Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 851: Line 851:
::My evidence is that you blatantly lie and misquote me to further your arguments, call me names and disparage me, and continuously follow my edits and revert me. These are all things I have noted to and linked to above. This is a process that has been going on for years. I have called GS a creep on the same basis as you called me strange- GS has followed me for years despite repeated attempts by me to ask GS to stop bothering me. I tried being polite but after a decade of abuse to me by GS, it’s clear It won’t change. It’s harassment. [[User:Rupert1904|Rupert1904]] ([[User talk:Rupert1904|talk]]) 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
::My evidence is that you blatantly lie and misquote me to further your arguments, call me names and disparage me, and continuously follow my edits and revert me. These are all things I have noted to and linked to above. This is a process that has been going on for years. I have called GS a creep on the same basis as you called me strange- GS has followed me for years despite repeated attempts by me to ask GS to stop bothering me. I tried being polite but after a decade of abuse to me by GS, it’s clear It won’t change. It’s harassment. [[User:Rupert1904|Rupert1904]] ([[User talk:Rupert1904|talk]]) 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
::: To repeat, I did not call you strange. I called your comment strange because it was strange. You seem to think that it is OK to call another editor a "creep" and object to that editor reverting you from time to time. Reverting is commonplace when editors disagree and then we discuss it. So far, I see no evidence presented here that GiantSnowman is harassing you, and actual evidence is required. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 20:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
::: To repeat, I did not call you strange. I called your comment strange because it was strange. You seem to think that it is OK to call another editor a "creep" and object to that editor reverting you from time to time. Reverting is commonplace when editors disagree and then we discuss it. So far, I see no evidence presented here that GiantSnowman is harassing you, and actual evidence is required. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 20:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
::::So Rupert has - edit warred; insulted me; made strange comments towards me; twisted what I have said; twisted what Cullen has said; made repeated accusations about me without a shred of evidence; and doubled down on their conduct when challenged by Cullen. Can somebody please intervene to prevent this ongoing conduct/behaviour? [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 09:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)


== User:Rusf10 ==
== User:Rusf10 ==

Revision as of 09:31, 24 May 2021

    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

    Indefinite block for User:Sportsfanrob

    So ordered. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This person is clearly not here to contribute, given their behavior. Their edits have largely been disruptive in nature, and this person recently made even more disruptive edits, after he was blocked for 3 months and entered into a period of inactivity on his main account. During this period of "inactivity", he engaged in multiple instances of block evasion, via IPs, which can be seen on his SPI page, and some of which CUs are aware of (including instances that aren't in his SPI archive). As such, I am requesting an indefinite block on their account. This person is a sheer net-negative, and net-negatives do not belong on this site. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Widr, Favonian, ToBeFree, and Spencer: Can someone please take a look at this report? This person just continues to cause more and more problems. Their history of block evasion and IP socking is also a real concern. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LightandDark2000, I'm afraid you need to give more detail and evidence for an indef block. Please link to previous discussions, diffs of disruption, etc. Fences&Windows 11:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at the numerous complaints/warnings on his talk page. He is *STILL* engaging in the exact same types of disruption. Also have a look at is SPI archives. This person has also evaded his blocks using IPs at least twice (one case isn't listed in the SPI). Oh, and he's editing on 86.0.200.183, his IP, in order to evade scrutiny. This is clear socking. This person is a clear net-negative. And I think that we should show him the door out. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man, Destroyeraa, Mattythewhite, TSP, and Lee Vilenski: You've dealt with this guy before and you're more familiar with his behavior than I am. What do you think? This guy hasn't changed at all, and given the messes that he's made again and again (along with the socking), I think he should be indeffed. And also blocked on his IPs for a while (since he WILL sock on his IPs if he is blocked). LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't think of much useful to add here beyond what's self-evident from the user's talkpage. WP:CIR and this user lacks it, sometimes deliberately and repeatedly making erroneous edits in spite of plenty of warnings. Sometimes enough is enough. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd support an block for this user. There are CIR issues which can be shown by the many flounces they have done after receiving warnings, as well as the very clear sockpuppetry by using IPs to edit when under scrutiny. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only had the encounters you can see on his talk page; but the pattern is fairly clear. He makes inexplicable, unsourced and unjustified edits; when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia ("Goodbye Everyone who tells me to stop Good Riddance I will log out", or similar). He returns a few days later (with his account or as an IP), and repeats. He has posted comments containing the words "good riddance" to his own talk page at least fourteen times.
    He does edit a lot, and not all the edits are malicious (though most that aren't still seem to be unsourced); but there's a consistent pattern that he has no willingness to even attempt consensus, and reacts to any criticism of his edits by saying he is leaving Wikipedia - then returns a few days later to continue the same behaviour. As this cycle makes it fairly clear he has no plan or willingness to address his behaviour, I can't see any way forward other than a block. (I do expect that he will evade it.) TSP (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSP: ... when questioned, he says he is leaving Wikipedia... Well, even though he did that on his own talk page (see diffs below) this may eventually amount to WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (4) if he persists in relevant article's discussions. I encourage you to provide diffs showing disruptive content editing.
    AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the user's talkpage contains sufficient evidence, it doesn't need to be ported over here. If that's not enough, then just allow the disruption to continue. This isn't a bureaucracy, if you can't see the problem clearly enough then, well, meh. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree that providing more evidence of the behaviour would be a waste of time in this case. Either we agree that the general record of disruptive editing, followed by flouncing aren't needed on wikipedia, and give a WP:CIR / WP:NOTHERE block, or we say it's not enough and move on. I would be on the side of a block, but feel I'm a little too involved due to the history to pass this without prejudice. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: Well I would agree that intentionally logging out to continue disruptive editing would violate the WP:SOCK but this doesn't seem to be the case. Related investigation also didn't find relationship between the two: ip 86.0.200.183 and Sportsfanrob. Admins should not blindly ban a person for making silly replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the very clear use [1] and [2] when specifically told not too? They have been told multiple times, see User:sportsfanrob#Editing while logged out, User:Sportsfanrob#July 2020 et al. Also see Special:Contributions/82.20.190.222 for where they edit their own responses after being told about not doing specific things, and edit the same way. I think even if for some reason you aren't inclined due to the sockpuppetry concerns, there is a very clear WP:CIR issue, especially that they are unable/unwilling to communicate without flouncing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: In fairness these edits are from the August 2020. Only 2 out of total 8 he made for the whole year in that article. He was banned in October later. Is this even relevant now?
    The latest 82.20.190.222 contributions are from September 2020.
    AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pmffl reported by Alexander Davronov

    User being reported: Pmffl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User reporting: Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Statement by Alexander Davronov

    Reviving this from the archive as Pmffl continues to remove my replies without due justification. ANI NOTICE DIFF

    WP:TPO/WP:UNCIVIL violation
    Page: Browser engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
    Page: User talk:Pmffl (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    • 16:06, May 8, 2021) "Notable engines as subsections (remove bullets): removing weird @me with unrelated link. Just simply propose what you want without weird crap."
    • 16:07, May 8, 2021: "Flow engine: removing non-sequitor - there is a template and Comparisons article for this"
    • 20:25, May 8, 2021 — Me requesting on his talk page to stop editing my replies
    • 20:27, May 8, 2021 "No, for reasons in my commit comments there. Stop @ing me with really sloppy crap. in the talkpage. I cleaned it up to be sensible"
    • 20:55, May 8, 2021 — "restore AXO comment that I shouldn't have removed, plus more info in my response"
    WP:TPO/WP:EDITING/WP:ZEAL breach
    Page: JavaScript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs):
    In the past (2020) Pmffl has made various questionable, unWP:PRESERVEing or simply WP:SNEAKY-bordering edits to a legitimate content which might have been otherwise kept under WP:IMPERFECT provision, or get improved otherwise:
    • 20:58, February 6, 2020 "remove redundant sidebar" — There is no sidebar listing the same information.
    • 21:25, February 6, 2020 "almost entirely obsolete + largely self-promotional" - Cut out a list of books of mostly historical value from the Read further subsection .
    • 17:33, February 7, 2020"Development tools: rewrite to be concise and remove the obsolete" — Cutting out some (legitimately?) sourced details on JS debuggers software.
    • 20:58, February 8, 2020 "more concise and polished, remove tangents)" - Removing sourced information

    Here they remove my replies on the talk page:

    • 14:28, May 9, 2021 "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind"
    • 16:37, May 10, 2021 "exactly, MrOllie, which is why I'm removing this garbage"
    • 12:38, May 16, 2021 - «‎Latest changes by Pmffl: removing the smear, as stated before; keep the specific items»
    • 17:27, May 17, 2021 - «Undid revision 1023467424 by Alexander Davronov talk) No, not okay to say this as others have told you.»

    --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Request

    Comments

    There's a reason you got no comments last time Alexander Davronov: no admin thought there was any action to take. Someone using mild curse words in edit summaries is not the kind of dispute that needs admin attention. You don't need all the structure btw, this isn't Arbitration Enforcement. You need to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and that does not involve trawling your opponent's old edits for supposed wrongdoing. Fences&Windows 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fences and windows: Am I correct that you're saying that I can remove other's comments, including yours? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Alexander Davronov. Pmffl restored your talk page comment, which is what I was aware of. However, this today was not OK. Pmffl, you must not remove others' article talk page comments. You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example. Pmfll, please promise not to repeat the removal of others' article talk comments unless you are strictly following WP:TPO and please correct your incorrect removals without archiving. Fences&Windows 20:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. His vaguely-worded post is merely a smear of me. As MrOllie and others have pointed out, it doesn't belong on the Javascript talkpage. So I keep removing it. -Pmffl (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pmffl: Letting everyone to know that I disagree with your edits isn't a "smear" of you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not up to you to decide, Pmffl. Let others do it: don’t edit war with someone who is critiquing you. You didn't reply about your inappropriate removal of old talk page comments without archiving. Will you clean up after your earlier inappropriate edits to create an archive? Fences&Windows 19:16, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you mean restore Alexander's original post, in which he literally added a support line to his own idea? No, it's better to not have ridiculous stuff like that in a talkpage. -Pmffl (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pmffl, you missed this: "You must also follow correct talk page archiving rather than just removing old comments as done here for example." That was another example of you "tidying" a talk page, Talk:Browser engine. Please address this by restoring the posts to an archive and please follow TPO and proper archiving in future. If you have concerns about someone's posts, follow WP:DR and don't edit war to remove them unless it is blatant vandalism, a severe BLP breach, or grossly offensive. Fences&Windows 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Second sentence of WP:NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. From my reading, the parts you highlighted in yellow are indeed Pmfll commenting on content, with some mild language like "sloppy", "crap", "weird", "garbage". The only thing that is nearing a personal attack might be "removing smear post by a guy with an axe to grind". Leijurv (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In fairness, when that comment is "I think the latest edits by Pmffl must be revised and amended. Feel free to notify me of proposals." It does indeed sound like someone who is just against another user's edits, because. Canterbury Tail talk 23:20, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: I wasn't able to elaborate because Pmffl has removed it the same day it was posted. The same thing has happened two times a day earlier (8 May) so I decided to fill ANI complaint instead of explaining anything. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Leijurv: In all three cases he was either editing or removing my replies. In very first diff above he's removed a diff link pointing out to his edit. That's what kind of "content" he has called a "weird crap". All these highlighted summaries are only about my replies. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander Davronov, The way you format your talk page entries, with all the subsections and templated diffs and such, is fairly unusual. People who mostly read talk pages by looking at diffs are going to be confused, and it does tend to make for alerts that are difficult to understand. "weird crap" isn't a very charitable way to describe it, but I do understand what Pmffl means. MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The following should clarify why MrOllie is making remarks like that one above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#Canvassing in Malassezia AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you do have a history of using ANI to try to win content disputes, thank you for pointing that out. (See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Request to enforce WP:FOC & WP:NPA in Talk:Malassezia) However, the reason I'm commenting on this dispute (and on Talk:Javascript) is that I have had the Javascript article on my watchlist for years. - MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrOllie: Just saying. I don't want to turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander Davronov, bit late for that. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-admin closes by Buidhe

    There is no consensus that there are any general problems with the way that Buidhe is closing discussions. There are some points that she may want to consider and take on board; the most commonly expressed one is that many users would support her running for adminship. GirthSummit (blether) 11:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    In a little over a week, Buidhe (talk · contribs) has racked up five challenges of her RfC and RM closes on her talk page:

    Without getting into the specifics of each one, the frequency of these challenges on its own is a strong indicator that Buidhe is not following WP:NAC and WP:RMNAC, namely that discussions where the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial should be left to administrators. I also see two common threads to be found in the examples above. The first is Buidhe purporting to find a "clear" consensus in discussions with low participation and/or tight vote margins. The second is her not engaging with the argument that the close was incorrect: there is a quick response dismissing any fault, then silence, forcing the challenger to either drop it or go to move review etc. Indeed her response to the latest discussion seems to indicate that she does not think it is important to respond to those "dissatisfied" with her closes at all. This strikes me as Buidhe trying to have her cake and eat it too: if you're going to ignore the advice that non-admins should not make "close calls", fine, but you should then be prepared to be responsive and accountable for objections like an admin has to.

