterally," although that is a proper use of the term, but why do you object to the other phrases? The "links" were "oversighted," and the "page" was "locked." I did not add the link to OpIndia, because I was prevented from doing so because the site is blacklisted. Why would my account be blocked? For participating in discussions about the link in question, or defending myself here? I do not understand the hostility of your comment ("[y]ou must consider yourself happy that your account has not yet been blocked" (emphasis added)). Do you mean to say that I will be blocked for my actions on the discussion talk page in the future? I do wish to be blocked, and I do not mean to rant; I merely wish in this discussion to explain my actions and the former situation of the other discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

          The whole ANI topic, in which we are both responding, is about you and your actions. If at this point you still do not see what is wrong (and why pretty much everybody who commented here things that your actions were, at best, not optimal), I am afraid I can not help.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, how about this: we just remove the URL to the OpIndia article from the talk page. TE doesn't seem to care a whole lot about it, Tayi doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the other sources, and a discussion about the rest of the stuff can proceed (either at the talk page or at Template talk:Press). Is this acceptable to everyone? @Tayi Arajakate: and @TE(æ)A,ea.: jp×g 03:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Elli: Your opinion (per this edit)? I understand the objection to OpIndia, but not to the link itself. Is your only objection on the grounds of the link being to OpIndia? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I added the link because I thought it'd be kinda silly to mention the article but not link it -- that particular article does not dox or even name any Wikipedia editors, so while it shouldn't be used as a source, I didn't think it'd be problematic to link. Especially given that /pol/ is linked without any apparent controversy a few lines down. I don't care that much if the entry to OpIndia stays or not, but if it does, I think it makes sense to link it. If it did dox editors, it wouldn't be appropriate to mention, but since it doesn't, I don't see why linking it is particularly harmful, as that is the reason the site was blacklisted. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Take that up on the talk page please. ~ cygnis insignis 04:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin please lock the talkpage to that AFD?

Never mind the fact that AFDs don't usually have talkpages; the AFD has been closed (by a group of four admins) for nearly two days now, and that now-pointless talkpage is nearing 190,000 bytes. Any further discussion belongs on the article's talkpage, not there. The whole quibble, therefore, between the OP and the reported editor is pointless, and thus this ANI thread should be closed as well. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the talkpage of that AfD should be deleted, as the AfD is closed. IF they want to argue? do it on the actual article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you had bothered to even take a superficial glance at the "quibble", you would realise that it has nothing to do with the contents of the article itself and would not belong on its talk page. I personally have no interest in the article itself, however I do have an interest in not platforming a blacklisted website that has doxxed users (and continues to host their personal information) in the topic area that I do edit in. I would definitely not mind if the talk page of the AfD is deleted though since that would solve the issue. That said there is also some serious issues with the reported user's conduct regardless of the specifics here which should be looked into, by my estimation at least. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I had already read this entire thread more than once before I posted the request I did. If you can't see that the quibble and edit war between you and the reported editor on the talkpage of a closed AFD is pointless (certainly not an ANI issue), then that's on you. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The closed AfD still has high visibility so no, it's not pointless to prevent the url from being linked there. If you do not understand how that jeopordises the safety of editors the website has targeted and by extension the third pillar, then no it's not on me. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender, after this edit (Special:Diff/1058402220), I'd think your conduct needs to be examined as well. Why exactly are you reverting my clearly marked redaction of my own comment? Ymblanter has raised no objection to it. I removed my comment in order to not provide directions to the blacklisted link. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Was my next edit [2] a satisfactory solution. ~ cygnis insignis 09:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really unless someone went and redacted it, since a specific bit of information would have remained visible. That's the only purpose of it, I'm quite amazed that even this has encountered resistance. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a different discussion, a separate proposal, that may deflect from any other concern raised. I'm very involved, so that is merely a view of the wounded. ~ cygnis insignis 07:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've put up the standard deletion archive banners. AfDs are meant to exist in a point in time and not be a continuing discussion. If there's a problem with the close, there's

12:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Late to this discussion, but... I think this is a bit of an overreaction. It's unusual for AfDs to have talk pages, but it's not unheard of, and for the most part this one is being used as a projectspace talk page ought to be: to discuss the project page it's attached to. – Joe (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• My suggestion to protect the talk page was opposed by two users, with one of them suggesting it would be abuse of my administrative privilege. Whereas I obviously disagree, I am not anymore willing to protect the page. I have more interesting things on Wikipedia than to argue that my routine administrative actions are compatible with my administrator status.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Joe Roe: I'm not going to pursue this but, respectfully, that's what DRV is for. I suppose if it builds up evidence for use in an eventual dispute resolution and keeps that bad energy away from the article itself then there's something to be said for it. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I created the article on David Collier (political activist) in good faith with the belief that the subject met notability standards. It's currently in the process of AFD with mixed results. I only learned after the fact that there's drama between him and some users.

In what might be our first interaction ever, Huldra says in the AFD I should be topic banned for creating this page.[3]

Later, I left a message on her talk page informing her that accusations she's made against the subject of this article[4] could be a BLP violation and in AFD discussions in the future to please stick to notability instead of sharing her personal thoughts about the subject. Her response was to revert my message.[5]

On another talk page, she seems like she's being intentionally combative.[6] I ask her if she's trying to start a fight. [7] She claims that by creating the page I'm the one who started the fight, and that I could end the fight by deleting it.[8] I give her a final notice to please apologize, or at least agree to stop this fight, or else I'd take it to arbitration.[9] Her response was to ask if I'd delete the page.[10]

The suggestions that I be topic banned, plus saying she's fighting me and won't stop until I concede to her demands to support deleting a page, certainly go against any spirit of assuming good faith and cooperation.

Note - In retrospect, Arbitration was 100% the wrong place for this relatively minor but annoying incident. I apologize for wasting anyone's time with that. So we're here.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you asking be done? I didn't check all your links but if the first couple are a guide I don't see anything particularly problematic. I gather that the subject of the article is "controversial" in a highly charged topic (

WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk

) 06:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are statements like this within an AFD really okay, or is it an intimidation tactic? Especially if others are saying the same thing?

"The creator of this article should be topic-banned from the IP area"

The next quote is overly combative, especially when I was talking to someone else, seem to come to an agreement and she just injects trying to stir up problems.

"Lol; and then you start an article about one of the worst doxxers out there? Do you really expect anyone to believe you? Do you take us all for morons?"

Lol, you started the fight by starting an article about a well-known doxxer; you might end the fight by asking for a deletion of the article,

These comments weren't in the AFD. She decided to harangue me on some other talk page. Certainly that's a violation of

WP:NICE

. I understand that things get heated and everyone can make a mistake once in a while. But she has indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, and apparently violating these principles, until I cave to her demand that I support deleting this page. And that's not okay.

I'm still learning these processes, but I think I'd like someone from a position of authority to give her an official reminder that she needs to play nice and obey the civility rules. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The article in question has become a fan site, as was to be expected. The subject is a blogger who is popular in some circles due to his exceptionally strident opinions. And, yes, the outing claim is true. There is nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that we are better off without the article. Best to make that argument at AfD, though. Zero^talk 07:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero0000 has a feud with Collier: "Collier tells lies about me". Zero0000 is wrong to edit or comment on Collier because of

WP:BLPCOI policy and his feud. This probably applies to other editors that are emotional in the AfD. Free1Soul (talk

) 09:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Collier claims that I block people for disagreeing with me. Pointing out that this attack on my integrity as an administrator is not true doesn't create a feud. Zero^talk 10:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because an unreliable source making wild claims about an editor here makes it so the editor is who has a COI. That is absurd, and the group of editors who are attempting to silence others on the basis of lies told about them on a blog should be ashamed of themselves. nableezy - 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: No one has objected to saying "we're better off without the article." The issue is that Huldra is acting with anger and hostility toward me, and unrepentantly violating the principles of civility toward me outside of the AFD.

Should I not be free to say "the article should stay" without being harangued for it wherever I comment? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The bounds of

WP:DR and the best way to go about that so maybe close this and move on? Selfstudier (talk

) 19:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If I've ever crossed that line, I've apologized. I have never indicated that I'm going to keep fighting someone, and keep violating civility rules. She indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, around wikipedia, until I cave to her demand to support deleting that page.

This is what I find unacceptable, and why I think she needs an admin to step in and make it clear that these rules need to be followed, irrespective of how you feel about someone's views. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Usual practice when one feels things might be getting problematic in some respect is first to raise the matter on a user talk page, I believe I explained this to you not that long ago. I have looked at the page and I see first only a wrongly put together notice of "arbitration" and then that corrected for this board instead. You are of course entitled to raise a complaint as is anyone but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that.She indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, around wikipedia, until I cave to her demand to support deleting that page. Do you have a diff for this?Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment I think at such contentious area there should be higher standards for discourse and the admins should enforce the

) 10:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Having been the subject of countless death- and/or rape-threaths for over a decade (Here are the logs for over-sighted threats on my talk-page; virtually all editors who are not obviously pro-Israeli have logs of similar length). ---I take an extremely dim view of people who try to dox me, or any other editor in the I/P area.
• Bob drobbs starts an article about one of the most notorious doxxers (and bloggers) out there, now up for deletion;
• Bob drobbs use the fact that the article is not (yet) deleted, as an argument that said doxxer/blogger's views are notable link
• Bob drobbs, after he gets informed about his subjects doxxing, states "because if the page survives deletion, I'm sure a link to his website will be added at some point" (ie a link to a doxing site)
• Bob drobbs is offended by my words. I am offended by his actions.
• And yes; because of his actions of facilitating and enabling a doxxer; I think Bob drobbs should be topic-banned from the IP area, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:GF

. Do you understand those guidelines and are you willing and able to treat me with respect, despite our differences of opinion?

P.S. David Collier has engaged in doxing. I don't support it. But it also has zero bearing on his notability. And it seems to be a misnomer to conflate the entirety of a website that has a couple of instances with a "doxing site". There are other websites which have instances of doxing which Zero0000 said it was fine to link to. Finally, I didn't say I'd add a link to it, just that it would happen someday. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how saying somebody should be topic-banned constitute fighting. Having said the same, and having had the same said about me, Ive never considered that a personal attack. I dont see anything actionable about Huldra here, at all. nableezy - 22:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

🙄 In an AfD, saying the article's creator should be tbanned for creating the article is obviously not cool, let's everyone skip all the "I don't see anything wrong here" nonsense. Of course an AfD is not the place to be calling for sanctions against editors. How about these comments get struck and everybody moves on? Levivich 23:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich. Obviously I don't think the article meets notability standards; I said so at AfD. But Huldra needs to ratchet back the rhetoric, promptly.
  highly uncivil, and calling for a topic ban on that ground alone is near to hysteria. Ravenswing
  23:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing; with all due respect; you have a clean log-page (no oversightings), and no editor were ever named Ravenswing the Judeophobe toŕtured and buried alived1, or similar. So excuse my "near to hysteria", as you call it. But if you knew wp-editors who have had rape-threats against their pre-teen daughters, people contacting their place of work, old parents harrassed; all because of doxxing from the pro-Israeli crowd, you just might understand where that "near to hysteria" comes from. And Bob drobbs himself says that he expect a link to the doxing-site will appear, iff the article is kept. (And actually; I agree with him there), Huldra (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither

WP:CIVIL have opt-outs for editors who've been harassed. It's regrettable that you have been, but that doesn't greenlight you to lash out at random editors -- or call for them to be sanctioned -- because they have stances you dislike. My opposition to the article hangs only on its lack of reliable sources about Collier himself; it is just as obvious that there are many reliable sources which discuss his work/opinions in considerable detail. Would you call for me to be topic-banned if reliable sources about Collier were to materialize, and my vote be changed in consequence? Ravenswing

00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenswing and Levivich. AfDs are not referendums on the subject, and every day articles are created on manifestly non-notable subjects, frequently by the subject of the article themselves. Editors who cannot keep their feelings in check should either absent themselves from discussions or be sanctioned. The kind of behavior noted above (especially the ridiculous call for the article creator to be topic banned) is not acceptable, and creates a chilling effect on all editors seeking to create articles on controversial subjects or persons. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: ^^^This sub-thread is on-topic. Most everything else now seems totally off-topic.^^^ -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I said he should be topic-banned for violating WP:POINT. I think that manifestly true, given this. nableezy - 23:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly true that the impetus for creating the Collier article was to enable support to his editing at a different article. Not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Bob didnt link to an outing site, User:Inf-in MD did (here). That is probably the better grounds for a topic ban/indefinite block as oppose to Bob. nableezy - 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any rulings or consensus anywhere that say you cannot link to a site that has doxing on it, or the official site of someone who has engaged in doxing? I understand linking to a page that has doxing is a clear violation, but pulling basic biographical details from a primary source that has a couple of pages of doxing buried somewhere does not immediately appear to be a violation. I asked Zero0000 this and couldn't seem to get a clear answer. And if no such thing exists, maybe people should stop throwing around these implied threats of bans too? -- 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. nableezy - 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I had/have no idea that is an "outing site" and certainly didn't mean to out anyone here, merely to provide a

WP:ABOUTSELF link to an article. The link, to a page which contains no outing information, is gone now, regardless, so stop trying to weaponize this against your opponents. I find such suggestions coming from someone who is actively involved in attempted outing of Wikipedia editors off-wiki to be bad faith, to say the least. Inf-in MD (talk

) 23:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of any such attempt. nableezy - 00:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

sure you are. If any admin is willing to take action on this, please e-mail me and I will send the info privately. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with that one. Im pretty sure I know what Im involved in though. nableezy - 00:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Admins are invited to e-mail me for the evidence. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me you are making a very public accusation here, without allowing a public rebuttal. If you want to mail someone, you are free to do that, aren't you? No need to ask for an admin here, is there?Selfstudier (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The public rebuttal was made, he denied it. If anyone wants the evidence they know where to go. While we're at it, do you have a comment regarding the link you've posted, to a clear cut outing site?Inf-in MD (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I feel like we have a

arbitration decisions about this or something. nableezy

- 01:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice try , by I won't be baited into linking to the outing site with the evidence. Admins can e-mail me. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to make public any evidence then your accusation very much is an aspersion, and you should strike it. Or have reason 12 for why you should be removed from this website. nableezy - 01:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice try. I have the evidence, and hence have good cause for the accusation, as required by the links you posted. It can't be shared publicly because of other concerns such as linking to harassment sites which would be a violation of polices, but I can make it available in private to admins who are interested. I'll strike the accusation, but invite admins who care about this site to e-mail me. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You are making matters worse. Stating that you "have the evidence" when said evidence cannot be verified is exactly what

arbitration decisions is about. There is no need to ask admins to mail you, the harrasment policy explains what to do, you are simply making use of this forum to float your allegation (repeatedly).Selfstudier (talk

) 02:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I asked you a question, above. Please respond. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

My talk page is free for editing. I suggest you start there.Selfstudier (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the direct relevance to what is being discussed here (same article dispute, same behavior I'm accused of) , I'd rather you respond here. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you would. Your question has been asked and answered.Selfstudier (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: You have two choices. (1) Immediately email your evidence to Arbcom (see User:Arbitration Committee) and state here that you have done so. Or (2), strike all your above claims. I will indefinitely block you for harassment in a topic under discretionary sanctions if one of these is not done before you continue commenting or editing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've emailed the evidence to the Arbitration committee. Inf-in MD (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq - Those were appropriate instructions given. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Back on topic summary

1. Huldra chose to drag this disagreement outside of the AFD with statements that unquestionably violate

: "Do you really expect anyone to believe you? Do you take us all for morons?"

2. 3 separate times, Huldra has repeated the statement that I should be topic banned for creating a page. She's done it in the AFD, in the arbitration that was rightfully cancelled, and yet again in here. Ravenswing, who I'd take as impartial has described this behavior as "highly uncivil" and bordering on "hysteria". If this should be taken to AE instead let me know.

3. In the conversation with Ravenswing, Huldra argues she should be given an exemption from rules regarding

because _other_ people have harassed her. In no way should I be held accountable for what others have done.

So, I'd like it to be made clear to her, from an official point of view, that rules regarding

apply to her, and that is she continues to violate them action may be taken.

If the admins still choose to take no action, I'll let this drop at this point, but revive it if and when there is another violation. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with

WP:BOOMERANG? Selfstudier (talk

) 22:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the article in question needs to be deleted or merged, and have so indicated. I also think that the attacks on the article creator and the generally hysterical tone at the AfD are unwarranted and that sanctions need to be applied. People should feel free to create articles on subjects of interests without being subjected to calls for topic bans. That is unacceptable. Every day articles are created on subjects that are not notable. The Collier article is one of them, but not the worst by far. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• There's some serious
  trout slapping called for, to more than one party -- both here and at that AfD -- as well as admonishing the perps to cut it the hell out. I also think this is an area in which discretionary sanctions apply, and possibly some kind admin should so alert the AfD. Other than that, everyone taking a chill pill would be a good resolution. Ravenswing
  20:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

User has had several warnings about removing maintainance templates and uncivil behaviour. Has recently removed maintainance temates from Baselios Marthoma Mathews III after getting a level 4 warning about doing so. has also removed maintainance templates on other occasions such as here [[11]]. Also fileda bizarre SPI against the user who added those templates in the first place. They have also stalked and deleted that editors contributions such as [[12]]. Have also violated 3RR (reverted about 6 or 7 times) around this diff [[13]]. Doesn't seem to be interested in serious discussion.

) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Users last warning was back in January this year, they shouldnt need a reminder but they probably should be reminded.

The Alternate Mako - it doesn't appear you notified this user of this post so I've just done that as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs

)

The user Br Ibrahim john who added the maintenance templates here [[14]] is banned and just two week old user Anjuvannam is adding maintenance in another page of Orthodox Church . How would a two week old user know about maintenance templates and if same pattern displayed once by a banned user has resurfaced again in another new user, is it not an extra point to the SPI I raised. The word "Kanjikuzhy" literally means "Porridge Pit" and is a derogatory word used to insult the Malankara Orthodox Church on social media. The Headquarters of the Malankara Orthodox Church is at a place called Devalokam. [[15]] and not the neighbouring village which is Kanjikuzhy. User Anjuvannam tried to add the wrong information at least 7 times and I had to revert. [[16]]. He also went and added the wrong details in this page as well. [[17]]. Is not adding a derogatory /false information to wikipedia uncivil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoticus777 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I knew about maintenance templates when my account was only hours old, because like many editors, I had edited as an IP before then, and already knew many of the basics. I'd recommend that you don't make accusations without good evidence, as

talk

) 15:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Amortias If a user deliberately adds false / derogatory information, apart from reverting what else can I do? Does the user who adds such content not get a warning?

Mako001

No problem.

edit warring. Amortias (T)(C

) 17:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add on the topic. I added the maintenance templates for a reason. I did not find any source in the article supporting that content. I did not remove the content because I am not sure of its incorrectness. Zoticus777 is repeatedly removing the maintenance templates and accusing me of sockpuppetry. I think it's better for him to add relevant sources before doing so. Anjuvannam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjuvannam (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs)
• Iraqi Turkmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is definitely

) 10:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's better for administators to have direct evidence rather than having to take your word for it, even though what you cited is correct. The examples they listed come from these diffs: 1 2 3. Panini!^🥪 12:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment you've been deleting reliable sources, so this might end up boomeranging on you. Yet another bad assessment. Sorry. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

you've been deleting reliable sources, so this might end up boomeranging on you So the ones he reverts aren't reliable (like Al Monitor)? Also the reliable source he used

WP:OR, thus the article. A strict terminological distinction should be drawn between Turkic, the name of a language family, and Turkish, the name of a language Say me please how this is related to the topic? Adding source to a existed sourced sentence. And how is much like Iranic - had yet to reach beyond academia isn't his own words? Beshogur (talk

) 13:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the talk page, you would see reams of discussion on precisely this topic. Of course it's "my words", I'm not quoting anyone, nor am I saying anything controversial. It shouldn't need a source, but I included one after you questioned it (which you subsequently deleted). Turkish is part of the Turkic language family, and the terms are often confused (and confusing for the layperson) so I thought it essential a clarification was made towards the beginning of the article... much like the source I quoted does. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• This user has made a bit over 200 edits, meaning half of which went towards Iraqi Turkmen and its respective talk page. Over there, the user has been warned of all the reasons stated by the discussion's creator, as well well as POV pushing, by Sseevv, and Austronesier. A455bcd9 is also an active user on the talk page as well. I would like to emphasize a benefit of a doubt here in hopes it leads to a more positive outcome: 1, where they apologize for TEXTWALLing and approve of the outcome, and 2, where they seemingly apologize for a mistake they made. Enlightenment alleges that they have heavily researched this field and created academic papers about it. Panini!^🥪 12:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Please read the sources, then look at the drive-by reverts Beshogur and Sseevv have made. It should be self-evident who is dedicated to improving the quality of the article and who is "POV pushing". Note: this is the second time Beshogur has created an "incident" on this noticeboard about me [18] without bothering to engage on the Talk page or even state what his objections are. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed that in good will, however you're doing the same. Considering the article is on my watchlist. I can not even follow your edits and textwalls in the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have so much trouble reading my "textwalls" (150-200 words), then you obviously must have a great deal more trouble reading the academic sources I am citing (I have dozens at my disposal, amounting to 10,000+ words, 90% of which reflect the current academic consensus, and 10% of which don't, but I keep for curiosity's sake). So one must ask the question: on what grounds to you object to my edits if you can't read my stated justifications, nor presumably read any of the academic sources I am citing? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User vandalising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_Era despite users sourcing and providing accurate reference, due to personal bias and fandom of wrestler named Stone Cold Steve Austin, removes sourced and factual data with

guidelines.

Everything users added were sourced, user used zero source to justification numerous vandalism instances, proceeded to act belligerent to me and other users as seen on his talk page. User is disruptive to community. Vandalises the article then claims other users vandalise. my contributions were heavy to this article and stood, until user vandalized page.

Every edit was verified and sourced, despite claiming otherwise, yet user edits verified information with unverified personal views. Is a disruptive user awith numerous instances of disruptive editing.

RLMStern (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It is

Neutralilly. Dilbaggg (talk

) 18:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is false, I have provided accurate sources in line with Wikipedia Policy and

WP:RS

.

User:Dilbaggg removed factual data, historical events and archival news with no factual referencing, only citing personal view of someone being a bigger star, as grounds to remove data and references that challenge his beliefs. The edits stood and were verified factual. User removed data because "Austin is bigger star", with absolutely zero references, data or numbers which is

WP:V

, I added factual data and corrected false data and refuted inaccuracies by sourcing actual verified references which you can check. There was no bias on my behalf, only written according to documented facts.

The removal of the facts, references, news and other data for personal views while also belligerent towards me and other contributors of the article. My edits were verified via accurate referencing and expanded upon by many users. You can vet my edits to verify data and debate the facts if you wish.

RLMStern (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Again I added actual

WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk

) 18:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You accuse Dilbaggg of a supposed "fandom of Stone Cold", and yet you insert claims like The Rock was the biggest star and draw of the Attitude era, which appear to be

WP:OR. This is a content dispute, and not worthy of ANI. Can you take this to the article talk page, please. — Czello

18:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• OP Blocked for 48h after reverting again for a 4th time. Anyone may revert their latest addition. I note their version of the article strips every single source out of the "Chyna" section, so their claims of "accurate referencing" are obviously untrue. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes the user seems to have already been blocked for

Bleacher report, 411Mania, etc. Anyway I am done here, and sorry this content dispute wasted Admin's valuable time, peace. Dilbaggg (talk

) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Some additional eyes at

) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Secondary request for help managing Cher Scarlett

As

) 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for a week to give a chance of the talk page discussion to progress.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Third request for help managing Cher Scarlett

Cher Scarlett's wikipedia entry takes credit away from the work of many other women activists and exaggerates her contributions and leadership roles on multiple occasions. There are also false and misleading statements which support this throughout, and entries that are purely promotion with no verified data. My intent is not to diminish her work, but to simply see that the entry is made accurate in part so that the work of other women isn't diminished. I also hope that others will take a closer look at her entry and edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you believe anything has been misstated, please discuss it (with sources to support your changes, or an explanation of how the current sources do not support the statements) on the article talk page rather than warring your changes in. As for the idea that "Cher Scarlett's wikipedia entry takes credit away from the work of many other women activists"—this is not a zero-sum game where we must diminish the contributions of one woman to recognize the work of others. If there is adequate sourcing to establish

Apple worker organizations, Google worker organization, or other company-specific articles; Unionization in the tech sector; etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk

) 16:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, my intent is not do diminish Cher's work, it's to make what's represented about her in article accurate. I don't think proposing edits is a form or "warring" changes and I made comments explaining most if not all of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You weren't proposing edits, though, you were directly editing them back into the page after they had been challenged by myself or another editor. See

WP:EW for more detail on what constitutes edit warring. As for your summaries, you did not explain many of your changes, including your repeated changes from "leader" to "participant". Regardless of whether or not it was your intent to diminish her work compared to how it is represented in reliable sources, that was the impact. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk

) 17:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see my comments below about this Verge article that mentions Cher as as being "involved" in the founding of the #Appletoo along with 15 other current and former Apple employees. Referring to Cher as a participant is not inaccurate. Igotthistoo (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You also made changes that were incorrect per source material already present in the entry. If your intention is to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of an article, please verify your contributions are reflected in cited sources. I suspect you are also

WP:EW. SquareInARoundHole (talk

) 18:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Indenting & Signing your posts

Please read up on

) 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

We do not block SPA just for being SPA. There are plenty of accounts which are only interested in one topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• We don't block SPA just for being SPA, true. But we do block them for pushing a one-sided agenda. I've just taken a look at the edits User:Igotthistoo are pushing (disclosure: I never even heard of the subject before 15 minutes ago) and they're uniformly subtle attempts to discredit the subject: putting unrelated people into the mix [19], alleging facts from unreliable sources [20], stripping out statements from high quality reliable sources [21], and suggesting as often as possible that the subject's tenure/experiences were brief or ephemeral. The SPA claims that he's not seeking to diminish the subject's work. His edits are nothing but diminishing. Ravenswing 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My edits do not reflect a one-sided agenda, they are edits of the facts. For example, this Verge article mentions Cher as as being "involved" in the founding of the #Appletoo along with 15 other current and former Apple employees. And this article mention how most of the founding organizers remained anonymous for fear of retaliation. Cher's Wikipedia article neglects to mention any of these details inferring and projecting her as being the primary leader of the #Appletoo when in reality it was a collective effort of many. Igotthistoo (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finally at least explaining why you are making the edits you've made. This is probably a discussion better suited for the article talk page, but I'll reply here, and no objections to people moving my comments there if this portion of the discussion is moved.

Regarding your concerns about the article showing it was a collective effort, the article is careful to write that Scarlett is a leader of the Apple organizing. Not the leader. It is quite clear from reading the article that she is not the sole leader of Apple worker organization.

Regarding the wording in the article from The Verge that you have linked: You are correct that it describes her in that way. However, you never actually added this source in your edits. You need to cite any sources you are referring to. Secondly, focusing on one source that says what you are trying to convey, when the majority of sources here describe her otherwise, is

WP:CHERRYPICKING

. To quickly outline all of the other sources currently used in the article that describe Scarlett's involvement with #AppleToo (omitting ones that discuss her organizing at Apple but don't mention AppleToo specifically, for brevity's sake):

• Washington Post: "[Scarlett is] leading a worker uprising at Apple", "Scarlett has become the face of the #AppleToo movement"
• Vox Recode: "Cher Scarlett, an engineer at Apple who joined the company during the pandemic and has become a leader in, among other issues, organizing her colleagues on pushing for more remote work", "Scarlett and several other corporate employee activists started a Discord subgroup and website called #AppleToo to discuss their grievances and coalesce workers."
• Gizmodo: "Cher Scarlett, a principal software engineer at Apple who co-organized [#AppleToo] on Slack and Discord"
• CNET: "Scarlett has become a public face of AppleToo"
• New York Times: "Cher Scarlett and Janneke Parrish, two Apple employees who help lead the [#AppleToo] group."
• Slate: "Scarlett, who worked at Apple for a year and a half, is perhaps best known for her work with #AppleToo... Scarlett was the last publicly known leader of the months-old movement still at Apple"
• Washington Post: "Among the Apple employees raising concerns is Cher Scarlett, who organized an employee wage survey to shine a light on alleged pay discrepancies affecting underrepresented groups."
• The Verge: "Scarlett withdrawing her complaint won’t necessarily leave Apple in the clear — the company faces a number of other complaints, including ones alleging wrongful termination from other employees Scarlett worked with to organize the #AppleToo movement."

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Igotthistoo:, I stand by my characterization of your edits. As GorillaWarfare correctly states, the article never claimed that the subject was the leader of the movement, only a leader; you can "infer" all you want, but that doesn't turn your inferences into fact. And good grief: if other "leaders" never came forward because they feared retaliation, not only do we have no knowledge of that (and come to that, how is it you claim to know better?), then they weren't really "leading" anything at all, were they? Ravenswing 21:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is known and can be sourced that there were other leaders who remained anonymous (at least outside of the company, not sure if they were known within it or how that works). But that is, rightfully, detailed at

AppleToo, not in Scarlett's article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk

) 21:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not people agree with the characterization of my edits is beside the point. Many of my edits were factual and added additional context making Cher Scarlett's entry less misleading and more detailed. This includes things like referencing Cher was among a group of many women in her role in the #Appletoo movement. While I do understand why some of my edits were blocked, it's alarming and questionable that most of my edits were reversed. I suspect there's an arrangement between SquareInARoundHole and GorillaWarfare in managing the entry and gatekeeping edits. Igotthistoo (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@

neutral

, which on Wikipedia means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (and not cherrypicking the one source that portrays an individual in a way that reflects your personal opinions of her, when it is different than the bulk of other sources). It concerns me that you don't yet seem to see the issue here.

Regarding your accusations that "there's an arrangement between SquareInARoundHole and GorillaWarfare in managing the entry and gatekeeping edits", that's absurd. Please see

WP:COI (either with respect to Scarlett or the others you have tried to shoehorn into her biography)—do you intend to? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk

) 23:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@

undue weight apply whether or not you agree with them or approve of them. Ravenswing

23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NPOV. We are not "gatekeeping" your edits. Your edits introduced information to Wikipedia that was false and illustrated an agenda with the sole purpose of diminishing the subject of the article. This is an unacceptable use of the platform. We are willing to consider any of your good faith edits with a RFC in Scarlett's talk page, provided you have proper reliable sources cited, and a clear, neutral reasoning behind the edits. SquareInARoundHole (talk

) 23:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock?

User:Thistechworkertoo has just turned up at Ifeoma Ozoma and begun edit warring and introducing similarly minimizing wording changes. The username is a bit similar. Is this a sock? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Time for the community to show the sock-master & his socks, the door. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems likely. 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA US) showed special interest in only diminishing the biographies of Ozoma and Scarlett, so likely this particular user is trying to evade scrutiny with socks. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser says Yes. No comment on the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: (or another admin) Should a block be placed? I'm WP:INVOLVED here so certainly won't do it myself, but this seems like an attempt to avoid scrutiny even if the editing period doesn't overlap. Let me know if I should take this to a separate SPI report too. Happy to do it, just didn't want to fragment the discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

YMMV. My usual policy in these circumstances (ie first offence, no policy reminders, and no aggravated deception) is to block the sock, and gamble on an autoblock for the master. I've done this. A block for the main account shall be up to another admin, though I obviously note that I haven't done that (for the sock puppetry). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, anyway. I've page-blocked Igotthistoo indefinitely from Cher Scarlett. Bishonen | tålk 12:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

  In that case perhaps Ymblanter's full protection of the article is no longer necessary? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  I unprotected though semi-protection might be still necessary if the IP continues disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Trying to understand why the edits made by 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA US) are being questioned by (SquareInARoundHole).
  • On 27 Nov between 19:17-19:31, (73.202.58.200) made their only edits to Cher Scarlett's page.
  • Then GorillaWarfare posted on (73.202.58.200)'s talk page at 22:47-
    • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Cher Scarlett. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia.
  • It sounded like GorillaWarfare fully approved of the edits made. Looking at the page history, those approved edits to Cher Scarlett's page included:
    • Removing mentions of Ifeoma and Silenced No More since this is separate legislation & Ifeoma is not involved;
    • Quote from a senator about general legislation is not appropriate for a personal profile;
    • This is not important enough to call out. This is a standard request of victims during NDA negotiations;
    • Adding context from Reuters article about inspiration for the new Washington bill and that outreach from both Scarlett and Glasson were cited as inspiration; fixed citations.
  • It appears (73.202.58.200)'s 27 Nov changes to Ifeoma Ozoma's page were also accepted and not reverted. The changes made by this user appear to be factual corrections to remove mentions of Scarlett from Ozoma's page where they were not accurate, and removal of Silenced No More and Ozoma from Scarlett's page where it was also not accurate. All of these changes appear to be accepted.
  • It's unclear why (
    WP:COI? Based on the quantity, depth, and insider knowledge required for (SquareInARoundHole) comments and edits about Cher Scarlett
    , it seems possible that user could be Scarlett herself or someone close to her.
    • Can the user also please be checked for
      WP:COI? (SquareInARoundHole)'s talk page already has a Managing a conflict of interest warning posted by (Blablubbs
      ). User's account has only existed since 17 Nov and roughly half their edits are to Scarlett's page or about Scarlett on Ozoma's page.
  • (SquareInARoundHole) has made detailed and un-cited updates to Scarlett's page which later had to be reverted due no citations or irrelevance, including:
    • 07:34, 17 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +1,272‎ Missing categories, reorganization of some personal details from career and expansion.
    • 01:17, 18 November 2021‎ GorillaWarfare −678‎ questionably reliable sources
    • 22:40, 19 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole −4‎ →‎Apple: The previous wording made it seem like she withdrew the NLRB charge separately from the settlement/resignation
    • 04:14, 20 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +13‎ clarify the details of the settlement were confidential, according to her lawyer in the source
    • 03:58, 20 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +480‎ →‎Apple: adding news of memo
    • 03:54, 20 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +1,237‎ Adding information about teaching and open-source software to her career
    • 18:30, 21 November 2021‎ GorillaWarfare −426‎ no secondary source
  • --Anonymous 04:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC), Anonymous 04:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. You should not sign your comments with "Anonymous". Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest}

10:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:SOCK appeared and engaged in the same purpose, which led me to believe they were all three one person, and based on their geo, seemed to be an Apple employee with a vendetta. Now that the users have been blocked, the IP user, if not one of the two users above, can continue making constructive edits. I do not have a COI with any of the subjects I have edited, nor have any of my edits been "un-cited". Thank you. SquareInARoundHole (talk

) 23:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert is violating his topic ban and unblock conditions

Johnpacklambert is violating his topic ban and unblock conditions reported by a user in good standing

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal

I have been cleaning up after a persistent vandal from the Great Lakes area of the US. I think of them as the Deltron 3030 vandal, because they keep returning to the articles Deltron 3030 and Deltron 3030 (album). The person makes trivial changes in the order that credits are displayed, changing away from official credits.[23] They also change to wrong release dates.[24] The problems they caused escalated in June 2016 in the form of the Youngstown, Ohio, IP Special:Contributions/173.91.192.164—the IP was blocked eight times, most recently for five years.

Recent activity of the same type has been seen from Ohio, Michigan and the Greater Chicago area. The connection to Youngstown continues with IP Special:Contributions/173.91.201.210 from 11 days ago. The Chicago IP range Special:Contributions/172.58.160.0/21 has a great deal of this vandal's work, plus a very few good-faith users. Here's a list of IPs active in the last week.

• 172.58.160.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.176 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

How can we focus a rangeblock on this person with minimal collateral? Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/172.58.160.0/24 for three months. That range previously had a one-month block that expired recently. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A few days ago the Mass killings under communist regimes AfD had been closed, and the admins panel noted serious disagreement about the article's neutrality. Almost immediately after that, one user started an RfC where a complete removal of the POV tag from the article was named as one option (an option A). Taking into account that no significant steps have been taken after the AfD closure to resolve POV problems, there is absolutely no reason to expect that the article's neutrality problems have been fixed in these few days. In connection to that, can this RfC be considered legitimate, or that is an attempt to use a vote procedure as a substitute for a normal discussion? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Great, more Mass killings under communist regimes drama. The RFC is fine, maybe people just disagree with you that the article has a neutrality problem. The RFC will, after even more drama, probably not resolve this. High fives all around. I eagerly anticipate the panel close to the RFC and the RFC closure review at

WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarcasm? ~ cygnis insignis 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am the user that started the RfC. The framing of this as some dubious attempt to use the RfC to quash neutrality issues is rather silly; if you actually take a look at the discussion, you will notice that what I am advocating for is to put the NPOV labels in particular sections that have contested POV. The fact that option A, which I included for completeness, does not seem to be a good option is not a breach of civility nor any other behavioral issue. I’d encourage people here to actually read my !vote I left in the RfC in terms of my rationale. This is a board meant for persistent behavioral issues, not complaints about neutral and brief RfC prompts. If the option is a poor one one, then this can very easily be resolved by making good arguments against it in the RfC. There is no reason this should have been brought to ANI. —

) 20:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

According to

this, the tag cannot be removed until the problem has been resolved. Is there any indication that that has happened in last few days? What is a reason to draw attention of external users, who, most likely, are not familiar with all details of the conflict? To try to resolve a content dispute by !voting? Paul Siebert (talk

) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

They're saying that yes, they acknowledge that A was extremely unlikely to get consensus (they didn't even support it themselves), they just included it for completeness. If something utterly bizarre happened and A somehow had a clear consensus, that would mean the dispute was resolved - while that is vanishingly unlikely, there's nothing wrong with including an unlikely option in an RFC, since it produces more clarity in terms of ruling things out and focusing the discussion afterwards. It doesn't waste much time or energy to add it as an option that almost nobody will choose, and it means that later on people can point to the RFC to clearly establish that removing the tags entirely has no support. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want a serious and thoughtful discussion, join DRN, as I proposed. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with

Mhawk10 was acting in anything other than good faith in a way to constructively improve the article - which is what we should all be trying to do Vanteloop (talk

) 21:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others.

I don't see any signs that user made any reasonable attempts to discuss global issues of this article.

