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 Noteduck (talk | contribs) at 12:44, 4 July 2021 (→Proposal #2). 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

    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 [1], 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]

    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. [2]
    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]
    The "similar stuff" to which you referred in your 14:10, 30 June 2021 response has now been changed by me. That material is now even better sourced, and even an accusation of weasel words wouldn't stand up now. More responses from me on this overall discussion to come in the next few days. QuakerIlK (talk) 08:18, 3 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)[[3]]. 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 [[4]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[5]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[6]].
    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. [[7]].
    • Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]].
    • 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 [[13]]
      • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[14]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[15]].
      • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[16]]
      • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[17]] 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 [[18]], "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.", [[19]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[20]] "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 [[21]] 2nd [[22]]
    • Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
      • [[23]], "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"
      • [[24]], "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 [[25]], Noteduck's page [[26]]) 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.[27] 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.[28] "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.[29] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[30] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[31] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[32] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[33] (plus BuzzFeed News[34] and Bellingcat.[35] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[36] 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.[37] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[38] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[39] 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,[40] 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.[[41]] 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[[42]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[43]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[44]] 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 [[45]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[46]]. 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 [47][48]. 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 [49] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
      • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [50] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [51]. –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.[[52]] 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[53] 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,[54] 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 [[55]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[56]][[57]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[58]][[59]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[60]]. 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 [61][62]. 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.[63] 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.[64] 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"[65] 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.[66] 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 [[67]]. 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,[68][69][70][71][72][73] The New York Times and CNN,[74][75] National Review(!),[76] The Washington Post,[77] Newsweek,[78], The Washington Post and NBC,[79] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[80], Vox and The Daily Beast[81], the Los Angeles Times,[82] The Intercept,[83] the [[BBC],[84] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[85], BuzzFeed News,[86] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[87], Salon (website),[88] Forbes,[89] the Seattle Times,[90] Reports sans Frontieres,[91] New Republic and NBC News,[92] the Chicago Sun-Times[93] Politico and four other sources,[94] The Independent,[95] Daily Dot,[96][97][98] Reuters and Fox News(!)[99] Middle East Eye,[100] The Huffington Post,[101] Mother Jones,[102] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[103][104]Des Moines Register[105] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[106][107] and academic articles[108]. 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,[109] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[110] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[111][112][113][114][115] - Wall Street Journal here[116][117] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[118] 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.[119][120][121][122][123][124] 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[125][126][127][128][129][130] record of misinformation on climate change.

    On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[131] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[132][133], 7 March 2021,[134][135]

    For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[136][137][138] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[149] unwarranted deletion of material[150][151][152] especially misbehavior related to guns[153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[175][176][177][178] and whitewashing pages of firearms[179][180] 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.[181] 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.[182][183], [184][185], [186],[187],[188]

    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.[189] 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[190] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[191] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[192][193] 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.[194] 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[195] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021

    [196][197]

    July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[198] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210]

    June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[211][212]

    June 2020: Andy Ngo [213][214][215], Tucker Carlson[216], Burt Rutan[217]

    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[218] and Springee's[219] 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,[220] 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,[221] 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[222] in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence.[223] They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material.[224] Noteduck.
    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]
    A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages like Andy Ngo ("Springee" gets 600+ hits in the page archives), whoops strike through Charlie Kirk etc. I had it on the brain because of the point about TPUSA above - please don't cherry-pick. As I noted in the earlier dispute in April, based on samples of around ~1000 of your recent edits, at times 95%+ have related to conservative politics-related pages. I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying (talk) Noteduck (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting... let's see, how many edits do I have to the Charlie Kirk page... [[225]]. It looks like zero. I'm glad to see you have found other areas to focus on. Hopefully that will mean you no longer need your POLEMIC violating list nor will need to hound me or attack me. That would be great. Springee (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In response to your edit above[[226]], it is always a good idea to have your facts correct before lobbing criticisms. That is one of the issues with your POLEMIC grievance list. The fact that it violates POLEMIC is another. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support - a first time warning is customary for new editors, but in this case, it is overly gracious, especially considering Noteduck's comment just above Springee's which begins with "A gentle piece of advice to Springee", and their noting that 95% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics. Wow - that statement provides some pretty big evidence of HOUNDING. Why should any editor care, other than a POV pusher, if 100% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics? Those are the articles that need attention because of strong POV pushing, and left-leaning news media that dominates the echo chamber, not to mention an issue of noncompliance with RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; all of which means there is typically more work to do on those articles. We leave our biases at login. WP is a collaborative project - we don't "advise" other editors whose views oppose our own, especially veteran editors, where they should or shouldn't edit. Admins are the ones who make that decision when there's proven disruption, and right now the only disruption I'm seeing is coming from Noteduck. I commend Springee for exercising such patience. Atsme 💬 📧 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As you note I think that a close review of this ANI thread itself says a lot about the situation. I'm not sure if you meant that my proposal #2 was too mild but for better or worse that's sort of how I roll. Perhaps a one way interaction ban would have been a better proposal to give decisive relief to Springee and be a stronger "we really mean it" regarding battleground mentality towards another editor. But the warning remains as the alternative that I support. And Springee themself supported it and so they likely feel that it is sufficient, at least at this "give it a try" stage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what part of WP:HOUND would proscribe "a gentle piece of advice" or how it displays a battleground mentality. I offered what I see as sound advice based on my experience that it's much more fulfilling to create pages and make extensive original contributions to Wiki rather than have to spend lengthy amounts of time on talk pages, which is where contentious political articles often end up. Springee has certainly aimed to correct perceived errors and issues reminders of policy when they've seen fit, sometimes in quite strident terms, on my talk page (see User talk:Noteduck). I've been distracted and busy working on unrelated projects, but I've wiped the perceived breaches I noted, which made up a small portion of my sandbox, in a good-faith compliance with Springee's request.[227] I hadn't been alerted to the “timely manner” requirement prior to this ANI notice but I'm fine with interpreting it as one month and not leave material for policy complaints in my sandbox for longer than this. This is by no means a repudiation of any of these points. I think that while I don't agree at all with the basis of this WP:ANI notice I've engaged in a constructive and good-faith manner Noteduck (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first you heard about it? Why didn't you understand the problem when I warned you about POLEMIC on 10 April [[228]] and then again on 25 May [[229]]. It was only on 19 June that a 3rd warning finally resulted in you removing the content. Why did it take two months? Certainly you should have been aware of the timeliness requirement the first time I provided a POLEMIC link in the warning. Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee none of your posts on my page referred to the timely manner requirement. Noteduck (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose As someone who's often edited on American political topics where both Springee and Noteduck were participating I have never seen a dispute between them that I honestly felt was Noteduck's fault to begin with. This is not to say that Noteduck has been a perfect editor, but that I strongly oppose any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. For what it's worth, I would support the interaction ban above or even a one-way interaction ban against Springee: I think that there's a far better case to be made for Springee hounding Noteduck than vice-versa. Loki (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying this because you can think of any actual examples or just because you see this as a tactical move? Noteduck was warned about civility and edit warring at AE. Did other editors (myself included) start those problems? Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing says "battleground mentality" like speculating about "tactical moves". Please, try to assume good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 4 July 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 [230]. 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[231][232][233][234][235][236][237]. Even more: we sometimes prefer traditional, actually used names to official names[238][239]. 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[240]. 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 The Kingfisher was not a NoCal100 sockpuppet and that both accounts (The Kingfisher and UberVegan) were now in good standing.

    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[241]. 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???!!!"[242] 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[243] and absurdly called for a ban on me for bringing a content dispute to the BLP noticeboard[244]. Even in your unblock request, you called for a ban on me for successfully uncovering that UberVegan was your sock[245]. 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".[246] 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]
    When a picture speaks...
    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]
    That's rather a personal question, isn't it [247]? EEng 21:23, 3 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 [248], or the one before it [249], or the last three ANEWs [250] [251] [252] (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]

    The fact that the investigation was originally listed under the heading of 'Busted' reveals that the original intent was to maintain a trophy wall. While uncovering sockpuppets is admirable, maintaining a list like this on a user page discourages sincere attempts at WP:FRESHSTART, and for those SPI like this one that are more nuanced (the block evasion was due to a bad block), it crosses into incivility to keep a personal vanity list, especially as the editor involved has asked for their name to be removed and is otherwise in good standing. RandomGnome (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Snooganssnoogans: I'd just <!-- comment them out --> if I was you. nagualdesign 04:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly is comes across as this user treating the Wikipedia as an MMORPG, where "Identify 10 sockpuppets to earn a +10 Sword of Sock-Slaying" is a quest objective that they track their progress towards. It should be removed from the user-page. Zaathras (talk) 04:36, 4 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 [253] (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 [254] 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 [255]. 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.