    I haven't looked beyond the last week to see if this a recently-developed habit or a longer trend. Either way I think Buidhe's closes ought to be reviewed by uninvolved admins. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Courtesy pings for those involved in the above discussions: @Rosbif73, Kashmiri, OyMosby, Vaticidalprophet, TaivoLinguist, Kwamikagami, and Nardog: – Joe (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a comment: the reason WP:BADNAC exists is that for deletion discussions, where a discussion is on the verge of keep or delete, the large number of non-admin eyes verses the relatively smaller number of admin eyes would bias the outcome to almost always be "keep" - since non-admins cannot close as "delete". Such is not the case in any of the linked RfCs, which are not XfDs, but content disputes. Buidhe is an experienced editor - and I'd rather hand her the mop than prevent her from closing such discussions - though as a technical user right, it shouldn't be relevant to her closing ability. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NAC and its subsection WP:BADNAC are an essay about XfD closes. None of the closes brought up here were made at XfD. The relevant essay-ish-thing (it's not strictly clear what tier it's actually in) at RM, if we are to treat essays with such importance, is WP:RMNAC, prominently bearing the line Indeed, many high-profile, controversial move requests have been closed as NACs, taken to WP:MRV, and affirmed there. RM is also essentially unworked by admins, giving it the significantly different NAC attitude to AfD seen at e.g. TfD. The community of active participants at RM, including its admins, are quite confident in Buidhe's closes (pinging Polyamorph, ProcrastinatingReader, and Wbm1058 due to their interest in such discussion) and hold her as its pre-eminent discussion closer. Buidhe's primary issue, as it is, is that her closes are followed by {{nac}}; I entirely concur with Elli that they shouldn't be. Vaticidalprophet 10:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Buidhe is an experienced, excellent closer of discussions. This complaint reads like an attempt to forum shop because the move reviews are on course to endorse the RM closures. The solution to the issue raised is to make this red link blue. Iffy★Chat -- 10:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two move reviews above. One I have absolutely no involvement in. The other I opened 30 minutes before this so it's probably a little early to call the result. I think it would be productive if we could focus on determining whether Buidhe's closes are correct, rather than making bare assertions of her good reputation amongst RMers, or casting aspersions about what ulterior motives I might have for making that request. – Joe (talk) 10:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I shouldn't have focused on the NAC aspect. I do agree that it's only the quality of the close that counts, not the closer's bits. The problem is that Buidhe does not seem to be making good closes. Five challenges in a week is an alarming rate for anyone. That said, WP:NAC is not just about deletion; it refers to just "discussions" and we have a separate policy specifically for deletion-related NACs (WP:NACD). WP:RMNAC also specifically says that NACs of RMs requires that the consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period. – Joe (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think there's anything to focus on here but the NAC aspect, realistically speaking. I think having that on her closes inspires challenges to them that wouldn't otherwise occur. (As for Black Kite's comments, she is indeed a highly prolific discussion-closer -- I keep planning out a close for (simple and uncontroversial) RMs to find she got there first.) Vaticidalprophet 10:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Indeed, WP:NAC is not only for XfDs - I'm specifically referring to The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator. My interpretation of why this is the case is as I listed above. There is nothing inherent to admins about a better closing ability, the concern here is bias. As for challenges - anyone can challenge a closure, and seeing one is is a nac makes one much more likely to do so. Are Buidhe's moves getting overturned? Not seeing evidence of that. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you've got five complaints in five days about your closes, this means;
    • (a) you're closing many dozens of discussions
    • (b) you're specifically closing contentious discussions where there is more likely to be a large number of disgruntled editors, or
    • (c) you're closing discussions badly.
    • I'm not convinced by the two I've looked at so far, btw. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've looked at them all. The first two I looked at, I would probably hve closed differently, but neither is completely out of range. The other three I would probably have closed similarly, if not the same, and the same applies. I've commented on some below. Black Kite (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All five of the listed closures provide not only the outcome but a brief and succinct explanation. This is good practice, and should be encouraged. Sometimes closes are tricky, and whether or not someone is an admin will not change that. Agree with many above that the number of raised discussions doesn't say much about the quality of closures, if they are overturned that would be another matter. CMD (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The examples above are from the last seven days, so it's too soon for any of them to have been overturned (unless Buidhe did so voluntarily, which is part of the issue here). However looking back just a bit further I found e.g. Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_January#Admiralty_(United_Kingdom), where there was a clear consensus that Buidhe's close was premature, found consensus where there was none (note the parallels to the complaints above), and should be overturned. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That particular close isn't really a cut-and-dry "bad nac". Buidhe closed the original move as (paraphrasing) "consensus exists that 'Admiralty (United Kingdom)' is not the primary topic for 'Admiralty'". Given that both commenters agreed, that's not an unreasonable close. She particularly said a further move clarifying the eventual location of the British admiralty may be filed if desired. Looking at the further discussion - while some people said it was closed too early (I disagree, seven days is the length of the process, and there was no active disagreement on the point Buidhe closed on), the next RM did lead to what she closed in favor of - that said article was not the primary topic of "Admiralty" - being kept. Should she have moved it to Admiralty (United Kingdom) instead of British Admiralty? Perhaps, but given that no one suggested it in the discussion, I feel like that would've been a more controversial close. If this is the most recent example of a bad Buidhe close, I don't think we have a problem here. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buidhe is, in my experience, one of the more experienced regular closers at RM. She's willing to close discussions that stay in the backlogs for a while, or are otherwise controversial and people don't want to touch. In the past, whenever I've reviewed one of Buidhe's closures, for example in the situation Vaticidal links, my opinion is that she closed the discussion correctly. First some general points: WP:NAC is just an essay and for good reasons. The closure of content discussions is not an administrative matter, and the community affirmed this here. WP:NACD is a guideline which applies to deletion discussions, because deletion (and some other areas, like conduct) are exclusively in the purview of administrators. Still, WP:NACD does not accurately describe practice at all XfD venues, for example it does not accurately describe practice at TfD. Another general note is that sometimes involved parties who are upset with the outcome (or believe the 'policy' wasn't 'weighted' correctly) like to appeal on the closer's talk by virtue of the 'WP:NAC'. I understand the temptation, having felt it before. This is to say that volume of complaints alone can't be considered a problem IMO Unfortunately, the reality one has to accept is that sometimes consensus just sucks. NACs can get a harder time over it than admins, and the solution for Buidhe is turning this blue.
      On this specific ANI: of the discussion Vaticidal links, I think it reflects more poorly on the involved parties than on buidhe. Of the discussions linked in the opening comment, I think the Elon Musk one was closed correctly, with almost 75% opposed to the perennial proposal on reasonable policy grounds. However, the Early European modern humans concern seems reasonable, and if it were me I'd unclose and relist. The DNSSEC concern seems to be a matter of semantics ("consensus for current title" vs "no consensus to move"). There is a distinction between the two, yes; the term buidhe used could be intentional, if Buidhe determined the discussion showed explicit consensus for the current title. But even if we assume it didn't then it's still a minor error, and admins make far more impactful errors than this and nobody bothers point them out or complain about them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC) e: 07:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I must echo the above sentiments that Buidhe run for adminship, and do it as soon as possible. Buidhe, my friend, you are disadvantaging yourself and this project by not running, as this ANI thread shows. So I will bold this: Buidhe should run for adminship. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am more concerned by the hounding of Buidhe and forum shopping exhibited both here and at WP:RM talk pages when closures don't go the way involved parties wanted them to go. Buidhe has far more experience than many admins in closing RM discussions so the idea that admin closures are better than NAC ones is wrong. Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through all five discussions. There's not a single close that I thought was incorrect, and there's no reason to avoid NACs in these specific circumstances (XfD is different), especially when the closer is clearly competent. Would support closing this discussion with no action taken. SportingFlyer T·C 13:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NAC explicitly states that discussions should not be reopened just because the closer is not an administrator. I take that to mean broadly that only the quality of the close determines the quality of the close, not the status of the closer. So let's just look at the closures, shall we?
      • Talk:Pennsylvania Dutch language#Move to "Pennsylvania_Dutch"?: Personally, I would have relisted this, but Buidhe's close was well-reasoned and within discretion. The move review is informative here.
      • Talk:List of military disasters#RFC on Battle of Vukovar: There's at least one editor in here who is probably a VJ-Yugo sock (they haunt Balkans military topics) but Buidhe isn't expected to know that, and their comments probably didn't sway the discussion. I would have dismissed the main opposition argument that an event has to be described using the specific word "disaster", and not any of the supporters' noted reliably-sourced synonyms, in order to be included in the list, especially since the opposer who kept writing that comment clearly has poor grasp of English. But that's bordering on supervote territory. Otherwise I would have closed no-consensus rather than consensus against, but I can't call this a bad close.
      • Talk:Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions#Requested_move_31_March_2021: This challenge is a good example of why counting the number of times an editor's closes are challenged is not good evidence whatsoever that the closes are bad, it's just evidence that our checks and balances work. The challenger's entire argument was that the head count in and of itself demands a no-consensus close, but that's not how closing discussions works at all. Consensus was clearly against the move and the close was excellent.
      • Talk:Upper Palaeolithic Europe#Requested move 9 May 2021: Personally I agree with Joe Roe here to the extent that the title should refer to the people and not the geography, but I did not participate in the discussion and he failed to convince a single other editor. I don't see how the discussion could be read any other way than "consensus to move". Joe hasn't really provided any valid rationale to overturn at move review, either, having commented only on the head count and closer's status.
      • Talk:Elon Musk#Should Musk be called an engineer?: How does one read a discussion with 22 opposes versus 6 supports as anything other than "consensus against"? The challenger again didn't cite any issue with the close other than the closer's status, and the fact that other challenges exist (which, as noted, is not evidence of anything).
    I've noted some criticisms of these closes, but don't consider any of them to be inappropriate, nor do I find Buidhe's responses to the challenges lacking what we would expect from WP:ADMINACCT. Accountability requires responding to valid concerns; it does not require responding to endless gaslighting from editors who disagree with you. Good work, Buidhe, and I would also support if you choose to run the gauntlet. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with ProcrastinatingReader. The simplest explanation here is that Buidhe is a prolific RM closer who shows an admirable willingness to tackle difficult discussions that have been languishing for a while in the backlog. If multiple of the cited RMs end up being overturned or relisted after making their way through MRV, then maybe there would be a case for asking them to cool down their closes. But until then, this feels premature. Colin M (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree with those stating Buidhe should be an admin, I don't like the idea that contentious RfCs or RMs should be closed by admins at all. Buidhe has more experience with RM than I have, why should she not work on difficult closes? —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two things 1) The NAC issue is a nonstarter for me. Only closures that require, or may require, the admin toolset (block, delete, protect) should have any restrictions on who can close them; for discussions where the outcome could be enacted by a non-admin closer, ANY closer will do, with no special preference to be given to admins. WP:NOBIGDEAL is apt here: Administrators were not intended to develop into a special subgroup. Rather, administrators should be a part of the community like other editors. Anyone can perform most maintenance and administration tasks on Wikipedia without the specific technical functions granted to administrators. (bold mine) 2) The five contested closures all fall within normal discretion, and none is particularly problematic. I'd go through and provide additional notes, but that would be redundant to the excellent analysis from Ivanvector's Squirrel above. I concur materially with every one of those results, and I found none of the challenged closures to be problematic. On the issue of Buidhe applying for adminship, I am going to buck the trend of the several earlier commenters and say that I find no reason to encourage them to apply. They are doing a find job as it is, and unless they want to be able to delete or block or protect, there's no compelling reason to get the toolset. I would support such an application, but if they don't want it, I feel no need to push them in that direction. Being an admin is only about access to tools, not about having more rights to have one's decisions respected. Buidhe is doing a commendable job, and I encourage them only to continue to trust their instincts and work in good faith to keep making Wikipedia better in their own way. --Jayron32 15:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely per Jayron32 and Ivanvector. These being NACs doesn't matter here. I would not recommend anyone (admin or not) make 5 controversial closes in a week, but several of these should not have been considered controversial. I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe move discussion (the 3-1 vote being insufficient when several of Joe Roe's arguments had not been addressed). The other closes look fine; several of the objections seem no more substantial than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looked at the diffs provided (guess I'll never get that time back). I agree with those above (such as but not limited to: Jayron, the Squirrel, and power-enwiki (sorry, that key's not on my keyboard.:)). I guess my response would be .. IDK Thank you Buidhe for all your hard work. — Ched (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NAC is an essay. It does not enjoy global consensus. I'm not the only editor here who gives that essay zero weight. If you want to make the case that an editor is making too many bad closes, show us five overturned closes, not five challenges in progress. Joe shouldn't have started an MR and then also taken the closer to ANI; at the least, wait and see if you win your MR first. My thanks to buidhe for her volunteer work. I'd also support buidhe's nom, but I see no reason to suggest that buidhe running for admin is a "solution" to any "problem," because there is no problem. I know we want to encourage editors to run for admin but we shouldn't make editors feel obligated to do it, or feel bad for not doing it, or suggest that it's a step that the editor must take. The only valid reason for anyone to run for admin is if they want to; we should never treat it as an obligation. I'm all for enthusiastic support for a run, I'm just saying it's also just fine if she chooses not to. Levivich harass/hound 16:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why I was pinged. I have no issue with @Buidhe:. Yes I came to them looking for somewhat of an explanation for their reasoning. I even reached out to a few Admins who aren’t involved in Balkan articles who are mainly admins or like Buihde very active and seasoned editors. Most of them felt that the closure decision was okay. One felt they would close the opposite. But the one agreeing with Bhuide’s take better explained the reasoning and I stated on her talk oage all is good and I agreed. I did not participate in “shopping” as some accused here. I find it ofd how it is frowned upon to have more eyes than one on a topic. Especially a highly contested one where even another admin voted to keep Vukovar. I don’t get the issue. Also I don’t understand why Bhuide is being reported here. Being I was pinged I wanted to make my stance clear. I stood in opposition on Bhuide’s stances on Balkan discussions of yhe past on sources but I know she does it out of good faith. At least I would hope. I don’t know them that well compared to others here. Cheers.OyMosby (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have relisted the Upper Palaeolithic Europe one, as there was very little participation and no-one had refuted Joe's argument (and the close looked a little supervote-y). The Elon Musk one suffered from a surfeit of terrible non-policy compliant Opposes, but I can understand how a closer (even if they're not counting votes) could look at it and assume the 22 v 6 were right, even if they weren't. The rest look OK to me. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Same situation with the Vukovar one, where it was 7 vs 4 despite the 7 being not able to refute the fact that a peer reviewed source states it to be a Military Catastrophe. A Serbian one no less. Yet some called it “revisionist” as an argument. Much like Upper Palaeolithic Europe, the opposition failed to defeat the source other than “I just don’t like it” but I respect the request for more than one source despite the subject not being mainstream and having that much research to begin with compared to the Iraq war for example. So if Palaeo is deemed relistable, so would the Military Disaster one I’d think. OyMosby (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, now that you've explained it I can see the problem there (and this is exactly why I wouldn't have closed that particular one, but waited for someone with more familiarity). Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no issue with Buidhe's closes other than them not being an admin, and I concur with others that they should consider an RFA soon.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it’s five different editors having the same issue, all of them, best I can tell, long standing contributors, I’m sorry but that strongly indicates that there is indeed a problem here. Don’t know how serious it is, but it does seem to be a pattern. Volunteer Marek 01:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's nonsense. If you do a lot of closures then statistically there are always going to be some fraction of users who are unhappy. So that's your pattern. Polyamorph (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As I and others have said, the frequency of challenges is not necessarily indicative of a problem with the closes. One of the challenges in this case was an editor upset that Buidhe didn't count votes, and another was based only on the fact that there were other challenges. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but it's not nonsense. If five different and unrelated long time editors in good standing complain about the same kind of behavior within a week that's not just a "statistical anomaly". How many closures overall did Buidhe do in this same period? What percentage is this? Perhaps doing a ton of non-admin closures is a bad idea in the first place as the more you do the sloppier you get? You can't hand wave away what seems like a legitimate problem which is being brought up here. Volunteer Marek 17:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. If we're going to cut the numbers, then an equally un/useful comparison could be between number of complaints brought against Buidhe here (five) and number of editors incl. admins dismissing said complaints here (~13). Man, thems some sweet sweet numbers. ——Serial 19:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps doing a ton of non-admin closures is a bad idea in the first place as the more you do the sloppier you get? it's not like there is any difference between an admin closure and a non-admin closure here. Are her closes bad? Or are they not? General consensus seems to be that they're acceptable. She does indeed do quite a lot of closes - find the ones that have been overturned to actually make an argument here. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    the non admin angle is also nonsense.Polyamorph (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quickly looking at the examples of closing at the top of the thread, only Upper Palaeolithic Europe seems to be an incorrect closing and should be relisted. Just relist it. That does not seem to be a problem, and the matter is already under discussion on another noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @My very best wishes: Why not the Vukovar one as well being the same scenario? Where it was 7 vs 4 despite the 7 being not able to refute the fact that a peer reviewed source states it to be a Military Catastrophe. A Serbian one no less. Yet some called it “revisionist” as an argument. Much like Upper Palaeolithic Europe, the opposition failed to defeat the source other than “I just don’t like it” but I respect the request for more than one source despite the subject not being mainstream and having that much research to begin with compared to the Iraq war for example. So if Palaeo is deemed relistable, so would the Military Disaster one I’d think. Had the same discussion with Black Kite above. I agree that these RfCs are a bit tricky hence why others are intimidated to close them. I applaud Buidhe for taking on the grunt work. OyMosby (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that all contentious, difficult or close discussions should be closed only by admins. This should be written in the rules somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true even the very best will tend to get quite a bit of criticism if they have a high work rate. And I agree Buidhe is to be commended for taking on much difficult work, which she mostly does to a high standard. On the other hand, most of the RfCs do seem to have been close calls; as other are saying it probably makes sense for even an admin not to close too many tight RFCs in quick succession. Personally Id only take issue with the Musk close. Musk is shaping up to have more impact on human civilisation than even Cecil Rhodes did in his day. He's Tony Stark with a 007 twist, and his girlfriend is Grimes. Someone like that warrants the full 30 day discusion. Closing discussions prematurely is to be avoided. Still, no case for even a mild sanction, IMO. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. This seems like a good illustration for my mini-essay: User:Piotrus/Morsels_of_wikiwisdom#On_why_so_many_admin_heads_are_seen_sticking_in_the_sand_when_push_comes_to_shove. Anyway, the sample discussed here is useless. Unless someone feels like analyzing ad least few dozen, preferably over a 100 closes, this is all noise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is not that Buidhe does close discussions but that she believes there is "consensus" (to move, rename, merge etc.) when there is obviously no consensus among the participating editors (like in the Upper Palaeolithic Europe case or the DNSSEC case), and that she closes the cases when the issue is stil being hotly debated and should preferably be left open (like in the Musk case). To put it simply, too often she is too quick to close and misjudges between the consensus and the lack thereof. Maybe she should spend more time carefully reading each discussion? — kashmīrī TALK 10:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I don’t think the Upper Paleolithic RfC is a different example from the Military Disasters one. OyMosby (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but this assertion cannot reasonably be made. Had I voted in the DNSSEC RM I would've also voted support (for DNSSEC), but the consensus in that discussion was clearly to keep the current title. Other than the nominator, no supporter provided evidence for their COMMONNAME assertion, and the nominator only used ngrams. Keep in mind that it also takes less consensus to do nothing than to do something. I wouldn't say it was an amazing quality discussion, all in all, but many consensus discussions aren't evidence-finding missions with a logical progression towards a conclusion. Closers have to do the best with the discussion they're given, and that's the way any reasonable closer would've closed it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joe Roe - from reviewing this discussion, I'd say that there is consensus that there is no problem in need of any action here - I'm minded to close this thread, unless there's anything more you want people to consider? Best GirthSummit (blether) 10:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think overall consensus is there isn’t a major issue concerning Buidhe. The issue is more with RfCs themselves I’d say. Probably for a different discussion. OyMosby (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      support @Girth Summit: - This is safe to close. I've boldly reopened at least one challenged at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2021_May#Upper_Palaeolithic_Europe request so things move forward. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (non-admin comment) I've encountered buidhe several times, but AFAICR we've never crossed swords. I've disagreed with some of their actions, but that is neither here nor there. I have no doubt that buidhe is WP:HERE, and is willing to make difficult decisions judiciously. Others in this thread have suggested that buidhe apply for a mop and bucket, and I endorse that idea. Narky Blert (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Terjen

    Shortly after being unblocked by User:Dennis Brown, here are some of Terjen's constructive contributions: obvious needling followed by further needling and this dishonest bs; their contribution here is similar. Clearly unblocking was a mistake, as AmPol does not need this kind of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Terjen seems to be a bit of a bull in the china shop but I'm not sure these Talk page comments are so outrageous they're not something that can't be corrected by guidance and counseling. I'm personally of the opinion we need a much wider pattern of behavior before we can say that being mildly passive aggressive on user Talk pages is causing disruption, particularly since it's always within the remit of individual users to restrict other users from their own Talk pages if they find them annoying. The block appears to have been for edits to mainspace so I'm not sure this constitutes a direct continuation of the original problem. That said, it's good JBL noted these issues as no chance of voluntary correction would be possible without wider awareness of an emerging issue. Anyway, just my passing thoughts after looking at this. I defer to others to take or decline action. Chetsford (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chetsford, an editor has to be open to guidance and counseling before they'll help. I'm not sure that's what I'm seeing. —valereee (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, that's very true. Though, in general, I think if impacted editors simply request offending editors to stop posting to their Talk page per WP:NOBAN we can usually tie these problems up without requiring the application of any editing restrictions. My personal view is that blocks should be used only when every conceivable other alternative has been tried and failed. In the case of these annoying comments to a Talk page, I'm not sure that level of exhaustion has been reached yet in the absence of a NOBAN request. That said, I defer to your and others' judgment. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awaiting a response by Terjen. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't support a block. Although everyone involved would probably be better off if Terjen spent a week or two editing non-political topics (it's a big encyclopedia), I don't see cause for an admin-imposed AP2 topic-ban. To a certain extent, making insinuations about institutional bias is permitted and constructive, but editors should not make a habit of complaining to new users about their litany of injustices. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "How come you feel this is offending you?" is indeed dishonest. Bacondrum had good reason to place that template, and Terjen's "warning" essentially tells the warned editor that the warning came from an "activist" and thus is not to be taken seriously, a violation of good faith. One wonders why Terjen didn't place a warning like that under the edit war warning left by Acroterion, in the section below Bacondrum's. Why not, Terjen? Drmies (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I too was concerned that Terjen seemed to be placing advice telling a new editor not to trust whatever processes they encounter here. That just doesn't seem all that helpful. —valereee (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just adding that Terjen's response to this included this - Terjen had not previously commented on that page, and appeared just to tell another editor to disregard Bacondrum, specifically citing this discussion. I don't feel that's acceptable - overtly dragging a disagreement with an editor onto another page and directly trying to rally another editor against them falls afoul of both WP:HOUND and WP:BATTLEGROUND; that sort of behavior contributes to making disputes intractable. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of Order Valereee was earlier in the year involved in the ANI blocking of an editor who argued to expand the viewpoints of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article, with Bacondrum having raised the complaint. Terjen (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Terjen - Valereee has no conflict of interest from merely posting @Bacondrum, @Newimpartial, can you propose a solution? Are we talking a p-block from article space, or what? I'd appreciate you suggesting the least-restrictive possible solution. She didn't even enact the block. There is no need for her to recuse. starship.paint (exalt) 03:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Terjen, sorry, not enough coffee yet...how does that represent a potential conflict? —valereee (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: No worries, I trust your good judgment. Terjen (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Terjen is WP:NOTHERE

    I was just on my way here to launch my own ANI regarding Terjen.

    They appealed the block and claimed to have corrected their behavior - admin Dennis Brown accepted them at their word and unblocked them. Terjen then went straight back into more or less the same behavior, simply being more discrete ie: WP:SEALION. going to starship.paint and basically demanding that the now closed discussion that lead tot he block be re-opened https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starship.paint#Request_for_reopening_discussion

    To summarise, we appear to have a disruptive and tendentious editor who is gaming us and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. I think an indef block is the correct response at this time, they have deliberately disrupted, expressed knowledge of what they are doing (and kept doing it anyway), acted in a blatantly battleground manner, attacked other editors tried to game wikipedia etc. If not indefed, they should be blocked from contemporary American Politics (aka AP2). Bacondrum 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Point of Order I told Terjen I wasn't going to mention anything weird going on here this time, but Bacondrum subsequently made it extra weird by whatever sort of "game" it is where you repeatedly alternate between good cop and bad cop, drag a guy to AN/I on suspicion of being disruptive and cryptic [3], suddenly revert to friendly and apologetic again, withdraw the complaint (simultaneously edit-conflicting the defense) [4][5], then wish one all the best [6], before abruptly telling the same to fuck off [7]. I move to declare his testimony here incredible. Can't paste diffs, sorry, technical issues. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs added above, by myself, because InedibleHulk can't. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the first or the last to think InedibleHulk's comments and edit summaries were disruptive, I acknowledged I was wrong and withdrew the complaint, made an apology and got this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABacondrum&type=revision&diff=1024245200&oldid=1024244947 some rude cryptic comment about who he does and doesn't like and I told him to "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. This is all illustrates the point that InedibleHulk "colourful" comments and edit summaries are in fact disruptive. Bacondrum 02:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't rude or cryptic, it was plain Canadian English, with the only allusion I suspected you might need an assist with conveniently Wikilinked. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum: - I perfectly understood the comment, well, because it was a pro-wrestling reference, he's saying you were going back and forth (which was also stated in the comment). It wasn't rude. He did clearly write: I don't like you and don't dislike you. You don't have a leg to stand on regarding rudeness when you're saying "fuck off then", which is fair enough all things considered. starship.paint (exalt) 03:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, getting told to fuck off was the least of my problems with Bacon, just naturally happened to be the last one. I don't want him to lose any privileges here. Just casting doubt on his claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I lost my cool and told old mate to fuck off, this whole discourse is a bit of a joke really - seemed to me that he was being rude or antagonistic, but I can never tell what is meant by his oddball comments. I'm not engaging with this discussion anymore, I have better things to do. Bacondrum 04:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I can fuck off and leave with you just one solid morsel of food for thought, never conflate a sea lion with a Canadian, whole realer true Northern politeness up here (think harbour seal, if any pinniped must be presumed at all). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Be my guest. Bacondrum 05:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Terjen:

    Here are some of the contributions I made shortly after being unblocked earlier in the month:

    The complaint regards messages I posted to Erlend Kvitrud, a relatively new editor with only 85 edits. WP:DNB says we must "treat newcomers with kindness and patience" and reminds us that "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility". WP:CIVIL advises us to be careful with user warning templates, in particular to be "careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers ... Consider using a personal message instead of, or in addition to, the templated message."

