Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1072

MordvinEvgen and sex difference information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

MordvinEvgen traverses sex difference pages and closely related pages to synthesize and bias information. He adds sentences that shouldn't be found in a children's book, let alone an encyclopedia. For example, in the empathy article, he said "and the correlation of the chromosome with only the female sex is controversial, which is contrary to common sense."[1]

He's gotten multiple warning about the way he edits.[2] People have told him to stop adding his own analysis and conclusions to articles and to leave primary research behind him, but he continues.

Here are some recent challenges to his edits.[3][4][5]

When I said to him today that he should stop, he said he will continue. He severely insulted me and threatened me, saying, "YOU also don't publish the meta-analysis effect sizes, which is a dumb publishing method. You don't even have enough brains to open meta-analysis and arrange everything humanly. I said your edits will be removed in the future. If you think you will stop me, good luck..."[6] He put emphasis on "WILL."[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBFEE (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

I think procedures for resolving disputes with MordvinEvgen are bound for failure unless he doesn't rail against the Wikipedia "system" (his words) when it doesn't work the way he wants it to. He says I don't know science.[8] Someone should tell him good science isn't what he does. If it was, his edits wouldn't keep getting removed for synthesizing the research and less than optimal sourcing, and he wouldn't keep getting warnings about them. He says I'm removing stuff I don't like, but I encourage people to look at his edits, many of which have been challenged by editors because he cuts what he doesn't like and inserts his commentary or own framing of the research. Multiple complaints from others about his edits are in the page histories. He's complained that I said he uses his personal commentary. He does. None of the sources say anything like "contrary to common sense"[9] or "It should be noted right away that the differences found in the brain do not necessarily mean differences in cognitive parameters." or "However, it is worth noting that evolutionary theories rarely reflect the true nature of the differences."[10]

He says he plans to modify all of my edits. If he does, more of the same will come from him. He doesn't care for secondary and tertiary sources. Look at his newest complaint about tertiary sources, Wikipedia's unwillingness to give primary sources the same mouthpiece, and thoughts about me.[11] He calls me his opponent and an "it", and says he "can give a lot of examples of the failure of both your system" and my behavior. Does this sound like a person willing to listen and defer to the reviews of topics? He hasn't listened for three months! So what is the appropriate course of action for anyone to take regarding this editor if it's not to report him here? GBFEE (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

I don't know if I'm allowed to link to his IP address here, but he made an edit as an IP address a few hours ago and I reverted him a few minutes ago because the tiny piece he removed is in one of the resources. I think he's waiting for this thread to end, and then he'll go back to doing what he does. GBFEE (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• I had a look at User_talk:MordvinEvgen and some recent diffs. They show a serious problem but I'm not sure there is quite enough to warrant action now. I can't see a short block as solving anything so the choices are site ban (unlikely from what I've seen), indefinite block by courageous admin (possible), or continue as normal. Assuming the result is continue, feel free to notify me if problems persist and I'll see if an indefinite block is justified. @MordvinEvgen: You must not "balance" review sources with your own analysis. You might be correct or you might not: that is not the issue. The problem is that at Wikipedia such original research is not permitted because there is no end to it and no way for other editors to assess the situation (what if X adds a point and Y removes it: such a situation cannot be resolved without an objective secondary source as there is no editorial committee at Wikipedia). Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Recommend closing this thread with no action per the advice of User:Johnuniq. It is my guess that an individual admin will feel able to take action if User:MordvinEvgen returns to Wikipedia and continues to add their own original research to articles about sex differences. Any more personal attacks from MordvinEvgen such as 'don't have enough brains' or any more threats of edit warring might also be enough for a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

He said he will create thousands of accounts, and then he changed his name

I know this thread has closed, so please excuse me, but I'm reporting this for admins here.

