Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alfie (talk | contribs) at 12:41, 2 July 2021 (→User wants me to be blocked: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Please ask this editor to stay off my talk page

    Princess of Ara is indefinitely topic-banned by from editing content related to Erica Nlewedim, broadly construed. Celestina007 has also promised to stay away from Princess of Ara's talk page. The discussion included further concerns involving UPE by Princess of Ara and others, but these discussions remain inconclusive. While they may be worth investigating further, I don't think keeping this thread open is going to help that process along. signed, Rosguill talk 21:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello community, I want to start by saying that I really do appreciate the opportunity to edit Wikipedia these past 5 months seeing as it has easily become my new favourite pastime. However, I may have made a grave mistake by disclosing on my user page that I was previously blocked for Sockpuppetry as a Newbie editor back in January 2021. I evaded my block and upon realising that it was also an infringement, I made the disclosure to Arbcom, got unblocked and asked to continue with this account. What brings me here is that Celestina007 (talk · contribs) since she first came to my talk page in March has continued to unfairly cast veiled aspersions [1] [2] [3], Outright accused me of paid editing [4] [5] and went on a power trip and tried intimidating me [6]. I have taken it all in stride because I understand that she is passionate about eliminating undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing especially in the Nigeria-related space I however do not appreciate this continual harassment without proof or without reporting to appropriate quarters. More recently, She placed 4 warning messages [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] on my Talkpage because I removed the {{notability}} maintenece template at Siene Allwell-Brown because the AfD closed as no consensus and the sourcing was enough to prove notability. I reverted the warnings [12] placed on my talk page and politely asked that she should not post on my talk page any further. She ignored this and posted 2 more times [13] [14].

    I just want the community to ask this editor to stay off my talk page and stop inhibiting my work as these accusations, assumption of bad faith, snide remarks and witch-hunting/nitpicking (for want of a better word) have severely hampered my enjoyment of editing. Thank you! Princess of Ara(talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let the record reflect that I have aided them severally in their endeavors. They have an unusual manner of archiving so digging out diffs are quite arduous. In AFC I have encountered them and accepted/published their submissions, an example is this this, this I have never casted aspersions. I would have proposed a boomerang indefinite block on their account but I can’t do so because I have access to non public information of which I am not to disclose on-wiki, I am however willing to share this information to any sysop or functionary. Everything I have told them is factual hence do not fall under the scope of “casting aspersions” As aforementioned I am willing to share via email why I feel an indef block on them might be the best possible route. I wouldn’t tolerate anyone accusing me of Harassment, they are on my watchlist thus it is not unusual if I run into them every now and again. That isn’t harassment. I left a UPE warning template on their tp because of this: Draft:Uzor Arukwe. I declined the article on June 9 and told them specifically not to resubmit the article any time soon seehere. To my surprise barely 4 days after they resubmitted the article which was reject by Hatchens. This appeared to be COI editing, thus the UPE warning template. I’m incapable of disclosing non public information if not they would have been indef blocked a long time ago. I am willing to point this out if any sysop wants to see for themselves. Yes! Sockpuppetry was what indeed got them in trouble because technical evidence substantiated or showed this, The sockpuppetry case is just one aspect. Infact after Arbcom gave them a new lease they began the same type of editing that got them in trouble in the first place. I feel horrible about this, It is very unfair that editors aren’t sysops or functionaries are restricted from viewing the evidence. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusing Princess of Ara of having history of running a UPE ring without evidence after they explicitly told them to stay away from their talk page as can be seen here and also accusing them of returning to sockpuppettery without evidence is uncalled for. Casting aspersions and possible civility issues. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Celestina007 has been asked politely not to post on Princess of Ara's talk page. We commonly expect editors to respect such requests, except when required to post by policy such as an ANI notification. Celestina007 should avoid posting on Princess of Ara's talk page. If there are violations of Wikipedia policies in Princess of Ara's editing, Celestina007 knows the proper avenues to pursue. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on what Schazjmd stated above I wouldn't leave any personal messages on their TP. I respect Schazjmd Having said, let the record reflect that I do infact have proof if they do not want me to post on their talk page I wouldn’t. I can carry still carry out my anti UPE activities, I don’t see how interacting with them impedes my anti UPE work. So there you have it, your wish is granted I wouldn’t be leaving messages for you anymore.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment  – Accepting my articles at AfC and being able to inhibit my work by disturbing my peace are not mutually exclusive as is clearly demonstrated here. In our "first" interaction, Celestina007 told me that she had A mountain of evidence [15] [16] that implied that I had been compensated to create an article for FK Abudu and said she was going to submit the evidence to functionaries. It actually beats me how an anti paid editing editor has hard evidence against a rogue editor but lets them run amok for months, putting the integrity of the collabourative project at risk.Princess of Ara(talk) 21:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Princess of Ara, could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies? The two diffs you provided above where I mentioned that I had a mountain of evidence, were never targeted at you, but was targeted at FK Abudu. I said I had a mountain of evidence that they were trying all they could to get a biographical article on Wikipedia, it was a statement clearly targeted at them and not you, Anyone can read the diffs and confirm what I’m saying, so if I might ask, why were you being intentionally deceptive to the community? Why did you deem it fit to lie against me or did you think I wouldn't scrutinize the diffs? Lying is really bad faith editing. I wouldn’t be posting on your talk page, rather I’d let templates do the talking. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a mountain of evidence to corroborate what I just stated above, an evidence I would be sharing with functionaries only & my senior colleagues followed by It’s a lot evidence I have but can’t be discussed on wiki as that would definitely constitute OUTING. It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in Outing who? This is simple deductive reasoning. Since Celestina has affirmed she won't be 100% staying off my talk page, I'll like to request a formal ban on interaction between myself and her. Thank you. Princess of Ara(talk) 05:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Princess of Ara, rather than apologize for being intentionally deceptive to not just me, but the community as a whole, you are speaking of “deductive reasoning” meaning you just “guessed” By Outing, I was clearly referring to FK Abudu and not you. The diffs you yourself provided clearly show you weren’t telling the truth, its literally right there and anyone can read it. In any case, A formal iban is ineffective, you have asked me to stay off your page I have agreed to do so, so what’s the bone of contention here? An IBAN wouldn’t help you evade scrutiny, i can still very much template you if/when I observe you violating our TOU so like I said it doesn’t change nothing but you are welcome to try. Celestina007 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in If you were referring to FK Abudu as you claim, pray tell, why was I the one in a Catch-22?
    I'm requesting an interaction ban because I don't want you to template me either. Leave processes to other members of the community. It's that simple. Princess of Ara(talk) 07:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the first time Celestina007 is accusing other editors of bad faith editing without evidence and also displaying civility issues while casting further aspersions. The most recent one is accusing Horizonlove of sockpuppettery without evidence or creating a sockpuppet investigation as can be seen here. Horizonlove archived their talk page after answering them as can be seen here. Unhappy, they reverted Horizonlove brazenly as can be seen here. While all this was going on, they threatened Horizonlove with an indef block even without being an admin I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and But I can assure you that an indefinite block is being arranged for you if you continue down this path, Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing. Liz came to their talk page and warned them about threatening other editors with a block even without yet passing an RfA as can be seen here. It's true that this editor is fighting UPE, but their method is way too wayward. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck, They fight UPE with valiance but the methods are on the aggressive side. At the risk of outing myself, my "actual" first interaction with Celestina was on my account that got blocked. I came to Wikipedia as a die hard fan of Erica Nlewedim and tried to create a page for her because I felt she was deserving of one. I jumped right in without reading the rules because I felt I couldn't be wrong. Little did I know. I edited the preexisting draft article and went to the pages of editors [17] [18] [19] [20] [21][22][23] [24] that !voted in the AfD to kindly review and publish. I didn't know about forumshopping at the time, some of whom offered constructive corrections relating to the promotional tone of the article [25][26] but I inadvertently got bitten [27] [28] by Celestina and got my account blocked. It all happened so fast. The reason I got a check user block by Drmies was because another fan of Nlewedim's gave me her login details after putting out this tweet thinking that having multiple people contribute to the page was going to help with the validity of Nlewedim's page. I created another account after getting blocked because I genuinely enjoyed contributing, any other new user may have gotten discouraged and not come back to the collaborative project.
      I've definitely come across various instances of them ABF, biting new editors, badgering editors to admit COI/UPE and being generally aggressive. See some instances here:
      1. [29][30] They were corrected by Samwalton9 to stop being aggressive.
      2. [31] - ABF
      3. [32]
      4. [33]
      5. [34] - Older users not spared
      6. [35]
      7. [36] corrected again
      8. [37]
      9. [38] - Untrue Assertion
      10. [39] - ABF
      11. [40]
      12. [41] [42]
      13. 2 Consecutive warnings

    Princess of Ara(talk) 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Princess of Ara, I'm afraid you kind of undermine your arguments when the first thing I click on -- the "2 consecutive warnings" link -- are for being bitey 4 years ago toward a couple of accounts that turned out to be a sock and a vandal. When you provide diffs, provide your ~3 very best ones and say something like, "I have a dozen others if you want to see." No one is going to read 13 once the first one they click on is a nothingburger. —valereee (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Veiled ass
    Persians
    • While I understand that a previous block for sockpuppetry is grounds for additional scrutiny, I do not appreciate the still unsubstantiated veiled aspersions. Princess of Ara(talk) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the diffs Princess of Ara shared, it shows that Celestina007 has been aggressive, uncivil and bitey to both new editors and old editors way back in 2017 and I'm surprised she's still exhibiting such behavior in 2021. In 2017, after Jamie Tubers reverted them on OC Ukeje article because their edit did not conform with the WP:MOS, they approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, accusing the very much older editor of not understanding the English language because they are from Nigeria and offered to teach them because they attended an Ivy League institution. They said can I advice you do a course or two in English Language before proceeding to edit articles, I may be lacking the understanding of some Wikipedia policies, yes, but to not know well enough the English Language is worse still. However if you need tips on the Language i am readily available to offer it to you. I speak Spanish and Italian, and 9 other African Languages also, So please rather than 'try to be in the good books of Jamie' put your time to things more constructive and she continued I am not afraid of you unlike most Nigerian editors, so yes, I am very bold and would continue to be bold if that upsets you, you may as well retire now, and hey, a little spelling mistake does not take away the fact I have an IQ of 132 and speak over ten languages excluding english. In the end let us work together and produce better Wikipedia articles. Thank you sir. In 2020, after M-Mustapha commented on this AfD they nominated, they accused them of operating multiple accounts without evidence. In their words Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to.. They further accused the editor of having a poor command of English language Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. I believe the real reason why all these are still going on till today is because they were given a free hand and they believe that it's okay to harass other editors. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nnadigoodluck, All these diff digging because like Serial Number 54129 stated I busted you here for possible undisclosed paid editing and had two-third of your possible UPE works deleted? You do know nothing is going to stop me from destabilizing UPE rings right? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celestina007, We're talking about your own issues that has been going on since the very day you joined this project, the aspersions, the personal attacks, the civility issues, the witch hunting, the interminable assumption of bad faith and the intimidation of other editors. So, defend yourself and stop ricocheting. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this report was filed, between them twelve admins have made over 40 edits to this noticeboard... none of them touching this report. There are two reasons for this. One, they have glanced over the evidence provided and see either out-of-date diffs or minor issues that don't, in their view, warrant an ANI filing. Secondly, apart from the filer, the only editor who so far sees any value in the plaint is fully, as far as a non-admin can be, WP:INVOLVED. (To clarify: one who was recently topic banned and released of all permissions—discussion of which included two admins stating they would not have had a problem with the party being indefinitely blocked—as a direct result of a report filed by the editor complained about here: One who may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes... about which they have strong feelings). Both of these things degrade the original report even if they are not intended to. ——Serial 13:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. I'm not even an administrator or acting purely in an administrative capacity in this discussion. This is purely an ongoing issue that should be solved so that it doesn't happen again. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was merely using the context of WP:INV to point out that your pretended neutrality wrt Celestina007 is just that—pretended. Cheers! ——Serial 16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Prior to all these + the ANI report they filed here, me and Celestina007 has disagreed and agreed in the past. See here, here and here. So, if I feel they're still doing something that is not really welcoming, especially to Princess of Ara who I believe is a productive user who assumes good faith, I'm free to talk about it in the appropriate boards constructively and inferentially without picking a side. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129, I wouldn’t take him too seriously, it’s a silly attempt to impede my anti UPE work. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nnadigoodluck, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. You've said your piece. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Princess of Ara has asked me to keep off their TP good I wouldn’t post to them anymore and that settles that. This is a little bit long, but it’s worth the read to understand what is really going on here. Since they have outed themself here as being one and the same person as Kemmiiii in which they were an spa for Erica Nlewedim, I believe this is no longer non public information. Now, what happened was The Pr manager/hype man/woman of Erica Nlewedim via Twitter tasked all her fans to ensure Erica Nlewedim gets a “Wikipedia Page” as they termed it. It irks me that I can’t access the app to show the community the diverse tweets because unfortunately Twitter has been banned in Nigeria. In any case, after the tweet the user “Kemmmii” (who is one and the same person as Princess of Ara) shows up and clearly were an spa for Erica Nlewedim see here, here, here, Then they proceed to badger over a dozen editors, in-fact see their contributions as it tells the whole tale of how they were an SPA promo account for Erica Nlewedim. In their comment above they claimed to be a NEWBIE in their previous account, but that is very much improbable. Having looked through the edits of Kemmiiii (their former account) you’d notice, their very first edit shows they are very much familiar with our modus operandi, see their first edit here, where they know how to use an edit summary and articulate properly what changes they made, (red flag) but that can definitely be overlooked, but on their 5th edit it invalidates their claim they were a NEWBIE then as the 5th edit was to the TP of a sysop to request undeletion. It is highly improbable that a new editor knows their way around to the point they know to meet the sysop that deleted an article and request for undeletion which means they operated an account prior that of Kemmiiii (possible block evasion). Now fast forward to their new account, they are still attempting to push the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace. See here (trying to push the article into mainspace) & here (Requesting undeletion). There are many other diffs to substantiate that they are predominantly here to promote Erica Nlewedim. I believe this is enough to see that they a boomerang block be evoked. That a major COI between them and Erica Nlewedim exists is crystal clear and their is a possibility of covert upe also. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The diff for "they have outed themself here as being the one and the same person as Kemmiiii" doesn't appear to support that claim; perhaps you pasted the wrong diff? Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd, it’s the right diff, urgh diff digging whilst using a mobile phone is tough, but if you look for their entry that begins with “I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck” they show all the diffs that point to their former account being that of Kemmiiii. If you count via signatures it’s the 12th entry. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see; it's the diffs in this thread that establish that Kemmiiii is their previous account. The diff you posted to Seraphimblade's talk page is irrelevant. Thanks for explaining. Perhaps a topic ban on Nlewedim would be appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd, probably, but it was an attempt to substantiate my claims, if it got you confused, sorry about that mate, but yes, topic banning Princess of Ara from creating that very article is the first step into the right direction. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is salted. Are we saying Princess is shoehorning Nlewedim into other articles? Sorry if that's been made clear above, can't deal with the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, Valereee, I didn't realize Nlewedim had been salted; my topic ban suggestion isn't necessary then. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I found out because I opened it up to see how often it had been AfC'd. :) And a t-ban still might be appropriate, if Princess is wasting other editors' time by trying to get that article created, or if they're trying to insert Nlewedim into other articles.@Celestina007, can you explain (in 100 words or fewer <g>) why you think a t-ban from Nlewedim is necessary? —valereee (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, Surely I can, in their previous incarnation as Kemmiiii, they came into the collaborative project with a premise that is in alignment with what Wikipedia is NOT, precisely; using Wikipedia as a tool for promotion. Their contribution clearly indicate that. They further optimized multiple accounts to achieve that aim and eventually that got them blocked. Now with their new account they are still exhibiting the same behavior. This is them just 1 day ago doing this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Valereee for weighing in but per these here here [43][44] [45][46] I don't think they can give a balanced opinion. Also, I'm surprised that we're not addressing Celestina incivility also. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PoA, again you've shown me six diffs, and I've spent my limited time looking at them, and I'm not sure what you're seeking to prove. —valereee (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Celestina007, you're clawing at straws here; does being someone's fan constitute a conflict of interest? If yes, I will make a declaration without fail. I posted the tweet I made on the same very day I requested review of the draft which you rejected. You have posted the revisionist history but now let me paint a picture. On January 24th 2021, fans of Nlewedim (including myself) were trending #GoogleEricaNlewedim as can be seen in my tweet and the replies therein. Naturally, I googled Nlewedim and noticed that there was no Wikipedia link in her Google knowledge box. I did a local wikipedia search which turned up a red link as expected. I clicked on it and was directed to a similar the page as shown in the image (You may not know this because you edit on mobile). Following the links easily leads to the preexisting draft and the deletion log. Wikipedia is not rocket science if you read.
    • The tweets you refer to were made by Justfrankleen which you assert by yourself here that The multiple SPA you see started from an off wiki twitter canvassing by the fans of the subject of the article to get a biographical article on the subject so you know fully well that you can't bring any tweets here since they've been deleted. A cursory look at Justfrankeen's twitter page tells you that they're another rabid and debased fan (as we in BBnaija twitter refer to ourselves) of Nlewedim and not her management as you assert here. I joined before the tweets you now refer to were made.
    • An edit war and twitter war between Nlewedim's and Nengi's fans ensued based on my addition of Nlewedim's name to the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria article.(I can substantiate this with tweets) You yourself said Every year we face this same Bullshit, Alex vs CC, Mercy vs Tacha & now Nenegi vs Erica. It’s so fucking irritating.
    • Mind you, Nlewedim's fanbase is her PR machine as has been documented in reliable sources [47] [48] [49] [50] Hypeman is about right though.
    • I already explained above that going to all the talk pages of the people involved in the AfD was forum shopping and I know better now. Saying they proceed to badger over a dozen editors is a dishonest exaggeration; except you're saying a dozen is no longer 12 seeing as 8 is barely a dozen. What I posted on the Admins talk page was this; I noted that you deleted the page last year because she did not meet the notability criteria at the time. I have however updated the page and will appreciate a review; it's right there in the diff you provided. How can I request for undeletion of a draft that was existing before I joined the project and even edited before I went to the Admin's talk page. This defies logic.
    • With my new found understanding that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I tried to make a neutral as possible draft that was declined by you again because it was WP:TOOSOON despite the cited sources that were enough to meet WP:GNG. I personally requested for deletion under G7 but requested for an undelete yesterday because I envisaged that this conversation was still going to happen. So why not? I agree that I was an WP:SPA as Kemmiiii however, I returned to Wikipedia with the aim of being a productive user.
    • For some reason (maybe a disdain for Nlewedim herself or BBNaija stars in general), you've gone around to ensure that the article and that of Nengi and Tacha never get accepted as seen in your untrue assertions here here [51][52] [53][54] knowing fully well that the community depends on your opinion and even citing that did not win BBNaija as a reason amongst other things.
    • You have also failed to address the issue of your chronic intractable and unchecked incivility even in this discussion, amongst other things but hey, lets TBAN a rabid and debased BBNaija fan. Princess of Ara(talk) 21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be calm and civil, Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very rich. Princess of Ara(talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Irrespective of any proposed T-ban, I am deeply disturbed by Celestina's actions here. It is absolutely unacceptable to make such serious accusations against another editor, based on evidence that is claimed to exist, but that was gathered off-wiki, and that Celestina claims they cannot present. While I accept that sometimes such evidence turns up, there are appropriate places to send such evidence, and making such accusations here meets the definition of casting aspersion, not to mention assuming bad faith (and worse Celestina is encouraging others to trust their "evidence" and assume bad faith about another editor). I am also deeply disturbed by comments that they have posted on other user's talk pages that have been mentioned here, where they explicitly threatened that they would ban another editor even though they lack the ability to do so. This may seem like a thin line, but there is a world of difference between if you continue to violate these rules, you could face consequences that include blocks or bans and saying If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing.