    Bacondrum had posted a warning template to this new editor stating "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia" but did not add a personal message.

    I added a friendly welcome message directed to Kviterud:

    A belated welcome to Wikipedia! Here is an introduction you may find instructive. Hipp hipp hurra! Terjen (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

    There are no reasons for Kviterud to find this message offensive, nor are Kviterud part of this complaint. I was puzzled by Starship.paint suggesting it to be "sarcasm and criticism", but realize it may have to do with a misunderstanding about the Hipp hipp hurra! expression: Erlend Kvitrud is Norwegian; The welcome message was posted on their Constitution day when this is a common exclamation. It is not a sarcastic "hurray".

    I am of course open to ideas and further discussions about how to better welcome new editors. I made another post to Kviterud emphasizing key processes to follow when editing AP2, much like I would have liked to receive myself when returning to edit AP2, so I could have avoided getting my first block earlier this month.

    Bacondrum has refused to articulate why they took the welcome message as a personal offense, and have failed to explain why the welcome message above violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. For them to feel the linked Wikipedia essay on hostile activists implied they are an activist, they must have thought they had been hostile. The warning template they posted hardly qualifies. However, following the link from the template leads to the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory talk where Kviterud, despite announcing he is "new to this and still learning", is met with language like this from Bacondrum and others:

    • "Please sign your posts (using four tildes) just like everyone else does."
    • "NOTFORUM all this general discussion and opinion is disruptive. No one cares what you think of LaRouche or US standards."
    • "I am a dyed in the wool Marxist, so you're not exactly ingratiating yourself with other editors here."
    • "Literally nobody cares what you think is reasonable"
    • "Don’t expect other editors to do your work for you."
    • "This is all just your opinion. If you've come here to push your opinions or attack leftists then you are in the wrong place."
    • "Erlend Kvitrud, by going with what the sources say, I meant whether they describe him as right wing, not sitting around the dorm with our Libertarian friends and conducting our own research."
    • "Erlend Kvitrud Mate, this is not a forum. You are right to give up disrupting this talk page."

    Erlend Kvitrud leaves, saying "since your minds seem to be made up, I give up on this one."

    JBL participated in the discussion on the Talk page but did not intervene.

    Terjen (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Terjen: - "criticism" refers to the activist link (among other things), it has nothing to do with "Hipp hipp hurra". Exactly who were you implying to be activists, if you weren't referring to Bacondrum? starship.paint (exalt) 11:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Starship.paint, what is the point of asking someone to explain obvious, dishonest bullshitting? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll: - to offer a path of redemption. If we're not interested in at least trying to set things right, we might as well just indef and get it over with. starship.paint (exalt) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm all for redemption myself, but the response is indeed bullshit. If one feels someone else is being bitten, then a more proper response would be to leave a message on the talk page of the alleged biter, not to discredit them in a pretty sneaky way on the talk page of the bitten. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I too am absolutely for learning from mistakes and correcting behavior. It has to be said though that Terjen certainly is bullshitting. Don't know what to say other than that it appears they are WP:NOTHERE, as I've already said. Bacondrum 23:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those quotes, many were not me, the ones that were me are offered up here completely out of context in what I believe is a deliberate attempt to mislead...more bullshitting. Bacondrum 00:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the full context - the same link as posted just above the quotes. Terjen (talk) 07:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint: It's a link to the WP:Activist essay, recommended for working in AP2. It doesn't imply that anybody specifically is an activist. Terjen (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't buy that, sorry. starship.paint (exalt) 02:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming good faith may help. Terjen (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty hard to assume good faith when you are not acting in good faith, when you tell bald faced lies. At the end of the day none of us want to see editors indefed, but you cant wage wars against other editors, battle over content etc...and you definitely can't tell blatant lies when you are caught out. Own and change the problematic behavior in a sincere manner and we can all move on knowing it's not going to keep happening. We all want to give you a chance to do better, you need to meet us halfway by not lying, acknowledging what you've done wrong and stop doing it. Bacondrum 08:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bacondrum saying I am lying is a serious accusation, requiring serious evidence. Your claims are a breach of WP:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Also, please refrain from othering. We're all in this together. Terjen (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    you have been lying and continue to do so, as evidenced throughout this report. A number of admins have also said you are “bullshitting” I’d stop bullshitting and come clean if I was you. Bacondrum 09:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    considering you are still lying and clearly acting in bad faith, I’m done trying to help you help yourself. I will no longer respond to dishonest nonsense. Bacondrum 09:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on, no body is buying that. A good start would be some honesty. Bacondrum 08:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the guy who said he wouldn't interact with me in the future, and drags me to this board (in admitted error) one day and ten minutes later. Says the guy with a Barnstar of Diplomacy on his talk page pledging to be a lot less combative. Opinions like yours change like the weather, but the diffs and other links Terjen shows have firmly matched his claims from the start, consistently, and recent history suggests you may simply be reading something here in a way not intended. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can give the benefit of the doubt on regarding Erlend Kvitrud's edit overlap with Terjen. What I do find peculiar was Terjen bringing up Swood100's ANI case where Bacondrum and Valereee participated. Swood100 was blocked on 12 January 2021, after edits focused on Cultural Marxism [8]. Terjen resumed editing Wikipedia on 8 January 2021 [9], focused on the storming of the Capitol. Terjen has said that they haven't had much interest in your Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory article (or the topic in general). One wonders how did Terjen come across Swood100's ANI case then? starship.paint (exalt) 10:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Val's been overlapping with several of us for years in tangled webs like this, only natural that a bit of due diligence before stepping into the circle with any of us would uncover something of hers in one of our recent histories sooner or later. Not sure where he's going with this COI angle, though. Assuming good faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bacondrum is making a bald-faced lie when claiming I had made no previous contributions to this article. The evidence is right there on the same Talk page: Just 3 days earlier, I posted several messages starting with an encouragement to represent significant viewpoints. Terjen (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not a liar, I do not lie and take exceptional offense to your completely unfounded claim. I demand it be revoked immediately and with an apology. They had never edited that article before this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive432#1RR_violation_by_User:Terjen_reported_by_User:Bacondrum_(Result:_Blocked_per_AE) and since then have hounded me around Wikipedia. As several editors and Admins have pointed out, he is bullshitting (ie:lying) it is inconceivable that any editor can take Terjen in good faith. An utterly dishonest editor, hounding me, making unfounded bad faith accusation and gaming us all. At what point does this BS get him indef blocked? Bacondrum 08:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Filetime and Providence article images

    User:Filetime appears to believe that they have WP:OWNERSHIP of images in articles about Providence, Rhode Island. They have consistently reverted my changes to these articles, and, when challenged, have WP:CANVASSed editors they believe will support their position to the discussions, and have refused to compromise, although I have done so (see Talk:Brick Schoolhouse, for instance, in which I dropped my support for my own image in favor of another editor's, or Talk:Providence City Hall, in which once another editor had provided a new image for the infobox, I dropped support for my own.)

    The nub of the problem here is the Filetime seems to believe that any photograph which I have taken, or any image by anyone else that I have selected for use in any article, is automatically of "low quality", although their standard for that is variable: see for instance the discussion on Talk:Shepard Company Building in which they insist that an image (not by me) is unusable in the infobox because the resolution is too small, but when replaced by the highest resolution image in the category on Commons, one that I happened to take, rejected it as well because he didn't like the image's "quality". (Her again, when alternate images were suggested by another editor, I uploaded them from Flickr and added them to the article in place of my own.)

    Certainly, there are inevitably going to be disputes in good faith between editors over what images to use in articles, but it simply cannot be the case that every image I select is bad, and every image that Filetime prefers is good. Their inability to judge images as neutrally as possible (something that I try very hard to do, i.e. I never replace a current image with one of my own unless mine is appreciably an improvement; simply being newer or of better resolution is not sufficient to replace an image which serves its function -- such as use in an infobox -- better) and their digging in once they've made a decision are counter to collaboration between editors. Further, their continued violation of WP:CANVASS by pinging to discussions only selected editors, in the face of their being told directly that they should not do this, flies in the face of WP:CONSENSUS. (The latest instance of this can be seen at Talk:Rhode Island State House.) Their apparent automatic rejection of my contributions is beginning to border on WP:HARASSMENT.

    I am not asking for Filetime to be topic banned from Providence articles, that would be unduly harsh, as well as counter-productive for the encyclopedia, since their contributions to those articles overall are quite useful and generally improve them, but some way needs to be found to stop Filetime from automatically rejecting any images I add to articles, and to get them to stop violating WP:CANVASS.

    Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to note that independent editors have repeatedly characterized @Beyond My Ken:'s constant replacing of high quality images in articles relating to Rhode Island as shoehorning. These images are of low visual quality and often reflect errors in photography and editing techniques (blurriness, poor white balance, distracting visual elements). Furthermore, discussions have consistently found that the images added by the editor are of lower quality than those previously included. These editors often note that the difference in quality is not ambiguous. In the case of Rhode Island State House, one independent editor wrote that deciding the previous image was of better quality was an "Easy choice, IMO." Reverting edits that consensus consistently finds to be un-constructive, low quality, and possible shoehorning has nothing to do with ownership. Filetime (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was one of the editors "canvassed" to the discussion at Talk:Rhode Island State House, and I'm not sure how notifying me would be canvasing, a policy which permits notifying editors "who have made substantial edits to the topic or article"? I have previously edited the images on this article, and User:Kzirkel, who was also invited to the discussion, has also made edits to the photos on this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replacing images - especially the main image in the infobox - is one thing, and indeed one that I would agree with if the images were poorer. However, in the case of Congdon Street Baptist Church, you are just removing an additional image that BMK has inserted. Given that BMKs image is more recent, and not technically terrible, removing it does not seem to me to be a useful edit. Ditto removing an image completely here. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Canvassing again, this time on Roger Williams National Memorial [41], along with wholesale reversion of all the changes I made to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I happened to see Filetime's revert at Van Wickle Gates just now, in Recent changes, and I reverted, because a. I don't accept the edit summary (this wasn't a major formatting change) and b. because I think it is better to have captions for images than not. And it's the same images, of course, so there's nothing here about quality. And if, in another article, I compare BMK's version with Filetime's version, it seems pretty obvious to me that BMK's is better--just look at that terrible picture in the infobox. I think having a picture of a sign in the infobox is pretty silly, but in Filetime's version you can't even barely see that it's a sign. And Filetime's edit summaries are highly tendentious, as if they're itching for a fight. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so Filetime can't be arsed to come by here and explain, but they did find the time to make this completely unexplained and unreasonable edit. They did leave an irrelevant note on the talk page--whatever. No, this editor is not being very collaborative here. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • ANI doesn't seem like a great place to hash out which version is better, but I disagree on the Roger Williams National Memorial. Being an article about a park, it makes sense to me to have a picture which displays the park rather than only the sign (and it's better not to have the multi-column cluster of images on the right). But it's certainly not the case that either is obviously better such that either party should be edit warring or going to battle over this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Haha, but "their" picture was a picture of nothing. At least the picture of the sign showed a sign! Drmies (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding the picture of the sign: I also don't think that a picture of a sign is the best choice for the infobox, but after going through the relatively small number of images available on Commons, I understood why Filetime put his sign picture there -- there just weren't a lot of good choices. I replaced it with my picture of a sign for exactly the reason that Drmies points out, that at the size it is displayed at in the infobox, my image was at least readable as a sign, while Filetime's was not.
            This is actually a problem with many of Filetime's choices, that he refuses to understand that an image in an infobox has to function at the size it is presented at. An image which is not the best possible shot of a building can look just fine in an infobox at a small size, and a very good picture can look shitty when presented at sub-postage stamp size in a gallery. For Filetime, though, an image is intrinsically either good or bad, without any consideration about how it is being used, or at what size it is being presented. That does a disservice to our readers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Misinterpretation of MOS - In this edit on Rhode Island State House, Filetime reverts my edits on the grounds that MOS calls for images to be right-aligned. This, of course, is not the case. As I point out in an edit summary MOS:IMAGELOCATION says "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left"; while Help:Pictures#Alternating left and right says "Perhaps the easiest way to handle multiple floating pictures is to alternate them left then right (or right then left); this way they do not come into contact with one another, and so cannot stack up in an unattractive way.". In point of fact -- as any editor who has worked in article layout knows -- stacking images on the right side can be very boring for the reader, so alternating sides (without squeezing text between images) provides visual variety to the article and makes it more enjoyable to read. I am only making this arguent here instead of on the article talk page, because, once again, this is Filetime rejecting edits primarily because I made them, not because he has the best interest of the article at heart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In regards to the gallery size disputes, and correct me if I'm wrong, shouldn't we still be following WP:IMGSIZE? I don't think there's any good reason to force image sizes for these galleries, just as there should not be fixed image sizes for thumbnails. Pbrks (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder: The issue here is the capricious and automatic deletion of an editor's good faith attempts to contribute to Wikipedia articles by an editor with an inflated sense of OWNERSHIP over an entire range of articles, amply shown by the diffs provided above. Further, the editor continually CANVASSes like-minded editors to discussions in order to prevail. In that situation, any apparent "consensus" reached is a WP:FALSECONSENSUS and is not binding, as it does not truly represent the sense of the community. This behavior needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was one of the people pinged by Filetime. I've never had an interaction with them prior to all of this and was only brought into it after Filetime asked for opinions at the photography workshop regarding different photos. Clearly, (at least in my case) this is not CANVASSing. Your edits may be in good faith, but that does not mean they are always better. In every scenario I have been involved with, I have found that the reverts that Filetime had made have been justified, as the photos that you took and replaced in those articles have been technically worse. Pbrks (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that is precisely CANVASSING - Filetime pinged you because he had a previous relationship with you. You should actually read WP:CANVASS sometime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don’t be rude. I have read it, and it is not canvassing. I refer you to fifth bullet point under “Appropriate notification”. Pbrks (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I give up

    Not to get all WP:DIVA about it, but I've just noticed that Filetime's last dozen edits were all about undoing my contributions to his articles, and no one -- except, ironically, the two admins who have commented here -- seems to think that there's any behavioral problem with doing stuff like that. It's really just too much hassle for me to deal with this editor, so I'm going to scrub my plan to edit other Providence articles at this time. Maybe at some point in the future, when Filetime has finally been indef blocked -- because the behavior he's exhibiting now is not likely to stop, and will only get worse -- I can pick up that project again, but for the time being I'll put my energy into more productive areas.

    I've put away my copy of Guide to Providence Architecture, and I formally withdraw my complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, I've posted images and edited articles about buildings and sites all other the country [43], and the editors of Providence are the first to have actively made me feel unwelcome. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally, I would like to note that the behavior chronicled here, i.e. the OWNERSHIP of a group of articles and the running off of a good-faith editor trying to contribute to them, is deeply antithetical to the Wikipedia ethos, and dangerous to the encyclopedia if allowed to thrive and spread. After all, we're not talking about reverting vandalism, or protecting the project from promotion or political propaganda, we're talking about simple disputes about the use of images being weaponized and utilized as a bludgeon. That Filetime continued (and for all I know continues, as I have not cared to check their contribution list since earlier today) even after their behavior has been exposed is disturbing, and potentially dangerous. Filetime has shown interest in other geographical areas as well: Massachusetts, specifically Boston, and Chicago, for instance. Will they replicate their exclusionary behavior in articles about those places as well? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Dangerous? Excuse me? Maybe dial down the rhetoric a bit. The pictures I checked that you uploaded were not improvements. When your work is removed it hurts, I get it. But let’s not make this into something it’s not. Maybe this is an opportunity for you to revisit some of those sites and try to improve your photography skills. If they are better I will join you in getting them added to the relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Mr. Ernie (now that you're here, I know that I'm in the right), "dangerous". Wikipedia is built on collaboration and consensus. When one editor takes it upon themselves, without the community's approval, to prevent another one from participating in a certain subject, collaboration is out the window, and when they call upon like-minded editors to back them up, without a general call for participation, consensus is undermined. If collaboration and consensus are gone, Wikipedia can no longer be what it intends to be -- so, yes, "dangerous" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the subject topic at hand, this section just feels like you're throwing a tantrum, BMK. If multiple other people are disagreeing with you, then it's clearly not just Filetime supporting these changes. From what I can tell from looking at the above linked talk pages and examples, you're correct in some cases with your images, but incorrect on others and instead are supporting inferior images. SilverserenC 02:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Filetime's crew, and a few long-time adversaries who come out of the woodworks every time my name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    🙄 Levivich harass/hound 02:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Q.E.D. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoddy earache demon stranded?  :) ——Serial 13:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ironic that BMK is making claims of WP:OWNERSHIP, because I'm seeing the reverse. ANI is revealing a long-standing behavioral problem, yet again. This is a content dispute that should not have made its way to ANI. There are editors who cannot withstand having their edits altered or deleted in good faith and in accordance with policy. These editors, regardless of their editing talent, tenure, or friends here, are largely a net negative for the project if they're repeatedly unwilling to acknowledge their disruptive behavior. Frankly, at some point, BMK has to look at the common denominator. His colleagues are doing him a disservice by insisting on rushing to his defense rather than encouraging him to participate more collaboratively and develop methods to mentally overcome dissent to his edits. Worse, he begins a new section to passive-aggressively accuse his opponents of operating an anti-BMK cabal. This battleground mentality is a disruptive time-dump. RandomGnome (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of sanctions

    (Non-administrator comment) Isn't this the reason BMK has agreed to the following sanctions from the previous ANI?

    There is community consensus for the following pledges made by Beyond My Ken:

    • BMK will put all article images within the section they relate to whenever and wherever possible.
    • When another editor disputes BMK's judgement whether it is or isn't possible to put an image inside the relevant section, he will defer to their decision.