    Comment Once in a while I think we should have a museum of boomerangs to deter people from opening threads like this. But then I think, Why stop them? It's so convenient when they walk themselves into the jail cell and practically beg us to slam the door shut on them. EEng 21:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [256]). Yet ironically he keeps adding sourced information himself, completely contradicting his previous (baseless) arguments. This is sheer WP:TENDENTIOUS.

    His edits;

    [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262]

    --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., [263], [264], [265], [266], [267]; skipping 7 days, they become bolder afterwards [268], [269]), 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 ([270], [271], [272]), and several other warnings (unconstructive editing, disruptive editing, copyright problem). A number of articles they created have been proposed for deletion ([273], [274], [275], [276]), 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 ([277], [278]), to which they responded by making unsourced changes without providing edit summaries ([279], [280], [281]). 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 ([282], [283], [284]), 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 [285] 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 ([286], [287]), and made improper use of a primary source ([288]). 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, [289], [290], [291], [292]). 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

    Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    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]
    @OlivierAuber: if Michel Bauwens was physically attacked that's horrible. Physically assaulting someone because of their views is never justifiable. However that's a largely a matter for the police. And to suggest someone in the AFD was responsible for physically attacking Michel Bauwens is beyond ridiculous. Please don't make such a ridiculous claim again. Especially since the number of participants is so small, it's very close if not over the personal attack line. Nil Einne (talk) 14:48, 2 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 [293], 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,[294][295] 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[296]). 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 [297]. 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 [298]. 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.

    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]

    Classic joke about this sort of thing: A little old lady gets on a bus and sits next to a young man. She looks at him for a few minutes and then asks "Young man, are you Jewish?". He replies "No lady, I am not Jewish." A while longer after continuing to look at him she again asks "Are you Jewish? Maybe on your mother's side?" Again the man replies "No lady, I am not Jewish". She keeps staring at him and again asks "Are you sure that you’re not Jewish? Maybe just a little? On your father's side?". Just out of frustration, the man replies "Yes, lady, I am Jewish!". She says "That's funny, you don’t look Jewish." --GRuban (talk) 16:59, 2 July 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[299] 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.

    Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits

    IP range blocked for one week by Ivanvector. Necctaylor (chat) 20:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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]

    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]
    [300][301][302][303][304] 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 discussion at WT:MOSNUM when that discussion was transferred from an article talk page at LC’s request [309]
    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]
    Yes, it's very tiring dealing with your disruption. You really ought to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting how perspective changes things: I see you being disruptive, starting a half dozen discussions on largely the same topic because you felt your edits were fine by WP:COMPUNITS. Ultimately I started a discussion at WT:MOSNUM after you refused to take the discussion there yourself. Upon doing that you again disruptively broke the conversation into about a dozen different sections for each article (so really, despite my attempt to consolidate what was, fundamentally, the exact same discussion into a single thread, you still forced it into a dozen separate discussions). After engaging with you (despite editors there encouraging me to bring you here because of your tendentious editing) for over a month, I stopped engaging when you starting flat out LYING about my position on things. After that, you started adding to the conversation to keep it from being archived, and after ignoring you (because I'd already made my objections quite clear) you decided to go back to editing against consensus because nobody would bother to engage you (WP:NOTSILENCE). Anyone who reads that entire discussion can see how comically low on sources your position is (less than 2% of even academic sources, which were the ones you preferred, use IEC units). I'm very sorry I didn't bring you here sooner to have this dealt with when it all started. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    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."[353]

    He's gotten multiple warning about the way he edits.[354] 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.[355][356][357]

    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..."[358] He put emphasis on "WILL."[359] — 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.[360] 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"[361] 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."[362]

    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.[363] 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]

    • Good, someone opened a report on this user. I wasn't even aware of how widespread the problems were, but was considering opening a report if the issues continued. Admins need to take seriously what GBFEE says above. Here MordvinEvgen claims they were "adding more secondary sources and removing the primary ones"; in fact they did the opposite. After I reverted them, they made these edits, with unsourced original research and editorializing like "it is clear that stereotypes, expectations, and other social parameters can qualitatively influence...learning disabilities"; they also, for example, added a whole paragraph at the bottom using primary sources to argue against secondary ones, which is clearly against WP:MEDRS. At User talk:MordvinEvgen, you can see they have been told to not do this sort of thing for months. You can also see there from their arguments that they seem to give excessive weight to their own POV and edit based on their own ideas or findings. WP:Competence is required; this user should not be editing this topic area if they're going to keep adding primary sources and arguing on that basis. Pre-existing primary sources (that are not merely being cited alongside secondary sources) don't need to stay; but secondary academic sources (books and review articles) carry far more WP:WEIGHT than individual studies, of which there are many and which can easily be cherry-picked. They also should be more honest in their edit summaries and avoid personal attacks. Crossroads -talk- 22:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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[364] 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[365] 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 [366], 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. [367], [368], [369], and this experiment gone wrong [370].

    I politely asked if he would not self-revert his deletion of my subsequent edits [371]. He declined. [372] 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 [373] 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]