The editor responded, and it's not pretty. He went on the attack again, flipped off the Wikipedia process without pulling out his middle finger, and said, "Threats regarding blocking do not concern me. There is nothing complicated in registering a new account. ... While I'm leaving the activity, I'm disappointed with the flawed rules of Wikipedia and editors, but if I suddenly have a desire, then I'll come back, and at least block it. I will create thousands of accounts. There is no difficulty in this."[12]. Hours afterward, his name was changed to EvgFakka.[13] I don't think his reason for changing his name is innocent. Maybe he doesn't know we can still see his past edits. All things considered, I got a thanks from him on my account for an edit I made.[14] I think he was mostly thanking me for the edit right before that one. So maybe there's hope yet. I'll understand if this subsection is also closed without action because (aside from his reply today) he hasn't acted inappropriately again yet. Thank you for your consideration. GBFEE (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Plant-country category removal

A series of plant-country categories including Category:Rosids of Argentina have been systematically depopulated by Plantdrew using HotCat. Subsequently users like UnitedStatesian have apparently unknowingly of the arbitrary deletion proposed them for speedy deletion. Category:Rosids of Argentina is just among the few ones I have been able to save as I arrived on time prior to speedy deletion. The issue of deleting country-plant taxonomy categories was discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_18#Flora_of_X_by_taxonomy and the result was no consensus. Hence the categories should. Stay. I would like to ask for all categories deleted in this irregular way to be restored and repopulated. If Plantdrew still wants to delete the categories he needs to discuss it first at WP:AfD like Wikipedians are expected to do in most cases. Sietecolores (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This would be much easier to analyze if some examples/diffs of the category removals were given. (Plantdrew has so many edits I couldn't quickly find any) There are certainly valid reasons why Plantdrew might have done such a thing, there are also invalid reasons. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I note that a) Plantdrew did not take part in that discussion, and b) you seem to have made no attempt to discuss this with them, so maybe this is a wee bit premature...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ugni molinae: Plantdew first attempt [15] 2018 November 2019, Plantdew second attempt [16] 13 June 2021.

Araucaria araucana Plantdew [17] 18 November 2019.

Drimys winteri [18] 18 November 2019.

There are many, many more examples. Most undiscussed category removals that were carried out in November 2019 by Plantdew.

This is a serious incident of abusing advanced tools like HotCat, that's why I bring it up here. Sietecolores (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Finding diffs are difficult (no pun intended), but regarding HotCat or advanced tools, a possible solution is to impose an WP:EDR on the use of the tools till the user is capable of understanding their wrongdoings --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, from both of you - sorry. This is really none of my beef (I just saw the notification on Plantdrew's talk page in passing), but good faith removal of categories that go unchallenged for two years, by a very experienced editor who may not have been aware of a local consensus to the contrary, is not "a serious abuse of HotCat". Talk it over with them before making a ruckus here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, maybe it was premature, maybe you are right. But given that I the issue is already here I propose we discuss it here. This is still a serious issue given the massive removals he did and the subsequent deletions cant be easily undome. Sietecolores (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It is incredibly easy to undue a category page deletion; the re-population is slightly harder. I don't see an issue needing administrative action here; if the removals have stood unchallenged for over a year there is no need to revert them before a discussion establishes they are appropriate. Perhaps a discussion at Plantdrew's talk page would be sufficient; otherwise either a Wikiproject or a new CfD (without the procedural issues that plagued the first one). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an exact memory of this, but I edited 34 articles on 18 November 2019, removing intersectional categories of plant orders (and some higher taxa) and countries. I assume I was motivated by noticing some categories with few members, which weren't fully populated with potential members. e.g., the intersection of Asterales and Flora of Chile categories has 64 articles, but only 1 article was placed in Category:Asterales of Chile. Some of these underpopulated categories would've had very few members even if fully populated (Canellales+Flora of Chile has 2 articles, but only one was in the intersectional category). (these are underestimates because e.g. Category:Flora of Chile isn't fully populated, and frankly it would be more productive to ensure that the country category is fully populated before creating intersectional subcategories). Most of the categories I depopulated were for Chile and Argentina but there were some others (e.g. Category:Asparagales of Southwestern Europe) For Chile and Argentina, there were categories created for 8 flowering plant orders (out of 64 globally; some don't occur in Chile/Argentina, but far more than 8 do).