      While I respect Celestina's desire to stop undisclosed paid editors, I believe that their actions are potentially far more disruptive than UPEs themselves, in much the same way that Joseph McCarthy's attempts at outing Soviet spies (and he did catch several real Soviet spies, remember) were much more disruptive and damaging to American democracy than anything that the Soviets could have done on their own. A project based on collaborative volunteer effort cannot allow public accusations backed by "secret" evidence, as well as threats and intimidation from self-appointed vigilantes. And I want to be explicitly clear about this, I do not care whether the people Celestina accuses are actually guilty or not. I do not want an environment where someone can hide behind such odious actions by claiming that it's ok because they were right in the end, in the same way that I do not support denial of due process for criminal defendants even if we later find that they were guilty. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hyperion35, I responded below before seeing this comment you made above, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that. The evidence in question was non public in that time, which was Princess of Ara previous account was “Kemmiiii”. But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but what you do is, you send that evidence to SPI. If SPI confirms it, let them deal with it. It is not your place to harass people who are suspected of breaking rules. But even worse, I worry that this looks as though you were threatening PoA with this info if her futute edits were not to your liking. I mean, you said If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true, did you mean that if she made certain edits, then you would take your knowledge of her previous account to SPI? This is the problem with being too "confrontational". Hyperion35 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hyperion35, no, not at all, my knowledge of them being one and the same person as Kemmiiii was an information I could never have used against them as it was still non public at that time. In the end you are correct, I have learnt that moving forward I should do things like you have suggested. This has been a learning curve for me & I do appreciate your input. Celestina007 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst my methods of nabbing UPE are effective, they have been some time too harsh. Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE, very effective, I did infact not only nab UPE, I took down a whole ring two months ago. I do infact see where I erred and could have indeed done better, this thread has been a learning curve, I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner. Having said Princess of Ara still needs to be topic banned from creating the Erica Nlewedim article. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the actions committed in their previous account that got them check user blocked for sockpuppetry where they tried to move the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace using multiple accounts. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, (and I realize this may be straying into ATA slightly), I have always been impressed by Celestina007's judgement. Celestina strikes me as a careful and punctillious editor who has caught numerous UPEs, and rarely, if ever, makes unsubstantiated charges. I have always had excellent interactions with them, and so was surprised by claims of impropriety on their part. I for one, have the highest confidence in their contributions. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 18:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BrxBrx, indeed I’m hardly ever wrong and my body of work speaks for itself, for example see here where I single handedly took that UPE ring. This is me yet again taking down another UPE ring and those are the one I remember there are a plethora of others. My accuracy of nabbing UPE is near perfect. I know how UPE rings operate in Nigeria and I can tell UPE from a mile away, I know the stench of UPE on any given day. Even in instances where the community was skeptical about certain editors I called UPE editors in the long run I always turned out to be correct in the end, there’s an effort to incapacitate my work against UPE but isn’t going to happen. Several attempts have been made to hack my account but my strong password has always frustrated their efforts. There’s no universe in which anyone can stop me from exposing upe. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Celestina007: Just my two cents worth, but if you tried to come across as less confrontational and less like you were keeping trophies of groups you had "taken down", you would probably get less push back. All editors of good will appreciate those who are fighting UPE and sock puppets. That said, it is very hard to read all of your many messages here without coming away with a negative impression, despite all the good work you do. Take this as you will. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed t-ban for Princess of Ara from Erica Nlewedim, broadly construed

    @Valereee, Hey Valereee, i say WP:NOTHERE because I believe they are being intentionally deceptive if they are claiming to be merely “die hard fans” Take a look at this conversation I had with them on their sock account & if memory serves me right, they had multiple professional photo shoots of Erica Nlewedim which I could not find anywhere on the Internet which is the M/O of a paid job. Now this would explain a whole lot. See here were Seraphimblade also states they suspect them of UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it, Celestina. I'm just saying she did create S'Nabou. That doesn't seem likely to have a paying client behind it. I'm not arguing there isn't a COI here, or that there isn't a UPE, just that we can't say flat out NOTHERE. —valereee (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee, I agree. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the images you’re referring to [55] [56]. Uploaded by OrjiNedd. Princess of Ara(talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of those say they were the work of EN. Both are nominated for deletion. OrjiNedd seems to have tried to create the EN article, too, and their user page says they're a creative designer/content creator. PoA, honestly, you are hurting your own case. This looks like a UPE sockfarm. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    it is very difficult to distinguish between fan editing and paid coi editing; the manner is almost identical. Neither is encyclopedic. And it is not at all unusual for paid editors to also write a few non-promotional articles. But what I think makes it clear is when one editor involved in promotional editing supports another. I think the evidence of UPE is clear enough for both Princess and Nnadigoodluck. . I think we can start on the basis of the discussion here and previous discussions by banning them both. We'd need a thorough SPI to see who else is involved, DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG & Valereee, The textbook intelligent and very dangerous UPE editor is one who knows how to combine UPE and very decent work at the same time, this is the reason I’m unfazed/unimpressed with the S'Nabou article. @DGG, The fact that Nnadigoodluck is an undisclosed paid editor is crystal clear and that they are a spammer is factual, I mean there is real hard evidence of them spamming and using Wikipedia for promotionalism. The community indeffing them should be the next course of action. They ought to have been indeffed based on the last thread I opened that exposed their UPE. The possibility of both Princess of Ara and Nnadigoodluck being part of a larger UPE sock syndicate is very plausible, I would be opening an official SPI to see what pops up. @Nnadigoodluck, erroneously outed themselves in this very thread & inadvertently has given me on a platter of pure fine gold what I need to know, in order to know where to commence my search. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Clearly this is a retaliatory proposal (How a "wall of text" is reason enough to TBAN someone is beyond me). I'm honestly dumbfounded that Celestina007's severe breach of WP:Civil towards PoA and other editors has been callously ignored. This is certainly not helped by the ludicrous hypocrisy exhibited by Celestina007 and i quote: Please be calm and civil, Thank you. 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    I think it best if we stick to PoA's request for an interaction ban between her and Celestina007. AryaTargaryen 21:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in no way a retaliatory proposal as I didn’t initiate it an UN-INVOLVED did and my alleged breach of civility where from 2016, indeed, I was hot headed as a NEWBIE but that’s moot now. I have agreed to keep off their tp, An IBAN is only wasting our time seeing as I have agreed to keep off their tp as they have requested. Furthermore the proposal wasn’t made because of a “wall of text” it was made because Princess of Ara who admitted to being an spa for Erica Nlewedim and got Checkuser blocked for sock puppetry(trying to push Erica Nlewedim into mainspace under their previous account as Kemmiiii have continued to do so under their new account. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the activities of the previous account. The proposal is very much plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but I see multiple instances of incivility, including aspersions and outright threats, that you made on PoA's talk page in May 2021. I was going to post a diff for each comment, but it's easier to just put them all together here so that we get an idea of what you consider civil. Because I see uncivil behavior, aspersions, a battleground mentality, inappropriate threats, and an assumption of bad faith. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me see, I leave a UPE warning template, not against policy, I ask them how they obtain an image, not still against policy, they themselves casted aspersions against me, I refute it, they eventually report me to ANI where they made false allegations that got them blocked and to prove my point they implied that Wikipedia (Its editors) were foolish. So if there’s a particular diff you have in mind pop it up. UPE templating is not considered uncivil. I don’t threaten anyone I tell them to stop a particular kind of behavior that violates our policy and if/when continued would get them blocked. That isn’t a threat I am merely stating a fact. However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment  – I decided to stay away from this thread in order for the community decide without me bludgeoning the process but I noted that some facts may be misconstrued. I want to make some things clear and also make clarifications.
    1. Going by this post on her talk page, Celestina007 clearly did not have any evidence as stated above and was only casting aspersions. She only made the deductions/accusations above following my disclosure.
    2. Celestina007 has a longstanding history of incivility even after multiple warnings as can be seen in the diffs provided above and on this thread where she told me could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies?, (and is yet to respond to my counter question) among other accusations above. I believe this has gone unchecked and needs to be dealt with per policy. I'm actually not surprised her incivility has gone unchecked because she has done so well fighting UPE and has also self-styled herself the resident Nigeria 'expert' and gatekeeper. Sockophobia also applies here.
    3. I'll also like to know what is very egregious about submitting Nlewedim's biographical article at AfC on 2 occasions; The first time as a newbie that wrote a promotional article that got rejected by Celestina007, G11'd and me blocked for sockpuppetry.
    4. I understand that a checkuser block brings with it raised eyebrowsand additional scrutiny. Checkusers can however confirm that I only ever logged in to the other Nlewedim's fan account but didn't make an edit from it (This can be confirmed from the edit history from around the time I edited as Kemmiiii). I've read and understood policy and learnt that Wikipedia is not a soapbox hence I rewrote the draft with WP:NPOV in mind and even wrote a notability rationale on the Draft's talk page but it got declined again by Celestina007. I however believe Celestina007 is prejudiced against Nlewedim and BBNaija stars in general and went around poisoning the well as seen here where Drmies notes that BTW it looks like the subject is notable, and it's not a bad idea to clean it up, make it acceptable, and just go live with it, so we won't have to police two drafts and more editors will keep an eye on it to which Celestina007 responded I don’t believe the subject of the article is notable enough for a Wikipedia biographical piece because I honestly cannot see any notability criterion they meet, furthermore the sources discussing subject of the article are all centered on the subject of the article being a contestant on the Big brother Nigeria reality show of which she didn’t emerge successful, in any which way. I believe WP:ONEEVENT comes into play here.. Which is an untrue assertion. WP:DIDNOTWIN is an arguement to avoid
    5. Since our interaction here where (Celestina007 misrepresented the WP:ONEEVENT guideline BTW), I have been submitting all BLPs via AfC as can be seen here.
    6. Per me not being a new editor, Please see WP:NAAC where it says What about those huge, intricate, and exciting looking templates we throw on new user talk pages. The user may actually read that, yes it is possible! There are many ways a user can figure out Wikipedia before editing. and WP:BRANDNEW. Some people just have the aptitude for these things.
    7. Lastly, remember to judge edits and not editors.

    Kind regards. Princess of Ara(talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I had decided to recuse myself from this argument just like you yourself said you would. You have accused me of having casting aspersions and poisoning the well, both of which you just did above by claiming I have a prejudice against Erica Nlewedim, which I clearly do not. I have accepted that I can be acerbic when dealing with possible COI and UPE as I have already stated above and have agreed to tackle with more civility moving forward.
    My problem is, under your previous account, this are your entire contributions of which you were an spa(as confirmed by you) for the sole purpose of creating the Erica Nlewedim article where you optimized more than one account to try to move to mainspace. In here MarioJump83 discovered you were part of a sock farm. You eventually get blocked by Drmies for sockpuppetry, you were given a new lease and even under this account you have continued to try and push the article into mainspace. Right here a portion of Seraphimblade comment had this to say about the article the "Awards and accolades" That's some godawful puff), and stuff like that. I am not by any means guaranteeing that even At the end of the day, it really looks like UPE. That impression is used by what looks to be falsely licensed photos used in the article (there's one licensed as "own work" by an account with the subject's name when it is way too far away to be a "selfie" and appears to be a professional photo, so the licensing looks to be falsely done there and that's a hallmark of UPE).
    The fact that multiple sock farm has been trying to push the article into mainspace has been made clear, the topic ban proposal is because you have continued the same behavior of trying to push that article into mainspace. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the deflection, my abrasive tone towards UPE is one I have accepted and taken responsibility for and moving forward I have agreed to tone down whilst being just as effective talking about it over and again is not proving helpful. You wanted me to keep of your page and I have promised my self and the community to do so, that is settled why have you remained hell bent on trying to recreate the Erica Nlewedim article? Do you not see how you are engaging in the same behavior that got you in trouble the first time is in alignment with conflict of interest editing? I have told you this, Valereee has told you this, do you not see how you err? In the end I have agreed to tackle UPE with less ferocity, agreed not to post on your tp anymore, why have you not agreed to refrain from that very article? Celestina007 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It is not an aspersion when there are diffs [57] to substantiate the claim. You said; About her notability status, she definitely isn’t notable, asides the big brother, there isn’t any other significant thing, the beauty pageant is negligible at best. Her case is very much similar to & mirrors that of Draft:Erica Nlewedim who both have their claim to notability chiefly as having participated in the Big brother reality Tv show and their inconsequential participation in beauty pageants, and winning non notable paid for awards. Tbh, anybody experienced Nigerian editor creating articles on both subjects are engaging in undisclosed paid editing AND Basically what’s happening here is every years there’s a Big brother reality Tv show where 20 contestants participate in, last year she partook in it & became instantaneously famous, but the problem is the Big brother Nigeria is done annually & this years Big Brother is about to commence which would mean she’d soon become irrelevant as the focus would be on the new participants & not on the previous participants anymore. So it’s literally a now or never situation she’s facing. Which is another WP:ATA knowing full well that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Also, introducing the draft to conversations it was uninvolved is classic poisoning the well.
    2. MarioJump is not a CheckUser, Drmies the Checkuser linked Kemmiiii to Ehizodenoria here so quit trying to muddy the water by dwelling on the previous Sockpuppetry block like you want me wallow in it and wear it like a badge of shame. It's old and you know it. I have been nothing but productive since I came back to the encyclopaedia because I learnt from my mistakes. I've been productive and even you have attested to it saying Thanks for your new article creations pertaining to the Nigerian movie industry, I’m passionate about that and it’s good seeing another editor have the same passion. Atonement is ALLOWED as Beeblebrox so aptly put it, We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing...Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing.
    3. Being involved 4 times over At AfD [58] and AfC [59] is also not a good look. Don't you think this further supports the prejudice claim?
    4. I have since declared a COI as suggested by Valereeee and making TWO submissions via AfC [60] [61] which is recommended by WP:COI in any case is hardly tendentious. WP:COI It says you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly which I have not disobeyed at any point.
    5. Submitting via AfC is hardly trying to PUSH anything. PUSHING will be creating directly to main space which I have NOT done
    6. Per your rationale for declining the draft on 30th May 2021, This source used in the article implies WP:TOOSOON and ELOY awards doesn’t meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO Can it also be implied that it is TOOSOON for Sharon Ooja, Idia Aisien, Sophie Alakija,Ini Dima-Okojie and Omowumi Dada to have biographical articles?
    7. So why are you hell bent on Erica Nlewedim not getting a biographical article? Princess of Ara(talk) 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Valereee, I'm skipping over all this text here to say that I agree with you, that we should do this, and that we should just block the moment PoA touches anything Nlewedim related. DGG, you seem to have a better understanding than me of who is doing what likely for undeclared pay, and I urge you to act as you see fit--I appreciate it. Now, can we move on? Someone please close this? BTW nice work on [S'Nabou]]--we need more of that. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have accordingly blocked User:Nnadigoodluck indefinitely for sockpupettry and undeclared paid editing. I'm checking for further info about PoA, but if any other admin awants to do a similar block, that's OK with me. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • After further discussion I'm unclosing to get clearer consensus. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per Drmies and my comments above; while PoA is not themselves yet a net-negative, their ability to neutrally edit this topic is fatally—and blatantly—flawed. ——Serial 13:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm not seeing what this TBAN is trying to achieve, since PoA has agreed to disclose a WP:COI as relates to the Nlewedim article and submit the article through the AfC process (the process they've been following in all the BLPs they've created). WP:COI states that Editors with a COI... are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.... COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.. They should be sanctioned if they violate it. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW PoA has on their user talk indicated an intent to declare a COI, recreate the article, and resubmit. I don't see any reason to believe they won't just keep resubmitting as many times as it gets rejected. This just seems like a waste of other editors' time. —valereee (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Per Nom (see comments below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
    • Support per Nnadigoodluck. ——Serial 07:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    I now have a headache. I ended up here because I landed on a draft that was declined by Celestina007. A first glance (two sources) and very clear promotionalism (see draft and talk page) was evident. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising in the guise of a BLP. Straight out of the box I saw what appeared to be fancruft. By-the-way, didn't win, place, play, or succeed has been favorably argued at AFD when sources do not support notability. In this case the promotional aspect (including sources) are enough to hamper publication.
    Anyway, I made comments and clicked "Notify submitter". That appeared to be TheSokks. I received three thanks from Princess of Ara and one included The Sokks. When I looked at "Princess of Ara" there was nothing but my contributions link to TheSokks showed a redirect to Princess of Ara with the notice landing on TheSokks. I proceeded to Princess of Ara's talk page and found "Topic ban Erica Nlewedim" with no discussion link from —valereee. I went to that editor's contributions to find a link here. From the comments above I think the well is deeper than the reflection indicates.
    I have no horse in the race. Baseless accusations should not be allowed from anyone ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") but just reading a few comments and diffs above give rise to valid concerns of too involved COI (too close to ever be objective and neutral), very likely sockpupettry and possible undeclared paid editing, that should include looking at User:Nnadigoodluck.
    Regardless of an editor's tone, I do not see evidence to support claims of prejudice which are serious accusations. Casting aspersions are a violation of multiple policies and guidelines. Further accusations that an editor has some ax to grind because they feel there are issues that they believe are reasons an article should not be published go beyond anything allowable. I see evidence of gaming the system (stir up enough stink and flies may congregate) and at the very least there should be a BOOMERANG somewhere. I fear to go any farther as I am getting thoughts (and chills) of possibly not being here to build an encyclopedia according to our standards to include our policies and guidelines on civility (WP:NPA) that ends up as a possible "net-negative" in disguise. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed t-ban for Celestina007 from WP:UPE, broadly construed

    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    No idea whose sock you are, but this one has zero chance of passing anyway. Fram (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility between Autodidact1 and The Rambling Man

    I am an uninvolved administrator but I note that TRM has had arbcom sanctions before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man) and as I'm unfamiliar with this territory and whether any sanctions are presently applied to them or the other involved user, I would like input from other administrators about how to proceed here -- or if another administrator would like to take the reins, I would be totally fine with that.

    Both editors seem to be engaging in incivility that crosses over the line into personal attacks, and the behavior I see from TRM (one example among many in this thread) in particular is exactly the behavior mentioned in the arbcom case ("[TRM] is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.") so it seems very likely that some action is needed here under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I'm unsure what may need to be logged at WP:AE as a result. --Chris (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "1⁄2" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+2⁄3" to just "2/3" and "210+2⁄3" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Wikipedia:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I believe I displayed uncharacteristic restraint in that particulat interaction [62], but had I reviewed his contribution history he'd certainly have received a more severe correction. Nothing inspires me like pseudosophisticated stylistic pretension. EEng 02:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm happy to move on, after all I have reached my limit on being called a liar there many, many times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.
    Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sayeth Ritchie333:
    One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime.
    EEng 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. I am also of the opinion that MOS wars are largely pointless and have no opinion on the underlying matter, but repeatedly calling another user a lying son of a bitch (even if you use "SOB") is just not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug that deeply into the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy-editing as a battleground

    While The Rambling Man was clearly being an ass on Autodidact1's talk page, trying (successfully) to provoke a reaction, Autodidact1 has editing problems of their own, as a skim through their contributions shows:

    According to Autodidact1:

    Copy-editing is not a crusade against the vulgar forces of darkness, Autodidact1, it's a way to clarify communication and presentation of ideas.

    (I know it's not within this noticeboard's remit, but I wish it were possible to ban Autodidact1 from constantly misusing "[sic]".) --Calton | Talk 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me -- well, ain't that a fantastic line. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He certainly knows a lot about vulgarity. EEng 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not being an ass (good personal attack though!). I was repeatedly asking the user to show some level competence by being able to recognise their own error-strewn contributions. I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not being an ass
    Spare me. Hell, spare all of us the act. How many times did Autodidact1 ask you an extremely simple question that you point-blank refused to answer? Five times? Six times?
    I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it
    It's kind of hard to say that you're trying to teach someone something when you refuse to tell them what it is that they're supposedly doing wrong. You were trying to provoke him, and, frankly, you two deserve each other.
    (good personal attack though!)
    Descriptive language. Describing your behavior. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AKA Personal attack. Sure, but I couldn't care less. And if an editor who refuses to acknowledge MOS (which I told them about) and can't find their own errors, that's a lack of competence. Frankly, this, like that user's edits, is a gross waste of my time. As usual this place is full of people who think they're making a difference but who really aren't. Get to a conclusion and people can get on with their lives. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, there's no problem-in-the-ANI sense with your conduct here -- I would call it suboptimal, certainly, but I don't think it demands any sanctions. I think it's more just the general frustration many writers feel when people come around and tinker with articles for the worse, and that any good admin should be able to recognize it (and in turn that this is why so many people demand high-level content creation from admin candidates). I think Autodidact1's conduct is the important one here, and that there seems to be a sustained pattern of conduct problems stemming from copyediting. Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well only one of the two people who were dragged here was detrimentally editing Wikipedia, causing damage and disruption to our content and readers, and that individual has carried on doing it during this ANI. Meanwhile, some users feel obliged to take the chance to level personal attacks at me: instead of at the disruptive user's talk page where he personally attacked me half a dozen times, do it here instead! Anyway, as I said, unless someone wants to actually do something about the ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, this thread is now a proper dramaboardz timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    AKA Personal attack. So you think an accurate description of you is a personal attack. huh? Sounds like you could use a little self-perspective. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a personal attack. Obviously. Bye now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a strange new meaning of "obviously" I was previously unaware of. Your eccentric definition might explain your blathering on about "obvious" errors on User talk:Autodidact1. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you still here? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now look, let's not get into it here. Everyone knows that TRM is one of the biggest ass-ets we have around here, and does a lot of good work. And speaking as one ass-et to another, TRM, you could have handled the situation better. But the only actual problem right now is that Mr. Autod is going around pissing on everything, hardly if ever improving things and frequently screwing them up. EEng 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree. I've tussled with TRM before but he was only mildly snarky this time, with provocation. The only behavior in need of action here is Autodidact1's. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No comment from him here yet, but... Vaticidalprophet 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ===proposed: Autodidact1 may not make edits against the MOS===

    Rambling Man accused me of making errors to an article that I edited without any evidence or without a link to the supposed errors. He reverted my changes because they violated the MOS. He persisted in accusing me of making errors when I only changed the converted fractions on typographical grounds. He has now assembled a posse of editors who want to ban me entirely. I've made over 5,000 edits and only a handful have been reverted. Almost all of my edits are usage corrections or improvements to prose, such as rewriting sentences to remove clichés. Rambling Man is guilty of character assassination; he's the editor who should be sanctioned. My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If, at this late date, you still think your edits don't change facts or introduce errors[sic], then there may be a WP:CIR block in your very near future.[sic] I suggest you move quickly to show that you recognize where you messed up article facts.[sic] (Hint: It's explained in this thread.[sic]) EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [sic].[reply]
    • The problem with "may not make edits against the MOS" is that no one on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) has absorbed all of MOS -- it's beyond human capability, so there would need to be a warning issued for each new kind of transgression. I think Mr. Pizza's idea is better, though I fear it may be overbroad. A third formulation to consider might be Autodidact1 needs to cut out the half-baked pedantry. EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Valid point. Maybe just a warning for disruptive editing, along with an explanation that introducing error in an attempt to "fix" what isn't broken is disruptive. At this point I think we could give an only warning, as Autodidact1 seems to be rejecting the notion that this introduced error. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ironically, all those giving me a hard time on this fail to note that in the very diff provided above, my summary was "actually changing the meaning of the sentences". If that wasn't clear enough for the user making the repeated errors to find, I call WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ironically, all those giving me a hard time...
      And what makes you think anyone missed it? What makes you think that one bit was sufficient? Also, how, exactly, is it "ironic"? Is it like rain on your wedding day? --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm bored of this thread and the pointless point-scoring here. Have fun, I'm going to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to bold an oppose, but there is so much to the MOS (and frankly, some of it is unhelpful or even arguably wrong) that I'd be happier simply blocking them for CIR if they continue to make factual errors without any recognition that they are doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree. Introducing factual errors while making stylistic changes is harmful, blockworthy incompetence, so much so that I'm even going to pass up this opportunity to give TRM a hard time–a difficult but justified sacrifice. Levivich 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with a blanket ban on MOS edits is that it's treating a symptom: yes, it'll stop the half-baked pedantry in that particular area, but it's no the only space where Autodidact1 exercises their unsourced certainty. Take their edit-warring at I, Tonya
    • 07:14, June 22, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ →‎Critical response: That's not a "parakeet [sic]". Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure.
    • 20:46, June 23, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.
    Their response on my User Talk page It's a conure of some type, and if you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conure you would agree with me, assuming, of course, that you actually saw "I, Tonya", which I doubt...".
    However, the very lede of Conure includes The term "conure" is used primarily in bird keeping, though it has appeared in some scientific journals. The American Ornithologists' Union uses the generic term parakeet for all species elsewhere called conure, though Joseph Forshaw, a prominent Australian ornithologist, uses conure.
    So this is someone who not only practices unsourced, self-assured pedantry, it's self-assured pedantry that that's contradicted by the source that they claims supports them. That's a WP:CIR issue at work. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely UPE on Forest Trail

    A new SPA editor, Rūta Rulle, has recently created this article: Forest Trail. A quick search of their name suggests that they are likely employed by an associated organisation. I have placed a COI query on the user's talk page, but there has been no disclosure or other response. Granted, it has only been a few days, but they have meanwhile been active on the site so should have seen the message.

    IMHO, the article shouldn't exist in the first place, as it's quite promotional in nature, and probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead. It's also only supported by references to the organisation's own website, baltictrails.eu. I've tagged the article accordingly, but to little effect.