    Proposed boomerang

    I would like to formally propose a boomerang block or ban for TomReagan90. I tried handling their related requests at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, when I and another editor pointed out a fundamental flaw in their argument they responded by removing our posts [374]. From what I can see if we’re talking about "Misleading edit summary, deceptive editing, battleground mentality, personal attacks” then the shoe fits TomReagan90 much better than it fits NorthBySouthBaranof (if it even fits at all). They’re also on the BLP noticeboard complaining about the supposed “clear breach of WP:BLP" over Ngo while at the same time using their user page to host disparaging comments e.g. "fringe publicity hungry hacks” about a living person comparable to Ngo. At a bare minimum they clearly don’t understand our BLP policy and refuse to learn about it, if that refusal to learn continues then the community really has no option other than to find them WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It was an edit conflict. I didn't intend to remove your post/s. Look: https://ibb.co/njswzxT That's the article that comes up for me, no mention of Ngo. That's where the confusion arises from. And my User Page is not an encyclopedia article. Standards are very different, I'm sure you'll agree. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    *WARNING: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO OPEN LINK ibb.co just tried to nuke me with malware and is on the known threats list of my institution. [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's::::You have identified the source that is being misrepresented. It's blindingly obvious that this editor is doing so, and, rather than using a lousy browser, has edited the output to misrepresent the source. Yes, calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation, and I am being very serious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC) Back]] (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    ibb.co is an image hosting site. I just checked the link out in a VM and it's fine. That being said, bad actors have used security flaws in the site to propagate malware, and it should probably be added to the blacklist here, for that reason. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You clearly accessed the right article [375] you just refused to read the whole thing. You knew what the first sentence was (it does not mention Ngo), but then you claimed that there was no mention of Ngo in the article which just isn’t true. WP:BLP applies to *all* pages on wikipedia, including user pages and talk pages. It is the exact same standard. This is looking highly disruptive at this point, either that or we have a WP:COMPETENCE situation in which case you still need to either shape up or ship out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'd try refreshing the page, turning off adblock, or even a different browser. For some reason, I couldn't scroll at all the first time I loaded the page. But the CJR source does say discredited provocateur Andy Ngo about 3/4 of the way through the article. Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, if you come across a reference that you can't access (be it a book you don't own, a paywall you can't afford to pay, a broken link, whatever), the appropriate course of action is never to simply remove the content. You should assume that the editor who wrote that section was able to read the source and use it appropriately. And in this case, they even quoted the relevant passage in the reference! –dlthewave ☎ 16:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But I am reading a completely different article! It has no mention of Ngo. None. The quote is not found. I can post you the screenshots of every single word. I can copy and paste the text of the whole article. It was not a mistake on my part, or your part, it obviously shows different content to different audiences (many news websites like the BBC, the Daily Mail (well, not really news is it...), etc, do the same thing, automatically, without you being aware of it. You can't assume that the content you have access to in the United States is identical across the globe. TomReagan90 (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here: https://imgur.com/Tz0QVAj You can see from my Search function, Andy Ngo does not appear. TomReagan90 (talk) 17:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a minor rendering discrepancy on the right side of that search box. It could be due to a video card issue, but it could also be due to the search box being edited. I'm not confident that it's the latter, but it remains a possibility.
    Regardless, Tom got the idea of posting screenshots from me, because I earlier posted a screenshot showing that the name certainly exists in the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it is edited. That same page has "ongoing" in the article twice that should have shown up in the search. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's edited. It's just that he has deselected the edit box and you cannot see the cursor. I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts (which is, let's face it, an even money bet these days) that's what's in the edit box is "Ngo[BLANK SPACE]", which would explain it not finding "ongoing"... but also explain it not finding the actual invocation of Andy Ngo in the article, as his name is followed not by a space but by a comma. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you're playing at. You just blanket reverted 15 of my edits. Each of which I gave a precise, policy-sourced justification for in the edit summary. And the article is supposed to be on 1RR. All I've received is accusations of bad faith, lying (I'm not seeing the same article, how many times do I have to say it), and reversion of every single one of my contributions. Fair enough, I'm done, you beat me. I give up. I've lost the will to live. Congrats. Improving the article was obviously of no concern to you, just hounding a presumed, assumed political enemy? (If only you knew my actual political allegiences! Never mind my nationality!). I certainly won't make the same mistake again. Ciao, Ciao! TomReagan90 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support BLP topic ban or block per CIR. Even after being told to read the source and where to find the quote, TomReagan90 is still playing dumb and denying that it's there. This editor has no business working on BLPs. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers buddy! (see screenshot above) WP:BITE TomReagan90 (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw the screenshot. I'm guessing it's a browser issue, what with the badozens of tabs you've got open, or maybe Chrome being, well, Chrome. Which is why I (politely) suggested refreshing and trying a different browser, but also told you where in the article the quotation was located so that you could actually read it. That you still haven't just, you know, read the article with your own eyes says you're not ready for editing contentious articles like this. Woodroar (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, when I accessed the article from a New Zealand VPN, Andy Ngo was still there. It was the first time I have ever looked, so not a cache issue. Not sure what to make of it, quite honestly. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block as not here to build an encyclopedia. TomReagan90's userpage is an anti-Wikipedia diatribe containing a glaring BLP violation, which is ironic since this editor claims to be upholding BLP policy, which applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support BLP topic ban or block, they appear to be either unable to read articles accurately, or willing to lie about it, neither thing should be involved in BLPs or Wikipedia in general really. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support block Their recent comments at WP:BLPN, WP:3RR, Talk:Andy Ngo, User:TomReagan90 and here at ANI show that TomReagan90 has no faith in our processes, is not here to build an encyclopedia, and is unwilling to even take the first step towards improvement by acknowledging the issues with their edits.
    The whole story about an article displaying differently for users in New Zealand sounds extremely fishy to me but even if we're generous enough to take it at face value, an editor who causes this much drama over a minor source access issue probably shouldn't be editing at all and certainly shouldn't be editing BLPs. –dlthewave ☎ 18:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any sanction against TomReagan90. This editor is plainly here to build an encyclopedia (he quotes Wikipedia policy, for heavens’ sake!) and is transparently honest. But he is an inexperienced editor who has wandered into a contentious article, and doesn’t instantly understand how Wikipedia works. Why would he? Wikipedia is a very odd place – which could do with a policy such as ‘assume good faith’. Oh, wait…. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be more inclined to believe that if TomReagan90 showed any inclination to listen to people when they are telling them that they are wrong about the policy. It mostly appears that they are attempting to use policy as a sword to get their way in a content dispute. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the difference between attempting to use policy as a sword to get their way in a content dispute and attempting to apply policy in a content dispute? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one thing to be a new editor and blunder into disputes. It's another to almost instantly open a dramaboard thread accusing a longtime, experienced editor of having a "battleground mentality" - when all that editor has done is ask them to justify and discuss their proposed changes to a contentious article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am aware, being a longtime, experienced editor does not make anyone immune from having a “battleground mentality”. I don’t edit American politics because I don’t know enough about it (that’s my excuse, and I’m sticking to it) but I have a very strong impression that almost everyone who edits American politics develops a battleground mentality after a while, and loses the ability to assume good faith in anyone who disagrees with them on any matter. And your comment makes it sound as if on Wikipedia, all editors are equal – but some are less equal than others.
    By the way, I see that the lede has recenly been changed to describe Andy Ngo as a journalist ‘per RFC’.
    Sweet6970 (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly that they don't seem to care about what the policy actually says or means, just that it might help them get the outcome they want. Seeing as several people have corrected them and they persist with the same incorrect assertions. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or perhaps they are just interpreting it in a way which is not informed by deep and lengthy experience of Wikipedia. After all, it is not obvious that on an article which has a 1RR restriction, it is permitted to revert 15 edits at once. I seem to remember reading some discussion somewhere about how unclear it is as to what actually constitutes one revert. I wouldn’t be confident that I would get it right. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody should need any rule to tell them not to tell lies. That is something that most people learn from their parents well before they become capable of editing any web site. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. He is not "transparently honest". He is very transparently dishonest. Quoting policy says nothing about anyone's honesty or otherwise, but misrepresenting sources does. The policy on assuming good faith doesn't mean that we accept editors who tell bare-faced lies. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What source is being misrepresented? If it’s the article about Nancy Cooper, then I tried it on my own browser (not sure if that’s the right word), and CtrlF found a reference to Andy Ngo buried deep in the article. When I tried it from TR’s link, it came up as nothing found. Having a lousy browser is not the same as being dishonest, and calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about TR's ibb.co and imgur.com links, those are just screenshots of the beginning of the article. CTRL+F (or anything, for that matter) isn't going to find "Ngo". In any case, if you're having trouble accessing a source, you shouldn't be using that as an excuse to revert editors who do, and you certainly shouldn't double down when your error is pointed out. And yes, the accusations against TomReagan91 are quite serious indeed, which is why sanctions have been proposed. –dlthewave ☎ 21:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) You have identified the source that is being misrepresented. It's blindingly obvious that this editor is doing so, and, rather than using a lousy browser, has edited the output to misrepresent the source. Yes, calling someone a liar is a very serious accusation, and I am being very serious. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not ‘blindingly obvious’ to me that the source has been deliberately misrepresented. It is perfectly possible that the so-called ‘misrepresentation’ was a technical mistake. And if the source is being obviously deliberately misrepresented, there is no point in doing so, because the supposed misrepresentation would easily be discovered. Your certainty that a lie has been told does not make sense. You need better evidence before you make such an accusation.
    It’s late where I am, so I probably won’t reply any more tonight. Thank you to all for your courtesy to me in this discussion.
    Sweet6970 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean this with all due respect, but the argument that "your evidence must be false, because no one would deceive this way as evidence would be so easily obtained" is sort of like a Joseph Heller pastiche. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would never attempt a pastiche on such a brilliant book. But I do sometimes feel that when I’m editing Wikipedia, I’m living in it. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose TR90 doesn't have a history that says they will be disruptive and it's understandable that a relatively new editor might make some missteps dealing with an article as controversial as the Andy Ngo article. That said, this should be a clear warning to tone it down, slow it down! It might be the case that the editors on "the other side" are biased POV pushing, policy ignoring jerks who just want to make very article... [blah blah blah]. But far more often, far more likely "the other side" is actually a good faith editor who thinks they are working to make the article more impartial and better overall. It's good when a controversial article like Ngo has opposing views so long as everyone makes a good faith effort to follow the rules like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and critically WP:CIVIL. TR90, I think the ball is in your court. Take it break (you decide how long), then start thinking about what you think is wrong with the article. I'm happy to talk about it. I think editors like TFD would be and TFD is a very sharp editor who hopefully would be willing to help you take the things your gut is telling you is wrong and turn it into "wiki-law" (not WP:WIKILAWYER) compatible argument that can be used at the talk page to get things done. Yeah, that means sometimes things go slowly but the alternative is no change. So I oppose with the understanding that this can't repeat. Springee (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-admin comment: I wondered why I had his user page on my Watchlist so I had a quick look through his contributions to remind myself and I rediscovered this trainwreck of an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Sarkar. I leave it to others to decide whether this, taken in conjunction with the disparaging comment about Sarkar on his User page, is indicative of an ongoing pattern of disruptive and non-neutral behaviour with respect to politically sensitive BLPs. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • NAC: I'm seeing some editors mention WP:CIR in the boomerang. The editor's clearly new; would them being assigned a mentor to teach them policies and provide feedback assuage concerns, or would this prove to be insufficient given other behavioral concerns? This could be coupled with a temporary topic-ban while the user develops skills in other topic areas. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor doesn't need to be taught about Wikipedia policies, but simply be taught not to tell lies. That is the job of parents in the first few years of life, not of mentors for adults. It is not Wikipedia's job to rectify such things. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NAC No, this is clearly someone trying to 'right a great wrong', and these type of editors abuse the noticeboards and processes to try to do so. Their userpage throws up a 'be kind they're new' template...followed by a couple tract rants against admnis with bolding and small blockquote templating that suggests they know exactly what they're doing here. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked from Andy Ngo for three months. TomReagan90's editing of Andy Ngo is highly tendentious. In this edit, they removed the statement that Columbia Journalism Review has described Ngo as a "discredited provocateur" and also removed the source, an article in Columbia Journalism Review which calls Andy Ngo a "discredited provocateur". Their edit summary falsely states that "source doesn't even mention Ngo". Yes it does, and the sentence containing the phrase "discredited provocateur" is even quoted in the footnote itself, if one reads it. Then they go on to put "by whom" templates[376][377] on statements supported by eight sources giving examples of "whom". And so on. I have blocked them from the article for three months. This is per my own discretion; it's not an attempt to close this discussion, in case people wish to come to a more comprehensive determination. Bishonen | tålk 21:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    Support siteban, or at the very least a ban from BLPs. If you're deliberately attempting to misrepresent sources to fit a POV, that should be grounds for an immediate ban on editing the topic areas you're doing that in at minimum and the whole site at most. This behaviour is revealing about his actual goals here, and cannot be explained as anything but wilful and malicious ignorance. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:25, 4 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:[378]. 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]