In short, I saw an incomplete system of underpopulated categories. While there is a well developed and (fairly well) populated set of categories for Australian plants by order, breaking down geographical categories by plant order isn't mentioned in any of the guidance for categorizing plants: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions; the set of Australia categories isn't a standard to follow. It appeared to me to be an experiment in categorization that had been abandoned by it's creator(s), so I boldly removed the (underpopulated, incomplete and nonstandard) categories. It wasn't the first time I've come across a nonstandard way of categorizing organisms where the creator made almost no effort to populate the categories. Plantdrew (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated reversals and fringe theories

Goodmorning. The user @Pipsally: has repeately tried to insert sources supporting the Christ myth theory. Since such theory is a fringe theory, I and other editors (@Joshua Jonathan:, @MPants at work: and @Ramos1990:) have reverted their edits. He/She has been repeatedly told to stop inserting new edits on the matter, since a consensus has already been reached. Instead of doing it, she has randomly started to revert all my edits with no apparent reason. The edits have been done to these pages:
Page: Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Forged (book) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Necho II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merneptah Stele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Karma1998 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

you are conflating two different things here. I have not touched the Christ myth theory edits since consensus was reached. Also it is disingenuous to say I was inserting the edits when I was in fact reverting your WP:BOLDremovals. Regardless that is resolved and I respect consensus there.

my other edits are all explained in the edit summaries, and are to do with you adding WP:SYNTH to articles, particularly citing an authors own website for reviews of his book which is not WP:RS. There is no way this is an WP:ANI issue.

i suggest as well that you don’t both remove content and add something else in the same edits as you have a habit of doing. It makes your edit summaries quite misleading Pipsally (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I’d also like to point out that contrary to the claim above the neither @MPants at work: or @Ramos1990:) have reverted my edits. They have made comments in relation to my edits in talk, and I have respected that input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs)

Do not try to change the point. You have tried to insert arguments in support of the CMT in the page Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book), quoting minor and insignificant scholars. And you have reverted my edits for no reason, since Ehrman's blog is a reliable source (he can't invent reviews from newspapers).--Karma1998 (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring something that didn’t get saved here. I’m not changing the point. I have not inserted arguments, I reverted your WP:BOLD edits, but when it became clear consensus supported you I stopped. Your second section is exactly the point, he could invent those (i’m not saying he has!) so you need to provide a reliable source and not the authors selfpublidhed blog.Pipsally (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I most certainly would have reverted your edits, had not Karma1998 beaten me to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

ok, and I respect that, but I just clarifying the above statement is not accurate. And again, please note that ones it was clear there is consensus I have not persisted on those edits and have respected the conclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipsally (talk • contribs)

• The bit about citing Erhman's site for the Salon quote seems disingenuous; Ehrman is a widely respected scholar who faces constant scrutiny from evangelical scholars who take umbrage at his high profile as possible the best known biblical scholar, and his oft-professed agnosticism and adherence to methodological and naturalistic methods and conclusions. The suggestion that he would deliberately misrepresent a quote from Salon like this is rather ridiculous on the face, and the triviality of simply doing a quick google search for that quote (literally two clicks of the mouse) to find the original article which contained it is such that it's very difficult to believe this was a good-faith revert. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

my point is that it is trivial to find the actual sources, and not to rely on an authors self pub. All Karma has to do if he wants this content is to provide the RS and I will note dispute it. Pipsally (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