    I don't want to hound the editor, and I don't necessarily want to take the article to AfD, but neither do I think things should be just left like that; at least the UPE question needs resolving. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) I have no opinion on the UPE issue; that is outside my expertise. However, I do question whether Forest Trail has the notability to support an article independent of E11 European long distance path, the last paragraph of whose lede reads "This article presents an encyclopedic overview of the trail. Detailed information about the routing is found in WikiVoyage. Links to detailed information about the townships along E11 are found in a special group of references at the bottom of this article." Narky Blert (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is a brochure for the trail. It is promotional, surgery is about to happen. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, surgery indeed. Roughly the equivalent of amputating the body and leaving just a foot. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead Embassy note before people start talking about transwikis at the AfD: Wikivoyage does not accept articles for individual tourist destinations. (This might be in scope as an itinerary, but as currently formatted it's as useless there as here.) Vaticidalprophet 08:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, noted well; didn't realise that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rūta Rulle.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia so I noticed the whole discussion only yesterday and now I have time to answer (we had a long national holiday last week, if that changes anything). So yes, we wanted to create a whole new page about E11 in the Baltic states (Baltic Forest Hiking Route). The name "Forest Trail" is how we call the route in the Baltic states, so we used it at the beginning. However, I agree that it could be misleading, the name "Baltic Forest Hiking Route" would be better. And yes, I work for an associated organization which is involved in several projects creating the long distance hiking routes in the Baltic states. That's why I tried to create this article. However, we didn't think about it as promoting the hiking trail, it was only meant for informational purposes for other hikers. Also, we are not the only organization involved in these projects, as you can see here: https://baltictrails.eu/en/forest/aboutus. But, of course, I understand that there are certain rules about what can and cannot be published, so if you think think this article is inappropriate and against the rules, we will not try to create it. Regarding the account of Anna-Sara Reinisch - she is an intern from Sweden in our organization. She is currently working with different apps and portals where to put the information about the Baltic Forest Hiking Route. Yesterday she saw that there is a conflict of interests here on Wiki, that's why she created an account for herself - we thought that from another account we could create the article. As I mentioned before, if the whole idea about this article is against the rules, we will stop with trying to create one. Sincerely, Rūta Rulle (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits on Nubia (character) article by Benicio2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This is a fairly simple case of QuakerIlK continuing to add their opinion to the article, in various phrases, while sourcing those phrases to a comic book (a primary source). I removed it because it is Original Research according to WP:OR. QuakerIlK has ignored me when I pointed out that you can't add your own personal interpretations of primary sources to articles. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a fairly simple case of Benicio2020 failing to demonstrate him/her having fulfilled their basic editorial responsibility of undergoing basic fact-checking to determine whether the material a source supports in an article is actually an opinion. Benicio2020 fails to grasp that visual evidence is more proof of a person's appearance (and cultural identity association) than mere text is. If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source. Additionally, Benicio2020's rationales for reversions/deletions are inconsistent. On top of that, Benicio2020's reversions and deletions include deletions of additional material, beyond the debated appearance and possibly resulting cultural identity association of Euboea, for which he/she has failed to ever even once articulate a rationale.
    I could be more helpful and more directly supply evidence to illustrate that the material in the article is accurate, making more irrefutable than ever any disagreement, but according to Benicio2020's rationale, which is faulty to begin with, there isn't anything I can provide OTHER than opinions, (because he/she actually wants text opinions from secondary sources to prove what the appearance and/or ethnic looks of Euboea are), which directly contradicts more objective and irrefutable evidence ever being applied, which puts me in a lose-lose position in Benicio2020's eyes, no matter what I do.
    I think with an administrator's proper oversight, this could be solved very easily, but I have already spent too much time and energy on this matter to further invest more time and energy only to have the contribution I have made be negated for no good reason. If I can be provided with either an administrator's written advice as to how to proceed in order to properly support the material in the article OR if Benicio2020 would care to realize that he/she is putting me in a lose-lose situation because he/she fails to understand when/why different categories of sources are applicable, then I am more than happy to proceed. QuakerIlK (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source This is absolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works; we use established, reliable secondary sources. OP is a pretty clear case of an editor failing to understand WP:OR and pushing their interpretations of source material (or interpretations/claims sourced to fan wikis) in the article. Suggest QuakerIlK familiarize themselves with the relevant policy, because they are fully in the wrong here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "[A]bsolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works", Grandpallama? Your statement is both reductive and extreme, (in other words, wrong), and whereas you absolutely fail to quote any specific policies, I will not fail to do so. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Furthermore, as per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Additionally, that section states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and "[a] primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". (The primary source I ended up using that got reverted/deleted 5 times by Benicio2020 was an excerpt from a issue of the main series of the Wonder Woman comic book, published by DC Comics. It is 100% relevant to the article and the publisher is DC Comics, which was, at the time of the publication of this source in particular, A Warner Communications Company.)
    As for the material, itself, fine. This shouldn't be necessary, but perhaps because of the audience, it is. Perhaps visual proof would help more than a bunch of text. Benicio2020, are you really going to claim, in light of this visual, that it is only an opinion that Euboea's “looks suggest perhaps East Asian or Hispanic ethnicity, rather than Caucasian ethnicity”? This is not an opinion, it is “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts”. Frankly, in light of this visual evidence, I could easily issue a stronger, less qualified statement.
    If you don’t believe the context/sourcing, here is a video proving that this is from the stated source. [63]
    Again, this is not how Wikipedia works; this is a textbook example of original research with what increasingly appears to be some WP:IDHT thrown in for good measure. Your interpretation of this character's appearance is just that: interpretation. If you continue to dig in your heels on this, prepare for the incoming boomerang. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, since you are quoting WP:RSPRIMARY, you might want to pay attention to the text immediately below what you quoted (that you seem to have conveniently ignored), which is relevant in this situation: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. The fact you just tried to edit war this back in while the ANI discussion is ongoing is unacceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your accusation that I am edit-warring is utterly inappropriate - Benicio2020 was the one who started repeatedly reverting my edits, plus I was the one who initiated this complaint and I made that edit a little while ago only after going through great lengths to provide greater transparency regarding the sourcing. We're still waiting for an administrator to weigh in on this, aren't we? You also fail to grapple with the actual material and the related sourceing at all.QuakerIlK (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are wrong on pretty much all counts, and Grandpallama has explained the relevant policies to you correctly. Please just drop it. There is nowhere on Wikipedia where you can argue about the apparent ethnicity of fictional characters. If you want to include this, you have to cite a secondary source; posting your own interpretation of a primary source is against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Does being "wrong on pretty much all counts" include the fact that not only Benicio2020 (at least 5 times) but now also Grandpallama have made reverts that delete, in addition to the debated material, material for which no rationale for deletion has ever been articulated by either one of them? That is part of my complaint. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More supporting material, including 2 new sources, have been added to the article. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two editors and an admin have now explained why this attempt to insert original research is inappropriate. Please quit trying to force it in. If you have other edits you want to make, that's fine, but continuing to edit war to include your personal opinions is going to lead to sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You completely ignored the fact that I introduced new sources and material and all you did was a simple revert. Your rationale for making the revert you just did is 100% baseless because neither you, nor Benicio2020 nor NinjaRobotPirate has weighed in at all on either the newly-introduced material or the newly-introduced sources in the article section. QuakerIlK (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, at this point QuakerI1K received a 24 hour block for edit warring. That should be a clear message that yes, you are edit warring QI1K. Once your block lifts, take your comments to the article Talk page, but do not resume attempting to force your edits into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to here at ANI, this has already been discussed at the article talkpage, at QI1K's talkpage, and at Benicio's talkpage. If we are advising QI1K to return to the article talkpage, they need to understand that it isn't an invitation to continue to push this particular edit; further attempts to argue that their interpretations and unencyclopedic language should be included in the article are just going to result in an escalation of sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hand That Feeds You, Can either you or NinjaRobotPirate please explain to me why once I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question that Grandpallama reverted that edit without either a review of the source or discussion of it on here by any involved party? Can anybody explain to me how I was being charged with edit-warring and was blocked and not Grandpallama? Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made ( Black characters in animation and Category:Black people in comics ), and why those categories remain deleted from that article and why none of the reversions of the articles by any of the other editors, other than myself, involved in this dispute, included rationales for the removal of those categories and why the categories remain removed/deleted without absolutely any rationale whatsoever as to why those removals/deletions persist? QuakerIlK (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to resolve content disputes; you need to use dispute resolution for that. You were blocked because people were complaining about your edits here, and I saw you edit warring. Grandpallama hadn't made any additional edits on the article at the time I blocked you. Life is unfair like that. It also doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong when you're edit warring. This is explained in the policy itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NinjaRobotPirate, can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring? They claimed in that edit's rationale "Explained by two editors AND an admin that this is inappropriate.", yet this most recent material to which Grandpallama was referring to there that I added at the time which included a new secondary source that supported the material, which is what both you and Grandpallama said was needed, was (and remains) content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked? None of the involved editors here put forth any effort whatsoever in discussing it.
    Was I guilty of vandalism in that edit? Was I guilty of inflammatory comments? Where is the disabusal process from you on this series of actions from my edit - "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)".
    I can admit that throughout this process I have been overly verbose, which is generally advised against in these sorts of processes. (It does mean that I am trying, though.) But as I have continually tried to make improvements on the material in question by further qualifications and articulations with an increasing body of sources that supports the material I add, the language directed against me by both Grandpallama and The Hand That Feeds You, that I "force" edits in, escalates, as does Grandpallama's warning of sanctions against me.
    If I continue to make improvements, which I have done consistently, that means that I realized that, to a certain degree, I was wrong in the past, but can you or any other involved party here admit to having made any mistakes throughout this whole process and consider that I might be being punished unfairly or that the article is being prevented from being improved by me? So far, I have seen no indication of that. QuakerIlK (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to repeat myself. I think the problem here is that you refuse to hear what people are telling you. If you continue down this path, the end result is an indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Your last 'point' on here is a clear-cut case of Hounding. QuakerIlK (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's a point that even a casual glance at your editing history shows you have a pattern of adding unsourced material and opinion to articles. If you want to accuse me of harassment, go ahead and file another ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

    Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[64]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

    HOUNDING:hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

    Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity.

    • Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[65]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[66]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[67]].
    Edit: this list of grievances was started on 24 Feb. POLEMIC notes grievance lists are only permitted when used for dispute resolution in a timely manner. Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[68]].
    • Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[69]], [[70]], [[71]], [[72]], [[73]].
    • Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
      • Odal rune RfC [[74]]
      • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[75]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[76]].
      • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[77]]
      • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[78]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions
    • Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
      • Earlier today [[79]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[80]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[81]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"
    • Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[82]] 2nd [[83]]
    • Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
      • [[84]], "This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more"
      • [[85]], "Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers "

    I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[86]], Noteduck's page [[87]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page.[88] My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page.[89] "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before.[90] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[91] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[92] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[93] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[94] (plus BuzzFeed News[95] and Bellingcat.[96] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[97] I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER.[98] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[99] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[100] Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere,[101] and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noteduck, please indicate when you change your text. You have made significant changes to your reply above. As I noted below such changes may result in replies to your text that no longer make sense since the original text has been altered with items added/removed. Springee (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes me uncomfortable when editors cite mental health conditions to explain their on-wiki behavior. A lot of people suffer from a lot of things; anyone who is not healthy enough to participate here should immediately log off. Levivich 14:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.[[102]] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements[[103]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[104]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[105]] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias [[106]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[107]]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I ended up here because I lurk at HiLo48's talk page which references an ANN which references this one. I've seen Springee at work and they are a careful, polite editor who stays on the high road even when confronted by rough behavior such as that described above. I find the above construction of trying to paint an incorrect picture regarding Springee very opposite to that very telling. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    North8000, what points in particular do you consider incorrect? –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically every (mis)characterization and claim about what every diff shows.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
      • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs [108][109]. Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
      • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC [110] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
      • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [111] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [112]. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.[[113]] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, for fuck's sake, don't pretend that Odal was some backwater article. You know it was well-trafficked and heavily edited after the CPAC incident, and you're having a meltdown because someone responded to the same RFC that you did.
    As I mentioned earlier, this is the first 1RR violation that I've seen from Noteduck, and they quickly apologized and self-reverted when it was pointed out. On the other hand you and I have had several disagreements over what constitutes a revert, so I asked an admin for advice and it seemed to me like the three of us had a nice productive discussion about it. Do you see it differently? –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep it civil. During the first month after the AE closed (24 Mar-24 Apr) Noteduck edited 7 article/talk pages that could be seen as AP related (Dennis Prager, WSJ, CPAC, Odal rune, Candace Owens, Douglas Murray, Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson, 2020 US presidential election, A People's History of the US). Of those I have no involvement with the last 2. Noteduck had no involvement with WSJ, CPAC, Odal, Owens and Carlson but was either opposing my RfC comments or reverting my edits. They did have prior involvement with Ngo, Prager and Murray. If their comments and edits weren't related to mine it would be easier to see this as just hitting the same topics.
    Was it Noteduck's first brush with edit warring? Edit warring was one of the AE concerns. You also haven't made it clear why you were quick to warn me when you felt I crossed the line but you didn't even provide a curtesy notice to Noteduck that they had crossed the line. When you asked an admin it was clear that you were fishing for sanctions and made accusations of 1RR violations on my part which you have yet to support. Springee (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Back to the sandbox thing: If we give you the benefit of the doubt, you had a list of grievances up for a month and you're claiming that keeping a similar list for three days violates POLEMIC. This is one of those things that really feels like a double standard: It's hounding and uncivil when Noteduck does it, but we're expected to give quite a bit of leeway for your similar actions. If you're so concerned about it, I would hope you would remember to keep your own sandbox clean. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The grievance list was started by Noteduck 10 Feb. It's almost July and and still being added to. Do you consider 5 months timely? Blanking means little if they note that they can bring the blanked content back (the "blanked" content was added below) and if they keep adding new entries. You claim what I did was similar so lets compare. A specific list in less than a month, used at AE, never used again until blanked when the sandbox was cleaned a month after the AE closed. VS a continuous 5 month list, including many obvious errors, a portion was blanked but in a way that was easy to restore after multiple complaints that the list violated POLEMIC. The accumulation has continued even after several POLEMIC warnings. It's clear Noteduck has decided I've wronged them. To that end they are making a list, following me to continue their grievances at other articles, trying to drum up other editors for support (yourself included) and not trying to claim "but civil POV pusher" rather than reflect on their own actions. If they agree to stop personalizing disputes, MfD the list, and leave me alone all would be fine and we could close this right away. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    on the point about leeway: Springee has been editing for more than a decade and has far, far, far more editorial experience than I do. I've only been regularly editing since December 2020 (I have a handful of edits under an old account earlier in 2020). "Springee" gets 98 hits in the WP:AN archive; "Noteduck" gets 5. Springee should know the rules very well by now - and in fact, Springee does appear to know them when it suits their perspective. There's no reason for Springee to claim ignorance of editorial policy or expect preferential treatment Noteduck (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page[114] don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page,[115] dragging me away from other Wikipedia projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion [[116]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[117]][[118]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[119]][[120]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[121]]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just re the ping: sorry, I'm incredibly busy right now. I know I'm related to this stuff, and your retelling looks accurate at a glance, but I'll chime in properly a bit later when I have time. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Regarding the sandbox, from the content blanked in Special:Diff/1029281530, pasted below. The user accumulated a large number of grievances, mostly against Springee (talk · contribs). I note that some of the sources mentioned, such as CNN, are generally considered to be reliable, so they do have legitimate concerns about Springee. Their current revision says that they think it is Springee, not themselves, who should be AP2 topic-banned (esp. in relation to Andy Ngo). But, I think this warrants an interaction ban between the users as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary [122][123]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier.[124] I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox.[125] As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix"[126] without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month.[127] Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion [[128]]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    About 20 KB, by Noteduck (talk · contribs)

    In May 2021 Springee expressly named a belief that the Cato Institute was an RS, but the SPLC was not, again expressing their selective assessment of sources based on their ideological position.

    Partisan reverts: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[129][130][131][132][133][134] The New York Times and CNN,[135][136] National Review(!),[137] The Washington Post,[138] Newsweek,[139], The Washington Post and NBC,[140] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[141], Vox and The Daily Beast[142], the Los Angeles Times,[143] The Intercept,[144] the [[BBC],[145] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[146], BuzzFeed News,[147] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[148], Salon (website),[149] Forbes,[150] the Seattle Times,[151] Reports sans Frontieres,[152] New Republic and NBC News,[153] the Chicago Sun-Times[154] Politico and four other sources,[155] The Independent,[156] Daily Dot,[157][158][159] Reuters and Fox News(!)[160] Middle East Eye,[161] The Huffington Post,[162] Mother Jones,[163] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[164][165]Des Moines Register[166] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[167][168] and academic articles[169]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[170] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[171] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[172][173][174][175][176] - Wall Street Journal here[177][178] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[179] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[180][181][182][183][184][185] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[186][187][188][189][190][191] record of misinformation on climate change.

    On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[192] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[193][194], 7 March 2021,[195][196]

    For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[197][198][199] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[210] unwarranted deletion of material[211][212][213] especially misbehavior related to guns[214][215][216][217][218][219][220][221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[236][237][238][239] and whitewashing pages of firearms[240][241] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[242] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[243][244], [245][246], [247],[248],[249]

    Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[250] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[251] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[252] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[253][254] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[255] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged.
    UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a personal veto
    S, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[256] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021

    [257][258]

    July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[259] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[260][261][262][263][264][265][266][267][268][269][270][271]

    June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[272][273]

    June 2020: Andy Ngo [274][275][276], Tucker Carlson[277], Burt Rutan[278]

    Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

    Withdrawn proposal with no editors in support. (nac) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This is another case of two editors who do not like each other. I propose a two-way interaction ban between User:Noteduck and User:Springee with only the usual exceptions. Since they both edit in the area of American politics, this will inconvenience both of them. Antagonism between editors should be inconvenient to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine[279] and Springee's[280] contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Proposal #2

    Enough has been seen and reviewed to at least raise concern about WP:hounding, WP:Battleground and against-WP:civility behavior by Noteduck particularly with respect to Springee. Noteduck is warned to avoid those types of behaviors. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support this or as an alternative I would accept a MfD Noteduck's sandbox with an understanding they may keep the content not related to me. This is a grievance list and a clear violation of POLEMIC. This is especially true since many of the claims are false if anyone actually looks at the diffs in question. Springee (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If you'd like to see it deleted, why don't you nominate it for MfD yourself? –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered that but if we decide to MfD here it will be easier to ensure it is completed. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Looking at the discussion above, I'm not sure there's agreement that Noteduck's actions merit a warning or even meet the criteria for those issues. It may be wise to wait for more input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins, before making further proposals to close. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer As the mildest remedy that has a reasonably good chance at resolving the situation. I didn't fully understand Springee's response/post. But they are referring to work there by Noteduck that appears to be aimed at using the system to "get" someone vs. just to solve an issue, would agree that that should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've had limited access recently and will for a while longer. I think it's clear that Noteduck has been campaigning against me (see the diffs showing them contacting other editors out of the blue and in cases which they weren't previously involved). The POLEMIC list started in Feb is also a problem. Yes, they blanked it but then started it right back up so it never went away and as the collapsed section below shows, it's still very accessible. This list is a serious problem when editors presume it was in any way shape or form reliably collected. In addition to the fact that most examples don't contain context, they also have a lot of just plain wrong claims (saying sources were removed in cases where I was moving blocks of text, saying I violated 1RR when I self reverted then restored to correct my edit note etc). Finally, trying to bring being bipolar into this! Levivich is right, if a this is a problem that results in confrontational behavior then the editor should stay out of confrontational areas. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment not particularly sensitive Springee. At any rate, Springee seems to want an asymmetric rule that I can't collect material in my sandbox for use in WP:AN complaints. As we've already observed, this is a total double standard. I'll certainly be more mindful about the "timely" requirement of the policy but surely this is an important part of the sandbox function, especially for the sake of transparency about upcoming complaints. One glance at my sandbox reveals that the large majority does not focus on Springee but on my various pet projects to improve Wiki. I just made Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate btw and I'm quite happy with it Noteduck (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no double standard. You have maintained a grievance list since February. That is only allowed if the contents are to be used in a timely fashion which you have not done. It doesn't matter if only 1% of the list is a POLEMIC, 0% is the upper limit. The fact that you deleted the list on June 19 means nothing if you show that you have learned nothing and started a new one. Springee (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm a bit confused here, was Noteduck not supposed to start a new list (as new issues emerged) after deleting the previous one? –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I think that the "timely" part serves to make a distinction between complaints to try to resolve a current problem vs longer term constructions to try to "get" (deprecate or remove) an editor or just do battle with an editor. And the latter is presumably a reason for the polemic rule, particularly against another editor. Perhaps, in addition to the proposed gentle warning, if Noteduck could (you) agree to be extra careful and mindful of these objectives? North8000 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is a good distinction. A month is reasonable period of time to collect diffs but if this list is still here mid July it will be a clear POLEMIC and now Noteduck would be clearly warned about the policy. Springee (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    well yes, I can certainly aim to keep material in my sandbox for no more than a month in line with the "timely" language of the policy. The material I gathered was not intended to be part of some aimless, vague polemic but rather the concrete basis for a WP:AN complaint. The sandbox is a convenient place to gather such evidence, which I'm sure is why you've used it for the same reason Springee Noteduck (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee, just observing an example from the last couple of days - I'd work on this pattern of wholesale reverts,[281] especially since other editors have raised concerns about your editing related to right-wing politics. I've reminded you of WP:ROWN multiple times, and with more than a decade of experience I'm sure you know it well too. You correctly note that this material was about Kirk, not TPUSA, so doesn't belong on the latter's page. Why not move this material to the Charlie Kirk (activist) page, or if you think the material does not belong on Kirk's page either, take it the Kirk talk page or the editor in question's talk page? Noteduck (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If timely is your intent why gave you been collecting grievances for 5 months with no action? I'm glad you are able to recognize that the content I removed from TPUSA does not belong on the page. I'm certainly not obligated to try to make a case for the content to be DUE on another page which is what you are asking me to do. Springee (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee I'm merely recommending that given your experience and your focus on pages related to TPUSA and proximate topics, you could assist less experienced editors. I see you have again reverted the eight word sentence I added to Andy Ngo,[282] though your rebuttals haven't been substantive. You initially referred to WP:OR, and now WP:V, without specifying what part of either policy you are grounding your argument in. I recommend basing any objections to new edits in the specific language of editorial policy rather than a broad-brush rejection Noteduck (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I and several other experienced editors did try to help you early on. Our efforts were met with hostility to the point that an AE was filled against you and you were formally warned. The Ngo material has been reverted by two editors and fails WP:V. The ONUS is on you to correct the problem. That you restored the same content you violated 1RR to add further shows that you didn't take your logged warning to heart. Springee (talk)`
    Springee recently launched an action in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard[283] in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence.[284] They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material.[285] Noteduck (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mis-characterizations aside, those are good examples of the Wikipedian, polite, and content-focused way to deal with content questions/disputes. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unconstructive edits by User:Carl Francis

    User:Carl Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    This user reverts some edits which he considered as unconstructive, but some are disruptive such as removing an existing link in an article to another article in Wikipedia. The user was given a warning in his user page by another user due to this issue. Please check the contributions of this user for more details. Despite of this, I don't want him to be blocked and banned from Wikipedia due to his editing behavior but just to remind him. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NewManila2000, please add some diffs to illustrate the problem. The talk page warning also does not include diffs. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon:: This is one of the diffs that you want to see. [286]. It appears that the said actress is a mainstay in a Filipino variety program and will appear in an upcoming Filipino TV series but the edits and links there were edited. The edit summary says, "fixed" but instead of fixing, the user removed some important edits there. It is okay to remove unsourced edits but not to remove other sufficient edits. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @NewManila2000:, I just wanted to help you make a case to any admin reviewing the page by reminding you that diffs are required as noted at the top of this page. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I have done this for you this time. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon:: Just wanted to let you know, if you haven't seen it, here's the other diff: [287] DavidCostell44 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DavidCostell44:, I think that is the diff @NewManila2000: meant to link when they linked to an old version of Charlie Dizon at 14:23. More than one diff is needed to indicate a pattern of behaviour. TSventon (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone check if his edit in Jodi Sta. Maria is disruptive or not. Indicated there is the diff in the said article, [288]. Also, in the article of Ivana Alawi, [289], and [290]. NewManila2000 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Likely a disgruntled sock. Also WP:SOLICIT. Carl Francis (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, we must respect and review the edits of other users before reverting it. I will now avoid myself from doing WP:SOLICIT if proven that I am doing it. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Having reviewed the diffs, it looks to me like Carl Francis removed some unsourced and trivial information on WP:BLP articles...in other words, nothing wrong in itself. Both Carl Francis and NewManila2000 appear to be engaged in a low-intensity long-term edit war at Charlie Dizon. In lieu of handing out edit warring blocks, can you two go hash the matter out on a talk page? signed, Rosguill talk 04:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Banana6cake. resumed inappropriate behavior and disruption after calls for topic ban

    The participants from the following (now archived) discussion: [291], have proposed a Topic Ban for User:Banana6cake. due to their past persistent unconstructive behavior and disruption in the Turkey topic area. However no topic ban was applied and this encouraged the editor to keep going on with their inappropriate attitude and disruption in the Turkey topic area. Just had to revert them (again!): [292] where they - against the WP:Consensus and Wikipedia's rules - had restored fake claims that the modern Turkish Navy was founded.... 1.000 years ago or so. Furthermore, they used the edit summary to make more racist WP:NPA attacks against the ethnicity of editors for no apparent reason: [293].