    Further information:

    Here are some relevant diffs of how Hijiri88 has been harassing me by following me to pages I have edited:

    [379] [380]

    Here are some attacks from Hijiri88:

    [381][382][383]

    And also, it should be noted that User:Ivanvector lifted a block on Hijiri88 with the warning "Hijiri, I'm sure you've been around the project long enough to realize you've already been given more chances than many editors get. I'm just going to say this bluntly: don't get in trouble again. Your next block is likely to be quite permanent." [384] User:Cullen328 had warned of such issues: "I believe it highly likely that, if this editor is unblocked, we will be dealing with another bitter conflict in short order." [385] User:Floquenbeam said: "Hijiri gets involved in conflict All. The. Time. It's his primary activity here." [386]

    TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:32, 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]
    The owner of all, Nice deflection, but it would be better to address your own behavior rather than pivoting to attacking Hijiri some more. You're in a hole here, you should stop digging. - MrOllie (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so what else needs to be addressed? I explained the Japan comment above. I apologize if it was taken as an attack. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to read Non-apology apology and rephrase that, for starters. - MrOllie (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Japan comment from me was not intended as an attack. I intended it as a factual addition to the discussion that was taking place. I apologize for that comment. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: what I wrote above was meant as a general observation. I've yet to actually review this matter closely enough to comment beyond that note. El_C 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was about to BOLDly NAC this but given this (for which I cannot find any good-faith reading whatsoever) and the growing amount of community time and energy that has been wasted on this, a block for TOA would be prudent just to let the rest of us catch our breath. -- a they/them | argue | contribs 12:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's the point, if you believe that I should be blocked then I would like to address whatever reasons there are for the block. Your two examples are from a couple of months ago and they were about a content dispute for the article Snopes, and after those discussions I did not continue to edit war or otherwise commit any policy violations there, I conceded that the consensus was not on my side. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the Japan comment I already explained above, I apologize if it was taken as an attack. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You said "I said that your username has 88 in it. Your interpretation of my statement is inaccurate", okay I will bite. What did you mean when you said that? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant that his username has 88 in it. There was no attempt at a hidden meaning, it was simply me noting the irony that someone who thinks that I have a bizarre interest in MjolnirPants' "NONAZIS" page diff would have a username with 88. I did not make any further comments about the 88. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 12:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The owner of all - Your comment here could've been easily interpreted (or misinterpreted) to say that you were trying to imply a hidden meaning or that you believe that their username also infers WP:NONAZIS. That's what I interpreted at first until I took a moment to understand that the comment may have just been an attempt at biting back. Let's avoid comments like this in the future, both for your sake and for the sake of the project. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was no joke when I collapsed the '88' comment and the ensuing 'discussion'. People don't like being associated with Nazis. TOA doesn't like it. Hijiri88 doesn't like it. I believe both were insinuating things they have no evidence for (or at least were not willing to address directly), though obviously the way in which TOA did it (the '88' comment and the remark about Japan) was much more inappropriate. Either way, the answer is to retract such insinuations and to move on. There are far more urgent reports sitting on this page and being obscured both by the previous thread and this one. So yes, someone please close this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, I am willing to retract the 88 comment, the Japan comment, and whatever other comment may have been offensive. The section was already closed so it would be inappropriate for me to edit the comments themselves to strike them, however that is my intent. I apologize for those comments and I concede that they were not conducive to discussion. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I think closing this before the WP:BOOMERANG has a chance to come around is premature, judging from this and the previous thread. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since the blocking policy states that blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive, I would like to know any reasons you think I should be blocked for so I can address those concerns. I understand that the 88 comment was unnecessary, but I also retracted it plus I didn't make any further comments about the 88, I was trying to stick to discussing the relevant issues. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 13:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The owner of all - Yes, it's correct that blocks should be applied in a preventative measure and not in a punitive measure. However, the blocking policy also states that blocks can be applied in order to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms" and can be applied to "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior." Your comments above (diff, diff, diff) seek to apologize for the earlier comments you made and express your wish to retract them after community review. As of right now, I don't believe that blocking you would be beneficial nor would it prevent current disruptive behavior that is in-progress and occurring at this moment in time. That obviously can change depending on how you continue to interact with other editors. I strongly caution you to avoid making additional comments like the ones that were discussed in order to avoid more negative interpretations (or misinterpretations). You may not be engaging disruptively right now, but the behavior is expected to not continue. If it does, you certainly can be held accountable and administrative action would be justified to prevent further disruption. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a boomerang is appropriate, and I think that boomerang should take the form of an indef block per WP:NONAZIS, as this editor has both admitted to right-wing POV pushing and opposed an RfA because the candidate regrets having had fascist sympathies. You've got to read the question from Cryptic and the RfA candidate's response there to understand exactly what TOA is saying here; that they would have supported the candidate were they still a fascist. Also, I'm not above pointing out that a surprisingly large number of editors who have a vendetta against me (see here and here for evidence of that in TOA's case; I could dig up more diffs if needed, including making a list of indeffed editor's who've tried to get me sanctioned if really necessary, though I suspect that many admins will be pretty familiar with this trend) end up indeffed per that essay I wrote, which seems, itself, to frequently be the root cause of said vendetta. I suppose it doesn't hurt that I also regularly defend the scholarly consensuses at talk pages like Talk:Fascism and Talk:Race and intelligence; consensuses which undermine racist and far-right beliefs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have avoided interacting with MjolnirPants ever since the Snopes dispute [although I have commented on my experiences with him on 2 other occasions when other editors posted to ANI about him] and I will continue to avoid interacting with him here. However I must clarify some things that he is saying about me. No, I do not support fascism. I have been very clear in my edits to specify that my beliefs are conservative/right-wing and not fascist. Also, my oppose to the RFA candidate was withdrawn, which some are failing to note. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 14:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I have avoided interacting with MjolnirPants The lie detector determined.... That was a lie. [393] [394] [395] [396].
      Oh, let's not forget when you asked for a brand new page on for you to try to get me sanctioned elsewhere. I mean, you're not even just forum shopping, you're literally trying to create new forums to shop. I don't think I've ever directly asked for an editor to be indeffed before, but in your case, with your fixation and your professed beliefs and reasons for being here, I don't think we have any place for you. As far as you withdrawing your opposition to the RfA: you said when withdrawing it that you still didn't even consider yourself neutral, let alone supportive. And I'd note that you also backtracked in the ANI thread where Jayron32 expressed interest in examining your behavior, only to then turn right back around and continue that behavior as evinced above. I'll admit that you've claimed you're not a fascist, but your initial opposition and even your withdrawal of that indicates otherwise. I'd also note that many fascists deny being fascist.
      I'm not going to keep arguing with you. I've said my piece, but I'll summarize for anyone here: TOA has repeatedly engaged in gaming the system, dishonesty and forum shopping in order to get an editor (me) known for his vocal opposition to neo-nazis and fascists sanctioned. You have expressed a favorable attitude towards fascism, and directly admitted to being here to push a politically right-wing agenda. All of these statements are facts, as evinced by the diffs I have provided in this comment and my last one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • For context: Cryptic's question and Vami IV's response. I think interpreting that as opposing a candidate because they regret having fascist sympathies is stretching it a little (seems to me TOA is rather thinking of the candidate regretting supporting Trump). The idea that it is OK to oppose NPOV because it is biased to the left (it probably is), however, betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of what NPOV really is and how it works. Still, calling for a block per WP:NONAZIS based on that is effectively turning that essay into an excuse to block each and any self-professed conservative or right-wing editor. Block them for trolling, for hounding, for tendentious editing (if you can show that to be the case), I don't know, but not for supposedly being a Nazi. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not a stretch at all. The candidate never claimed to have become a liberal, or even a centrist. In fact, opposition to fascism and racism is something that once transcended political bounds. There's nothing in that answer which suggested that the candidate was no longer conservative, only that the candidate was no longer fascist. All the "clarification" TOA made after their initial oppose (note their comments upon "withdrawing" their oppose indicating that they still oppose the candidate, but won't push the issue) was done in the context of people reading their oppose the same way I did and asking TOA to expound on it. Also note that TOA backpedaled just as quickly at one of the ANI threads I linked above, only to come right back later with the same efforts. Given that context, they have both a history of lying in the face of pushback and motivation to lie in the face of pushback there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't oppose the NPOV policy, in fact I agree with it. When I say "input" I don't mean adding biased content to articles. Rather, I mean that in discussions such as on the talk pages of articles, there should be participation from right wing and conservative editors (for articles that are subject to left/right political bias). Unfortunately sometimes the participation is with the left wing on one side, and the left wing's perception of the right on the other side (as opposed to actual right wing beliefs). TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The village pump proposal linked by MjolnirPants diff is not about MjolnirPants specifically. It can be taken at face value, it is about incivility in general. I even cited an instance of incivility that did not involve MjolnirPants at all. (Also, please refrain from moving my comment to suggest that it is a reply to MjolnirPants. I am avoiding interacting with him.) TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, once again, I did not violate FORUMSHOP. I reported edit warring to 3RRN/ANEW, then after that report was already made, there were incivil comments which I then reported to ANI. WP:FORUMSHOP says: "Where multiple issues do exist, then the raising of the individual issues on the correct pages may be reasonable". And there has been no "repeatedly", I have not done anything similar to FORUMSHOP since that incident. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The village pump proposal ... is not about MjolnirPants[397][398] I am avoiding interacting with [MjolnirPants][399][400] I did not violate FORUMSHOP[401][402][403] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TOA, we're not going to preemptively vacate a discussion of your editing before it has even been opened. Moreover, editors are allowed to request sanctions against other editors for general disruptive behavior, not just for slights against them personally. I would suggest that you let this thread peter out, and only participate further at ANI if and when someone actually makes a proposal to restrict your editing privileges (and even then, just to quickly give your side of the story and then bow out). signed, Rosguill talk 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The owner of all: Pinging me in the "further info" you recently added at the top of this thread was not in your best interests. I saw this thread earlier, shook my head at what a timesink it was, and how likely it was to boomerang, and moved on. But if you are going to namedrop me and make it look like I somehow support your activities here, you should know that my gut instinct was to page block you from ANI for, I don't know, 3 months or something. My quick current estimate of the level of responsibility for the recent interactions between the 3 of you being so unproductive: MP 5%, H88 15%, you 80%. Go work on an article or something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of my editing has indeed been to articles and to related discussions such as AfDs. I only added the further info section to provide evidence that Hijiri88 is failing to AGF regarding my edits as well as evidence that other editors have had issue with him. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 16:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If TOA responds to this post, then I support a block. Otherwise close this and let's move on. Levivich 17:23, 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.