If you agree that finding the source was trivial, then why didn't you find the sources, instead of engaging in an action which you knew would antagonize Karma1998? 19:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally:, you have once again reverted an edit on the page Forged (book), despite warning not to do so. @MPants at work: I'm not an administrator, but I think a block here is needed.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no warning. I reverted it because you have not provided a reliable source. You cannot cite an authors own blog for reviews. Find and cite the review!Pipsally (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This denial seems quite disingenuous, given that this entire ANI discussion serves as a warning that you are editing against consensus. I'm uninvolved, and I can see quite clearly that there is a consensus against your inclusions.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

thank for looking in. Please do review again. Karma1998 has cited my edit regarding the Christ myth theory as his complaint. My edits turned out to be against consensus, and once that was clear I have not pursued them. this was yesterday, and I have not touched since . That’s how we work. My other edits are in relation to his citation of an authors own blog for positive reviews of his material, and that’s what I was trying to explain above.Pipsally (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: he/she has just reversed another time! That's amazingly stubborn.--Karma1998 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998, has it passed the point of an edit war? If so, report to WP:EWN.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I've already done it, and they told me to come here.--Karma1998 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I largely agree with Karma1998. Pipsally & 2db are obviously POV-pushing in a pro-Christ Myth theory fashion. For example, Pipsally considers that simply stating the contents of Did Jesus Exist? is "OR" [19] (no, explaining what's in the book is not OR). 2db is prominently citing what seems to be a vanity-published book by a random person as if it was an authority on the topic, sticking in a faux-reference to a Christ mythisticist in a "reference" that is really an accusatory footnote to the lede [20]; it's not even clear that Raphael Lataster is particularly prominent within the Christ Myth community. I think that some of this material may be somewhat salvageable (if sourced to prominent Christ myth proponents such as George Albert Wells) but 2db needs to learn to phrase things neutrally and with WP:DUEWEIGHT for what is, like it or not, an academic fringe theory. For example, 2db introduced ridiculous phrasing like "Ehrman admitted that (Did Jesus Exist? is not an academic monograph)." [21] What? Of course it wasn't, it was a book. That's not a scandal or a problem, so why phrase it as if it was something Ehrman was "covering up" until finally forced to admit guilt? See MOS:SAID for why this is problematic, even if the claim wasn't so ludicrous. SnowFire (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snowfire: I agree . This is done, since yesterday. I have not pursued it. There is consensus. I accept it. I have not edited since to restore this Christian myth material, which anyway was a reversion via recent changes of a deletion. Consensus was made clear and I have left alone.Pipsally (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe this can be resolved on talk pages after all. We shouldn't restrict what the book itself says, but better sources are always welcome. SnowFire (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pipsally: Actually you added fringe supporters of the CMT to the page of Ehrman's book.-Karma1998 (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

where? Which book? I’m happy to remove finge if I’ve added it in error Pipsally (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The book Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book).-Karma1998 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What on earth are you on about? I’ve removed things from the article that are poorly sourced or unsourced. To my shame I’ve added nothing, and certainly nothing fringe. Please show me the edits you think ar fringe Pipsally (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You added works and comments from CMT supporter Raphael Lataster, forcing us to remove it.-Karma1998 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Show the edit diffs where I’ve done that please . Also, my only interest in this through recent changes. I know no detail of the topic, I’ve just reverted obvious blanking or removal of content without explanation .

I apologize for my mistake @Pipsally:, it appears that the Lataster reference was added by @2db: and not you. Still, I believe it is not credible to say that Bart Ehrman's blog is not reliable for the reviews on his books.--Karma1998 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for being so pedantic, but there are certain usages of English that I find so distracting as to prevent me from looking dispassionately at the merits of a case. In the section title you mean "continual", not "continuous". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for that @Phil Bridger:, unfortunately English is not my mother language (I'm from Italy). I will correct-Karma1998 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Please don't apologize. I assumed from the perfect English used in the rest of your comments that you were a native speaker. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Well, I studied English for many years, so I know how to handle it hahahaha.-Karma1998 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998, looks like I came in late. But it looks like the situation has cooled down a bit (I hope). I would just like to mention that perhaps if edit warring continues then it could probably be summarized further in a more constructed fashion? It seems to be getting muddy and verbose. Perhaps less responses here would make it easier for others to follow the issue and provide input in the midst of all the noise. Others are already seeing your point and siding with you. I also think you have some good points here too. And at @Pipsally: I see you are blanking out your talk page with all of the warnings you are getting. Please cease the edit warring since in you blanking out your talk page is taken as an acknowledgement that you have heard the complaints by editors who have posted there. Its pretty visible in the history of the talk page. It is best to use the talk pages for the articles in dispute to discuss these issues instead of just reverting.Ramos1990 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• While I disagree with Pipsally on the merits (and they should start with a 30 second Google rather than removing the entire line if they want to improve sourcing), they have the absolute right to clean their talk page up as they like (barring block notices / discretionary sanctions / etc.), so I wouldn't really press them on that account or derail this into a talk page guidelines discussion. SnowFire (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I agree. But just wanted to note that clearing their own user talk pages does not really hide anything for admins. It is their right, but some do it thinking they can go undetected. More of an FYI than anything else.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Strange user behaviour regarding diplomacy and communicating with users.