    Something really has to be done about this editor. This behavior shouldn't be tolerated in Wikipedia.

    Pinging @Beyond My Ken, Visnelma, and Jéské Couriano: as well as they were participants in previous discussion with Banana6cake..

    EDIT: Oh and also pinging - just in case they would like to add more to it - @Canterbury Tail, Oyond, Dimadick, Kevo327, and Spudlace: --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 17:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Support for topic ban per Silent and due to the disruptive editing of the user.--V. E. (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Add: Racist attack most likely warrant a block.--V. E. (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also added a warning on their talk page for the attack.--V. E. (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban - my stance has not changed a whit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a looksee at the diffs, I stand corrected. Indef site ban - nationalist and racist attacks, to me, is grounds for a site ban overtop the other issues. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A list of edits containing personal attacks

    [294] [295] [296] [297] [298]--V. E. (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You didn't notify them of this discussion.However, I have blocked them for 72 hours for a pattern of nationalist attacks.Discussion of a topic ban may continue here. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusion

    To the Admins: There is a solid consensus that User:Banana6cake. should be banned from Wikipedia. The particular user has not only violated Wikipedia's rules repeatedly but also has failed (clarification: never bothered, or are not interested) in convincing us that they would improve their attitude and behavior. All these days, they had their chance to remedy for their actions, but didn't even bother. For this reason, I do not believe we can expect anything positive from them; they should be banned from the site indefinitely. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption on BLPs

    All month long, Ethan2345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disrupted BLPs, mainly by changing surnames to pronouns and writing Too much [insert surname here] to summarize these changes.[299] The user has been warned about various forms of disruptive editing on their talk page, but they would simply thank those who posted the warnings and go on with their disruption. KyleJoantalk 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this user could benefit from a gentle schooling on Wikipedia policy, as they continue to make (I assume unintentionally) unconstructive edits. Here, for instance, they misunderstand MOS:SURNAME and misunderstand basic chronology. Sometimes, their edit summaries make little sense, such as this, which simply mimicks phrasing from watchlist script. They've also added unsourced information after a revert. Again, I assume these are inadvertent due to a lack of knowledge and could be benefited by some guidance or careful review of Wikipedia's policy and style guides. Their talk page is rife with warnings and second warnings, especially for disruptive editing, which they usually return with a thank-you and little subsequent action.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This user had been blocked many times on Thai Wikipedia due to his disruptive behavior. There, he had ignored all advice given to him and community consensus. He even broke his own promise to not cause disruptive editing once again. His conduct is still the same. -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just Sayori, being blocked from another Wikipedia site is not evidence of current disruption on this site. Please provide current evidence of continued disruptive editing on this site after the user was informed about this ANI? — Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he's draftifying articles that are 4 months old and more, triggering the edit filters and using edit summaries such as 'Article is not good enough.' and 'is only a stub,' etc. Examples: [300], [301], and [302]. He's also moving articles because the subject's name changed because of a marriage: [303]. User still seems "confused" about MOS:SURNAME. Can't something more be done besides "... a gentle schooling?" — Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely. It seems like the several explanations left on their talk page have been insufficient. I think there also might be some difficulties with the English language at work here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignoring user talk page warnings

    Asdfghjkl9658 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored over a year's worth of user talk page warnings about disruptive editing and providing edit summaries. The user has responded to an alert once before,[304] so the disregard seems intentional. KyleJoantalk 02:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Could it be just that WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They have a handful of edits on talk pages and have, as KyleJoan said, previously responded to a ping on one. At the very least, they must be aware that both talk pages and notifications are a thing. Of course, that doesn't mean they're actually looking at either. – Rummskartoffel 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The disruption has continued.[305][306][307][308][309] KyleJoantalk 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuous vandalism on Recreate Greece

    QuaestorGaius has been involved in multiple reverts on Recreate Greece by claiming that they are either biased or distorting the truth. I tried to discuss it with him on the relevant discussion page but he has not responded sadly. The name of the party and its leader is clearly mentioned in all sources provided - some of them are from academic journals. The history of the page shows that he has done the same to other users, whilst he was recently blocked from Greek Wikipedia for using sockpuppets to do the same and after being involved in multiple reverts against other users on the same article. There might be a conflict of interest here for sure, but I will let administrators decide what to do next. Thank you! Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For now I've cautioned the other user on edit warring. Mightberightorwrong, I would extend you the same caution irrespective of the other user. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also as a courtesy informed the other user of the existence of this discussion, for future reference Mightberightorwrong that's required when you discuss another user here(see the top of this page). 331dot (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. May I kindly ask you to revert the article back to the version I edited in order to start a discussion with the user? Or is it ok if I do it myself? Pretty sure that those reverts are considered vandalism as multiple sources have been erased without an explanation. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion would be that you not do so, to allow others to weigh in. I will not do so as a matter of fairness here. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mightberightorwrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I would like to report that user for source distortion in the article of the party “recreate Greece”. For example the Amadeo report he uses does not mention the party even once. It is a clear attempt to shift the article’s perspective towards his own POV. Moreover the way he formulates the article with the opening sentences being heavily loaded with political accusations is clearly against wikipedia policy on article neutrality.

    He even goes as far as to blatantly LIE here about the party being named in his sources even though in the article’s history he clearly states the sources only provide information on Thanos Tzimeros and not the party as a whole. I would also like to ask for intervention against his ad hominem attacks about this imaginable “conflict of interest” he claims.

    ←QuaestorGaius (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a good policy to complain about ad hominem attacks and then launch one of your own. Acroterion (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Only I didn't, I merely said he was lying which he is as is proven by the source I cite further down. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reiterate, stop doing that. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    All of the sources clearly mention both the name of the party and Tzimeros. An administrator can have a look and verify that I am not lying. This is vandalism and should not be tolerated. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Now you again caught clearly lying. Here is an example. source This source does not mention the party even once. So here we have you lying about ALL the sources naming the party and I provide you evidence that they don't. Can anyone intervene. Btw ythe user reverted the article again claiming vandalism while the issue is still being discussed. Is such behaviour even acceptable any more QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page 85 as 'Creation Again'. Translations vary. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You realise you are claiming clear references on a huge list of political accusations and no where is it directly stated that the party can be accused of those. That is just a board naming the leader of the party as influential in Social media, nowhere close the claims that you make. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point, the discussion is turning into a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. @QuaestorGaius: & @Mightberightorwrong:, use the article talk page. Jerm (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he claimed vandalism, and this is clearly not vandalism since I have provided ample of reasons why this content is either distorted or heavily biased coming from left leaning NGOs like the above. But as this is discussed he reverted the article again. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've fully protected the article and warned both warriors to stop attacking each other. They will have to go to the talkpage and work it out, and the first to attack the other, either in comments or edit summaries, should be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Troublesome Unlearning Editor

    I was informed by the teahouse I can take this here. I have come across a user HariSinghw whom strikes me as a notably poor yet rather prolific editor whom well appears out of their depth and is ultimately creating significant mess on Wikipedia. Of note, they appear to have a poor command of English which has not improved over time which is certainly a contributing factor. I came across them last night when I submitted a speedy deletion (which has since become an AfD) for an article HariSinghw created. What grabbed my attention was after submitting the SD request I noticed they left a message on the talk page for the article and it was rather poorly articulated and argued. So much so that I decided to review HariSinghw's talk page. I noticed a multi-year banner of numerous AfD's, PROD's, SD's, article creation failures, attempts by others to kindly help the user that seemed ineffective, as well as a general demonstration of not learning and seeming disinterest in learning from past mistakes. It's possible there is more evidence (both positive and negative) in other locations past what is in the talk page and immediately linked on it. I found it rather striking that such a seemingly prolific editor has such a long track record of failures and yet has demonstrated almost no signs of improvement over this time. I would have though that the user would either be successfully helped/coached to improve, or some action be done to limit creating messes and straining bureaucratic machinery.

    Based on what I saw, I thought it would be wasted effort to try and guide them (plus, I am relatively new at editing and am likely not the best choice to do so) and instead I made a post in the treehouse to ask what (if anything) could be done to alleviate this. That message can be seen here. One person provided a similar analysis to what I had observed. It was also suggested there that more guidance on their talk page might help, but I am extremely disinclined to think this will be helpful due to this long standing track record.

    As I am rather new to editing wikipedia (I have had an account since 2018 but I didn't start involving myself in active editing until this month) and am still learning how things work, so I am unsure of what can be done and am mostly sharing this to gain the attention of administrators who might know more of what could be done (if anything). All things together, and most poignant it seems to me like HariSinghw's editing activity is messy to the point of straining the bureaucratic machinery due to volume and persistence, and is almost like vandalism without any intent (if that a thing or there is a different term for this).

    Thanks for taking the time to have a look at this. I will post the requisite note on the user's talk page.

    --Tautomers(T C) 20:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just made aware of WP:Competence is required and after reviewing it, and considering the many years pattern the user has displayed I do still think this is worth review by administrators so it is on their radar and potential actions (whatever that may be) could be taken. --Tautomers(T C) 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This guy meets the bare minimum of competency required to edit. Please read the section on "responding to a suspected lack of confidence" which suggests talking to the user beforehand. The person at the teahouse who directed you to ANI should probably be WP:TROUTED. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 02:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the information here (and the larger comment below). I'll admit my threshold of whom I am willing to help/teach isn't that low and this person doesn't meet that. Certainly not opposed to others helping them though. It's also good to see this has been done by someone else and hopefully will set a trend in the future. Also, lolol at the trout (that's new to me). --Tautomers(T C) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a lot of templates. I don't see a lot of help. Barely anyone has even tried to meaningfully engage with this editor. What is this guy even doing wrong, like specifically? If I can't tell from solely reading their talk page how are they supposed to tell? You're "of the opinion that guidance will have no effect whatsoever" but have you even bothered to try to give that guidance? WP:AGF is still something that exists. I count 4 threads where someone didn't just leave a generic template. They're actually doing a pretty good job considering how little help they've received. For instance, Date palm farming in India. This is not a high quality article by any means but it demonstrates a remarkable improvement over articles they've made in the past, so I doubt the idea that this editor can't improve. I'll also note that the article was created once somebody left a message on HariSingh's talk page letting them know a bunch of articles on date farming in different parts of India might be better off in a single article at first. There's also no rule against creating minimally referenced stubs.
    My advice to HariSinghw is to focus on topics with clearer notability for the time being. People that have their own policy, such as those falling under WP:NPOLITICIAN are a good start. Stubs on broad topics can also be useful. Date farming in India was good; are there other major crops that don't have articles? Additionally, I think you might benefit from expanding existing articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject India has a table of articles by importance and by size. There's 499 high importance articles to India that are still stubs. [310] You should consider focusing on those. It seems counterintuitive that I'm telling you to edit higher importance articles despite your inexperience but generally the more important a topic is the easier it is to find sources and write about it; especially when barely anything has been written about it on Wikipedia already. You should also try to avoid promotional language. Try reading other articles on related topics before writing your own article. You will learn the bland words that Wikipedia wants that way. You should also feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:Help desk for help on what you did wrong and how you can fix your editing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 02:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a comment on HariSinghw's Talk page listing many examples of articles and drafts that in my opinion do not benefit Wikipedia because those are too short to be useful, inadequately referenced, etc. My recommendation was to focus on quality over quantity. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw this, and thanks. Will comment further elsewhere since this (I think) seems resolved. Thanks! --Tautomers(T C) 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    From recent XfD !votes, it appears he's not familiar with notability criteria, which would be a great place to start. From this edit it's also not clear whether he's familiar with what type of content is encyclopedic. Star Mississippi 23:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationalistic edits reg. place names in Georgia

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

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

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

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

    The names are in the lede but not in the infobox. I agree that the infobox in non-0exceptional cases (like disputed territories) must only have one name, which in this case is Georgian.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, let's do it uniformly then, no? It'd be okay to remove Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia and Georgia and vice versa; am I understanding this correctly? BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have articles on localities outside of Nagorno-Karabakh with two or more names in the infoboxes?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a map of former Azerbaijani villages in Armenia: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1uZHWE3I4m3xCiYbWcO8R9IBSW9T3LJmo&ll=40.11264278826263%2C45.08639034391172&z=8. They all have former Azeri names in their infoboxes, so Akhalkalaki and co. aren't alone. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the issue is that it's inappropriate to call an historical or unofficial name "native", {{Infobox settlement}} also has the parameter other_name (as used in Mumbai and Kolkata). NebY (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue with this specific user seems to be the mere mention of alternative, non-Georgian names. I personally just want nothing but consistency on this encyclopedia. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue for this specific user - me is that you were doing wrong edits in infobox, and even started edit-warring about that. After your intense reverts, I tried to explain to you on your discussion page but instead of any dialogue, you showed unfriendly attitude and from the very beginning called me "nationalist". In addition, even in "roll back comments" you used an invalid argument, like, the example of Marneuli article, where similar edits were recently made by the user VivaEspana11. Both of you were doing the same, and used each others edits as an argument. As you can see from other users they don't agree with you or all of them are Georgian Nationalists and please remove all your disruptive edits mentioned on your discussion page. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 23:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, if not you, I was definitely going to start a discussion here regarding edits of you two BaxçeyêReş & VivaEspana11. It's late time for me but anyway it is good that the issue is already here. If you don't mind see you tomorrow. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Really @Ymblanter ? 1, 2. Btw personally, I think inclusion limited to the lede is more appropriate (given it's sourced), but to see someone like Ymblanter saying that and even questioning its existence outside of NKR is just something (: ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you bring my mass reverts of an obviously disruptive user as an example, but yes, I think everything from the infobox should just go.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were just questioning the availability of such articles outside of Nagorno-Karabakh? Am I reading the same thing as you do? Also, the reverts you restored, done by now blocked Azerbaijani editor, CuriousGolden, directly contradict you here. But I guess it was "mass reverts" so it's fine then right? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if an IP arrives and makes 20 similar pro-Armenian nationalistic POV edits without any discussion, it is perfectly ok to revert them. If someone shows up in your house with a gun and does not say anything, it is perfectly ok to shoot them dead first, even if their intention was to offer cleaning services.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious (pun intended) how all the edits done by CuriousGolden including infobox additions and often times poorly sourced/unsourced same POV style additions as you mention with that IP (only on the Azerbaijani side) didn't bother you at all it seems like. Hell, they even had a map apparently, and added the Az names (in infoboxes included and again, often times poorly sourced), to hundreds of Armenian villages. Some consistency would be appreciated, and your analogy is just pure hyperbole. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not quite sure what are you trying to achieve. This is not a topic about me. You showed up with your ad hominem arguments which do not address the topic in any way, but are presumably intended to attack me. At least I do not see any other purpose. If you think I performed any misconduct you are welcome to open a topic about me and prove this misconduct with diffs. Trying to derail this thread is not going to be helpful.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is it "hard to say" when a city is inhabited by over 90% of a specific ethnic group? BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I beleive it does not really matter what ethnic group is/was leaving in a settlement. Which WP policy or guideline tells that naming of cities should be based on ethnicity of inhabitants? My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any Wikipedia policy that recommends not doing so? If a settlement has a native (historical or present) alternative name, it deserves to be mentioned. That is the case on virtually every WP page; just see Lviv, Tabriz, Cluj-Napoca, Belfast, Port Elizabeth, and probably thousands of others. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But then you need some good RS explicitly saying that "city X had an old/historical name N". If you do have such RS, please use then on all pages in dispute. That would make your position a lot stronger. But you do it without any referencing [311]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all fine, but this is a matter for the lede, not for the infobox.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Ymblanter. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 06:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter in the lead or infobox, but the claim about each specific old/alternative naming must be explicitly sourced. If not, this is WP:SYN by BaxçeyêReş, and it should be reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: Strongly disagree. We routinely mention alternate names in infoboxes[312][313][314][315][316][317][318]. Even more: we sometimes prefer traditional, actually used names to official names[319][320]. That's the whole reason of having multiple parameters! We do not routinely require strong sourcing for each name; enough that some sources confirm alternative names. I agree with the OP that an argument that Armenian names are not "official names" is insufficient to remove them from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī TALK 14:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think one needs at least one RS to support alternative naming if it was disputed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kashmiri firstly, providing example on India where territories can have their own official languages[a] as a universal example is a manipulation. Secondly, no one were trying to remove Armenian names from Wikipedia. It's clearly said, provide sources, include them in the beginning of the article but not in the infobox, where they provide them as native name!--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have a separate set of naming rules for India and for Georgia. Your argument is further void because Georgia is also a multi-ethnic and multilingual country[321]. Infobox always should contain any names in significant use – because that's its role. — kashmīrī TALK 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Georgia is also a multi-ethnic and multilingual like most other countries in the world but unlike India there is one official native language - Georgian, and regions don't have their own official languages except Abkhazian AR. Placing any other language name as native in infobox is wrong. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You confuse the official languages parameter with other languages. The latter is there precisely to contain languages that do not have an official status yet are in actual use. — kashmīrī TALK 12:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like one needs an RfC, otherwise edit-warring would never stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, My very best wishes the user VivaEspana11 keeps vandalizing Dzveli Kveshi article. He pushes other name which is not even the second most widely used name for the village (see User_talk:VivaEspana11#Dzveli Kveshi), puts it in bold (before even as native name) and says that s/he has sources but I can't access those links, they are dead links. Any help? --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 15:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can not act as administrator in this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Though this user has no useful contribution to Wikipedia and must be blocked per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That user just seems to be a singe purpose account. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The constant reverting isn't resolving anything. There's already violations of WP:3RR. The best course of action though is to add full protection to some of the disputed articles, and have the involved individuals use the article talk page to resolve the matter because this discussion is becoming a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. Jerm (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus has already been reached. I have reverted my edits, and I will work together with other editors to remove non-official names from infoboxes in the future. I (the purported sockpuppet of CuriousGolden, according to you) am no longer involved in this. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BaxçeyêReş I've already moved on from the SPI, why can't you? Jerm (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ According to Part XVII of the Constitution of India, Hindi in the Devanagari script is the official language of the Union, along with English as an additional official language.[1][2][3] States and union territories can have a different official language of their own other than Hindi or English.

    Notes

    References

    1. ^ Ministry of Home Affairs 1960.
    2. ^ National Informatics Centre 2005.
    3. ^ "Profile | National Portal of India". India.gov.in. Archived from the original on 30 August 2013. Retrieved 23 August 2013.

    Snooganssnoogans

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

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

    On 28 Dec 2020, I was informed by Maxim that ARBCOM approved my appeal, that I was not a sockpuppet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    You DID sock by creating the account User:UberVegan. UberVegan was an account that you created to circumvent a block. Even if the original block was bullshit you still made a sockpuppet account. You need to keep in mind that ArbCom didn't clear you of socking; it cleared you of being a sockpuppet of NoCal100. Listing you as a "active" sockpuppet isn't true anymore and you're right that it's something that should be removed. At the same time you need to moderate your language. You're overplaying your hand here and saying stuff like "I may consider not reporting you." doesn't demonstrate a collaborative mindset; it's very battlegroundy and seeking to remove any and all mentions of your sockpuppetry isn't a tenable position. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 09:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your points are well taken.
    It's listed on my userpage because I was the editor who successfully uncovered that you were running a sockpuppet account to evade a ban[322]. If the consensus here is that I should remove the sockpuppet mention from my userpage, then I will comply with that. However, the list of past sockpuppets is very helpful for me to bust future ones (usernames are hard to remember), which is why I note them down. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being disingenuous at best. It is not listed as "I uncovered this sockpuppet", but rather "Active sockpuppetry to watch for". In other words, you've put a bounty on me. I am simply an editor with two accounts. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs)
    You're not simply an editor with two accounts. This is how you reacted when I asked if you had a relationship to the other account: "You're insane! No, I have no idea who The Kingfisher is! Are you crazy???!!!"[323] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All the mud that you're throwing clearly came out in my appeal and I've left on my talk page for all to see. And, most of that was the basis for my appeal being denied. However, ARBCOM was able to get past that and ultimately unblocked me, BOTH accounts. Meaning, neither is now a sockpuppet. All the S#!T that you continue to sling from the past doesn't justify you to openly imply on your userpage that I am a sockpuppet. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do find your obsessive focus on me a bit disturbing. Since your return, you've made baseless claims of tendentious editing on my talk page[324] and absurdly called for a ban on me for bringing a content dispute to the BLP noticeboard[325]. Even in your unblock request, you called for a ban on me for successfully uncovering that UberVegan was your sock[326]. In my view, this borders on harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit of a strawman and again disingenuous. I believe that since my return I have made one claim, not claims (I will check later) whereas you have ME listed on your userpage! Who is obsessed? The Kingfisher (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No.
    I changed it to just "sockpuppetry".[327] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Snooganssnoogans: You need to take my name off your userpage.