As you probably noticed, I am not requesting for any actions against any user. I am asking if that RfC is legitimate, because I have strong reasons to conclude that this RfC must be speedy closed. In my opinion, that is a right place for such a request. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably not a wise RFC, but not a misuse. Certainly not enough to justify ANI. Aircorn (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's clear they included option A purely out of completeness (since even they themselves didn't support it.) Keep in mind that an affirmative consensus would be needed to remove the tags completely - it is both reasonably longstanding and that's generally how dispute tags work, since a lack of consensus plus recent discussions or RFCs indicates an active dispute. Any admin closing this would know these things, and the RFC's creator reasonably knew that. More generally, when writing an RFC it makes sense to include all obvious options, since, if nothing else, that produces more clarity by letting you say "ok, we had this as an option and it did terribly, so if someone wanders in and removes the tags entirely later on we can point back at the RFC." If anything the fact that they included option A (a change from the status quo that is extremely unlikely to occur) when they themselves supported option B (a change from the status quo that it is at least plausible a consensus might support) could be seen as a sign of good faith, since it makes it more likely that the RFC will deadlock and leave C as the status quo - ie. if they left out A entirely, it's reasonable to infer that people who would otherwise support A would instead support B, since that makes the tags less visible. A closer might follow that logic and lump A and B together if they reach the threshold of a consensus together but not separately - but they might not, depending on how the comments are worded and such, so if anything including A makes the outcome they wanted less likely. --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the RFC be withdrawn? I don't know (even though I was surprised by its sudden appearance), but I participated in it. Will we need an RFC on the RFC? It's quite confusing, overall. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering the results are not unanimous, it isn’t consistent with

talk

) 01:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It is quite normal to start an RfC about some piece of text, a title or a picture. That is pretty much ok, although a user who starts it is expected to try to resolve the problem at the talk page first (which has not been done in this case).

However, a POV tag is not just an isolated picture or a piece of text: it is an indication of some problem, which is directly associated with it. It is not allowed, per our rules, to remove or to move the tag if the problem has not been resolved. Therefore, the tag should never be a subject of the RfC. A correct RfC should be like:

• A Do you think the article has no global neutrality problems?
• B Do you think some sections of this article violate NPOV, but the article as s whole does not?
• C Do you think the article as a whole has serious neutrality problems?

That would be more consistent with our rules. However, even in that case, such an RfC would be incorrect, for no consensus is needed to place the POV tag. The tag is placed when one or several users believe the article has serious POV problems. If the concern about neutrality is legitimate (serious arguments have been presented on teh talk page), this tag can be removed only when consensus is achieved that those concerns have been properly addressed (which is an almost verbatim description of the

WP:CON

process).

Now explain me: how did you expect to address my legitimate concern by starting this AfD, if you even haven't explained what those concerns are?

Your AfD literally means:

Some user expressed some concerns about neutrality and placed the POV-tag. Do you think those concerns have been properly addressed, so the tag can be removed?

That is (literally) what your RfC means. You totally ignored the essence of the neutrality dispute, you said nothing about it, and you ask an outside opinion if those (unnamed) concerns have been addressed. That is highly inappropriate, and that is a direct attempt to resort to voting in violation of

WP:DEMOCRACY

.

I see no significant problem in the RfC proper, because it will hardly change the status quo. However, I see that trend (to invite people to !vote without properly explaining the core problem) very worrying. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, if you don’t like the framing of the RfC because of your underlying policy analysis, so be it—you can make that argument in the RfC that anything other than your preferred option is not a good option. And, if you think options B (or A) don’t address what you see as the core problems in the existing neutrality dispute, that is something that you can argue on the talk page in the actual RfC. But if you are going to make the assumption that launching an RfC is somehow a violation of

talk

) 04:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I already explained, for several times, that when I came here, I never requested for any actions against any user. My point was that the tendency to resort to an RfS in this type cases is worrying. I have no idea what other platform could be used to discuss this problem.

I thought I clearly explained that the key problem is not in your option "A", "B", and "C", but in very idea to discuss the POV tag without discussing the reasons for its placement. I placed this tag in September, and I explained the reasons. Since then, virtually nothing has changed in the article, so there is absolutely no reason to expect that the article's problems, which lead to the POV tag placement have been resolved.

Even worse, the recent RfC demonstrated that there ARE serious reasons to expect that the article has severe NPOV problems. In that situation, to immediately start an RfC that questions this conclusion

without making any attempt to resolve or at least to discuss neutrality problems on the talk page

is a pure forum shopping.

By the way, how do you understand my explanation of the reasons for placement of this tag on the top? Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If starting a request for comment on the article talk page over where to place maintenance tags is pure forum shopping, then words have no meaning. How is starting a formal discussion on where to place tags forum shopping when it’s done on the article talk page—the exact page where maintenance tags are supposed to be discussed? If you believe that my proposal to tag section-by-section is a bad one, so be it, but the continued attempts to frame the creation of an RfC as some sort of conduct issue is simply uncalled for. —

talk

) 06:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• This RFC was started in good faith as far as I can see. That
  WP:AE discretionary sanctions regime. --Nug (talk
  ) 05:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Previously blocked IP-hopping edit warrior is back

An IP user was harassing me on my talk page a few days ago till the time that IP user was blocked on my talk page by and administrator. Today again a new IP user sent me a message by the same way in which that blocked IP user was sending. That IP user was harassing one more editor Manali Jain on her talk page by abusing her with cheap abusive words from Hindi language. I request you to limit my talk page messaging range to autoconfirmed or extended confirmed users. As I feel IPs stalk me. Pri2000 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Pri2000

@Pri2000: There's only been once instance in the last three days, so I think it would be premature at this point to protect your page. I do have it on my watchlist, however, and can protect it if the disruption intensifies.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

They came back. I put a week of semi-protection on the talk page. Hopefully that is long enough for them to find something else to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I am currently changing over the code due to Template:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches being in holding having been deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#Template:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches after admin's Primefac close. Yet Deancarmeli just reverted my work on this. This is highly disruptive and he seems to be applying his ownership and aggressive nature on it. Let alone he got me blocked for a day a while back. I consider this user detrimental to the project. Can an admin please sort this guy out as I am fed-up with this. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Replacement finished, template deleted. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As can be seen in

talk

) 12:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you on about, Primefac just deleted that template and reverted to the edits I was implementing. Seriously, no edit-war is taking place, you're just rolling around in a can of worms if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli, I am genuinely curious, why do you feel that you are absolutely in the right about this one? The template was discussed at TFD, the consensus there was to delete the template (provided the information was properly included in the articles to avoid loss of information), and yet you proceeded to continually revert and restore the template use. I am genuinely surprised to see that Govvy was blocked as a result of that AN3 report (with a courtesy ping to EdJohnston who did the blocking). Primefac (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 13:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand, whats the timeline! goto to do with removing a template that was closed as delete!? Govvy (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - to be honest, neither Govvy nor Deancarmeli come out of this looking particularly good. @
  WP:BATTLEGROUND rhetoric. Instead of attacking each other, please work together to find a compromise or seek a third opinion on any outstanding disputes on the layout of the article.  — Amakuru (talk
  ) 14:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @
    talk
    ) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I have no interest in what people see as the past here, all I am interested in is removing a template that was selected as delete. Hence, all I am trying to do is general maintenance as far as I am concerned. Deancarmeli is the one here who came along and decided to reinstate his template even know it was classed as delete. This too me is disruptive, hence my post here. Primefac, went and deleted the template and reinstated the edits I did. So... what do we have left after that. An editor who re-instated general maintenance editing? I am neither looking for a battleground nor wanting an edit-war. I never posted to the edit-war board. I fail too see why I should be punished for trying to do what I call wiki-maintenance. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Just take the fact that what you might find as "general maintenance" might not be seen as such by other editors who have previously edited an article. For that reason, we have the talk pages. Try to use them. Open up a discussion about you ideas. Give a chance to a collective editing process. That is all you were asked at the previous time. That, and a cleaner language.

talk

) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I truly fail to see what you're getting at, your template was deleted at discussion, I am removing it. Why on earth do I need to post that to a talk page? Govvy (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is NOT urgent at all, user is recently inactive. But after proposing deletion for two pretty inapporpriate files on Commons, I checked the uploader in en-WP. How come that user:Ui Neil Mahmuod Elmontaser Cidi Almasri Sandage was not yet blocked for repeated vandalism, and for some pretty outlandish conspiracy theory stuff he posted on his user page? Or at least, kept on a watchlist? Some bad edits lasted for months, and though some few seem actually okay, I can't AGF in this case, just from a glance at the profile. As witnesses outside of his sandbox and user page, I present the militant pope, the women absorbing semen, Hillary Clinton and the bottom 50% iQ. --Enyavar (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see this user ever making productive edits (the genetics stuff is, obviously, pure nonsense). It's all conspiracy theory word salad, including the twitter account they link on their user page.Citing (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, obnoxiousness deleted. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like this kind of labelling and stereotyping to be discouraged before it creates a pervasive hostile atmosphere.

The article is subject to

. 17:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologized for overgeneralization when typed without much thinkng and upon request I gave an explanation, copyinjg it here ffor convenience:

I googled "ukrainian point of view"+wikipedia, and lo:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/News_and_notes . "MFA Launches Ambitious Campaign To Enrich Wikipedia with Unbiased Information On Ukraine and the World" - Well, from what I know, "Unbiased Information On Ukraine" includes the statement that Stepan Bandera is a hero of Ukraine an not a Nazi collaborator and antiSemite.

These are rock-hard facts about the agenda of Ukrainian government,^[1], not some kind of malicious "stereotyping". I further gave examples that we did discuss Wikipedia bias-pushing based on ethnic grounds: I am talking the case of Israel and the case or croatian wikipedia. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, the very "Eastern Europe" problem AFAIK started when a bunch of Polish wikipedians conspired off-wiki to "righten the wrong". Meaning there is nothing unusual to have and to discus and to counter any ethnic based bias. Oh, and how could I forget about Russian propaganda carefully watched out in Wikipedia. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion Yes it does. Bearing in mind the position of Ukrainian govt and the fact the article in question is an example of an explicit rewriting Ukrainian history, my statement was a fair warning. In fact, I browsed other contributions of the author of the weird article in question, and you know what? This guy tried to edit "Steve Wozniak" with the claim that Wozniak was Ukrainian! I can only imagine what may happen in less watched articles. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The article was created by a Ukrainian, and was nominated for deletion by a Ukrainian. And the Ukrainian govt initiative to enrich Wikipedia with Ukraine-related topics doesn't necessarily mean it will be (or is being) done in a biased, non-neutral way. Neither does it mean that the article author is acting on behalf of that government. These are your insinuations all the way.--Piramidion 04:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is not my insinuations all he way. It is my legitimate concern, shared by some others (and disagreed by others). Did you read

WP:COI. When a politician writes "to fill Wikipedia with unbiased information", we only know too well what happens next. I understand that any social group has a share of well-meaning but misguided "patriots" who would try and "fix" information in wikipedia about them, be it a corporation or a country. We deal with this on a regular basis. But when these efforts of "fixing" become coordinated and spearheaded, call me paranoid, but I would expect a problem. Notice that I am not editing Ukraine-related articles (I mean not intentionally; overlaps do happen.). Last week was an exception; I run into the subject when I was posting my own AfD nom and accordingly reviewed a couple of recent ones. Loew Galitz (talk

) 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Sajaypal007 page hijacking

I wish to file a complaint against User:Sajaypal007, he has hijacked https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lalsot and he is repeatedly vandalizing the outcome of this battle & changing it to Rajput victory when it was nothing of the sort, both sides claimed victory in this battle and multiple credible authorities have stated the result of this battle to be indecisive. Administrator kindly investigate this. A.A Ghatge (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than behavior. There's no discussion on the article talk page. I would suggest following the advice in

dispute resolution. Note - this is caste related. Ravensfire (talk

) 16:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what an administrator would do here - You should make an attempt at communication on the talk page before escalating to this noticeboard. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 17:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This fact has been mentioned in the talk page in 2020, the page is still showing incorrect outcome for this battle. The page has been hijacked and edits made with the view to correct it are being removed repeatedly by User:Sajaypal007.

A talk page which neither of you has used. Slywriter (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Let's try this again, @A.A Ghatge:. You need to discuss this on the talk page FIRST. Sajaypal007 has even asked you in his edit summaries to discuss it on the talk page. Nor is it apparent from looking over the article history that Sajaypal007 engaged in vandalism -- the definition of "vandalism" on Wikipedia is not "He's making edits I don't like" -- nor do I see that you informed him that you were taking this to ANI, as you are required to do. Ravenswing 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• The administrator's noticeboard is for settling problems or disputes that require administrator action or intervention that regular users can't do themselves. This includes stuff like user blocking, page moving, and restricting user rights. A problem like this one can most likely be dealt with via discussing opinions on the article's talk page. If the editor in question refuses to discuss and continues to do so without questioning others, then it becomes disruptive and ANI becomes necessary. Panini!^🥪 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I have posted my grievance regarding the result of this battle on Talk page & also discussed what solution can be worked out. I want to reiterate however that the present page is misleading & distorts the facts about this battle. In the interest of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, I really want this to be corrected at the earliest, that is all. Will my posting regarding this on talk page means this will be resolved? Because, I have little experience so far posting on talk pages. A.A Ghatge (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Time you started, then, @A.A Ghatge:. Will your posting there mean that this will be resolved in your favor? No, not necessarily. @Sajaypal007: posted versions supported by sources -- this is not a clearcut "you're right and everyone else is wrong" situation -- and the way we decide how the article will look is through consensus. A catchphrase of mine is that the nature of a consensus-driven effort is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case it's incumbent on you to lose gracefully and accept the result. Ravenswing 02:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please define consensus. Because, I have with me multiple authoritative sources that back up my edit. Also @Sajaypal007: has only posted version from the Rajput account of the battle, Maratha accounts claim that they were victorious that day. I ask you is it fair to state the result of a battle as a victory for one side when multiple authoritative sources state that both sides claimed victory and the result was actually Indecisive. I request you to go through my edit, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lalsot&oldid=1058284846 to judge for yourself if I was being disruptive here. I did no such thing except faithfully report the result of the battle as it has been reported by several authoritative sources. This disruptive editing charge made by Sajaypal007 lacks merit and is grossly unfair to me.

This is "Brazilian aardvarks" in the making all over again IMO. What I really wanted to know is will my concern be taken up at all by an impartial editor. I see that @115.96.103.214: seems to have raised the same issue as me in the talk page a year back, yet no action. A.A Ghatge (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• If you want to know what Wikipedia rules on consensus are, I'd advise you to read
  WP:CONSENSUS. That being said, you can hardly point fingers at someone for (allegedly) only posting sources from one side, when you are doing the same thing. As far as disruptive editing charges, you were the first to make one. Finally, I get the strong impression that what you mean by your repeated requests for an impartial editor to "take up" your concern is for an admin to say that you're right, everyone else is wrong, and things must be done your way. I am not myself an admin, but I can fairly confidently say that's not going to happen. Ravenswing
  18:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

IP edits to the 'Cars (video game)' page

There's this persistent IP user that's been constantly trying to change the date of one of the sources on the Cars (video game) page from February to January 2006, despite the associated source clearly supporting the February date. I have tried to reason with this user three times now, but they have ignored my attempts to reason with them. And they have ignored the warning messages that I've left on their userpages about edit warring. I don't want to be penalised for edit warring which is why I have brought the issue here, so that hopefully an administrator can look into this issue and put a stop to these IP edits. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds more like something for

WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

21:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'll slap semi-protection on it. They're using a dynamic IP, so they may not be seeing the talk page notifications. As such, hard to say if this is petty vandalism or if they think they're actually fixing something. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Battle of Longewala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 103.214.61.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

At the above article I noticed this edit several days ago, which does not appear to match the edit summary. Upon further investigation, it turns out it's largely a revert to the April 2020 version of the article. Despite me reverting with a clear edit summary of "We are not reverting to an April 2020 version of the article for no clear reason" the IP has proceeded to revert multiple times despite the explanation at Talk:Battle of Longewala#We are not reverting to April 2020 and at User talk:103.214.61.251. Despite both those messages they have made this report at AIV claiming that refuses to engage in discussion about why he is doing so, when I have made my objection to the reversion to the April 2020 version of the article quite clear, and have asked that if there is an issue with an edit made at that time (as their first edit summary suggests that they should edit the current version of the article in order to correct that. FDW777 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

There's someone who edited the

) 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@@Thomasthedarkenguine: I semi-protected Annoying Orange for a month. If anything else is needed, please let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A rather odd, in my opinion, edit adding WP:DEATH to move review Qwirkle (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding an irrelevant tag and citing

WP:POINTy to me. clpo13_(talk

) 03:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, two different people had removed the addition which should have indicated that the inclusion was controversial and that it should have been discussed before added again. I also agree that adding this to the move review page isn’t necessary.--67.70.101.149 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is extremely bizarre (and incorrect), and gives me a "did he make a bet at the bar" vibe. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. I should think it is now abundantly clear to them that this was incorrect and unhelpful.

talk

) 00:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

) 07:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Thanks, but I think after 31 hours, they will start doing again. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 08:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably. I did a longer range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is

) 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have requested the page be Speedily Deleted as it is a personal attack against multiple editors. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted and user indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

An IP user has placed a threat to "bombard" this page and "impose their will on us" over some crypto currency drama. I figured I'd bring this here, now, rather than wait for the possibility of things getting annoying. A few extra eyes on the page, especially if those eyes hold mops to protect the page in case of disruption, would be appreciated. Thanks.

And please know that we have the power to bombard this page with hundreds of requests all at once!! But we prefer to be more diplomatic and give you 72 hours to respond before we use our brunt force to impose our will on you. Coinbase is controlling the news media but we control all social media and are going to force Wikipedia to include our story..[35][36] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a comment trying to dissuade any attempts at disruption. Two hours ago, CNBC published an article about this person's grievance. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I added the news with a citation. Hopefully that's enough to avoid the possible disruption the editor in question is talking about. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing

• Previous canvassing on Nicki Minaj: [40] [41] [42] [43]
• Previous canvassing on Cardi B: [44] [45] [46] [47]

This is related to the second issue at hand.

Stonewalling and other problems

Their efforts are to keep potentially contentious information that isn't usually seen on other articles about musicians (such as Taylor Swift). They have not given any policy-based reason to keep said information, only giving patent objections in edit summaries such as "no need to remove this". [48]

There are times where I tried to make edits to

Here's another example. I suggested this change on the talk page to merge two redundant sentences in the lead per

WP:VOTESTACKING

)

They are treating the previous lead RfC like it is written in stone, and that any and all changes require a new RfC themselves, when all that the previous RfC for the lead did was allow it to be re-written. The previous RfC does not prevent other editors from making policy-based improvements. An example of which is this very necessary edit to remove 17 citations from the lead per

talk to me

16:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a pattern between the users they advertise the discussion to? As in, are they advertising to top contributors of music artists (or rap, or some other connection), or is it to users who share similar opinions as them? If the latter, that's when canvassing becomes a problem. Panini!^🥪 16:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• It'd also be helpful to note that the eight examples linked all pre-date the two warnings the user receieved, half by a month and the other by two days. Panini!^🥪 16:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  @

  talk to me

  16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: Usually it seems to be the same group of people. I don't know these editors specifically so I'm not sure of their editing habits, but one thing I did notice is that they usually ping people who voted the same as them in RfCs. For example, in the most recent canvassing they pinged ChicagoWikiEditor, someone who, like Cornerstonepicker, also opposed the Cardi B RfC. [57] Something more blatant is how, in the afromentioned talk page discussion down below, he randomly pinged ChicagoWikiEditor to comment on Minaj's occupations in her infobox, despite ChicagoWikiEditor previously not being involved in this at all. [58] Why that editor specifically?

He also pinged Binksternet, another editor who was uninvolved in the discussion until that point, in another Nicki talk page discussion recently here. [59] Binksternet also voted in support of Cornerstonepicker's July RfC. [60] Again, the question of "why that editor specifically?" happens here again.

talk to me

16:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

? I open RFCs for everybody to collaborate with an opinion, and @ active editors that take their time to give suggestions, with whom i don't even interact at all. You ping users that call you "Bestie". This just sounds that you're bothered by the last RFCs, where editors pointed out there was pov pushing and bias on certain edits. For example: this looong conversation, with a lot of participants, to remove such:

Cornerstonepicker (talk

) 21:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:VOTESTACKING

and against policy.

And why have you still not addressed your stonewalling? Where even admins have noticed your stonewalling against me on the article? [61] Lastly, most of the opposition against my policy-based edits has been your constant stonewalling reverts, where even other editors have noticed that you revert first before using the talk page. [62]

talk to me

02:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition,

talk to me

12:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous RfCs on Nicki Minaj

Declaration: I am one of those "pinged" though I have not commented on the RfC. However, I am surprised that the OP is concerned about any possible "canvassing". After all, the result of the previous major RfC on this subject went against them but they have persisently ignored the result in favour of their own version ever since... Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@

voting

similarly to Cornerstonepicker in RfCs. Why are they being pinged in uninvolved talk page discussions?

If you want editors to comment on your RfC, the RfC noticeboard is there for that purpose. My point is that Cornerstonepicker is specifically picking these editors in RfCs, which is canvassing. I have been making policy based improvements to the lead, such as removing 17 citations and merging redundant sentences. Black Kite, another admin has supported my edits and has noticed the stonewalling from Cornerstonepicker and others. [64]

talk to me

06:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

nope, the long rfcs conversations were about removing pov pushing and overstuffing.... only for you to re-add pov pushing and overstuffing gradully. and the seventeen citations you removed were not added back.

Cornerstonepicker (talk

) 18:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk to me

20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see this as a flagrant violation of
  WP:CANVASSING. You can't only notify the people on your side. ––FormalDude ^talk
  07:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok three people that I @ed this time, which wasn't spam, and who I don't interact with, I just uninvited (?) to avoid any discomfort. It's weird because it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion, so that the talk page isn't a ghosttown. They don't have to agree with me, Idk them at all, I just know they participate.
    Cornerstonepicker (talk
    ) 18:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

    • who I don't interact with But you have interacted with the editors you are pinging to vote on your RfCs. [65] [66]
    • so that the talk page isn't a ghosttown That's what
      WP:CANVASSING
      .
    • they don't have to agree with me The editors you usually ping have a history of doing such.
      talk to me
      20:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

GoAheadFan95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) By pure chance, I stumbled across this user today. They moved an article I created some years ago (

17:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these DAB pages are unhelpful. (Admins can look at this editor's deleted contributions and see about a dozen DAB pages that are now deleted). I would agree with deleting all the unnecessary DABs created by this user, undoing the corresponding moves, and leaving a final warning on their talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I will not create any DAB pages with only two topics, especially where hatnotes have been used to distinguish two articles for years without issue ever again. With that, I changed the link from

Desmond Harrison (British Army officer) back to Desmond Harrison and the issue is solved. Thank you. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk

) 00:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Dineshs01102000

On en.wiki, Dineshs01102000 has uploaded at least one copyvio image (File:V Senthil Balaji.jpg), has had at least 13 edits revdeleted as copyvios, and has been warned of the same ([67][68]). On Commons, Dineshs01102000 has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. Subsequent to the Commons block, Dineshs01102000 created a sock account, TherkuKL, to continue to upload copyvios there whilst using the Dineshs01102000 account to insert them here; e.g.:

• 15:09, 08 November 2021 - TherkuKL created;
• 15:35, 08 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Actress Vindhya.png;
• 15:38, 08 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Vindhya (actress);
• 15:58, 08 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:B Valarmathi.png;
• 16:00, 08 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:B. Valarmathi;
• 06:20, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Vindhya with Jayalalithaa.jpg;
• 06:23, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Vindhya (actress);
• 07:50, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Edappadi K. Palaniswami with Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa.png;
• 07:53, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Edappadi K. Palaniswami;
• 14:09, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Jayalalithaa with Sasikala at Kodanad Estate.png;
• 14:13, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:V. K. Sasikala;
• 14:15, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Jayalalithaa with Sasikala in September 2001.png;
• 14:16, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa;
• 14:55, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Actress Jayalalithaa.jpg;
• 14:58, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:J. Jayalalithaa;
• 15:15, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Jayalalithaa in 1972.jpg;
• 15:16, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:J. Jayalalithaa filmography;
• 09:33, 12 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Valarmathi with Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.png;
• 09:35, 12 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:B. Valarmathi;

Even though the images were hosted on Commons, deliberate insertion of copyvios here is disruption to en.wiki. Indeed per previous en.wiki copyvio warnings, Dineshs01102000 would be understood to know full well that they were violating policy. In addition to copyright issues, Dineshs01102000 has previously been warned about abusing multiple accounts ([69]), edit warring ([70]), personal attacks ([71]), and most recently COI ([72],final). This appears to be a user that needs discussion (SPI is not fitting as TherkuKL has not edited here). Эlcobbola _talk 21:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've given them multiple warnings mainly for

WP:COI with J. Jayalalithaa as it is their most edited page. I checked one edit in the article and looks like the copyvio still continues, they've copy pasted content in this edit from this article. I haven't checked rest of their edits in that article. - SUN EYE 1

08:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access

Please remove talk page access from this user. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

191.106.144.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Since EC protection was lifted a month ago we've been seeing a gradual return of disruptive behavior at

.

After engaging with that IP range in what I hoped was good faith dialogue, I thought to look up its location and saw that it is the same Colombian city as the 191.106... range. So it appears that my good faith was taken advantage of by this IP user who has shown themselves to be definitively NOTHERE.

I suppose I'm requesting a targeted block on both ranges (191.106... and 2800:484:877C:94F0...) from Talk:Race and intelligence. That should avoid the possible collateral damage of a full block while hopefully protecting the talk page from further abuse. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wow. Profoundly
  WP:NOTHERE. Ravenswing
  18:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a depressing topic to patrol. But it's got to be done. Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  I blocked the IP (though, admittedly, it is not going to have any effect since the edit is almost a week old) and revision-deleted the edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Much appreciated. But to be clear, the 2800:484:877C:94F0... IP range was editing as recently as yesterday. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Saw it immediately before it was revision-deleted (Thanks, Ymblanter). To summarize, it was about how America would become a criminal country if we let immigrants in. How can someone be indoctrinated into believing this crap? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but specifically based on the idea that people in so-called "low-IQ countries" are genetically inferior. This is unfortunately not an uncommon belief, as the ongoing POV-pushing in the topic area shows. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The R&I talkpage should at least be indefinitely semi-protected to prevent nonsense like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Either semi-protection or a range block for

MrOllie (talk

) 20:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Either that or a longer-term partial block of the 2800:484:877C:94F0... range from this specific talk page, as was done in the case of e.g. User:2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. That IP range was also topic banned, which might be another an option to consider here. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not see any edits from this range which would justify a block or a revision deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that this is evidently the same person who made the rev-delled comment and that they continue to edit despite the 191.106 IP being blocked. The reason I believe it is overwhelmingly likely that they are the same person is that they are both located in the same city in Colombia –– and we don't typically see a lot of Colombian IPs in this topic area. If there is nothing you can do, however, I understand and thank you for your time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Individual edits may look fine, but if you look at

MrOllie (talk

) 21:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted these edits by the /64, where they reassert scientific racism and their Jewish heritage, but flip-flopped because I'm not sure it is egregious enough to warrant blanking. What do you guys think? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've hatted them instead. Generalrelative (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown has now semi-protected the talk page, which I see as a solid solution. Generalrelative (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  As the public logs show, semi-protection has happened often, the longest period being in 2014–16, enforced by Doug Weller. Doug's talk page also shows similar disruption by the usual suspect. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• 2600:1700:8440:ADD0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Warren Beatty
• September 2021: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#South Carolina BLP violations – rangeblock requested

A three-month rangeblock by Black Kite expired on Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8440:ADD0:0:0:0:0/64 and the range is immediately back accusing Warren Beatty of draft evasion and whatever. Can we reset the rangeblock? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bravo. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• ( Peanut gallery comment) Good grief, what an incredibly dull thing to BLPVIO about! If they were yelling at him for having been in Ishtar, now that at least I could understand, but this? AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Beeswax21412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Giantscastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

, that those are against Wikipedia policies and we edit based on what the sources explicitly say. They ignored this explanation and simply reinstated their edit with no explanation, instead merely, confusingly, claiming in their edit summary that Wikipedia had " been sabotaged" (here: [[80]]).

I reverted them again, again explaining that deleting information based on peronal opinion was against Wikipedia policy, again linked them to the essays on OR and POV and quotes from a source, and warned them thay if they continued edit warring they would be reported. I then provided quotes from the sourced in two edit summaries supporting the information they had deleted to. Nonetheless Beeswax reinstated their edit a third time, again removing sourced information, with no explanation, an misleadingly marking their edit a "minor", here [[81]].

Beeswax continues to edit war, ignores explanations, seems completely unwilling to engage, either in Talk or elsewhere, and shows a disregard for Wikipedia policy when explained to them.

Here is the page's edit history for referrence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_R1b

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Since this is a brand new user, I'm inclined to leave a note about citing sources. If it continues after that then look for sanctions, but that's a bit drastic right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTHERE (seemingly having begun with a single-purpose account used for disruptive editing/edit warring). Skllagyook (talk

) 17:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, I get your frustration, but this user has a grand total of 3 edits. I'm willing to at least take a chance here, it's not hard to block if it continues after this point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A second SPA has made the same edit, including leaving a comma behind, and also with an edit summary saying that "Wiki" has been "sabotaged".

talk

) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Don't call it "Wiki". EEng 17:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: I noticed (here [[82]]). I was just going to ping User:The Blade of the Northern Lights about it. Both new accounts seem likely to be the same person. So they seem to be abusively using more than one account/socking now. Skllagyook (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I'll block the sock and give the master a week, if anything else happens I'll up it to an indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

How do you know that it's a sock without taking it to SPI? Genuinely curious. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 02:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You likely won't get a direct answer due to

meatpuppet, the results are the same. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

19:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello @XOR'easter: and @The Blade of the Northern Lights:. I'm afraid yet another SPA (and possible sock/meatpuppet?) has again just made a similar unsourced edit to the page, here: [[83]]. Skllagyook (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Reywas92 has proceedingly become agitated over time in DRV discussions, particularly directed at me. While we have a disagreement, that disagreement has resulted in crossing the line in this change comment "you are absolutely insane and I must bring up WP:CIR if your interpretation is this twisted" as well as the harsh comments in the discussion. The editor has also began mass deletion reviews of articles that I initially created or was involved in in a seeming attempt to target my efforts and make it difficult. At least 13 by my count. This is putting undue work on the members of the college football project as noted here by another editor. The AFD process seems to work well, but it doesn't need to be agitated with such activity. I had hoped that we could discuss the issues as they may be based in simple misunderstandings, but that seems to not be the case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reywas's tone in that AfD is certainly regrettable, but I would also find your evasive, non-substantive responses there frustrating: those quotes are the epitome of passing mentions. --JBL (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is in fact crazy to think those trivial passing mentions constitute significant coverage for the purposes of GNG. This is the perhaps the most clueless thing I have ever seen in AFD, and I stand by it.

The simple misunderstanding is that you think all college-level coaches are automatically notable, but this is not the case. Most of the AFDs I just started were on articles you mass created at the same time, so why is it an issue to discuss them at the same time? When you made over 1,000 on marginally-notable coaches of minor teams, I can't wait for one discussion to close before opening the next one. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I can sort of understand why Reywas92 is getting frustrated, even if they could so with toning it down a bit. There still isn't a single example of SIGCOV in that article and I'm astonished that an experienced editor thinks that meets GNG. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just checking personal attacks are no longer a policy violation and are standard practice if you disagree with their understanding of a guideline? It seems like you are blaming me for the other editor's behavoir.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unlike another thread on this board right now, which involves one editor saying to another, "are you autistic" (intended as an insult), saying "you are absolutely insane" isn't the same thing. Calling people insane or crazy is pretty standard hyperbole in the English language (unlike calling people autistic, or the r-word, etc.). I don't see calling people crazy or insane as a personal attack for this reason. This is especially true if the person being called absolutely insane is engaging in behavior that seems absolutely insane, such as arguing that a single sentence mention meets SIGCOV (which, I agree, is a "twisted" interpretation). Even worse when the person making that argument is an admin, who should know that a single sentence mention is not "significant coverage" under any reasonable interpretation of what those words mean, and certainly under the consensus interpretation (is it your first time at AFD or what?). Yeah, it would be better to not call people crazy/insane, but this is a situation where an otherwise civil contributor lost their cool in the face of obstinance, and rather understandably so. It's even worse when the admin who is arguing that a single sentence is SIGCOV is doing it to defend an article they created about a particular brand name product (here, the Shyster(tm) lure). This is what you'd expect from a
  WP:PROMO, not from one of our admins. And the greatest irony of all: this is an AFD about a lure. :-) Levivich
  15:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, having clashed with
  WP:SIGCOV, for pity's sake, and someone who even after so many years, so many edits and becoming an admin either refuses to acknowledge it -- or worse, outright defies it -- really doesn't have any business in the deletion process.

  As far as how much work might fall on the college football project goes, tough. I just looked at a half dozen of the ones up at AfD, and the most recently created one is over a decade old. If the college football project can't be bothered to source stubs in a decade's time, then that's strong evidence they didn't give enough of a damn about the stubs in the first place. Ravenswing

  17:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI, my position over a decade ago of all college football coaches are inherently notable has changed over time and a long time ago. I tend to use
    WP:GNG as a better standard. That shouldn't be the point in this discussion, but I thought you'd like to know.--Paul McDonald (talk
    ) 18:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I do. Thank you for the clarification. Ravenswing 19:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• I'm pretty much where Levivich is. Calling someone insane is not ideal - it doesn't add anything to the strength of your argument. At the same time, Paulmcdonald's previous comment "I really don't know why the concept of
  WP:SIGCOV is so difficult for you was personal, disrespectful and unhelpful. I don't see anything here in the way of an actionable personal attack, but this is another reminder (if one were needed) of the importance to do out utmost to avoid making AfD discussions personal. Don't make smart remarks about the other guy - just point out where and how they are wrong. Girth Summit _(blether)
  19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • comment That's fair, I will remove the personal reference. I was just answering the editor's question from the previoius comment: "why is the concept of significant coverage so difficult?" The user asked, I answered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    That's also fair. It's something I've opined on in the past - one uncivil remark leads to another slightly more uncivil one, and another - it tends to escalate, and AfDs where people are invested in the article's they've worked on spiral quickly. I think that's what has happened here, but I don't imagine anything coming from this other than a reminder to all to try to treat each other with the utmost respect. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have much sympathy for these "mass deletions create a lot of work for me" complaints, especially when they come from the editors who created the article or are active in the Wikiproject. If the topic is notable, why weren't the sources included in the first place or added as part of the project's routine maintenance tasks? –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't about afd.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    This is about AfD though. What you have encountered (and engaged in) there is, unfortunately, par for the course. I don't know how much time you spend there, but it can be a swamp - that interaction is pretty mild. Why? My take on it is that folk are very invested in the discussions. Authors are obviously invested in their article creations, but noms are also invested in their nominations. After all, there have been countless occasions where I have been very confident that I have invested more time doing a

    WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating an article than the author can possible have spent writing it! When two people, both confident that they are right, and both having invested significant time in coming to their viewpoint, clash heads, it is frequently the case that they act sub-optimally. If I could see an easy way to fix that aspect of AfD, I would take it, but it is a cultural problem - we're not going to solve that by whacking individuals. Or, we'd have to whack a lot of them to solve it - blocking a significant proportion of our community of editors in the process... Girth Summit _(blether)

    22:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have to say I found his comments highly offensive. Based on replies here, I'm wondering why we bother to even have rules on civility when they clearly just will not be enforced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  He said that you 'must be insane if...'. It's common hyperbole - it's unnecessary, and I wouldn't do it myself, but it's pretty mild. Our rules are necessary because people regularly go much further than that: I've been called a racist, a social justice warrior, a fucking cunt, a paedophile... you get the drift. NPA exists for a reason, and it is enforced - just not as strictly as you seem to think. While I think the threshold for enforcement is too high, I wouldn't support a sudden and arbitrary change to it. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  To weigh in on this as someone not invovled but who has read over everything here, that is an extremely low bar that you are setting there, and one which falls far below what is actually stated in

  consensus does not require unanimity. Theknightwho (talk

  ) 03:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• What I'm getting here is that we should push the limits of the guideline
  WP:PILLARS of Wikipeia" -- that will be more accurate and in alignment with what to expect and how we are behaving. I don't think that's a good idea, but it looks like we have already done that in practice. I argue (likely to deaf ears) that the strictest interpretation is being directed in the wrong place.--Paul McDonald (talk
  ) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I see you're familiar with hyperbole as well. Levivich 13:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • My statement was not intended to be an exaggeration. That statement reflects precisely what I observe.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No, what we are getting is that for many years and articles your interpretation of notability for head coaches was way out of sync with general standards, and that it now is clear that your interpretation of notability in general is way out of sync with community standards as well. I notice that you hardly create any articles nowadays, otherwise you would be a poster child for the admins who need to get their autopatrolled right removed.
    Fram (talk
    ) 13:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The statement of
      Fram above precisely proves my point. It could well be that the articles in question and many others should be deleted. But it seems that position cannot be stated without extensive name-calling. So instead of being a policy violation, incivility has become a tool that majority editors freely use when they disagree with a minority editor. And it's worked in my case, because I tire of the harsh words and am on Wikipedia much less. I also take offense to being called a "poster child" -- there SHOULD be no place for name calling anywhere in Wikipedia, much less on the Administrators' noticeboard. In summary: if the position of an editor really is out of alignment with consensus, that will come clear quickly in the AFDs or merge proposals or whatever and the closer can make that call. It's really hard to understand that an interpretation of notabiliy would be so terrible that it actually warrants uncivil behavior.--Paul McDonald (talk
      ) 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I echo your sentiments on this. It's really disheartening to see experienced users appeal to the merits of the AfD request to excuse insults. This isn't Reddit, and I think we'd all benefit from re-reading
        fourth pillar of Wikipedia, there is a very obvious reaason behind that, which doesn't just amount to sensitivity: people are far less likely to dedicate the time to contribute to a community where that kind of behaviour is tolerated, much less excused. Fundamentally, this is a question of whether some minor individuals warrant mention in a collaborative project we all contribute to voluntarily; let's keep perspective. Theknightwho (talk
        ) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, so you are not only out of sync with our notability rules (and what is significant coverage and so on), but also very, very easily offended. Noting that an editor whose creations are too often about non-notable subjects should perhaps have their autopatrolled right removed is not incivil, but the kind of thing these noticeboards are for. Until very recently, removing this right was impossible with admins, and some admins seemed to think that this was an unnecessary change because we have no admins whose creations need checking. In reality, we have at least a few for whom this would be desirable, and this thread and the related AfD are showing why you would be one of this small group. And if you are so, so worried about civility, you shouldn't accuse people of "Nominator is posting statements that are not true and this seems to be getting worse through several AFDs." without then providing any examples of statements "that are not true".
        Fram (talk
        ) 16:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Starting to feel like bullying now. Theknightwho (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Best suppress that urge then, as that wouldn´t be acceptable.
            Fram (talk
            ) 18:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This entire discussion began unproductive and got worse, and let me gently suggest that given its posture no good can come of it and all involved should probably walk away. Let me offer some advice to both parties: Reywas92, what you said to Paulmcdonald was a personal attack and uncalled for. Please don't do that again. Paulmcdonald: the community is capable of handling multiple deletion nominations and there's nothing untoward or disruptive about what's going on here. You've only put yourself in the wrong by reacting in this way. Mackensen (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll ask: what specifically have I done that puts me in the wrong--somehting so wrong that personal attacks are accepted and encouraged? Tell me what it is so I don't do it again. In my view, I have reported a violation of the
  WP:NPA policy.--Paul McDonald (talk
  ) 19:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  What you specifically have done that is problematic was explained by me here. Of course your framing in this comment is totally dishonest, as everyone else in the discussion seems to grasp that both parties have behaved in substandard ways. --JBL (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

DSMN-IHSAGT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is quite obviously a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Edit-warring, snarky edit summaries and general hostility (for example, DSMN's first edit was a rant on another user's talk page: "Are you still making errors like this, or have you learned how to write properly in the meantime?").