There are some strange edits and input by Supermann (talk · contribs) and there is a perceived bias and possible conflict of editing on certain articles and discussion. See certain points of discussion here (Said user having conflicting nature/aggressive behaviour with other users who are simply discussing issues with articles), here (said user behaves the same, this time however resorts to personal attacks), here (User tries to add information on article involving China related content, although there was insufficient supporting sources said user still pushed to have his input approved, here (Said user gets into verbal attacks towards other users who are simply following Wikipedias style of editing along with inappropriate edits threatening users here, here, and here. Further disruptive edit warring here. officialreply ^comesayhi 02:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Edit: It has come to my attention Supermann (talk · contribs) is already a subject of discussion here. His behaviour towards other users is concerning. Regarding anonymous IP leaving inappropriate messages he handled the situation in an aggressive manner. His behaviour is not friendly especially when this website strives to be a community and place of helping and learning. officialreply ^comesayhi 02:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: OP has been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It should be clarified for the diffs provided in the first paragraph that theatre chains websites are not reliable sources for runtimes per WP:FILMRUNTIME. —El Millo (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have indeffed this user for WP:NOTHERE. They are either a troll or a sock. They created their account today. They created a userpage and a Talk page with childish emoticons on them. They immediately filed a report here about a user that was already the subject of a thread here. They notified the user properly. The report is complete with diffs, better than some experienced editors' reports. There is no way in hell they are a new user. And it is obvious they are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. Their username is suspicious. If another administrator believes I am wrong or acted too hastily, I consent to them doing whatever they believe is appropriate as I am logging off shortly (bedtime).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Possibly related to a couple of IPs I blocked for trolling on Supermann's talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Anglyn insisting on adding their unreliable translation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 13 March 2020, Anglyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added a translation of the Corpus Hermeticum to the Hermetica page by a certain Maxwell Lewis Latham. Since Latham appears to have no scholarly credentials (Google scholar has nothing on him, and what Goodreads writes about them does not inspire any confidence), and since the translation was published by what appears to be a vanity publisher (Falcon Books, e.g. listed here as such), it was reverted on 21 June 2020 by Ian.thomson (not actively editing at the moment), at which point Anglyn re-added the translation and got reverted again for adding unreliable and promotional content, followed by some more reverting back and forth ([22], [23], [24], [25]).

Ian.thomson also engaged with Anglyn at their talk page about Wikipedia's requirements for reliability and how to deal with a potential COI, but without much success. In their last reply at the talk page, and after having expressed their intention not to edit Wikipedia again, Anglyn referred to Latham's translation as "my translation".