    Beyond My Ken has also agreed that failure to stick to the above pledges may be enforced by blocks.
    — User:Ritchie333

    The conduct described here definitely violates the second bullet point, as evidenced by an apparent image-related dispute (specifically concerning the infobox of Shepard Company Building) that BMK himself carried over to Talk:Shepard Company Building. I'm not sure if bullet #1 has been violated, or if there have been any similar incidents involving BMK in 7 March 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The second clause relates only to the first clause. It is not a general statement. Nice try, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ibn Daud

    Fresh off an attempted outing, User:Ibn Daud has accused me of making fervently ... anti-Semitic edits and then when asked for diffs of said edits replies with a link to an off-wiki harassment site. Me thinks a ban hammer is in order, but if unsupported accusations of anti-semitism and linking to webpages used to out editors isnt the ban worthy offense it used to be would be nice to know that. nableezy - 23:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also a 1RR violation at State of Palestine, but can take that to AE to be dealt with if need be. nableezy - 23:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are my preliminary thoughts, although I hope that other administrators and editors will also evaluate and comment. Editors with a pro-Palestinian or a pro-Israel POV are welcome to edit this encyclopedia, as long as they comply with our core content policies and key behavioral guidelines, have the necessary experience, and work toward consensus and NPOV. The fact that Nableezy has been active here as long as they have while editing in a highly contentious topic area is a testament (non-religious) to that editor's understanding of these policies and guidelines. Editors who choose to contribute anonymously are entitled to do so without snoops trying to dox them, and linking to off-Wiki hate sites targeting specific editors is not acceptable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Zero0000 has erased part of my talk page in which I point out that historically User:Nableezy has issued several false SPI’s to silence or remove pro-Israel editors. There are numerous examples of this. Nableezy, Zero0000, User:Nishidani, User:Selfstudier and many other Pro-Palestine, Anti-Zionist users are all savvy editors who have been able to maintain an anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time. They have done this through a series of manipulative tactics and have been immensely successful in doing so. I see now that they are much too influential on this website for anything to be done about this. Perhaps at some point, one day, some administrators will look into and maybe even fix this, but for now, I see that it is impossible, for me to try to revert or combat their anti-Israel agenda. That “off-wiki harassment site”, though definitely, fervent and a little unprofessional is not wrong in describing and cataloging examples of the following user’s manipulative tactics, which they use to force their viewpoint on one of the internet’s largest websites. For this reason, Wikipedia has a somewhat subtle and even sometimes evidently clear Anti-Israel bias, which is read by millions of individuals across the world. It’s truly a remarkable accomplishment that has only been achieved through thousands of hours of tireless Anti-Israel editing by users such as Zero0000, Nishidani, Nableezy, Selfstudier User:Huldra, User:Onceinawhile ect. I know I’m probably going to be topic banned, which I’m honestly fine with, as I now realize that right now, there is no changing this unfortunate status quo. Perhaps this message may even be censored or deleted, in the name of WP:PA, which would really just prove my point. I don’t mean to personally attack anyone, but I am instead just bringing up a disappointing reality. All in all, I’ll stop trying to edit on Israel/Palestine-related topics, and go back to editing my topics in my usual realm of interests, which are without a doubt much less controversial. Ibn Daud (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy was just recently brought to the drama boards for his posts, that you ignored it is fine. I would also ask that asking any new pro-Israel editor if they ever edited Wikipedia before is not CIVIL and yes, we do have an issue with false SPI being filed and anyone in certain timezones are immediately banned as socks because our team doesn't have the technical knowledge to investigate. Your post is clear as to why there is conflict on Wiki when you think it's one sided. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking to said harassment site on ANI is special. nableezy - 05:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ibn Daud, thank you for revealing that, unlike the other editors you revile, you have no intention of following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are here only to do battle with your ideological opponents rather than to collaborate to produce neutral content that accurately summarizes all points of view. You have presented no evidence of "manipulative tactics" used by these editors to maintain an "anti-Israel status quo on Wikipedia for a long time", perhaps because Wikipedia's job is to report on the full range of what reliable sources say about these topics, as opposed to repeating what the Netanyahu government says at this particular moment in time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If its any consolation Ibn Daud you’re probably not looking at a topic ban but a more general WP:NOTHERE ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the outcome, I would suggest that this editor read up a little. There is vast shouting in the press, reliable mainstream organs, about 'pro-Palestinians' hogging the discourse and spewing hate. We have a recent book on the phenomenon by an undisputed expert with all of the required credentials. Kenneth Stern, The Conflict Over the Conflict,, University of Toronto Press ISBN 978-1-487-53610-7. If one hasn't time for the long read, the gist is excerpted in Ed Pilkington's article today: 'US campuses become a growing front in Israeli-Palestinian conflict,' The Guardian 21 May 2021. Despite the title, the statistics show the realities on the ground have a far lower profile than what hysteria about groups, like the fictitious wiki mafia Ibn Daud conjures up, ganging up suggest in press reports. 'The paradox of such attempts to restrict academic exploration of the Middle East crisis, Stern told the Guardian, was that it gave the impression that US universities were on fire with pro-Palestinian activism when in fact major confrontations were relatively rare. “People paint campuses as burning over this issue, and anti-Israel activity as ubiquitous, but the data doesn’t bear that out,” he said.' Idem here. The I/P area, so often called 'toxic' no man's land, is a much quieter area than it was a decade ago, and the general conversation is civil, and well-informed between editors. Nishidani (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, User talk:Cullen328. The fact that a problematic editor like Nableezy is still on Wikipedia is a testament to the fact that admins have made poor and biased decisions over and over again. You and other admins have damaged this project by banning and blocking editors with many good and valuable contributions, like User:Ibn Daud, just because they didn't always avoid conflict. That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project. Debresser (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought the last block for violating your topic ban would have sent the message home to stop doing that. nableezy - 13:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Debresser:, please self-revert. You know Nableezy is going to make a federal case about this when you both violate your topic ban and attack them, so why do it? To quote a wikipedian I respect greatly "That is poor judgement, and a loss for this project." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to point out that indefinitely blocking (not that a block should have been avoided) an editor that has created several articles [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] (these in 2021, see history of the user's sandbox going back to 2019 [49]), which are by the way not related to Palestine but rather to Jews in Belarus and Lithuania, for WP:NOTHERE looks excessive. I agree with Debresser that this is a loss for the project. Super Ψ Dro 14:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They have been "Indeffed for outing attempts." not for NOTHERE. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, I assumed WP:NOTHERE was the reason as I noticed it more than the word "outing" (didn't know its meaning before) in this thread. Super Ψ Dro 15:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:World Beating

    This user is only deleting German Place names... So no constructive edits, just vandalism. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've given them a somewhat stronger warning. Let's see if they heed that. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess this user don't care. This is the third time on Opole for example [50]. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    World Beating (talk · contribs) blocked temporarily. Hopefully they will begin to communicate. Tiderolls 13:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    user Dvgardens20

    Dvgardens20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Would appear to be a spam-only account. Every edit I've checked plugs Designer Vertical Gardens directly or indirectly. The last was to Dr Pepper Adakiko (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef spamblock by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Adakiko (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Palithanimala ref spamming

    Palithanimala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps adding lovidhu.com to various articles as a reference. It seems the website is a travel blog, therefore cannot be considered a WP:RS. Furthermore, the user is connected to the said website, therefore, it is sort of spamming. Once he added a WP:FRINGE theory and cited it from their website. The user is not responding well to previous messages. Kindly do the needful here, Regards.--Chanaka L (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    While it looks a lot like linkspamming, I haven't reached a conclusion about the references - they're not the usual sort of tourist board bloggy spam, and it's a part of the world that wouldn't have a lot of high-quality English references to work with. However, Palithanimala blanked this report and has been uncommunicative. I will leave them a note about that and look through their contributions. Acroterion (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on discussion on their talkpage, it's the editor's own website, and it seems to be ultimately sourced from a particular book, presumably written in Sinhala.I've advised them that they need to cite the book for content, and not launder it through their personal project. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply googled "1967 Sigiriya frescoes", and it yielded a number of reliable sources reporting the 1967 vandalism incident. Hope they add an English source. Thanks Acroterion for mediation. Cheers.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Their response to me isn't terribly encouraging, and their attitude toward you isn't any better. We'll see how they go. Acroterion (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not offended, I was once a clueless newbie. Just hope they come around and keep the promise they made to you.--Chanaka L (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    46.97.170.0/24

    Recent edits by 46.97.170.0/24 are reasonable. Let me know if further unhelpful commentary occurs and I will issue escalating blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Individual IPs:

    Range:

    User appears to be here for the sole purpose of bludgeoning, picking fights and pushing a particular POV.

    • "it is a well known fact that Hungary is, and to some degree always has been a hotbed of right wing populism and nationalist sentiments"[51]
    • "There is no "left" on wikipedia. But if right wingers want to win more edit wars, they should care more about objective facts."[52]
    • "look at the kind of people who make it their business to regugularly defend him. You will notice that all of them are either republican pundits, or alt-right/alt-lite influencers. "[53]
    • "This is what I meant when I said that Babylon Bee is no different from any other right wing disinfo site. Fox, OAN, Newsmax, Bounding into Comics, you name it, they're all the same."[54]
    • "Evidence? You mean aside from every single breadtuber that ever analyzed his ideologies in depth, and aside from the fact that all of Jordan Peterson's fans on youtube are members of or associated with the alt right? I souldn't need to prove what's common knowledge and easily verifyable."[55]
    • "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is."[56]
    • "Also, no mention that her holocaust comments were interpreted as comparing American conservatives to Jews in Nazi Germany"[57]
    • "The point is that putting Peterson's words into the mouth of a skull faced nazi character makes them sound like a villain monologue. But Peterson apologists are too devoid of self awareness to realize that."[58]
    • "We're talking about a newspaper that FIRED a long time employee because he wasn't a trump bootlicker, and prohibited a reporter from covering the George Floyd protests on basis of skin color. I'd be very disappointed if I looked at Wikipedia's list of reliable sources and learned that it wasn't blacklisted like Breitbart, the Daily Wire or other right wing trumpist rags."[59] (He is talking about the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
    • "I only brought up Trump because like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society. Yes, one had actual political power, and nearly destroyed the country. But people like Peterson are part of the reason there are people dumb enough to actually vote for trump. Their carreer's are uncomparable, but they represent the same toxic far right ideology."[60]
    • "The first paragraph of the section is nothing but right wing pundits flapping their mouths and spouting right wing punditry, and should be deleted entirely."[61]

    Also:

    • Deleting other user's talk page comments.[62] (The deleted comment was right-wing stupidity, but no worse than what 46.97.170.0/24 regularly posts.)
    • Removing sources because "they are agenda driven"[63]

    --Guy Macon (talk) 15:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things before I address the broader issue: Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control, so there's no point leaving a notification on one I'm no longer using - it's not likely I will be assigned that particular IP again. Second, I find the last two claims to be unfair. The talk page in question has had several similar comments removed by other users, on the grounds that they are off topic and have nothing to do with the subject. I apologize if I got the wrong impression that this is standard practice. Regarding the sources I removed from How_to_Be_an_Antiracist, other contributors CONFIRMED that I had the right idea. You can read it on the talk page.
    The vast majority of problem lines, quite honestly confuse me. I tried to avoid picking fights ever since last year's incidents. I'd be the first to admit fault if it turns out I wasn't always entirely successful in that regard, but many of my lines presented here don't seem to make sense. My comment on the Gina Carano talk page, regarding her holocaust comments expecially strikes me as out of place, because it's just a near word for word reference to content from the article itself. Some of the stronger opinions are no worse than what registered contributors, including some admins have said. I've read essays on wikipedia that use stronger language. The last ANI report was most certainly justified, seeing as I made baseless accusations of vandalism, and made some rather inappropriate comments. The only thing presented here that comes anywhere near that, when looket at in context, appears to be my comments on the Post-Gazette, which, looking back, definitely feels like something I should not have said. Maybe the trump comment too - that's was a pointless tangent, and the Ben Shapiro one is definitely a BLP violation. I'm going to redact these immediately. There's also that long off-topic argument on Jordan Peterson's talk page, that carried on far too long, but I was not the sole responsible party there, and it was not my intention to go off topic.
    That's three comments, that are inappropriate, maybe two where I used harsher language than I should have, and one that was probably put here by mistake, because it's a sentence fragment from the article - not my words. I'm not seeing the problem with the rest, however. I wasn't trying to pick fights. I received two warnings in april which I tried to discuss and clarify, but unfortunately I didn't get any responses. Still, it is true that wikipedia isn't a forum, and some of the discussions I involved myself in, did unfortunately go in that direction, which was not my intent. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In my opinion, even if you are unfailingly polite towards other users, expressing your POV with phrases like "far right grifter", "trump bootlicker", "the same cancer that's destroying modern society" and "nearly destroyed the country" shows me that you are more interested in promoting your political ideology than in building an encyclopedia. I am actually sympathetic because I shore many of your opinions about certain recent politicians, but I mostly keep those opinions to myself because they are out of place here.
    The other problem I see is WP:BLUDGEONING. You don't just express your political opinions. You keep expressing your political opinions again and again even when it has become clear that the consensus is against you. What I am not seeing is any hint of compromise or cooperation.
    In my opinion, you should be topic banned from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The unregistered editor wrote: "Firstly, my IP cnages periodically and unpredictably, and it's entirely outside my control". No. That is under your control, in that you can register an account. It is only outside your control if you insist on not registering. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention one of the three users who supported your version felt the need to write that "Carano did not tweet anti-Semitism and transphobia" so no prizes for guessing what their agenda here is.[64]
    Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame. [65] redacted by another editor
    Link to open BLP/N thread
    I've only had extensive experience with this editor on the Gina Carano article, and in general it hasn't been very pleasant. They have no issue with making BLP violating comments on the talk page, or accusing editors of having an agenda. The two quotes above give, I think, a reasonable distillation of what discussions with them are like. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been watching this IP editor for a month or so (since they joined the Peterson article). I raised a concern with their talk page comments on their talk page here [[66]]. I share Guy Macon's concerns. I do think it is a positive sign that they have, after posting here, started removing some of their offending comments (example [[67]]). I also will say I don't see disruption of the article's themselves, just frustrating talk page behavior. My feeling is they are on a fence. If they recognize the issue and are willing to fix the problem I think any additional sanctions would be punitive. However, if they continue I would support some type of Tban. It might have to be an IP range block due to the lack of a named account. It also would be good if they created an account. The combination of aggressive comments and shifting IPs is a problem. Several of the talk pages have similar warnings. Springee (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with Springee above, I am willing to grant a very short length of WP:ROPE given that the user in question appears to be willing to redact their earlier offensive comments and commit to being better behaved moving forward. I'd have considered a ban had they not just done so, and would be willing to consider a formal ban of some sort if the shenanigans continue, however. --Jayron32 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My initial tendency on this one was to also go for a warning given my assumption this was a new editor and WP is a different environment than most others. However, I'm not sure I agree anymore. Now that I've seen this behavior has gone on for a while and only seems to change when ANI gets involved. I would recommend reading the previous incident report and noting that IP was already on a short rope. I might also be a bit more supportive if the user was making constructive edits otherwise, but that doesn't seem to be the case either. This feels very much like a user who wants a forum and to POV push and thinks they can walk the line on behavior, backing off just shy of getting banned. I'd recommend a Tban as well, but can support a warning if we think that is more prudent. Just a note to future ANI administrators in case this comes up again. Squatch347 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Having just reviewed the earlier ANI, I'm going to suggest a short rope strategy that might not be technically possible. I would suggest range blocking the IP but offering the option to create an account that isn't blocked (is that possible?). If they mess up the account gets blocked and future IP edits can be blocked per EVADE. However, they still have ROPE so they can show that they were listening. Springee (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Guy Macon for the comprehensive report. I've also seen this IP tendentiously attack BLPs and other editors, so I wasn't surprised when someone reported them to WP:BLP/N. They eerily remind me of the sock who was harassing me when I first started editing. The IP has been warned more than enough times from plenty of experienced editors, so I don't think offering them anymore chances will do any good. I included some additional diffs in case anyone wants to take a peak. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional Diffs
    .
    • Calling a BLP a "white supremacist" in mainspace without a source [68]
    • "Volokh is a right wing hack. Of course he's going to read it in a way that makes his side and his people look good."[69]
    • " Gina is C-list actress with no talent, who got the role out of pitty by Favreau whom she put into a difficult situation, playing a replaceable supporting character"[70]
    • " The fact that Gina Carano's idiotic beliefs are shared by half of americans, is exactly why the rest of the world sees americans as stupid"[71]
    • " Let us be real here. Gina Carano is a nobody. Her becoming an alt-right sweetheart for stirring the pot with her idiotic social media posts and doubling down when politely asked to stop is the only reason people even know she exists. Before that she was a failed martial artist who got massively owned in her first real match, and an untalented d-list actress playing silent bit roles where she was cast purely for her size and frame." [72]
    • "Not only is Musk not a scientist, his dangerous lies about COVID-19 has proven that he's a science-denier."[73]
    • "None of these nameless idiots are notable enough to deserve even the slightest mention."[74]
    • "Sanger isn't anyone important. He's just some chud who had ties with wikipedias founders at one point, yet his fellow trumptards are using him like he was an authoritative source on all things wikipedia, when he's little more than a parasite, trying to use the works of pthers to become relevant.his opinion on wikipedia, couldn't matter any less."[75]
    • "Barr's opinion is of course bullshit"[76]
    • "Now, do you have anything meaningful to say or are you just going to talk out of your ass? Everybody with a brain knows what the Alternative Influencer Network means by Red Pill"[77]
    • " Read Mr Ernie's mosta on this talk page. His intention is very obviously to downplay the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh"[78]
    • "Unsigned comment by a trump supporter, not worthy oc consideration"[79]
    • "This is a fluff piece of a right wing pundit. The entire article is promotional in nature, and presents Sowell's views and ideologies without the slightest effort to present the objections of his critics. Considering how contentious his claims about politics, race and ethnicity are (there's even a mention of the race and IQ corellation, a well known white supremacist talking point), it's preposterous to pretend he never got any pushback from high profile academics. Nor is there any mention of his less popular views, such as his climate change denialism."[80]
    • " Mr Ernie has stated ON THIS VERY TALK PAGE, several paragraphs above that he does not believe the allegations against Kavanaugh and claims that they have been proven false. His edit attempted to trim down the section on the allegations, which would've diminished Wikipedia's coverage of them. It is obvious that he has an agenda here, and that his edit was in line with thay agenda"[81]
    • "This is wikipedia, not some alt right propaganda outlet. We don't cover irrelevant, politically motivated rumors. I don't understand how anyone could even consider this. On a sidenote, user: Mr Ernie has a history or making politically motivated edits to whitewash the GOP. Maybe some of the moderators should investigate him"[82]

    I oppose giving this IP more rope, based upon:

    1. The promises given in the previous ANI report and the rope they were given at that time.
    2. Their heartfelt belief that anything other than demonizing any person and any source that shows the slightest trace of conservatism is a NPOV violation that must be fought tooth and nail no matter what the consensus is. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to agree with Guy Macon here. They were given a chance in the previous AN/I thread and they've gone right back to the behaviour that got them reported in the first place. --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    I am going to try and address as much of this as possible. I will say this first, I don't have any objections to a topic ban if it's decided that's necessary. The arguments for it do sound convincing. That being said, some of the claims here appear unfair to me.