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

    @Dumuzid: What do you think the community would say if every editor who wanted, placed on their userpage transgressions of other editors? Would it be okay for me to list on my userpage every editor who has been blocked? Is that civil?
    The focus should be on the process that allowed an editor to be wrongly blocked as a sock in the first place. Think of Andy Dufesne. Are you going to judge him by the fact that he was wrongly convicted or on the fact that lied to the guards and the warden? Or that he dug a hole when that was forbidden by the prison? Or that he was a sockpuppet and used a fake name to set up bank accounts? Or that he broke out of prison??? I'm sorry, but that's exactly what is happening here. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that if you want to list all userpages of blocked editors, you'd be expending a lot of effort, but it would be within your rights. I've given my take. You are, of course, free to ignore it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Why personal attacks are harmful says, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors says, "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them."
    It bothers me to see for example members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Eastern European mailing list who were banned for coordinating their edits off-Wiki now un-banned and editing under new names. But I have to accept that ARBCOM has decided to allow them to edit as full members of the community and would only bring up their past misdeeds in a disciplinary discussion. While past blocks and bans are relevant to discussions of future blocks and bans, they are not relevant to content discussions, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
    If you want to listed sanctions against editors, you are free to save them on your computer or use cloud storage, which is provided free by several companies.
    TFD (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Remove the list – I'm pretty open-minded about userspace freedom but userpages shouldn't be used to keep score or brag about successful sock hunts; it's counterproductive to a welcoming, collegiate community. And kind of immature. (Oh, and if an editor actually did use multiple accounts to pretend they were two different people, that's also immature and they should avoid riding high horses for a while.) Levivich 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Just wanted to be perfectly clear that I agree with this entirely from a prudential standpoint--I just don't think an administrator should have the ability to enforce such a mandate. Then again, perhaps that's why I will never be an administrator. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not a listing "used to keep score or brag about successful sock hunts". It is a listing helpful to identify sockpuppets in the parts of Wikipedia that I'm familiar with and with modus operandi that I'm familiar with. A number of the sockpuppets are long-time abusers and I go back to the notes to identify them when they return. Editors who have little to no experience in identifying socks may not realize it, but it's extraordinarily tiresome and time-consuming to identify likely socks and connect them to the right account. Those notes help with that task. It's absurd to see it described as "immature", but I'm not surprised to see that from Levivich (who pops up in every discussion related to me to lay into me). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what WP:LTA is for. If you want to maintain your own LTA notes, do it offline. Having your own personal LTA section on your userpage is not a good idea; it looks like you're publishing an "enemies list" on your userpage. Levivich 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not going to maintain notes on LTA on my computer and I see no value in consulting a crowdsourded LTA list where I have no familiarity with 99/100 accounts listed. The point of the notes is too rapidly link a particular sock with a master account. Your suggestions are all burdens that serve no purpose (except to protect the feelings of confirmed sockpuppets) and make it much more time-consuming and complicated to link likely socks with their masters. If my notes are so offensive, isn't the next logical step to do away with all archives of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Another option would be a user subpage. Levivich 21:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. This is WP:POLEMIC and inappropriate, regardless. Few people will be interested in a random old sockpuppetry case anyway. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Without further comment on the other sockpupppetry listings, the listing of the UberVegan account, given the totality of the circumstances, likely violates WP:POLEMIC, point 3, as "[negative] evidence ... should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if [it] will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Given it bothers The Kingfisher enough to bring it to ANI, I would suggest that the mention of The Kingfisher/UberVegan be removed from User:Snooganssnoogans. Maxim(talk) 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I advise User:The Kingfisher to read Streisand effect. The Wikipedia community knows far more about this incident than we would if they hadn't made so much noise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that's one way to deal with uncivil behavior. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean to say that's why you are making this cameo appearance here? SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It's because of how they interact with other editors. For example by using their user page to attack other editors. TFD (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that doesn't explain a certain POV constituency with no cogent comment except "bad" -- especially the less lily-pure warriors among them. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The editors who commented in this thread are The Kingfisher, Snoog, Chess, M.Bitton, Dumuzid, TFD, Scorpions, Maxim, Robert McClenon, SJ, you, and me (apologies if I missed anyone). None of us are "a certain POV constituency" or "less lily-pure warriors," and it'd be great if you didn't make comments like that towards us. Levivich 04:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Who fingered you? Puzzled. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "Why do the same familar names come here" and I've listed the names. You said some or all of them "come here with snark and attack" and are "a certain POV constituency" including "less lily-pure warriors." These are not OK things to say about your colleagues, so stop.
    Also, correct me if I'm wrong but the editors who commented here don't appear to have commented in the last ANI about Snoog [328], or the one before it [329], or the last three ANEWs [330] [331] [332] (that's all I checked). Levivich 06:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh of course it's OK this board is for dicussing behaviour. Your research is off the mark, but if you are looking for a personalized accusation, you won't get any from me. Chill time. Maybe work on more article conent and less noticeboards and chat pages? Cheeers. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't be a true party unless one of the familiar names jumps in to unironically wonder why the same familiar names comment, unironically use snark and attacks while accusing others among the familiar names of using snark and attacks, and unironically maintain this board is for discussing behavior while criticizing others for discussing behavior. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Green checkmarkY Ernie! We've been expecting you. 😎 SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been waiting for you to open the door! Mr Ernie (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP user attacking me with uncivil slurs

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

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

    As a follow-up, the users response to to giving them a notice to this was this. I'll admit, it gave me a cheap laugh at least! They are currently blocked but I'm suggesting that they have little to no interest in contributing to the encyclopedia and don't seem to show any indication that they've read the rules I've linked them to. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've extended the block and disabled TPA due to that last edit summary, which used the f-word (i.e. not fuck). That said, you should report misconduct and leave it at that, rather than continue posting on their talk page (in the double digits), seeing as they've just been blanking everything (without exception). El_C 10:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bonadea

    Hi, I am having a hard time with this used Bonadea after we disagreed on a topic related to a page names LGBT propaganda. I created the page and after my edit was reverted I wanted by Bonadea, I just wanted to discuss the problem with him and see what I did wrong and if we can agree on something. The main issue was that in his opinion propaganda had a negative meaning and that would break the neutrality of a page. While it is true that propaganda refers to a unfair way of transmitting information, as i explained on Talk:Gay agenda the fact that propaganda is an unfair way of transmitting informations about LGBT doesn't transfer it's negative attribute to LGBT itself. For example: Christian propaganda, while we can all agree Christianity isn't a bad thing, when it is promoted through propaganda, Christian propaganda becomes something unfair. Everything was peaceful until this point before, this used started calling me a "bigot" here [333] (he used the edit description to insult me by saying bigots not welcome) and deleted my message from his talk page where i was trying to discuss the issues with him so we can solve it. The word "bigot" is a slur [334] meant to categorize me as someone exaggerated and unreasonable and it offended and discouraged me. The 2nd thing this user did was to call people who oppose same-sex extremists here [335]. Why would someone use such a bad word to describe others who have different opinions, taking in consideration the European Court of Human Rights stated that art. 12 of ECHR guarantee the right to marriage only to heterosexual couples and countries have the freedom to legalize same-sex marriages or not. Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. This user's attitude was aggressive towards me meant to discourage me and intimidate me by associating me with extremists. I am really sorry if I didn't address the complaint right, but i rarely edit on Wikipedia and I am not an administrator and i have no power when it comes to someone as Bonadea who is an administrator. --JOrb (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to make things clear: I have never pretended to be an administrator. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bonadea: Basically, it means that JOrb would vote Support, thought they already were one :D ——Serial 16:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered you an administrator by mistake since I thought mostly they are the ones who have the power to delete an Wikipedia page.--JOrb (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold up. You're arguing at Talk:Gay agenda#What has Wikipedia become? that the word "propaganda" isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a plain old neutral word to describe something. Now here, "bigot" is always a negative, no doubt about it. So which is it, do words matter or don't they? Woodroar (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose you don't know word "propaganda" is used on many Wikipedia pages XD. It's not forbidden word, there s even a dedicated page for it - Propaganda.--JOrb (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to type up something longer, but realized that it's a waste of time. This ANI report is a nothingburger. The best outcome you can hope for, JOrb, is that it is closed without action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your opinion, sir! I am waiting to see other opinions, maybe some that are supported by arguments. Cheers! --JOrb (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    that's one of the things I decided against typing up above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please keep your hate towards Christianity out of Wikipedia. Thanks you! --JOrb (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JOrb, I identify as Christian, but I thought the same thing. The above good editors (and myself) aren't hating on Christianity, they are joking about our vast diversity and, well, inability to agree on anything at all. Please WP:AGF. Happy editing! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. Grandpallama (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, same-sex marriages aren't. That's what ECHR decided.--JOrb (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be careful when invoking judicial or quasi-judicial decisions: English Wikipedia encompasses many jurisdictions, and they don't always reach the same conclusions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should stop talking. Jorm (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was expecting someone to say that ECHR is only for Europe, but at the same time, have you identified another international court and another international convention of human rights that give people more rights that ECHR? On other continents, even the right to life isn't fully protected since they allow death penalties. Also, the reason why I invoked it is because only because of ECHR we talk about LGBT rights.--JOrb (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to be clear, your position is that all law other than the ECHR is invalid? Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that no other international convention guarantees a larger protection of human rights than ECHR. You can check this fact.--JOrb (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JOrb:, if my colleagues were not clear enough: This is going to stop now. If you can not stop yourself, I will help you with a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it continued, I blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. --Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JOrb, Bonadea is not an administrator but I am. Your comments here are coming across as offensive for the sake of being offensive, and not for any purpose that would improve the encyclopedia. Take your bigoted arguments against non-heterosexual relationships to some other website, they are not welcome here. If you continue this, you will be blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    JOrb topic ban proposal

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

    Nikephoros1

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

    User is what seems to be in a bizarre fashion attempting to Greekify the article of Arsaces I of Parthia by removing/altering sourced information as well as adding unsourced info. His argument behind removing sourced info is 'No evidence' or 'It’s dubious', even though the very sources contradict what he is saying (see [336]). Yet ironically he keeps adding sourced information himself, completely contradicting his previous (baseless) arguments. This is sheer WP:TENDENTIOUS.

    His edits;

    [337] [338] [339] [340] [341] [342]

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

    Bump. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at Nikephoros1's edits at Arsaces I of Parthia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as at a number of articles they've edited earlier, and it's clear to me that this user does not understand that they can't change article content without citing sources. They also seem overly confident (cf. the questionable claims on their user page, and compare with the incivility here). Given the fact that they're editing quite prolifically on a range of articles and making similarly unsourced changes in all of them (e.g., [343], [344], [345], [346], [347]; skipping 7 days, they become bolder afterwards [348], [349]), this is quite damaging. They should be stopped in their tracks and their edits should be mass-reverted. However, this is a relatively new user (started editing 15 June) who has received a number of warning templates but no welcome and no guidance of any form. I recommend expedient and forceful action, but perhaps not yet a block if we succeed in engaging them. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SharqHabib

    Sharqabib has been blocked indefinitely by Yamaguchi先生 for sockpuppetry. I hope that any future unblock request will address the concerns raised here. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SharqHabib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked by Anachronist for 31 hours on 19 June for persistent addition of unsourced material in spite of repeated warnings (see also a previous ANI report posted by Mosesheron on 1 June). Since their block, they have received three further warnings for adding unsourced material ([350], [351], [352]), and several other warnings (unconstructive editing, disruptive editing, copyright problem). A number of articles they created have been proposed for deletion ([353], [354], [355], [356]), one of which is now at AfD. They seem well-intentioned, but they clearly have a serious competency issue that has been pointed out to them numerous times (the diffs above are coming from 7 different editors in 10 days time). Though they know about talk pages (see, e.g., here), they rarely make use of them and do not respond to the messages at their own talk. For example, I just warned them to cite sources and to make use of edit summaries ([357], [358]), to which they responded by making unsourced changes without providing edit summaries ([359], [360], [361]). It may not be intended that way, but each and every of their edits that I have seen is doing damage to rather than improving the encyclopedia (I'm echoing Mosesheron in this). Not sure how much more rope they deserve, but I'm not seeing a willingness to learn and change on their part. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I see that I have done many wrong edits, and the Wiki administrators can ban me if they want, but on the other hand I have done many good edits too such as at Mehmet Bozdağ, The Establishment (Pakistan), Matiullah Jan, Day of Resurrection and thousands of more, the second point; yes my articles are proposed for deletion and all of these articles are proposed by the user Pepperbeast, I have also given reasons on why the page should not be deleted at AfD. 3; yes I do know about talk pages and I see them, but responding to them isn't neccessary? I have responded at at AFD and these discussions at ANI, 4; Yes, I did make bad edits at religious articles, now I am trying to stay away from religious articles and edit political articles, I hopefully won't make bad edits now, Regards SharqHabib (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know all this, then why do you keep repeating the problems that result in warnings on your talk page? You give the impression that you ignore all warnings and advice you have been given, you failed to modify the behavior for which you were previously blocked, and you are not here to collaborate on an encyclopedia. You need to demonstrate that you are a net benefit to the Wikipedia project rather than a burden to others who must clean up after you. Other than your stated intent to "stay away from religious articles", you have given no indication whatsoever that you have read, acknowledged, or understood all the messages people have left on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to give some further pointers to SharqHabib at their talk page, but just for the readers here I will note that their edits at Day of Resurrection which they cite as an example of good editing (seen together in this diff) consist of adding and removing information without sources or explanation, of adding a section 'Fate of Muslims' based on unreliable sources ([362], [363], [364]), and of adding a section 'Fate of Non-Muslims' copied from Islamic eschatology without noting this in the edit summary. I'm not familiar with the subjects of the other articles they cite as examples of their good editing, but IronManCap seems to have had some issues with their editing at Mehmet Bozdağ, and while I can't judge the sources used in their edits at The Establishment (Pakistan) (here) and at Matiullah Jan (here), I do see way too much unsourced and unexplained additions and removals (sometimes mixed up with copy-editing of varying quality). Again, intentions seem to be good, but the editing is pretty disastrous, and requires a ton of clean-up that is not even getting done, because it's in poorly watched articles, and because there's just too much of it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Apaugasma: They seems to be sockpuppet of User:SajidMir2 which I think is the sockpuppet of User:SheryOfficial because most of their edits are link with them. User:SajidMir2 was also blocked for the same period of 31 hours time and User:SajidMir2 and User:SharqHabib has made edits to many same pages like some of them are KSI etc. which are related to professional boxing and User:SheryOfficial's sockpuppets had the intrest in professional boxinf related articles. Check their contributions and then you'll find out what I am talking about.119.152.232.222 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    SPI report here. I believe it to be meritless as it stands, and recommend to ignore it here. We have a real 'civil CIR' issue to deal with, so let's focus on that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have been wrong about this. I'm not sure about sockpuppetry (see, however, the updated SPI case, where I identified another possible sock), but there clearly has been some off-wiki coordination. For example, at the article on the Pakistani real-estate company Bahria Town, SharqHabib [365] removed COI, Peacock and POV templates while adding promotional content to the lead and removing controversial content about the son of the founder of the company being listed in the Panama Papers, all without any explanation. SajidMir2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) never edited that article, but they did upload a cropped version of the Bahria Town logo, a file which was edited 5 minutes later by SharqHabib (see here). Since SajidMir2 didn't add the file to any article (it is their last contribution to date), there was no other way to know about this for SharqHabib than off-wiki. Anyways, I believe SharqHabib's actual editing here (on the Bahria Town page) is most concerning. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    After a brief pause, SharqHabib is editing again. Entirely ignoring my advice at their talk page (which included pointers about copying within Wikipedia, using reliable sources, not changing text without sources, and avoiding the use of primary sources for evaluative statements), they are just continuing to do exactly what they did before. In this edit, they copied text from Christ (title) and a source from Messiah without noting this in the edit summary, added several unreliable sources ([366], [367]), and made improper use of a primary source ([368]). In their next edit, they copied a whole paragraph as well as some further text and a source from Messiah without noting this in the edit summary. In their last edit, they arbitrarily removed and added information without explanation, and added several unreliable sources (a book by Adnan Oktar called The Prophet Jesus (as) and Hazrat Mahdi (as) Will Come This Century, [369], [370], [371], [372]). I believe they are under the impression that they will get done more by being entirely uncollaborative and unresponsive (a case of wp:idht if I've ever seen one). Could an admin please show them wrong, and give them an indefinitely block? They shouldn't be editing as long as they show neither any understanding of what they're doing wrong, nor any intention of doing better. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess SharqHabib thinks they can get away with whatever they're doing on Wikipedia. Their conviction, in my opinion, is well founded. Because, after making so many unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, all they have received is 31 hours of block. That’s is nothing compared to a “vandal” who oftentimes gets a block for months to years after making few unconstructive edits. I am saying this because I no longer believe this is an issue of competence. I have had an opportunity to look at their edits in the past and I do not think this user does not understand what they are doing. This is also evident from their own testimonies that they are fully aware of their “wrong edits”. I am sorry I am unable to assume good faith for this user. Mosesheron (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anupam: Thought you might be interested to take a look. Mosesheron (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok ban me, can you guys even ban me? I don't even want to be on Wikipedia, pussyies getta the fuck outta here User:Sharq Habib, yea i dont give a fuck ban me now pussyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharqHabib (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    WP:COMPETENCE issue

    So I think that Springsteen1555 (talk · contribs) may have some WP:COMPETENCE issues. To wit:

    1. Draft:Rebel Son (Band) is a zero-effort draft with no sources or content.
    2. Zero effort put into an album article; no sources or categories or even a track list
    3. Using Spotify as a source for music genres
    4. Unsourced genre changes
    5. Dubious genre changes
    6. Adding associated acts of dubious relevance
    7. Their user page is a random clutter of unrelated infoboxes that nave no connection to each other.
    8. No response to any inquiries on talk page
    9. Habit of self-reverting or restoring removed edits

    In short, there doesn't seem to be any feedback from this particular user or any competence to their editing skills. What should be done? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor hasn’t been around that long. I think a 24 hour block should be implemented seeing that the editor doesn’t respond to notifications and doesn’t attempt to improve their articles. Jerm (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a typical case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU to me. I'd say block them for a just long enough that they'll notice, and use the block message to direct them to their talk page, where a friendly message should be left to explain to them how to improve their editing. – Rummskartoffel 09:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chase and his fake band: block evasion by LowerAndSlower

    Someone in Ohio has been putting a fake band into various music articles. They were previously blocked as SuperStarChase, with the blocking admin, AmandaNP, referring to LowerAndSlower. All of the contributions from the IPs and the registered users have the same thing in common: they claim that someone named Chase is a famous musical artist. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An admin recently blocked the first /64 above for six months, and I just did the same for the second. The two named users are CU indeffed. I guess that's all? Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a musical artist named Chase who may have been famous a few years ago: Chase Goehring appeared in The X Factor (American season 3) during 2013, and also in America's Got Talent (season 12) during 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a different person. The TV competitor was born in California but now calls Tennessee home, while the disruption described above comes from Ohio. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Off-wiki canvassing, 'investigating' of AfD participants, at DRV

    Hi all, can I please ask for more administrator eyes on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 28? Baffled by the influx of new editors to the discussion, I did some poking around and found a post canvassing contributions on Facebook (link in the discussion). From that discussion, there was another post linked, where an editor started to 'investigate' the editors who !voted for delete, as well as the closer (myself). Can't say the whole thing sits entirely well with me, and as such, I would appreciate a few more eyes on the discussion as it develops. Semi-protection may be required at some point if the canvassing continues. Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Doing... things... Give me a sec. El_C 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Okay, I did the thing. El_C 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that OlivierAuber is essentially running background checks and posting personal information regarding the people who voted delete, disciplinary action against him may be in order. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have already explained that this little investigation was motivated by the fact that the deletion of the P2P foundation article occurred precisely at the time when its founder Michel Bauwens was facing extremely violent personal attacks. I now think the two facts are unrelated and I am happy for that.--OlivierAuber (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As this is a discussion that concerns you and Mitar, I pinged you both on your pages - Daniel probably should have done so when creating this. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't discussing any specific editors, rather just asking for more eyes on the discussion there, hence why they weren't pinged. I was not aware who was doing the off-wiki canvassing and if they had Wikipedia usernames at the time. Daniel (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that my suspicions were reinforced by the fact that Michel Bauwens told me that his IP was blocked by Wikipedia. It still is. Does anyone have any idea why and how to clarify this situation?--OlivierAuber (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that my actions were canvasing because: it was not mass posting (I posted only to two places, here and here), my message is neutral (I am asking for people to leave comments, I even provided link to official instructions how to do so, without instructing what exactly to do), I disagree that audience is partisan (I invited a general population of existing editors and people who I think are experts on this topic, so that they can provide missing sources), and it was done with transparency (they were posted in public/open Facebook groups; they were not posted on Wikipedia itself, because relevant experts on the topic of the article in question do not have access to it, e.g., some reported that they have been IP blocked, which I think is a relevant specific reason not to use a talk page; moreover, for editors in question I communicate with through Facebook and I do not know their Wikipedia names and I even should not be trying to figure them out, so messaging them through Facebook is in my the most reasonable way). I think community around the deleted article was baffled about what is happening and I wanted to help them. I am not affiliated with the P2P Foundation. On the list of appropriate notifications it is listed that they are "Editors known for expertise in the field" and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" which I think I did. Mitar (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor apparently has NOT been notified per "How to respond to canvassing"? There seems to be a lack of understanding. I don't think pleading guilty by confession will pass as an excuse. Is there an exception that off-wiki canvassing, to hopefully change a result of something, is alright as long as there is transparency and neutrality? I don't think so. IP blocked editors do need to know about these things but there may be a transparency issue with "they were not posted on Wikipedia itself" as well as a potential sock or meat puppetry issue. The main issue with canvassing is that even if seemingly well-intentioned it is counter-productive. Stealth canvassing is what is present when one of the "Appropriate notification avenues are not utilized with good reasoning and concerns of potential Votestacking is also a concern. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    "My message is neutral" & "without instructing what exactly to do" - really???
    • "The article on the P2P Foundation was deleted for not being notable, and the editors claim they could not find peer-reviewed articles attesting its role. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Wikipedia.../P2P_Foundation 'However, such articles do exist. I would appreciate if anyone could connect to them, and point to, for example, the following 2: Prophets and Advocates of Peer Production. By George Dafermos. . Excellent introduction to the role of the P2P Foundation in the context of the re-emergence of a commons movement that is linked to digitally-enabled self-organization. Digital Commons: Cyber-Commoners, Peer Producers and the Project of a Post-Capitalist Transition. By George Dafermos. [6]: Excellent introduction to the theoretical and strategic work of the P2P Foundation." (emphasis mine) - certainly seems like the bolded part is, um, "instructing what exactly to do".
    • "Olivier has done research on the wikipedia editors responsible for the deletions, it is quite instructive"
    And from other people on your post:
    • "If you want to overturn the deletion, then leave a comment. See instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review... You can follow my example there. You can also add more references/links/comments in there, too." (emphasis mine)
    • "Sounds like a nefarious attack.. P2P foundation is highly notable.. For many things.. But from populist pov, if only for where Satoshi first appeared! Just reinstate it.. But have a good look at who took that action." (emphasis mine)
    Daniel (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Off-wiki matters are, ultimately, the domain of the Arbitration Committee or Trust & Safety. El_C 14:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if you want to overturn the deletion, leave a comment: provide requested information, as per instructions. I think you yourself said that if they provide two sources pointing to notability, that would change the decision, no? And please, I am claiming I have not instructed anyone, I am not claiming nobody suggested to no editor what to do. Moreover, the examples you are listing in fact are providing sources you are searching for and suggesting they should be propagated to the Wikipedia itself. Isn't this exactly what the original problem was? How is that canvasing? It is engaging community to obtain relevant sources to support the notability question. Mitar (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had simply linked up the sources on the deletion discussion page, it would have been fine, as it would have been based comprehensively on the strength of your case. Instead, you rallied supporters - whether you see it that way or not - and drowned a discussion with your allies, of both the versed and inexperienced variety. It gave the false pretense of there being consensus in your favor and as a result, you killed your own deletion review. Calling attention to your case, leaving an open door for biased community members to intervene, is a boilerplate definition of canvassing. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 00:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MjolnirPants: Incivility

    Closing in the name of sanity. This thread becomes more and more useless the longer it goes on. An editor has collapsed part of it with the comment "Let's not derail this with extended bickering", which is surely a joke; where are the "rails" the rest of the thread is supposed to be running on without extended bickering? If somebody insists on re-opening the thread, feel free; but IMO you would only be encouraging tedious bloat. Is there really anything remaining that has not been said..? Anybody who wishes to propose a block for User:The owner of all, I suggest you open a new thread dedicated to that thing. Bishonen | tålk 21:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

    The other day I made a post to WP:BLPN, and checking back on the noticeboard to make certain nobody had commented further I chanced upon another discussion on the noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#A question on MANDY and sourcing. Here I noticed some rather incivil remarks by the above-linked user. "I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram," is a roundabout way of telling someone to fuck off: see Arkell v Pressdram. Asked in response to play nicely, they responded "Stop pinging me, for fuck's sake. I don't know where you got the notion that I owe you any explanation beyond "you're wrong", but I sure as hell don't."