Both DSMN and 51.6.138.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wrote two uncannily similar threads on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) about using edit filters for "quality control", first on 22 November and second on 6 December:

• Special:PermanentLink/1056615416 § Prevent basic errors getting into articles
• Special:PermanentLink/1059080508 §§ Quality control​ and Quality control mechanism

Kleinpecan (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that striving for higher quality is quite normal. But you find it so suspicious that someone would want to improve Wikipedia, that you file some kind of report? What are you seeking from this? DSMN-IHSAGT (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Of related concern is this edit war Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages_(U–Z) which also shows problematic edit summaries by DSMN-IHSAGT. Slywriter (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the concern there is that User:Chicdat is aggressively and ridiculously restoring grammar, style and factual errors to the article. DSMN-IHSAGT (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I think the concern there is that you're both at almost fifty reverts each in the last 24 hours on that article alone--the most recent 100 edits are almost entirely back and forth reversions. Leaving the clear civility issues aside, that alone is cause for action to prevent further disruption. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      • My edits were not controversial in any way. I explained them, and there is no rational objection to them. Quite why this user has taken it upon themselves to revert such simple common-sense improvements, I cannot imagine. DSMN-IHSAGT (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Without examining anything any further I've blocked both DSMN-IHSAGT and Chicdat for 36 hours for edit warring and, in the former's case, also for incivility in edit summaries. I have no idea why this was brought to my talk page, but it was. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we block-conflicted – I have indeffed DSMN-IHSAGT for being either

LTA/BKFIP or a rather convincing impersonator. --Blablubbs (talk

) 13:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Back and forth edit-warring with an LTA over grammar for 100 edits in a row is a spectacular waste of time, disrupts watchlists, and clogs up the article history, but I wonder if Chicdat's block for edit warring is needed at this point. Reverting edits by banned users is explicitly exempt from the edit warring policy and there was never any doubt that this was BKFIP. Again, the revert war was totally unnecessary and should be avoided in the future for everyone's sake but from the start Chicdat (correctly) believed he was reverting ban evasion. DanCherek (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support provided they can show understanding of why this wasn't the best way to handle. Slywriter (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edits made by sockpuppets is one of the standard edit warring exemptions, see

WP:3RRNO point 3. Given that the account is obviously the BKFIP they shouldn't have been blocked. It would have been better to wait for the account to be blocked before reverting them though. 163.1.15.238 (talk

) 15:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked both parties for edit warring that was apparently still continuing before investigating. I wasn't familiar with BKFIP (indeed the message Chicdat left on my talkpage "DSMN-IHSAGT (talk · contribs) - BKFIP." would likely have been impenetrable without the context of later messages and this thread) and neither version of the article is obviously better or worse than the other.

If reverting a vandal isn't working then the correct course of action is not to continue reverting but to ask for admin help. I note that Chicdat has a topic ban from project-space but reporting ongoing vandalism is an obvious BANEX case, and talk pages are also a thing. If they acknowledge they understand this and wont do it again should they find themselves in a similar situation then I will be happy to unblock or for any other admin to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Chicdat was aware of this discussion or not, but I've left a note on their talk page just now to make sure. I'm going to be offline for a bit so please keep an eye out for any comments they wish to make. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Reverting a banned user is an edit warring exception but Chicdat reverted DSMN-IHSAGT 45 times in one hour at an
  WP:IAR. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 02:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

or equally problematic impersonator in action here.[84] edit might need hiding, and user blocking.

) 16:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Revdel'd the edit. If it's a sock of Tumbleman, obvious block. If it's an impersonator for a sock of Tumbleman, again obvious block. Either way, user blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I want to raise an issue about this user, because as of the moment, the user is still inserting files in some articles regarding on local elections in Philippines that were tagged as "derivative work" in Wikimedia Commons, and also he is keeping on posting and creating unsourced pages here. He also keeps on removing file names inserted in an article without stating a valid reason. I hope that the issue will be resolved. You can refer to his contributions for more details.

) 10:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The edit warrior who I mentioned in

is back again with a new IP.

This time the ip is 223.189.27.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Considering this user has no intentions of engaging in discussion or consensus and just wants to continue edit warring. I think page protection may be needed to end this. JellyMan9001 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Could any Admin please Block this ip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:223.189.27.144), It is a block evasion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:4040:E00:3960:FFA5:FA90:3810:7BFC. Thank You Chip3004 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That IP address has not been used in 2 days. The report is stale. Given that we know they use different IP addresses, there is little benefit of blocking this one right now. --Jayron32 14:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the same editor as Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Linde plc vandal, who is currently subject to various range-blocks. Since the IP has been used today, it would be helpful if their latest IP could be blocked. FDW777 (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

An IP editor (

) 04:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I have posted an appropriate warning on their talk page as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

IP has been blocked. I feel like the shocked Pikachu Face meme is really appropriate for this situation. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

).

The user was banned for a week for the same behavior, left no reply or appeal for improvement, and has continued with the same disruptive editing ever since with notices being served in the last month itself. A permaban until the user shows willingness to change editing behavior and communicate is needed. Gotitbro (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for a month now. The user has ever edited their own talk page. If they continue the same activity after the block has expired an indefinite block might be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Abd (or not) sockage

• 06:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked EvergreenFir (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Bad behaviour by Wisdom-inc (talk · contribs)

Earlier this week Wisdom-inc was involved in an edit war with

.

Although Kitchen Knife did breach 3RR, my own opinion is that his behaviour on both the article and its talk page were reasonably restrained. He/she has not got involved since that day.

To both editor's credit there was no more edit warring over the article in question.

Fast forward to today and I feel that Wisdom-inc has now made a very childish and pointy revert to one of my edits at Merseyrail (diff1 and diff2). I think he has reverted my edit just to get back at me because I "have come here to back this guy up" (meaning my intervention in the original dispute between him and Kitchen Knife (diff)

This user's article-editing behaviour, together with his talk page responses to advice from me and other well-respected editors such as JMF, indicate someone who needs further advice/intervention from an administrator and guidance back onto a path of making positive contributions. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

User 10mmsocket is now getting into an edit war on the Merseyrail article. He has been asked by me to take it to the talk page and explain his reasoning for his changes. So far he has done nothing, being un-cooperative.Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife reverted an edit. If he had gone to the reference he would not have done so, but kept his stance. Days later I edited the article. Again Kitchen Knife reverts. He is un-cooperative, not even taking it to the talk page of which I did. I have come across him in the past, appearing have an attitude. Far too many people are not productive enough being rather negative. This is unacceptable. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

He is correct, as you would see if you followed his links. I have reverted back to the compliant version. Black Kite (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#User_on_successive_Jakartan_IPs_engaging_in_year-long_disruptive_editing_of_the_same_articles.

This time the IP is:

IP	Location	ISP	Edit history	Block history
139.192.193.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	Jakarta, Indonesia	First Media	08:38, 29 November 2021 – 05:15, 11 December 2021 (as of this post)

Edit warred the same edit on Emomali Rahmon (diff). Edits the same articles as all their other IPs, mostly on post-Soviet states. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

One editor threatenwd legal complaint against me.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_tax&diff=1059612719&oldid=1059598019 .CoachEzhupunna (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for the legal threat. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Good block. That said, CoachEzhupunna, I'm also not thrilled about your edit summary when reverting. Allegations of ethnic prejudice are

personal attacks, and especially in such a heated topic area make things far more heated than they need to be. I understand your frustration, but that's not helpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい

) 17:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Seconding The Blade of the Northern Lights, @CoachEzhupunna, your conduct wasn’t exemplary either. Note that when you file a report here, you also consent to your own actions being scrutinized. Moving forward please keep this in mind. Celestina007 (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

)

• That might well work both ways: you both have been doing some serious edit warring -- for over six weeks now [85] -- and are both far beyond the
  WP:3RR limit. Nor do your own edit summaries shed much light on your frequent reverts, nor have you set forth your own reasoning on the article's talk page; you've just demanded that User:Umhafs072 do so first. Ravenswing
  10:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I explained my original edit at the beginning over a month ago, it was simply moving another response to an allegation to the allegation's section.
    WP:POV plus was poorly-sourced and also plagiarized). I then replaced the "Achievements" section with a "tenure" section which still isn't good enough as the undos are still occurring. Watercheetah99 (talk
    ) 10:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• It absolutely does work both ways, but I can see that OP has been trying to communicate with the reported user. While it seems the reported user has difficulty communicating in English, there's no mistaking the fact that they openly stated that they refused to
  WP:NOTHERE. ~Swarm~ ^{sting}
  10:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, may I now revert the page to the previous version? Watercheetah99 (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Er, that would be your 11th revert in 24 hours. DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Then can somebody else do it? Who does it doesn't matter but the plagiarism and redundancies are still up as of now. Watercheetah99 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Watercheetah99 is right about plagiarism: the bulk of the section Abubakar_Malami#Major_Achievements_In_Office at least is a copyvio (very badly paraphrased) from here and needs to go. I offer no opinions on the rest of the complaint. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bill Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

• Talk:The Wall Street Journal §§ Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary., WSJ's Reputation, and Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body

As of 16:36, 1 December 2021, the amount of comments by each user in the discussions is as follows (excluding users with less than 10 comments):

User	Comments
Bill Williams	52
Soibangla	23
XOR'easter	20
Stallion55347	18
Hob Gadling	18
Snooganssnoogans	13
Kleinpecan	11

The fact that Bill Williams has written more comments than the next two editors combined, I think, speaks for itself.

His arguments can be divided into two types. Those were repeatedly rejected by other editors, yet he continues to repeat them (

). Note how he repeatedly uses phrases like once again and its synonyms:

There is also this personal attack:

• 19:28, 24 November: "Maybe learn how to read as well next time"

I am not the first person to notice Bill Williams's bludgeoning:

• Maybe you could also have a look at

  WP:IDHT. After you have grasped all that, then you should read the reasoning responding to your "decade-old" fluff and ponder on whether it is wise to repeat your already-refuted "decade-old" fluff.
  — User:Hob Gadling 08:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• You continue to badger and bludgeon.
  — User:Soibangla 23:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please stop bludgeoning this RfC with straight-up lies. Your behavior is

  User:Snooganssnoogans 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern: in the previous RfC (Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 5 § RfC on Editorial Board Scientific Claims in the Lead), for example, he has written 27 comments—more than Hob Gadling (17) and Springee (7) combined. The same is true for Talk:Paul Gosar: 36 comments by Bill Williams, 22 by Soibangla, 6 by Sarysa, 4 by WakandaQT and 4 by Pokelova. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Bill Williams has been shown

WP:IDHT a couple of times on the Wall Street talk page. Panini!^🥪

21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am the IP editor who posted several suggested changes on that page, and interacted with Bill Williams a few times. I do have to point out that Bill Williams has acted in a way that suggests a desire to follow rules and improve the page, having directed me to participate in the RfC instead of trying to change it while the RfC was ongoing, even though my proposed changes didn't pertain specifically to the topic of the RfC. See: [old talk page]. There is definitely "bludgeoning" behavior on that page by editors who think a consensus means a majority vote, Bill Williams definitely seems to be a prolific commenter there, and does seem to have "bludgeoned", but it seems to have inspired an uncivil backlash. As someone who seems to have made a suggestion that was seriously entertained by editors with varying views, I'd like to plead for civility and humility on that page. I don't think anyone there is downright malicious, but the recent devolvement into incivility eliminates the chance of turning what I thought was a myopic discussion into a productive one--it's antiproductive. "Consensus by runaway toxicity" may be a thing, but there is no way the end result is a quality encyclopedia. Having an agenda on here beyond making knowledge accessible as a sort of community service is a joke. People who change the world don't edit Wikipedia; have some perspective. 2600:1012:B00B:759D:6C35:8E78:A042:D766 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if you guys actually gave me a single answer to my question, AKA one recent reliable source that backs up your claims that the editorial board promotes pseudoscience on asbestos, pesticides, second hand smoke, ozone, or acid rain instead of decades old random op-eds that nobody else cares about besides you, I wouldn't have to repeat myself every time. Also consider how more editors have agreed with my position than yours, and then come back to me about "bludgeoning." The editors you mention have repeatedly personally attacked me, with just a few examples below of them attempting to scream through the screen at me, saying I am a lair, and that I am just on Wikipedia to spread propaganda:

They did this on multiple other occasions even though they simply personally disagreed, and I misread what one person said, while another misread what I said, and yet that is how they responded to me. The IDHT link states "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive" which is false when over half the editors agree with me and use actual logic instead of putting undue claims in the lead of an important article. "Those were repeatedly rejected by other editors" lacks context when over half the editors in the RfC agreed with my logic and the only people who rejected it were those who also repeated the exact same things that they already believed. Bill Williams 00:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe if you guys actually gave me a single answer to my question ..."—see

WP:BADGER

.

I like the way you write "over half the editors agree with me and use actual logic". Of course everyone who disagrees with you is a rambling madman, and you are the sole bearer of Truth, Logic and Rationality.

"I have not done so to them a single time"—what is Special:Diff/1056991697, then, if not a blatant personal attack? Kleinpecan (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I also see that you have removed my notification of you about this discussion with the edit summary "I'd prefer you stay personally attacking me on the WSJ article than editing my talk page". Surely you understand that baseless accusations of personal attacks are themselves a personal attack? Kleinpecan (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My talk page, so I can remove whatever I want that is in the way of future important messages, and clearly I was personally attacked by someone who accused me of being someone who I was not, because they misread, so I told them to read better. Bill Williams 01:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat involved here, but I would just point out
  Calidum
  00:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the reason for the four blocks, but the fact that you bring up sockpuppetry, which is irrelevant to this topic, makes me think of

WP:ASPERSIONS. I'd rather not bring up recent high profile criminal trials as an analogy, but since the topic at hand is the WSJ, it would be thematically appropriate to say, "past guilt does not guarantee future guilt". I'd say passions can be more productively directed elsewhere: to those who feel the lede attacks their sentimentality toward the journal, buy a subscription to show your support. To those who despise the editorial board, get a NYT subscription. And everyone, please chill out. If everyone involved in this dispute went out for beers, despite the boost of ethanol, I think everyone would quickly find each other equally awkward, petty, and insufferable--proving there is a common humanity that pervades the entire Wikipedia community, no matter how heated the discussions here appear to be at times. 2600:1012:B006:D547:F97D:6915:5154:1D15 (talk

) 04:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's ironic that an IP account with no prior edits comes here of all places to complain about another user mentioning sock puppetry. Speaking of which, the editor who initiated the RFC in question

Calidum

14:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

IP editor discrimination is the final unaddressed civil rights frontier in this country, but I can't condone "bludgeoning" behavior, especially if done by means of "sockpuppetry". I posted earlier here, apologies for not disclosing, I have a dynamic IP. In hindsight, there were a lot of "red" usernames participating there, which could be indicative of tomfoolery, but it seemed disorganized. What a bummer if it turns out there was a cabal inflating the commentary there. If the WSJ editorial board is living rent free in some editors' heads, the lede of the wikipedia article sure does live rent free in a bunch of other editors' heads...heh heh. I'll wait for the dust to settle and open a new RfC with my proposed change (that involves just better summarizing per

WP:LEAD). 2600:1012:B048:16A5:88F1:D553:2FCE:6875 (talk

) 15:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In Soviet Wikipedia, rights civil you! (You specifically, IP.) El_C 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bludgeoning? Questionable in regard to the RfC. Perhaps the number of responses is leaning that direction, but I don't think it's there yet. But in the other two threads? That claim is more dubious, especially regarding Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body in which Bill is the subject of the thread. Multiple editors there are discussing the matter with Bill, so naturally, he is going to respond more often than any single editor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• I'm involved in the article discussion and my views with regards to the RfC are similar to BW's. I don't think BW is going to change the minds of any of the editors with whom they are arguing. In terms of uncivil or antagonistic comments, I think the other side has had more than their share and that level of hostility likely dissuades input from editors who might otherwise weigh in on the topic. I've disengaged from the discussion for exactly that reason. To me it looks a bit like BW is suffering from a pile on case. As a group those who oppose BW's POV have made a number of rude or otherwise divisive comments. Individually none of those editors has crossed any lines but the cumulative effect is hostile to those who might offer disagreement. It's worth noting the !vote consensus seems to be about evenly split so this isn't a case of a single editor off in left field. Where to from here? I would suggest BW slow down and not bother trying to convince the editors in question. I think the several of the editors on the other side should assume good faith and, more critically, civility even if they are frustrated (for example accusing editors of lying is never a good talk page plan). All should relax and this ANI should be closed. Springee (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Springee I realize that and apologize to the editors who have accused me of disruptive editing, but as you stated, the reason I responded is because slightly over half the editors in the RfC agreed with me, and I was attempting to convince those who disagreed using the same logic of those who agreed, but those who disagreed repeatedly accused me of being disruptive, propaganda spreading, and lying just to name a few, so I felt a need to respond to explain and defend myself. Going forward if I have to restate my claim like this to the point where they clearly think it is disruptive, I will refrain from continuing any further. Bill Williams 04:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't Bill Williams have a topic ban from American politics? Should he be participating in a RFC about a conservative newspaper's handing of a major US political football (global warming) at all? -
  MrOllie (talk
  ) 15:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that would be a stretch given in this case. The extensive RfC discussion hasn't touched on the political aspects of the topic. Springee (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that he was topic banned from AP. If he is, this is a topic ban violation in my view.
    talk
    ) 16:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Does Bill Williams have a topic ban from AP? Firefangledfeathers 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  There's a three month block in his log for violating a topic ban last year, but I can't find it in the enforcement log.

  MrOllie (talk

  ) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  His last block was also for "Violation of...talk page restriction (one post per day) placed by El C," which seems relevant here. I do not know, however, whether that restriction is still in place. Maybe @

  Calidum

  16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  That sanction was rescinded in Feb. El_C 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Gracias.

  Calidum

  17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Disclosure: I watch Bill's talk page which is how I found this discussion.
  I mean I wouldn't have recommended BW dive into such a controversial topic area, but he's not disallowed from doing so. I would like to echo 2600:1012 in saying that a calming of tensions all around would generally be appreciated. –

  ☖

  19:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not getting involved in the discussion, but I see no topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log where it should have been logged. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think the complaint may be poorly framed, though I am sure it is filed in good faith. Simply counting edits is not a good way to analyze a discussion. Please show diffs with three examples of bad behavior, the worst three. That's a good way to start the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Close and remind everyone to be civil. Plenty of rudeness abounds in the threads and others could have diffs cherry-picked to show they are not acting in a collegial manner with dismissive and borderline personal attacks. Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have no enjoyment in arguing, in fact quite the opposite; all I wish to do is improve the articles I edit. I edit things I come across, and in fact I wish that I did not have to engage in these discussions, and wish to edit more demographics for example (the third largest state, 20 million people, has an article with outdated demographic information, which shows how far off many demographic sections are on Wikipedia). There are plenty of other topics I wish to edit, but I am stuck responding to editors who bring up the same arguments while I bring up the same arguments as well. Every one of my opponents did this yet none of them want to mention their own behavior. Considering they chose to single out the WSJ of all newspapers in existence, that is why I am editing the talk page. I have no interest in defending it, just representing claims as stated regularly in reliable sources, not by one or two a decade ago. I read the WSJ less than the NYTimes and WaPo and taking a basic look at their comment sections shows hundreds to thousands of comments with hundreds to thousands of "recommends" insulting any right-wing op-ed, making them always controversial. But this original research is completely undue for the lead of those articles to say something like "The NYT/WaPo editorial board has controversially promoted right-wing views", and some random sources that vaguely relate to this of the style that my opponents provided would use [86][87][88] for the NYT that I found in a minute. Bill Williams 01:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also, I find it interesting how when my opponents disputed my proposed content removal, instead of resolving it civilly, they resort to insulting me (e.g. call me a liar, disruptive, or malicious), brought up the fact that I sockpuppeted a minimal amount over two years ago, which I have already apologized for and not done since, and mentioned that I was topic banned over two years ago from something completely irrelevant to what I am editing, even though that topic ban was removed ten months ago. How does doing any of this provide a benefit to the discussion or the article? Bill Williams 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Woah, Bill needs to step away and take a break. This is clearly bludgeoning, by the shear number of comments. The content of the comment shows how involved they are personally. Even if it was brought on by uncivil comments, you cannot fight fire with fire. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, all. Bill has been quite rude and aggressively hostile over at Talk: Assault weapon as well. Just this morning he told me, unprovoked, that my post was "the dumbest thing I've seen all day" ^[2] and has been, along with the rest of his political gang, aggressively gatekeeping even minor changes to the article that don't fit his highly ideological POV. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

    rude and aggressively hostile over at Talk: Assault weapon – No irony there. EEng 03:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with that, but if you want to bring that up, then I'll respond. First off, your conspiracy theories of my "political gang" that you just personally attacked does not exist, considering I am an individual who simply states what I personally believe to be correct, not what my supposed cabal thinks. I addressed why your highly inaccurate claim was "the dumbest thing I've seen all day" on the talk page, and this was not "unprovoked" as you has edit warred on the article in the past and are now accusing me of being rude and aggressive over a disagreement you initiated. Bill Williams 23:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not I initiated the content dispute (gasp!), you've treated your fellow editors with pure rudeness and hostility and wildly undeserved arrogance. I did not make any "claims," but rather proposed a quotation be placed in the article for reasons of balance and weight and treating the opposed view to the NRA view you have endorsed on the talk page and included in the article, with quotations. Calling, without any merit, your fellow editors' proposed edits "the dumbest thing I've seen all day" and "the most nonsensical and clearly false thing I have ever heard" (especially when the proposed edit was merely a direct attributed, referenced quote from the American Association of Pediatrics on the topic of the article) simply shows what an uncollaborative, uncollegial, hostile editor you are, poisoning the well of communal discourse with bad faith arguments and attacks. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

To summarize and reiterate the above for others, Bill is an editor who patrols political talk pages in such an aggressively ideological, hyper-partisan fashion such that he, without any apparent irony, called a direct quotation from the American Association of Pediatrics (obviously a well-known purveyor of nonsense) on a public health issue "the most nonsensical and clearly false thing I ever heard" and suggested that a fellow editor's proposed edit that simply proposed said quotation on the topic of the article be included somewhere in the article was "the dumbest thing I've seen all day." 108.30.187.155 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Same IP above replying...This seems like mostly a content dispute surrounded by incivility from all sides. I personally have no idea why a medical association would involve itself in a hot-button political issue like firearm regulation. People are free to express their opinion on talk pages in the course of improving the page. If we're going to harp on him saying it's the "dumbest thing"...I'm not condoning that language, but quite a bit of that was hurled at him: "stop lying", etc. too, and there already seems to be a general reprimanding of the really petty and hostile behavior from many editors here. Y'all realize there are like, real people here? Try communicating with that in mind...write as you would say to someone's face, please. Life is short and everyone here is just doing volunteer work. 2600:1012:B012:24B9:7515:4235:8EA:CB0 (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously @Bill Williams, you're doubling down on your personal attack? I know things get heated, but it's not hard to see that you shouldn't speak to another editor in the manner you did here. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Stating that a claim is dumb is not attacking anyone personally, unless you think a claim is a person. I called the editor's claim dumb after seeing numerous other claims of theirs, considering they have edit warred on this article and are accusing me of being part of a cabal and other conspiracy theories that I am other editors supposedly control the article for propaganda purposes, which is a legitimate personal attack. Bill Williams 07:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill has clearly and repeatedly shown himself to be so unmoored from reality and attached to his hyper-partisan worldview that he calls a claim by a highly respected medical organization on a public health issue "the most nonsensical thing I have ever seen" and a suggestion to add a quotation for to an article for balance reasons (not an endorsement, a simple quotation stating a view by a prominent and respected organization on the topic of an article) "the dumbest thing I've seen all day." Can anyone, in good faith, possibly think that a statement by the American Association of Pediatrics is likely to be the "most nonsensical and clearly false thing I have ever seen?" Hyper-partisan ideologues like Bill have no business editing an encyclopedia. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: And for the last time, I didn't make any "claims", Bill. I proposed the inclusion of a single quotation in the article. Proposing that we quote the position of a group that supports assault weapons bans on the assault weapons page does not entail that I have made any "claims;" it literally only means that I think the viewpoint is an example of a promninent and notable perspective on the topic of the article that deserves to be covered in the article at least one time. Bill is literally doing everything he can to insure that Wikipedia NOT EVEN mention the existence of viewpoints he disagrees with. I had not even previously interacted with Bill when he hurled that invective at me for proposing that a single sentence be added to the article for balance reasons. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are still ranting about a few sentences I wrote a single time in response to multiple paragraph rants of yours. It was a content issue that is irrelevant to this, and simply shows how you do not care about the content and only care about insulting me. A group of pediatricians is neither notable nor credible on the issue of rifles and has no relevance to the article. Bill Williams 20:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

No one needs the

last word in here. At a time when hostilities should be dialed back, they're ramping up. --GoneIn60 (talk

) 20:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

He has called me in this talk page alone, a "hyperpartisan idealogue", "rude", "hostile", "arrogant", "uncollaborative", "uncollegial", and being part of a "political gang" that "aggressively gatekeeps" what does not fit my "highly ideological POV". Instead of complaining about my responses, deal with his repeated person attacks and conspiracy theories about a nonexistent cabal that supposedly opposes him. Bill Williams 21:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill, your comments to them were indeed rude, hostile, arrogant, and uncollaborative. It's not surprising they feel they are being gatekept. ––FormalDude ^talk 00:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

"rude, hostile, arrogant, and uncollaborative" I am uncollaborative with people who personally insult me, which is the only thing you are doing. They are a conspiracy theorist who thinks a cabal of editors is conspiring to suppress them on the talk page, and they have personally insulted myself and others who they believe to be part of this cabal. I never once insulted them personally, only calling a claim of theirs dumb, while they have called me personally all kinds of names, and now so have you. Bill Williams 02:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bill Williams: Your comment about their proposal was were things started going immediately south, due to your needlessly hostile response. Had you responded with civility, I do not think we would be here. ––FormalDude ^talk 20:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill, I had not even previously interacted with you when you started with that, so please cut out the bullshit and lies. You might wish to recall that this is an entire thread on your misconduct and misbehavior in multiple locations, as reported by multiple independent users. In this thread, rather than offer any kind of explanation or apology for why you have repeatedly behaved in such a rude, hostile, arrogant, and uncollaborative fashion so as to lead your fellow editors to open an administrative thread regarding your misconduct (not to mention earning yourself a politics topic ban which you apparently ignore,) you continue to display the selfsame behavior here. Perhaps you should think on that. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You are accusing me of "bullshit and lies" without any evidence, which is a personal attack, while you falsely claim that I "ignore my topic ban" when I do not have one, then you personally attack me further by calling me "rude, hostile, arrogant, and uncollaborative" even though I have not personally insulted you a single time. Am I just imaging Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks? Do admins here just not care about repeated personal attacks? Bill Williams 14:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous IP here...I insist on having the

) 05:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• My familiarity with Bill Williams is limited to their activity at Kenosha unrest shooting and its associated talk page that began November 14. I have found Bill Williams editing behavior concerning in that they seemed keen to encourage another editor here and here at talk to include criminal histories of the men affected by the shooting while simultaneously removing content and RS on the article's main page that covered the living man who was shot and survived. BW removed the words and two RS in the article that specified that one of the subjects was a licenced paramedic - along with four additional RS supporting the broader content about the wounded man Here. Those actions, taken together, indicated POV pushing. It continued with bludgeoning via edit summary here and here

IDHT also seemed to be the case at Kenosha unrest shooting when BW sought to insert and reinsert non-neutral language that someone else "caused" the shooter to take action, at least four times:

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3

Diff 4

This was despite intervening reverts with edit summaries stating that the language needed to be adjusted for neutrality, e.g.

"removed “caused” as it implies blame & is not supported by the source"

"reworded to avoid both redundant language & the implication of blame in Wikivoice"

"NPOV adjust to state just the facts w/o implied blame, all parties had free will w/ both their actions & reactions, best to avoid the verb “caused”

Rather than continue . . . it was addressed at the article's talk page here and at our user talk pages where BW denied, despite the evidence provided in diffs, that they had repeatedly inserted this language. Cedar777 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

These appear to be some quite amusingly named sockpuppets, all made in the last few minutes. Probably worth finding out who the sockmaster is:

• User:Stop using the common block reasons drop-down bar for blocking me.
• User:What is my account n0 using common bl0ck reason dropdown bar to bl0ck me for it
• User:NO using the drop-down to block me, thank you so much everybody =)
• User:A s00k puppet of who, answer me now, or you will face more acounts than before.
• User:Make the bl0ck reason "uglydolls" if you think im a s00k puppet
• User:Stop using the same reason everytime, say something else or the page messed up.
• User:What do you mean by LTA and what was the first p-age you seen me on?
• User:Why am I funny, you gave me custom!

--Theknightwho (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: probably Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

These accounts have been blocked. Both Zzuuzz and myself have been pretty on top of it all (also, a big "thanks" to Zzuuzz for taking care of thngs). The short answer is that it might be Raxythecat, but I haven't looked nor compared. All I can tell you is that all of these accounts are editing through proxies. The creations and abuse seem to have stopped, but if anyone sees any more accounts like this, please let me know and I'll be happy to take care of it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I think this LTA user has used almost 20 IPs/accounts in a span of almost two months (see [91]). This IP is clearly the same person, as it is located in the same place (Istanbul) and makes the same unconstructive edits in the same Iranian/Kurdish related articles. Heck, his first two edits was in Marwanids [92] [93], which he edited right after his other IP sock (which was editing there) was blocked [94]. Moreover, his two other socks ArtaXerxes58 and 176.216.90.225 have edited in that article as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:KURDS sprotections for some or all of em. El_C

14:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh appears to have filed a lawsuit implying Wikipedia editors [unarchived]

Knightedblog0934, a sockpuppet of RK777713 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive), has previously claimed to be Ryan Kavanaugh and has threatened to sue editors of his Wikipedia article last week. RK777713's identity has so far not been confirmed, but I believe that this article published yesterday and written by Kavanaugh should lay any doubts to rest. I don't know how Wikipedia goes about lawsuits like these. I'm not sure if this is the proper venue, I just felt obligated to let the administrators know. Notifying Tamzin since they were involved with previous sockpuppet investigations. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia's legal team can be contacted here if you wish. There's an email address located near the bottom of the page. --Jayron32 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping,
  WP:BLP against Kavanaugh in the process. (See Special:PageHistory/User talk:Garen67541 for context, noting that the worst of it has been revdelled or OS'd.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}
  ] (she/they) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I would second Tamzin's concern over the possible merits of Kavanaugh's complaints. The BLP issue is more important than the other issues here. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I haven't contacted Legal yet, so if you'd like to, please do. You seem much better versed in all of this than me. Thank you in advance! Sidenote, having been personally threatened, I got the impression that Kavanaugh's legal threats were directed against the "negative" contributions to the article rather than the specific comments made by those two editors. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've contacted Legal. For full transparency, a copy of the email is below:

Since I've mentioned Garen67541, I will notify them of this thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Request #34039 according to the response, if anyone else plans to write in. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Unarchiving to note that I've now heard back from Legal, who apologize for the slow response. They reply that while they cannot give specific legal advice here, if anyone does wind up getting sued they should look at m:Legal/Legal Fees Assistance Program and contact legal@ (even if they don't qualify under that program). They don't seem to have any greater insight than we do as to whether Kavanaugh is currently targeting any Wikipedians.

They declined to comment on whether the actions taken so far to avoid defamation at the Kavanaugh article are sufficient. They pointed out that it's hard to be found liable for defamation on Wikipedia unless the claims were both false and unsourced/very poorly sourced (I assume a reference to actual malice or something along those lines). I'm not sure if anything that's happened so far would cross that line... even the quite nasty insults against Kavanaugh that I requested revdel for are not defamation since they're not assertions of fact... but getting sued is unpleasant even if one is sure one will win.

Finally, they noted that T&S can be contacted if local measures prove insufficient for dealing with RK777713 & co. Personally I don't think we're at that point yet, but any editor is free to contact T&S if they disagree. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh, thought that would ping people who'd commented here, but I guess Echo's smarter than I thought (for once). Pings @Throast and Paul August. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am the administrator who blocked RK777713 back on September 4. I am fully confident that my block was correct and in accordance with policy, and I welcome scrutiny by my fellow editors. Kavanaugh may or may not have valid criticisms of the article, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing these issues. Threatening to sue people is OK elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia if the threats are directed at Wikipedia editors. At least if someone wants to keep editing Wikipedia. So, if Kavanaugh decides to sue me, I will defend myself vigorously on the basis that I was faithfully enforcing the policies and guidelines of this website, and I would expect the WMF to back me up with their formidable resources. I am the eternal optimist. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Earlier this week, the RK777713 account made another attempt at explaining themselves. Interestingly, shortly after said posting, a 10-year-moribund account, Joshduman1 responded to their request. The plot thickens. --Jayron32 14:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There were three instances of vandalism to RK's talkpage in the eight hours after his unblock request. My guess is something was posted on a subreddit or Discord server related to H3H3. (I'll confess not having full familiarity with the underlying off-wiki dispute, but I do know that H3 has a very zealous fanbase.) Not unheard-of for people to dust off ancient accounts when that sort of thing happens. I recall an AfD a while ago where someone had canvassed all of their software's users to come !vote, and because of the demographic at play we had 10-plus-year-old accounts emerging to !vote in a single AfD. It's also clear from Garen's talkpage's history that there was some off-wiki attention involved. That general trend is what I'm worried about here. I agree with Cullen that the underlying block here was totally justified, as have been the subsequent sockblocks—I'd be a bit of a hypocrite if I said otherwise—but the subsequent behavior toward RK and their sox, all from IPs, new users, or in this case a long-dormant user, is something to keep an eye on, even where some of it is not disruptive on its face. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you think the account being old particularly had much meaning, I just don't actively edit on Wikipedia on an actual account but figured I would try and get into an old account since I thought being an anonymous editor would look sock-puppet-y (which I successfully did!). If you want proof of my not being a puppet, you can find other edits under JoshDuMan on other wiki's, like Ukikipedia that I admin. In regards to how I found and responded- I literally was just reading up on the articles since Wiki stuff is interesting to me and I saw it being discussed on the Podcast. I don't feel I put anything out of line, I don't mind retracting it if its an issue however. I have no involvement with anything H3 besides being on YouTube though. Noone directed me anywhere. Joshduman1 (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

While I was able to locate the multiple copyright lawsuits filed by Triller (i.e. Kavanaugh)—including the one directed at H3 (2:21-cv-03942-JAK-KS)—, I was unable to find any lawsuit against Wikipedia editors or mentioning Wikipedia. I may have missed it, but I've looked pretty thoroughly. JBchrch talk 19:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: That seems to be the suit by Triller that Kavanaugh mentions in the blog post Throast linked. I think the current action by Kavanaugh in his personal capacity is separate. Klein's Twitter (@h3h3productions) has excerpts from it, but no link to a full PDF. (A recent tweet also has a screenshot of an RK777713 edit with username visible, perhaps explaining the source of some of the driveby insults we've been seeing.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Thanks for the info. After a long and heroic battle with LA Court's website, I was able to get my hands on the complaint. The complaint does not mention Wikipedia, and it does not mention any editor active in this discussion. I have yet to clarify whether I can share it—I'm wary of doing it since I have the inkling that someone would have already done it if it was the case. JBchrch talk 21:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsure whether I should weigh in on this, but my professional spidey senses are tingling on this one. Is it standard practice to discuss credible legal threats to WP on a publicly accessible page? Particularly the email to legal, and giving opinions on how matters were handled by the WP community in the context of a potential suit. Having also wrangled with LA county's (infuriatingly terrible) court website, I've also read over the complaint, and JBchrch is correct that WP isn't mentioned; I suspect WP came up with Kavanaugh throwing everything at the wall. However, the fact that WP is not mentioned in the initial complaint does not mean that there's zero risk here, especially when Kavanaugh seems to have directly threatened action. Surely this should be pushed to the WMF to handle. Theknightwho (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Recently blocked user User:Platyna is continuing to argue the toss on User talk:Platyna. They are making ludicrous allegations of censorship and attacking the project in general. They are also posting links to external screenshots of the material that set them off on the path that eventually led to them being blocked. They express no interest in requesting an unblock so I think it might be best to revoke access to their User Talk page as they have no other legitimate use for it. Also, I feel that the links to the screenshots should be removed. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

In agreement, as I suggested at his/her talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I've notified them as required but they won't be able to come here to say anything as they are blocked. Maybe see if they have anything to say about it on their User Talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Without knowing of the existence of this thread, I have already revoked the talk page access since the user was only using it for personal attacks. For everything else, I do not feel it should be my call.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, got to love it any time an editor with all of 45 mainspace edits stretched over fifteen years rants about What! Wikipedia! Has! Become! Ravenswing 20:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• The editor is a self declared autistic person. They declared this in their now deleted ArbCom request. It can be argued that their character is to have a somewhat different view of life from those of a neurotypical person. Might I ask for an olive branch to be offered to them once they have had a chance to reflect. I do not meamn as a discussion, because this is not something to be discussed. But a kind explanation with reference to behaviours, rules, skilfully worded, ideally by someone with experiebnce in autism, might bear fruit. I think my own attempt was either too soon, or poorly phrased, or both. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 00:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• A good many of us on Wikipedia are on the autism spectrum. We are, nonetheless, subject to Wikipedia's rules of civility and communication all the same. "Autism" cannot be a blanket excuse, nor a presumptive pass, for not striving to follow those rules. Looking over
  is not competent to handle Wikipedia's collaborative, consensus environment. Ravenswing
  10:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Ravenswing I understand this completely. I was not suggesting it might even be considered to be a blanket pass. I am asking, very quietly, for an olive branch to be held out to an editor who appears to have got themselves into a mess. It is a mess of their own making. Even so I am asking.