However, yesterday they returned to add the Latham translation again, arguing how Latham is not a practising Hermeticist and holds a relevant Master's degree. After I reverted this for adding an unreliable source, Anglyn reinstated with the message that this is Latham's first translation after ten years of studying Latin and Ancient Greek. As Ian.thomson before me (though perhaps with a little bit more AGF), I explained our policy on reliable sources and inquired about a potential COI, but was met with the same attitude: rather than discussing reliability or potential COI, Anglyn chose to point at my deficient English and to call me an "amateur". They seem to be WP:NOTHERE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Warned. El_C 11:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It is quite alright. There is no problem here, whether it be under the guise of partisan censorship or arbitrary selective choice of translations permitted or not permitted. There are self interests at stake, yes, which invalidates any claim I might have on being listed as a scholar. Yet your caveat (Wikipedia's) implied that I am not a scholar. Who are you (plural) to say what constitutes an accurate or an inaccurate translation? Do you have qualifications and experience in this area? Or, more likely, are you just another bunch of armchair philosophers, that have the mere veneer of knowledge, and much less the supposed pretence of wisdom? What is more likely? What qualifies you, precisely, to decide on what is and what isn't an accurate translation? Evidently you have not studied Latin or Ancient Greek (from the terms in which you frame your argument), therefore you have no authority, whatsoever, to say what comes and goes, except that of a know-it-all, without ever having studied, and with no actual authority yourselves. Long after we are all dead and gone, my translation will remain, whereas the same cannot be said for the edits made by these so-called the 'scholars' on Wikipedia. The fact is that you are an amateur. You have not passed the necessary examinations to qualify yourself as a Latin scholar. You lance accusations at those that are better than you at Latin, in every respect, but fail to acknowledge your own deficiencies in the subject. You are not, and never will be, a scholar. You are an amateur, and will always remains so. Nothing you do has any impact upon the actual academic community, and therefore someone who has not learnt his Latin or Ancient Greek is in no position to say whether a translation is accurate or inaccurate. Your conclusions are drawn from ignorance, not from knowledge. The only so-called "knowledge" you have is supposition, conjecture and nothing more. That, is the truth. Angyln (Maxwell Lewis Latham).

I believe the above to constitute a personal attack, and to evince an attitude that is irreconcilable with a collaborative environment. I hope that someone will spare both myself and others from this in the future by blocking this user from editing Wikipedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rmmiller44

• Rmmiller44 (talk · contribs) has been really "pushing" the envelope of what constitutes civility, and this [[26]] is just the latest. Their bad faith POV pushing and ad homonyms are tiresome to an extreme. As is the fact they never actually seem to read what has been written or by whom. They also seem to have formed their own views of what policies say [[27]] and false accusations (I have no idea what "outrageous attacks" they are talking about.

They are clearly not here except to push an agenda.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

First off I'm a HE, not a they.

Let's be very clear about this. YOU are the one pushing an agenda. You were told by no fewer than four people that a section on mass shootings in the AR 15 style rifle entry violated WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I'm an expert on the AR rifle with more than 30 years of using it. I own over a dozen of them. I'm an expert on guns, gun crimes, and gun laws. You have contributed nothing to this entry other than channeling the opinion of a Democrat politician.

You filibustered every discussion people had with you on this entry. You did not budge one inch. People gave you detailed explanations about why the OPINION attributed to a politician was factually false and not reliably sourced.

The AR 15 being the "weapon of choice for mass shootings" is propaganda straight from the Democrat Party, Moms Demand Action, and the Brady United. There is literally zero truth to this claim. It is conclusory nonsense made up by anti-gun activists. EVERY type of gun -- pistols, rifles, shotguns -- have been used in mass shootings. There is zero evidence the AR 15 is disproportionately involved in such instances. The claim, which doesnt mention the AK 47 used in mass killings throughout the globe, is a blatant attack against US domestic arms manufacturers.

Multiple people explained this to you, and you completely ignored them. You kept repeating that the claim was RS because some newspaper quoted a politician saying that. This tactic is an abuse of WP:RS. An opinion doesnt become fact by citing a source quoting an opinion. By your argument, every contentious issue on WP could become flooded by competing "This guy said this" opinions presented as facts.

I was at least the fourth person to mention this on the talk page, and I believe the history will show more. The bottom line is there is NO CONSENSUS on including that section. You are taking advantage of status quo bias.

It's the same story every time I attempt to remove leftist WP:NPOV propaganda from entries.

1) Someone adds content that blatantly violates WP standards.