    I don't really want to get sucked into... whatever this is. So I'm posting it here in the hope somebody else is more willing to step in. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)(added on behalf of IP, as report was blocked by edit filter false positive ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)) This comment mistakenly identified 27.59.88.67 as the IP involved until corrected at 16:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC) by Firefangledfeathers (talk)[reply]

    May I refer you to the answer given in Arkell vs Pressdram? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest this editor login to their registered account rather than logging out to file an anonymous complaint at ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grandpallama: Please, tell me which account you imagine I have. I assure you I do not. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring someone to the reply in Arkell v Pressdram is a famously civil circumlocution. I suggest a thicker skin and stop pinging people if they so request. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid and Grandpallama, feel free to open a SPI, rather than making vague accusations. I've never edited as an IP since opening my account two years ago. I would assume experienced editors would be more aware of this sort of typical behavior from vandals. Dumuzid, I also haven't pinged MjolnirPants once since they asked not to, so maybe you should reconsider that part of your comment as well. It really doesn't help to spread false information that is meant to disparage other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    wallyfromdilbert, I didn't say it was you, nor do I think it was. But there is no IP from the past two weeks, from that IP geolocation, that has posted to BLPN. So my suggestion to the OP stands. Grandpallama (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation, Grandpallama. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wallyfromdilbert, I honestly had no intention of making vague accusations; to be honest I am confused by your response. I made recommendations. Feel free to ignore them if you like. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid, if you are going to make statements that are obviously about me ("stop pinging people if they so request"), then you really should be letting me know. Additionally, if you are making those statements about my actions when responding to an IP comment, then the obvious implication is that you are making an accusation of sockpuppetry, and you should instead take that comment to an SPI investigation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wallyfromdilbert--I can assure you, I was replying to what I thought was a random IP. Upon an overly quick reading, I thought the 'ping' comment was aimed at the IP. I see now where my mistake lies, and I am sorry you got the wrong impression. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This really is peanuts compared to some of the incivility that flies through this board on a regular basis.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes at least he was oblique about it. And I learned something by looking it up, so win-win. I mean, all this was in the context that OP was making the argument that we should use the Wikipedia's power to bully private citizens by making a deliberate practice of not including BLP subjects' claim of innocence when we're reporting that they've been accused of some dreadful practice (on grounds of "well they would say that wouldn't they", and in contravention of specific policy), so of course people are going to get angry. If I were to deign to weigh in (heaven forfend), I might even have been moved to note that one might say that OP is not necessarily fully demonstrating the qualities expected of a gentleperson to a degree generally found satisfactory in refined company, which is lot worse than anything MjolnirPants said. Had I done so, OP would have been invited to include me in their complaint if they wished. Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was the person who expressed concerns about MjolnirPants's behavior on the original BLPN thread. While I think their behavior was unhelpful, especially on a noticeboard that already does not receive enough active participation, it clearly does not rise to the level of an ANI complaint. It is also concerning that neither the IP of the poster nor any similar ones have edited the BLPN. I would recommend that this thread be closed as quickly as possible. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm thoroughly unsurprised that you would like to avoid any admins looking into the incident that led me to refer you to that famous response. Here's some good reads to avoid similar situations in the future: WP:HOUND, WP:ASPERSIONS and Meta:Don't be a jerk. You might want to glance at WP:AGF, while you're at it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      MjolnirPants, I didn't think it was appropriate at the time, but given your repeatedly nasty responses starting from your initial response to me on your talk page [373], obviously there are issues with your behavior that others may want to consider, especially given your behavioral history. Attempting to accuse me of "casting aspersions" with no evidence seems pretty indicative that you have serious problems with interacting with others in an appropriate manner. This is not the type of behavior that is helpful to a collaborative project. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Interesting that you think calmly and straightforwardly disagreeing with you is "nasty" but you don't have any problem with hounding someone over your apparently complete inability to distinguish between criticism of an argument and criticism of an editor.
      I would point out that your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach of repeatedly coming after me after I explicitly told you that I wasn't interested in discussing this is much, much worse for a collaborative project that an editor pointing out weak arguments. In fact, one wonders how you expect us to discuss anything if we can't do the latter. It's mind boggling that someone would demonstrate such a complete lack of awareness of their own lack of civility in their pursuit of attacking another editor over such an obvious misunderstanding on your part, but here we are.
      Have you read those page I linked you to? You'd really be doing yourself a favor in doing so. Might save you from being blocked the next time you decide to go on the offensive over someone daring to point out that you made a weak argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there are some very obviously false accusations of puppetry flying right and left, I feel the need to point out claims my BLPN comment never happened are obviously false. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You may want to register an account. The original post of this section had your IP as 27.59.88.67. We had no way of connecting that with the IP you're currently using. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Firefangledfeathers: I have no idea who that IP is, but it is not me, and I don't know why it is listed there. Good catch, though; I had missed it. It explains the bizarre accusations. As for an account, I can do everything I want to without one. (And being on this board is not on the list of things I particularly wan to be doing.) 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed - the 27 IP is on a completely different continent, and neither IP is a proxy. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe an edit filter bug? Like, maybe it misread the four tildes and produced a signature from itself? I'm not technically minded but hopefully you can see where I'm going with that! :) 92.24.242.202 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Human error, I'm afraid. My tab management sucks; it seems I had the tab open for another IP at EFFP's contribs open at the time. For the record, abusefilter entry corresponding with this ANI comment is Special:AbuseLog/30309438 (visible to admins/EFM). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should probably be added for the record that, even though the OP signature makes clear that the actual IP responsible for opening this thread was 27.59.88.67 (who seems to have no other noteworthy contributions to the project -- hence multiple people pointing out that it appears to be someone logging out to engage in tendentious behaviour), ProcrastinatingReader appears to have inadvertently misidentified the IP as 92.24.242.202 in their edit summary. This was very confusing to me until I checked just now. On an unrelated note, I would second Firefangledfeathers' advice to 92.24.242.202 to create an account. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There are other editors who agree or have agreed that MjolnirPants does engage or has engaged in incivility. They are often dismissed when those on this page say that it doesn't rise to a level that he should be sanctioned for, but surely that has to have a limit too, right? 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

    Here's a relevant question: At what point does you following me around, trying to get me sanctioned rise to the limit of sanctionable behavior? This is the fifth time, and as I recall, you only narrowly escaped being blocked yourself the first two times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not "following you around". Pages such as this one are on my watchlist, and I participate in the discussion on them. 21:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    Ahh, so you just wait until you see my name, and then jump on to try and get me sanctioned because I reverted you a few months ago. Do you remember what you were told here and here, or do you need a reminder? I know for a fact that you were told to read WP:BATTLEGROUND more than once. Why haven't you done so? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    You are currently casting aspersions. To be very clear, that discussion was not about the revert, but about the civility in the discussion on the talk page. 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    You might want to read WP:ASPERSIONS before you make another, similarly ridiculous statement. What I'm doing here is reminding you that two independent admins threatened you with a block over your behavior. Behavior which you're still engaging in. Are you sure this is what you want to do? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of continuing to reply to MjolnirPants, I will allow his replies to be the evidence for my original assertion. 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

    • (Non-administrator comment) I kinda feel like, at this point, we should have an edit filter that prevents non-EC editors from using the character-strings "MjolnirPants" or "MPants" in ANI posts. 90% of these reports seem to be filed by accounts/IPs that get blocked for sockpuppetry/harassment within a month, and the other 10% are mostly just those whose malfeasance couldn't be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    On a related note, can someone look into this "The owner of all" account? This, this, and especially this are very concerning, and it wouldn't surprise me if this person's bizarre interest in MPants was related to WP:NONAZIS, and ... well, the almost-unused account emerged from the woodwork a few days before MPants came back,[374][375] but some weeks after this and possibly some other buildup, if someone with more of an understanding of the background of MPants' revival wants to look into the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, maybe editors who are frequently uncivil to others should actually be held accountable for their behavior? I think this type of behavior by MjolnirPants has a negative impact on both long-term editors and new editors as well as those who are here to not make constructive edits, as acting that way towards those who are only here to harass others seems like a pretty guaranteed way to make them continue to come back, rather than leaving Wikipedia alone because they can't get the reactions they are seeking. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's circular reasoning. Saying that frequent victims of harassment should be civil to their harassers without demanding that the harassers stop or that the harassers should be held accountable for their harassment is NOT going to make Wikipedia a more cordial and friendly environment. Chinami ni, do you know exactly when, why, and how MPants returned from retirement? I said it was suspicious that the TOA account seemed to emerge right around the same time but that the specific timing of the unblock doesn't exactly line up, but there was at least one way TOA (or whatever his/her main account's name is) could have seen it coming, and possibly others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You said that those editors usually get blocked within a month, what else can WP do to "hold them accountable"? 01:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    Also, stop casting aspersions and if you have a case that I am a sock, take it to WP:SPI, if not, then I respectfully request that you strike that statement. 01:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    Do you know anything about the IP that filed this report? If you do not, and you have such a beef with MPants that you have been chiming in every time his name is mentioned on the drahmaboards, why didn't you file your own report? (Yes, I'm aware of this.) Why, nine years after your account was blocked for vandalism, did you (a) remember the password, (b) request that the account be unblocked rather than, say, just creating a new account and not vandalizing with it or mentioning that you had been blocked for vandalism a decade earlier, and (c) not actually do a whole lot with your newly unblocked account until very recently, when you suddenly became active on Wikipedia again at exactly the same time that MPants returned from retirement? These factors, combined with the fact that you filed a similar bad-faith "civility" ANI thread about MPants two months ago that ended in multiple editors calling for you to be blocked, make me think it is very much possible that you filed essentially the same non-report again, doing so while logged out so that, when you showed up "in the flesh later", WP:BOOMERANG could no more apply to you than to the others who were calling for you to be blocked. SPI, however, cannot deal with this, since the evidence is all located within this one thread (therefore any admin willing to block you for "likely sockpuppetry" doesn't need me presenting the evidence) and the sock in question is an IP so checkuser can do nothing (something, it might be worth noting, that was already specifically pointed out to you elsewhere[376]). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, you just said in response to me that I'm somehow claiming "frequent victims of harassment should be civil to their harassers without demanding that the harassers stop or that the harassers should be held accountable for their harassment". I am talking about this thread, where three editors have brought up concerns about MjolnirPants's behavior. If you claiming that all three of us, including the original IP poster and myself, have a history of harassing MjolnirPants, then I think you need to provide diffs supporting those WP:ASPERSIONS. Otherwise, you need to seriously rethink your argument here that is based on broad accusations of bad faith. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know you from Adam, I did not say anything about you, and I don't appreciate your insinuating otherwise. I know that the IP was almost certainly acting in bad faith (why else would they log out to file this ANI report?), I know that the multitude of sock-trolls that have been banned over the years were doing similar, and TOA did ... all the stuff he has done in this thread (see the collapsed section below). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, once again, you are accusing other editors of being sockpuppets with no evidence. What evidence do you have that the original poster logged out of an account? Similarly, what diffs support your accusations that The owner of all is a sockpuppet account? If you have evidence, then please provide it so that they can be dealt with properly, otherwise, those are clear WP:ASPERSIONS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which editor have I accused of "being a sockpuppet"? Are you talking about me pointing out that someone logged out to file this ANI report (as has happened multiple times in the past -- not sure if this was MPants' reason for leaving for several years)? If so, why have you not been haranguing Grandpallama for making the exact same point two days ago? Wait... you did... can someone please tell Wallyfromdilbert to stop making repeated bad-faith "you're calling me a sockpuppet[eer]" arguments?! (And no, it is not enough to say that I accused TOA of sockpuppetry with the above list of questions: said questions came after TOA made a similar bad-faith "you are accusing me of sockpuppetry" remark. Yes, I do suspect that TOA may have other accounts -- the TOA account's edit history looks like that of a sleeper account -- and it wouldn't surprise me if he was also the IP that filed this bad-faith report, especially considering the similar wording to his own logged-in report from May, but this was not a suspicion I expressed publicly until after TOA asked, without justification, why I was "accusing him of sockpuppetry". My sockpuppetry comments, until this bizarre string of non-sequiturs, were all very clearly directed at "whoever it is who logged out to file this report".) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, you literally just repeated your claims of The owner of all being a sockpuppet, as well as your claim that the original IP poster is a sockpuppet account, both without evidence. The IP editor also appears to have a fairly regular editing pattern on their IPs going back to at least April: 92.24.242.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 92.24.246.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Where is your evidence for these claims, and otherwise, how is that not a clear WP:ASPERSIONS violation? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not "repeat" anything. I did not say either you or TOA was a sockpuppeteer until after you started falsely accusing me of saying as much. When someone says "the OP is clearly logging out to cause trouble" and you (repeatedly!) respond by reading your own name into such comments, it's not a good look (why would your mind even go there?). Moreover, per the above back-and-forths (of which you are almost certainly aware, as you inserted yourself into one of them), the 92 IPs are not related to the OP (a 27 in a completely different range on a different continent, with no edits besides this one) -- why are you bringing them up? Anyway, please stop pinging me. I am aware that this thread exists, that you do not seem to like me, and that you are intent on undermining everything I say in this thread, so you don't need to keep specifically notifying me about it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, actually, you almost immediately started making accusations of sockpuppetry [377]. Also, Dumuzid did accuse me and the original IP poster of being the same person (based on a mistaken reading of the BLPN thread), and they subsequently apologized for that [378]. You obviously need to take more time reading the threads you are participating on, although your repeated claims of bad faith are a more serious problem. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious that Roxy's accusation of sockpuppetry goes unnoticed by you, and you readily accepted Grandpallama's explantion, but somehow, when Hijiri said the same thing, you find that to be a personal affront. Falsely interpreting disagreement with you as incivility seems to be a recognizable pattern here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MPants at work, you should really include diffs for your accusations, because Roxy never made an accusation of sockpuppetry that I can see. Hijiri88, on the other hand, has repeatedly made those claims. If you are not aware that repeatedly making claims of sockpuppetry without evidence is considered a personal attack, then please review WP:ASPERSIONS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wallyfromdilbert, I never accused you of anything, for the basic reason that I had no clue you were in any way implicated in this thread when I made my first post. By all means, enjoy your Wikidrama, but leave me out of it. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid, I was referring specifically to your statement: "Upon an overly quick reading, I thought the 'ping' comment was aimed at the IP. I see now where my mistake lies, and I am sorry you got the wrong impression". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wallyfromdilbert, I know very well to what you were referring. I will try again. I could not possibly have been accusing you of anything because I had no idea you were involved. Do you see the logic of that proposition? I apologized because I could see from my comment how you might have incorrectly assumed I was. I made no accusations against you, and I will not be marshalled as a piece of evidence in whatever is happening here. I hope I have made myself clear. Dumuzid (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid, your previous claim that a comment directed towards me was about the IP was a mistake, and I appreciated your previous apology. Not sure what you are saying now. Take care. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am quite simply saying the comment was never directed at you in any way, shape, or form. I had no idea you were in any way implicated. My comment was directed at an IP whom I assumed the entire complaint was referencing. Then you showed up out of left field, as far as I was concerned, to bark about SPIs and bad faith. I apologized since I understood how you could believe my comment was intended in that way. But I did not accuse you of being a sockpuppet, and I don't appreciate being used as some sort rhetorical lever in your ongoing banter. I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF ANYTHING. Do we now understand one another? Dumuzid (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid, you did actually accuse me, even if it was mistaken and not intended. I merely brought up that fact in response to Hijiri88's question "why would your mind even go there" regarding my initial response to you and another editor. If you didn't want to be involved, you were under no obligation to leave these responses. I have nothing else to say to you though, so feel free to get the last word if you wish. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, well then, Wallyfromdilbert--let's make it official, shall we? Your bizarrely thin skin and overwrought reactions here certainly make me suspicious that you are up to something untoward. With that, I bid you adieu. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dumuzid originally said: Referring someone to the reply in Arkell v Pressdram is a famously civil circumlocution. I suggest a thicker skin and stop pinging people if they so request. Cheers. There doesn't seem to be an accusation of anything here. All his other interventions were apologies and clarification that he wasn't referring to you in any way with that first statement. —El Millo (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not derail this with extended bickering ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReade: I don't want to directly edit your comment but can you append a note or something to explain the error? Despite the clarification above, I am still facing obviously false accusations of sockpuppetry as a result, such as this one immediately above. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 13:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but are you claiming that you are the OP of this thread? I'm legitimately confused. I interpreted your I have no idea who that IP is, but it is not me as meaning that you didn't know who opened this thread, nor why you were being connected to it, but now I get the impression that the (amendable-but-somehow-never-amended) OP signature was wrong and the (unamendable) edit summary that named 92.24.242.202 as the OP of this thread was correct? If you are the OP and you are a long-term editor with no account, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but I will not apologize for making the generic statement that, during MPants' periods of Wikipedia activity, bad-faith "civility" threads get opened about him on the drama boards by suspicious IPs, burner accounts, and sometimes non-socks that are still clearly editing tendentiously, on a regular basis (which is true), and I would ask that you and your confederates apologize for (i) opening this bogus thread (92.24.242.202), (ii) voting against someone in RFA for being a former fascist (not for having once been a fascist -- specifically for no longer being a fascist) (TOA), (iii) posting ... everything you see below this (TOA and WFD), (iv) not backing down or admitting fault in any of this (92.24.242.202, TOA, and WFD). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, the collapse was clearly about people calling me a Nazi, not about people calling you a sock. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hijiri88, why are you now referring to me as a "confederate" of other accounts? Stop your baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, and don't ask me to apologize for things I have nothing to do with. There is nothing bogus about complaining about the consistent bad faith assumptions by you or the incivility by MjolnirPants. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:聖やや also seems to be failing to WP:AGF. Interesting that they are trying to tie me to ""WP:NONAZIS", when their own username has 88 in it. 19:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

    Now that's casting aspersions! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I'm done being coy. Someone should promptly and indefinitely block TOA for the above comment, even if nothing else. I am not sure why a vandal account emerged from the woodwork nine years later to ask for their vandal account to be unblocked, then did very little other than petition for some changes to ArbCom, then disappeared again for several years only to re-emerge around the same time as MPants, but the above comment about my username is beyond the pale. (I have now restored the statements on my user page regarding my own "racial" background in case anyone is curious while I don't think it really matters and my username, which is a reference to the year of my birth, as it is for probably 90% of Wikipedians who were born and raised in either [a] countries that were neutral during World War II or [b] largely non-white countries and therefore would have no reason to know what the number signifies to American neo-fascists like a large number of Donald Trump supporters.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, placing the burden on victims of attacks like the above to change their user page to accommodate the ones who are in very blatant violation of NPA is pretty absurd. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:45, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You do realize that all of your edits in reference to me are attacking me, while the same is not true in reverse (I am not attacking, but rather explaining why I perceive that there is some policy violation). 00:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    I did not call you a Nazi. Technically, I didn't even say you were defending far-right terrorists and saying they should not be called fascists: I linked to comments where you seemed to be saying that, and I said those comments were "very concerning". You did call me a Nazi, and actually forced me to modify my own user page to get you to stop, which you have not done. Moreover, you came here specifically to smear and harass a good Wikipedian who has done nothing wrong, something I have seen happen to this specific Wikipedian more times than I care to count, and I am well within my rights to speak up in said Wikipedian's defense and point out that this has happened more times than I care to count. Whether or not you personally are connected with the various sockpuppets, meatpuppets and trolls who have done this in the past is irrelevant -- I have told you that it is the case, and you did not cease your disruptive behaviour, but rather doubled down and called me a Nazi. Therefore, I think you should be blocked from editing until you can demonstrate to the community that you understand what you have done wrong and will make efforts to prevent it from happening again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that your username has 88 in it. Your interpretation of my statement is inaccurate. 01:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    Interesting that they are trying to tie me to ""WP:NONAZIS", when their own username has 88 in it. What other thing could you have meant by this statement? —El Millo (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS to try to cast aspersions regarding my intent. 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    There's not much interpretation one needs to do to assume you implied that the 88 in Hijiri's name is related to fascism or nazism in some way. If you weren't saying what Hijiri says you were saying, then what were you saying? If someone misinterprets something you said, the best way to defend yourself is to clarify what you meant. —El Millo (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the implied connection to Nazism was inappropriate in the comments by both Hijiri88 and The owner of all, but there are also repeated claims by Hijiri88 that The owner of all is a sockpuppet account without Hijiri88 providing any evidence whatsoever connecting the account to another. Why is it appropriate to make those types of WP:ASPERSIONS without providing evidence for them? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why do you say "you did not cease your disruptive behaviour, but rather doubled down"? I have not done anything to you nor have I made any comments to you other than the ones above. Is discussion on talk pages, etc. counted as "disruptive behaviour" [sic] ? 01:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    Also, Japan is non-white but they were not neutral during WWII. So there's that. 01:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

    To be clear, I am not a Trump supporter but rather an independent that generally agrees with Libertarians. However I believe it is a violation of WP:AGF to label all Trump supporters as terrorists (and/or defenders of terrorists), as some editors have done both here and elsewhere. 02:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

    88 means good luck in some cultures. Not "heil Hitler." That was some stunning cultural ignorance you displayed in suggesting "Hijiri 88" is a Nazi reference. Protip: there are not a lot of Asian Nazis out there. Levivich 02:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe in making assumptions about the cultures of other editors. I have not encountered 聖やや prior to this thread, so I have no reason to believe that his user name does or does not have any particular meaning. 02:26, 1 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Constant MoS breaking edits

    IP editor has, on a few occasions [379][380][381] (amoug others potentally in their edit history) totally ignored the MoS when making edits. After being reverted by both Sam Sailor and myself, and me adding a note to their talk page about why their edits were incorrect per various MoS guidance, they proceeded to add this edit just because I didn't mention it in the message to them... I'm no longer reverting them as 1. I would be in violation of WP:3RR on List of directors associated with art film and 2. Could probably been seen as edit warring. Could an mop have words? - RichT|C|E-Mail 13:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just tell me what not to do and I will not do it, thanks.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rich Smith: I don't think we need mop-intervention quite yet. I posted on IP's talk, I'm sure we can guide them in the right direction. Sam Sailor 14:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done what you have asked, hope that it is fine now.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jewish labels on BLPs, poorly supported

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

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

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

    This address been blocked by Bbb23 for BLP violations, and it looks like the edits have been reverted. This sort of behavior (from many editors) has been a perennial problem. I don't suppose it would be possible to create an edit filter for the addition of Jewish categories to articles that don't have some likely keywords like "Jew" or "Jewish" anywhere in their text? It wouldn't catch all of them but it might help. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, have seen this same kind of problem before. I believe it comes from multiple persons acting independently. A notional filter to fix the problem would be extremely difficult to code. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit filter 982 already exists, it's not very nuanced, but it helps to identify this sort of thing. Acroterion (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User gets unblocked and immediately starts being disruptive again

    Bish indeffed and fixed pages. I've revoked TPA. I think we're done here. El_C 15:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ulises142 (talk · contribs · logs) has been unblocked for literally like 10 minutes and is already being disruptive. They were blocked here by Bishonen for 3 days. Their first edit after unblock was to disrupt 331dot's talk page by spamming WikiLove templates and removing messages that other users left for 331dot ([382][383][384][385][386][387][388][389]). Their other series of edits since the unblocking was to move Draft:Randy Bishop from draftspace to mainspace ([390]). As I said a few days ago, this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More bizarre page move disruption: ([391][392]) Curbon7 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I've moved Randy Bishop back to draftspace (again). Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    PS: I've now undone the ExampleBot moves also. Bishonen | tålk 14:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    E-960 community imposed TBAN

    E-960 is subject to a "community imposed TBAN from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed" following this discussion. They were warned here about breaking the ban.