  If consensus is not to do so then no great matter. I just hold out the hope that it might work. If it does work I would still be happy that the editor is on an indefinite warning about behaviour. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• The problem with that is it’s not a one off. Looking through the User’s contributions since 2008, it’s remarkable how much
  WP:BATTLE there is considering there are only 250 edits. There seems to be a pattern of going nuclear whenever what they want isn’t automatically accepted. Is that connected with their autism disclosure? I’m not competent to say but their contribution/disruption ratio makes it difficult to see them as anything other than a net negative. Given their apparent history here I’m not sure an “olive branch” is going to make any difference. (In one of their edits they mention they’re a user on Polish WP. I took a look there in case a language problem was muddying the waters here. Apparently not - if this is them and the online translator is working ok on their talk page.) DeCausa (talk
  ) 11:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed, both blocks were for personal attacks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am 100% certain there is a problem. I know it is not a one off. I would just like "we the community" to consider whether we can save something or can only block it. I do not know if this is connected with their declared autism in the way it manifests itself. I do know that their behaviour, as exhibited currently, is unacceptable. I am not Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. I know when to withdraw gracefully. And I know that the community is not Don Quixote, too, and knows when to withdraw gracefully.

  I just wonder whether we are at the point of withdrawal. It does not really feel graceful, not quite yet. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  Platyna didn't merit any more grace than we'd extend to any other casual editor who, in DeCausa's entirely apt turn of phrase, went nuclear whenever they didn't instantly get their way. Perhaps I'm colored by my own family's history -- all but one of my nieces and nephews were diagnosed with autism, and absolutely, they have their moments, but they try to interact with the world as civilly and coolly as they can manage, and they don't wave a bloody flag as an excuse when they stumble. We are not a community of medical or mental health specialists, it's far out of our remit to be diagnosing fellow editors, and the only olive branch within our capability to offer is to be civil in telling people that if they have a condition preventing them from interacting with us at a basic standard of civility, they are liable to be blocked from editing until they can. Ravenswing 12:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  We actually do not need consensus here - if someone feels they can leave a talk page message which is really helpful, please do it (I certainly can not). But please have in mind that all (as far as I see, without a single exception) attempts to help the editor only resulted in personal attacks, requests to stop threats and spamming her talk page. Please only do it if you are confident the attempt is going to have a different outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also, a postscript: my wife does happen to be a special needs teacher specializing in autistic teenagers, and I set this situation before her. (Sorry it wasn't sooner, but her job wears her out, and she sleeps relatively late on Sundays!) Her strong and immediate reaction was that anyone who's genuinely autistic who nevertheless can both articulate that on a talk page and imply that accommodations ought to be made is "very light on the spectrum and ought to be able to keep their shit together," and is frankly skeptical. For what it's worth. Ravenswing 13:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Explanatory note: to "argue the toss" is a phrase derived from the game of cricket. Before a match gets underway, a coin is tossed and the captain of the team that won the "toss" decides whether to bat or bowl in the first innings. As a metaphor, "to argue the toss" is to dispute something that has already been conclusively decided. @EEng: Appropriate image please. Shirt58 (talk) 09:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC) Edit: "argue to toss" -> "argue the toss". This is now my second post to WP:ANI for 2021 of a planned total of zero. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm afraid that none of the appropriate images I can think of would be legal to post under current US law. EEng 13:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  W. G. Grace would call "The Lady" - and make his choice if the coin fell with either Britannia or Victoria uppermost. Narky Blert (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not convinced of Platyna's claims of being a biologist (i.e. I know better then the rest, on certain topics - backup argument) or his being autistic (i.e. It's ok for me to be combative - backup argument). Just not convinced at all. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I have thus far received 34 notification from @AM30228479: during the last twlve minutes. I suspect the user is spamming. Veverve (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The notifications seem to be a result of a conflict dispute and subsequent reverts at Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia of North and South America and the British Isles. The page history is rather striking. I suggest you discuss the dispute on the appropriate talk-page, since communication is non-existent. Opening a discussion with an ANI notice is not the way to go, usually. Kleuske (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the editor before I saw there was an ANI thread. I'll leave a note. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Zaloaustssi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 107.117.180.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Zalaustssi and this IP range are obviously socks of long term abuser Jinnifer, given the obsession with the sectioning on the article horror film diff. Note that both

) 23:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Account blocked, IP range blocked for 2 weeks; not a single useful contribution from anywhere on that range. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

. Their Talk page is replete with notifications about categories they've created being proposed for renaming, merging, or deletion...in some cases, speedy deletion. As I didn't see any direct warnings on their Talk page, I'll AGF and say it's probably premature to have their ability to create categories restricted, but I think they need to acknowledge that they're creating a lot of work for other people by creating categories that then need to be modified or deleted.

Just since July 1, I see ten notifications regarding categories that other editors found problematic:[110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119]. While there's nothing necessarily wrong with being a prolific category creator, I think it's concerning when so many of one's created categories are being challenged. In fact, per x-tools, almost 30% of Kanghuitari's edits are in the category space.[120].

Ideally I'd hope they'll simply agree to be a bit more thoughtful about their category creation going forward and there won't be a need for stronger action, but I think they need a clear understanding that they're making other editors spend time and effort cleaning up their missteps. DonIago (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we are MUCH, MUCH too soft on this, & should move quickly to a topic ban if he doesn't improve, or find an area better suited to his talents. He has been around since 2015, but many of his creations show he has not grasped CFD basics. Iffy English is also an issue. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC).

Hi, can

) 08:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hoaxes, BLP violations targeting minors, seems

WP:NOTHERE. Any other thoughts? —Kusma (talk

) 09:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:AIV and blocked without a second thought. They need an indef and those page revisions need revedelling or oversighting. 192.76.8.80 (talk

) 10:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I've indef blocked now, didn't want to do that earlier as I was just about to go offline for a little while. The diff Fram notes above has been revdel'd. —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Another IP user who ignored all my warnings about posting unreferenced content and test edits in many BLP and non-BLP articles, any actions? Thanks. —Ctrlwiki •

• 09:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The range has been blocked multiple times for various disruption; I range-blocked for six months.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• CoachEzhupunna I have stated why the pictures are not relevant, but the editor seemed to ignore the facts and giving false information (e.g. vandalised past even after polite request to discuss in the discussion topic, the responses are usually personally attacking me, saying that I have Ezhava pride and I am a sock without any evidence). Malayalee0121 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. Upgraded from indef semi (3 days ago). Now no one gets to have cake. Malayalee0121, you've failed to notify CoachEzhupunna of this complaint, as is required. I have done this for you. El_C 15:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

El_C Thank you, I believe the protection you have added will be enough for now. I just wanted that editor to stop vandalizing the page. He was not approachable when ever I tried to talk. Regards. Malayalee0121 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

disruptive editing (of which vandalism is a more narrow subset), I'm not sure. In any case, best to use precise language. El_C

16:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeated hijacking of redirect by IP

• 178.41.58.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KirdneJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User9864136954686 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jendrik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

This IP is repeatedly edit warring the hijacking of this redirect into an unsourced BLP about a completely different person entirely. I’m also not sure if this is the logged out IP of any of the users that previously edited the unsourced material, so I’ve included them in this report as well. There needs to be some sort of action to stop this behavior before it gets worse (i.e. enters 3RR territory). Jalen Folf (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done I semi-protected that page for 2 weeks. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• ZLinn1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been attempting to change the lead image in Scipio Africanus, has used uncivil language in edit summaries ("Look at the label, you idiot."), and failed to start any discussion. I am completely uninvolved in this and note that it looks like two? editors have reverted this change. There is some related info on the user's TP, but apparently posted there by the user as justification for the change that Zlinn1776 has made around a half dozen times. MB 02:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

ZLinn1776 My response is that it's hard to use civil language when what is being done is so clearly absurd. They're trying to use a sculpture of Sulla with a broken off nose. It shows great historical ignorance. The sculpture that I've used in replacement, which matches the physical appearance of the sculpture that was on this article for 10 years before someone that was misinformed replaced it back in 2020 with a sculpture of Sulla. The image that they're even using is called ScipioAfricanusSulla.jpg and it is definitely not Scipio Africanus, it is most likely Sulla. It's pretty obvious that you go with the Roman republic marble sculpture labeled with the man's name instead of some non-historical theory, a theory that is not confirmed by any historical sources. As a scholar I've read most of the sources. The source of whomever did this was in French, not English. This is an English article. I'm trying to fight against this type of non-historical ignorance trying to alter the public perception. Any reasoning mind would do what I've asked and read the label on the sculpture from antiquity, not some image of Sulla from the Roman civil wars. Perhaps I shouldn't have called the person being an idiot an idiot just because they're ignorant. I'm not sure what else I could have said there "Look at the label, ignoramus."? Perhaps my uncivil language was because of the irritation from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about trying to corrupt the public perception of an important Roman statesman. ZLinn1776 (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@ZLinn1776: You need to learn how to use Talk pages for articles rather than arguing just in edit summaries. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

ZLinn1776 reply: Excuse you, obviously you didn't read what I posted on this Talk page:

• unacceptable under any circumstances, no matter how much you think you've been provoked. Which you haven't been -- edit summaries of "these busts are not scipio's" and "not according to sources" are quite in order. Ravenswing
  02:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Judging from the material deleted in this diff, this seems to be an utterly bizarre instance of a
    WP:NPOV breach. Whatever the merit of the sources, this user's contributions are not (and do not seem likely to ever be) productive or in the spirit of collaboration. Theknightwho (talk
    ) 03:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Nope. Anyone going as berserk with fury as this guy is over using this image over that
      doesn't seem to be here for encyclopedia building. Ravenswing
      03:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Lengthy cut and paste from talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
/* Historically Inaccurate Cover Photo For This Article */ new section This article had the main photograph changed from the historically verifiable likeness of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus by someone posting an image from a Russian site of Sulla and trying to pass it off as Scipio Africanus. Even in the Russian Pushkin National Museum in Saint Petersburg, Russia, there are marble sculpture busts of Roman General Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus that are labeled from antiquity with P•COR•SCIPIO•AFR at the bottom of the sculptures. You can see from Wikimedia commons these busts from Ancient Rome of Scipio housed at the Pushkin museum which are clearly labeled as Scipio. Now someone is trying to destroy the mainstream popular view of Scipio with a sculpture of Sulla with an uploaded image that is even labelled "ScipioAfricanusSulla". This bust is from Sulla from the Roman civil wars, not Scipio. I find it incredibly offensive that someone who is misinformed about history passing off an alternative ridiculous theory can be allowed to alter the mainstream image identified with Scipio. This happened during the Coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and I noticed that someone changed the image from a historical marble bust of Scipio to a picture of a marble bust of Sulla or some other individual missing a nose. In my academic pursuits as a historian of Greece and Rome, I have collected images of dozens of sculptures of Publius Cornelius Scipio, victor of the Second Punic War over Carthage, all dating from antiquity and matching the historical descriptions of Scipio as a bald man of large stature and muscular build. Anything else is just some non-historical theory. In terms of the Latin expression, QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDVM - thus it is demonstrated - one must look no further than the Wikimedia commons articles showing marble busts from antiquity depicting Scipio's authentic physical appearance labeled with his name at the bottom as P•COR•SCIPIO•AFR clearly at the bottom of the marble bust, an abbreviation for Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. That should be definitive evidence compared to any non-historical pseudoscientific attempt to alter the image of Scipio Africanus in the public mind. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Isis_priest01_pushkin.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Isis_priest02_pushkin.jpg When you look at the caption of the image of Sulla replacing the image of the actual Scipio that was on this article for 10+ years, it says "Bust tentatively identified as Scipio Africanus, formerly attributed to Sulla. It might have been on the facade of the Tomb of the Scipios." So "tentatively" and "might have" replace identification of a man whose sculptures depicting his likeness were labeled in antiquity? This is obviously ludicrous and ridiculous. The citation used to justify this opinion misidentifying Scipio links to an article written in French, not English like this Scipio Africanus wikipedia article. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Publius-Cornelius-Scipio I have dozens of photographs of marble sculptures from antiquity that I've collected with the likeness of the real historical Publius Cornelius Scipio who was later given the title of "Africanus" after his victory over the Carthaginians at the Battle of Zama in North Africa. He is not to be confused with his father Publius Cornelius Scipio who fell at the Battle of Cannae. I've tried to upload these images to show the community the obvious truth with ancient Roman sculptures labeled bearing his name with marble busts compared to some ridiculous theory written in French that even shows a Roman denarius from c. 209 BC within that French article that clearly shows Scipio's historical physical appearance wearing a helmet. ZLinn1776 (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Publius See the real problem here is that someone that doesn't know what they're talking about, someone ignorant of Roman history is trying to modify this article citing non-existent sources. Whoever it was that originally changed the authentic appearance of Scipio Africanus with a broken off nose sculpture most likely depicting Sulla cited a French publication. However I've seen over a dozen different marble sculptures made in republican Rome during the lifetime of Scipio Africanus labeled with his name in abbreviated form and they match the appearance that was on this page before the 2020 edit, and they match the appearance that I have corrected the article for the purpose of historical accuracy. ZLinn1776 (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note that it was pointed out to him that the identification with the noseless bust is backed by a reliable source, but he stated that said source didn't exist and insisted on imposing the other image. He also made a similar disruption to
  Avilich (talk
  ) 15:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think this diff [121] sums up their feelings about Wikipedia, the encyclopedia and community. Frustrated or not, it's highly uncivil. --ARoseWolf 21:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'll be frank: it smells of far-right nonsense. I can't know that for sure, but it's ringing alarm bells. Theknightwho (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't concern myself with politics so I'll take your word for it. It is extremely divisive language from an obviously distressed and frustrated person that doesn't appear to be willing to remain civil. Classic case of

  WP:NOTHERE but seeing as they "retired" the answer may be to just let it go. --ARoseWolf

  14:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  If Twitter is any guide, that type does seem fairly focused on classical statuary, so maybe.... Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, what are the sources for the bust with the damaged nose being Scipio Africanus? I do not see them in the article (and the phrasing for the caption is strange to me -- if they say outright that the bust if of him, it shouldn't say "tentatively", and if they don't, we should be deciding they do). jp×g 12:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The caption gives Etcheto, Henri (2012). Les Scipions: Famille et pouvoir à Rome à l'époque républicaine (in French). Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions. pp. 274–278.
    WP:OR issue being likely, but it would be good if someone could confirm. Theknightwho (talk
    ) 17:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I only have high school French, but Google Translate works just fine. The source is good, discusses the misidentifications in detail, and cites its own authorities. ZLinn1776 was just running his own peculiar "The source says things I don't like so it's dead to me"
      bullshit. Ravenswing
      20:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GenoV84 and the "Kafir Lives Matter" userbox.

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

Hi all, This vandalism goes above and beyond the usual type and is proving extremely difficult to revert. I'll try to explain what has happened but apologies if this is difficult to follow.

12:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the G4 tag, as (as you say) the history needs to be retained and so speedy deletion is not appropriate. Someone needs to move it back and remove the hijack content (and maybe merge history, and sort out the disambig page) - but definitely not just delete. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Despite this ANI post, user is continuing to disrupt. See [122]. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the hijacking, but I cannot move Misho Amoli (YouTuber) back to Misho. Can an admin help? MarioGom (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Please could an admin do a hist merge of

14:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there any agreement on the name the article should be under?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it should all go back to Misho. A link can then be added at that destination to Misho (disambiguation), which covers Mishō, Ehime and Big Sha. Happy to stand corrected, though, but that seems to be what was there before the hijacking and disruptive move. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello. User:Scantydu has just posted a rather incivil retirement message on his or her talk page. While many parts of it are arguably breaches of Wikipedia:Civility, the reason I'm here instead of just ignoring it is the expressed desire for other users to commit suicide, which I believe to be block-worthy. I'm not sure what this falls under, but this user has no constructive edits, and appears to be NOTHERE at the very least. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I smell MrRosstheScientist (

WP:NOTHERE? Loew Galitz (talk

) 03:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that does indeed look suspicious. I'll open an SPI. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Concur, the duck is strong in this one. They've both edited the same 2 articles with similar edits, and posted the same sort of "retirement" rant. BilCat (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrRosstheScientist, if you have anything to add there. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Tol needs to stop stalking Scantydu and let him put whatever he wants on his talk page. Geez get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbob104 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked Billbob104, but I'll let someone else have the fun of blocking Scantydu. --Golbez (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For reference, this account was created today, immediately after Scantydu's last edit (this one). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A very entertaining rant on his user-talkpage, getting the attention he hoped it would. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:MrRosstheScientist was declined an unblock at 07:57 on 8 December, with User:Scantydu making their first edit at 4 minutes later. Writing style is identical. ➡🗑️ please. Theknightwho (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate death wish screed and will now ponder a block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Eventually, you'll have to lock his talkpage. At this point, the lad is self-humouring himself. Of course, the socks will continue. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

self-humouring himself – I haven't heard that particular euphemism for it before. I understand you can go blind that way. EEng 02:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I am enforcing this editor's retirement with an indefinite block, pending a sucessful appeal. If they return in any way, shape or form before then, the socks will be blocked as well. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth deleting the relevant revisions as per

WP:CRD, too? It isn't the reason for the block (so it serves no useful purpose), and seems to fall under "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Theknightwho (talk

) 04:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Theknightwho, I take your point but here is my thinking: The ridiculous offensive comments were not directed at any specific editor and cannot be taken too seriously, although they were policy violations. I have removed them from easy public view. But I have left them in the edit history so that any serious editor examining this issue will have access to what this editor said. Any administrator who thinks that I have been too lenient is welcome to revdel or suppress without my permission. I might be asleep. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Can't imagine you were, in dealing with a troll who claimed to be "retiring" after what I am sure was a harrowing and arduous 20-hour-long Wikipedia career. Ravenswing 13:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look over the page histories, and found this questionable diff from 5 December by 106.206.202.92, which has the hallmarks too. Theknightwho (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Death threats in the course of a dispute about Santa Claus just seems so wrong. Think of the children! EEng 00:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Didn't you mean, think of the server kittens? Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 15:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Death threats over Wikipedia not believing in Santa. I feel like a threat of getting on the naughty list would be more appropriate. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 19:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This individual

. This is a dispute that has taken place sporadically over a couple months but has gained traction just now in December.

To give some context, this all started back in February this year when Libhye tried inserting pronunciations in two very specific articles, Romulus (1st diff) and Manlia gens (1st diff). This was rejected and reverted by P Aculeius. Libhye then, after trying again and being reverted multiple times, (?)invited (20–21 March) a bunch of supposedly interested editors (Florian Blaschke, Kwamikagami, Erutuon, Mahagaja, Xyzzyva), of which a single one, Kwamikagami, answered the call (another had the better sense of reminding him that talk pages exist). From then on it was this Kwamikagami who took over the struggle. I got involved at the same time, as I agreed with Aculeius's reasoning. At first it wasn't a big deal: I reverted Kwamikagami once or twice in each page, he replied with edit summaries saying "duh" and "rv quasi-vandalism", but the affair died quickly after, in March still, without devolving into an edit war. A talk page discussion was started (here) for good measure some 6 months later, in September, after the affair threatened to resurface, but nothing came of it at that moment, and only the opposing party (myself and P Aculeius) initially participated in the discussion.

Things got interesting now in December, when the "semi-retired" Kwamikagami really decided (again at the subtle encouragement of Libhye) to get his way at all costs or die trying. He called one opponent an "idiot" and "ignorant edit-warrior" (all in edit summaries), and, after finally discovering that a talk page discussion had already taken place, went there to opine that the opposing arguments were "stupid" and "stupid insistence on ignorance". He then proceeded to edit some 15 other articles, despite the fact that a discussion was still ongoing in the talk page and no consensus was in sight. He continues, as of today ("rv censorship"), to impose his own version despite that he does not even have a majority agreeing with him on the talk page, and that guidelines and policies have been brought up against his edits.

In short, can someone with authority tell those two to stop? I don't care about the insults personally, but it becomes pointless for the rest of us to use talk pages while the opposing party, with impunity, ignores us, ignores our opinions, and pushes through with his preferred way without consultation or consensus. Kwamikagami has stated that he will be "stubborn" whatever happens, which I take to mean his mind is already made up.

) 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This dispute is truly bizarre. We're supposedly not allowed to have Latin pronunciations of Latin names on WP, because they're "obvious" (even though the editors themselves can't predict them), or per DICT, and also that the modern standard orthography for Latin shouldn't be used because it's "confusing". I don't think I've ever come across someone who would edit-war over providing basic information like this. DICT is normally an argument for words which someone can readily look up in a dictionary, which isn't the case here. With a bit of high-school Latin, I wasn't able to predict the English or Latin pronunciation of Manlia when written in defective orthography, so I'd assume that readers without any Latin would stumped as well. I don't care if we use IPA-la or the full (non-defective) Latin orthography, if it's in the lead, a fn or an external link, but there should be some way a reader can tell how to pronounce the topic of the article. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any consensus at

Phil Bridger (talk

) 20:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly productive to accuse people of "ownership behaviour", because 1) what constitutes "ownership" is inherently subjective; 2) it's hardly realistic to expect that editors who've authored or made significant contributions to articles to recuse themselves from content disputes involving those articles, as though the more involved an editor is with an article, the less weight should be accorded to that editor's opinion; and 3) "ownership" isn't a bludgeon that can be used to resolve content disputes without addressing the underlying issues. Vaguely worded threats ("it needs to stop") are even less helpful—just because you don't "name names" doesn't make it any less adversarial.

This isn't the forum for reaching the issue on the merits; that's back at the talk page of the article where the content dispute is taking place. Since that argument has been carried over here, I think I would be justified in replying that since the subject of the dispute is a name, not a random word or phrase, the question should be how to pronounce it in English, not how we would pronounce it if we were speaking Latin—as though that question had a single, indisputable answer. There really is only one natural way for the name to be pronounced in English, since in English the stress naturally occurs on the first syllable (in this instance, the stress in Latin would also be on the first syllable), and the first 'a' has to be short in English because the 'n' isn't followed by 'e' or 'i'.

But all that is a digression. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree, because this is a request for admin intervention due to disruptive editing. And I don't think that a content dispute rises to the level where that's justified. I happen to agree with Avilich to the extent that I find some of the other editors' responses to be uncivil and inflexible—for instance refusing to engage in any discussion until multiple reversions had taken place, and continuing to revert all changes without first having achieved any sort of consensus, while using edit summaries to impugn other editors' intelligence or motives—but the only thing for an admin to do here might be to remind the editors that Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, which means trying to find a path toward consensus. Accusing other editors of "vandalism" or "censorship" in a content dispute doesn't even make a pretense of collaboration. I've tried to abandon the field multiple times in this discussion, simply because I could see no other path forward, but I think that Avilich has made some valid points, and that he shouldn't be threatened for arguing one position, when the other side is just as inflexible, and even less civil. P Aculeius (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There's plenty of consensus for the existence and usage of {{IPA-la}}, and the idea that standard scholarly transcription of Latin is somehow inappropriate on WP is just weird. You want to delete the pronunciation guide, fine: get consensus that such is inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither the existence of the template nor the fact that it's used on Wikipedia has ever been in dispute. But it's not a pronunciation guide; it's a transcription of an unmodified Latin name into... Latin. If there were any significant difference, there might be some justification for a transcription, as in the case of Mark Antony vs. Marcus Antonius. But as one of the editors in the article's talk page noted, the transcription would be a pleonasm without any conceivable justification, were it not for the fact that you added a macron over the 'a'. And as several editors have pointed out, written Latin does not use macrons; the sole justification for keeping the template is an inauthentic mark added to indicate pronunciation, incongruously placed in a transcription rather than a pronunciation guide. And as the same editors have pointed out, the meaning of the macron isn't immediately obvious, because the article is intended for English speakers; not for people wishing to speak Latin with authentic Latin pronunciation. Macrons produce a different sound in English pronunciation guides than in Latin, but by adding the macron using a transcription template for Latin, a potential and unnecessary source of confusion is created, with no significant benefit to the reader. You insist that there must be consensus before your additions to this and the other articles can be deleted, but you don't seem concerned that you added them without achieving any similar consensus. There are many instances of foreign words and phrases that could not be reasonably spoken or pronounced by English speakers without pronunciation guides or transcriptions. But with relatively few exceptions, Roman names aren't among them. P Aculeius (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I find some of the other editors' responses to be uncivil and inflexible—for instance refusing to engage in any discussion until multiple reversions had taken place, and continuing to revert all changes without first having achieved any sort of consensus, while using edit summaries to impugn other editors' intelligence or motives—but the only thing for an admin to do here might be to remind the editors that Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative, which means trying to find a path toward consensus. I haven't had a lot of interactions with kwami but the last one had precisely the same antagonistic behavior you describe here. And I note that their response to you don't acknowledge it. I would strongly support some sort of administrative admonition that makes it clear that this uncollegial approach is not acceptable. --JBL (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

There is an emerging problem with Jclemens' editing behavior at our article on the Family Research Council.

Here, Jclemens inserts into the article lede a weasel-worded claim that the SPLC is responsible for the acts of a mentally-ill gunman.

I reverted their

edit, objecting on the grounds that the edit represents undue weight in the lede on a minority viewpoint, and requesting that Jclemens discuss their proposed addition on the talk page.

Instead, they revert the claim back into the lede, with somewhat different wording, and say nothing on the talk page.

I opened a discussion on the talk page, explaining my objection to its inclusion in the lede. Jclemens' response has been to stonewall and repeatedly attempt to flip the burden of inclusion - which, as

, is on the editor proposing added material. Jclemens has instead attempted to present their version as a fait accompli, rather than a subject for debate and consensus.

After I explained the issue, and patiently explained that the ball was in their court to open an RFC to gain consensus, they ignored my explanation of policy, falsely claiming that I had not provided a policy rationale for removing the material.

At this point, a third, previously-uninvolved editor,

requires its inclusion, so yes, it's required by Wikipedia policy and so the conversation can only legitimately be how not whether to cover it. Thus, Jclemens has arrogated to themselves the power to unilaterally decide what policy means, and conveniently enough, they decide that policy requires their edit be included! This is, of course, ludicrous - the entire point of developing editorial consensus is that no one editor has a monopoly on policy interpretation.

I again explain to Jclemens that two separate editors have objected to their proposed addition, and that they may not simply ram material into the article over our clearly-expressed objections, and that their remedy is instead to open an RFC if they want to get broader input. Mvbaron reiterates their objection.

So of course, this evening, Jclemens rams the material back into the article after declaring that our objections are not "policy-based" (again, Jclemens has declared themselves the sole arbiter of policy on this article).

I submit that this is disruptive and tendentious editing behavior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly an unfortunate turn of events. I have repeatedly asked this editor for a rationale for excluding this material, [123], [124], [125], with no response. I have been accused of edit warring [126] and violating 3RR [127], and now dragged here. For what? Including RS'ed motivation for an attempted mass shooting, including by the SPLC itself [128]. A review of my contributions to the talk page and article in question will find anything but stonewalling, but instead an effort to find a way to optimize our coverage of an attempted murder spree with significant and enduring coverage that continues to play into the narrative of political rhetoric years later: [129]. Jclemens (talk) 07:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have very clearly and repeatedly stated on the talk page that I believe your proposed addition is

undue weight in the lede of the article because it represents a small minority viewpoint. That you obviously disagree with my rationale is neither here nor there - you are not entitled or empowered to ignore my objection or declare it invalid merely by your say-so. If you believe your position is supported by consensus, you are welcome to open an RFC, and as I have also repeatedly stated, I will abide by the conclusion of any such RFC. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 07:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You linked to three edits objecting to the inclusion, but only in one do you even mention UNDUE. You assert that attributing the attack to the SPLC hate designation is a small minority view, but it's repeated by the Washington Post Magazine [130] and the SPLC itself [131] among other sources. You've failed to substantiate your assertion that lede coverage of the shooter's motivation is UNDUE, which is what I've been asking for some time now. Jclemens (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is still in the realm of content disputes and can be handled on the talk page. I'm just a bit baffled that Jclemens insist that there's no talk page discussion happening, so I invite you to argue your point here: Talk:Family_Research_Council#Removal_of_material_from_lede_against_formal_RFC_consensus where North and I have laid out our reasons why a specific detail is not lead worthy. Let's just discuss it there, shall we? Or, Jclemens, if you think it's going nowhere, open an RFC. Mvbaron (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As with nearly all BRD or

WP:BURDEN disputes that make it to ANI especially those involving very few editors with similar levels of policy experience; wouldn't it be better if someone involved meaning any one of the 3 currently involved, uses some other form of dispute resolution to get more help like starting an RfC, rather than wasting time here at ANI? It seems clear the 3 of you aren't going to come to consensus. And there is sufficient evidence that the addition has been been disputed from the get go so provided reasonable attempts are made to resolve this, in the unlikely event this ends up being a no consensus situation even with more feedback, you have sufficient evidence that the status quo ante should be without this addition. And this isn't some hot button current issue where lots of readers are going to see it in the 30 days or however long it takes for an RfC or whatever you use. So focus on discussion and resolving the dispute, not on getting you preferred version to stick before you do so. Nil Einne (talk

) 10:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and reverting by user (3RR)

I did improvements on the Horn of Africa article, mainly since its was incorrectly structured for a geographical region (template), it looked more like a country article rather then usual Geo article template. I addressed the issues in the talk page. However user M.Bitton reverted my changes [132] and asked me to motivate them, which I did. After that user did three reverts [133], [134], [135] going against NPOV insisting that the “Horn of Africa Region” is also called “Somali Peninsula” which is incorrect. There is clear distinction of the two which has been explained to user. The geographical region “Horn of Africa” consisting of four countries, stretching far beyond the peninsula. The “Somali peninsula” lies within the Horn of Africa region and is the landmass stretching out of the Somalia coast. User persists reverting and adding this same thing to the article. By doing the three latest changes user has also broken three revert rule. Leechjoel9 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Leechjoel9: whenever you post about someone at ANI, you need to notify them at their user talk page. I've done so already for M.Bitton. Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have done so correctly two times, user keeps deleting my ANI notifications (two times) and edit warring warnings (two times). See diffs [136],[137] and the warning [138],[139]

I am sorry. I should have looked at the user talk history. It's ok for M.Bitton to remove those notices per

WP:BLANKING. Firefangledfeathers

17:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the content itself, but it's clear from a review of the history that M.Bitton has not broken 3RR. They are right at the limit. The "Somali peninsula" descriptor, right or wrong, has been present in the article for a long time. Per

WP:BRD, Leechjoel9 should really be avoiding reverts and working to build consensus at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers

17:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Leechjoel9" forgot to mention that: 1) having failed to remove the "horn of Africa" mention from the Eritrea article (they even disrupted the RfC and tried to reopen it after it was closed), they turned their attention to the "horn of Africa" article that they butchered. 2) I restored the names section that they removed simply because they didn't like it. 3) ANI is not for content disputes and like I said, the fact that the Horn of Africa is also known as the Somali Peninsula is something that can easily be sourced. M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to blanking but it’s not a good Wikipedia behaviour. A practise that seems to be common by the user. User should be able to take critisism and warning without deleting them from their talk pages, especially active ANI comments. Regarding the conflict, the user is misinterpreting the source and implying that they are the same when they actually are not, which is breaching the

WP:NPOV and pushing for a view that is not true. These two are not equivalent to each other. It has possibly remained so in past wrongfully since somebody has pushed for this view or that users have not picked it up. However as I can see in the talk history many have objected or questioned to also use term “Somali Peninsula” since its not the same as” the “Horn of Africa Region”. Leechjoel9 (talk

) 18:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

"Everyone is entitled to blanking but it’s not a good Wikipedia behaviour." I'm rather surprised to hear you say this, given this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Plastering a user's talk page with the same warning over and over again is disruptive and has nothing to do with criticism. M.Bitton (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Leechjoel9 has just broken the 3R rule. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That is incorrect, that last issue of yesterda has nothing to do with this issue so stop trying to portray it as such. I asked for references that support your claim, until you find such pleas stop pushing your view which is against

WP:NPOV. Leechjoel9 (talk

) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9, you have indeed broken 3RR, which applies "whether involving the same or different material". A self-reversion here would be a wise move. Firefangledfeathers 19:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Leechjoel9: Stop editing my comments! M.Bitton (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody has intentionally modified you comments. Please stick to the issue.Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Intentionally or otherwise, you have a habit of editing comments, including your own after someone has replied to them. I'll let the admin deal with the "issues". M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree but I have sorted it out to avoid any misunderstandings. The view that’s it’s incorrect still stands and I’ll re-add if no legitimate reason to not remove it appears. Leechjoel9 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at

) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not have an edit warring history. Rather there have been disputes (related to one article, same topic) were a user randomly created ANIs to prevent users from editing some articles on here (especially Horn of Africa related articles). If you look at those ANIs they have been based on disputes of content and not been about edit warrings, and issues have been controversial (like this one) where users have been trying to push views against

WP:NPOV. None of the issues have been regarding misconduct. The issues have also been resorted within those ANIs and in the disputed articles. A thing that would be good to also look into is also all the blanked:removed ANIs or warning of M.Bitton, didn’t took to long to find another removed ANI [140] Leechjoel9 (talk

) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s not how I would characterise this ANI thread per Drmies closing. I don’t think you come out well there. DeCausa (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Well it would be good to also look to why that ANI was created in the first place and not only the summary. Of course the admin needs to look at all issues brought up by filing party and respond to those claims, so of course the summary will also include the acclaimed edit warring. The acclaimed edit warring in that case was ONE revert. The rest of that case was purely about topic content, please feel free to read it. Leechjoel9 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve read it and Drmies correctly summarises thus: “User:Leechjoel9 acted improperly in removing the name from Asmara, inventing a reason for removal that doesn't agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they said they'd stop doing that, and not a moment too soon: that politically motivated removal could have led to a block or a topic ban. The example does show a propensity for battleground behavior, and if that picks up again measures might have to be taken”. Down playing rather than owning that accurate conclusion doesn’t help you. DeCausa (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Then explain this (from your TP archives):

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eritrea. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

== Eritrea edit warring ==

You were notified about the applicable discretionary sanctions on 28 January 2021. These edits show unacceptable edit warring:

• 07:53, 27 September 2021
• 07:51, 28 September 2021
• 10:17, 30 September 2021
• 11:13, 30 September 2021
• 18:04, 30 September 2021

Warning: You will be topic banned if further disruption occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Now your mixing up incidents, the ANI had nothing to do with the incident you brought up above, the ani was about population estimates, this one above was about lead sentence of an article. So your conclusion is citing the exact same summary. For matter of facts, the user M.Bitton Was involved in that exact same dispute above and reverted several edits of mine and making disruptive edits in that exact same talk page, where I initiated and created an RFC. The other user was edit warring and I restored the version (status quo of one year+). I was the one reporting the user making the edits, and I also resolved the issue by creating an RFC which resulted in consensus. I also warned M.Bitton in the past for that incident, however as you can see the users also removed that warning. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Since you insist on making up stuff, I will ping Drmies and see what they think. M.Bitton (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: "Leechjoel9" has a habit of changing their comments after other editors have replied to them, so don't surprised if some of the replies don't make much sense. M.Bitton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not insisted in making up stuff, majority of that ANI was about content dispute, even though it brought up one issue explicitly referring at edit warring. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that’s just not true. I’m going to repeat once again from Drmies’ closing: "User:Leechjoel9 acted improperly in removing the name from Asmara, inventing a reason for removal that doesn't agree with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but they said they'd stop doing that, and not a moment too soon: that politically motivated removal could have led to a block or a topic ban. The example does show a propensity for battleground behavior, and if that picks up again measures might have to be taken" DeCausa (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Since

Joke], I have highlighted parts of the quote for clarity. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up}

) 22:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have read it more than once. I responded accordingly in that ANI as ive done here.Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• What a mess, and now there's a block. El C, I suggested months ago that an 1R restriction might be appropriate. How would you feel about tacking that on? Drmies (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@JulieMinkai: can you please not? Also, if you quote, quote and link, don't just copy like that. It's confusing. Thanks. El_C 23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Everything's happening all at once! Struck as I was writing the above. Funny. Drmies, I'm trying to ween myself off of the more custom'y sanctions lately, but I could see supporting such a proposal. I guess it would depend on Leechjoel9's un/productivity (of which I know little). In the case of productivity, I could see a 1RR restriction as being useful in that unlike a TBAN, they'd still be able to contribute to the topic area. El_C 23:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Leechjoel9 AE/3RR block

I've AE blocked (

23:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely going in the ANI Hall of Fame. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 23:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

JulieMinkai, please! Only I may spam ANI with nonsense. El_C 23:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Only you and EEng, it seems. Please don't open another ANI thread about me Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 00:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I taught him everything he knows. EEng 06:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Save it for your therapist, buddy! El_C 10:23, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

)

• Example 1 and Example 2 - Removes sourced content and replaces with original research, refuses to discuss on talk page, ignoring
  WP:ONUS. Latest revision of talk page at the time of writing this
• Example 3 - Removes sourced content and replaces with original research AGAIN, briefly halts their reverting rampage after a warning, then resumes as seen in examples 4 and 5.
• Example 4 - Removal of sourced content
• Example 5 - Falsely claims misrepresentation of sources despite the sources being directly quoted.