    User gaming the system

    So the AANES was recently extended protected to stop editors from flooding the page. A recent editor BerkBerk68 who clearly has Turkish nationalist reason for editing Wikipedia, has been edit warring extensively on the page, just see history. He willing fully doesn't understand edit warring the AANES has arbitrary sanctions of one revert per 24 hours. He has been notified about this twice, the page was recently extended protected indef and BerkBerk68 proceeded to game the system, see immediately after page protection he starts making a flood of edits on his user-page. Des Vallee (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not personally a nationalist. I am not fully Turkish either. As I mentioned in my old page, I have Zaza/Kurdish ancestry. ( my old page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BerkBerk68&oldid=1030586534 ) however, in Des Vallee's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Des_Vallee), there are ideological userboxes related to the topic. such as "This user is a libertarian socialist." or "This user supports Democratic Confederalism in a free Kurdistan." (I don't oppose his ideologies, I am just answering.) So, it is not me who is moving with ideologies.

    in terms of one revert per 24 hours rule, I violated it only once (which is already reported to Administrators) when I was not sure about the system. When I understood the system, I never violated any rules. BerkBerk68 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    BerkBerk68 The whole Zaza Kurdish thing is strange and is completely unrelated to the topic. It's not userboxes, userboxes are completely fine it's the general way you edit war, add content and game the system, see 1 and 2. You can't re-add content unless you have consensus even if the 24 hour time period ends, you are not allowed to have a firm against consensus on the talk, and keep re-adding content, it's not allowed, see the edit warring policies and the revert rule. Des Vallee (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Des Vallee Yeah, I see. after this stage I won't edit the page and will discuss at talk page. However, in case of I don't get any answer in 24 hours, I guess I have rights to count it as "didn't answer" and editing. Also I mentioned my Zaza Kurdish ancestry to prove that I am not moving with a specific ethnicity's nationalism. However, I couldn't understand what exactly did you mean by "strange". BerkBerk68 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C Okay. How can I take it back? how much edits do I need to make again (with a correct way) or is it possible for me to take the pass again in future? BerkBerk68 (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BerkBerk68, you can't take it back. You'll have to to attain the WP:500-30 tenure again, and this time, do so legitimately. Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out to you that you're fast approaching a broad WP:KURDS/WP:SCW topic ban. El_C 13:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow, but persistent, vandalism

    I noticed that Cordyceps-Zombie, an account active since 2016, recently vandalised a political party article here. They also created this disruptive redirect which I've nominated for CSD. Given how long they've been here, I initially thought it was a hacked account. However, looking at their talk page, they are a long term vandal who occasionally gets vandalism warnings, but never enough for an immediate block. This user strikes me as someone who is WP:NOTHERE and wants to WP:GAME the system by dancing on the line rather than overtly crossing it. — Czello 15:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass cross-wiki creation of nonsense pages by anons and registered users

    Hi, I was initally alerted to this at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Long-term_addition_of_nonsense_pages. I then looked through Wikipedia and noticed this rubbish was on dozens of pages here. I request an admin delete them all.
    List of pages:

    aeschylus (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Remnants of Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 180. DMacks (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    points at WP:G3. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I nuked these (and from them a few others, based on BEANS). Is there a way to include userspace .js in Special:Search or other content-search tools? DMacks (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DMacks, you can search for .js pages in userspace from this search settings. Expanding the advanced search option below the search bar gives several options to narrow down the search. For example, adding username to "Subpages of this page" field will list all .js pages of that user. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird...I had been using the All namespaces checkbox along with insource: and .js pages that I knew had the string were not coming up. DMacks (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved (possibly) block by Bbb23

    I just got pinged to User talk:2601:5C2:300:62E:2D79:1C9F:332B:6B05 who is objecting to being blocked for a week after what appears to be a mild edit-war with Bbb23 on Sara Ganim. The point of contention is whether it is appropriate to mention her husband Davniel Cevallos in the infobox. There is a New York Times source here. However, the IP didn't cite this directly in the article, so there are possible BLP issues, and it's possible the IP should have done this (even a bare URL with a ref tag would do). However, these are easily resolved by other editors. The list of edit-warring exemptions says "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." In any case, as far as I can make out, Bbb23 should not be doing the blocking here as they are clearly WP:INVOLVED.

    I've got to nip out to the shops in a minute, and I fear if I took direct action, the fire of Hades would rain down on my head if I wasn't around to explain myself more fully. So I'm bringing it for review here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is sillily bureaucratic, but in the interest of avoiding an even sillier discussion, I've unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector Another user -- not this user! -- is the one who was messing with the articles and has been blocked indefinitely. Otherwise, I'm going to link the Cevallos and Ganim pages, Bbb23. Please be constructive or instructive (but not destructive) in allowing that link to occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c2:300:62e:2d79:1c9f:332b:6b05 (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)‎[reply]
    • I added the spouse info to the Ganim infobox, sourced to the NYT. That said, the way the Cevallos AfD is going (which I agreed with), I'll probably have to delink his name from the Ganim article in short order.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if Cevallos' page gets deleted (which is a baroque topic at best for insomniacs), it is still relevant on Ganim's page to mention her spouse, a CNN legal analyst no less, by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c2:300:62e:2d79:1c9f:332b:6b05 (talk)

    Previously blocked user making weak edits

    BLOCKED
    (non-admin closure) Probecks temporarily blocked for a week by The Blade of the Northern Lights for disruptive editing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Repeatedly making weak/non-improved edits (e.g. replacing commas with dashes) and making negative comments towards editors (calling me a "hateful individual" in response to reverting his/her edits). This user was blocked from editing last month as the result of personally attacking or harassing an editor. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits are not weak. Just because I am not adding sources doesn't mean I am not making the articles better by correcting punctuation and sentence structure by creating active rather than passive voice and adding much-needed distance. These articles read in large part as written by fan club members. I am not although I am listening to the material and enjoying it. Placing a positive change on these articles helps me feel like I am making a contribution. I am sorry if that offends certain editors who have nothing better to do but wreck my efforts. Maybe someone with "devil" in their user name shouldn't be allowed to do that. we have enough devils in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Probecks (talk • contribs) 23:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking for a week, if it resumes this'll be an indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attack by Huji