    • To start off, many of the offending comments being brought up here, are from last year, and have already been a subject of an ANI. I have admitted to wrongdoing then, redacted many of the offending comments, and refrained from further activity on the site for the rest of the year. The comments I made then included actual potentially libellous statements on BLP subjects, personal attacks on other users, including unfair accusations of vandalism, and a couple of minor edits that could be considered vandalism. I do not think any of my recent comments are of that nature, or even close. I have tried to refrain from that behavior, keeping last year's ANI in mind. I don't see the point in bringing those up again.
    • Some of the specific accusations are simply wrong. I have been accused multiple times of calling Coleman Hughes an "alt right grifter", which I did not do. And due to unfortunate wording, my comment to clarify that I was referring to Ben Shapiro, not Hughes, was just used to incriminate me further. Dr Swag Lord brings that point up against me in the above BLP Noticeboard discussion (of which I received no notification for some reason), along with the claim that I also called Jordan Peterson a "nazi supervillain", which is also not true, as was pointed out to him. He began bringing up last years incidents after he and several others with BLP violation complaints against me were told that they don't have a strong case against me. He also seems to suspect me of being someone he had a previous conflict with - I don't know what the basis of this assumption is.
    • On the Jordan Peterson talk page, aside from the one comment I redacted, the only real objectionable thing I did is getting involved in a long thread derailment, when another user tried to debate the contents of two sources, arguing that they were using guilt by association. I understand that wikipedia is not a forum, and I shouldn't have gotten into that argument as far as I did, but I was not the sole responsible party.
    • The assessment that I find anything less than demonization of anyone even remotely associated with conservatism to be NPOV, and that I fight tooth and nail against consensus, strikes me as unfair. Especially seeing as my comments on the Thomas Sowell article seem to be the impetus - correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that my choice of words was far from neutral, but to say I was fighting tooth and nail against consensus, so the article would demonize the subject is an exxagerration. Thomas Sowell is a controversial figure, but his article doesn't reflect that at all. I have also argued that over a quarter of sources are primary and come from the subject himself. If I'm wrong about that, that's due to me misinterpreting WP:ABOUTSELF, not the desire to "demonize".
    • Similarly, on the Gina Carano talk page, where I've been the most active, and where the "tooth and nail" remark does apply, I wasn't fighting for the demonization of the subject but over the inclusion of information that was already in the existing sources. I objected to the use of a specific wording, which is only used by one source, and asked for the inclusion of relevant information that was in multiple sources, and was previously part of the article. The only comments I made about on the subject herself, had to do with her notability, and the relative notability of the social media controversy. My comments about users "pushing an agenda" was referring to contributors supporting the exclusion of information based on their own personal interpretation of primary sources, rather than what reliable sources say. This has been already covered in the BLP noticeboard discussion above. Morbidthoughts made correct observations about my comments without me having to defend myself, so I don't see why ScottishFinnishRaddish keep insisting that my only goal is to throw insults.
    • Regarding Squatch347's comments I think it's fair to point out that I have made constructive edits in the past. I know I used a lot of politically charged language, and sometimes go off into unnecessary tangents when giving my reasoning but a lot of the content I have removed have been justified. On How to Be and Antiracist, the consensus was ultimately on my side, and multiple attempts to restore my deletions have been reverted by registered users. I also nominated the article on Dan Fraga for deletion due to the self-promotional nature of it. I had a rather long and exhausting dispute on the Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials regarding the reliablility of some of the sources in the "academic commentary" section. I'm also involved in the discussion on the talk page of the upcoming The Little Mermaid film, regarding an alleged casting controversy, which I don't believe is notable enough to warrant mentioning. I also removed a guilt by association claim from Ibram X. Kendi and warned of incoming vandalism on that article and on Heidi Heitkamp. I know this is overshadowed by my annoying habit of getting into unnecessarily long arguments and using language that is oftentimes unwarranted, I just felt the need to point out that I did make constructive edits.

    Now, this is mostly my response to the nature of the claims made against me, not really to the core issue (i.e. frustrating talk page behavior), which I don't dispute. Like I said, if a topic ban is found to be appropriate, I'm not going to object to it. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not seeing where I've said your only goal is to throw insults. Do you have a diff or two of that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this? They're not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support them. It's just complaints and insults about a BLP. from the BLPN discussion. It's possible I'm misunderstanding. Notice that the words "racist" and "bootlicker" are in quotation marks. Those are not my words, those are from comments made about the subject as reported by the sources. My argument was that she was being criticised rather than bullied. I was trying to argue for the same wording I brought up again recently but I ended up dropping it because not enough sources justify it. In the case of many other comments I made about Gina Carano personally, I was arguing about how much coverage the controversy should receive in proportion to the rest of the article. I do admit some of it did sound insulting, and not at all neutral, but Morbidthoughts managed to get my intentions without me having to say a single word. Anyway, I'll probably be out for the weekend. I'll see what the decision is when I get back. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs, as insane and nonsensical as they are, to be of any relevance, outside the usual far right echochambers.[83] was the diff I linked, which I was commenting on. You yourself said that the sources didn't touch on it and that she was not noteworthy for her political beliefs, then called her beliefs insane. I would say that that specific diff that I was describing was not arguing for inclusion based on sources, recognizing that sources don't support the inclusion and that you were complaining about and insulting a BLP. It also wasn't a comment that your only goal was to throw insults, and to say so is disingenuous as there was clearly a diff attached. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I missed that. I can see why people would misunderstand that comment, but that wasn't referring to the controversy. It was referring specifically to her ties to Comicsgate, which indeed isn't covered by reliable sources. In the first couple of months when this was fresh news, I was expecting some kind of expose from the media, but it never happened. Point is, I was talking about an issue not directly related to the controversy as it was covered by reliable sources. So I wasn't admitting that the things I was arguing for weren't covered by reliable sources, I was talking about something else that I was initially hoping for eventually being included not being covered by reliable sources, if that makes sense. I know it's not obvious, and my wording certainly didn't help. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem, 46.97, is the use of rhetoric such as "as insane and nonsensical as they are" and "far right echo chamber". Your statement without those portions, The problem is, that reliable sources do not touch on this, at least not to an extent that it would be notable. Gina Carano, in spite of some people here insisting otherwise, is nowhere near noteworthy enough for her political beliefs to be of any relevance. would have been a sufficient comment on the situation; the pejorative and disdainful rhetoric is actually distracting from what was otherwise a cogent and good point, and many people (including those of us who, in a less formal setting than Wikipedia like at a bar enjoying a few beverages together, would likely agree with your analysis) find such asides to be rude and distracting. Regardless of our opinions on the politics of others (such as other users, or the people of subjects we are writing about on Wikipedia and discussing), we're still expected to maintain a level of decorum and grant those people (and those around us) a certain level of dignity. Comments like "insane and nonsensical" have no place in such discussions at Wikipedia, and people tire of them when you keep using rhetoric like that. THAT is the crux of the problem. --Jayron32 13:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A relevant comment[84] from User:Nil Einne from the last time ANI was ashed to deal with this:

    "Needing to be brought to ANI before you recognise your fault is often not a good sign. Of course it does depend on what attempts were made to discuss this with first so I checked out your talk page and found [85] where you already agreed you got carried away. Which would be great if you hadn't caused major issues since then. But the unsupported wikipedia vandal claim is after that acknowledgement [86] and as Pudeo said you got challenged yet doubled down once [87]. The best solution by far would be if this doesn't happen again. If you keep finding yourself getting carried away or irrational, you need to find some way to deal with it that doesn't involve problem edits and then fixing them when people complain enough. Either take a break before posting, or stop editing in the subject areas where you're finding it difficult to control yourself."

    I don't think we can trust any further promises from 46.97.170.0/24 to stop the objectionable behavior and I do not believe that at this time 46.97.170.0/24 has the ability to contribute productively in the area of post-1992 politics of the United States. I say we should impose a topic ban and invite them to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer to appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Macon, I tend to agree with you, especially after seeing the attempts already made to address the issue with them and their responses above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One final thought (written for the average editor: admins know all of this already); we traditionally only block IPs for shortish periods because the ISP could assign the IP to someone else tomorrow. Blocks from editing certain pages can be longer; the odds of that second person using the same IP not only editing Wikipedia but editing the same page are very small. But in this case I am thinking that no actual block is needed. Just tell 46.97.170.0/24 that they are topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States broadly construed, give them a clear explanation of what Wikipedia:Broadly construed means, and I think they will obey the restriction. This will also give them a good argument when and if they later request that the topic ban be lifted: "I spent X months without a topic ban violation". The ultimate goal is not to stop people from editing. The ultimate goal is to convert them to productive and valuable editors. Back in 2006 I was an extremely disruptive IP editor, but when a veteran editor calmly explained to me how Wikipedia is different from your average social media website, I learned how to be a good editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest including a BLP tban just in case. I also think if they agree to create an account we should give them a very small amount of rope. I would hope that Jayron32 (talk · contribs)'s later post was sufficient to illustrate the sort of talk page comments that are not helpful. Springee (talk) 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have they ever caused any disruption on BLP pages or talk pages not related to post-1992 politics of the United States? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Most disruption has been focused on WP:AMPOL related BLP pages. But they also caused disruption on BLPs like Mark Waid [88], Joe Rogan[89], Elon Musk[90], Larry Sanger[91], and Jacob Gardner[92]. Joe Rogan may fall under AP2, but I don't think the other ones do. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a strong case. That Mark Waid edit, for example, was a serious BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that they have caught the WP:ANIFLU. Note to self: if you ever get into trouble at ANI just stop editing. It doesn't always work, but it often leads to the report being archived or closed with a "no recent activity" comment. Further note to self: Do not immediately restart the behavior. People notice that sort of thing. Either start misbehaving on a new page or wait a couple of months before starting up again on the same page.   :(   --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Call for close ( 46.97.170.0/24 )

    It is unlikely that further discussion will change the result of this discussion. May we have an uninvolved administrator evaluate the consensus, write up a summary, and close this? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we entertained the IP editor long enough. If someone calls a leading First Amendment scholar "a right wing hack" and so on, the editor is either trolling or incompetent to edit BLPs. Or at least the area of American Politics. Ban them and let them appeal if they learn to adhere to core policies and guidelines. Politrukki (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (...Sound of Crickets...) ---Guy Macon (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that there's little energy to close this because there's little in the way of any actionable proposals. Other than a few large walls of text between the primary complainant (yourself) and the defense made by 46.97... there isn't much in the way of a firm way forward. Some people have proposed a few half-hearted hints at sanction ideas, but it is difficult for an admin to enact any sanctions based on such vagaries and any lack of clear consensus among the uninvolved. If you want this resolved in some sort of active sanction, you're going to need to call the question and propose a concise, concrete way forward. --Jayron32 15:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My concrete proposal: A community-imposed topic ban from anything related to post-1992 politics of the United States, broadly construed, with the usual invitation to edit constructively in other areas with the usual offer of allowing an appeal the topic ban after six month of showing good behavior in other areas. I recommend no block or partial block at this time; let's see if they abide by the TB voluntarily.
    Dr.Swag Lord thinks the TB should be extended to all BLPs. I say we wait on that and see if there is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Guy Macon's proposal (see my initial post for details). This would remove the topics that have cause the most problems for the IP and still all them to edit Wiki in other areas and, perhaps, pick up the norms. Squatch347 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposal, would also support the BLP topic ban as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposal Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Reviewing the diffs shows that the ip holds strong opinions about the subjects in discussions about content choice allowable under WP:BLPTALK. I do not see the disruption here as I expect the community to have stronger tolerance and expectations that contentious subjects yield contentious opinions. BLP should not be used as a sword to hush these opinions because editors think they amount to IDONTLIKE and ILIKEIT rationales. We've shown great tolerance for other users who hold less than noble opinions in deletion discussions. I don't see how this should be any different. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Seriously? You actually think that "I called Ben Shapiro a far right grifter, because that is what he is" and "Like Peterson, he's a symptom of the same cancer that's destroying modern society" are allowed under BLPTALK? How do you explain the fact that 46.97.170.0/24 freely admitted that their comments violated our policies and retracted them? (46.97.170.0/24 does that every time they are reported an ANI and then go right back to the same behavior once the report is archived, but it is still an admission that they understand that what they are doing is not allowed.) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The Shapiro comment was in context of whether his opinions were WP:UNDUE for the article and in response to another editor's accusations while the Peterson quote was in context of whether a section was WP:DUE (responding to an editor who commented on misogyny and nationalism from Peterson), qualifying BLPTALK.(See [93][94][95]) The ip's previous admissions only means they got heated and are willing to defer or yield to consensus; something again they have shown here. Let me ask how have these comments been disruptive to move for sanctions? Have they somehow improperly made to article space, improperly sway article discussion on what has gone into article space, or enraged other editors to the point of disruptive bludgeoning that distract from the actual content issue? You all are better than that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "how have these comments been disruptive?" please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Personal attacks, BLP attack etc. by 46.97.170.78, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gina Carano, and the other comments in this section. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which door were you picking? You cited personal attacks from almost a year ago, which is different than what is brought up here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most recent edits by 46.97.170.0/24 are to reasonably comment here and to remove some of their screeds. If similar recurs, please let me know and I will issue escalating blocks for the range. @Morbidthoughts: You're wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You will have to be more specific. The very first sentence of WP:BLPTALK is as clear as day, and I have pointed out history supporting this. Is this an administrators decree or a WP:SUPERVOTE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Morbidthoughts, I think it's discretionary sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I've modified the above comment indentation to comply with WP:Accessibility. Anyway I've purposely avoided getting involved in this but FWIW I agree with most others than the IP's comments, as apparently even they agree, go beyond the limits of BLPTALK. Editors are free to have whatever personal opinions they want of subjects, but they need to take care to ensure their comments actually relate to improving Wikipedia when they touch on subjects. If there is a way to make the point without commenting on a subject, they should do so. Continued failure to do so is likely a problem. It generally doesn't even matter how many people share that point of view. While it's reasonable to have some leeway especially for extremely notable people e.g. I think it's rare comments on Donald Trump or Jo Biden or Hillary Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack Obama or for that matter Jacinda Ardern or John Key at least from a BLP standpoint (other issues may cause concern though) if enough editors express concern that an editor is persistently crossing the line then they need to take this feedback on board. An editor can think subject X is an irrelevant nobody as much as they want. It's largely irrelevant to us. What matters are reliable sources and reliable source coverage. Notably from what I saw most or all of the examples did not involved material directly sourced to the subjects concerned, so their alleged unreliability was not that germane to the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I just want to see this closed one way or the other. I am fine with a "no action required, user cautioned" close. The worse that could happen is that we end up here again in a few weeks. What I really want to do is unwatch this page. Having it on my watch list tempts me to post here, and apparently there is an unwritten rule that if you ever want to run for RfA you are required to show zero interest in AN, ANI, AE, or Jimbotalk. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeated Disruptive Editing (Original Research)

    2409:4043:2D1F:FBBF:BAFA:74B7:C259:E08B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly making changes to airport related articles, even after letting them know that they need to link or cite sources. -- LemonSlushie 🍋 (talk) (edits) 15:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The Blocking of Sychonic

    No administrative action requested or required. OP was blocked for edit warring because they were edit warring; the rest is inappropriate WP:NOTFORUMing. GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    To those who may discern: This comment is in regard to my (as in the title "Sychonic") being blocked for questionable reasons, and since the topic is no longer on the list, I am adding this as an addendum to that incident topic, so as to communicate my thoughts on what I consider to be an unfair, but more importantly an unwise misapplication of the guidelines.

    Now that my cyber-exile has ended, I am here to explain my intention to apologize, to offer up contrition for the actions I have taken. The apology is not directed to anyone on this board of course, but rather to those I challenged in the past in defense of Wikipedia. Situations have arisen over the years related to the value of Wiki, often enough such that it was a consistent event. A question of fact would arise and, as is common, I looked up the answer. I would begin by saying: “Well, the Wiki page on this says …”, upon which I would be interrupted with a snort, or a guffaw, or some other form of derision that was accompanied by statements like “don’t give me Wiki, that’s amateur junk, you can’t trust anything on it.” These objectors ranged the gamut, from very progressive to staunch conservative, from highly educated to the never went to college, from folks my age to zoomers.

    My response had been consistently the same: “Oh give them a break, they’re doing the best they can,” and “you know, you can’t please everybody, it’s a tough job,” and “they don’t get paid for it, sometimes they get bad editors, but it’s not their fault, they can’t monitor every single page.”

    Well, those days are now at an end. My apologies must go out to the many with whom I disagreed, since it turns out they were right; the problem is not simply one of a difficult task and errors or bias arising from the errant editor on a mission to change the world using whatever means at his disposal. This experience has indeed educated me on the way things really do work here.

    The entire “incident” occurred due to the audit in Arizona, which in turn relates to how people, in general, view the results of the 2020 presidential election in the United States. I think it ought to be described in neutral terms, and that was called a “fringe” position, implying of course that anyone who questions the fairness of the election results is on the “fringe”. This is only the case if one works in Media environs and the Democrats who actually believe their own talking points. It is reported that at 70% of Republicans believe fraud was involved, 147 Members of Congress voted against certifying the results, and they represent around 100 million Americans. Whatever the merits of the case, and the issue is complex, this in itself demonstrates it is not a “fringe” position. It is only that if you, like many in the American Media, have contempt for the American people. I do not believe that should be the official stance of a respectable publication like Wikipedia. Again, objective neutrality is, and ought to be, the guiding star of the scholar.

    My edit was not a series of “reversions” – it was a series of restorations of an edit that I made that had itself been reverted. That seemed an important distinction since I was aware of the “three reversion rule” and wondered why my edits kept being reverted, over and over again. I monitored the talk page, and saw that it was empty upon my first edit, and thought no one had really seen how slightly biased the language was on it. I made a minor correction, I thought it innocuous. It was met with a reversion, accompanied with a bit of ridicule, if I recall. I tried another edit with somewhat more substantive material, again careful to preserve neutrality, and very sensitive to the concept of allowing the reader to determine for himself what the proper conclusion should be.

    This edit was again reverted, though this time with a seriously biased replacement text, new material that contained a good deal of tendentious language, all of it intended to direct the reader to the correct conclusion, that being the one the author desired. It used the term “right wing conspiracist” and “big lie” as if these are terms that should be thrown around casually in Wiki’s voice. I had always assumed they would not, that this was too low a rung to which one would descend. I’m not aware of any official institution by which a person can gain a degree in conspiracies, and thus be officially dubbed a “conspiracist” – it’s a rather foolish term.

    I described my case on the talk page, and set forth my reasons. My next attempt at posting to the “talk” page was blocked, apparently when an inside editor seeks to have someone erased from WikiWorld, it happens fast. I actually had other responsibilities and it lagged a day. It would not have mattered since it reiterated my basic belief in the necessity of keeping articles free of bias and opinion. This notion was met with responses of some virulence, essentially saying that some facts don’t need to be presented as simple facts, but rather need to be characterized in the proper way. I read this to mean that sometimes opinion takes precedence over neutrality.

    That is a decidedly irrationalist point of view and goes against everything a scholarly work should be. Now I know that “scholarship” is not what it once was, and over the past few decades once respected educational institutions have become politicized, but I had retained hope that Wikipedia was above, beyond that, and endeavored to claim that each of its articles was an attempt at a small-scale piece of traditional apolitical, objective scholarship.

    That was clearly an error on my part. I attempted to modify the article to reflect neutrality to a small section of a minor article about someone about whom I’d never heard. That small innocuous factual edit was replaced by one filled with grotesque politicization and which preferred by the powers that be. Further, my own attempts to protect objectivity and neutrality have been dubbed “disruptive” by those administering the site. This indicates that things may be beyond repair. When talking point rhetoric is preferred over objective description, then Wikipedia will continue to deteriorate and instead of being an alternate version of the Encyclopedia Britannica it will be an online USA Today, which always seems to be around but is only read for horoscopes, gossip, and football (the real kind).