Cipher21 (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, and you're not likely to get very far if you mischaracterize it as such. This is a normal editing dispute; each of you believes you yourself are correct, and neither person is acting in bad faith, though you are BOTH on the brink of

Arbitration sanctions may apply, so please tread lightly. --Jayron32

19:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not adding my own content, I'm replacing blatant original research with what the cited source(s) - which have been there long before the "dispute" - say. In this diff, the cited source states Amritsar was cratered and B-57s/F-104s/Whatever were used, while the

WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, which is why I have brought this to ANI. Cipher21 (talk)

20:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Cipher21 is largely an
  WP:1AM in most of their disputes. This isn't the first instance where Cipher21 is engaging in this unsavoury misrepresentation of other people's edits or sources, and a case of pot calling the kettle black. Consider the page in question Talk:Operation Chengiz Khan#Ineffectual strikes where they mischaracterize paraphrasing as original research and their 6 reverts as "constructive edits" this where they mischaracterize their reverts as "Wp:bold" edits.[141] Then this is
  another instance where they return weeks after they had been reverted and were again rehashing the same edit summary, presumably in pious hopes that this won't get noticed a second time.

Operation Chengiz Khan where they have edit warred for weeks against multiple senior editors without heeding to the repeated pointers to use talk page, and about which they warned by MBlaze, for having made 1, 2, 3, but simply sat out weeks to return again to resume their edit warring, without talk page participation, 4, 5, and 6. As attested to by this discussion, their only talk page participation was after MBlaze called them out on their "outrageous" edit warring.[142]

This comes on the heels of thier disruption on another ARBIPA page and exercise at getting around a talk page discussion [143] having been reverted for misrepresentating sources a second time on the same page after You are risking sanctions by deliberately misrepresenting sources.

My edits are obviously not 'vandalism' but Cipher21's mischaracterization of my edits as 'vandalism' speaks of their own

WP:COMPETENCE. --Yoonadue (talk

) 03:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Cipher21 cites this as one of their "examples" to paint a misleading picture of how Yoonadue is indulging in "vandalism" by "Removal of sourced content", but this is quite in bad taste, and is in fact yet another instance illustrating their disposition to mislead other editors and being economical with the truth. Yoonadue's edit at 17:12, 12 December 2021 removed a newly added reference (vide the preceding edit) whose reliability was impugned on the talk page by Kautilya3, Yoonadue, and I (as this version from 17:15, the same day, unequivocally attests too, and stemmed from the same talk page discourse, and they noted in their edit summary Opinions diverge about the reliability or lack thereof of this source as is attested to by talk page discussion. The issue has since then been raised at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#India:_A_Country_Study,_Federal_Research_Division,_Library_of_Congress, which has elicited views in favour of Yoonadue's position. Cipher21's mischaracterization of this unambiguous content dispute in which they happen to be a participant as manifesting "Yoonadue's vandalism" on this august administrator's noticeboard is worthy of being deprecated, and their conduct on ARBIPA pages be scrutinized as "source misrepresentation" and "POV editing" seems to be a popular complaint against their edits, something they manifest here itself. Kerberous (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I am usually reluctant to bring content disputes to ANI, but considering the sheer absurdity of Yoonadue and Kerbous's accusations:

• The source states,

  The runways at Amritsar were cratered, and a radar station was detroyed, but most of the other airfields suffered only minor damage.

  ^[1]

• The

  original research

  being continuously restored claims No material damage to most of the IAF airfields, with only the runways at Ambala getting cratered.

Another example of the

being restored is the line,

• A large-scale offensive was therefore doomed to fail, likely to cause heavy losses and bring the PAF in a position where it could never seriously challenge IAF operations

Which is, predictably, nowhere to be found in the cited source.^[2]

.

On

are among those in favour of keeping the source.

Calling a single well-sourced edit "disruption" shows how Kerberous is more interested in POV-pushingthan collaborating with others in building an encyclopedia. Unlike Yoonadue, I did not persistently restore my edits, and have taken this dispute to the talk page -

.

Keberous's second example of alleged misrepresentation of sources is Yoonadue removing numbers directly quoted from NYT and BBC.

In the diffs provided, I do not see any false characterisation of edits as bold. That's literally what they are. In the cited diff, did I resort to revert warring as Yoonadue did? No, I did not.

Yoonadue is citing

. I will naturally edit in topic areas I am interested in, and am entitled to do so. Yoonadue's 500 most recent edits are mainly in India/Pakistan topics. Does that make them an SPA? They have already resorted to invoking personal attacks by calling me incompetent and claiming I'm some SPA with hidden malicious intent.

Yoonadue and Kerberous's accusations quite plainly show they are

09:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:VANDALISM You should actually read this link. --JBL (talk

) 12:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Cipher21 logged warning

12:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is reverting one or more pages without valid reason is ground for edit warring? It seems like

talk

) 09:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The only "grounds" for edit warring are given in

WP:3RRNO and "reverting one or more pages without valid reason" is definitely not one of them. As always, if you're not sure why an editor is reverting you, talk to them. If they continue to revert without offering any explanation, you can likely ask for them to be blocked but still should not edit war. If they give a reason but you disagree with it, then discuss and try to come to consensus and if you can't then seek help or get others involved i.e. WP:Dispute resolution. I had a quick look at Special:Contributions/JKLlamera and think there are only three simple reverts anyway and the latest was on 3 December, the other two on 15 November. So if you continue to have problems you will need to be more specific about what these are. Nil Einne (talk

) 09:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the advice. Just in case, how can I propose for a blockade of a user? Yeah, I still became patient as of this time.

talk

) 09:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@

NewManila2000: Have you tried talking to them? Use the talk page to ask why they are doing these reverts, and don't forget to ping them using the ping template. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ

12:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I putted some warnings on his user talkpage and inserted a gentle reminder to the user.

talk

) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike Novikoff and a strange way of edit-warring

Mike Novikoff performed today a third revert with this edit summary. First, it contains my real name, which I do not really appreciate. Second, if I get the point, he thinks that because I blocked him on Wikidata for a day for personal attacks, it is ok to revert here my edits without going to the talk page. Could an admin intervene please. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If I understand correctly another part of the edit summary, he thinks that I resigned somewhere (where?) under a cloud, which is factually incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, but: the edit summary was indistinguishable from trolling (and conceivably should be rev-delled). I have no idea what the MOS has to say about this (and don't really care to know), and the coat of arms is pretty. So I have reverted. --JBL (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Me neither, but I see that the US states have seals. If I can parse the edit summaries, the user says they would remove these seals as well but do not have sufficient userrights as the templates are protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"I have no idea what the MOS has to say about this (and don't really care to know), and the coat of arms is pretty", "Me neither, but I see that the US states have seals" – Sorry, but this "I don't care about the MoS" attitude appears to be highly unconstructive, it's next to "I don't care about any written rules", and it's the last thing one would expect from an admin.

WP:OTHERCONTENT is a well-known invalid argument.

I've been removing such decorative icons for years, I've already removed hundreds of them, all in accordance with MoS, and now I stumble upon a really weird counteraction that effectively forces us to discuss whether the MoS is important and whether it should be implemented. — Mike Novikoff

22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Now just imagine if you had written a mature, well-formulated paragraph on the talk page instead of reverting with an inscrutable, trollish edit summary! --JBL (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

And the fact that the US templates have had seals for years means that the interpretation of the policy by Mike Novikoff is - well, not necessarily wrong, but at least debatable. And this is a consistent pattern in their behavior, for which they have been blocked indef on the Russian Wikipedia (not by me, for the record).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop making ungrounded accusations. The reasons why I've been blocked in ruwiki have nothing to do with any encyclopedic content, and ruwiki has nothing to do with English Wikipedia.

I believe we do have some guidelines that apply directly, and requiring to discuss them again and again is counter-productive. And anyway, for {{

WP:OTHERCONTENT. — Mike Novikoff

09:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not a venue to discuss content. This is a thread to discuss your behavior, and I think there is already enough material for an uninvolved administrator to take decisions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Has nothing to do with the present case given that in Russian Wikipedia there is no justice and many "corrupt" administrators impose sanctions arbitrarily. There are a lot of abuses. One can even find some cases on Meta (RfCs: [one][two]) raised by victims. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

May I please suggest to do your homework properly next time? Russian Wikipedia can be a department of Hell, and every single administrator can be specifically paid by Putin, Xi, and Trump to ban users they do not like, but your first link accuses a user who is not an administrator and have never been one in overstepping admin privileges, and the second one is not about the Russian Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The first case cites some administrator threats to block a user globally (in russian). In the second (I fixed the link) the user appeals block because it's obvious that he can't appeal it on his own wikipedia. I provided two cases only for a glimpse. I ain't going to elaborate on it further. I will just state that it's very easy to get banned on Russian wikipedia for nothing. You may not invoke blocks elsewhere carelessly to build up a case against someone. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No, in the first case the user is not administrator, and in the second case the filer is an LTA. It is not very easy to get indefinitely blocked from Russian Wikipedia, and it is impossible to get banned there because the concept of a ban does not exist, but if you look specifically at Mike Novikoff's block log you will easily see that they really make an effort to get indefinitely blocked, for personal attacks and trolling. This is more or less the behavior they demonstrate now on the English Wikipedia. I see also that you have been indefinitely blocked there as well, by four different administrators, for personal attacks, which puts your activity in this thread in an appropriate context.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

… you will easily see… It's hard (if not impossible) to verify justification of the blocks. The rest has little to do with the current case either. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And, completely independently, POV pushing in a Russian-Ukrainian article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's just a gnoming, a tidy. If you care to check, it starts with removing two non-existent parameters – |pushpin_map1= and |pushpin_map_caption1= – from {{

WP:RUSTRESS, and with some excessive wordiness by the way. Then it does some formatting and cleanup to a <gallery> tag. And then you revert my edit altogether, call it "POV pushing" and bring it to ANI. Very nice. — Mike Novikoff

22:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The article before your edit stated that it is a disputed territory between Ukraine and Russia, in quite some delail (the Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a Ukrinian division, whereas the Republic of Crimea is a Russian division), After your edit, it stated, in Wikipedia voice, that it is in the Republic of Crimea in Russia. This is not gnoming.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that this is definitely not mere gnoming and the edit summary "tidy" is quite misleading. Citobun (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of

relevant to the town of Gurzuf. On the other side, suggestions like AfD:Putin khuilo are more questinable given extensive socketpuppetry involved. (The AfD was opened by nom somehow). AXONOV (talk) ⚑

16:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that because I have seven years ago AfDed an article which eventually was kept it is ok for another user to go to a DS article, make an edit which changes the attribution of the dispute territory, and then to come here to insist is was wiki-gnoming?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not implying anything here and I ain't gonna elaborate on that. Just drop the stick. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

To drop the stick is not supposed to describe the situation when user A commits clear violations of the Wikipedia policy, user B points this out, user A reacts defensively, and nobody else says this was not a policy violation. And if you are not going to elaborate on what you are saying just means what you are saying is worth of nothing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, it's irrelevant to the town of Gurzuf where the Crimea belongs, and that's exactly what I've meant by removing some excessive wordiness by the way. But. Even if. You think it should be kept. To which I don't even oppose. Have you ever heard of partial reversions (

WP:REVONLY)? It seems rather odd that I (just a rollbacker) know it and Ymblanter (an admin) doesn't. How about restoring at least the non-controversial parts of my edit? — Mike Novikoff

19:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean it is not relevant for Gurzuf which country and which administrative division it belongs to? Go on, make your changes, you are not blocked yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet? Well, done. — Mike Novikoff 19:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone gonna revdel that edit summary? jp×g 08:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Restored from archive--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the edit summary eliminating the identifying info. — Maile (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose any sanctions even though it's appropriate per

WP:PRIVACY to revdel it. In defense of Mike Novikoff I would like to say that the nom is well-known figure on the Russian speaking internet. AXONOV (talk) ⚑

15:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:OUTING It doesn't matter what happens elsewhere. Posting personal information is a form of harassment on Wikipedia, and is to be removed immediately. — Maile (talk

) 16:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with removal. Feel free to supress some of my edits too if necessary. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given this, anybody wants to block? Or should I wait until the next time? the user clearly thinks Wikipedia is a battleground and MMORPG, and they do not seem to be interested in policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh my. I guess it's contrariwise. Just look: should I wait until the next time? Should he wait? The next time? they do not seem to be interested in policies – especially in MoS. ;-)) Ymblanter, are you crazy? Have you even got the reason you want me blocked, or just so? ;-))) To block a user with almost 10 years of good standing. For an unspecified reason. ;-))) — Mike Novikoff 23:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Mike Novikoff: I will block you indefinitely if there is any further poking of Ymblanter. The diff in the first comment is sufficient reason. With that history, any repeat of rubbish like "are you crazy?" will likewise result in an indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
      • John, have mercy. I hear you, and I won't repeat it, but can you please explain why do you think I am so wrong? — Mike Novikoff 23:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Posting the real name of someone constitutes
          WP:HARASSMENT no matter how "right" you might be in terms of MoS.VR _talk
          16:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

More IP disruption on race related articles

• 2800:484:877C:94F0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

After a recently archived section on this talk page,

) 01:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

So your answer to my complaining about censorship is more censorship? oh dear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:484:877C:94F0:9549:3101:D652:A083 (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like the IP's rant had to be reverted three times, by both MrOllie and JBL: [144], [145], [146]. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I just hatnoted a comment by the IP at

  personal attack against Generalrelative in the diffs they provided above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄

  ) 08:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• El C has blocked the range for two weeks and semi-protected Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy for 90 days. Seems like that should resolve the situation for now. Generalrelative (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Despite descriptive, linked edit summaries (1, 2, 3), repeated warnings on

19:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them for

may be blocked for the same as well. --Jayron32

19:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jayron32. I thought 3RR was applicable during a 24 hour period? Robvanvee 20:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned 3RR. You just did. The relevant policy page is

WP:EW, to wit "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". You may be blocked for edit warring even if you don't technically violate 3RR. I'm required to block you if you do violate 3RR. I may still block you even if you don't, if you show the willingness to continue the edit war. You've been warned. --Jayron32

20:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no intention of continuing the edit war, or violating any Wikipedia policies for that matter. Never have in all my years here. If I said something to upset you, I apologise. Thanks again. Robvanvee 20:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

You've said nothing to upset me. --Jayron32 12:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robvanvee: I would encourage you to read and internalize the following text from Wikipedia:Edit warring: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Your comment that you have never violated a Wikipedia policy seems to fly in the face of the fact that you were edit warring here, because 3RR is only one type of edit warring. However, breaking Wikipedia policies is nothing to be ashamed of—it's something we all do, but just need to make sure we don't do intentionally once educated on the topic. (If you want to go over and above, you could even tell us what you would do differently in this situation the next time—there's a really key step you didn't do that has not been mentioned in this discussion, as far as I can see...) — Bilorv (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, I have removed Robvanvee's rollback flag as the history in this edit war, and at Wish You Were Here clearly shows them using rollback on good faith edits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:EW was (admittedly) slightly skewed, though I have since brushed up. Also, I have taken Jayron32's warning to heart and appreciate his approach as my my edits were made in good faith. I also expressed my intention to always abide by the rules earlier in this thread and I would hope my track record supports this. Thanks for your support. Robvanvee

21:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of what you meant, Robvanvee, and your positive attitude. — Bilorv (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor User:Pankaj2511 is creating multiple versions of articles and drafts on Manor Rama Pictures, which was already the subject of a deletion discussion.

• Pankaj2511 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Manor Rama Picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - created in article space and draftified by NPP reviewer
• Draft:Manor Rama Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - pending review
• Draft:Manor rama pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - redirected by a reviewer to Draft:Manor Rama Pictures
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manor rama pictures (2nd nomination)

The multiple versions of the draft name, differing by case and number, appear to be an effort to

) 16:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that User:Spiderone has requested title blacklisting, which is a good idea, and that a sockpuppet investigation has been requested. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Manor Rama Pictures and Manor rama pictures are already salted. Not sure there's much we can do as a community as I don't think there's a rule against constantly creating the exact same article, even though it is obviously disruptive in this instance. I've left a UPE message at User talk:Pankaj2511 so we'll see if they choose to respond. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What I request that the community do is to block the editor for being

not here to contribute constructively. The sockpuppet investigation might catch them anyway, but this editor is a net negative. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I brought both the creators for

no violation found. I would recommend to block all the versions of subject's title. DMySon (talk

) 17:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Support block, the individual is clearly using Wikipedia to advertise themselves and their organization via

talk

)

Agreed. I've requested G11 and it looks like they've been blocked. Hopefully, that's the last of it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

to build an encyclopedia. This includes:

• Edit warring (short of
  WP:3RR) at Polynomial hierarchy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
  ) to include unpublished work of Bura. (Not easily summarizable with diffs; see recent article history.)
• At least two attempts at Riemann hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to include unpublished work of Bura. Special:Diff/1060253391 Special:Diff/1060263489
• Noam Greenberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
  Gilbert Danco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  were created, apparently to namedrop Bura into those articles. Both articles appear likely to fail to meet our notability criteria. (Disclosure that I have a possible COI on Greenberg, as I know the subject a little bit.)
• Extensive editing on Valentin Bura (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is mostly not of great concern. However: I will note that the user edit-warred (short of 3RR) in attempting to say that they have faced death threats over the article. Special:Diff/1060269659 Special:Diff/1060270410 Special:Diff/1060271728

User, after initially disclosing that they are Bura, later denied this on their talk page, and accused me of inserting it into Wikipedia's database Special:Diff/1060269191. They claim death threats on their current user page (as per attempted insertion into article) -- if so, they should certainly report those to [email protected]. It appears to me, however, that they realized Wikipedia frowns upon people writing articles about themselves, and attempted to conceal their identity for this reason.

I came across the situation through

) 18:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted their edits at

not here to build an encyclopedia (only to promote Bura), they must be blocked as a matter of avoiding misinformation/pseudomathematics. Trust me, if PH = NP or P or co-NP (not sure exactly what Bura is claiming) then there will be dozens of experts who arrive at Wikipedia to update relevant articles.

I would put the odds that one person has solved both the Riemann hypothesis and "does PH collapse?" at less than one in a million. — Bilorv (talk

) 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I was preparing to report this user earlier this morning, but I had to go proctor a final exam. The fact that they've met the criticism of their editing by further dubious/promotional article creations is extremely unpromising. I would support a block per

WP:NOTHERE. (And maybe a check for sock-puppets, given the edits of NicanorAlvaradoDosSantos and FlorentinoArizaDeNascimentoAltamirano.) --JBL (talk

) 19:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sock- and or meat-puppetry looks exceedingly likely.

talk

) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would add Gilbert Danco to the list of non-notable pages created. The subject’s main claim to notability appears to be “wrote a preface to Bura’s book”. Some serious disruption going on. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  I did have Gilbert Danco in the list above, but I put two non-notable pages under the same bullet point. I attempted to reformat for clarity. Please feel free to further refactor if called for. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Academics whose use Wikipedia as a venue to promote their work can get lost as far as I am concerned, especially people who are here to promote fringe theories. I support an indefinite block for
  WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk
  ) 21:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

G.M.Hiram blocked indef: User_talk:G.M.Hiram#Indefinite_block. El_C 22:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, in case anyone had any doubts, I looked up this guy's YouTube channel. (He has all of two subscribers.) Lo and behold, it links to https://valentinbura.online/. Niiiiice try. Ravenswing 01:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

YOUR CONTRIBSGIVE ME THE NOTIONYOU'RE JUST HEREFOR

Arodman1999/67.6.158.169

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#User_on_successive_Jakartan_IPs_engaging_in_year-long_disruptive_editing_of_the_same_articles.

This time the IP is:

IP	Location	ISP	Edit history	Block history
139.192.193.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)	Jakarta, Indonesia	First Media	08:38, 29 November 2021 – 05:15, 11 December 2021 (as of this post)

Edit warred the same edit on Emomali Rahmon (diff). Edits the same articles as all their other IPs, mostly on post-Soviet states. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Unrelated topic but this same anonymous user has repeatedly made reversions against

policy, although I explained it to him/her on his/her talkpage. --Local hero ^talk

03:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Evaline Nakano

• Evaline Nakano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Halal-haram-hallam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is User:Evaline Nakano. The latest problem (which I noticed because it happened while I was correcting errors on a page) is a revert of some edits I made to List of Symphyotrichum species. This list is currently a FLC. You can see on the user's talk page there have already been issues. Also, in the user contributions list, there seems to be a pattern of meaningless reverts. The user has been threatened to be blocked by SuperMarioMan. I asked the user to revert the revert they made to List of Symphyotrichum species, and they did. The conversation is User talk:Evaline Nakano#Hi, wondering why you are reverting edits. If there were not already a history of this, I would assume good faith, but I think we are past that given the history, so I wanted to report this. There is also a possibility, as you can see on the user's talk page, that they are using sockpuppet account(s). I'll let you folks be the judge. Eewilson (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I just spotted them reverting a good faith message on

WP:COMPETENCE. Either way, a response is required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

11:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

They reverted an AfC review notice I added which made me notice them, but they have also created user pages for other users see

WP:QUACK of a sock. KylieTastic (talk

) 11:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It appears that for the past several days, revert partying is pretty much all both accounts have been doing. Eewilson (talk) 11:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• They did the same to an article I made. Edited, then reverted their edit right afterwards. This is just edit farming, right? To have a larger edit count to get the higher level account privileges? Silverseren^C 01:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• These two accounts Halal-haram-hallam (talk · contribs) and Evaline Nakano (talk · contribs) are  Confirmed to be operated by the same user and I've blocked both of them indef. If one of them requests unblock, that would provide a chance for the user to convince us that they intend to actually do something useful on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is about the user

.

I think, at the very least, they should be blocked here for

09:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

While this isn't the right place, is the sockpuppetry actually a global problem? Have more than one of their other actually edited another project? Since if not, don't see why a global ban for that reason makes sense. More specifically and bringing this back on topic, have more than one of their accounts edited here in violation of our sockpuppetry policy? Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne & @Wizzito: from the socks I could find (namely, the ones listed here) it looks like none of them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 have edited enwiki and only two (4 and 10) are even locally attached, so it looks like the issue is confined to kowiki. Note that I don't speak Korean so if I missed some socks that's probably why. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Without attempting to locate or inspect known socks of this user, the only issues that are apparent to me is that their English is a little rusty, and they are unfamiliar with enwiki rules. That can be improved; they seem to desire a second chance. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Although they only have a handful of mainspace edits, I don't see how they are a negative to the project as it stands. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 11:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Google translate didn't help me determine whether they were inexperienced or not. "You see the insincere dong temple at all". But, if they are unfamiliar with enwiki rules, we should help them learn them. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I highly recommend Papago for Korean translation instead of Google Translate. The Moose 20:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wizzito: I was banned account at Korean Wikipedia.--애국심 존중 (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wizzito: [[검사 요청]]. --애국심 존중 (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

95.142.138.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Appears to be modifying Cyprus-related articles as if it is under one government. Changing "Northern Cyprus" to "Turkish-occupied Cyprus" or to "Cyprus". Removing content suggesting two governments, etc.

• Kantara Castle
• Kyrenia District
• President of Cyprus "Rev vandalism" to POV form plus additional POV
• President_of_Cyprus "Rev vandalism" to POV form
• Girne District
• Lefke District
• İskele District
• Güzelyurt District
• Nicosia_District
• More as well

Adakiko (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

disruptive editing for 72 hours. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

07:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This user Sussier is telling random users to help him copy edit and fix link on the article Akane Yamaguchi. I think this is a sockpuppet because I remember seeing one of these before, but I'm not sure. Kaseng55 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether this user is a sockpuppet, but their behavior is definitely disruptive. They've continued to message random editors after being notified of this ANI thread. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Now blocked indef by Paul Erik, after an AIV report by Paradoctor (talk · contribs) when they continued past a level-4 warning. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haiyenslna. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And another one: Limpae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Lennart97 (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I wish to report about an IP address for User:24.188.128.246 (talk) due to similar reverting and editing actions on the same article (you can see for yourself in the [[147]]) and along with other related articles (The Voice (American TV series) in general). I highly likely suspect it was a block evasion, after seeing the prior account being blocked from editing, so this would be correct. TVSGuy (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I warned this IP user twice, and I revert his edits with explanation, but it seems like he is not listening, what actions could you make for these type of edits. I requested a protection on rpp page, but the article still not protected, there are a number of IP user edited that page. Thanks in advance. Update This IP user:

• 10:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has been protected already thanks. —Ctrlwiki •

talk

• 11:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this edit appropriate? I have never edited the article, except forone time when I misclicked and immediately self-reverted, and I obviously did not write the Daily Dot article (which indeed mentions me by name and by username).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

edit in question has been removed by user:Padgriffin. Meters (talk) 07:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) : Prolly not- while you do have a COI with that article, I don't think a single self-reverted 1-byte edit from 2015 (that resulted in you accidentally vandalizing your own surname) constitutes "becoming involved" in that article... unless your name is secretly actually "Bobobo". I did a rollback on it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, would you like the edit revision deleted? Bishonen | tålk 08:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC).

No, I do not think it is needed, there is a link to the Daily Dot article anyway, and whoever is on that page probably knows my real name. Thanks for offering.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

While this editors edits aren't necessarily problematic, their username and user page are. When I saw the username it looked familiar at first, then I realized it's because it's a blog about the NFL team the

07:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've G11-tagged the user page. I see no other promotional edits for this user. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please can someone block Ruling party (talk · contribs). They are reinstating disruptive edits (moving categories out of process) and labelling the undoing of their changes as "badfaith vandalism". Their response to me pointing out the problem was this. Thanks, Number 57 13:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party blocked, clear case of

WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk

) 13:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

• 13:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I was concerned I may be deemed to be involved, particularly as I have raised issues with this editor before. Cheers, Number 57 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

uninvolved. When it is obvious that an editor is problematic and needs to be blocked, it is often wiser to let another administrator do it. Robert McClenon (talk

) 15:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content on

List of WarnerMedia television programs

Imtiaz.kazi3 is adding unsourced content on

) 20:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that you take your report to

) 20:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a very bad recommendation. AIV is for blatant vandalism, not for this sort of thing. Also, neither the IP (whose burden it is) nor you has bothered notifing Imtiaz of this thread. I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Never saw an IP

talk

) 10:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It is definitely Nabasile - IP range, edit focus and general behavior. I didn't report as an IP sock when I first saw the 3 IPs he used as he seemed to be trying to communicate what might me a valid concern and wasn't trying to edit articles. His concern might be valid and he did make other sock edits to to Kazi3 expressing it previously. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Special:Contributions/85.255.236.0/24 has blocked IP addresses with this behavior pattern. Not sure a block is fully warranted as they are not being disruptive (though they are evading a block). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Vodaphone uses Special:Contributions/85.255.232.0/21 as one of its cellular data network assigned ranges (AS25235) and Nabasile gets random assignments each time connecting. Also shows up on other ranges owned by Vodaphone and Virgin Media. Lots of vandalism which is not Nabasile on that range too - too bad we can't treat cellular data networks like VPNs and block them completely. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

03:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This issue was resolved with help of

talk

) 04:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Excepting that

(CC) Tbhotch^™

04:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I made my edit after noticing the article on recent changes. I was trying to push the dispute in the right direction out of what looked like a stalemate. It was not meant to be a end-all-be-all resolution, which some of your (User:Kaidros) comments seem to imply. SpinningCeres (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I understand, i am just mentioning that you (

talk

) 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

(CC) Tbhotch^™

17:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

(CC) Tbhotch^™

19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

(CC) Tbhotch^™

20:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

(CC) Tbhotch^™

21:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@

talk

) 21:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Two days EC, please both take it to talk. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Two editors are having issues. Not sure who is doing it to whom.

• Uma Narmada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikicircuitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adakiko (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

They having an edit war in many articles, and talk pages. I suppose to report these two users. —Ctrlwiki •

• 09:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please help me from this problem.That user is making all my good credits of edits by reverting it and making it worse - Vandalism and disruptive edits.recheck our contributions and that user is providing same reason for every reverts.dont have proper way of reply or clarification while doing the reverts..please block that kind of users who fully try to damage and distruct someone's effort as an editor... persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada

Please help me from this problem. This user Uma Narmada is making all my good edits by reverting it and making it worse

Please help block this user

vandalism by Uma Narmada Vandalism and disruptive edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicircuitz (talk • contribs

) 09:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:MULTIPLE

.

14:05, 2021 December 14	Wikicircuitz	Persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada
18:31, 2021 December 13	Uma Narmada	Undid revision 1059457844 by 60.54.96.158 talk)
21:17, 2021 December 9	60.54.96.158

14:01, 2021 December 14	Wikicircuitz	Persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada
18:28, 2021 December 13	Uma Narmada	Undid revision 1059803693 by 60.54.96.158 talk)
00:16, 2021 December 12	60.54.96.158

--

talk

) 14:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Both accounts are warring on
  chatter
  ) 13:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• There was some drama on my talk page with Wikicircuitz changing [169] comments by Uma Narmada. Neither of them are using article talk pages and the minimal use of each others talk page isn't helpful. Mandatory reading and use of
  WP:BRD would be helpful, putting both of them on a 1RR for a short time may help. I concur that there's a strong odor of socks here, Uma Narmada has a very strong focus on puffing up Jyothika (and a slight focus on puffing down Simran (actress) and accusing others of being Simran fans). I saw this pattern before from user GOOD morning SPI here, most recently used Yevaraina and most likely Riya Iyer S Menon (both blocked), but I haven't tried to work on an SPI yet. The attitude alone is very similar to GOOD morning. Regardless, both are being disruptive right now. Ravensfire (talk
  ) 14:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Racist language on Talk:Cap-Haïtien_fuel_tanker_explosion

Was checking on this current news article and did a double take when I saw the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1060491147&oldid=1060489203 62.153.231.130 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Revdel'd and user blocked for the comment. Lookign at the edit history, NOTHERE applies. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, Sir Sputnik, this points to both Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beaneater00/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz: Kittenenthusiast88 was linked to the latter, but is a match with this Nazi account, along with CactusRoy and AlbanianPatriot88. I think something needs to be merged. Oh, we need to throw in User:Legume Luncher as well. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave

I just woke up with a notification from Trailblazer101 saying I "violated" the Wikipedia etiquette on Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I checked the edit history and an IP address (103.146.225.223) disguised under my username to make inappropriate discussion there. I don't know what to do so I came here for the first time and would like your help on this matter. Centcom08 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP address is now blocked. I'd suggest you just drop Trailblazer101 a note saying that it was a troll trying to cause disruption, and leave it at that - they can check the history of the talk page for themselves. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please block 103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well, who is highly likely to be the same user (both addresses geolocate to India) and has just made additional personal attacks toward the same two editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Another IP address 103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has further engaged in personal attacks against myself and Cent on the same subjects on both of our talks, despite the issue being resolved. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And that IP is attacking editors at Talk:Spider-Man:_No_Way_Home#Maguire and Garfield. Should be blocked either way. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: It seems that This ip (103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is doing the same thing as IP (103.146.225.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) Chip3004 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This range has been introducting problematic edits at various television series and awards articles, particularly adding foreign networks, which aren't the original broadcasting networks for the series and awards programs in question, and goes against the template instructions for the "network" parameter found at

) 16:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I did leave one warning here, concerning the Boy Meets World editing, but noticing the edits were coming from dynamic addresses, I found there was no point in leaving additional ones. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

source at all. I've applied a 72 hour block to the 36.81.8.0/21 range. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

18:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Broadmoor has a history of edit-warring and article ownership of Florida A&M University. He or she has been blocked twice for edit warring and has many warnings on his or her Talk page (e.g., August 2021, June 2019, March 2018) so he or she is definitely aware of our policies against edit warring. He or she has been engaging in edit wars and ownership of this article since 2015 continuing through to this year. Today, he or she edited the article to remove information that is the primary subject of the first source cited in the article. I reverted that edit, Broadmoor reverted, and we exchanged another pair of reversions.

I don't mind a little bit of rough and tumble editing; I do mind when an editor knowingly and repeatedly engages in edit warring and ownership over several years despite multiple discussions with other editors and warnings. The edit summary used in his or her latest reversion, "it doesn't belong there. let's go to arbitration, i will continue to remove it." clearly communicates an eagerness to continue edit warring and owning the article. The most recent warning left about edit warring was left just a few months ago, by an administrator, about edit warring in this same article. This is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Can an administrator please make it clear to our colleague that this behavior is not acceptable? ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. Broadmoor, you are headed toward a partial block from the article, in which case you'll have to make your case on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Broadmoor is continuing this behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks ElKevbo. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

سهراب بارسایی (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if I should be reporting this here or on AN. This editor has made over 100 white space additions or removals to articles over the last 24 hours. I think they're either a bot, or they're trying to game their way to extended confirmed status. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Diff to ANI notice user on talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am looking for permanent confirmation of my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by سهراب بارسایی (talk • contribs) 02:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not how you get

extended confirmation. The way to do that is to make meaningful edits like adding content or participating in discussions. Also why do you need extended confirmation? You can edit most pages without such confirmation.VR _talk

02:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

سهراب بارسایی, when you mention permanent confirmation of my page, which specific page are you talking about? "Permament confirmation" is not a concept on English Wikipedia. You cannot achieve your goal by making trivial edits that add no value to the encyclopedia. Please describe your goal in much greater detail. Cullen328 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to see the information of each page with a permanent extension, I thought this way I would achieve my goal — Preceding unsigned comment added by سهراب بارسایی (talk • contribs) 03:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection, any editor can see most of the information about such articles, although some information may be removed because of misconduct by various editors. If you want to edit such articles in addition to to getting information about them, then you need to make 500 actually productive edits, instead of fooling around with white space. Cullen328 (talk

) 03:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked the user as
  WP:CIR, or a combination thereof.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 03:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• A few years ago, we had an editor (or an IP) who went around adding/deleting white-space. Quite possible, it's the same individual. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Probably not, as this is a common trick to try to game extended confirmed. Curbon7 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems this edit [170] by Rosie0706 on my talkpage includes a legal threat (to someone). Asking an admin to do what an admin should do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear legal threat. I have blocked and left a note why. --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I just emailed them. Is there anything else I should do? for a revdel request -Roxy the dog. wooF 01:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can I help? Atsme 💬 📧 02:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but there doesn't seem much point any more. -Roxy the dog. wooF 06:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    • ..and thanks to the revdelling Admin. -Roxy the dog. wooF 07:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a block on

) 19:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have protected the article. There's

dispute resolution processes if necessary, but you must reach consensus on the talk page before it will be unprotected. --Jayron32

19:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. However, do know that there's no "think" here; I'm merely removing (or trying to remove) persistant vandalism that isn't supported by any sources, as the failure of the other user to produce them upon request will attest to. Wareno (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read

WP:EW, and you will be blocked for edit warring over that as well as anything else. Please stop calling things that are not vandalism, "vandalism". It is unlikely to work out well for you if you keep doing that. Instead, hold discussions on the article talk page, generate a consensus by bringing in outside voices if necessary, and then the let an admin know so the article can be unprotected. --Jayron32

15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Having just looked through the article and its history, what this alleged "vandalism" consists of is that Wareno wants his pet image in the article and doesn't want a flag icon the other fellow's sought to put in. Trout slaps all around, but neither one seems to be accurate. Wareno's image pertains to a people who killed the Portuguese commander ... on a different continent, a year after the battle the article commemorates. The inclusion of a crude illustration of those generic people is trivial at best, and not remotely vandalism. Ravenswing 16:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Further ... this isn't the first time Wareno's been edit warring on this page, or issued insulting threats: [171] Ravenswing 16:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took the time to look through the issue. But I'll point out that the justification for the recent edits made by the opposite party were that A) the image was removed because it's "unrelated"; B) That the flagicon along with the belligerents it represents belong in the list of participants of the battle. First off, as we can see, the section from which the image was removed specifically mentions the people whom the image was made to represent roughly in the same time period, hence, it's not at all "unrelated". Quite simply, some user thought it was unrelated, and removed it, so of course I put it back. Second, some users have inserted some belligerents into the box, which did not take part in the battle. Where are the sources that prove they did? They don't exist, as I already said time and time again, but why isn't the opposite party being asked to produce at once any evidence that justifies their behaviour? Once they are, you will see the issue settled. Wareno (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Unrelated" might not be entirely accurate; "too trivial and inconsequential to the subject of the article to warrant inclusion" is. I would've removed the image, as irrelevant to the subject, myself. And yes, we have heard your arguments. For my own part, I don't care much for the inference that the issue will not be "settled" until the other fellow "justifies" his behavior, the more so that you are edit warring yourself, and you've done it more than once on the article. You

do not own this article, and your permission is not required for others to edit it, even when they're editing your own contributions. Ravenswing

20:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Unrelated" is what they wrote, and unrelated is what it isn't. Images are optional if you don't like them, but keeping "Timoja" and "Vijayanagara Empire" within the box is factually wrong plain and simple, and not subject to becoming true through the rule of majority, unlike what the other side thinks. I have duly justified my edits, which is an easy thing for me to do. The other side has not. I have done my part. Wareno (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read,

WP:EW, as it appears you have not yet done so. The policy states "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." You can be blocked for edit warring just as well if you are correct or if you are wrong. It has nothing to do with who is correct. Indeed, if you are correct, then a talk page discussion will make that obvious. --Jayron32

12:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Therealmovieinfo and his sockpuppet accounts

See here. A user has been personally attacked by another one with really informal comments.Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Because they applied

chatter

) 04:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Meh. A 15-year-old accounts' user should have known better. Drmies was incivil but it was rather adding that template was dumb. Play stupid games... EvergreenFir (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like unnecessary vitriol from Drmies in response to what appears to be a good faith attempt to add a video games section to the Template:Slave narrative template. Also some ire randomly directed at Silicon Valley after four video games (developed in Minnesota, Bulgaria, Denmark, and France, respectively) that deal with the subject of slavery from a first person perspective were added to the template by Haleth. Notably, Drmies doesn't appear to object to (or maybe didn't notice) the numerous works of fiction – most written by modern authors with little to no connection to slavery – that were already in the template. Setting standards for the use of the template is one thing; that's a content dispute that should take place in an appropriate venue. It's another thing entirely to attack another editor with baseless aspersions. I don't agree with the above users who are mischaracterizing this as a cut-and-dried issue of flippant behavior being appropriately chided by Drmies. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AlexEng, look at the article for that game, what that game does, and how critics responded to it. There is a huge difference between a work of fiction (in the case of some of these "works of fiction", based on slave narratives--or personal experience) and a video game. Have you read Our Nig? Did it figure a scene "in which the player [reader?] needed to "stack" slaves in the storage compartment of the ship", and did it "trivialize slavery"? Inquiring minds want to know. If video games "deal with the subject of slavery from a first person perspective", does Zelda deal with "the subject of magic and flying up walls from a first person perspective"? Of course this is a "content dispute"--in which one set of edits was indeed tone-deaf. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Transatlantic Slave Trade. The 15 second mini-game was clearly intended to underscore the abominable conditions aboard slave ships and the Middle Passage. I'm not going to address your bizarre comparison to a fantasy game. If you want to re-litigate the issue of inclusion, that should probably be handled on a talk page. What concerns me here is that you appear to have made a mistake regarding the intentions of another editor, and that you are now doubling down on that mistake rather than apologizing and effectively ending this whole dramatic spectacle. AlexEng^(TALK

) 08:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Drmies is clearly in the wrong here.