    User:Huji called me an LTA here, and I consider that a serious personal attack. LTAs are blocked and locked, not granted admin bit and access to VRTS. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It would only be a touch more believable if they actually named which LTA you were supposed to be and what evidence they had. As it stands, it is frivolous. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to wait for User:Huji to respond here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An LTA on fawiki may be granted admin rights in another wiki.
    4nn1l2's block log on fawiki should be self explanatory. I can also share his main account ——— which is indef blocked ——— with you but I would do it by email (let me know which one of you wants to receive that email); that account's name matches his real life name and despite him being an LTA, I still prefer not to make that information public here. huji—TALK 12:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful with that block log as there are many unblocks their too. They block users over petty things such as using the word "ridiculous", using the English term "Whac-A-Mole", and now raising a Palestinian flag on the userpage (which is why we are here on Jimbo's talkpage).
    If I'm an LTA as you claim, block me as soon as possible on fawiki and we solve this over there. Talk the talk, walk the walk.
    During my early days as a Wikipedian ten years ago, I made a mistake creating some socks, and got blocked for 6 months under the username User:Mondephile and after my block expired and I was in good standing, I made a clean start. Now, this user wants to shame me for my clean start and what I did over ten years ago as a teenager. Starting from 2020, they started blocking my current account over the most frivolous things. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @HighInBC: I respectfully oppose this closure. I don't expect any actions against Huji, but I do expect the claim be taken back. Otherwise, they feel more confident to label me as an LTA from now on. We have been interacting for over 10 years almost every week, and now they call me an LTA for the first time here on enwiki where people are unaware of the fawiki's atmosphere (a rather small wiki), just because I have dared to inform Jimmy Wales how terribly fawiki is managed. The whole story is much more complicated. I own up to my past mistakes including creating socks (mostly innocuous and out of naivety) dating back to a decade ago, but I don't accept people calling me an "LTA". How can a "LTA" contribute more than 60K edits, make 20 featured/good articles/lists, and become the first winner in an ArbCom election (fa:ویکی‌پدیا:انتخابات هیئت نظارت/دور هفتم/نتایج)? As far as I know, LTAs are blocked and even locked immediately. Huji has the necessary tools to block me there. Why doesn't they act appropriately? I am also an admin on Commons and a VRT agent on Commons, fawiki, and enwiki.

    Regarding my recent blocks, some of them have been reversed by other admins and some of them have been cancelled by the fawiki arbcom. One admin has been banned from taking any admin actions against me indefinitely and I have opened another case about my latest block (fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تابلوی اعلانات هیئت نظارت/دوره یازدهم/Samuel T.Owen (چهارم)) in which I anticipate the blocking admin be admonished or de-sysoped. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay I have removed the closure. Good luck. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:104.32.200.138

    This IP editor persistently attempts to change the nationality of Pyrrhus of Epirus from Greek to Illyrian despite the article not supporting it and other editors such as User:Tpdwkouaa having reverted their edits. Temporary page block for this editor requested. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Here, [404] here, [405] here, [406] and here [407] [408]. Johnnyconnorabc (talk) 08:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP editor has not continued since 08:20 on 3 July. If they do so a block might be considered. This looks to be standard nationalist edit warring (arguing whether some famous person was Greek or Illyrian, without providing any actual sources). The IP is doing this kind of thing across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot cyberbot is malfunctioning in Russo-Ukrainian War

    cyberbot is endlessly spamming the history with "changes" about adding a deletion discussion flag to the article. Sorry if this is the wrong place to report it, never seen this type of thing happen before. Jcmcc (Talk) 10:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    courtesy pinging bot operator cyberpower678 did I do this right?   melecie   t 10:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    At least it seems to have stopped. We should keep an eye on it until we know it has been addressed. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 10:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This bug has happened before, last time at Spring_Championship_of_Online_Poker. Izno blocked it from the page to stop it that time. I wonder what causes it, and hope Cyberpower can shed some light. firefly ( t · c ) 11:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It might have been caused by this bit of IP vandalism, which deleted half the AfD template but left some of the comments intact. When the bot re-added the template you were then left with 1 1/2 AfD templates on the page. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch editor 91, I agree that may be the cause. Now that anyone reading this page knows how to cause this it should be fixed. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent promotional disruption/vandalism at Watpracharangsan School

    Despite page protection and warnings, see continued disruption today be Krisay90 (talk · contribs). 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SethRuebens

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

    SethRuebens is a single-purpose account whose only purpose is adding his personal accusation of plagiarism to Britannia (TV series).

    SethRuebens began editing in December, 2019. All of his edits are about his insistence that Britannia (TV series) plagiarized his work. The sources he provides fail WP:RS (see related discussions at Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Britannia (TV series), and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 326#BGlobal Quoting Robin Mukherjee, as well Talk:Britannia (TV series)). SethRuebens was blocked 31 hours 24 Jul 20 for disruptive editing, blocked indefinitely from editing the article or its talk page on 31 Jul 20, then blocked for sockpuppetry 3 Aug 20. On 4 Mar 21, he was unblocked after an appeal to ArbCom (with a restrictions against editing the article).

    SethRuebens resumed editing 8 Jun 21 at Talk:Britannia (TV series), posting the same arguments multiple editors rejected last year. He continued the arguments at Talk:Britannia (TV series) and RSN[409] this week, as well as disputing with Slatersteven on User talk:SethRuebens.

    SethRuebens, who admits to being Ben Krushkoff, the person making the accusations of plagiarism, has made one minor constructive edit to Wikipedia not related to Brittania. SethRuebens is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and is solely interested in promoting his claims against the show's creators. His tendentious editing has used up many hours of multiple editors' time as they try to explain WP:RS and why his personal websites don't suffice to support adding a criminal accusation against other people to an article. I propose a site ban for SethRuebens.

    Note: I have set up news alerts for both the TV show and Ben Krushkoff; if reliable sources give coverage to the plagiarism claims, I'll add it to the article myself. Schazjmd (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support ban as timesink editor using Wikipedia to further an external dispute. Only today they claimed here that Just as there are references to sources who are reporting my certainty that my work was taken and used without my permission (BGlobal, Industrial Scripts and others). The Industrial Scripts claim relates to a single social media post which says Is this "arguably the biggest case of intellectual property (IP) fraud in the history of television"? Ben Krushkoff thinks so.... and links to one of SethRuebens' websites without taking any stance on whether the posed question is true or false. FDW777 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support action. If this person believes as they do, then they need to pursue that in the proper forum, which is not Wikipedia. They don't really seem to be here for any other purpose. If they are interested in editing in other areas, a complete topic ban from this matter might suffice, but otherwise a NOTHERE block may be needed. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban from Brittania and its talk page, and from discussion of that TV show anywhere, broadly construed. If multiple reliable sources report on what this editor is obsessed with, then other editors can add it to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban (as an involved editor) I have no idea what Arbcom thought when they unblocked a pure SPA whose only reason to be here is to push a (BLP busting) agenda, and it would be nice if we could see the reasoning. Thus I am unsure just a TBAN is any good, as they are not here to do anything but fight for this claim to be added (so will in effect be a full ban anyway, so why not give them one?). They have refused to listen, when policy has been explained to them, and have exhibited a total battleground mentality. In fact, they have breached (as far as I can see) a number of policies. All to try and get us to include a claim, that no significant RS has deemed note-worthy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support siteban. We've already had one Bogdanov Affair; we do not need another. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 09:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User vandalizing article on Bauhaus band