    My editing is hardly of much importance, normally involving typos and grammar, sometimes I try to make an article, possibly written by someone using English as a second language, more comprehensible. My absence in editing will not be missed. What is surprising, and disappointing, is that those people whose lives appear to revolve around Wikipedia are themselves trivializing their own product. The individual who kept reverting my edits apparently has over 150,000 edits to his name. After doing some quick math, that means were he to have begun immediately after Wikipedia started up until this year, that would constitute around 20 edits a day, every day, rain or shine. My immediate reaction to that was “this guy needs to get a real life, like an ant farm or ballroom dancing or cataloguing the different sub-genres of hip hop and metal”, you know, something a bit more productive.

    Then I paused, and said: if you do what you love, then just because I think it is a complete waste of the brief time we have on this Earth is irrelevant. What is mystifying, though, is that those who live to edit articles on Wikipedia, and who have embraced this position that Wikipedia must reflect a certain bias, a political slant, are destroying their own beloved work, or at least its reputation. Wikipedia’s brand will continue to degrade if this is an attitude that remains pervasive.

    It is the self-immolation that is dispiriting. The arrogance and condescension, the weakness of spirit and the animus against those who see the world differently; all those things can be understood and forgiven as common human frailties, but the self-destructiveness of it persists as a mystery. Sych (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Sychonic:: Sorry, what exactly do you need help with? --Jayron32 15:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sychonic: - It is reported that at 70% of Republicans believe fraud was involved - facts don't care about beliefs. Right now, the facts don't show any widespread fraud. It is a fringe position to assert that there is widespread fraud, regardless of how many Republicans believe it. starship.paint (exalt) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WkpdEditor2

    Many of this users edit have something to do with altering/removing information to do with the number of ethnicities of a place (often in favour of Pashtun). This is clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Here are some examples: [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101]

    After I warned him, this was his response; Ethnic make up of some provinces is completely worong I will contineu my struggle for improving and to become weki pedia more relible --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term disruptions by Mark P. 8301

    For a long time now, Mark P. 8301 seems to introduce deliberate but hard-to-detect factual errors into Wikipedia, and refuses to engage with other users. Here is a number of recent cases of vandalism: all of the following are factual errors, yet not obvious to non-experts; this makes them even worse, as it's more likely that these factual errors are not reverted [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110]. The list could be made much longer. Confounding the problem is that the user categorically refuses to use edit summaries. Despite close to 2000 edits, they have never used an edit summary. Several users (myself included) have encouraged them to use edit summaries, but to no avail. In addition to refusing edit summaries, they also refuse any talk page activity. In short, this user is completely unresponsive, has a long history of introducing subtle factual errors into articles, and refuses to explain their edits. All of this make them a highly problematic user. Jeppiz (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 31 hours for persistent addition of unsourced content. Do we think that it's a sock puppet of Peterjack1 (talk · contribs)? DrKay (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The overlap is gigantic, DrKay. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These two editors have had some of this same behavior in and around New York road articles a while back. I would not be surprised if they were socks. –Fredddie™ 22:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disrupting the Ref desk

    186.92.231.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    This IP is posting obviously inappropriate content on the reference desk. Does it warrant a block or rev-del? aeschylus (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Idahocool30 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

    Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. They claim they're "trying to fix and add valuable information that will help other article seekers to find information they are looking for." All they're really doing is spamming the article KTVA and my talk page. See this diff: [111] I reported them at WP:AIV but got rebuffed. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also a personal attack on my talk page. [112] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    24 block by C Fred for edit warring, but they are a they". It's a group account.. See also UTRS appeal #43644. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of talk page as a forum

    Blamazon, I'm closing this in the hope that you understand the concerns described in this section, and that – perhaps after looking at the Task Center and the community portal – you'll find an interesting task to do in articles and focus on that, to actually improve the encyclopedia instead of using it as a forum. Thank you very much in advance and no worries then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Since they joined about a month ago, User:Blamazon has almost exclusively used the talk page of tank and firearm articles as a discussion forum, despite being given a first warning on 30 March, and a final warning yesterday. Their behaviour includes responding to discussions which had long been resolved, such as this question asked in 2006 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:M1919_Browning_machine_gun&oldid=1014016005), as well as starting their own sections, most of which have little, if any, pertinence to developing the article. I have linked them to WP:NOTAFORUM on multiple occasions, and yesterday I explained on my talk page the purpose of talk pages, that they are not to be used be for general discussion, and that they should use the RD or another site if they'd like to ask questions of this nature, but they've gone straight back to it today. I somewhat get the impression that they're WP:Not here to build an encyclopedia, instead being more interested in giving their personal opinions about things, i.e. original research. Their comments are often replete with "in my opinion", or "I think", and rarely, if ever, supported by any sources. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chauchat&oldid=1023168262, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger_I&oldid=1020378014, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FG_42&diff=prev&oldid=1015161749&diffmode=source

    One of their few edits into mainspace was this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M1_Garand&diff=prev&oldid=1022467104&diffmode=source, which shares most of the same problems: OR, where they mention how certain things "might have been better", and "probably did not happen". After I reverted this edit, they took it my talk page, and asked me if I knew about the Garand ping myth, and once I said yes (but not actually prompting them to talk about it), they gave me another OR wall of text: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Loafiewa&diff=prev&oldid=1022991563&diffmode=source

    There are also signs of WP:IDHT, on my talk page, after explaining that using talk pages as a forum is against policy, and they may be blocked for it, they seemed to completely disregard it, on account of the fact that other people have also used the talk pages to ask questions in a similar manner, a complete refusal to learn or change. Loafiewa (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can I contribute to this discussion?Blamazon (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Put forward your response. DeCausa (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. First, I want to point out that I agree that talk pages are not forums. I want to learn and I want to follow the rules.
    On Loafiewa's talk page, I arrogantly said that I have not edited any talk sections that have been officially closed. And I said that I thought it was weird that I was being called out for my edits because a large portion of wikipedia talk pages are not about the article itself. In retrospect, I admit I shouldn't have said this because I was bit aggravated about Loafiewa reverting so many of my edits. I felt like I was being targeted and my mood reflected in my posts.
    Second, I am not a long time user. Loafiewa said at the beginning that I joined about a month ago. That said, I don't know much about wikipedia's rules. And I am not trying to break them.
    I want to use the talk pages for their intended purpose. And I also want to answer the questions that people post on talk pages. But most of all, I want to learn. If there is something I can do to be a better user, I would like to know.Blamazon (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk pages should only be used to discuss edits or potential edits to the article. If someone, in contravention of that, posts a general discussion point on the topic, it doesn’t mean you should answer. They should be reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. If they are not reverted it still doesn’t mean that you should engage. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should I delete/revert content(made by me and other users) on talk pages that is not related to editing the article?Blamazon (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Blamazon, meh. I just reverted some stuff on Talk:Panzerfaust, but it's not a huge deal. We're more concerned, I think, with whether you understand what all this was about, and it seems to me that you do. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I understand what I did wrong and I am doing my best to improve.Blamazon (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:George Vu

    Please block User:George Vu for this: [113] Mztourist (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Daniel (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit summary containing a personal attack is particularly nasty. In fact, I think it should be RD3'd. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) — Preceding undated comment added 15:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note as well: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George Vu Laplorfill (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Need admin review

    Could an admin review this recent diff? Easily in the WP:NPA area, and in my view, offering violence is way over the top. Thanks, Jusdafax (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah that's ridiculous. Blocked indefinitely by NRP, who beat me to it by a second. Daniel (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to you both. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's apologized in an unblock request. For what it's worth, I don't think that was a threat of physical violence. If I understand correctly, it was a challenge to play against him in a video game, where he would presumably prove his edit was within policy by pummeling you virtually. That kind of over-the-top screamy, insult-laden behavior still falls under WP:NOTHERE as far as I'm concerned, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the decade plus that I've been editing, this is a very common pattern. Bluster, abuse, threats, block, sweat promise to do better, repeat. Given the pinging and taunting, followed by a sudden miraculous apology, I don't believe this character will be an asset to the 'pedia. Good preventative block! Jusdafax (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          As I understand it, it's more like the old phrase "if you've got a problem with someone, would you say the stuff you do online to their face?" Still, I have had a word. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Modified Ritchie333's indenting to comply with WP:Accessibility. I don't really know what purpose it would serve but I agree with NinjaRobotPirate, it was clearly a suggestion they should duke it out in 1 v 1 in PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds rather than a suggesting for physically fighting. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Super.mix5101 edit warring and IDHT behavior

    User:Super.mix5101 is a relatively new user here who edits mostly in Egyptian topics. As one can see at User contributions for Super.mix5101, an unusually large portion of their edits have been reverted. I encountered them at Egyptian–Libyan War in late April, where they have repeatedly tried to alter the "result" parameter to basically show Egypt's position in the outcome more favorably. As per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, I have been reverting them for trying to make the result more detailed and complicated than it should be. One other user has also reverted them here. I have asked them to use the talk page but they have not engaged in any discussion, showing WP:IDHT problems. User:Vif12vf has posted two warnings on their talk page which have elicited no response. They have a history of simply reverting reverts of their edits without providing any explanation in the edit summary of what they're trying to achieve, such as here. Admin assistance would be appreciated. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    And despite this ANI report they are continuing to edit war with no communication. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now the guy literally just insulted me on the talk-page of Sinai insurgency‎, literally the first interaction me makes with any of us! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Um no one has edited that talk page since December last year. Can you provide a diff? Canterbury Tail talk 21:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops sorry, that should have been Talk:Egyptian revolution of 1952. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Averybenedictxezonaki vandalising own talk page

    WASN'T ACTUALLY THEIR SON
    User CU-blocked as a sockmaster. (non-admin closure) dudhhr@ 00:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Averybenedictxezonaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to fake their unblock request being accepted. See [114]. AIV doesn't seem like the right place to report an indeffed vandal, so I'm taking this to the dramaboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudhhr (talk • contribs) 21:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Avery has not been unblocked. An admin was considering unblocking them. Apparently they now want to leave Wikipedia and are saying that the vandalism was done by their son.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well they've been CU blocked as a sockmaster, so it probably wasn't their son doing it. dudhhr@ 00:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    What a curious story. I can't really grok all the specifics of the block, as it were, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that one of their articles was not a hoax. This micro-stub they created turned out to be this guy. --- Possibly (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JS1 PRN

    JS1 PRN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Many of this users edit have something to do with altering/removing information to do with the number of ethnicities of a place - seems like Wikipedia:Tendentious editing to me- Some examples;

    [115] [116] [117] [118] [119][120] [121] [122] [123]

    Regarding his edits, he has claimed that My source is people in Afghanistan, when I get the reference I shall link it. and also recently justified his edits (?) with this comment Post naval statistics is guilty of identity censorship.

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    108.167.78.36 Whack-A-Mole

    As previously discussed in a previous thread and blocked by Izno (who is currently offline), another sock of currently blocked vandal 108.167.78.36 has popped up. I'm hoping this one can be dealt with also.

    Izno blocked the original account for three months and the previous sock for three months. I am asking for the same here.

    The anon admits he is using sockpuppets in question on his original account's talk page, while also calling for my block. Hilarious. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Really? No one? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're an LTA, you should be able to report them at WP:AIV. Given that they know how to change their IP and they haven't edited for 24 hours, I'm not sure what you are suggesting admins can do now. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @力: They are a sock of a blocked user. This has been here for 24 hours, that's not my problem. What I'm suggesting is an admin block the account(s) or just the entire range (like Izno did) for 3 months. AIV is going to kick it because it's stale or suggest it go to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Very uncivil behaviour from user 2600:1000:b012:918e:98d5:804f:72c0:b94d

    Greetings administrators

    See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:USCWWeapons&action=history

    And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_weapons_in_the_American_Civil_War&action=history

    Also its I.P. seems to change every minute

    Thank you 4noname4 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the IP for making personal attacks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @GorillaWarfare just now saw it, great thanks for the kind words to the talk page, appreciating it 4noname4 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @GorillaWarfare: the whole range Special:Contribs/2600:1000:B012:918E:943:B609:D117:499B/41 is making personal attacks and vandalising. Their personal attack allcaps edit summaries should probably get revdel'd dudhhr@ 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, I've expanded the block range. I'll revdel a few of the more egregious summaries. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @dudhhr you are completely correct 4noname4 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @GorillaWarfare just to inform you that the same user pops out as a gremlin changes its I.P. rapidly to whatever number and continues the same

    Please notice the same numbers that this I.P. starts such as: 2600:1000:

    And thanks for the cooperation 4noname4 (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @4noname4: Yep, that is how I have blocked the IP range (first the /64, now expanded to the /41). There is more information at WP:Rangeblock if you are curious. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Warrior4565666666

    Warrior4565666666 (talk · contribs · logs) has been making disruptive edits after multiple requests to stop and a level 4 warning, and is unwilling or unable to learn basic Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:AGF, inserting own editorial comments into articles and not being WP:CIVIL with other users when their edits are reverted. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ytoyoda: This sounds like a relatively simple case that could go to WP:AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Address 98.4.181.121

    If it isn’t ok to post this here, I understand. But this IP is removing content without explanation, edit warring (both at Rocket Power), and so far as shown no interest in discussing our content dispute. I have provided warnings on their talkpage for edit warring and removing content with an adequate explanation. I would like some assistance with this issue. If this IP provided a reasonable explanation for why they do not believe the content should be in the article, I would leave it alone, but they have yet to do so. Thank you in advance!--Rockchalk717 02:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rockchalk717: might be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. Sigh. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elli: Yikes. I hope not.--Rockchalk717 02:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems this IP has been blocked following my request at WP:AIV. I only posted here because of how long it was taking.--Rockchalk717 04:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam crosswiki

    The user Pablogarciadeportes and his sockpuppets does spam crosswiki about Walter Ezequiel Matthysse in enwiki, eswiki and wikidata. This user has been blocked indefinitely in eswiki; please see this list of sockpuppets in eswiki and the history of the article Walter Matthysse, article vandalized with persistent spam about that person. Valdemar2018 (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The user has not edited en.wiki in almost a year. I see no reason to take any administrative action.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent removal of relevant sourced content

    Content dispute should take place on the article talk-page; additional editors pinged. (non-admin closure) --JBL (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sri Lankan wiki user UMDP has been persistently removing relevant content covering atrocities committed against Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka. Please see the latest discussion and edit warring taking place in this page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Eastern_Province_massacres

    He has also downplayed atrocities against Tamil civilians on this page, removing references to Tamil people and the anti-Tamil pogrom in 1958:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1009479994

    Unfortunately, I see little hope of resolution with said user as he appears adamant from his past editting history to be propagating an one sided narrative regarding the Sri Lankan ethnic conflict. I do not think this is consistent with the balance and objectivity of Wikipedia. I would appreciate if an admin chimes in. Thank you Oz346 (talk) 11:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is about atrocities against Sinhalese, the user wants to add extensive details of the 1985 Trincomalee massacres to the page. Also I did not remove the content, only summarizes and added a link to the 1985 incident. Adding excessive details about 1985 masscres to the 1987 masscres results in the weight being shifted to a different topic. - UmdP 12:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now this looks like a content dispute, which is best handled on the talk page or, if that fails, by following the instructions at WP:DISPUTE. No one here is going to solve your content dispute; this noticeboard is for chronic behavior issues. I'm not sure it's quite at edit-warring yet, but it does look like both of you are right up against it. I'd highly recommend you and other editors at the page stop reverting one another and start talking about what kinds of compromise you can find. Oz346, the WP:ONUS is on the person adding information to an article to gain consensus for those additions, so please do not revert again but instead discuss. —valereee (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee the said information was on this page for months, and was quite stable with no issue from the other editors of this page (including the original creator/author of the page). It is only now that user UMDP has been repeatedly removing it from the page. We will not reach any consensus, he has been repeatedly reverting things on another page despite it being reliable content. This need 3rd party mediation, I will follow the advice on WP:DISPUTE.Oz346 (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oz346, well, there are only 7 page watchers, only 3 of whom have visited recent edits, so the fact the info has been on the page for months probably doesn't mean much. I'd say you haven't really spent much time discussing, but asking for a third opinion is always a good idea. You can do that at WP:3O. I'll also ping @Blackknight12, @Hugo999and @RoySmith, all of whom are experienced editors who have edited the page but not recently. —valereee (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't recommend WP:3O just yet. Respondents there would want to see more discussion at the talk page. Oz346, please don't give up yet on the possibility of consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any need for admin involvement here. There's a content disagreement, and people are discussing it on the talk page. This is how it's supposed to work. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    186.139.255.129

    Reporting this user for personal attacks by this user on issues with rude/inappropriate commentary Examples can be seen here and vandalizing my talk page here: here. I apologize if this is the wrong place to do it, but I'm not sure where else we are supposed to do it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC) User has also attacked other users here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cengizsogutlu

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

    User seems to have a strong opinion (to say the least) to anything Iran-related, coming up with accusations/rants like this;

    You can't Indirect decide that these are not realible or well also by hiding Turkics number of İran on Wikipedia won't help upcoming Irani civil war. Iranian nationalism is all I see here.

    This is not true! I do not understand your purpose! I added it to half a dozen citations and those articles have the term whole azerbaijan dozens of times. This is not Iran's platform for ethnic cleansing. If you revert once again, you will be reported. WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:RVAN

    Why are you deleting also the map? WP:SNEAKY You guys cant hide ethnic minorities in Iran either You cannot do informational ethnic cleansing either. The flag issue is controversial, what about the map?

    Added 7 academic citations, you can examine geographical sections. It will not be late for me to request the admin page at the first revert to be deleted from now on. Please torpise your ethnic hostility on a different platform. This is not a place where Iran is trying to wipe out its ethnic minorities, it is a free encyclopedia

    In just one month, he has reverted Khorasani Turks 6 times [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] (4 of them today), attempting to force a fictional flag and map onto the article. He justifies his addition of the map by adding various random sources not even related to it.