WP:CIVIL applies to everyone, even those acting in good faith. Slave tetris does not make being uncivil okay. That being said, this isn't worth anything other than a light scolding, if that. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ

13:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Close. A trout to the OP for the absurd decision to bring this here, and a trout to anyone who thinks there is any reason we should waste time discussing third-party drama-mongering. Haleth and Drmies are both grownups and if one of them wants to have a discussion at ANI they both know how to start one. --JBL (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of shit on ANI lately that could have been resolved with a talk page conversation instead of a full-on drama board posting.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If describing things that are patently tone-deaf and fucked up as "tone-deaf" and "fucked up" is a problem, then just shut the whole project down for the good of humanity. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• On the technical level,
  competence. To complain about a few bad words is simply pathetic if you are not also strenuously complaining about use of that navbox. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 02:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  It would be nice if editors could please examine the details of the dispute before commenting and assailing someone else's competence. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  All that shows is that Haleth added a game to the navbox and added the navbox to the game at the same time. Before that, the navbox showed links to 94 serious articles concerning Slave narratives. The game is obviously not a slave narrative and thinking that it might be is not a good sign. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  So what was the point in citing

  WP:BIDIRECTIONAL if it's not relevant? English is a living language, and the meanings of terms change over time. If you read slave narrative, you can see that the term is redefined three times in the article, making room for fictional works and "neo-slave narratives" which don't match the definition in the lead: the (written) autobiographical accounts of enslaved Africans. I presume you're okay with those, though? Presumably you're also fine with The Octoroon, written by Irish-American playwright Dion Boucicault? The whole host of novels and young adult fiction doesn't seem up for debate either. So, clearly, when an editor seeks to expand it further by adding a novel medium of storytelling to the stack, not only is it wrong, but it entitles others to then deride them and otherwise question their competence? Did I understand correctly? Not a great look. AlexEng^(TALK

  ) 10:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  AlexEng, perhaps you should move your content questions to the article talk-page. This thread was opened by someone who is neither Drmies nor Helath, and evidently neither Drmies nor Helath have any interest in pursuing this as an ANI matter. It should be closed, and anyone who wants to weigh in on the content issue can do it somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate MR close on

China COVID-19 cover-up

This was not an MR close but an RM close. The correct venue for contesting inappropriate RM closes is

WP:MR. Confused yet? Me too. The executive summary is that this is the wrong venue to contest a requested move discussion closure. The correct venue for that is Wikipedia:Move review. --Jayron32

19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Following a bizarre

DRASTIC page would try it again with this page (they even boasted about it in the precipitating NPOV/N discussion

).

Following these lengthy MfD and Merge proposal discussions, I was pleased to see the unusually diverse group of editors participating in the MR discussion, as it's usually just familiar names recycling the same arguments. So I was shocked to see

WP:CONTENTSPLIT

).

The closer of the Merge proposal was

WP:CLOSE, I am requesting a review of this MR close and AfD nomination, in context of the previous MfD and the Merge proposal. Adoring nanny has already brought up this issue with Sceptre on their talk page, citing the Associated Press investigative report which provides the evidence that supports claim that China covered up the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, that was also aired in a 90 minute documentary by the BBC in the UK, and PBS in the US. I have never seen the fact-checking scruples of so many RS called into question over one claim, no matter how controversial. Gimiv (talk

) 15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do need to behave ourselves better. In particular, I would like to remind

autoconfirmed, and to jump in immediately in a contentious editing area… well, there's some glaring questions right there that need answering. Sceptre (talk

) 15:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not a sock or a meat puppet. I've been watching these ridiculous discussions on Wikipedia ever since stonewalling of new users on this topic openly advocated for by senior editors and aired in this YouTube clip (65k views and counting). If I have to make a few edits to other topics, I will, but you should address my concern with your close instead of casting aspersions. Gimiv (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, 65,000 views? That's impressive! Only 20,000 more, and you can overtake this video about a disused railway signal. Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given it's clearly a controversial discussion, I am surprised that closer closed it while simultaneously planning on deleting it, which would certainly indicate a lack of neutrality (the status quo being an option inherently somewhat aligned with a "keep" viewpoint). Though I do note that I see concerns with the participants positions/nature as well, but as this is a close query, that's what I'll comment on Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I felt the closure of the discussion was premature and not sufficiently justified. Citobun (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support closure. I felt they adequately summarized the discussion, and noted the policy angles well. It may be true that the closer wanted to delete the article, but my understanding of Closure Review is that we are assessing the close, not the closer. We should only be deciding "was this close within the realm of reasonable interpretation given the situation at hand?" I would discourage Sceptre from saying such a thing in future closes, but I wouldn't overturn the close itself. I would also point out that Gimiv did not discuss this close with Sceptre on their talk page, which is part of the closure review process. (Note: It should be made clear that I (along with many others here) participated in the RM discussion itself.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the close. But I also don't think this belongs at ANI. I did not and do not think User:Sceptre should be sanctioned here, which would be the purpose of ANI. There are boards for reviewing closes. Not sure which one this belongs on. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CLOSE says If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Had Sceptre closed the MR without opening the AfD, I maybe would have filed the request at Wikipedia:Move review, but the AfD complicated things. Sceptre is a seasoned editor with 15 years experience, so they should know that zealous actions like these attract the attention of outsiders like me and compel us to join the discussion. Instead, they attacked me claiming I am a sock, which is exactly the kind of ad hominem argument some editors have been using in this topic area to justify their actions. See also the stonewalling comment above. Gimiv (talk

) 17:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not the

Administrator's noticeboard. I think it would be reasonable to move the discussion there. Firefangledfeathers

17:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that this wasn't the Administrator's noticeboard. How do we move the discussion? Gimiv (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gimiv: Copy and paste should be fine. I'd put a small, signed note at the top that indicates the discussion was copied over from ANI. Firefangledfeathers 18:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree in part. Gimiv's stated purpose here is to review the RM, but that would be better suited at WP:Move review. Firefangledfeathers 16:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. Move reviews should be conducted at
  WP:MR. Although personally I would wait on filing a move review, as the AFD is leaning toward redirecting the article. –Novem Linguae (talk
  ) 17:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Gimiv: It seems you did not notify User:Sceptre of this discussion on their user talk page, as required when starting a discussion about someone at ANI. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you sure seem to know a lot about Wikipedia policies and guidelines for someone with less than 50 edits under your belt. I can see why User:Sceptre raised suspicions of sockpuppetry above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I commented before the MR was opened that moving the page to "allegations" given the content would have actually been an appropriate admin move due to the failure of the page to document anything more than just claims of China's coverup (no conviction or equivalent made). So this is clearly an appropriate closure. --Masem (t) 18:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Viriditas and combative and accusatory behavior

Viriditas has apologized for their behavior, Filetime has been made aware of

WP:EW and also the proper way to respond when someone objects to one's edits, sanctions are not required at this point for anyone. Let's keep it that way. --Jayron32

19:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

After I cropped and uploaded a new image of

WP:CANVASS, roping in Beyond My Ken, who wrote

"I'd like nothing better than to see him gone." This behavior clearly violates

WP:NPA

and should be addressed by an administrator as such. It is important to note that User:Viriditas has a history of using personal attacks stretching almost a decade; this behavior should be understood in that context. Filetime (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to highlight the complete lack of context for User:Viriditas's accusations of bad faith. I rarely edit political articles and made no changes to the content of the page that would suggest I have a bias or even opinion regarding the subject. The behavior is indicative of someone who is defensive to such an extreme degree that they are recklessly accusatory and set out to construct narratives of bad faith editing by other users. Filetime (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You edit-warred a poorly-cropped photo against the expressed views of two separate editors who objected to your proposed change. How about you open a thread on the talk page and try to gain consensus for your proposed new photo? If there's no consensus that your version is better, then, well, your photo won't be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CANVASS is just going to be ignored here? Filetime (talk

) 06:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I did not receive the required notification from Filetime regarding this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also note that in the edit summary to this edit -- Filetime's third reversion to his preferred image) Filetime accuses me of harassment, when all I did was restore the status quo ante after advising Filetime to open a discussion on the talk page, which they still have not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CANVASS? Filetime (talk

) 07:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to be cause of drama here during this holiday week when we should all be thinking of family, friends, and loved ones, so I will use this space to make a public apology to Filetime for my overt and unnecessary hostility, and endeavor to have a more collegial working relationship in the future. Please everyone, go enjoy the holidays. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• People who have been edit warring (Filetime) don't normally start an ANI report about it. If someone wants to dig into the history they might find a reason why others were speaking in the manner reported. In that case, further action might be considered. However, the reported discussion does not rise to a level requiring sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• This looks like a possible candidate for a
  WP:CANVASSing are pretty flimsy and that the user should have notified Beyond My Ken if they were going to talk about him at ANI. AlexEng^(TALK
  ) 11:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO

AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave

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

Anti-pornography AfD's

Each sub-thread has been closed or collapsed, so super-closing the whole shebang. See individual closes for outcomes. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, GS, but shebang wouldn't be my first-choice word to use here, given the context. EEng

That hadn't occurred to me, EEng. Now that you've pointed it out, be honest - are you sure that it wouldn't have been your first choice? Girth Summit _(blether) 20:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure I'm sure. I would have said clusterfuck. EEng

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

---

Note: I've closed all sections except the "Suggesting

WP:BOOMERANG" section; there is no consensus yet on whether to sanction and/or topic ban User:Subtropical-man and/or User:Supercopone. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

initial report

Spartaz has not done anything wrong here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

User:Spartaz seems to have some sort of bias against pornography. Of course its his right, but he along with suspicious accounts associated with these AfDs [180]

make me believe something else is going on here. In all this I have made mistakes by pinging another user wrongly. I did so because I thought the user had useful ideas on the matter. Yet, aggressively deleting notable articles is disruptive.Super (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is a preemptive attack based on a warning I gave @
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  19:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Spartaz, please stop manipulating. I complied with your request and removed the supposed offensive comment. What "preemptive attack" - this is typical "aspersions". User Supercopone decides for himself and does what he wants. I deleted my comment because I didn't want to waste my time in endless discussions. You have a grudge against my comment and you do exactly the same. And double, because you define other users's work as rubbish. Your comment offensive and you insult other users that they create rubbish... and I should scare you now ANI like you did. You do exactly the same. Your problem that (I wrote about in the deleted comment) concerns extreme abuses of the AfD. The same opinion is shared by the user Supercopone. Your main activity on Wikipedia is creating hundreds new AFDs and voting for deletion in existing AFDs. See last your own 100 AFDs - 99.9% your votes is for deletion. You are responsible for the mass deletion of Wikipedia articles. This has been going on for years. You have completely lost neutrality and perspective. That's why topic ban of AFD pages for you is a good way out. Wikipedia needs neutral people to operate on Wikipedia's technical pages, including the AfD, you are not one of them. Your edits clearly show that deleting articles is your phobia, you are doing nothing else. Therefore, other users have the right to demand changes and remove you from AfD pages. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ah thank you for withdrawing your statement (which was still up when I checked the afd before writing my reply) but since you choose to repeat your ridiculous claims here I stand by my comments. There clearly is disruption going on here but its not for nomimqtimg articles when they are getting deleted.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

…

• Comment clearly there are a few editors that disagree with Spartaz, but I don't see any evidence that Spartaz is doing something ANI would need to discourage or prevent. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia has long had a problem with a plethora of very poorly referenced biographies of non-notable porn performers. Spartaz has worked diligently to take out the garbage through AfD and should be commended for it instead of attacked for the valuable work that they do. Clearly, some porn stars are notable and we should have well referenced biographies of those people. The others should be and are being deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• • You believe an almost 100% deletion rate isn't suspicious? Has anyone looked at the accounts that seem to always vote delete on all of these? Super (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs)

• I know there are many articles of poor quality and without sources. However, the user Spartaz's phobia already affects better articles, such as Devon (actress). This is a current case. This article is correct, text, infobox, photo from Commons, not stub - 14,170 bytes, 28 sources and.... 27 interwiki[181]. She is awarded the most important award in the porn industry (so-called Porn Oscars), she was the Penthouse Pet and appeared in notable film of Pirates (2005). There are no reasons why the article should not be on Wikipedia. The user Spartaz has already started deleting valid articles. This is already dangerous and destructive for Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Phobia? Excuse me but what the actual?. I find this accusation deeply offensive. How dare you label me with an abnormal mental health tag. Can someone deal with this please?
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• The citations consist of the usual interviews, press releases and awards rosters. Start-class content doesn't make an article notable. The remaining notability rationale is an appeal to PORNBIO, which was deprecated in 2019. Again, the consensus for WP:BIO changed, and this stuff doesn't count anymore unless it is supported by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• The fact you think that the delete rate is based on votes leades me to believe you may be forgetting
  WP:NOTVOTE. Of course, I'd hate to vexbysterang myself, so I'm going to stop there and leave a reminder that AFD is not a vote. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ
  02:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure about any canvassing. The only problem I see in the AFD is from Zaathras who speaks about 'extreme hostility' which doesn't seem to exist, then calls for another user's vote to be stricken. diff. Pretty far from
  WP:CIVIL. -- Bob drobbs (talk
  ) 20:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That would be the vote canvassed by this edit which should be discarded. And if you could go back to the afd and cite the sources you say pass GNG it would really improve the quality of that discussion thanks.
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Is asking for another editors opinion on a article canvassing? He had been involved in previous discussions on this article and cannot see where asking for a useful comment on sources is not allowed . You issued me a warning for that after I filed an ani.Super (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I discovered the canvassing diff while checking your talk page messages about me and saw you had indeed blatantly canvassed subtropical-man. You clearly were looking for support to the discussion so most certainly canvassing.
      Spartaz ^Humbug!
      21:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @
      WP:CANVAS. It's considered canvassing to only notify users who align with your goal, and it appears that the only user you've notified about the new AFD (Subtropical-man) voted keep in the original AFD. You failed to notify any of the other seven participants, some of which voted to either delete or redirect. Isabelle ^🔔
      22:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought an editor could nominate as many articles as possible. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as an involved editor. Of the AfD nominations by Spartaz since 30 October that have been closed, all but one was deleted for failing WP:BIO. The latest nomination, Constance Money, may survive. (Nobody's perfect). However, in the case of Devon, the notability is questionable at best. I haven't voted, but I do see a valid, good-faith rationale behind the nomination. This is a good-faith house cleaning to weed out a backlog poorly sourced articles after notability and sourcing guidelines were tightened. The current rate of AfDs is hardly taxing on editor time and attention, thus little disruption if any. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• WP:CANVASSING and Suptropical-man for an out-of-left-field personal attack (yes, bob drobs, I stand by the "extreme hostility" characterization) against admin Spartaz. The former - AFD #1 of this subject, Supercopone chose 1 of 7 participants to canvass here. The latter - Suptroipical-man posts an egregious tirade against the article nominator here. They slightly softened some of the language upon challenge, but it IMO changed little. Both of these users have effectively tainted the afd , making a rancor-free discussion going forward rather difficult. Zaathras (talk
  ) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Please also note above where Subtropical-man is using ableist slurs like "you have a phobia" against editors his disagrees with. [182] Zaathras (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You have voted delete on every single one of
    User:Spartaz av AfD posts. Is that not weird to anyone else here? You aggressively intervene anytime someone votes keep.Super (talk
    ) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I take an interest in the subject area because it appears that the Wikipedia has been for a decade or more used as a platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy. I am not opposed to pornography, but I love the Wikipedia and hate to see it coopted for commercialism. I also "intervene" when someone posts a sub-optimal reason to retain an article. The D in AfD stands for "discussion", if you did not know. In closing, I believe there are tools available somewhere to examine how a person votes in an AfD vs. how the AfD is closed. I'm fairly certain the majority my entries in various discussions will be matched by the close decision. Zaathras (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• I would support TBANing Super and Subtropical from AFDs. We as a community are way too tolerant of editors who use AFDs to fight. Comments in the AFD and here like "I get it you do not like pornography", "User:Spartaz seems to have some sort of bias against pornography", and "user Spartaz's phobia" are all ad hominem attacks. It's exactly the opposite of "comment on content not contributor". We shouldn't tolerate this, even a little bit. Anyone and everyone making these sorts of attacks at AFDs who doesn't strike/retract them when asked should be TBANed. We've got to clean up AFD. Levivich 15:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know that I'd go as far as a TBAN, but it's weirdly combative behavior - It's not like Spartaz isn't giving policy justifications for their nominations. It's totally normal for editors to focus in on a specific area for a short burst of time. That's not evidence of anything except for dedication to the project. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  user:Spartaz treats others' work as "rubbish" and writes such words in an open discussion. User who treats other people's work as rubbish, should not be able to act on the AfD, especially that deleting articles is the main activity of this user on Wikipedia. These are serious allegations! I do not write that we should use TopicBan for Spartaz because he using the term of "rubbish" for other people's work (it does not meet TopicBan requirements, TopicBan is never given to a person for using an inappropriate word, TopicBan is only for debatable activity on a topic), but because high bias of this user and his disrespect for the articles of other users and his non-neutrality to remove articles. Just like a policeman, a policeman must respect every human life, if he thinks some people are "rubbish" then we have the Gestapo or

  SS [Note: I gave this as an example from another topic to clarify the situation - the example above does not apply to any person on Wikipedia. The above example is only to make you aware of what's the matter.]. Subtropical-man (✉

  | en-2) 17:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Just like a policeman, a policeman must respect every human life, if he thinks some people are "rubbish" then we have the Gestapo or

SS

Okay, I don't care about your note after this, Subtropical. This is uncalled for.

Spartaz isn't calling people "rubbish," he's talking about the content of the articles. The fact you've turned this around as some kind of attack on your person is just baffling. Look man, I'm no prude. If you saw my Patreon, you'd blush. But removing non-notable porn bios from Wikipedia is appropriate because those articles don't meet our standards. Not because they're porn performers, but because they haven't enough claim to fame to meet Wikipedia's general standards. Just accept that and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• • It seems as if you just willfully misinterpreted what he said User:HandThatFeeds. That's really disappointing as it seems that everyone is ignoring the main issue. You assumed bad faith in your actions.Super (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I can see that you completely misunderstood the meaning of my comment. First of all, nowhere (I repeat: nowhere) did I mention that the Spartaz calling people "rubbish", I wrote many times, that he called "rubbish" other users's work (i.e. articles). For example, the current AfD (made by Spartaz) is about Devon which complied with Wikipedia requirements and was not removed by consensus. This is not a "rubbish"! The second thing: please read and understand the previous comments, for example: I know there are many articles of poor quality and without sources. However, the user Spartaz's phobia already affects better articles (...). Soon, articles that meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements will be removed, by misinterpretation by Spartaz. He will want to prove in AfD that they do not meet of requirements. Spartaz has done such things in the past - although the article met PORNBIO's requirements, he over-interpreted the rules and voted to delete. Repeatedly. One of the perfect proofs is first AfD about Devon. The article met the requirements of WP:PORNBIO, she had the most important award in the porn industry, Spartaz voted for removal after all. That is why I wrote about the fact that a person with such extreme behavior towards articles could not decide about them anymore. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: A tiny bit off topic, but what's with the frequent use of "Spacnaz" when (I assume, from context) you mean Spartaz? You switch back and forth in the same paragraph, to the point where for a while I thought there were two editors with similar-looking names doing something you think is wrong. If this is some kind of nickname, stop it now. If this is some kind of non-English spellcheck (my best AGF-compliant guess, though I have no idea what a Spacnaz is), then please take more care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, sorry - my bad. I corrected it. Thank you for the info. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems as if you just willfully misinterpreted what he said

Super, this is a bad hill to die on. When someone compares another's actions to the SS and Gestapo, there's no room to equivocate. Don't do that. I don't care how many Notes one puts in the comment, it's a personal attack to claim that good-faith edits are like the Gestapo.

Subtropical, you explicitly said: if he thinks some people are "rubbish"

You directly accused him of calling people rubbish. If that was a typo, then fine, I'll accept that. But his calling edits rubbish does not justify equating him with the SS, in any way of speaking.

Second, you've continued attacking Spartaz by saying Soon, articles that meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements will be removed, by misinterpretation by Spartaz.

You've directly accused Spartaz of looking to delete articles which do meet Wikipedia's standards. And then you state The article met the requirements of WP:PORNBIO when you've been told that PORNBIO is no longer accepted. You can't use PORNBIO to determine if an article is appropriate for Wikipedia anymore.

You've done nothing to but cast aspersions this whole time, and I strongly suggest you step back & rethink your approach. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for using the word "phobia", maybe it was tasteless. I understand of "assume good faith", but it was hard to understand that someone is trying to justify the removal of thousands of articles because he thinks the work of dozens of users is "rubbish". I guarantee that such words can offend many users. No matter what your beliefs are, we have no right to offend others' hard work - it goes both ways, including me, Supercopone, and Spartaz. Levivich, if someone treats others' work as "rubbish" and writes such words in an open discussion (like Spacnaz), if someone treat Wikipedia as a battlefield to fight pornography per
  WP:BATTLEGROUND like user:Zaathras (because he thinks that it "platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy"), these are perfect examples for TBAN. Levivich, where's your neutrality? You propose TopicBAN for used word "phobia" (because someone wants to delete thousands of articles and apart from the fact that your idea doesn't meet any requirements of TopicBan), and no reaction whatsoever for using WP:BATTLEGROUND to fight with porn "rubbish" by user:Spartaz and to fight with "platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy" by user:Zaathras. So, sorry for using the word "phobia" etc, one little non-vulgar word... because some user can push apart from substantive discussion. So that a certain user does not have to avoid substantive discussion, because he focusing on the word "phobia" - once again, I apologize for using this word. In this situation, any subsequent comments like "because you used the word phobia" should be treated as spamming. I used that word and apologized (and I still waiting for apologies for calling "rubbish" others' hard work). Writing about "phobia" for the tenth time is littering the discussion. This is a place for a substantive discussion. Subtropical-man (✉
  | en-2) 16:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man: The articles in dispute do not number in the thousands. The last time I looked, porn AfDs since 2019 counted in the mid 100's. There is a consensus that PORNBIO was supported by low-quality sources and that articles that relied on that SNG are no longer necessarily notable. Yes, editors contributed content relying on PORNBIO, myself included. Editors agreed that standard was no longer tenable. Taking an ownership interest in the content to the point of taking offense *is* a battleground mentality. Pornography is pervasive with and overwhelming volume of non-notable content pushed by low-quality sources. It is a perennial problem in Wikipedia that used to get an inclusionist exemption, and there are Wikipedians of good faith, who believed it hurt the project. That view is now consensus. Please accept that editors working on that consensus are acting in good faith. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

we are being played here

withdrawn accusation. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Can we get some eyes on @

Spartaz ^Humbug!

20:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Are you being serious? This is retaliatory because I filed an ani. You warned me right? I messed up filing the ani? Backed the wrong dog you said. You getting called out on your bad behavior does not make me a troll.Super (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• @
  Spartaz: I can't agree with your logic at all, and encourage you to retract it or provide better evidence. Since the account was created it has focused on educational institutions in Georgia. And it's not unheard of for an editor to dive into AFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν
  ) 21:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Specifically, it can't possibly be both the original contributor socking and a compromised account. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. Sorry, you see from my link I had a filter on the contribs and this confused me and made the editing gap look 5 times longer
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    21:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC).
    • At a glance (with the full edit history), Supercopone definitely looks like an editor who had some specific interest in "non-traditional" schools, fell into AFD last week, and has been making new-editor mistakes since. However, it is somewhat suspicious that of the 50+ pings that could have been made, they pinged exactly one editor (Subtropical-man) who apparently had retired from porn-related AFDs for reasons which should be obvious. I'm not sure I could cause this amount of disruption with one ping to an AFD if I tried. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

      A 12 year old account that has only been active since December 2nd. Since the 2nd, he has voted in 68 AfD discussions. I see this as a bit suspicious given they have used vocabulary that makes me believe they are not a new user. – The Grid (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's not true at all, I have never used vocabulary of the sort! I have been active over the years. I served in the military so you will see long periods of absence in my editing history.I am sorry I could not manage to find the time to edit overseas to keep my account consistently active for your liking. I am now retired so I will be around much much more.Super (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I did not want to drag him into this. He was actually pissed about it and asked me not to ping him. I am interested in religious diploma mills as they seem to be prevalent here. User:力 He had just made some amazing points in the original AfD and sadly I dragged him into this. I also just retired so have much more time on my hands.I got into AfD's after I saw some useful article vanish and I wondered where they went.... Well down the rabbit hole I went.Super (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with what Spartaz is doing, their requests have fully justified rationales and most have closed as delete. I've read stories where porn performers are harassed because people have added their real names to articles. Wikipedia has a duty of care towards BLP subjects, and deleting articles on non-notable individuals is an important part of that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Overwrites with redirects

resolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

@

Chasey Lain and Constance Money. -- The Anome (talk

) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• That would be the redirect for an article deleted at AFD that I put back after an ip posted an unsourced article in its place? As for the second its a valid editorial choice and if you disagree I will take it to AFD after you revert it. Please see
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  21:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You are completely right about the first one; please accept my apologies. I've now re-deleted it, replaced it with your redirect, and protected it, with appropriate comments.

    Regarding the second; yes, please take it to AfD. -- The Anome (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

    • I have done that, the two academic sources for that article turn out to be a single name check in a work reprinted in another so this does not have the implied level of sourcing.
      Spartaz ^Humbug!
      21:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Suggesting

WP:BOOMERANG

I've read through this discussion in full, trying to tease out whether there is a consensus on the best way forward. Lots of suggestions have been put forward, from 'do nothing' to site bans, and no specific sanction has an obvious consensus, but I am going to work on the principle that someone who believes a user should be site banned would also believe that they should at least be topic banned from the area in which they have been disruptive. Based on that, I see consensus for the following:

• WP:AN
  after six months.
• There is not consensus for any specific sanction to be applied to
  IBan in place between them and Spartaz: any future instances where they make accusations about Spartaz's motivations will likely be met with blocks without further warning. Girth Summit _(blether)
  21:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

User:Supercopone appeared out of nowhere on December 1 and began posting in a huge number of AfDs, !voting to keep in nearly every single one. While this is not a problem in an of itself, Supercopone's rationales are rarely based in policy. Here are a smattering of Supercopone's posts in AfD: [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188]. Rationales like these popping up over and over is obnoxious to people who are genuinely trying to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted, and have the potential to be confusing to the closer. I suggest a topic ban from AfD for User:Supercopone for a limited period of time, at least long enough for them to learn what kinds of rationales are acceptable at AfD and what kinds are not. Mlb96 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• • You seem to vote delete the majority of the time. So I would suggest a topic ban for you as well.Super (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • It's funny you say that, because I was worried that I was voting keep too many times so I started commenting more on AfDs that seemed incredibly obvious deletes to balance it out. But that's besides the point, since you seem to have missed the reason I'm suggesting a topic ban. It's not that you always vote keep, it's that your rationales usually have nothing to do with policy. Mlb96 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Supercopone does need to do better if they are going to keep participating at AFD at the pace they are. Hopefully they can commit to focus more on quality than quantity going forward; if not some community-imposed restriction will be necessary. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• User:力 I am taking a break for awhile while I work on learning a bit more. I will actually work to improve articles for awhile before jumping back in to AfD's. That being said, is it your opinion no issue exists at all with the deletion of all these articles?Super (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Since "you vote delete a lot" seems to be a line of attack mounted by the 2 editors in question here, here are some statistics. When one's actions are upheld by a community of peers for the great majority of the time, then that is by definition not biased, has not "lost neutrality and perspective", nor is it a "phobia".

  Myself: 71%: [189]

  Subtropical-man: 18.6% [190]

  Supercopone : 0%, but TBD [191] Has weighed in at 39 AfDs in 3 days, only one has closed so far.

  Spartaz: 83%: [192]

  As for the merits of the boomerang, Supercopone is not off to a great start with the canvassing and the attacks. Subtropical-man has just gone beyond the pale and is a definite support IMO. Zaathras (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That data is not correct and leaves out a lot.Super (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting data is presented in your link: Quote: "Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Spartaz: 8187!!!!!. Analyzed the last 250 AfD pages edited by this user. Keep votes: 0 (0.0%). Account of Spartaz is mainly used to delete articles. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:CIR concerns here. If a person nominates a page for deletion, and in a clear, convincing majority of the time the Wikipedia community agrees with it the nomination, then it was a good nomination. End of discussion. Your personal feelings about the concept of deleting an article are not relevant. ValarianB (talk

) 17:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Er until recently, my contribution to afds was closing them which leaves a blank contribution in the tool. More recently I'm clearing out the non notable porn articles so I'm not voting elsewhere much. For fucks sake! I'm following policy here. BLP & N are fundamentals. Why am I expected to justify doing policy based activity against moronic metrics. I'm clearly not getting sanctioned but no one is stopping this drip drip bullshit comment ary aimed at me. It's no wonder good faith editors get driven off the project. Can an admin either stop subtropical-man and supercopone from throwing round these spurious and insulting allegations or close this down.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

17:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that admins often seem to be reluctant to take quick, obvious, action, such as closing the original report here. All

Phil Bridger (talk

) 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support afd topic ban and a one-way interaction ban for Subtropical-man preventing him from harassing Spartaz further. ValarianB (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I pinged him. He had already stepped back and I unwittingly drug him back into it all. Yet Spartaz is allowed to carry on his work unchecked even though he admits he wants all the porn Bio's gone because he sees it as advertising. An account that seem to always seem to support him at all cost keeps at it, Spartaz still gets to insult and and taunt other editors and the take away is to ban User:Subtropical-man user from AfDs? You also need to retract you absurd claim of harassment or show proof. Discussion is not harrasment.Super (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

More unfounded allegations and personal attacks. Please provide diffs for your claims about me or withdraw. Honestly, why we tolerate this kind of abuse and harassment?. Its shameful that good faith editors can be abused like this with no consequences for the abuser.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

19:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have summoned him to the afd, yes, but since then that user had chosen to double- and tripledown at every opportunity to slur and harass (the numerous examples of such are linked to by other editors, and can also be found in tis very ANI) an admin with whom he seems to have a philosophical disagreement with on deleting articles. I used to take part in deletion discussions more, but found it to be a drags after awhile but that is just my preference. I also see no insults levied by Spartaz anywhere. ValarianB (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• As user:Supercopone mentioned, it was a one-time issue. I have not had contact with the user Spartaz for few years. In 5 December 2021 I was asked to speak in this topic, all this. I see that there is no consensus to topicban for Spartaz, ok - I respect this decision. As I mentioned (in 5 December, and later also) - please do not ping me on pornography topic! I do not plan to edit in pornographic topic, I abandoned this topic a long time ago. And I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. I Ask, to Spartaz did not contact me too. For me, the topic is finished. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support any action to stop this disruption, and generally urging everyone to raise the bar of tolerance for incivility (especially but not only at AFDs). I would have liked for this to have been dealt with via an indef block from the first uninvolved admin who saw it, as that would have saved other editors time. Editors who personally attack other editors should be given like one warning and then an indef, and let them make an unblock request that shows they can use this website without abusing other users of the website. Levivich 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from AfDs and a one-way interaction ban for Subtropical-man to prevent them harassing Spartaz. This has gone on long enough, and they have shown an intractable need to attack Spartaz over valid AfD activity. Considering Supercapone's comments above attacking Spartaz, I would not oppose a one-way interaction ban against them as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose to this. I have not had contact with the user Spartaz for few years. As user:Supercopone mentioned and I mentioned above, it was a one-time issue. In 5 December 2021 I was asked to speak in this topic, all this... and I regret that I agreed. I see that there is no consensus to topicban for Spartaz, ok - I respect this decision (I wrote about it above). I do not plan to edit in pornographic topic, I abandoned this topic a long time ago. And I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. If there is to be a ban to contact, it is only two-way. There cannot be a situation that Spartaz will attack me and I will not have a chance to answer. I think that I and Spartaz do not feel like contacting - of our own free will. No orders or prohibitions are needed here. However, if someone wants to impose interaction ban, I demand two-way option, because I still feel threatened and will feel threatened later. Besides, I don't want him to contact me. However, I believe that we have both learned a lesson and we will avoid each other - of our own free will. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Boomerangs are nothing more than retaliatory behavior for reporting someone. The fact not one person even looked into this other than saying "its ok to delete as much as possible" and "he's a long time editor and admin." How about one admin take it upon themselves and look into this? The level of clearing pornography bios from Wikipedia is astounding [193] If someone doesn't see this level of deletion as destructive then there is not hope to change anyones mind on this subject. I have been back throughany of these and many should have been keep based on standard notability alone. Except he uses wording to take makes it seem as if no pron bios should exist. Please just take a look someone.Super (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I had a look, and I agree with many others above, i.e. it is very clear that your persistent meritless haranguing of Spartaz needs to stop right now. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Or, perhaps, people have looked into it and come to the obvious conclusion that Spartaz's behavior is fine and yours is problematic. --JBL (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban for Supercopone. When someone persistently misrepresents and misconstrues like this with such reckless abandon, there's no real point in kicking the can down the road. It's clear that they can't/won't abide by our collaborative requirements.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk
  ) 02:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• At the very least something needs to be done. This thread should not be archived without action. This kind of well-poisoning should not be allowed to continue unchecked.
  LEPRICAVARK (talk
  ) 19:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that we already agreed to let it die and no longer engage with him.Super (talk)

05:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Where did we agree that? And why do you refer to yourself in the third person?