    Woovee repeatedly removes information from the article on Bauhaus (band) on the grounds that it's insulting to bands he likes and because the article is written by biased Bauhaus fans, even though everything is cited and contains multiple points of view on a notable aspect of the band (how much influence they had on what was later considered goth when it's cited that the band is often considered the first goth band). He claims this is turning the article into an "essay on goth" when it's one short paragraph. This has been discussed to death on the talk page, and third parties have been brought in, and the consensus was reached that information was appropriate. Woovee had even conceded and seems to have laid low for a while hoping the consensus would have been forgotten and now has sprung back up again to remove cited information on the same grounds as before. First as though the conversation has never occurred, then denying consensus had been reached. There are issues with the article that I agree with Woovee on and would be happy to see him address them (too many long lists name-dropping every band who ever mentioned Bauhaus, too many quotes for the sake of including quotes) but this one paragraph is relevant and he seems to want it removed because he subjectively sees it as insulting bands he likes by "blaming" them for goth.Lynchenberg (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Clerical note: I have full-protected the article for one day. You are both well in excess of 3RR, but I do not want to stifle any discussion here. --Chris (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the multiple reverts. Anyway, I'm going to leave this discussion be and let you guys sort it out. I've made my case multiple times already and I tend to be long-winded. So, I think it's better if neutral outsiders (preferably ones with no interest in this music) handle this. I'm also confident that upon reviewing the edit history, sources, and talk page, the situation will speak for itself. It's my opinion that if I engage in further discussion, Woovee will just continue falling back on accusations of me being some kind of Bauhaus super-fan with a beef against The Cure. That's not the case and in my opinion neutral parties will see that. Lynchenberg (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Lynchenberg and Woovee have been edited warring aggressively. Both are hereby warned that edit warring is a blockable offense, so stop it. Neither are using the talk page which hasn't been edited for three weeks. Lynchenberg, you are accusing Woovee of vandalism but Wikipedia has a narrow definition of vandalism and Woovee's edits do not constitute vandalism. Not even close. So, Lynchenberg, you are warned to stop making false accusations of vandalism. This is a content dispute, pure and simple, and ANI does not resolve content disputes and administrators have no special powers to adjudicate them. We do have the power to block edit warriors and genre warriors, though. Use the talk page, avoid copy pasting lengthy edit summaries, and hammer out consensus. There are various forms of dispute resolution available, but edit warring is an unacceptable tactic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The talk page hasn't been used for three weeks but we had this same discussion over six months ago instead of edit warring and you can see the results on the talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bauhaus_(band)#Musical_style_and_influences It's pretty clear how it went and the only response Woovee had to offer was to bully me and others about supposedly being obsessive Bauhaus fanboys on a holy war to denigrate The Cure by turning Wikipedia into a badly written blog post. The edit warring did not start until he conceded (reluctantly and rudely) six months ago, then popped back up today to make the same edits as though nothing happened. In this situation, what else can I do but revert his edits and report him? If I make another thread on the talk page, it will just be ignored outright, or if he's pressured into responding by other people addressing it there (which is what happened six months ago) the actual content of what I'm saying will be ignored and dismissed with the same "You just hate The Cure, you obsessive Bauhaus fanboy" rhetoric, or he'll concede for half-a-year then make these same edits again hoping we'll forget about this. If you're telling me to no longer revert his edits, fine, I'll stop. I'll also just unwatch the Bauhaus page and move on as I've already spent way too much time arguing my case over-and-over and a consensus was reached with other users. If administration can't uphold that consensus then I can't do anything more. And despite being "Cure detracting Bauhaus fanboy hijacker" I don't care enough about the band to try. Haven't listened to them in years at this point, I just wanted to improve their article. I do still listen to The Cure though. Lynchenberg (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Problematic COI editing at Ashland University

    Can an administrator please take a look at the recent editing history and Talk page discussion of Ashland University? There is a legitimate discussion in Talk about whether the university should be labeled as a "Christian" university in the lede sentence. The problem is that the editor who first edited the article to remove that adjective is a paid by the university and continued to edit the article while the discussion has been ongoing and a loose consensus (only a few editors have participated) has formed in favor of keeping this adjective in the lede sentence. This same editor has also looked up my work e-mail address - it's not hard to find but it's not the e-mail I address I have connected to Wikipedia's e-mail function - and sent me a few pointed messages including one that was sent after I explicitly asked him to only contact me in my User Talk page. And now a relatively new single-purpose editor has begun editing the article to remove this adjective with no discussion in Talk or even an edit summary (in addition to several recent edits made by unregistered editors, including several using IP addresses owned by the university, and a few edits made by new editors who only edited this article once or twice).

    Semi-protection of the article may be appropriate. And it would also be helpful if an administrator could have a word with these editors. It's totally fine for people who work for the university to ask questions and make suggestions in the article's Talk page. It's even fine, in my opinion, for them to make uncontroversial edits and to disagree with other editors in the article's Talk page or other Talk pages. It is not acceptable for them to edit war with other editors, against consensus, to ensure that the article conforms with their employer's preferred public image. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've applied ECP to the article for 2 weeks due to the extensive IP-hopping and general lack of communication. Hopefully that is enough time to establish a consensus on the talk page. – bradv🍁 02:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have warned any paid editors to comply with policy on the article talk page, and explained the importance of independent sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (3rd nomination)

    Moglix has been deleted multiple times since 2016. It has recently been nominated (once again) for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (3rd nomination).

    To give a background on how this specific iteration got to the deletion nomination, Hayema K made the page for Moglix in the article space. Celestina007 moved the article to the draft space, telling [410] the article's re-creator that the article did not match the verifiability standards. Hayema K proceded to add sources, remove the AfC tag, and move the draft into the mainspace without going through the AfC process. After seeing the article in the mainspace DJRSD tagged the article with a potential undisclosed paid editing notice and nominated the article for deletion.

    Several editors, including me, participated in that nomination discussion. Today, Hayema K made a !vote for keep, but also pinged three specific editors who had participated in prior discussions on the topic: Cunard, David in DC, and CNMall41. Hayema K stated that the aforementioned editors may want to give their opinions here as well.

    It's pretty clear why only three editors were picked from prior discussions—the pinged editors had !voted to keep the page in previous deletion discussions, and were the only three to !vote in favor of keep in the most recent deletion discussion:

    In fact, these three were the only ones who !voted for keep in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination).

    There were four editors that commented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) that !voted for delete/speedy delete. Hayema K has not pinged any such editors.

    From the above, the actions above Hayema K show a clear intent to stack the discussion in their favor, by selecting only editors whose stance on the issue is known and lean keep. In my view, this shows that Hayema K is currently here to WP:WIN, rather than to build an encyclopedia.

    In light of the above, I propose that Hayema K be:

    1. Topic banned from deletion, broadly construed, for a period of 1 year and
    2. required to submit articles they create through Articles for Creation for review, until the user becomes extended-confirmed.

    — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging other editors from previous discussions is not canvassing. However, being that Hayema K pinged only those they sought favor with, I would agree with Mikehawk10 and support the recommendation on this. There is also a strong smell of WP:COI and possibly WP:PAID with Hayema K. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calm down 1. Topic-banning a brand new user from everything to do with page deletion over a single questionable edit would be an overreaction. Don't WP:BITE and so on. 2. All COI editors are required to go through AfC by default so we just need to make this new user aware of that existing requirement (as well as the requirement to disclose their COI). There's no need for any tailor-made sanctions at this time IMO; instead, an attempt to educate the user should be made and only if that fails should we be looking into other options. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by User:Cladeal832

    On June 27, Cladeal832 made a bold edit at Ian Fleming and over the next 24 hours was reverted a total of 5 times by 3 editors (me, Nikkimaria ([411]), and Black Kite ([412]). Cladeal832 was asked multiple times to discuss and WP:BRD and WP:3RR were mentioned.

    On July 2, Cladeal832 does the same thing and I revert them thrice ([413], [414], [415]). I open a discussion on the talk page. They comment and then self-revert.