    Looking at all this, this seems like a WP:TENDENTIOUS issue to me at the very least. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You keep always reverting sourced information and its not a slander you guys in a constant effort to hide the Turkic minority in Iran related articles. Btw i dont reverted YOU GUYS DELETING & reverting my edits. I putted tons of citations yet dare to report me without seeing his own fault. They constantly erase the articles and delete the sourced information about Turkic people's in Iran. They are the ones who reverted, although I have provided 7 academic sources right now. Pure Informational ethnic cleansing in my opinion. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I rest my case. I'll let the admins deal with this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    + It's not a fictional map even on Wikimedia states; Based on Dr.Papoli Yazdi work (فصلنامه تحقیقات جغرافیایی، سال سوم شماره 2 ، پاییز 1376، دکتر محمد حسین پاپلی یزدی ) Geographical Research Quarterly, Third Year No. 2, Fall 1997, Dr. Mohammad Hossein Papli Yazdi. Also, I removed the flag myself and already asked why did you remove the map together with the flag? That's also WP:SNEAKY. Although I did not mention 7 academic sources supporting the map, you reverted it again. Ethnicities in Iran ; If you look at this page, you will see a focused version of the same map. It is unwise to delete this or you revert for different purposes..To my own opinion, you are trying to hide ethnic identities here. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [130] That map literally says "Source: Own Work", its a textbook example of WP:OR, of some random wikipedia member drawing up a map by himself based on his interpretation of a book. The fact that you're unable to understand basic Wikipedia rules about sourcing and have to resort to ethnosectarian accusations and fantasy ramblings about "ethnic cleansing" and "civil war" shows that you're very clearly engaging in disruptive editing. Your rants don't change the fact that your additions are baseless. --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quick cursory digging in his recent posts shows this [131] which is a straight-up personal attack on another editor he was disagreeing with (claiming his eyes aren't working properly). --Qahramani44 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack? You sad 2x times that you don't see Khorasani Turks in this dozen of citations my friendly advice is seeing eye doctor or try to use CTRL+F if you can't locate stuff. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Cengizsogutlu has a long history of attacks towards other users that disagree with them and POV pushing :

    This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia and i have not been able to find out how he/she has been a net positive to the project.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    What a nice example of Etnic nationalism, One more example of persianization of things. I'm Grateful for the Wikipedia seen this kinda ethno facism. You guys even tried to change drink called Ayran name into Doogh also deleted Turkish section etc. If I need to remind you, I have already received a 24-hour mute from these comments. Yet that didnt helped your Doogh name effort Ayran name still REMAINS ♥. I understand your hatred guys, it makes you sad that I disrupt your ethnic stuff changing games. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment is very instructive as to the kind of editor Cengizsogutlu is. That's what i mean You play the sneaky and stupid role very well. This is not an insult I apologize if you understand this that way, but this is an an irregular situation. What you are trying to do to erase an edit that you do not like, saying "he insulted me" "his style is not normal" "" he is an editor of this kind ", always stay away from the main subject and play the role of the victim. During this time, the other party is blocked, and no matter how wrong the subject you are defending, remains on wikipedia. It's a nice sneaky strategy btw. Sorry, but these excuses are not enough to hide your mission to hide ethnic minorities in Iran guys. Keep trying to let me banned but it won't change the truth. You are constantly talking about personal insult.
    You play the sneaky role
    If you can't find it from a dozen of citations and if you are not malicious, then you should go to your ophthalmologist
    I apologize if you saw these as insults. My aim is definitely not insulting. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you say that there is no word on the citations in this article that match, it means you are either maliciously intended to find excuse to delete or have a bad eye. If you can't find something, it doesn't give you the right to revert. Friendly advice is appearing to ophthalmologist. The bad intention is that, in my opinion, because of your ethnic nationalism, you cannot tolerate these facts. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor does not seem to be here to build an encyclopedia i made articles much more than you deleted sir. Cengizsogutlu (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to respond to so many nonsenses. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rupert1904

    Rupert1904 (talk · contribs) has been a problem for a while. NB this is not a content dispute - he is edit warring to change a long established stable version of a page, against MOS. He has admitted deliberately editing against MOS, because he thinks he can, and has now breached 3RR at the page in question (Ike Ugbo) - attempts at discussing on his talk page have simply resulted in him making more reverts and also insulting me, making comments like calling me a "creep" and very bizarre comments (same diff) like "You still haven't bought me dinner or asked permission from my parents yet to take me out on a date". Further input on the issue/conduct welcome. GiantSnowman 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NB the MOS issues will also be raised shortly at WT:FOOTBALL to deal with that aspect. This post here is to deal with Rupert's conduct and attitude/insults. GiantSnowman 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No this is a content dispute. As the MOS clearly states, it is a recommendation and is subject to change and should not be followed word for word. You think it's gospel that needs to be followed blindly and is not open to change or improvement BUT the MOS says it is open to change. On Ike Ugbo you insist on putting in blank rows into his career stats table for the 2017–18, 2018–19, 2019–20, and 2020–21 seasons with parent club Chelsea. This is wrong and inaccurate for so many reasons. He has never been registered or given a number with the senior squad. So he has never been included in the squad list for ANY competition during those four seasons. He has been sent on loan to other clubs before season starts so it is factually inaccurate to include these seasons with Chelsea in a stats table because that would suggest that he was in a lineup or could have featured for the club during that season which is not true. Then when I ask why you won't fix this supposed MOS problem on other player articles you refuse to answer the question because you think you're above me. You then tried to start a discussion about this on my talk page and you brought in another editor into said discussion but they sided with my argument and not yours so now you're all upset. And lastly, you have a pattern of following my edits and reverting me and you even admitted to having my talk page on your watch list. That is incredibly weird and not appropriate. You need to stop! Rupert1904 (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your accusations of me following your round are entirely unfounded. I think you'll find you have a habit of editing articles I created and therefore have in my watchlist (meaning I see your changes). That is all. If we are talking about "incredibly weird and not appropriate" why did you call me a creep and why do you keep talking about me taking you on a date?! GiantSnowman 16:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rupert is now removing my talk page posts. GiantSnowman 16:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not unfounded. I have voiced my concern that you follow me around on multiple occasions and a search of your edit history and all your reverts of my edits throughout the years would support my concern. I have never hounded you out and tried to revert your edits but it seems like you get pleasure from following my edits and reverting me. It is very concerning and frustrating as I've already indicated to you time and time again. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, you clearly don't understand what "unfounded" means. You are also ignorant about WP:AGF (amongst other things). GiantSnowman 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't remove anything. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a diff clearly showing you deleting my post at the WikiProjetc talk page. Why did you do it and why are you now lying about it? GiantSnowman 16:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't delete. If anything, it was an edit conflict as I keep trying to post but you keep adding more and more notes. You act so holier than thou in this witch hunt of me. I do not understand why you follow my talk page and follow my contributions so that you can then revert me. This seems to happen weekly. I said you are a creep and said you should take me on a date because you follow me around and revert my edits so much. It goes hand in hand. You take the MOS too literally. It should not be followed word for word. It is very frustrating and unnerving that you have chosen me as the object of your attention and it feels very uncomfortable and like a personal attack. I never follow your edits but I am sure if I did as you do mine, then I could nitpick yours too. You have shown a pattern throughout the years of following me and even made it known today that you do. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was an edit conflict then you will have had a notification telling you so. Did you or didn't you? Whatever your excuse, your conduct speaks for itself, as does your admission that you (1) happily insulted me and made other bizarre and inappropriate comments, as well as (2) edit warred to ignore the MOS to make your preferred edits. I'll wait for other editors to comment. GiantSnowman 16:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All you do is happily insult me and now you try to play a victim. You freely admitted to following my talk page and contributions and have now started this discussion because you want to insult and disparage me. I have let it known that I feel very uncomfortable with the extent that you follow my edits and make comments on my talk page and find it incredibly inappropriate that you continue to do so. I have asked you many times to stop following me all the time and you refuse to do so. You track my every edit on wikipedia. It is very creepy but I take solace in the fact this is digital and you do not know where I live or who I am because I am not sure what you are capable of doing in real life. Rupert1904 (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I told you I watch listed your talk page - because we were having a discussion there, so I knew when there was something to respond to? That is all. I have not admitted to following you and your contributions, because I have done neither. Your comments are becoming increasingly bizarre and unhinged. GiantSnowman 17:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about insulting someone! Please stop. I am so tired of you insulting me all the time and following my edits. I've been asking you to stop following me for years and you won't. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide diffs. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And let it be known to this forum that many wikipedia editors have sided with me in the content dispute in question. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Any content dispute is irrelevant; this page is about your conduct, your insults, your behaviour. GiantSnowman 17:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This should also be about your continued online abuse of me and years of following my contributions and my continued asking of you to stop following me and your refusal to do so.Rupert1904 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are now making serious accusations without providing a shred of evidence. Either substantiate your comments with diffs or retract them. GiantSnowman 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be found in the history of our talk pages and my contributions that you have continuously reverted. I have been clear on multiple occasions that I feel like you single me out for abuse, are incredibly rude to me, make me feel uncomfortable, make me feel like I am lesser than you (which you have done in this very thread and in the current discussion on Wikiprojectfootball) and that you follow my edits. This is now the latest example of it. I do not know if I wronged you in a past life but I have never sought you out like you do with me. I have said multiple times that you are a bully and I am tired of it and do not want to take your abuse anymore. Rupert1904 (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Rupert1904, calling another editor a "creep" is a personal attack, and your remark about buying dinner or asking your parents for permission and going out on a date is just plain strange and quite inappropriate. GiantSnowman provided a diff showing exactly what you wrote. In this conversation, you repeatedly accuse GiantSnowman of misconduct but you haven't provided any evidence such as diffs or even direct quotes or links to anything inappropriate. I hope that you understand how important evidence is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Cullen - to discredit me, the person being attacked, is incredibly poor form. Also, is calling some strange not a personal attack? I called GS a creep because GS has displayed a pattern of following my every move on wikipedia and reverting me. This has happened for years and years. Thus my comment and joke about taking me to dinner since GS has tracked me so much. I do not have the time nor the energy to look through over a decade of history of GS berating me but I have included a couple points below from what GS had said just today. Also I do not know what diff means. I am not a religious wikipedia editor. I edit on wikipedia because I enjoy updating it and making it more accurate. For me, it is not a day job but a hobby. I do not want to continue editing if I am going to be attacked and harangued in a digital kangaroo court.
    Just today, GS purposefully said that “Rupert thinks we can ignore MOS” and misquoted me as having said “oh well the MOS is not supposed to be followed”. GS posted this on this forum at 16:42 UTC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Career_stats_MOS_-_parent_club_rows). I NEVER said that and GS certainly isn't inside my mind to know what I think. This is blatant disregard of the truth. That is a lie that GS propagated in a clear attempt to sully my reputation and edits and discredit me in a discussion we were having with other editors. That is a tactic a strong man uses to silence their opponents. Also today, GS wrote on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rupert1904) calling me a “brick wall” and saying that I am “childishly dramatic” because GS doesn’t agree with my points. If we are talking about personal attacks, then I would say that falls into the realm too. And the content discussion that GS started on Wikiproject Football has now shown that more editors agree with me on the edit that I implemented but it seems that GS always needs to have the final word and be the victor in an argument especially since I am just a brick wall. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rupert1904, I anticipated that you might not know what a diff is, and so I provided you a link to a helpful page explaining it. Did you notice that or read it? As for the content matter, this noticeboard does not deal with content. Are you really arguing that it is OK for you to call another editor a "creep" and ramble on about that strange dating stuff, but not OK for the other editor to refer to not wanting to talk to a brick wall? I think that both of you should stop personalizing the dispute and instead use Dispute resultion such as a Request for comment for example. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it OK for you to call another editor "strange"? I have made it clear over and over again to GS that I don't want to talk to them but GS keeps following my edits, reverts my edits and posts on my talk page. It's online abuse and it should be clear by now that I am sick of it. Abuse is abuse - whether on wikipedia or in real life and it is damaging to mental health. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rupert1904, I most certainly did not call you strange. I called your dinner and parental permission and dating remark strange, because it was. Correcting another editor's work is not online abuse, unless you can provide actual evidence that GiantSnowman intends to bother you, as opposed to being motivated by a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Where's your evidence? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cullen328: I appreciate your attempts at help - but as you can see from Rupert's responses to you (and me), they just don't get it. They continue to make serious, unfounded accusations against me without a shred of evidence, and continue to twist things you and I have said. GiantSnowman 19:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, GiantSnowman, that is increasingly clear. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My evidence is that you blatantly lie and misquote me to further your arguments, call me names and disparage me, and continuously follow my edits and revert me. These are all things I have noted to and linked to above. This is a process that has been going on for years. I have called GS a creep on the same basis as you called me strange- GS has followed me for years despite repeated attempts by me to ask GS to stop bothering me. I tried being polite but after a decade of abuse to me by GS, it’s clear It won’t change. It’s harassment. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To repeat, I did not call you strange. I called your comment strange because it was strange. You seem to think that it is OK to call another editor a "creep" and object to that editor reverting you from time to time. Reverting is commonplace when editors disagree and then we discuss it. So far, I see no evidence presented here that GiantSnowman is harassing you, and actual evidence is required. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So Rupert has - edit warred; insulted me; made strange comments towards me; twisted what I have said; twisted what Cullen has said; made repeated accusations about me without a shred of evidence; and doubled down on their conduct when challenged by Cullen. Can somebody please intervene to prevent this ongoing conduct/behaviour? GiantSnowman 09:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rusf10

    Rusf10 (talk · contribs) nominated Aschach (Rott) for deletion, I've argued against in the discussion. It was then relisted to gain a clearer consensus. I've voted a second time for keep. Rusf10 overwrote twice my contribution with self-invented non-Wikipedia rules (here and here). In my eyes, this is also a violation of WP:BRD. I've already argued that in another deletion discussion User:Kusma (who is administrator and should know the rules) also voted twice and even Rusf10 by nominating that article for deletion and then after the relisting with "oppose merge", but that didn't convince Rusf10. How to proceed? --Cyfal (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The best way to proceed is to stop trying to !vote twice. If you have something new to add to a deletion discussion, phrase it as a comment instead of a second vote. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the second debate, Kusma did not !vote twice. They made a comment later in agreement with another editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rusf10: also see, WP:NOTVOTE. ——Serial 18:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Serial Number 54129:I am aware of NOTVOTE, which itself is neither a policy or a guideline. Regardless, no one should be posting things that have the appearance of a deliberate attempt to mislead the closer of the discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's a informatory supplement to two policies which has enjoyed widespread recognition and consensus for 14 years. Also see WP:ECHO for why your ping to me just now... did not work. Cheers! ——Serial 19:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you can contribute to a discussion as much as you wish (within reason), you should not make it appear that you vote twice. So don't use bolded "keep" or similar bolded word in more than one of your comments. I don't think it was necessary to revert your second vote, though -- annotating it would have been enough to make it clear to the closer that you appear to have voted more than once. And of course, AFD is a discussion and not decided by vote count alone. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the underlying issue here is that Cyfal misunderstands what a relisting is. Cyfal, when an AFD is relisted that just means it didn't attract comments from enough people yet, so more people weighing in are needed; it does not mean that you are required to repeat your previous comment. Your existing comment will be taken into consideration when it is eventually closed. It feels like you mistakenly believe that a relisting is akin to starting the RFC over and that everyone who wants their opinion counted needs to state it again, which is not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Impersonation/fake Barnstars

    Complete trivia. Neither an urgent incident nor a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. Report less, write more. And thanks to Nil Einne for doing the spade work others forbore to do! Have a great weekend, everyone. ——Serial 19:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    The user User:Casprings has multiple Barnstars on his page, supposedly awarded by a former Wikipedia Foundation staff, another quite active user, and two indefinitely blocked sock puppeteers. The Barnstars are a template (User:Casprings/Appreciation) that has only been edited by the user itself. Therefore, from what I know, that is impersonation and probably sockpuppetry. Don't know the exact rules (sorry about that) but wanted to report it. Andibrema (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Certainly not sock-puppetry. Oftentimes these are placed on a talk page and moved to a permanent location by the recipient, but I have better things to do than care enough to investigate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite clear from the talk archives that, barring some odd game with fake archives (can't be ruled out for manual archiving, but fails Occam's razor), these are authentic. Vaticidalprophet 18:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason to worry about talk page archives, just check the contribution history. The barnstars are authentic [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137]. As per 力, I think most barnstars are given on talk pages since unless an editor has specifically said it's okay, it's presumptious to add a barnstar to an editor's user page, as in most cases only the editor themselves should edit them. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In case it reinforces the suspicion, or makes you want to investigate the case, he also blanked/replaced the entire Wikipedia:Requested moves page at some point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves&oldid=1002444656 Andibrema (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Disruptive editing by two users

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uhooep. The other user hasn't edited in a while and they don't appear to be socking based on my findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk1728. Nothing else to be done here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I want to report two users who are constantly vandalising the article by deleting its content and refs. 123FactCheck, who only edited Amar Singh's article, is bent on deleting or altering text related to the Harvard University [138][139][140] and replaced a whole paragraph with his own, adding biased and unbalanced material that violate our neutral policy on BLP[4][7]

    A few days later another user named Daiaespera showed up, first edited a few random articles instead of directly editing Amar Singh's. Like the previous editor, this one too has a concern around the Harvard University stuff although i never stated he graduated from the Harvard University.[5] Daiaespera made their first edit on this article the same day they signed up (7 april) and have continued to edit to date as per their wishes. All this while, Daiaespera made lots of disruptive edits and deleted many sourced material.but gave them the benefit of doubt and stuck to AGF. Later i had to intervene because the kind of edits they were making were evidentaly a vandalism, for example deletion of sourced content without a discussion or consensus, addition of defamatory material without a reliable reference,

    Edits by Daiaespera

    1. Removed the subject's official website link from the "external links section" stating "this is a business website not an official website".[6]
    2. Here they added "Amar attended the Harvard University although left without taking a degree" which 123FactCheck also wanted to add. , they also removed two references
    3. here they deleted a whole paragraph from career heading with an edit summary "Ancestor could mean anything, clarity and reliable sources required" despite the fact that there were 3 references provided for anyone to verify that. the Gay Times and VanityFair clearly speaks about his ancestors "Singh finds inspiration from his family, which is steeped in a history of fighting for equality. His grandmother Veena Singh, who died in 2017, championed women’s rights during the British rule in India and was an ally of the county’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. Singh’s ancestor, Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, set up India’s first women’s education fund, was India’s first health minister and campaigned for equality alongside Mahatma Gandhi."
    4. here they changed from "Founder of Amar Singh Gallery" to "Art gallerist" with an edit summary "more neutral tone" i don't see how this makes the article promotional that they toned it down. I guess they did not want Amar Singh Gallery to reflect anywhere on the top. this is a deceptive edit summary.
    5. here they deleted two lines from career and personal life without adequately explaining why. "family" is their edit summary.
    6. here they deleted a line from personal life heading and several references "Singh is a direct descendant of Sikh ruler Raja Nihal Singh, who was opposed to colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War" which was reinstated by an extended user. But they did not listen to him/her and again removed it. while Its clearly stated in the VanityFair article "Singh is a direct descendent of India’s Sikh ruler Maharajah Nihal Singh of Kapurthala, who opposed colonialism and helped the Lahore forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War."
    7. here they cut pasted a line from personal life heading and inserted in the introductory paragraph and deleted several sources, non constructive edits .
    8. here they deleted the line "Singh’s uncle Vishvjit Singh was an Indian politician with the Indian National Congress Party" from personal life heading with an edit summary "not an uncle" while its right there in the losangelesblade article "Singh’s father’s brother, Kanwar Vishvjit Prithvijit Singh, “a chief minister and a great politician in India who was also dedicate to ameliorating the country,"
    9. here they finally took down the personal life heading and stated "Source was an interview with Mr Singh in the Gay Times, not a reliable third party reference" in the edit summary - DOesn't the Wikipedia guideline say that Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content? the gay times is not a primary source first of all and his ancestry details are not directly provided by him, an unreasonable excuse to delete a cited material.
    10. here they set a citation needed notice at the top of the article, despite the fact that the article was entirely referenced, see the diff.
    11. here they deleted the "Art gallerist" from the box on the right side as well as the lead section, and also removed the line "He is the founder of Amar Gallery" from the first paragraph with an edit summary "the gallery seems to have closed down" Look at the point #4, they did not want Amar Singh Gallery anywhere at the top, so it could not reflect in the Google knowledge graph, that's what i concluded. I reinstated that and left two warnings in the hope that they would cease, but they did not and deleted those texts again - if one of his London galleries is closed up, does it mean that he isn't the founder and give them the right to edit it out of the article? clearly a disruptive conduct
    12. here they added The Penton Street gallery closed in April 2019 citing a pdf doc, that can only be produced by someone knows the subject very well and trying to discredit him. an editor like us will never be able to find such links online.
    13. here they added an unreliable reference. They deleted many of my references claiming they were not reliable, and they can add whatever they want to.
    14. here After taking down the whole personal life heading content, they created subject's family tree citing poor/unreliable source. It reeks of someone trying to push their agenda and even discredit.
    15. here they deleted a line, providing no proof for their claim
    16. here they brought it out to afd at once as i reverted their edits
    17. they have made many such unnecessary, non constructive edits and vandalism edits.