    Today, E-960 blanked a large section of the The Holocaust article, which also contained references to churches:

    Some Christian churches defended converted Jews

    , and the Holocaust itself is related to secular politics in Europe. But this one instance may have been an oversight, a mistake. However, E-960 made this edit two weeks ago which modifies a section on churches in Belarus, among other things adding:

    The church entered full communion with the See of Rome while keeping their Byzantine liturgy in the Church Slavonic language

    This can not be seen as a mere mistake.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wugapodes: who closed those discussions.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FloridaArmy and accusations of racism and white supremacy

    There is a rough consensus that FloridaArmy has avoided making any personal attacks againist specific editors and that in light of this and the fact that all of the at-issue behavior has been on Jimbo's talk page where there's higher tolerance for venting, no sanction should be imposed at this time. Several editors who expressed sympathy with FA's goals of increasing coverage of African American subjects noted that while sanctions were unnecessary, FA's approach to discussions related to this topic may be counterproductive. signed, Rosguill talk 21:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Isn't the editor making structural arguments (that lead to racially skewed outcomes) rather than accusing individual editors of racism and white supremacy? My experience editing on Wikipedia is consistent with claims that it is extremely easy for editors to erect hurdles and block content that relates to the history and experiences of African-Americans, which leads to a systematic neglect of content that relates to the history of race and racism in the United States. That Wikipedia's editing processes lead to those outcomes does not necessarily mean that the editors who erect the hurdles are white supremacists and racist, but the ultimate outcome ends up being racially skewed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he is blaming the rejection of his article drafts on systemic racism and white supremacy in Wikipedia (not racism in general or in historic sources), without providing any evidence of this (he compares sports people to African American schools and communities, which has nothing to do with racism; there is no different standard for African American and other sportspeople, and there is no different standard for African American schools or communities vs. other schools and communities). He no longer names individual editors, as that got him into problems earlier, but the message is the same (and has been repeated ad nauseam already). Fram (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recommend reading the thread over at Wales' talk page, if you haven't already. FloridaArmy is tiptoeing right to the line of explicitly stating that other editors are being racist for not accepting articles on these subjects, in my opinion. They have stated that the subjects are notable, but as far as I could tell in the conversation provided no sources showing that. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Though I will generally admit to being personally doubtful of most high schools and cemeteries being notable excluding extraordinary circumstances. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As an example of the racism, bias, and bigotry he sees at work, he provided in the previous discussion at the same talk page[393] a section "Typical examples of high schools serving African Americans not being covered" with "I can't even get a disambiguation page approved for the three Draft:Greene County High Schools. I think two served mostly African American students. " This has nothing at all to do with racism, this is a draft of a disambiguation page for three redlinks, which would get rejected from anyone (or deleted in the mainspace), and which doesn't mention anything about African Americans. That draft has been submitted four times, was rejected correctly four times, and then gets paraded as evidence of racism? Fram (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Wikipedia systemically racist? I suspect it is. Does it have a pronounced and systemic male bias? I am even more sure of that. Questioning the epistemological frames that we bring to the community and that emerge from the community as a whole should always be on the table. All that said, I would respectfully suggest that FloridaArmy is less than an ideal messenger here, and it is possible to raise such topics and push things in a better direction while simultaneously "dropping the stick." I hope FloridaArmy will consider doing so. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I look at it from this perspective: being an AfC reviewer, I end up working with FA a lot regarding his drafts. The value this editor brings is very much needed, as he has contributed a huge number of pages that otherwise likely would never have been created in the first place. That being said, of course I have occasional frustrations with FA when he submits a draft that is so obviously non-notable, but that's just part of the AfC process. With this in mind, topic ban is simply preposterous, the most we should support would be to follow the standard warning line the same as we would any other user for attacking other editors (Tier 1 warning to block if we sadly have to go that far). In this case a topic ban is too much of a half-measure for me to get behind. Either take the full-measure or go via the normal warning process.
    Addendum: I just read the thread on Jimbo's talk page. I agree that action should probably be taken; however, I don't believe a topic ban is the correct action with this case. Curbon7 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (General comment as previous blocking admin:) This came up on Jimbo's talk page a while back, and I'll say the same thing here that I did there. Evidence-free accusations of personal racism against specific editors: personal attack, unacceptable (indeed, that's what I blocked them for a few years ago). General accusations of systemic racism in WP (and everywhere else), even if aggressive: not personal attacks, and indeed healthy. It doesn't matter if FA is the best person to make this accusation, we should not be censoring people for having thoughts about systemic racism that aren't targeting specific editors. That is a slippery slope. If FA has returned to targeted unfounded accusations of personal racism (I haven't seen any), then we should do something. If he is just refusing to stop saying WP's policies have institutional racism built into them, then good luck FA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems like a fine line to thread. Seeing as at least some of the cited examples are about declined drafts, which were declined by specific editors. I'm not sure what FA's goal is, are they trying to get policy changed so that these drafts fall under some exception, or are they accusing these editors for declining them for biased reasons? There are other ways to interpret their statements, I'm sure, but those are the two I came away with. Maybe it would be helpful if FA clarified exactly what they are trying to accomplish. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is it a fine line? When someone is complaining about institutional/systemic racism, that's by definition not singling out particular editors. It seems to me all his recent posts have specifically been about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Pretty sure I stated why I thought it was a fine line in my comment. They are talking about systemic racism at Wikipedia while talking about specific declines at AfC. How can that be read as anything other than an implicit accusation of racism against the editors who have declined the article? I'm seriously trying to assume good faith here, but I honestly am not seeing another way of reading that part of their thread. SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If FA was complaining about individual editors, I assume he would call it something other than systemic racism. Isn't the easiest interpretation that these declines are supported by a WP policy, but the policy is racist, and he wants Jimbo's help changing the policy? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the linked thread, it seems to me that FloridaArmy is being more critical of our notability guidelines and other community norms and policies that result in inequitable treatment of biographies of African Americans and related topics (aka, systemic racism), than describing any specific AfC reviewers as racist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the commenters on that thread, the issue around FA is not that these are directed personal attacks, but that several editors are provide them good advice on how to deal with the systematic bias issues, and they are turning that aside, refusing to put down the stick, and continuing to assert WP as a whole is racist. While this is not immediately actionable, there is a history with FA that is disturbing that they keep turning to this level of accusations at the project as a whole and missing the point that the project is not inherently rejecting African-American topics because of a racial bias, and that's not a healthy argument to continue to present. I did try to warn FA that they're missing the advice and were trending into the same territory that they were blocked before on. --Masem (t) 21:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      While this is not immediately actionable, there is a history with FA that is disturbing that they keep turning to this level of accusations at the project as a whole and missing the point that the project is not inherently rejecting African-American topics because of a racial bias, and that's not a healthy argument to continue to present. Why is this disturbing? It seems like a very legitimate opinion—is the issue with the opinion or just that FA is the one to hold it? It's not entirely clear to me from your comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Echoing other editors here, with regard to the fact that FloridaArmy's views are perfectly legitimate - as long as they are not attacking other editors and accusing them of racism without evidence (and there is nothing to suggest this has happened) then why should the editor's views be completely disregarded? When it comes to systematic bias (and I will preface this by saying I am not a Person of Colour and therefore will not comment from such a perspective), it is not something that one editor alone can take on, as Masem seems to be suggesting (forgive me if I have misunderstood you). Challenging such a bias needs to be a group effort - as they say, we can all do better. Patient Zerotalk 22:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      There is absolutely an issue related to external systematic bias and sourcing in some topic areas on WP. There are absolutely in existence and no one denies they exist. The reason they exist, however, is not as FA continued to assert that this is a purposeful effort on the collective group of WP editors to stop inclusion of these articles. We have outlined multiple times (see below) why WP is not an original publisher of material and dependent on sources, how one can look to find difficult-to-acquire sources, and what types of minimum standards we anticipate from sources. FA tends to flat out ignore that. They're free to ignore our advice but we're entering the WP:TE area here. That's really the problem here. --Masem (t) 23:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not have a problem with the subject's agenda but as a member of WP:AFC it would be a stretch for his favorite fan not to see there are directed insinuendoes. I made comments at Jimbo's talk page, because he specifically mentions AFC along with mention of White Supremacy, systemic bias, and his other choice of Shouldn't we call it what it is? Systemic racism. For any that might not know or didn't look that is Institutional racism, that if true we should close down Wikipedia permanently. When you go farther than the acceptable systemic bias there should be acceptable proof because "I feel" as if I am targeted as part of the problem that I have had nothing (I can't change my race like I could my gender) to do with. If I have ever (still didn't look) declined a draft of the subject (or any minority article) there would be absolutely no doubt I am included as would any of the other AFC volunteers. To state that the subjects' comments weren't personal and including AFC participants is giving a pass that may not be deserved. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • I oppose any sanction of FA based on this report. I believe they should be commended for their efforts, both in terms of substantive editing and raising difficult, important issues in appropriate venues. In particular, it's clear from the initial post here that FA has taken on board criticism of their earlier, more personalized approach. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      In his most recent thread, FA claims "Wikipedia excludes..." topics like Westfield, Alabama (repeatedly). That is false. They claim Oberlin Academy was "deleted and redirected repeatedly". I can find no evidence of this. It was moved from a title with a typo, and it was kept at AfD in 2019. He presents this as evidence of "systemic racism."
      Far from being evidence of "racism", I think the community has been exceedingly patient with Florida Army because of the topic area in which they work, and that they would have been indeff'd a long time ago if they were working in almost any other topic area. 2601:194:300:130:C849:BAB9:595B:CE43 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Right, got it, racism is only against white people and that's why you think people who oppose racism should be indefinitely blocked from WP. Why don't you log in under your account? --JBL (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That appears to be a gross misrepresentation of the point they were trying to make. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      ...as well as a personal attack. I attempted to respond at their talk page, and was ignored. I didn't want to derail this thread (which may well have been the goal of the comment). In case it wasn't obvious, I am the same IP that posted the list above. 2601:194:300:130:C849:BAB9:595B:CE43 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Nothing - First, as a disclosure, I have accepted many of the submissions of User:FloridaArmy, and I have normally applied a relatively low notability bar, because many of the submissions have been in areas where Wikipedia's coverage is spotty and can be improved, such as lost films. Second, User talk:Jimbo Wales is something of a free-fire zone, which seems to be what Jimbo Wales intends. Almost anything is permitted except for named personal attacks, libel, copyvio, BLP violations, or incitement of hatred. Third, FloridaArmy doesn't appear to be attacking specific reviewers or specific other people. He is ranting, and Jimbo's talk page is a place for ranting. Fourth, FloridaArmy is probably hurting the acceptance of their own contributions by their ranting, because reviewers now may be more inclined to ignore a draft that needs improvement than to decline it for more work, out of fear of being accused of racism. This will mean that their drafts will be pending longer, which is a self-inflicted injury to FloridaArmy and a FloridaArmy-inflected injury to the topics of their drafts that they mean to be advancing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In the absence of a substantive (rather than procedural) reason to do so, that sounds like a terrible idea. --JBL (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll: understood. I just thought it would be best to bring this up here. Besides, the article was fine. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uncivil behaviour

    Ihohh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Ihohh added the category United States government propaganda organizations to the Polygraph.info article with this edit - diff and left no edit summary.
    I reverted their edit because there was no basis to add the category - diff.
    Ihohh reverted it again instead of trying to discuss it - diff.
    I politely asked to follow WP:BRD and asked to provide a reliable source for such allegation - diff.
    Ihohh reverted it once again - diff and left no edit summary.
    I started a discussion myself and invited the user to participate - diff. Ihohh was pinged each time I mentioned them.
    Now there is the ongoing discussion about this edit, but instead of trying to get a consensus, waiting till the discussion is over, Ihohh readded this category and the category is now still in the article. I asked them to self-revert because of the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, but the user refuses to do so. The user clearly thinks that it is okay to push their edits without getting a consensus. I explained my position on the article's talk page, but the user is acting with no respect to WP:CATVER and WP:OR. More than that, the user claims, that I need to prove something to them, so the user attempted to shift the burden of proof which is against WP:BURDEN. I would like to ask an administrator to remove the category from the article, because of the ongoing discussion and lack of consensus. --Renat 22:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation is explained in the talk page. I just want to point out that all the sources for my edit (adding a category) were already present and were not added by me. User RenatUK simply chose to ignore them. His appeal to the OR issue is completely baseless. (He also deleted my messages from his personal talkpage, for what it's worth).--Ihohh (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BubbaJoe123456 (talk · contribs) removed the category (diff), but Ihohh decided to start edit warring and reverted it once again - diff. He also used generally unreliable source to "prove" their point - diff. The user reverts and leaves no edit summaries. --Renat 01:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ihohh's reverts: 1: diff. 2: diff. 3: diff. 4: diff. --Renat 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TypographyFixer

    TypographyFixer (talk · contribs)

    I came across this user while looking through Special:WantedTemplates and noticing that a large number of broken templates were being transuded onto pages in this editors user space. Upon trying to open the page to see where the templates were being used my browser promptly froze, and once I opened the page history it became obvious why - their user space is full of absolutely enormous million byte plus sandboxes full of all sorts of broken stuff that seems to have no use whatsoever for improving the encyclopaedia. Looking at the users edit count something like 97% of their contributions are screwing around in user sandboxes - of their 2018 total edits 1941 of them are in user space. The user has made only 70 article space edits, the vast majority of which are trivial spelling fixes with bizarre and unhelpful edit summaries e.g. [394]. Since this user has so few main space contributions and their edit count consists almost entirely of mucking about in sandboxes I feel that at a minimum they should not have extended confirmed rights, but reviewing their overall their contributions is giving off a distinct vibe that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia and are only here to screw around. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Page stalker here. I was curious and looked at TypographyFixer's sandbox. It's bizarre. Besides making the bots remove page protection templates that were added to an unprotected page, thus creating more computing work, another issue that jumps out is that by making the pages so large, it's harder for other users to see what he (she?) is doing by scrolling through the revision history. There could be parked copyright material (or even worse - information used for criminal purposes) in the history that we'd never notice without a lot of time and effort spent. This encyclopedia thrives on openness and collaboration, none of which is present here. Also, while drive space is cheap, if you make enough copies of a gigantic page, even Wikipedia servers have their limits. I'll be curious to hear TypographyFixer's thoughts - he/she was asked in November on their talk page to reduce the size of the sandbox, and gave a strangely capitalized answer. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to copyright - at the minimum there's a ton of unattributed copying and pasting from other Wikipedia articles, mostly with weird modifications, e.g. This diff contains an entire copy of the Constructed script article, and this edit is a copy of the Upholstery article. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to improve the encyclopedia. They have produced a massive amount of gibberish. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Would their sandboxes fall under some combination of G1, G12 and U5? The reason I ask is that it would be significantly easier to just delete the things than to fix all the template transclusions cluttering up the special page and finding where everything has been copied and pasted from to provide proper attribution. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to mass-delete all of their sandboxes under U5 and G12 for being obvious unattributed copies of articles which they looked to be trying to modify into something they called "Kiwipedal, the expensive uncyclicalipedal", however I came across this old MfD where deleting these pages was already discussed, so I think speedy deletion cannot apply (it would not be uncontroversial). Personally I think they should all be deleted, they're clearly not serving any purpose to building Wikipedia and are also causing occasional technical issues for some editors. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I deleted some of them before realizing that there had been an MfD. If somebody really thinks that we should fill out paperwork to re-delete it after a discussion, I'll restore it, but it's clear that the sandboxes had nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's purpose, and that it's either conlang nonsense, or a whole lot of test pages. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a load of subpages of their sandbox full of more of the same stuff that could do with speedying/MFDing too. Some of them are full of articles that have been run through google translate which is what is flooding Special:WantedTemplates with broken transclusions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think G12 overrides everything except BLP (and that would be under very unlikely circumstances), certainly an inconclusive MfD, so I'm going to go ahead and delete them all. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the problematic ones are gone, on the basis of G12, G1, G2, U5, IAR and disruption of Wikipedia technical processes in violation of the ToU. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good block and deletion. Thanks. That MFD... well, crowdsourcing doesn't always work. But anyways, it was closed no consensus not keep, and this deletion is solidly supported by the global consensus of NOTBURO and IAR (IMO... which of course trumps consensus anyway). Levivich 16:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:108.48.189.192

    Vandalism-only account, focussed entirely on Moscow Metro line templates. Constantly adds unverified and fictitious information. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    AlgaeGraphix, have you reported them to WP:AIV? I cannot see the IP on the current list. Patient Zerotalk 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I report that IP to AIV. 180.242.42.109 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No warning so not an matter for AIV.©Geni (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:76.69.146.236 creating more talk pages without associated articles

    Blocked for 72 hours; pages deleted. Tol | talk | contribs 16:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    76.69.146.236 has created Talk:Cast Actors (log), Talk:Hello Cell Phone (log), Talk:Crazy The Movie (log), and Talk:Campfire Marshmallow (log); all contain only the text TBA and do not have an associated article. 76.69.146.236 has already been warned twice about this behavior (including a level 4 warning) at User talk:76.69.146.236#Talk pages and blocked (log) for disruptive editing (the block has since expired, and 76.69.146.236 has resumed editing). It's not quite vandalism, but it is disruptive editing by persisting in unconstructive behavior after being made aware and instructed to stop (and even blocked). Tol | talk | contribs 04:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits

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

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

    Legal threat of 'penal action' issued by IP user. See Special:PermanentLink/1031153956. Section removed and user warned. Could an admin please review? Melmann 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure exactly what "penal action" is, sounds spicy. However it is a clear attempt to influence a content dispute with a threat meant to have a chilling effect. I have blocked the IPv6/64 for 72 hours for making threats. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a reference to incarceration. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Penal action" in India generally is a threat to lodge a police complaint. JavaHurricane 04:05, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    MCRainbowSupernova8196 edit-warring over Carambolage versus Accident at Belgian Grand Prix

    Hi, this probably belongs in the 3RR noticeboard but I can't work out how to show diffs. There seems to be a ridiculous edit war going on at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Belgian_Grand_Prix&action=history between MCRainbowSupernova8196 who is determined to put a French word Carambolage into the article for no reason, versus SSSB who is (in my view quite reasonably) attempting to use plain English ("accident"). It's gone beyond 3 reversions with some fairly unhelpful edit summaries such as "What? Do long words scare ya?". I've also reverted it once and been reverted back, so I'm not getting involved further. I'll stick a note on relevant user talk pages that I'm passing it over to you the experts. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note the comments on User talk:MCRainbowSupernova8196 starting a discussion (Special:Permalink/1031224414) which involves myself, MCRainbowSupernova8196 and 5225C (talk · contribs).
    SSSB (talk)12:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)[reply]
    I'm not one to get involved in this sort of thing but this seems like quite bizarre and very combative behaviour from MCRainbowSupernova8196. The MOS is fairly clear on this and it seems fairly intuitive to me that the English Wikipedia is written in English. Regardless of that, their behaviour in edit summaries and on their talk page seems to indicate no change from the previous incident.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 12:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is English Wikipedia, so we should be using words that English speakers understand. Most English speakers know what an accident is. "carambolage" is not an English word according to any reputable English dictionary e.g. Collins, Cambridge Dictionary, and shouldn't be used. MCRainbowSupernova8196 needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK or they'll get themselves blocked again. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, almost every edit they've made in the last 2 days has been reverted. Are they actually here to improve the encyclopedia, or just cause pointless arguments that waste people's time? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elemimele: Note, you must notify the other editor when you start a thread about them here. I've gone ahead and done so. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SamStrongTalks: Elemimele did, MCRainbowSupernova8196 removed the notification (diff).
    5225C (talk • contributions) 13:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, sorry Elemimele. I checked the last few edits to their page and didn't see it. Should have looked further back. Thanks 5225C. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)SamStrongTalks They had been notified: Special:Diff/1031224414, but chose to remove the notification: Special:Diff/1031228059. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually quite concerned about MCRainbowSupernova8196's behaviour and edits in general. They've been here about 3 months, been blocked twice, have a very clear combative editing style, and about half of their edits have been reverted in one manner or another. They seem to be throwing around, if not outright then on the line, personal attacks and aren't interested in editing in a collaborative manner. This may change, but we may wish to point out to them that people's patience is wearing thin and if they continue to approach editing Wikipedia in the manner they have been then they're going to end up with an indefinite block very soon. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their talk page seems to be a case study in I didn't hear that behavior. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they're WP:NOTLISTENING- I don't think I could have made my point any clearer, and they're choosing to ignore it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If nothing else happens, I think we can leave it. If they start up with changing "traffic jam" to embouteillage they'll need an indef, though. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And if they change it to confiture de véhicule they need a global ban. EEng 21:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    67.80.249.131 again

    Blocked for three months Girth Summit (blether) 14:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    This IP was blocked last month for making disruptive edits (the original ANI. Their block expired a few days ago. Now that they are unblocked, they are making the same exact disruptive edits. This is pretty frustrating. Curbon7 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh disregard they were literally just blocked. Curbon7 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    99.107.157.94 again

    (non-admin closure) IP blocked for three months by Ashleyyoursmile SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I previously reported this IP back in April for edit warring at pages like 1998 and At the Codfish Ball (see archived thread). Just today, they've returned to their habits of making the edits at the latter page again, and are now starting edit wars on other pages as well (see their contribs). Also note that this IP also edited on enwiki under the IP range 2600:1700:CAD0:A390:0:0:0:0/64 before that range's block in 2019. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JalenFolf, I've blocked them for three months. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edit warring and repeated incivility by Locke Cole