    Instead, they proceed to comment on my user page. I found this passive aggressive and reverted them. On the third revert, I ask them to stop and threaten them with ANI. After that warning, they comment again. I revert. They comment again. I revert. They have made a total of 13 edits to my talk page. Cladeal832 has been editing since 2006. Can someone please address this disruptive behavior. ~ HAL333 04:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I read how Ian Fleming one-time fiancée later married the man who invented Velcro and added it the article. It was deleted. This user is being inaccurate in that my edits were not just reverting to what I had previously edited since agreed not to add information that this might be out of the scope of the article. The user kept removing citations stating he/she was unsure if Der Spiegel [among the largest news outlet in Europe] and IanFleming.com [used as citation within this article yet this user only deleted mine] were or weren't reliable sources. Whatever way this user found my messages [and I apologize since I went out of way to neutral in my language in accordance with guidelines[416]], all I tried was to have a civil discussion to improved the article, that the user requested again[417] and was just ignored[418] or threatened[419] and again[420]. I sincerely believed this user was unaware these were reliable sources and would stop once it was pointed out to them, and after they continued to revert and remove additional citations [again despite other parts of the article using the same sourcing[421]], I just tried to engage in civil discussion and was ignored and threatened. The solution would simply be for this user to answer the question I posed to them here[422]. Also there's not limit on how many edits on a Talk Page and most of it was just this user deleting it so I had to just asking them about how to improve the article. I can longwinded and also I'm a poor speller and make syntax errors and tried to correct them so unsure how many times I edited his/her talk page really matters.Cladeal832 (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Der Spiegel is an RS - I'm not so sure about the other. But if you wanted to discuss this, you should have done so at Talk:Ian Fleming. We're not here to discuss content but your conduct. ~ HAL333 05:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your behavior has been mean and awful to me and totally needless. Because I try to compensate for my LD by correcting my spelling and grammar so I edited my message and that's means it's just I get insulted by being referred to as spam.[423] The other source cited is Ian Fleming Publications since as I pointed out is already cited on several article including the one you removed it from. All you had to say was I prefer to discuss this on Ian Fleming page as I asked if you would like, but you just came here to label it harassments or spam rather than just simply engage which you are still unwilling to do since what difference does it make on your Talk Page or not. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The way to avoid being accused of edit warring is to not do edits within 24-hours so of course I waited since I just believed the edit would stand when the rational for their removal, unsure if they were reliable sources, was shown to be wrong. I didn't expect to just be ignored by this user. I explained why I commented on this user talk page and would have been fine having the discussion on Ian Fleming Talk Page if requested, but that message was deleted[424] so unsure what that is accused of upsetting this user. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:3RR, it doesn't matter whether you are reverting the "same or different material". You've been editing for 15 years and have made over 11,000 edits and aren't familiar with basic Wikipedia policies? I find that hard to believe. And you don't need to know policy to realize that repeatedly commenting on a user page despite being reverted and asked to stop is harassment. ~ HAL333 05:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be made clear that in the user's first and second edits ([425], [426]) the information was unsourced, and it wasn't until the third edit ([427]) that they added a source. From this edit on, they stopped adding the extra info but kept on adding the source to the already-sourced info that was already there. —El Millo (talk) 05:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cladeal832 if someone keeps reverting your comments on their talk page it is not appropriate to keep posting there. Continuing to do this can result in a block for edit warring or harassment. A user removing a notice is taken as evidence that they have seen it. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In 11,000 edits, nobody has ever reverted a message even once. It was especially weird to me since this user asked for a discussion repeatedly. I did look it up afterwards and didn't put back the same message, but only tried to engaged since the user was wrong about the stated rational for removing the edits. I was fine going over the Talk Page for the Ian Fleming article if they so wished. I don't get how it's harassment when the user repeatedly requested we discuss it and when I did, violated the civility policy by calling my response to his/her request as just calling me Spam [428] I don't believe you are being fair when this user asked for discussion, nothing I said was a personal attack or insult in my message [what does it matter it I edit my message for spelling and grammar mistakes since LD people are allowed on Wikipedia unless the rules have changed] and I read the policy and just requested he/she stop reverted my edits of reliable sources which are more direct than the ones currently cited. Why does this user get to ignore he/she didn't know what Der Spiegel is and didn't bother to look it up before stating they were reliable. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am amazed in 11k edits this is the first time you have encountered this. Just today I had a talk page message of mine removed by a user with a snotty edit summary.
    Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings says that this is allowed, it also states that returning messages that have been removed are not exempt from 3RR. You are of course welcome to continue whatever discourse on article talk pages but if a user does not want you on their user talk page then there is not much you can do about it.
    At this point it is not harassment but if it continues it will rise to that level. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazed or not, nobody is that rude as what happened today just to avoid admitting they didn't know what was and wasn't an accurate source [still won't]. This isn't a particular shy user and had plenty to tell me in the edit summaries so unsure why he/she wouldn't respond which is why kept trying to get this over and done with, but that's on them and me I guess. I went to discuss on the article's talk page [unsure why he/she couldn't have just made that simple request instead of running over here]. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow-up question, if this user continues to refuse to discuss, can I add the citations back.Cladeal832 (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Over 15 years, 11,000 edits: 750 to talk, 192 to user talk, 4 blocks (2 for edit warring). I can see a correlation between increases in your activity levels and either edit warring complaints on your user talk page (e.g. in 2019) or blocks (e.g. 2016). From this I conclude you revert too much and use talk pages not enough (which explains your unfamiliarity with them). I would say next time you are reverted to follow WP:BRD, but I can see people have been telling you that for years. :-/ Levivich 06:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well your conclusion is wrong. Mostly fairly minor edits like hyperlinks or typos corrections so unsure why you need to go to Talk Page for those. Any editors can be mistaken on what is and isn't a reliable source, but most of time they get it within the edit summaries [429] and are not as stubborn as this user. I barely ever revert, but others revert me. I point out the other users also got blocked to ruin your mean-spirited knock on me. Anybody, this is about what happened today rather you just judging me on prior acts and dismissing it. Insults and unhelpful criticism aside, I reverted twice today so calm down with the sanctimony on not knowing the policy and when I went to Talk Page [avoiding any personal attack and solely discussing on how to improve the article in question], it was called harassment. I get I have 11,000, but does every single comment really need to mention it again and again. What does it matter. I think one reason this user was keen on only doing this discussion at the Ian Fleming talk page rather than just discussing his or her mistake on reliable sourcing is to turn it into a consensus issue. Except they didn't cite the reason for removal as being a personal preference, but removal on a non-reliable source which was inaccurate and doesn't fall under the guidelines for a need of consensus. I get his or her motives are immaterial since they may delete and ignore whatever they like on their own Talk Page as you have already pointed out and just have to accept it no matter how bizarre.Cladeal832 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP commented on my talk page and outed another editor

    I was advised by Spencer at AIV that I should bring this here. And IP editor recently posted on my talk page, and that of Horse Eye's Back containing information that would reasonably be construed to constitute outing. The edits have been suppressed by oversighters, but the IP remains unblocked. I'm wondering if it would be possible to temporarily block the IP/64 in order to ensure that this information doesn't pop back on to the wiki in the coming days.

    I'm not really sure how to provide evidence except to point to the now-suppressed diffs, so here's a list of the two contributions that they have made. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Complain against user SpacemanSpiff

    I was routinely editing pages..... Out of the blues this user SpacemanSpiff comes on my talk page and given me a block threat... admins are being requested to kindly control bullying to new users.. thanks in anticipation DavidWood11 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In case you didn't notice, SpacemanSpiff IS an admin. A brief look at your (David's) talk page shows multiple warnings by multiple editors. Posting here shines a light on that fact. You may want to consider the idea that if multiple editors have issues with your editing, then perhaps you need to change your editing. So no, I personally won't be talking to SpacemanSpiff about anything he's done since he hasn't done anything wrong. (IMO). Personally I suggest you heed the warnings, but YMMV. — Ched (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That warning is more than appropriate, almost every edit of yours is some sort of POV pushing. I had to bring up your conduct here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065 § User:DavidWood11 – Severe competency issues to which you said you needed time to respond but never did. It got archived and now you are back again after a month with the same issues. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay since DavidWood11 needed more time to respond last time his competency was brought up here, and has now decided to return to this board, perhaps now is a good time to address those concerns. You have had a few months since then to submit your "side in the defense against the allegations as levelled by Tayi Arajakate". HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint

    I'd like to make a complaint against Alex 21 for repeatedly undoing my edits in The Flash (season 7) page. The thing is, I've added 'Interlude I', with a Twitter link as source and a screenshot because the Twitter is private. He simply refuses to accept it, even though 'Graphic Novel 3' has the same kind of source. I hope you can put an end to this. Thank you. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You must notify any user that you discuss here about the existence of this discussion- but this forum is not for resolving content disputes. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. So where do I report him for abuse? 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed the required notice on the user's talk page. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    190.89.167.143 requiring a source for an addition to an article is not abuse, it is good editorial discretion. It is part of our standards that things be sourced. I suggest that you stop trying to add things to the article and instead go to the talk page and present reliable sources.
    Continuing to post the same thing to the article over and over day after day without presenting a source can result in you being blocked from editing for edit warring. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I did present a source. Eric Wallace's twitter. It's not my fault if the guy can't acess it, but other people can. That means it's a valid source. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you actually read our reliable source policy rather than just its title. Twitter posts are not a reliable source, nor is it a secondary source. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 08:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah? Then how about the Graphic Novel 3 source that he just removed? That thing is unsourced now. Someone warn him that. 190.89.167.143 (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The screenshot of the twitter post? Are you even reading what is being said to you? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have asked them to read the RS policies, IP I suggest you drop this before there is a boomerrang. Screen shots are not RS, it is arguable if even the Twitter post would be.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Have reviewed it and Alex has done nothing wrong. As previously discussed above, Twitter is not an appropriate source to use. Daniel (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Barlan Samson

    Seems to be creating ridicules content like List of Blocks on Minecraft which is completely unsourced, and it seems the user has created numerous versions of the page before that has been deleted. This too me seems disruptive to wikipedia and I can't see it being stopped unless an admin takes strong action. Govvy (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User hasn't edited in a month. Unless they return and start doing this kind of thing again, I don't think there's a need to do anything. (Non-administrator comment) I'm dumb. – Rummskartoffel 10:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rummskartoffel: Incorrect, they created the now delete article, which I assume means their recent contrib got deleted also. Govvy (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I didn't pay attention to that. Struck. – Rummskartoffel 11:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also a copyvio - it's an unattributed copy paste of a page from the minecraft wiki. For some reason they've also been copying and pasting the talk page across, compare Draft talk:List of Blocks in Minecraft to https://minecraft.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Block. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Threat of physical harm by User:CancerCunsellor

    Does this need attention? [430]. Courtesy ping Alexbrn. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Its been removed but any threat of violence should earn a ban.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They've already been solipsism-blocked for it. A ban at this point would be unnecessary; I don't think they're going to be allowed back even assuming they're not some LTA sock. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume it's one of our less pleasant LTAs. A CU would be helpful. Acroterion (talk) 10:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1031915713"