    I warned Daiaespera twice and urged to bring it out to talk page to seek community consensus if they had concerns but to no avail. they rather brought it to afd. I do not see a policy based argument, no editor chimed in on deletion yet, reading their afd remarks sound as if a desperate attempt to change the content the way they wish to. A glance at their edit history and the amount of edits made on Amar's page by Daiaespera evidently uncovers their real purposes and can confidently say that they are not around to contribute to this encyclopedia but to push their personal agenda. There is a sock investigation opened against me at [141].I deny having a connection with Editorworldwide14 & 123FactCheck in which its stated "123FactCheck has came to the defense of me".they havenot sprung to my defense but to raise concerns over my edits on the Harvard Univerity. In fact, previously we two had had an edit war. They dont belong to me. As for Editorworldwide14, I was aware of the afd discussion from day 1 but didn't want to get involved into it and chose to leave it to community to take a call. Why would i create an additional account when i can use my own for making comments?

    123FactCheck and Daiaespera, they both look very suspicious to meSk1728 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't think any of my edits constitute disruption or vandalism. Sk1728 created the original article Amar Singh (activist), which was a highly biased piece containing many inaccuracies and family photographs suggestive of the fact that Sk1728 may have a close undisclosed relationship to the subject. Since then I have repeatedly tried to clean up the article, to make it neutral and to weed out the numerous false statements, some of which were added back by Sk1728. So as to avoid an edit war I just AFD'd the article instead. Now Sk1728 is accusing me of disruptive edits and vandalism, and another user Editorworldwide14 is claiming my edits constitute a "cyber attack". It is worth noting that Sk1728 has is currently under Sockpuppet investigation (which I have tried to assist with) and in this past has had copyvio images of Amar Singh removed from Wikimedia Commons. I have tried to improve the article Amar Singh (activist), have flagged issues on its talk page, and raised the question as to whether the article in its current state should be deleted or not, but have come under fire for this by Sk1728 and Editorworldwide14. My issues with the article in question are laid out in the AFD. I have no connection to 123FactCheck who also raised issues with the article. Daiaespera (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Striking out text from WP:RSN

    Dear Editors,
    I'm not sure if I posted it in the right place, but I wanted other administrators to comment on actions on Shrike, on a specific matter.
    A discussion has appeared on the WP:RSN about whether a report suppressed by UN's Secretary General is reliable enough to be used in the context of this to establish that some scholars claim that Israel is engaged in the named process (or so reads the intent of the OP of the thread).
    As a rather frequent editor of WP:RSN (see contribs), I have left my first comment under the post. I have since posted two replies, which I edited up until 9:45 May 23 GMT (pre-strike state can be seen here).
    At 9:41, Shrike posted a warning about this topic being subject to said arbitration (on my talkpage). He also added that he'd strike out my comments as I have not made 500 edits yet. At 9:49, the comments were struck out, and only after that have I noticed the warning. While striking out my comments, the admin reverted my comments to the state which I considered imperfect. Strangely enough, an edit conflict notice was not triggered.
    At 10:10, I asked Shrike on the talk page to return the comments to the state as of 9:45, and, a little later, also added my request to have my comments unstruck, which Shrike denied; no action, including edit to the last state of comments, was made.
    According to rules of the arbitration p. 4a-b, areas subject to ARBPIA are entire set of articles whose topic relates to Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces. Point 7 also says that When disruptive edits are being made to such content, any editor may invoke ARBPIA General Sanctions for that content. They must place ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement [template] on the talk page and ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice [template] in the editnotice to do so.
    I believe that Shrike has overreached while imposing such restrictions. The only way in which the topic relates to Palestinian and Israeli issues is the source discussed; however, neither the article in question is subject to arbitration, nor is WP:RSN. The noticeboard, moreover, was about discussing reliability of resources and scholars and did not delve into content itself.
    Also, as the discussion seemed to be in the acceptable borders of civility (at least that is I how I saw it), I contest Shrike imposing general sanctions, because that implies I was being disruptive while the enforcement template says it doesn't, and the rules say that enforcement is only to be triggered when the discussion goes wild. Moreover, Shrike has not put an ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice template locally on the discussion, so users participating there are unaware they are subject to restrictions on editing content. I was personally aware of the arbitration in place on such topics.
    I therefore ask the Editors to weigh my arguments and ask to:
    a. Revert my comments to the state as of 9:45 May 23, 2021 UTC.
    b. Make my comments unstruck, with my promise of voluntarily staying out of the discussion.
    I also ask to determine if disruptive edits were made to the section of WP:RSN. If yes, please explain in which way I was being disruptive, and also ask to put the editnotice template on the discussion locally. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would say striking your comments is the correct thing to do; as you have pointed out above, the rules apply to "discussions in all namespaces". An editor with a topic ban was recently blocked for a month for commenting on a discussion on this noticeboard regarding another editor's behaviour on articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.
    However, in the course of looking at this, I found your comment that "Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive to the critique of Israel, exactly dismissing it as "anti-Semitism" to be rather disturbing. Claiming that an entire ethnic group shares a certain opinion/feeling is not really a good take. Number 57 20:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What I wanted to say in this discussion, and which has probably been misunderstood by others, is that I do not believe that Jewish sources will be neutral as regarding Palestine, and that is based on my summary from 9:45, since similar reactions happen in Ukraine, Poland and Russia in contentious topics (and I saw the mess that happens in Russian and Ukrainian wikis in forced arbitration topics). Omission of context of edits (which is a difference between the version struck out and the 9:45 version) makes it look as if I discredited Jewish newspapers for being Jewish but what I meant is that I wanted uninvolved sources for a claim of anti-Semitism, just as I won't source to Polish sources to say Wołyń is a genocide and say that indeed, the whole world thinks so. National perceptions often make it hard to impartially edit Wikipedia, the best proof to which is the very existence of ARBPIA. That was my intention, and it is therefore that I didn't find the remarks "discriminatory", but they might have been inaccurately worded, for which I am sorry. That said, thanks for your consideration. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You said " because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel". Instead of apologizing, you are repeating your discriminatory statements on "Jewish sources" above. This is not acceptable, period. And this coming from an account that joined this year, with 271 edits, 182 of them being long tirades on the Reliable sources noticeboard. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, whom do I discriminate against? I have the same attitude towards Polish sources on Wołyń, Ukrainian on Holodomor, Russian on 9 May and WWII-related topics, (going further: Argentine on the conflict of Falkland Islands, Turkish sources on Armenian genocide) etc., as I have stated already a few times, and that's my personal attitude. (I may accept scholarly resources, which do not have (that much of) public opinion pressure). If you want to call my attitude towards coverage of controversies by news media of countries involved in the controversy discrimination, so be it, but then I discriminate against almost every country in the world I could imagine, because most of the countries have skeletons in their cupboard. That remark, as it was written, was unfortunate, my apologies. I hope the explanation shows I did not have any malicious intent.
    Also, the last sentence sounds as if it were an accusation of incompetence or something to that effect (I hope it's not). I remind you that no policy prohibits to constructively edit any part of Wikipedia, with the exception of justified local restrictions made on presumably inexperienced/not-trusted-enough members, and WP:RSN can be edited by anyone. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Discrimination against "Jewish sources", while not taking a similar position on "Muslim sources" or "Christian sources". You made a direct, discriminatory, statement on Jews (" because, you know, Jews are very sensitive, or even hypersensitive on the critique of Israel"). As for your long tirades on RSN, yes, they were allowed up to now. I propose below that this overly excessive posting of long walls of text cease. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think this deserves clarification but this board may not be the right venue. Because the policy also refers to articles within the topic area and the article being discussed at RSN is not in the topic area. The particular material (Falk and Tilley) is relevant to the topic area but I would say only very indirectly in terms of where it was going to be cited. If the editor had nonetheless been editing disruptively I would just let it go, that was not the case, however.Selfstudier (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Szmenderowiecki: - if you read recent polling on American Jews, it is pretty clear that they have very different opinions (for example, only 33% say the Israeli government is making sincere effort towards peace). As such, you shouldn't be seemingly tarring all Jews with the same brush of being hypersensitive to criticism of Israel. Additionally we should not discriminate against Jewish sources merely because they are Jewish. starship.paint (exalt) 09:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Topic ban

    Szmenderowiecki has been editing since April, most of his edits (182 out of 271) being long TLDR posts to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. He has made discriminatory statements on Jews in those posts. I propose that Szmenderowiecki be topic banned from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and from any edits pertaining to Judaism. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support own proposal. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dismiss-oppose. 11Fox11 is overreacting. Peaceful resolution of the problem, in my view, has not been exhausted, and no person has had any complaints about my posting on WP:RSN (until the post in question), or elsewhere. 11Fox11 is not a participant in WP:RSN, therefore analysis of my posts solely on bytesize is an inadequate measure of performance, nuisance, or both. A single mishap, to which I confessed and regret having committed, is not a sufficient reason to introduce any kind of preventative measures, nor is indicative of a pattern of disruption. I would first like to invite 11Fox11 to air grievances on my talk page, and only later on post angry complaints for administrators' evaluation, as per standard procedure. If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing disruptive editing from User:FleurDeOdile

    I am here to address User:FleurDeOdile. Ever since the user's last block in November of 2020 for personal attacking there seems to have been little improvement since then. For one thing, the user is still attacking people (off-wiki now on a WikiProject discord) and has also been assuming bad faith and acting uncivil towards users who were new and or inexperienced with the image standards we have enlisted in our WikiProject (at WP:WPTC/IMG) for images of tropical cyclones, as well as edit warring.


    Here the user changed this infobox image with an inconstructive comment, which was later reverted for being a lower quality image.

    The edit here looks to have been made to just attack another user instead of explaining why this image was changed. Soon enough, the edit was reverted and instead of seeking consensus, the user edit warred between the user who reverted, as seen in diff 1 and diff 2, where he also made yet another comment.

    Also during around the time of the edit war, the user reverted a WP:CIR edit, but assumed that the edit was in bad faith without linking the guideline which states that the source he was using was not reliable (the user in question was new around this time).

    More recently, the user also unexplainedly changed the infobox image on 2021 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, the image which was personally created by the user who originally put it, which was also later reverted for being rather inconstructive.

    More recently, the user had attacked me off-wiki on a Discord server (which, if is even contributive to this? I'm not sure) and told that he 'would get into beef' with me as I disagreed that his Commons image was a higher quality, albeit respectfully. He changed the infobox image, as revealed by this diff and after another user changed it back explaining that the image change was un-warranted, he proceeded to change the image again as proven by this diff but tried to disguise the edit by saying he had "Fixed a typo".

    Possibly unrelated, but I'd also recommend looking at the user's talk page which gives a better look at warnings and notices other users have given him recently, a majority of which were based off edit-warring or giving rude comments which were calmly responded to... which were completely ignored. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    As part of the project I can confirm this and he has also attacked me off-wiki at times as well whenever we confront him about it, claiming that I do this as well (FWIW, I did have similar issues before but I stopped at one point not wanting to mess things up for myself further). I’d propose something like a Wikimedia block (not sure if that’d help) or some sort of sanctions/restrictions to curb this, but another block could be warranted should it come down to it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who has seen Fleur's edits in the past, I have noticed that his edit summaries can be harsh. For example, this summary does not adequately explain why the original image is better, and reeks of WP:BITE. This one also does not explain why FDO has changed it. "original is better" is not valid. This also reveals that FDO is engaging in personal attacks, most recently this. I believe because of the evidence provided by Hurricaneboy and myself, FDO needs some sort of sanction or block, as this is turning into WP:IDHT after numerous warnings, blocks, and discussions about this user's disruptive behavior. codingcyclone advisories/damages 22:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding on, as for the blocks, all three of them were related in some way to WP:LISTEN, as the user refuses to heed warnings and blocks. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 22:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fleur has continued to WP:OWN articles and toss out images from other users. [142] He tried to deceptively remove an image just the other day by claiming he was fixing a typo. He also continued to use uncivil insults, most recently in March [143]. I personally believe a topic ban from editing images and related aspects on Wikipedia is warranted. NoahTalk 01:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not forget that just last month, there was a discussion about this exact topic that basically went nowhere at all. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pc031985 casting aspersions

    Pc031985 is one of a handful of new* editors who turned up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination) after the article subject published a YouTube video about the Wikipedia article being nominated for deletion. After seeing that Paffrath was canvassing on Twitter, I tagged the page with {{notaballot}} and tagged some contributors who are single-purpose accounts or who have returned from inactivity solely for the discussion, as is standard practice. Pc031985, who has voted in the discussion, began removing the tags. I asked them to stop, and explained a bit more about the purpose of the tags at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kevin Paffrath (2nd nomination)#Canvassing tags. However, they have now begun to use the talk page as a venue for casting aspersions against me and other editors, and are convinced that I have some kind of vendetta against Paffrath (who I explained I'd never heard of until seeing the tweet; I also have not voted in the discussion, which you'd think I'd do if I was out to get him). I invited them to bring any concerns with my behavior to ANI, which they have refused to do, but they're continuing to cast aspersions there against me and other editors, which I'm growing pretty tired of.

    * They have acknowledged that they are not a new editor, saying that "I've edited on WP for 10+ years but forgot my previous username after a long period of inactivity", but that they bring Doug Weller into this when he has not edited the page and they have never interacted (see below) makes me wonder if this isn't someone returning with an axe to grind.

    • [144] "It's blatantly obvious that you have an agenda to discredit any compelling arguments for keeping the article. It's also blatantly obvious that El Cid, the initial nominator, who was absurdly 'only able to find one article' when there are 37 already sourced, has an agenda to remove Paffrath from public view, perhaps for political reasons. I've seen this too many times with too many articles to not know what's going on."
    • [145] "Looking over your last month of activity, it's clear that you are here for deeply ideological reasons, to inject your worldview and politics into articles at any opportunity, not to create an encyclopedia. The overwhelming majority of your edits lie in a narrow field. Perhaps Gavin Newsom somehow represents the furtherance or protection of your values, and this drives you to spend your time discrediting Paffrath."
    • [146] "I do have evidence, I've looked over many of your edits; it's clear you are a zealous proponent of certain ideologies, and spend much of your time bashing those whom you feel are opponents or foils, inserting language and blanket labels that are intended to disparage and discredit, often without including a factual basis for such labels. I don't necessarily disagree with your positions, and I haven't said your injections are false. I just think it's problematic, it's a certain style of editing meant to win hearts and minds rather than provide objective facts, and odds are there is also an ideological motive to your many interventions here."
    • [147] "Your buddy Drmies (and Doug Weller, and however many hundred others of the full-timers) will intercede on your behalf, project a false consensus, and drown me out."
    • [148] "They're not aspersions, they're simply accurate descriptions of what you do.(spook)" (they immediately removed the "spook" insult after making it)
    • [149] The evidence is right there on your user page. Pretty much all you do is run around and accuse certain people (and most specifically, just about any non-big-tech social-media platform, which you spend much of your time attacking; very strange) of being white supremacist, misogynist, racist, far-right etc etc. Seems to be markedly more about spreading propaganda (again whether good or bad) than contributing to an encyclopedia.

    GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am not in any way a new editor. I've been on this site for at least a decade and done thousands of edits. A small clique of editors 'shepherd' any articles of controversy, and gang-up on new editors who try to make productive and appropriate edits. Drmies and Doug Weller (and a dozen or so others I can't now recall; Malik Shabazz may be another?) are in fact among them, and it's shocking how predictable their arrival to the scene is; literally, multiple of them, same day, within hours, on disparate topics that have no commonality other than that they are controversial. You can call this aspersions, I call it a recounting of events. In any case, I'll stop interacting with you, so there will be no further issue. If you want to revert any talk-page content you disagree with, go ahead. I have also witnessed these editors involved in the delisting of figures that may be considered by some to be controversial or subversive, invariably on dubious 'non-notable' grounds. I am involved in the Paffrath article because it is one of more egregious attempts I've seen to selectively delist someone. I haven't brought anything to ANI because I've attempted to do so in the past and it's a totally unproductive waste of time. The same clique shows up, manufactures a false consensus, and you get stonewalled.Pc031985 (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've been on this site for at least a decade and made thousands of edits, but you can't seem to recall your previous username? That seems unlikely. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I come to this site to make spontaneous, productive edits. It's not a full-time hobby and there was never an attempt to build a reputation or gain special privileges like with some editors. My pattern was typically to make IP edits for a couple of years, have a username for a while, forget to log in for the next couple years. I've had several usernames just due to forgetting past names and then easily creating a new name. None of this was for ill intent, it was simply the past of least resistance. In spite of this, all my edits were honest, productive, and I feel worthwhile. I don't appreciate the behavior I called out. Again, if it in fact violates some policy and will result in banning, I'll just voluntarily delete it.Pc031985 (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit Warring by Amigao on China related topics

    This really needs resolving, and previous attempts to do so has not resulted in sanctions or changes to the editor's behaviour.

    - Amigao is aggressively policing and edit warring on topics related to China over a long term period. He has a very persistent tendency of firstly doctoring articles towards a negative point of view, and then policing and reverting anyone who attempts to alter these particular changes or balance them. He subsequently slaps warnings and accuses those who disagree with his edits of bad faith behaviour and reports accordingly, framing them as vandals in order to get the upper hand [150] [151]

    See for example here, this is just one of many many reverts he has made against me on this specific article [152]- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Two additional reverts just now to bring into consideration, meaning he has now reverted me three times in 24 hours: [153] [154]- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Further Evidence

    86.174.161.238

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

    See talk. They are edit warring on Hailee Steinfeld (tried to insert unsourced middle name 4 times), Taron Egerton and Nathan Fillion. Nobody warned them on their talk page about edit warring before I did so WP:3RRN doesn't apply (yet). They also keep adding unsourced info to BLPs after talk page warnings from Mattythewhite, Notfrompedro and Asartea. I don't think they read their talk page. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User FredBoron

    FredBoron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WP:SPA repeatedly reinstates unacceptable sources in the CryptoNote article. Was notified about blockchain and cryptocurrency sanctions. An attempt to discuss on the talk page of that article did not go very far. Accuses me of vandalism. Please help. Retimuko (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Shashibharanger

    Shashibharanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has repeatedly tried to turn the disambiguation page Shashi into an autobiography by overwriting the text [167] [168] [169] and moving the page to a new title logs despite being told both in move summaries and by me on the user talk page (User_talk:Shashibharanger#Shashi) to stop. IMO a block for disruptive editing is needed. Courtesy ping @Wire723:, whio has reversed the other part of the disruption. Wikipedia talk:Shashi Bharanger probbably also needs deletion or draftification as the article (attempt) isn't meaningfully placed there. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The only edit before 2021, from 2016, diff also was exact the same problem. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1024831072"