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

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

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

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

    It's interesting to me to see that my behavior is called in to question here, but the behavior of an editor who has pushed IEC units against consensus for well over a decade is somehow just fine... If you can't see how this would frustrate someone, dealing with sources that amount to less tghan 1% in most instances, but being told we simply must use this unit, I don't know how else to explain it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's tu quoque is it? However other editors have behaved, you are very thin on justification for your aggressive edit-warring and abusive attitude towards the (many) editors who do not share your view. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [395][396][397][398][399] I mean sure, starting a bunch of nearly identical discussions isn't disruptive at all, which is what they did initially. They also resisted my attempts to get a combined discussion going at WT:MOSNUM (note all the various sections which are, fundamentally, about the same things). Then there's the habit of restarting old discussions, or waiting a month to reply to keep the section from being archived and allowing editors to move on: (original comment 2021-05-01T19:12:09, reply 2021-06-14T07:38:22; original comment 2021-05-03T16:06:45 reply 2021-05-30T09:57:43‎; original comment 2020-05-25T17:12:18‎, reply 2021-05-03T10:14:13 (almost a year later), pings the editor who never replied to the initial conversation almost a year later). Trust me, my behavior is not the problem here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amazing how, like clockwork, the default response to some people's behaviour being called into question is to assert that others have behaved worse, and then double down on it. Even when the evidence is right in front of us. It's yet another time-wasting distraction. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The OP leaves out LC's attempt to delete a bunch of templates when they discovered that consensus might be against their position in a related content dispute. I called it "a remarkably childish approach to dispute resolution" at the deletion discussion, but I now think "pointy", "bad-faith", and "disruptive" also apply. --JBL (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, LC seems to see no problem with starting spinoffs of one talk-page tirade elsewhere, while the original one is still ongoing (so long as LC is the person doing it, I mean). Archon 2488 (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have experienced the following kinds of disruptive behaviour from LC:
    • Unilaterally closing discussions on article talk pages before these had reached a conclusion, suggesting the discussion should be held at WT:MOSNUM
    • Unilaterally closing discussions at WT:MOSNUM when that discussion was transferred from an article talk page at LC’s request
    • Persistently hostile editing at WT:MOSNUM and personal attacks
    • Edit warring on bit and byte prefix templates
    • Canvassing another editor to support LC’s position on bit and byte prefix templates
    • When the edit war and canvassing did not produce their intended results, initiating the RfD referred to by others
    I don’t have time now but will follow up with supporting diffs. (As pointed out by Archon, some can be found at WT:MOSNUM). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 11:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    user:2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C

    IP blocked for edit warring and harassment. Drill it also blocked for edit warring from Danny Cevallos. Film at 11. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Edit warring on Danny Cevallos + talk page harassment Drill it (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note there is already a WP:ANEW thread about this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C reported by User:Drill it (Result: ). -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

    INDEFFED
    NOTHERE blocked. (non-admin closure) dudhhrContribs 16:12, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

    Indeffed as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spiderone:, @Bbb23:, thank you for your quick response and action.--Msclrfl22 (talk), 7:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikibot making changes to constructive edits of Layshia Clarendon's page

    IP blocked for 1 week for vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have attempted to make constructive edits to the Clarendon page, but the bot keeps undermining my attempt to normalize progressive views of gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8807:3c84:3000:303a:8e09:8102:9ffc (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ClueBot is functioning properly. The IP's edits were not constructive. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    MordvinEvgen and sex difference information

    MordvinEvgen traverses sex difference pages and closely related pages to synthesize and bias information. He adds sentences that shouldn't be found in a children's book, let alone an encyclopedia. For example, in the empathy article, he said "and the correlation of the chromosome with only the female sex is controversial, which is contrary to common sense."[400]

    He's gotten multiple warning about the way he edits.[401] People have told him to stop adding his own analysis and conclusions to articles and to leave primary research behind him, but he continues.

    Here are some recent challenges to his edits.[402][403][404]

    When I said to him today that he should stop, he said he will continue. He severely insulted me and threatened me, saying, "YOU also don't publish the meta-analysis effect sizes, which is a dumb publishing method. You don't even have enough brains to open meta-analysis and arrange everything humanly. I said your edits will be removed in the future. If you think you will stop me, good luck..."[405] He put emphasis on "WILL."[406] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added userlinks to the top of this report. Hopefully both parties will try to avoid WP:Personal attacks such as 'don't have enough brains'. Sincge GBFEE's account was just created today (June 30) I hope they are aware that Wikipedia has procedures for resolving disputes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think procedures for resolving disputes with MordvinEvgen are bound for failure unless he doesn't rail against the Wikipedia "system" (his words) when it doesn't work the way he wants it to. He says I don't know science.[407] Someone should tell him good science isn't what he does. If it was, his edits wouldn't keep getting removed for synthesizing the research and less than optimal sourcing, and he wouldn't keep getting warnings about them. He says I'm removing stuff I don't like, but I encourage people to look at his edits, many of which have been challenged by editors because he cuts what he doesn't like and inserts his commentary or own framing of the research. Multiple complaints from others about his edits are in the page histories. He's complained that I said he uses his personal commentary. He does. None of the sources say anything like "contrary to common sense"[408] or "It should be noted right away that the differences found in the brain do not necessarily mean differences in cognitive parameters." or "However, it is worth noting that evolutionary theories rarely reflect the true nature of the differences."[409]

    He says he plans to modify all of my edits. If he does, more of the same will come from him. He doesn't care for secondary and tertiary sources. Look at his newest complaint about tertiary sources, Wikipedia's unwillingness to give primary sources the same mouthpiece, and thoughts about me.[410] He calls me his opponent and an "it", and says he "can give a lot of examples of the failure of both your system" and my behavior. Does this sound like a person willing to listen and defer to the reviews of topics? He hasn't listened for three months! So what is the appropriate course of action for anyone to take regarding this editor if it's not to report him here? GBFEE (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mordvin clearly has a lot of knowledge about some life science topics, but since his debut 32 days ago, he either hasn't quite assimilated some basic principles of verifiability and sourcing, or doesn't agree with them; likewise for some behavioral guidelines with respect to collaboration and civility. Most recently, as GBFEE pointed out in the OP, Mordvin has been mixing it up at Sex differences in psychology, in this case, with Crossroads. I don't expect all new editors to be on board and comfortable with WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS within a month, but Mordvin has locked horns with various editors a number of times already on these points, and is way too smart to claim ignorance. C'mon, Mordvin; you can be a great editor; just a wee dash of humility, a willingness to learn the particular environment of Wikipedia, and collaborate with other editors, and you will be. It's easier to develop good habits while you're still relatively new here. It's best to avoid doing things that motivate other editors to want to spend their free time scrutinizing your activities and bringing them here to this board. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism by UserNumber in "Sylheti Language" topics

    Please kindly check the data, edits and rollback on Sylheti language topic by User:UserNumber. For any excuse he is removing valid sourced information for Sylheti language in many places. Protecting negative narratives on the topics to discourage users. Besides, he might issue with Sylheti language. Please check this users data on Sylheti Language. His edits and rollback on this topic is very negative and misusing rollback power to suppress Sylheti speakers and showing superiority of another language (Bengali), which is not supposed to be acceptable in Wikipedia's neutral policy.

    Please note, a category Sylheti language was added for Sylheti language page in ANI discussion. Usernumber removed it intentionally. Slake000 (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Slake000: I've restored the category, but I'm not convinced that UserNumber is acting in bad faith. It looks like there's a content dispute. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Slake000 for violating a topic ban on Bengali–Assamese languages, a language family that the Sylheti language belongs to. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:80.117.213.106

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

    This editor is the Brescia LTA and needs to be blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They just deleted this report. See also [[411]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And [412]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just altered the title of this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked by User:Crazycomputers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jgwilliams873, template usage and other issues

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

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

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

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

    Improper template usage

    Lack of communication and edit warring

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

    On the user talk page suggestion that I left, which they deleted, I asked them to supply the |reason= on the {{update}} tag, or leave an indication on the talk page on what they feel needs updating. I have not seen that followed. My preference is that they simply begin dialogue with the community on how to improve Wikipedia. Barring that interaction, I would suggest a topic ban on using {{update}}, {{expand section}}, and {{lead too short}}.—Bagumba (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the reported editor is WP:NOTHERE due to lack of communication and WP:TAGBOMBING. I am sure that the editor wants to do good, but this WP:TAGBOMBING is ridiculous when he chooses pages of retired (maybe even dead) people and just blindly adds multiple templates. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    DIsruptive user

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

    Disruptive editing and harassmentDrill it (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems Drill it is already blocked. I was about to tell him to take it down 5 notches. You are edit warring on the IPs talk page. I have asked the IP to take it to the talk page and I am asking you the same thing.
    I get that you are trying to do anti-vandalism patrol but you are a bit too aggressive about it. Users, IPs included are allowed to remove warnings and use their talk page for organizing sources so don't edit war about that. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was to post that Drill's behaviour towards other editors, including myself, warrants an immediate block. Glad to see he has already been indeffed. — kashmīrī TALK 11:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User 109 has just gotten off of an edit war block and I have already advised them to take their ideas and sources to the article talk page if reverted(which it appears they have done). I don't think their actions since the block expired have been disruptive, I just hope that they don't resume edit warring and keep their cool if they encounter resistance to their edits.
    I don't think anything else needs to come of this report unless things change. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the record, a number of admins, including ToBeFree, El C and Bbb23 have suspected Drill it was a sock, but all the evidence was circumstantial. I asked Drill it if this was their first Wikipedia account, which was immediately reverted, which (in my view) is about as close to an admission of guilt as you can get. Since then, they have been globally locked as a long-term abuse case. I think I know which one but I won't say per WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Add my name to the list. This newish user seemed to have the experience of a prolific and overly enthusiastic vandal fighter. They went from 0 to full speed without any apparent learning curve. Either way they were certainly being disruptive. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had such an "admission" for a while (Special:Diff/1025798962). I'll assume that the global lock is based on technical evidence; well then. My main concern with this user was a complete refusal to be accountable for their edits, and the disruption caused by the lack of proper explanations for their actions, in edit summaries and in response to talk page queries. This behavior alone would already have justified a block or ban, so I didn't spend time on guessing whose sockpuppet they may be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a quick note on Drill it's protection request record: as someone who has attended to hundreds of RfPP requests in the last couple of weeks (tens of which having been filed by Drill it), I found that while most of their requests were valid, there still was a substantial amount that were not (unambiguously so). For whatever that's worth (not much, I suspect). El_C 12:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, admins: if a user stonewalls you after you've queried them about previous accounts — block them. They cannot plead the 5th and remain editors in good standing. El_C 12:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA, Possible sockpuppet of user:EljanM

    Two SPIs are enough. It doesn't need to be at ANI as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This talk page[413] clearly shows who is focused on deleting a name. I was waiting for you to answer my question. I said let's discuss but you didn't answer because the outcome of this argument would be against you. Unfortunately, you delete the Azerbaijani names in the Azerbaijani majority villages and add the Armenian names in the Armenian minority cities such as Ganja, Azerbaijan, Gədəbəy, Nakhchivan (city). All of them have never been an Armenian majority. I think this user[414] is can be sockpuppet of User:Kevo327. Because he only has 3 edits and similar to Kevo327's edits. VivaEspana11 (talk page) 19:38, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Christoforos18

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

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

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

    In this edit [415], NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote as his edit summary "I disagree with these removals - neither of the sections in question were unsourced or poorly sourced." This was in reference to the two sections "Doxing" and "Credibility" that I removed according to my understanding of WP:BLP. However, NorthBySouthBaranof also reverted four three subsequent edits I made, that had nothing to do with those two sections, and were simply an attempt to re-word this highly embarrassing article for Wikipedia into something approaching an encyclopedic tone. [416], [417], [418], and this experiment gone wrong [419].

    I politely asked if he would not self-revert his deletion of my subsequent edits [420]. He declined. [421] Whilst of course simultaneously admitting that he was aware that he removed additional edits that he did not mention in his edit summary. "Your other edits are also at least partially objectionable" - seems to me, a more than partially objectionable justification for reverting someone's good faith edits.

    And to cap it all off [422] he makes the ridiculous personal attack/accusation "That you personally want to drive sales traffic of Ngo's book to Amazon is not a permissible use of the encyclopedia". TomReagan90 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Given that you have repeatedly refused reasonable requests on the article talk page to justify or explain your proposed changes to the article in question beyond a vague hand-wave at BLP (without detailing exactly what passages and sources you believe violate the policy) and instead ran straight to the dramaboards, I think it's clear to disinterested observers who actually has a "battleground mentality" here.
    Introducing external links to a book's Amazon.com sales page is not a minor edit, is clearly an attempt to drive sales traffic, and is clearly prohibited by policy. That you do not like me calling a spade a spade is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "is clearly an attempt to drive sales traffic, and is clearly prohibited by policy. That you do not like me calling a spade a spade is neither here nor there." - personal attacks continue. if only you knew my political allegiances! As I've said, for the third time now, I only heard of him in the last 18 hours or so, as a result of the Mumford & Sons debacle. So what is it you're accusing me of? Being on Ngo's payroll, or just a fanboy? TomReagan90 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What other reason could you have for including an explicitly-commercial link to buy a book on a particular bookseller's website? Do you just really, really like Jeff Bezos? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That too. We're all in cahoots. TomReagan90 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I described my justification perfectly in my edit summary. I quote it again, now, for the 5th, 6th time? "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." - TomReagan90 (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you did not. You removed a 7,000-byte section with a multitude of reliable sources, including the Columbia Journalism Review, The Oregonian, and the literal freaking The New York Times. You removed a 1,000-byte section sourced to two reliable sources, Vox and The Independent. Neither of those sections are unsourced or poorly-sourced. The burden is on you to justify your removal, and by plain sight any editor can see that the material in question has reliable sources. It is not incumbent on other editors to read your mind to determine why you think the material is unsourced or poorly-sourced. If you are not justifying your removal under those terms, then there is no reason to remove it - rather, you should edit it, and explain your edits on the talk page. (And if you did not intend to justify your removal under those terms, why did you cite the "unsourced or poorly-sourced" policy section in your edit summary? It clearly does not apply to either section.) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the burden is on you according to Wiki Policy. WP:BLPUNDEL Under the heading of "Restoring deleted content": To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Furthermore, in case you didn't catch it the first 7 times: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion... "The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." And most specifically and importantly to the deletion of the two sections ("Credibility" and "Doxxing"): "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." TomReagan90 (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have a "good-faith BLP objection" here - the material is clearly reliably sourced and there are no claims that it is false or misleading. The sections in question do not facially violate BLP. That section of policy is not read to mean that anyone can unilaterally remove entire well-sourced paragraphs of biographical material from any biography merely by crying BLP and demanding that a formal consensus be established for each and every word of a biography. If that was the case, our biographies would be essentially barren.
    And again, you keep citing a section of policy about removing material which explicitly applies only to material which is unsourced or poorly sourced. You bolded the wrong section. You just admitted you don't claim the material is unsourced or poorly sourced. Thus, that part of the policy does not apply. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so state your contention clearly: you believe that having a section entitled "Credibility", that details all the ways in which various people have attacked his credibility as a journalist, is suitable for a journalist's BLP? You believe that? Yes/No? If "No", my removal was correct according to Wiki Policy, and your revert was in breach of Wiki Policy. If you think that is OK, that that is encyclopedic and not in breach of WP:BLP, then please, say so. Yes or No. Very simple Jack. TomReagan90 (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do - I think the fact that a journalist's credibility has been widely disputed, and that certain evidence has been presented in support of those disputes, and that those disputes have been widely discussed in sources including The Columbia Journalism Review and The New York Times, makes clear that the question is certainly worthy of encyclopedic discussion. And if you disagree, the place to have that discussion is Talk:Andy Ngo because ANI does not resolve content disputes. If you can get a consensus of editors that the section is inappropriate, then your position will carry the day and the section will be removed. If you can't, it won't. Very simple Jack. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for having the honesty (or stubbornness) to stand by your convictions. NorthBySouthBaranof believes the section/sub-heading titled "Credibility" should remain, as is. Stated here for the record. We'll see how that turns out for you. (Tough day at work I gather?) TomReagan90 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Why would I work on a beautiful Thursday? Got girl-drink drunk, though. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (P.S. neither the Columbia Journalism Review - if the original article ever even existed, no one seems to be able to source it - nor the New York Times article, say anything even close to supporting your preferred wording "Ngo's credibility and objectivity as a journalist has been extensively criticized". Even if those two sources did themselves "extensively criticize" him (which they don't) that still wouldn't support your wording. But I guess that's where you and me differ eh? I won't speculate as to what you do for a living, or make any accusations against you personally as you have done repeatedly to me, all I will do is state the obvious: we clearly have very different standards for what kind of language and what kind of sources should be included and relied upon in an encyclopedia. TomReagan90 (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]


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

    • Hang on. NBSB you're saying linking a citation to Amazon.com is improper? Can you explain that? Levivich 01:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Does this diff look like a citation to you, Levivich? Because it clearly isn't - it's a prohibited inline external link. Please read before commenting. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that looks like a citation to me, in a section called "Bibliography". Since when is linking the title of a work in a bibliography section to Amazon or Google Books or whatever prohibited? Or is it because it's a work by the article subject, is that the issue? What policies are you referencing exactly? Generally, could you please explain your thinking instead of restating your position? Thanks, Levivich 01:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The original cite had a link to the neutral ISBN template, which has multiple international options to find the work; they reduced it down to Amazon.com (which of course is useless outside the US for everyone else). Linking to one seller of a product clearly violates WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you never read WP:ELNO #15, Levivich? It's right there in black and white - promo inline links to single bookselling companies are deprecated and have been for... decades? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My $0.02: you can put the book in the bibliography - that's not the issue. The issue is that you added it in the form of an external link, something that is explicitly forbidden by WP:AMAZON. And as for the accusation of advertising, I'll assume good faith on your part, since there's no evidence of intentional advertising. MiasmaEternalTALK 01:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MiasmaEternal: I personally could give approximately two-fifths of F.A about the linking edit - which I admitted above was an experiment gone wrong... and how in god's name am I supposed to know that such a thing as WP:AMAZON exists?! (I've made 200 edits in like 18 months, such is my Wikipedia career). What I would appreciate comment on from established editors, is the fact that NorthBySouthBaranof deceptively mass reverted my contributions, by attaching a deliberately misleading edit summary, and downgraded the quality of the article - the precious lede in particular - without any justification. He continues to refuse to provide any justification, because it's clear to anyone who looks at the edits, that they are an improvement towards establishing some semblance of NPOV. And he's also accused me three times now of having some personal or financial stake in Ngo TomReagan90 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    First time I've seen WP:AMAZON (or WP:ELP)-- thanks for pointing to that. @NBSB nevermind, this was the explanation I was asking for. Levivich 01:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order here. If you're going to remove several sections of reliably sourced content, then you'd better be prepared to explain why exactly they're poorly sourced rather than just copy-pasting long passages of policy and expecting that to suffice. It's also concerning to see accusations of "downgrading the quality of the article" as if their edits are automatically better than someone else's. Judging by their misunderstanding of neutrality, it may be wise for TomReagan90 to stick to less difficult articles, refrain from "experimenting" with adding e-commerce links and avoid mass reverting until they have a stronger grasp of how things work around here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, very constructive. Another personal attack. (P.S. It may be boring to read, but Wiki Policy is actually very well thought out, a lot of work has clearly gone into it. Please, just read WP:BLP, the whole thing, and then come back and argue - on the merits of content and policy - what I did was wrong) TomReagan90 (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruling List of fatal cougar attacks in North America

    Content dispute. Take it to the talk page, or failing that, one of our many dispute resolution options. This is not a matter that needs an admin's "ruling". GeneralNotability (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

    • Comment SoftwareThing did not send an ANI notice to the individual being reported. SoftwareThing was also Wikipedia:Canvassing Bilby here:[423]. Now Bilby has performed a revert on the article. I'm also curious as to where this "consensus" is at, and there won't be a fair discussion on the article talk page now that SoftwareThing has canvassed another editor. Jerm (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a simple content dispute that hasn't reached the level of AN/I. At the moment, one editor wishes to make a change, and three editors have disagreed. Thus we've ended up with an edit war, but that should settle down for a bit. - Bilby (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bilby That still doesn't change the fact that were were invited in the dispute. You should not be allowed to touch the article or its talk page because of that. Jerm (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was already involved in the dispute before SoftwareThing left a message. I haven't yet read that message, but my involvement predates it. - Bilby (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor gets a notification when someone starts a new discussion on their talk page, so please, find a better excuse. Jerm (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I got the notification, but I hadn't yet read the message. That said, this is moot - I was involved in the dispute before a message was left on my talk page, so I did not become involved through canvassing. - Bilby (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It took less time for you to reply to me than it did reading the new discussion on your talk page which is just a single sentence? Your full of shit. Jerm (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's your response, I guess we're done. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User wants me to be blocked

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

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

    diff

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

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

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

    I note that Elan Morin Tedronai has now been blocked indefinitely. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think Elan Morin Tedronai's comment was very helpful.
    It is certainly not appropriate to insinuate that a user is a nazi. While they tried to back peddle and claim they did not make such an implication it was clear that they intended to imply that the 88 in the name was a nazi code. It is true that 88 is used as code for heil hitler(h is the 8th letter) but 88 is also a lucky number in Japan because it sounds like a word for wealth(I think that is it). This second explanation makes more sense and was what was provided by way of explanation.
    The other comment that seems beyond the pale is "Also, Japan is non-white but they were not neutral during WWII. So there's that".
    While the first comment may(but I doubt it) have been a legitimate mistake, I am really having trouble coming up with an innocent, ie not ugly, interpretation of this second comment. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Japan comment was not referring to Hijiri. The context was:
    "my username, which is a reference to the year of my birth, as it is for probably 90% of Wikipedians who were born and raised in either [a] countries that were neutral during World War II or [b] largely non-white countries"
    and I was clarifying that there are countries such as Japan that are largely non-white and are not neutral in World War II. It was not intended as an attack, I apologize if it was taken that way. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I agree that it is not appropriate to insinuate that a user is a nazi. However, prior to that first "88" comment, Hijiri did suggest that I had a "bizarre interest in [MjolnirPants]" due to his "NONAZIS" page. diff Which is an even clearer insinuation from him about me being a nazi. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ján Volko

    IP blocked, Manticore unblocked. See my comment below for more details. Reviewers should feel free to re-open this thread if they feel it was closed prematurely. El_C 12:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    There is no need for that abuse when reporting an issue. I have blocked both you and Manticore from editing Ján Volko for 24 hours. Use the talk page to discuss your differences, and if there are any more personal attacks, I will upgrade the block to site wide. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this is here now (I came across it via Richie's talk page — my comment), so I'll update: for their attacks, the IP (/64) has been blocked sitewide for one week with TPA disabled (good action). After discussing the matter with HighInBC, Ritchie333 has lifted Manticore's partial block, which I think was the right call. El_C 11:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I think the matter is resolved. I commend Ritchie333 for reversing the block even though they may not have necessarily agreed with my reasoning. I think that an uninvolved admin can close this if nobody has anything else to add. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, will do. One sec. El_C 11:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1031585682"