Phil Bridger (talk

) 08:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Me and Subtropical-man man have agreed to changes. I am only wrapping up with the AfD's Inwas already involved with. I stepped back from new ones and told an admin that earlier. Another admin literally told me I needed to file here when I questioned how to handle this. Please see that on my talk page. That said I have done nothing causing any issues in AfDs that should result in a topic ban other than working to save articles that have merit. My crime is wanting to stop massive deletions and wanting to improve WikipediaSuper (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfD topicban for Supercopone; no opinion on siteban or sanction on Subtropical-man. I watch
  WP:ATA-based trend of keeping to Spartaz's and Mlb96's deletes that are based in policy and consistent with consensus, as demonstrated, in addition to their constant accusations on Spartaz of being "anti-pornography". eviolite (talk)
  16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

So a entry by Lewis and Clark and a long time home to native Americans is notable and worth bringing up like I did in the Moons article? You cherry pick my votes in bad faith. The real problem here is I don't blindly vote delete everytime.Super (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The nominator already brought those up. Finally, we have the name origin story, which is a perfect bit of "just-so" fabricated from Lewis and Clark's journals. The entry in question is definitely Clark's work, and does nothing to pin down a spot to such exactitude. You did nothing to demonstrate a pass of either

WP:IDHT behavior here makes me weakly support a siteban as well. eviolite (talk)

13:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

So the point is that in good faith with a notable mention as a place where Lewis and Clark stopped at I voted Keep. I don't think my vote to keep can in anyway be twisted to be negative. You and other do not have to like it. It seems me defending my actions upset you enough to want me banned? Super (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Once again, that does not show notability in any way. See

WP:GEOLAND which have been linked to you multiple times. The reason I weakly support a site ban is your consistent refusal to read guidelines/policies in addition to levying accusations on users like Spartaz and other commenters here. eviolite (talk)

16:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. I feel it does. You cannot ban someone for having a different opinion then you. I felt it should have been kept and more information added.Super (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban as this user very clearly is not engaging with the AFD process in good faith, and has no intention of starting any time soon. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats not true. "Very clearly" is a misleading claim. I actually have been working hard to provide factual information that is useful to the afd process. Literally just wrote a letter and sent it snail mail to a historical society for information.Super (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually have been working hard ... Literally just wrote a letter and sent it snail mail ... Millennials, lol. Levivich 01:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban -- user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and is being disruptive. They need to go. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose action against Subtropical-man. The coverage of subjects in fields that are too taboo to receive mainstream coverage (i.e. the kind of sourcing we prefer and require) yet are immensely popular in regard to other metrics is something many may find wildly frustrating. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia that is free, open, and not easily manipulated by those who may have hidden conservative (or quasi-progressive) moral sensibilities. This whole matter is really just a symptom of our inadequate system of determination due to the lack of and repeal of special exemptions allowing an adequate amount of coverage for those who work in the adult industry. Especially given the existence of this thread, I do not imagine that Subtropical-man will engage in further frustrated behavior around the topic that might get them pulled back here anytime soon. Neutral regarding Supercopone (have not done and do not plan to do the necessary amount of due diligence to weigh in on that portion). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • who is that dig about moral sensitivities pointed at please?
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    • It is certainly not an attack on anyone; rather, it is just hypothetical musings that the culture here surrounding the coverage of the pornographic industry etc. gives anyone who might covertly harbor such sentiments many legs to stand on, while leaving those who wish to see the indecorous topic reasonably covered with few. I could say the same thing about the way the domain was handled in the past potentially enabling innapropriate fandom; however, there is no need because the pendulum has swung far enough in the other direction to make such speculation unwarranted at this time. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Christ what a load of vacuous bullshit. --JBL (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
        • civility (something I would encourage others to do). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT
          ) 02:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Civility aside, it definitely feels like you are obfuscating the discussion with needlessly vague and complicated statements. That may not be your intention, but it is nonetheless quite frustrating.
            LEPRICAVARK (talk
            ) 02:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Fair enough—perhaps the complication arose due to vagueness which was seemingly neccessary for politesse; I apologize if my presentation of statements above in a manner to avoid personal hot water resulted in inarticulate inconciseness—anyhow, I rest my case. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
              • Its not the slightest bit civil to try and pin labels on people who disagree with you, especially shitty little comments about moral sensibilities and then try to claim some moral high ground for your actions.
                Spartaz ^Humbug!
                14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Rather than engaging in unsupportable speculations about hidden motives, we should focus on dealing with the clear-cut behavioral problems that are openly displayed in this very thread.
    LEPRICAVARK (talk
    ) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• This has been open 10 days now and the longer its left open the more nasty comments about me are being made. There is a clear consensus that I am the aggrieved party here so why are we allowing this to continue?
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  14:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As there is essentially no valid opposition (subtropical obviously opposes his own sanction, Godsy posted a bit of an aimless word salad), support for Subtropical-man to be topic-banned from deletion discussions, and 1-way banned from Spartaz seems clear. Supercopone, the instigator, a site ban seems clear. ValarianB (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• You're wrong. There is opposition, also no serious arguments for topic-ban. The blocking policy is clear. I do not meet the requirements to topic-ban because I am not active in topic of pornography. Also, your "1-way banned from Spartaz" are disputed. There is no consensus and also I made a statement, I quote: I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. If there is to be a ban to contact, it is only two-way. There cannot be a situation that Spartaz will attack me and I will not have a chance to answer. I think that I and Spartaz do not feel like contacting - of our own free will. No orders or prohibitions are needed here. However, if someone wants to impose interaction ban, I demand two-way option, because I still feel threatened and will feel threatened later. Besides, I don't want him to contact me. However, I believe that we have both learned a lesson and we will avoid each other - of our own free will. So if I get an "1-way banned from Spartaz" I will have to create a new section/subsection in this discussion about "2-way banned" and the discussion will be extended. So far, I haven't started a discussion about 2-way banned to avoid prolonging discussion. Your opinion is already known [194]. Your aggressive comments who attacking me isn't helping here, it only unnecessarily prolongs the discussion. I think the discussion could have been closed a week ago. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support deletion topic ban for Subtropical-man, and support a site ban for Supercopone, based on prior behaviour. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• What is the difference between your "deletion topic ban" and "site ban"? Second question: why do you support block whole AfD if I are no AfD issues me except pornography (not to mention that I quit pornography topic a few years ago and the current case is an exception because I was asked to speak)? I understand that you may have old prejudices against me, however, they are not important here, because these must be actual/current cases. I too can bring 10 users to vote to block for you but: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Topic-ban for any user is a serious matter and must to be serious arguments in accordance with the banning policy.
  WP:CANVASS. Subtropical-man (✉
  | en-2) 00:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support deletion topic ban for Subtropical-man, and support a site ban for Supercopone. Reading through all the relevant discussions both of them seem pretty combative here and in AfDs. It should go without saying that AfD isn't a battleground. While I agree that bans are a serious matter, neither seems to understand why their behavior is an issue. So bans seem like an appropriate way to avoid possible future disruption from them. Going by their actions in this discussion I doubt they will just stop magically stop being combative about things without some kind of formal action being taken in the meantime. It's not like they can't appeal the bans at some point in the future when they have both calmed down and are willing to get along with others better. -Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1:, You wrote: "So bans seem like an appropriate way to avoid possible future disruption from them". You used the word "them" which in this case cannot be qualified together with user:Supercopone. Here we have a completely different situation. User:Supercopone is active in AfD matters, I am not. I quit pornography topic a few years ago and the current case is an exception because I was asked to speak. I abandoned the topic of pornography few years ago by my own free will. So, by what law do you use slander that I am going to come back to the topic of pornography in the future? Your comment here violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A few times before I mentioned that I doesn't edit this topic from few years, I asked doesn't ping me on topics like that. I'm angry that Supercopone got me into this discussion... and even I got an apology. Everything indicates that I am not going to edit this topic, and your comment is purely speculative. If you have evidence that I intend to be active on a topic, provide that evidence. If you have no evidence, so - you breaking two Wikipedia rules, please correct your statement or/and change the vote to neutral. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I could really care less if you participate in things related to porn again. Your being disruptive in this discussion. The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles. It was your choice to participate in this discussion and throw around accusations at everyone in the process, even if you were originally pinged by Supercopone. In the meantime, it's not on me or the community at large to excuse your combative behavior just because you were pinged by someone. Seriously, find a better excuse and stop responding in a defensive way to everyone who "votes" in a way you don't like. It's beyond bludging at this point and does nothing to help your argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1:, you wrote: "I could really care less if you participate in things related to porn again. Your being disruptive in this discussion. The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles" - your commnet has proven once again that your support for topic-ban violates Wikipedia rules. Your previous comment violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this commnent in not accordance with the blocking policy, because for used a topic-ban there must be a reason: current, regular destructive actions on a given topic, and not just an aggressive tone of speech at all. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really feel like belaboring this discussion anymore then it has been but

WP:CRYSTALBALL has to do with the content of articles, not dealing with disruptive people at ANI. In the meantime it's perfectly reasonable to support a topic ban for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Both of which you've clearly displayed. --Adamant1 (talk

) 10:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe WP:CRYSTALBALL has to do with the content of articles, however, it perfectly described your problem: Wikipedia is not unverifiable speculation or presumptions. You cannot argue based on speculation or presumptions, must to be serious arguments and evidences. Second: I understand what you wrote, however "combative" style of expression has nothing to do with topic-ban. Your idea is so absurd that if I write aggressively on the talk page of Talk:Elephant, I should have a topic-ban for any articles of Elephants? or maybe topic-ban for all animals? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read

WP:BLUDGEON. Especially the points made in the "Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process" section. You'd do well to follow them here. --Adamant1 (talk

) 10:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• The situation from a third person perspective (step by step, point by point): user quit pornography topic and AfD at all a few years ago and the current case is an exception because was asked to speak. User abandoned the topic of pornography and AfD at all few years ago by my own free will. The user has never had any problems with the AfD with other topics. To sum up: user inactive in AfD and also in topic of pornography. User spoke up on one case (over the past few years ), upon request by other user. The user was angry that he was being pinged and asked not to ping him. The user has written several times that he does not want to get involved in pornography topic. There are no arguments to propose a topic-ban in this situation, not a single rational argument consistent with the blocking policy. Based on the pillar of banning policy, to quote: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish user", the only thing is that the user may want to edit porn sites in the future, however, these are only unsupported speculations contrary to the actions of the user who abandoned the topic of pornography and AfD at all and his statements. From a technical point of view, there is currently no any basis for using topic-ban. Even if the user in the future (which is unlikely) the user decides to return to AfD and pornography, and if (repeat: if) its editions will be controversial, you can ask for a topic ban (then based on banning policy). As you can see, looking at the matter from a third perspective is crucial in such matters. As of today, there is not even any substantive (arguments, evidences) or technical (banning policy) basis for topic-ban.

• In this discussion, three users showed an extreme lack of objectivity, two voted for topic ban without providing arguments and evidence (
  Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE, Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The only user who tried to argue is Adamant1. However, his first comment here violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, second comment of "The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles" - it even proves that it does not cover the topic-ban at all. These three users not only showed a lack of objectivity and also slander and lying speculation were used against me. I am asking the administrator to restore order here. These slander and attacks on me must end here and now. Subtropical-man (✉
  | en-2) 10:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You say I am asking the administrator to restore order here. These slander and attacks on me must end here and now. I have been asking this for days now.
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note Please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Topic-ban for any user is a serious matter and must to be supported by serious arguments in accordance with the blocking policy including an important sentence {{tqq|Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Also, remember to assume good faith. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support bans. I wasn't going to weigh in, but the not a vote box above which has just been placed by Subtropical-man has convinced me that they do not have the good judgment necessary to contribute in these areas. -
  MrOllie (talk
  ) 18:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• This (deleted) box is request for substantive arguments (instead empty votes per Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE) and following the rules of Wikipedia (including banning policy) did not appeal to this user. I'll leave it without comment. I have never seen a more absurd vote in a discussion on Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• As I wrote before. Wikipedia is not voting, not democracy. This is obvious. The above vote is a parody. Some of the comments are even so sloppy that it's even hard to read what type of blockage it is: topic ban for pornography topic, topic ban for AfD (any topics) or topic-ban for pornography topic in AfD. The latter is theoretically the most reasonable and justified, however, no one even suggested it. Close whole AfD for user. It does not matter that it is against the policy of blocking and common sense. Some of the comments here are trolling and revenge, not a substantive discussion. I ask again: where is the administrator? The administrator should paste vote box and instruct others, because as you can see , when I pasted vote box, the user voted for my topic-ban. How long is this circus going to last here? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note. Information for the administrator closing the topic. Recently, there have been a few votes without any arguments and against to the banning policy. Some comments/votes had the hallmarks of revenge for their aggressive speach here, which have nothing to do with the topic-ban on the AfD. No arguments were given, nor was it proven that topic-ban is necessary. Luckily, Wikipedia is not voting, not democracy. This is obvious. Even
  Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE) are more and more like trolling, I suggest closing the discussion. If the administrator closing the discussion has any doubts about topic-ban for Subtropical-man, please write, then will take the opportunity to obtain a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third opinion) - a neutral person who will not be guided by emotions, who only check it formally - according to Wikipedia standards and rules and banning policies and that there are rational arguments for the necessity to enter topic-ban. From the above discussion it follows that there is neither rational arguments for the necessity to enter topic-ban and is against the banning policy. Subtropical-man (✉
  | en-2) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man:, enough with the giant info-boxes, your opinion does not deserve or warrant a higher form of display than any other editor. I formatted them as comments and left an unsigned template, you are free to atach your actual signature and timestamp as you wish. ValarianB (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I added a final note for the administrator, necessarily as mbox, as my summary and statement. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Again, not your place. Knock it off. ValarianB (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't need your permission to use mbox. Stop trolling. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

New suspicious nom

Apologies...this had nothing to do with the above. Feel free to ignore this wholly. chatter ) 05:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to do with subject under discussion here; AFD was just a troll by a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk Dirty to Me (film) PleaseDoNotBend (talk · contribs) The above nomination was just made with a blank nomination rationale, and clicking on nom PDNB's userpage, I came upon what seems to be a copy of a true adminstrator's userpage, along with a claim that PDNB is an admin. A lot of small edits and two weeks to get ACU privileges, and likely shooting for EC. Since the AfD was for a porn film, it raised my flags towards this topic (I am not claiming Spartz is socking at all here, and this is likely 100% separate from that! But there seems to be something else fishy in the topic area). chatter ) 10:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC) Really?? Are you seriously that incapable of comparing a long term editor's contribution who always makes policy based nomination statements and exclusively on BLPs with a random drive by nominating a smutty film? Its offensive to even link this to me with the faux i'm not suggesting bullshit. Really you are trying to link me and its offensive. And stupid as you have no evidence. What's next? I'm not saying Spartaz was standing on the knoll but... For fucks sake. Spartaz Humbug! 17:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC) This pretty obviously has no relationship to the subject of this discussion, so, if admin action is needed, it should be in a separate section. Phil Bridger (talk ) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Which is why I appended on I had no thought about it being you (sigh). There are a lot of those noms right now, and since this is the administrator's noticeboard and it felt like something they had to take care of, I alerted here, just to rule out any possible connection. Sincere apologies for the haste and rush (or even mentioning you), but I would do the same thing with a Groundhog Day reset because I care about en.wiki's integrity. Did not mean to anger you. chatter ) 00:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) Hey User:Mrschimpf I assume good faith with your actions. You are an amazing editor here on wiki and I wish others would assume more good faith (myself included). You sir are a legend on the discord! So many editors look for anything to be a victim over these daysSuper (talk ) 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC) Don't raise it as a subsection of a section about me then. Spartaz Humbug! 16:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Combative and NOTHERE IP editor

IP blocked 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

Are trying to push w:blp violating material over at [[195]], as well as some pretty bizarre arguments over at their talk pages (not it's a dynamic IP, all the 49.204. range that have posted there is them) [[196]]. Mainly relying on dazzling logic to try and argue against policy. It is well beyond tendentious now and is a time sink, going over the same arguments again and again [[197]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And violations of

wp:npa [[198]] (posted after this ANI was launched).Slatersteven (talk

) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. There has to be some sort of corollary to Godwin's Law for invoking the KKK. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

List of All3Media television programmes

OP/IP blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Hello, Geraldo Perez's behaviour has gone worse and this time reverted someone's edit. So can anyone please block him to prevent more problems? 213.107.66.230 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Just reverting

WP:BAN may be appropriate now based on continued sock editing and SPI finding. Geraldo Perez (talk

) 06:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A block on the IP is necessary, but I think the user may be too young to comprehend what they're doing wrong. You'll notice from their contributions page that they seem to be focused on children's shows. They also don't seem to have a grasp of

WP:WAR (Said uncivil edit summaries were made in the midst of a revert war regarding removing sources), and have repeatedly made immature edit summaries that show that they don't understand why a particular edit of theirs was reverted. I think that a long but temporary site ban (such as a 3-year one) makes sense, as it will give them time to mature, and they can return to Wikipedia after it's over. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ

12:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Gandalfett

Gandalfett partially blocked for one week from editing Chinese Singaporeans by Bishonen.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I note edits made by

Chinese Malaysians as a possible article to look into. I think the message was definitely seen by some users (shoutout to Deoma12

, etc), as over the months since, edits were made to do exactly just that.

However, a few days ago, it seems like many of these contributions were purged or wiped out, especially by this user "Gandalfett". I began to realize this a few days ago, when they inexplicably removed my talk page discussion without any reasons whatsoever. Why? I'm pretty sure there's a rule on Wikipedia that discourages removing other users' talk page discussions like that. I then looked into their edits, and also found out that they made unexplained, significant removals on the article, with some edit summaries pushing its own personal opinions such as "Not useful information and may arise wrong implications" without further elaboration. As I'm not entirely sure of the procedure or have the means to deal with a user like this, I decided to make this post in the hopes of counsel by more experienced editors or administrators as to how better deal with a situation such as this. Thanks. MarionLang (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is MarionLang's third edit to Wikipedia. The Moose 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay...? I'm not an editor, it's exactly why I asked for advice from editors that have been here for much longer. I was bringing up as to why an editor removed my message on the talk page without reason. Am I missing something here? MarionLang (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Confused irrelevancy

@The Moose: Per WP:Blanking, Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters. Chip3004 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC) I don't think this is a user talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC) @Gandalfett: I highly Recommend that you look into Archiving your talk page, if you want to you are welcome to copy the first 9 lines from my talk page which is the Archive option, Just replace " My Username with your own and you will have the ability to archive your talkpage. Chip3004 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Phil Bridger (talk ) 20:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Even though Gandalfett has been here for two years, they may still not be aware of having a talkpage, that's the problem. But none of the behavior you describe is acceptable,

WP:BLANKING text for her; it's not relevant. Also, why should Gandalfett archive their talk? It's quite short. Bishonen | tålk

20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC).

Update: They know they have a talkpage all right, and have edited it to complain about my warning. Good, now we'll simply see if they stop the problematic editing. Bishonen | tålk 16:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC).

Digression about digression
(outdent) why this tangent about Gandalfett's talk page? The issue is with him/her deleting a comment on an ARTICLE talk page. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I propose to restoring the information that was removed by said user @Gandalfett: on the article regarding Chinese Singaporeans, as these information were properly cited and if it was removed without any reason, I don't see why we can't put it back. Since it was deemed that the behaviour of the user @Gandalfett: is unacceptable. --Deoma12^(Talk) 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Good call, Deoma12. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC).

Update 2: Gandalfett has again removed sourced text without giving a reason, and I have partial-blocked them from Chinese Singaporeans for a week. Bishonen | tålk 22:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

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

User:2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:E82E:415A:9A9E:8C4F & User:2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:956F:C209:DF37:8782

Hello! I recently encountered

G8, as a talk page of a nonexistent article. Tol (talk | contribs

) @ 00:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this user is accused of being a sockpuppet. Pinging @

SPI report about the situation. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ

01:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I based this off this comment by @Liz. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: There are reasons one can be unable to access their account outside of a block (For example, if Mx. Clark lost their password) that are perfectly reasonable. Logging out to edit in these situations isn't banned by WP:SOCK. With that in mind, were the IPs doing anything malicious?☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Plutonical: Mx. Clark is globally locked, which makes it impossible to sign in. While the IPs weren't doing any outright vandalism, they were acting unconstructively in mainspace, creating the redirects I mentioned, and filing lots of poorly written redirect requests. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I had no idea about a global lock on the user. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like this person is on a /64, pretty standard for IPv6, if a block is needed here, just block 2a00:23c5:8d98:e201::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) wizzito | say hello! 04:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I went and enacted the range block. The same range was blocked in July for being used by Mx Clarks, and I don't see any activity on that range which is likely not them. I blocked for 1 year given the stability of the user on that range and the lack of any collateral damage. --Jayron32 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack (NPA) incident at a talk page for a minor China-related article

I am reporting an incident of an ad hominem attack against me that was carried out by this IP user — IP user 139.47.34.245 — over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations.

The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history. Their first ever edit was a reversion of a reversion that I had conducted over at the article China–Lithuania relations ([199]). Their second and final edit as of now was an incident of an ad hominem attack against myself, published on the corresponding talk page, Talk:China–Lithuania relations ([200]).

I initially contacted the user to inform them that I believed that they had conducted a personal attack against me [201]. So far, after a couple of days, they haven't yet responded to me (at least, not through that account). Notably, the user quoted some text from my user page into the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations in an attempt to prove that I was "biased" (as seen in ([202]). I deleted the quoted text (though, I left behind everything else that they had written) and left a "personal attack removed" notice ([203]).

A different IP user — IP user 195.135.49.168 — subsequently reverted my deletion of the personal attack over at the talk page, and a brief edit war ensued before I conceded to that user (their version remains) and began to seriously pursue a resolution to the dispute. This user was also contacted by me in the same manner as the first user ([204]). Lengthy negotiations have occurred between me and this user at their talk page since then. This user has refused to remove the personal attack, stating that its purpose is to "expose" me in terms of my apparent bias (seen in [205] and in [206]).

I do indeed suspect that these two users are the same person. It is difficult to figure out what exactly is going on due to the usage of IP accounts rather than registered accounts. Notably, the second user's edits over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations have essentially combined both their own comments and the other user's comments into a single mixed-up blob (as seen in [207]), so, unless these two users are not the same person, I can't fathom that either user would find such a situation acceptable (it's impossible to tell where one user's comment begins and the other user's comment ends).

My goal regarding this dispute is primarily to remove the personal attack material from the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I am not pursuing any specific actions against the two users who have been involved in this incident. I've already tried to resolve the dispute through negotiations with the other parties, but they are either non-responsive or refusing to co-operate, so I am now resorting to the incidents noticeboard, particularly because I want the personal attack material to be removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if it's proper to just add my two cents here, since it's not about an ad hominem attack, but this IP user has been POV pushing and reverting edits without properly engaging in talk. See [208] and Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan relations. E.g. the user doesn't think South China Morning Post is RS and insists on deleting it as a reference even though I have provided them with a link to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Anyway, this is exhausting, and I am done for today. DrIdiot (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

One more: [209] IP user just inserts a random source that doesn't justify the claim when pressed? Edits are full of this stuff. Was hesitant at first but I would consider this disrputive editing at this point. DrIdiot (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, previous example probably not the best. Anyway, the talk page has a record of the discussion. DrIdiot (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to point out something rather interesting (to say the least)... In my original ANI report above, which I wrote only around a day ago, I specifically said "The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history.". This comment has aged like milk... After only one day, the user in question now possesses THIRTY-FIVE edits in total (several of them quite large, I might add). This is also disregarding the high likelihood that the two IP users mentioned above are actually the same person in real life; i.e. their edits should hypothetically be considered together as one unit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The page has been temporarily protected by El C ([210]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed, for the fourth time, the personal attack against me over at Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I've restored the "personal attack removed" ({{RPA}}) notice as well. As far as I'm concerned, this settles the dispute between me and the IP user (who operates multiple IP accounts) regarding their personal attack against me. Obviously, if this user has the audacity to restore their personal attack against me for the fourth time, then we will continue to have problems. As for the other issues that have been highlighted in this discussion, they are less of a concern for me, though I still think these issues need to be investigated by the administrators since some of them are quite serious allegations, although they are not related directly to me and my case here at ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The two IP users involved are the same person

I have found some pretty damning evidence that the two IP users who have been abusing me (and have subsequently been vandalising the two articles China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations) are the same person. Just compare these two edit revisions. The first edit ([211]) was conducted by IP user 195.135.49.168 over at China–Lithuania relations whereas the second edit ([212]) was conducted by IP user 139.47.34.245 over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. The contents of these two edits, despite having been conducted by two different IP users on two different articles, are clearly identical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP was removing sourced information from China–Lithuania relations, as well as the personal attacks. I put China–Lithuania relations on two weeks' semi-protection. I'd suggest the same on other affected articles. Blocking the IPs for a time may be appropriate. But I'd feel more comfortable if other admins concurred on these actions, rather than doing it all myself - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I still intend to get the personal attack against me at that article removed... I removed it earlier myself and left an RPA notice, but the abuser (who is using two IP accounts) reinstated it. And when I tried to remove it again, this user began engaging in an edit war with me. I abandoned the edit war relatively quickly and left the article under the abuser's version, with the personal attack still present in the article. The entire point of opening up this ANI case was to get rid of the personal attack... it's been several days and no progress has been made in this regard. By the way, I have to comment here or else the case will get closed prematurely... no other admins have shown up yet. With that being said, thanks for taking your time to comment here. It does give my case some legitimacy, I would think. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Just an update, there appears to be a 3rd IP now, and this new IP has made an interesting threat here:

WP:BLUDGEON. DrIdiot (talk

) 00:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I have also noticed the arrival of this third IP user (whom you've described above) — IP user 195.235.52.102 — editing the article Lithuania–Taiwan relations, who is most likely the same person as the person who operates the other two IP accounts. So, this person operates at least three IP accounts, and probably more than that. At this point, it seems that their usage of multiple IP accounts here could be intentional (i.e. Wikipedia:Sock). The person operating the multiple IP accounts has denied the allegation of their IP-hopping*, i.e. they are pretending that each IP account belongs to a different person in real life. By the way, all of these three accounts can be geographically traced to the Province of Barcelona in Spain. The person in question seems to be of Asian origin^✝, so I suppose that they might be an ex-pat operating out of Barcelona, or they could simply be using a VPN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

_{*(Re: "Denying IP-hopping") — They have said ⇒ ...I would refrain from trying to "trace" other users... ([213]) – and – Oh yes, you also accused me of IP-hopping. Any evidence? Does that constitute a personal attack under Wikipedia's own definition? ([214]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)}

_{^✝(Re: "Asian origin") — They have said ⇒ I am not a Christian but a Taoist and Buddhist... ([215]) – and – [I looked at] your ideologies. Not a single Asian ideology and no stances on Asian geopolitics ... to rectify your bias, studying Asian history and ideologies ... would counterbalance your ... militant, radical and verbally aggressive stances. May I suggest the (Taoist version of) the Middle Way ...? ([216]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)}

Comment - on the 'IP-hopping' issue, note they didn't actually address whether or not they were the same person, only whether they were 'IP-hopping' (i.e. changing IPs deliberately to avoid evasion). Very few of us have static IPs anymore, and when you're an IP editor you generally have no idea what IP address your edits are going to show up as (nor have any control over it). A user actually attempting to sock-by-IP-hopping, and one that was tech savvy enough to IP-hop at will on WP (using unblocked IP addresses) would unlikely be careless enough to use IPs all from the same town. Short version: assume they're the same person, assume they're not pretending otherwise nor have any control over their IPs changing. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CAD:7C51:CA86:3A6A (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that the IP user managed to hop from IP no. 1 to IP no. 2 and then back to IP no. 1 again (whether intentionally or not). But then, they hopped over to IP no. 3. This has been disruptive... They've neglected to respond to my initial contact with them over on IP no. 1, for example, only responding to me on IP no. 2. They might not have even seen my original contact... which would have led to some confusion on their part, perhaps. I see no reason why this user shouldn't establish a registered user account. It would make all of our lives a lot easier. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This would be completely consistent with (for example) someone editing from multiple devices or multiple locations. It is helpful to distinguish "things that are annoying about the world" from "things that someone is intentionally doing to be difficult" -- changing IP addresses (and the attendant difficulty of communication) in most cases is in the former category. --JBL (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that IP-hopping is not my primary accusation here (which is why this ANI case is here and not on the sockpuppetry page). This ANI case is primarily about a personal attack that was thrown at me by IP no. 1 and then re-instated by IP no. 2 after I had removed it. Bear in mind that the user had not interacted with me before, so the first time I had met them, they were yelling out abuse at me. I've subsequently gone ahead and removed the personal attack again, several days later, and it hasn't been reinstated yet, perhaps due to inattention from the IP user. The IP user has been editing two pages, China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Both of these pages have subsequently been blocked by two different admins (I'm assuming that El C is an admin) due to the disruptive behaviour of the IP user, which includes citing a deprecated source, removing sourced material, and behaving generally disruptively, among other things. This ANI case has been appropriated by DrIdiot, who is mainly concerned with the removal of sourced content over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Jargo is correct that my concern is mostly with that article. However, if you look into the talk page

WP:NOTHERE. Anyway, I agree the personal attack on Jargo (see [217]) is more egregious. DrIdiot (talk

) 05:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: Personal attack) — What's worse than the IP user's initial act of throwing out a personal attack at me (which might be forgiven due to the benefit of the doubt) is the IP user's subsequent insistence on reinstating the personal attack after I had clearly explained why it was wrong. This indicates not only their disruptive tendencies (whether intentional or accidental) but also their intention to behave disruptively, which I think is a much more grievous wrongdoing. The user edit-warred with me in order to force the personal attack back into the talk page, which, in my opinion, is a terrible pattern of behaviour. The user had initially thrown the personal attack at me in order to "expose" me. This falls in line with their tendency to push conspiracy theories ([218]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This ANI case is about to die. It seems that the IP user has been inactive for several days. Still, I am keeping this case open since it hasn't really been resolved; it's just been frozen. I guess the IP user may have lost interest in Wikipedia after they were (temporarily) blocked from editing their two favourite articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you expecting to be done at this point? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Mainly expecting an investigation of the IP user or an extended block of the two pages. It depends on whether the IP user comes back. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I guess the case can be closed at this point. It's been a further three days and there's no sign of the IP user. In any case, I will not forget this case if they do indeed return at a later point. But I will still give them the benefit of the doubt at first if I ever encounter them again. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotion from 112.209.98.110, 112.209.127.217, 112.209.161.220, 120.28.64.215

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved from

WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk

) 13:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

talk

• 09:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected those pages. El_C 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. —Ctrlwiki •

talk

• 14:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor AlexBrn lacking neutral viewpoint

BOOMERANG

OP blocked by User:El_C. Drama reduced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

Editor Alexbrn is active in a lot of articles where Ivermectin is mentioned and has a biased view. In the latest talk under Paul Marik, after I had mentioned an UnHerd talk with a Wiki co-founder, he commented ad personam:

"If Qanon's your thing, fine; just don't expect it to get traction here. Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."

This is proof of his biased thinking and immoral speech, suggesting a user would be interested in Qanon after the user has linked to an UnHerd video. Alexbrn actively suppresses the reflection of different opinions in the medical world about the use of Ivermectin and other medicine against COVID in main articles and likes to get personal then on the talk pages. Otaku00 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otaku00 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a whole long discussion before the boomerang block here, or can we just jump right to

WP:NOTHERE to save time? --JBL (talk

) 13:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I was betting with myself how long that would take.

[X] Unsigned post

[X] Ivermectin

[X] Complaining about someone saying "Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."

I guess we can leave the thread open for a while, but in the interest of reducing drama, maybe just block now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I missed one.

[X] Recent block for personal attacks in the topic area they're complaining about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked indef: User_talk:Otaku00#Indefinite_block. El_C 13:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• Perhaps their TPA should be revoked; they have made 21 edits to their talk page after being indeffed. dudhhr_Contribs 14:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to take this moment to remind everyone how useful the
  WP:LARRYEM link can be. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}
  ) 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:2600:8800:1F03:9D00:20E8:34B7:3C24:F388

This ip has posted something to their talk page that is very offensive. This edit. Chip3004 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hhhh! El_C 04:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I read this as an exultation as if in orgasm. Yknow, basically the whole thing was just a misunderstood flirtation, and anon IP is soliciting OP for relations. If there's a "Wikipedia is not a dating site" essay, I haven't seen it!! ^[FBDB] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this really a matter for AN/I? I'd say an IP user posting "suck penis" to their talk page (and that being their only edit so far) isn't chronic or intractable. Just slap them with a templated warning. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info and subsequent accusations of having a nationalist agenda

I've reached my three revert limit but Safinazuyuyor keeps removing info that was based on based RS. After their initial blanking, I added two additional RS but they kept on removing the information.[219]. Their removal is blatantly a nationalist POV but, hey, I'm the Kurdish nationalist with an agenda here... This is vile as well[220] but the whole section was unsourced so there's that. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I restored the stable version for now. I suggest Safinazuyuyor take their issues to the respective talk pages. If they keep editing like this, they'll likely run into further disputes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Pleasureme23 - Unsourced content & no sign of

WP:COMMUNICATE

Pleasureme23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to add unsourced content/information to articles, most recently receiving a 3-month block for this same behavior in August, with three additional previous blocks for the same behavior in June 2021 and September 2020. As I note here, it appears the editor's previous additions of unsourced content led to many incorrect/still unsourced content on Corn & Peg, that I had to figure out/revert/remove myself.

Apart from this one talk page message, not even on their own talk page, there appears to be no signs of actual communication coming from the user, despite their four previous block of unsourced content and continuing the same thing now. Most recently, a user has given them these warnings just about a week ago, and yet, they still continue with unsourced content being added.

At this point, it seems like yet another block is needed, possibly a much longer block unless they actually show they intend to communicate from here on out, as problems continue to come from this editor. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry how has the user not already been blocked on account of their account name?! GiantSnowman 20:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

blocked 1 year for refusal to discuss. User has never edited a talk page, including their own. —valereee (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If we want to get them to communicate, perhaps someone should register User:23? Levivich 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you did there. —valereee (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Libracarol original research

In the section titled 'Proposal Topic or Indefinite ban for Libracarol', there is a clear consensus for an indefinite topic ban on all law-related articles, broadly construed. Daniel (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Illegal removal of people from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Afghan immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Cambodian immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Americans from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aggravated felony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luna Torres v. Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Libracarol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One of our law editors,

WP:UNDUE

. Please click some of the articles above and take a look at the citations sections to see what I mean.

In law articles, any kind of citation to a court case is

WP:PRIMARY. There is strong consensus for this, supported by two discussions I will link in the next paragraph and also supported by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts

. And of course, articles should be written using mostly secondary sources, not primary sources.

I have been taking this slow and steady, trying to persuade Libracarol to change their writing style. I achieved consensus at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Citations with a lot of cases and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Legal articles: citing too many cases that their writing style is problematic and they need to change it. However they are not listening.

At the original research noticeboard, I asked them if they would accept our consensus and would be willing to clean up their articles, and they said no. Only admins can decide if I'm engaged in OR but you're not an admin. Please see their full statement here.

Looking at their talk page, there may also be a history of doing this. I see 123 talk page sections before December 2021 on the subject of original research, and 1 on NPOV.

This style of editing looks OK on the surface because it is so well cited, but in my opinion it is actually quite pernicious. It injects original research into articles, and it takes a skilled editor to clean it up. And cleanup can't really begin until the original editor stops defending their edits.

What should be done here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I should add that it appears, from a limited spot-check performed at NORN, that Libracarol is making misleading claims (at best) or factual errors (at worst) when writing these articles. JBchrch talk 14:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae and his supporters claim that a written

WP:BULLY.--Libracarol (talk

) 15:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"I'm not engaged in editing of articles" can't be what you meant to say since it's so easy to disprove. That you haven't edited since 2018, when these same issues were raised, and now they're being raised again upon your return to editing, is evidence of a problem: you haven't learned or adjusted to feedback. Levivich 15:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No bullying is going on here. On the other hand, your belittling editors has been noted[221]. Many editors have issues with your editing. Including me[222]. My concerns, are you putting references on a sentence that has nothing to do with what was written. (This is a longtime concern I have had with editing around WP. Here is a link[223] to a talk page discussion I had with administrator) For example this[224]. I'm referring to the re-addition of the Born in East LA mention. OR, bogus referencing and I have multiple occasions in this and another of your articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on a quick look, the first three articles are basically POV essays that were/are created or dominated by Libracarol. This work has been enabled by Libracarol's interpretation / interpretive application of primary sources, a key reason why such is not allowed. The first one is particularly creative, essentially arguing that US law is illegal and writing an article title accordingly. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• As a general matter, there may be some failure here to distinguish between different types of court filings. Assertions contained in pleadings and briefs filed by parties represent one end of the spectrum, where we should be extremely dubious in relying on these materials for the truth of the matters asserted. That is one end of the spectrum. Unpublished decisions of trial courts are also at the less reliable end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum are the written opinions of the United States Supreme Court, published by the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the American system of shared powers and checks and balances, the published decisions of the Supreme Court are the law of the land. An encyclopedia should not discourage citation to, and reliance on, the actual opinions wherein the law is set forth. All that being said, an editor with a POV can abuse secondary authorities discussing Supreme Court opinions just as easily as they can the opinions themselves. The problem here is not IMO with the usage of Supreme Court opinions but with the POV. Cbl62 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. The Supreme Court opinions I cite are exclusively about giving a specific immigration statute (section of US law) its proper definition and coverage. The statute would be the primary law and the Court's published opinion would be the scholarly work used here as a secondary reliable source. The Court does not make laws, its sole task is to explain to the public what that section of law is and who it applies to (or not apply to).--Libracarol (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict, response is just to CBl62's post) I think that we agree, but just double checking. I never questioned that a SCOTUS decision is essentially the law of the land. My "US law is illegal" note refers to the editor invoking and interpreting rules from outside of the US to say that what is legal under US law is actually illegal based on those non-US standards. And of course, I agree that one can also mis-use secondary sources and that POV'ing is an issue here. But using primary sources outside the limits prescribed by policy provides much more latitude to this type of a POV problem and enables it.North8000 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  If an editor is aggressively pushing a POV, that can be accomplished just as easily (probably more easily) by using secondary sources discussing SCOTUS opinions. My point is simply that the problem here is the POV, not the reliance on published SCOTUS opinions. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I never said US law is illegal. The article explicitly states that illegal deportation is illegal because the US law says so. Who on this planet would disagree with that? Is illegal deportation legal?--Libracarol (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  While court decisions may be "law of the land", they are primary sources, just like any laws passed by Congress. Any interpretation or synthesis from those sources require a secondary source, not a WP editor, which is the problem here with these articles. --Masem (t) 19:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just because a court opinion is a primary source (or is treated as one on Wikipedia) doesn't mean it can never be used. There are some appropriate uses of SCOTUS opinions for example. But we can't write an entire article by stringing together dozens of case citations. And it's even worse when that's done to push a POV, by turning encyclopedia articles into advocacy essays. This is someone who is using Wikipedia to write law review articles arguing for a particular interpretation of law. Libracarol should publish their work in a law review instead of on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  The above-listed articles are based on commonly-known facts, such as dogs and cats have four legs, a human has two feet and two hands, Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States, etc. They do not even need a reference. I added the extra opinions of judges (legal scholars) in the event someone has any doubts.--Libracarol (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  If you think "

  WP:CIR issue. Levivich

  16:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  In my opinion that's the best way. It's saying that they could be deported only as the law prescribes but not any other way. An "immigrant" is someone who has been admitted to the U.S. by the government and has permission to reside in the U.S. [225]--Libracarol (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  It should be noted here than the claim about deportations violating the UN Convention against Torture is erroneous. The CAT doesn't include a blanket prohibition on deportations to Afghanistan, as was discussed to at NORN. JBchrch talk 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's the problem. Most people don't know immigration laws. I wrote these articles so everyone can fully understand them. If one person gets illegally deported the US government could end up paying that person hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. [226] What benefit does the US get from this? That person will simply come back and buy a new home with no mortgage.--Libracarol (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Per our standard disclaimers, just as we are not a reliable source for medical information, we are not a reliable source for legal information. And asserting that we should have these articles to help prevent readers from getting into legal trouble is not any part of our mission. If the legal aspects of immigration, etc are discussed in legal-expert secondary sources, we can summarize those, but we can't do that off the laws or court decisions themselves. --Masem (t) 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per Levivich, quite happy to cite Libracarol after peer reviewed and RS published :)Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: If you look closer at reference #4 for that sentence, it doesn't verify it. So why is that reference there? There's plenty more of this in these articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Highly recommend that Libracarol stop creating or editing such articles, until this matter is cleared up. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you see me creating or editing them?--Libracarol (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Smart move. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• For purposes of this discussion, let's assume the citations are valid.   We are still left with violating NPOV, Synth, and civility.
  • On Civility, any expert who believes their sheepskin makes them the superior authority on a topic and states other editors can not comprehend the topic fails collaboration and civility. Special:Diff/1060783833 Special:Diff/1060829594 Special:Diff/1060804484. All of these are minor in tone but significant in showing the editor believes they are superior to the rest of us.
  • On Synth and NPOV, combining three sources to create ledes that state in absolute wikivoice "Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), illegal removal of people from the United States[1] violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other international law.[2][3]", when a review of the sources shows that the statement has several nuances specifically that illegal deportation only violates CAT if reasonable to believe someone is tortured (Illegal deportation to say Canada doesn't rise to this level) is violation of core policies and a major disservice to readers. Also violates lede follows body. Hard to diff but any editor can click the three sources in article and read the notes.
  • In short, the editor has for years gotten away with creating advocacy articles that promote their personal view of the subject and at this time refuses to bring the articles or their editing style into compliance with wikipedia policies and a
    WP:CIR ban should be considered unless they immediately take affirmative steps to fix their mess and promise to cease personal attacks and comply with wikipedia policies. Slywriter (talk
    ) 17:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay has suggested above that I don't edit the articles. Only my opponent thinks I'm violating civility, and we're suppose to believe this opponent just because he says so. User:Alyo claimed he/she was a law student but now has changed it to being a lawyer. [227] Whatever I said in those diffs is not a personal attack on anyone because what if I'm a professor and a judge? Slywriter knows that most deportations are to Mexico [228] so why does he uses Canada as an example? Has any American ever been deported to Canada? I wish that could happen to me. Banning me from those articles would constitute injustice and abuse of discretion. I no longer have interest in those articles. The world already knows about illegal deportation without needing to read Wikipedia. Only a couple of people read those articles daily.--Libracarol (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only do I seriously doubt that you are a professor or a judge, but you could be Oliver Wendell Holmes rising from the dead and your style of editing would still be unacceptable. And yes, deportations to Canada do take place, which confirms that you may be overstating your expertise by a significant margin. JBchrch talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I was obviously talking about deportation of Americans to Canada. The most popular case about Canadian deported to Canada is Stone v. INS (1995). [229] This is a very latest case about Canadian deported to Canada. [230]--Libracarol (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I do hope it's not surprising to you that in the passage of time, a law student would eventually become a lawyer. That's sort of the end goal there. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Returning to the original question in the OP, "what should be done here?": the affected articles should be restored to last-good-version prior to the rewrites (unfortunately, there are a number of affected articles, and the restoration should be done with some care because of intervening possibly-good edits), and the editor should be indef blocked and they can make an unblock request demonstrating they understand and will comply with
  WP:NPOV and other core content policies. I'm particularly concerned that this was an issue in 2018, after which a wiki-break was taken, only to return to the same problematic editing in 2021. I don't want to leave this issue unresolved for editors in 2024. Levivich
  18:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that Levivich be blocked for hounding and bullying.
  WP:BULLY. It has been blocked before. [231]--Libracarol (talk
  ) 19:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Please don't call fellow editors "it". And that block log clearly shows the blocking admin unblocked 2 hours later with apologies. —valereee (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't look at how long the block was. I used "it" because others have used it and I got tired of writing he/she. Some find "he/she" offensive.--Libracarol (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, never use it for a human. If in doubt, use singular they. Also, sorry everyone, forgot to block Levivich indef. But there's still time! El_C 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't even use 'they', just use the editor's name. That way, nobody will complain. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Any complaints about they would be spurious. Being respectful doesn't mean we need to coddle anyone. El_C 21:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. In court filings I repeatedly use party's name but was afraid that editors here will become annoyed or something. So I will just stick to name only.--Libracarol (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You appear in an actual court and still you thought it is okay somehow? That's... wow. El_C 21:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common to call the U.S. Attorney General "it", including anyone under him.--Libracarol (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems doubtful. An Attorney General is a person. Their office is an it, their statements are an it, etc., but not they themselves, personally. El_C 21:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

He's the head of a department, so "it" is a better choice. If you were to use he or she, it could be a reference to one of his lawyers.--Libracarol (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're able to produce documentation to prove that, that would surprise me. El_C 23:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"It" is often used to refer to the office of a prosecutor. I have not seen it applied to people, including the head of that office. —valereee (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Also to a party that is a corporation or a class of people. It is absolutely appropriate to say "it" regardless who the president of the corporation is. The Attorney General does not go in person to courts. His lawyers do. In briefs we say "it" did this or "it" failed to do that.--Libracarol (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, absolutely, but that does in no way mean we refer to the officeholder themselves, the human being, as "it". —valereee (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, if you go to Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing>Navigation popups, enabling that will allow you to hover over an editor's name and see if they've specified pronouns. If they haven't, we generally recommend using they. —valereee (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It's enabled, and thanks.--Libracarol (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I never bother with the singular 'they/them' pronoun. But, it's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Stealth political incorrectness, gg. El_C 23:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think that a topic ban on law-related articles per
  WP:SECONDARY at multiple venues, through both on-wiki and off-wiki materials, Libracarol is still unresponsive and maintains their original position head-on [232]. They still maintain that they are an expert, despite outright mistakes, failures at understanding sourcing requirements, and a general pattern of incompetence. Add in the personal attacks, accusations, strawmanning and belittling of other editors, which are still ongoing [233]. They were offered a chance at cleaning up their articles, but didn't take it. Is there any other way out of this? JBchrch talk
  22:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• The way out is simply tag the articles for law experts. I'll periodically update the "notes and references" section with latest Supreme Court opinions that are more directly on point. I'll also try to trim the articles, especially the "notes and references" sections. If we cite mostly outdated law reviews, the article would be misleading readers because the old opinions could have been reversed by the high court. This happens a lot in immigration matters. That's the reason relying on what the high court says is better, but I'm not against law reviews. They go better in the further reading section. I'll say this again. Supreme Court opinions are not primary but reliable secondary sources. "A secondary source is not the law. It's a commentary on the law...." [234] "Secondary sources are materials that discuss, explain, analyze, and critique the law...." [235] "Secondary sources often explain legal principles more thoroughly than a single case or statute, so using them can help you save time...." [236] If you read any Supreme Court opinion, that's exactly what it does.--Libracarol (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• If it is clear that, say SCOTUS overturns a prior decision, and we have articles that use sources that are based on that decision being non-overturned, it is not inappropriate to work in "Prior to its overturnin, this decision was considered by legal experts to..." as the historical nature of how such a decision work is still fine. That's using the non-opinion part of a decision for that purpose. But court opinions are by default primary sources. Just because we have justices that are intended to be experts in the law, we cannot use their decisions equal to a peer reviewed law paper. They may be secondary sources for older cases that are mentioned, but absolutely primary for the case they are resolving. --Masem (t) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You insist on misreading the links that I provided to you at NORN. The first link from Yale Law School doesn't mention opinions and cases in its list of secondary sources. What does that tell you? The second link from NYU Law has a menu where you can select Legal Research - Primary Sources > U.S. Case Law, which leads to this, a page that explicitly mentions Supreme Court cases and opinions. The third link from Harvard Law School lists Case Law in its "Primary Sources" and links to this this video, which gives an example from a Supreme Court case. At this stage, your incompetence, or worse, is evident. JBchrch talk 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Me pointing out to the world that Luna Torres v. Lynch was wrongly decided makes me incompetent? NYU says "An introduction to the Law Library and Legal Research for students". What does Wikipedia has to do with that? We are not NYU students. Case law is the controlling law of a specific court and applies only in the jurisdiction of that court. We're simply saying that if a law journal or a book written by let's say a Justice of the Supreme Court can be a secondary reliable source then why can't a similar written work that is authored by Justices of the US Supreme Court be a secondary reliable source for Wiki purposes? Is it the publication company that's the problem?--Libracarol (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

How often do the Justices of the US Supreme Court write about topics which they are not involved in ruling on as a court? —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure but you can search it.--Libracarol (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Associate Justice William O. Douglas was a prolific writer on topics having little or nothing to do with the law, especially world travel, the wilderness and the environment. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having looked at the articles and having read the discussion above, it appears clear to me that Libracarol does not understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, and refuses to listen to other editors trying to explain it to them. Whether they're a real legal expert or not, on Wikipedia knowing how to avoid original research is a key competence, and since Libracarol shows no interest at all in acquiring this competence, they should not be editing here any further. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor." [237] How do we know you even read the articles?--Libracarol (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol: Unfortunately, we're at ANI, and we're here because the content you have contributed to articles is problematic, and the common denominator is the contributor. Thus, it is now absolutely appropriate to discuss whether you are a suitable editor for articles related to law, broadly construed. I'd like to engage in discussion, but if you really want to stifle it, I'll go ahead and !vote to enforce a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a solution but all I see is sort of attacks. If there are problems with the articles let's just fix them and not worry about who I am. I'm not pro-immigrant or pro-government, just reporting what's going on in the world.--Libracarol (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If it were just a few articles, we could do that. The problem is, you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and it's gotten so bad that it was reported here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the building is already built. You want me to demolish it?--Libracarol (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI is a user behavior noticeboard and is an exception. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. It seems Libracarol has backed down somewhat now, but just to be clear, yes, we want you to demolish the building you built. I'm sure a mentor involved in legal articles would be happy to give them a once-over if desired. I just want to comment on one thing: it would not be much of an improvement if Libracarol were to leave the content unadjusted in "his" existing articles and to write future articles in the exact same style, but remove the primary sources and source them exclusively to radical law professors and the like. Wikipedia should be giving the boring, mainstream view, and put bluntly it's pretty obvious that's not what's going on here, what with the claims that SCOTUS decisions are "clearly erroneous" and can thus safely be ignored. There's so much law & potential precedents out there it's easy to get trapped in wishful thinking about what the law might be (
  Original research), but we're looking for realistic estimates of what the law really will imply, or at least sources saying that nobody is really sure what a law means and could be up to future judicial interpretation. SnowFire (talk
  ) 04:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Topic or Indefinite ban for Libracarol

With all the problems discovered in this editor's work and their pretty much committing

WP:IDHT when told how they have been, some form of action needs to be taken. Levivich[238] proposed an indefinite ban and JBchrch proposed[239]

just a topic ban. So do you support a topic ban, indefinite ban, or no action at all.

• Support broad topic ban on any law-related article editing. Libracarol is clearly pushing a point of view in his law articles. They should be banned from editing them. Some action needs to be taken but I feel a indefinite ban would be too harsh. Let this editor contribute to WP in other areas if they want....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I got the point very clear. I'm bullied and not wanted here. Even the walls are telling me this.--Libracarol (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you were not wanted here, you would be indefinitely blocked, and we'd move along. Instead, editors are trying to find a way where you can still participate in a project while avoiding the area where your edits have seem to run severely afoul of Wikipedia's policies while you gain a better understanding of the policies. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not accepting our feedback. If at WikiProject Law or NORN you had accepted our feedback and committed to clean up the articles, we would not be here. Your digging in is what has escalated this. You are not accepting what we are saying despite a huge

WP:CONSENSUS. If you accept the consensus and clean up the articles, this tension will go away. –Novem Linguae (talk

) 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You told me to clean up all these articles, which nobody even reads, GoodDay said don't edit the articles, I said I'm busy, and I'm replying to all these comments. What would you do in such situation. Don't forget I also do a lot of things at home.--Libracarol (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, re: I do a lot of things at home. We have no deadlines here. If you can't fix something today or this week or this month, fix it next month. The point is that you need to let us know you agree it needs fixing, and that in the case of a mistake you made yourself, you want to try to fix it, even if that's not going to be today. And that if someone else comes along to fix, you don't stand in their way, even if you aren't completely convinced their fix is perfect.

I think what @GoodDay was advising was that you don't continue to edit the articles against consensus? —valereee (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

No. He meant until this whole discussion thing is completely over. Sure, I'm always a fixer. That's the main reason I came to Wikipedia to fix common problems with articles.--Libracarol (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that could be true, and it's very good advice. —valereee (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support broad legal topic ban per William. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Change to oppose for now given the expressed willingness to listen and fix things. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support broad topic ban on any law-related article editing, per discussion above and linked comment. JBchrch talk 00:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Moving to weak support, as Libracarol is slowly beginning to see the light and accept that there was a problem with their editing. JBchrch talk 04:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Starting to feel we're getting trolled. No, getting carried away doesn't generally happen with competent, well-intentioned editors just because we're working alone. We try our best to write neutrally. And when we're writing solo we don't even have anyone to push back on, so in theory (and in my experience in practice) we're able to be even less carried away. I also cannot figure out what you are talking about when you say you'll "try to make the articles normal soon". —valereee (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I'd like to see us give this person a bit more room to learn before we tban on their main area of interest. —valereee (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't deserve any sanctions. I talk a lot but I'm a good contributor with no grudges against anyone. I improve articles with no agenda of any kind. Wikipedia will be sad without me.:) I'll slowly fix the articles, just leave a short message on my talk page to fix something and I'll do it. No need to give reasons and explanations. I get things fast.--Libracarol (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  You might want to tone that down. Multiple editors have expressed concerns about your contributions. —valereee (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Was talking about pre-report edits. I thought everything was OK.--Libracarol (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is (AFAIK) the first time the lad has been brought to ANI, on this topic. Give'em a chance to change gears. GoodDay (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on legal subjects per my comment above: there's no understanding of
  WP:LISTEN to other editors trying to explain. I can sympathize with the oppose rationales, but it should be emphasized that this is by no means a new issue: editors have brought this up, and have been falling on deaf ears, on 5 September 2018, on 15 October 2018, on 16 February 2021, on 17 February 2021, and very profusely during the last few days. Rather, perhaps they will learn to appreciate what it means to write an extremely strict tertiary source (because of its open & pseudonymous nature, WP is actually much more stringent –and rightfully so– in repelling originally researched material than other encyclopedias) by editing other topics. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉
  ) 01:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  In one of those diffs, admin Acroterion stated this to me: "You've made significant improvements to the readability of aggravated felony, thanks for your efforts...." [240] The other diffs relate to comments on my personal talk page, which were between me and another user who found a problem, I fixed it and that user left me alone. Why is this used against me here and now? If this is not hounding me then what is it?--Libracarol (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  I did, because you did clean up the writing, but I followed that with substantial concerns about the way you were sourcing your contributions and the way you were drawing conclusions. That it's still happening three years later is a significant problem. Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  I got carried away, which always happens when an editor is doing an article alone, but will try to make the articles normal soon.--Libracarol (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, that doesn't always happen. And I think you would do well to simply accept responsibility for your editing rather than seeking to excuse it. Dumuzid (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Generally speaking it does, and I did accept responsibility.--Libracarol (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, it doesn't, and no, you didn't. You continue trying to deflect. Your unwillingness to listen on this minor rhetorical point does not augur well. Dumuzid (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support broad topic ban on any law-related article editing Editors have been raising the issues of citing primary sources and adding personal analysis on
  WP:PSTS and unwilling to modify their approach to editing to comply with it. Had there been any indication in this ANI discussion that Libracarol was taking the feedback onboard and was willing to learn, I would have been an oppose. Schazjmd (talk)
  01:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Schazjmd has been blocked several times [246] and is posting the same diffs as Apaugasma above.--Libracarol (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked twice, most recently two years ago. That block was quickly rescinded, after the user engaged in civil, on-point discussion about what happened. Whatever they may have done in the past, it looks like the user has learned and grown from it. It begs the question: Libracarol, are you willing to learn and grow, are are you just digging in? —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I said it several times that the articles will be fixed. I hope that's the only issue. I'm just an observer for now.--Libracarol (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It would help if rather than just "the articles will be fixed", you mentioned something about using secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

See subsection "Cleanup" below.--Libracarol (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN on legal topics broadly construed. Their condescending response in this AfD concerns me. Case of
  WP:IDHT and refusal to distinguish between primary and secondary sources. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk
  ) 02:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's my vote submission not a response to anyone. WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:IDHT do not apply to me. Maybe you can help us here. When the Supreme Court in its written opinion state commonly-known facts (e.g., "The word 'shall' is ordinarily the language of command" [247]) or recount the relevant facts of the case [248], is that to you a primary or a secondary source?--Libracarol (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Change to Support SBAN in the 45 comments made by Libracarol here, not a single one of them indicates they understand the complaint against them, nor any resolve to take full responsibility. The fundamental issue here isn't just their misunderstand of Wikipolicy/disruption in Law, but their very behaviour including here at ANI, where exceptional conduct is expected. Instead they've engaged in ad-honimen attacks, and deflection. While the community's response has been extremely generous and sensitive given it's their first time to ANI, their actions have been anything but that. For me to change my mind, a clearly stated apology, ownership of problematic edits and behaviour would change my mind. And it shouldn't take another 45 edits on here for them to reach that point. Some time to cool off and reflect would be to everyone's benefit including Libracarol. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support partial or full ban The comments and arguments offered in this discussion by the editor in question make it clear to me that this editor is at odds with our policies and practices regarding the use of primary sources and original research. He or she would have to make a very clear and convincing statement otherwise for me to make a different judgment. ElKevbo (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban, as Libracarol has expressed expressed a willingness to fix the articles they've written. They also seem to be a passionate and knowledgeable contributor, both qualities we look for. Let's give them another chance.VR _talk 02:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Is that the correct diff? Also I think a full apology and strong statement is needed at this point, after their strong refusal at NORN. Their statement should take responsibility and be convincing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Diff corrected.

  WP:NOR, as time permits? VR _talk

  03:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, slowly. My eyes can't take too much reading.--Libracarol (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae, sorry OK. I was willing to listen to you in the very beginning but things got heat up and confusing. I thought we were deciding the primary/secondary source issue at that time.--Libracarol (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for that. I think this is a good step in the right direction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, very barely, for now I think this person means well, but the editing is a problem, full stop. I also see their repeated appeals to authority as a major problem--especially since I find their bona fides not so bona. But I am of the opinion that we all deserve second (and third) chances, and would be in favor of giving the editor a last chance, on the understanding that listening and collaboration are essential. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think our community is better served when we give good intentioned editors a chance to improve without beating them up with the ban hammer. This editor has demonstrated a desire to fix the mistakes they've made, and we should provide the opportunity to do so. Atsme 💬 📧 02:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, I see signs that they are willing to acknowledge the policies and abide by them, so there's hope in the situation, as it were. Further, quite frankly, I feel a topic ban would be setting them up for failure: I don't see them being able to abide the ban, so they'd wind up getting blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you very much to all the merciful ones (opposing the ban). Those supporting the ban I also thank you because you at least showed me my past mistakes.--Libracarol (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Changed to: Support topic ban -- see my post further down in this bullet's subthread. Anyone who claims you can look at a court decision or statute, and from it say what the law is, is a poseur. Libracarol is a poseur and not a particularly good one -- that's clear from bluffery like written opinions by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and accessible through Harvard Law School [249] (as if being "accessible through Harvard Law School" -- whatever that even means -- makes a difference).
  We get these types now and then, and they can be rated on a 1-to-5 scale. Here's a 5:

  I'm a 70 year old professor in the MIT system, with a JD in IP and a PhD in molecular biology and supercomputing... I've got dozens of young stallions working for me here ... I'm a Boston area researcher and IP person in technology transfer, molecular biology, and supercomputing as they apply to the Central Nervous System. I've got armies of grad students and PhD candidates who work in my labs, but they are young and understand the new media far more than I do. I don't even have an iphone yet even though our systems rival Google in storage! I spend summers on the West Coast in CA and AZ with fellow old researchers and younger students, and can often be found hanging around the supercomputing lab at UCSD. [250][251]

Gotcha. Here's a 4:

I lectured at MIT on computing in the 1990s. Later I changed careers. Earlier this year I lectured in D.C., in a program where just before me was a panel of heads of several agencies, and I was followed by Senator Hatch and Chief Justice Roberts. So I guess I'm more current on law, but at the top of both. [252]

We bow down to you for sure, Mr. Computer Lawyer. (And yet he couldn't answer even one of my four MIT trivia questions -- see the link.) Anyway, I'd put Libracarol at about a 3 out of 5 on the poseur scale, so conceivably not beyond redemption. EEng 04:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

So to you they were like

Pete Puma. [253] The 70-year-old is indeed a professional.--Libracarol (talk

) 10:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WTF? I'm afraid that based on your response here and posts elsewhere I'm changing my !vote to endorse topic-banning you from legal topics. You continue to make a fool of yourself by pretending to be knowledgeable about the law. Not only are you obviously not that, you're not even possessed of mature discernment in affairs of the world. For example, you seem willing to believe that our "70-year old professor in the MIT system" was real, and that he had a "JD in IP", when in fact he was a nudnick out to see how much drunken made-up garbage Wikipedia editors would swallow.

Three years ago you said Only precedents (published opinions) should be cited and quoted. If you prefer "references that discuss the court's opinions" then you'll run into many problems. [254]. You did not then understand how Wikipedia works (and why it must work that way) and from all that's happened recently it appears that you still don't understand, nor do you seem to want to understand. EEng 00:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Content disputes belong in

WP:DRN, not here. US court opinions are official works of federal government employees, which means they're not subject to copyright protection. Am I wrong? Topic banning someone who doesn't deserve it is not only morally wrong but against the rules of WP. I'm part of Wikipedia and I have rights just like you. Judgments made based on presumption are always bad judgments. About the 70-year-old, that person fooled me so I said that. I added the short comment to make your joke funny to others.--Libracarol (talk

) 10:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Double WTF? with hot fudge, sprinkles, and a cherry on top.

• Content disputes belong in WP:DRN – what does that have to do with anything?
• official works of federal government employees – Relevant to what we're talking about ... how?
• I'm part of Wikipedia and I have rights – No, you don't. None of us does. Again with your faux legalisms.
• About the 70-year-old, that person fooled me so I said that. – When? That was 11 years ago.
• I added the short comment to make your joke funny to others. – What joke? What are you talking about?

As someone said elsewhere in this thread: astounding. EEng 10:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You posted this and I said arguments like that belong in WP:DRN. The copyright reference was to that. I have rights to use and edit WP and defend myself when someone says things about me (especially in ANI). You said I'd put Libracarol at about a 3 out of 5 on the poseur scale.... – but I never claimed to being said I'm a lawyer, a professor, or someone with a JD or a PhD. I'm a regular Wikipedian who is more familiar with US laws but not so with the laws of others countries.--Libracarol (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You are familiar with laws but do not understand the law (though you purport to, whether or not you pretend to be an attorney). Nor do you understand the difference -- apparently thinking that laws constitute the law -- which is why you cannot be allowed to edit legal topics. EEng 18:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to add that earlier in this section Libracarol said In court filings I repeatedly use party's name... so yeah, was trying to make us think they're an attorney. EEng 20:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, let's get this absolutely clear: You have absolutely NO right to edit Wikipedia, none whatsoever, and if you keep going the way you are, you are quite likely to be not just TBANned but indefinitely blocked. If I were you, I would stop arguing, apologize for being disruptive, and promise to go spend some time learning why everyone thinks you're being disruptive. I suggest a trip to the WP:Teahouse. —valereee (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, draftify the articles and editor can submit via AfC(or directly move) when they are ready. Slywriter (talk)
• Very weak oppose per above discussion. NW1223(^{Howl at me}/_{My hunts}) 20:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support based on their behavior in the continuing discussion below, which puts the lie to any claim of lessons learned or behavioral changes. --JBL (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support some kind of measure -- I'm sorry to be on this side, because I want to extend the same second chance as others, but there's absolutely nothing in Libracarol's actions to indicate they understand what the fundamental issue is here. I cannot find a single comment where LC accepts that their interpretation of WP policy is wrong, and they remain largely opposed to content critiques from other editors. Promises to fix are nice, but we need some kind of clear statement from LC acknowledging some basic WP policies. The below discussion demonstrates the exact same issues that got us here: pushing a POV in wikivoice, misconstruing what "common knowledge is", dredging up the irrelevant history of other editors to win a content argument, building massive strawmen, etc etc. Unless LC realizes that their current understanding of how WP works is fundamentally wrong, this is just going to happen again. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. In the section below, Libracarol is still insulting other users and acting as if their expertise overrides sourcing. I don't see any other way forward with this, despite their claims to improve. They can improve in another area of the Wiki. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  If you see it as insult my intention is not to insult anyone. Topic ban basically means I will no edit WP at all because there's nothing else for me. I wrote these articles the best way I could, some found them problematic and I repeatedly said I'll fix them, but it's like they're not happy with this. I'm very confused right now.--Libracarol (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: IMO, a topic ban is a useful sanction if the issue is article- or subject-specific, like adding primary sources. If there is an ongoing pattern of this user making personal attacks (and I haven't seen diffs to say that there is such a pattern), then another sanction, like a mid-term block, would be more appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 14:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN. A day or two ago, Libracarol apologized in this ANI thread and I thought that was the end of this. I thought that we had finally gotten enough experienced editors and admins together to say "this is original research, you need to stop", and that it had convinced Libracarol that they were wrong, where the other two noticeboards hadn't. I therefore abstained from posting in this section and I created the cleanup section below. Unfortunately Libracarol went back to their old ways in the cleanup section below. The issues include not taking responsibility (for the most part, some exceptions since they did apologize once), pushing back on most ideas, and
  WP:BLUDGEONING. They have derailed the cleanup section below with their comments, to the point where most of the comments are unable to address my original question of "how do we clean up these articles?" Considering the very large amount of cleanup that will be needed, and their lack of cooperation, I now support a TBAN. –Novem Linguae (talk
  ) 23:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: Quite aside from his curious belief that he has a right to edit Wikipedia, or that he is a better authority for the interpretation of US law than the
  body constitutionally charged with doing so, there's this: like a number of others, I'm concerned at the ongoing battleground mentality Libracarol is demonstrating here. One would think that anyone who was genuinely an attorney would recognize that there is a point at which one needs to recognize that they've stepped out of line, that they shouldn't engage in the problematic behavior going forward, and that it's now the point where they need to stop brawling. The more I see yet another argumentative post, the more one has to come to the conclusion that Libracarol is temperamentally unable to concede the final word. Ravenswing
  14:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Libracol has indicated that their purpose to write these articles is for advocacy. Wikipedia is not for
  WP:RGW. Hemiauchenia (talk
  ) 16:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN: The editor admits here and here that the purpose of their contributions to this topic is to
  right great wrongs. JoJo Anthrax (talk
  ) 18:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup

Alright, editor has apologized (which is great, sounds like they get it now and will do better in the future), and it doesn't look like the topic ban is going to achieve consensus. What are the next steps? Looking through the edit history, there are more articles affected than just the ones I mentioned at the beginning. What is to be done with all these? Leave alone, revert to an old version, draftify, delete the huge cites, etc? Can someone with law editing experience please go spot check one of the articles above and give their opinion about how bad the OR is? Is it something we can leave in and just replace the huge cites with {{citation needed}}, or is it bad enough to justify scrubbing the articles? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think one article should cover it all (Americans who have been deported by mistake and legal immigrants who have been deported by mistake). As usual, the commonly-known facts need not be referenced unless someone tags them. Before I began working on these articles there was no meaningful solution for illegal deportation but now there is so the articles or article do not have to explain things in detail. This case, which is a very long reading, explains what has happened. If that's too much reading then you can just read this (page 67), the text under "§ 1003.2 Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration Appeals."--Libracarol (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Can I add

WP:WEASEL, and has some bizarre linking (eg confinement). It currently states, in Wikipedia's voice, "This shows a pattern that courts in the United States have been illegally turning petty offenses into aggravated felonies for the purpose of sending a specific group of Americans to Afghanistan so they could be tortured. The legal premise of the Third Circuit is irrational and contradicts clearly-established law." I was grimly preparing to engage Libracarol again when I saw this thread. NebY (talk

) 11:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

NebY, you've been around since 2005 so you should know that such things should normally be discussed in the talk page of the article and not here. Did you do that? Did you write anything on my talk page? It's common knowledge (and a fact) that "confinement" in reference to imprisonment covers "solitary confinement" but to assume that confinement includes every form of confinement is unsourced POV. Because the INA covers all aliens on Earth, in some countries or places they may only have a solitary confinement system but no incarceration system (prisons), Congress made it perfectly clear that imprisonment includes the period of incarceration or confinement in an institutional setting such as a prison. [255] Courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and others have confirmed this over and over in many cases. Immigration attorneys have also stated this in various secondary sources. As such, Wikipedia should stick to these sources. We could remove that green part because it's unsourced but if there were many secondary sources saying that then we cannot remove such findings just because we don't like them.

WP:CENSOR. Those courts turned probation to imprisonment. You don't see anything wrong with that?--Libracarol (talk

) 13:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

It's common knowledge (and a fact) that "confinement" in reference to imprisonment covers "solitary confinement" but to assume that confinement includes every form of confinement is unsourced POV. Good lord, it never stops! --JBL (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

JayBeeEll, are the people in the International Space Station or those ordered deported to let's say Jamaica or Haiti confined?--Libracarol (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Astounding. --JBL (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, it seems as though you repeatedly introduce citations with a "see" signal. Let me suggest to you that this is, basically, always inappropriate and should act like a warning light. "See" means that the cited source does not directly support the assertion, but that an inferential step is required to make the connection. While I won't say it is always true, I think you can take it as axiomatic that if you correctly use a "see" signal, you are running afoul of

WP:SYNTH. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk

) 14:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Dumuzid, I stopped doing that here and will remove them from the articles but you're correct.--Libracarol (talk) 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, when I undid some of your changes to

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. How can we trust you to participate in the necessary clean-up? NebY (talk

) 19:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Not attacking anyone, and don't plan to. I'm not here for WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Issues of law are resolved in courts only, and they don't rely on Wikipedia information. Probation and imprisonment are completely opposite to each other. What happened in the past stays in the past. I re-tagged it until the primary/secondary sources dispute gets cleared once and for all. [256], [257]--Libracarol (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

All of the immigration articles created by Libracarol and listed at the top of this thread show evidence of false referencing and some of it was done years ago. This is not just a recent behavior....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WilliamJE (talk · contribs) has been blocked about a dozen of times and he's still carelessly misbehaving. Only he sees the so called evidence of false referencing. My articles contain too many references and that's it. But that can easily be fixed. If William wants me to engage in edit-war or something, I don't come here for that.--Libracarol (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Some editors above voted not to topic ban this editor because they have changed their behavior. Have they? Libracarol is still conducting personal attacks. I'm calling out what they have done here and I have plenty of proof. One example, this 2019 revision[258] of Deportation of Americans from the United States. The sentence 'Such deportation entitles Americans to seek damages, which may include immigration benefits and/or money, in the form of injunctive relief under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.[5][6][7][8][9]'. How many of those references cite Bivens? None of them do in their long summaries. If you want a recent example of this type of behavior from Libracarol, check out this edit[259] and how many of the references on the sentence mention Born in East L.A..It is zero....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You see my point? He wrote the above comment in the hope I write something and then use it against me. But all I did was mention the word misbehaving, which refers to his unsuccessful ban proposal and now again bringing the very same content disputes here. He's a long Wikipedian and should know that content disputes go in each article's talk page and not here. I believe that's misbehaving and I think I'm free to speak my mind so long as it doesn't violate WP rules. Bivens has own article and every deported American was compensated under it and FTCA. The article has a list of those deported Americans and links to their cases.--Libracarol (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol -- a few thoughts. First, your tu quoque regarding William's conduct just reflects poorly on you. I would suggest you adopt a new tack. Secondly, while you are right about article talk pages, the complaints he has cited strike me as "of a piece" with the rest of the issues here, and so, at the very least, has an arguable basis on which to present them. Thirdly, no one is arguing that Bivens is not notable. I agree with William's assessment here--you have fallen back to argumentation rather than encyclopedic presentation. As far as I can tell, none of your sources directly support the assertion you have made about Bivens. Again, I find it troubling that you don't seem to be taking that distinction on board. Perhaps others would disagree with me. Dumuzid (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think he and you forget that I repeatedly said that once this ANI report is closed, I'll work on those articles and begin fixing all the problems in them. And I proposed that the 4 articles could be made into a single one. The 3 will redirect to this one. The Cambodian and Afghan articles are the same content wise. It's up to you guys. Remember I'm the one who wasted countless hours writing these articles and with good faith.--Libracarol (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

You're forgetting. The editor who began this cleanup part of the thread wrote- 'What are the next steps? Looking through the edit history, there are more articles affected than just the ones I mentioned at the beginning. What is to be done with all these? Leave alone, revert to an old version, draftify, delete the huge cites, etc?; And I responded- 'All of the immigration articles created by Libracarol and listed at the top of this thread show evidence of false referencing and some of it was done years ago. This is not just a recent behavior.' That was to say that reverting to some past version is not necessarily going to get rid of the problems. I contend that Libracarol's replies in this section are just further evidence of

WP:IDHT and they aren't taking promises to clean up editing seriously....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?

16:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Saying you will eventually fix the articles is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Your conduct in this discussion is still problematic and doesn't suggest at all that you now have a better grasp of the sourcing policies at play. My articles contain too many references and that's it is flatly incorrect and hides the other issues present in the articles you've worked on. Do you understand that? Alyo (chat·edits) 16:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Willim, sorry I misread your earlier comment. The references part was not done purposely. I just couldn't decide which ones to cite so I cited many. I expected someone to come and help out but nobody came. It's like I'm building a house on my own. That's why I said I have to slowly fix these articles one by one. The reason I'm involved in these articles is for humanitarian purposes. I feel obligated to help those who have been deported by mistake and don't know what to do. I feel guilty if I don't help because I know something that they don't. True, many of the references do make the article look bad because they are misplaced.--Libracarol (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just to note that the OP of this "Cleanup" subthread (Novem Linguae) has given up, posting in the tban section that they now support a topic ban, citing Libracarol's posts in this very subthread. EEng 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Slurponmybigkurac12

Slurponmybigkurac12 was indefinitely blocked as NOTHERE by Nick Moyes. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

I ran across a user 'Slurponmybigkurac12'. They made some edits (apparently personal attacks in Serbian) to other users' talk pages, so I reverted and warned them and left a note on the targeted editors' talk page saying that it was vandalized and it was reverted (so they don't get an OBOD and don't know where it came from).

Then, this user came to my talk page to say they were having a hard time in real life (appeal to pity?), "apologize", and call me a "bitch".

I also checked their edit filter log, and it was kind of alarming. I saw 'persistent sockpuppetry', 'common vandal phrases', 'LTA 1053', and 'vandalism in all caps'.

Now, they're coming back to my talk page to have a converation with me. --67.183.136.85 (talk) 23:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Definitely a
  WP:CIR case, with an offensive username to boot -- "kurac" being an offensive, colloquial term in Serbo-Croat for pretty much what you imagine it is -- and a sound indef candidate. Ravenswing
  02:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Combative and NOTHERE editor

Discussion seems to have come to a close, so:

• There is consensus for an indefinite block of BrandonTRA. As this is obviously the same editor as BrandonTR the block also applies to that account. Note this does not suggest the editor has misused multiple accounts: as outlined below the only relevance of the BrandonTR account is the longevity of the tendentious editing in this case.
• Also worth noting the editor did remove some of their most recent caustic comments after being warned; however this is set against an extended period of tendentious editing and hostility to others, and it does not seem to have changed the consensus below.
• As always the block is preventative only, and is indefinite but not infinite. It can be appealed at any time. Per WP:CBAN: Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus ... are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community", which means that an unblock appeal will need to be lodged here at AN or via email to Arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

---

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

The above was recently partially blocked by BD2412 for edit warring on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Since that happened, they have only been combative towards other users who attempted to warn them of this (including complaining/borderline harassing to admins, including BD and 331dot, who declined their appeal) and their attitude has been overall dismissive of all advice and warnings, describing them as "irrelevant", "meaningless", "BS", so on so forth. They're clearly not interested in collaborating, much less in actually building an encyclopedia (as opposed to merely shouting from the top of their soapbox), as obvious from their disinterest in actually being even remotely polite and civil, and I reckon there's not much reason to expect a radical improvement in a few day's time. Somebody uninvolved and with a spare mop would be welcome here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything RandomCanadian has said above. BrandonTRA's entire purpose here appears to be the insertion of poorly supported content into a single rather sensitive article. Their response to opposition to the addition of this material has been denigration of the multiple editors pointing out its flaws, improper templating of user talk pages with warnings, ([260], [261]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([262]). I gave them a minimal block under the circumstances – limited to one article, for one week – but they seem inclined to learn nothing from it. I've seen enough to expect that they never will. BD2412 T 21:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this the same editor as

SPA on JFK assassination articles for over a decade. Here's an ANI complaint I made about him in 2013: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR. Gamaliel (talk

) 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly seems like it could be a sock situation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I consider myself uninvolved with a spare mop, and already issued a warning to leave 331 alone yesterday, and another warning today, before this report. They have not mentioned 331 since then, just some venting and bluster on their talk page. I'm assuming they got the message. The only edit they've made since then outside their talk page is this. A 7/10 on the obnoxiousness meter, but yours might be calibrated differently, particularly if there's a long history of unprovoked stuff like that. I've got their talk page watchlisted and was planning to block indef if they kept it up, but thought I'd give a final warning a chance. If another admin wants to short-circuit that approach, don't feel like you need to get my OK. In particular, I was unaware of the existence of BrandonTR; if they've been doing this a long time, with previous warnings not on the new account's talk page, then I'm much less inclined to wait to see if the behavior changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• As an erstwhile target of this user's harassment, I would like to say that their editing on the JFK article is combative at best, harassing at worst. I would describe their attitude as "flippant" and "dismissive of the perspectives of others as always in bad faith."
  Here are some choice diffs: [263] ([264] [265] [266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271]
  If the original BrandonTR account is the same person, then this is a decade-long pattern that has not improved in the slightest. And in my opinion merits a
  WP:NOTHERE indef. If these are not the same person, then I think a TBAN would probably be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}
  ) 00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  If these are not the same person, then the new editor has chosen a username almost identical to that of the old editor, in order to edit the same article in the same style, which is problematic conduct in and of itself. BD2412 T 03:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I would personally call it astronomically unlikely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• In my books, anyone oblivious enough to attack multiple editors and admins while he's under a block is someone who
  can't be trusted to make constructive and competent edits. Ravenswing
  17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• They are blatantly the same person. Quacking loudly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Just posting here to say the editor has simply stopped editing the offending articles and removed all the comments pointed out here, but has not responded to this thread or described any intention to change their pattern of behavior. I am doubtful that the behavior would not simply recur in some time, when we have all forgotten about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose indef block

I am proposing an

WP:NOTTHERE. ––FormalDude ^talk

05:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as this is a

WP:NOTHERE. They've thumbed their nose at this thread, saying "That's nice" when notified [272]. I cannot think of a clearer case of NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕}

) 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support:  Looks like a duck to me. Rest assured, I read the whole thread. /gen Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm ambivalent about a block vs. a final warning right now, and won't vote, but 2 clarifications: (1) after this thread started, they removed their most recent snark in several places, which I suppose is a step in the right direction, and (2) we shouldn't be talking "duck test" or anything sockpuppetry-related as a reason to block; the accounts didn't overlap, and the naming scheme doesn't indicate an intent to deceive. This is the kind of thing people do when they lose their passwords. I agree their long term behavior absolutely needs to change immediately and substantially, if it isn't already too late. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the "duck test" is relevant here not in terms of sockpuppetry accusations, but in this being a much more seasoned editor than their account history would indicate, and therefore someone who should know better than to engage in the conduct complained of. BD2412 T 21:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair, reasonable point. If that's what's intended, I've no objection to considering that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as well. Ravenswing 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support For a decade of tendentious disruptive editing on the same topic, should've been blocked a long time ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, per all above. BD2412 T 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Obviously not here to be constructive. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: In the 10+ years that this user has been around (I'm counting the history of BrandonTR and BrandonTRA as the same person), they have only been blocked once, for 48 hours. I don't think we should jump straight to an indef block. This seems premature to me. -- Mike 🗩 15:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would tell you that blocks are usually not meant to be punitive, they are meant to be preventative of disruptive behavior. If we can reasonably determine that this editor will be disruptive again, and has very little interest in being constructive, then the block is probably justified. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Time to escort the editor off the property. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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