2) Someone with integrity and intellectual honesty removes it, enforcing standards.

3) You or others revert the change, falsely claim there was a consensus to include it, filibuster discussion, claim edit warning, and call in your meatpuppet leftist admins to find in your favor.

YOU violated WP standards, not me. I'm fixing your malfunction. I'm trying to keep this and other entries objective, factual, unbiased, and well sourced. I dont have a political agenda with the entry, you do.

One of the Founders of WP complained about exactly what I'm talking about. You and your leftist ilk have taken over WP and youre using it as a propaganda machine for the Democrat Party. You have zero intellectual honesty and you violate rules with impunity. ~~rmmiller44

I don't care what your political beliefs are, as long as you are civil in your interactions with other editors. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing any of that from you. Oh, and by the way, it's "you're", not "youre". MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Just an observation from the sidelines: referring to it as the "Democrat" party makes you sound more strident and less serious. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just an observation but interfering with a discussion with irrelevant and petty snipes is unhelpful. Dont comment unless you have something meaningful to add to the discussion.rmmiller44

In addition, working on your use of apostrophes would be welcome. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rmmiller44: did you inform User:Slatersteven that you were starting a discussion about them here? It is in a giant colorful box at the top of the screen when you edit here. Not doing so could feed a narrative about you of not desiring to play by WP's rules. DMacks (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks User:Floquenbeam for clarifying the context here. It is indeed not "starting a discussion" here. DMacks (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven notified ME of this incident. I dont need to notify him. You assuming I did something wrong could feed the narrative that all the leftist meatpuppets are flocking here to support their comrade.rmmiller44

By your own edit, you started a new section. There was therefore a new discussion here, started by you, for which there was no required notification made. Now that (as we see in the edit history) you actually meant to continue an ongoing discussion, and as another editor figured out what you were talking about and fixed for you, I addded a followup to my comment. And now I'm also fixing the indentation and ordering of your most recent comment here per discussion standards. Follow those sorts of standards can only serve to help others understand your position and possibly support it. I honestly don't care who flocks here and supports whom, but WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL problems could end your career here sooner than your ideas even get a full discussion. DMacks (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"and call in your meatpuppet leftist admins to find in your favor.", need I say any more?Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And their response to my ANI notice [[28]].Slatersteven (talk) 09:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Come on. If a new editor pulled this shit, they would be indeffed on the spot as WP:NOTHERE. This is an ongoing WP:CIV violation by rmmiller44 if nothing else. It's really a shame when hitherto productive editors assert a battleground mentality.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh and also, if it bothers you that much, you can avoid people assuming your gender by making adjustments to your user preferences under the "Internationalisation" section or publishing your pronouns in your signature - although that's certainly not mandatory. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Rmmiller44, I can sympathize with your view that the content in question shouldn't be in the AR-15 article. However, I don't think this confrontational approach is going to work in the end. Wikipedia is based on consensus (wp:Consensus). This is a case where there has been a lot of discussion about the topic and in the end most editors have agreed that some level of this content is DUE in the article. The reason is we do have reliable sources (per WP:RS) that discuss this topic with respect to the AR-15 which provides the wp:WEIGHT for inclusion. That doesn't mean the current material is perfect but it means tearing everything up is not likely to work. Where you are more likely to make a difference is if you can help find good sources, especially related to the technical parts of the rifles. I understand some readers only care about the political parts but I think others might appreciate more apolitical content. One other thing, I know it's really easy to assume political motives behind editors who try to include/exclude various types of content (believe me, I know) but most editors are really just acting in good faith. There are gray areas as to what should/shouldn't be included in an article or how emphasis such information should be given. I can certainly say that Slatersteven has been in the firearms topics even in cases where we don't agree. In part for this reason it is always best to stick to the facts and not even discuss the possible motives of the other editors. If you are wrong you just antagonize someone unfairly. If you are right it still makes you look like you are battling the editor vs trying to improve the article. If you can keep this civil disagreement in mind I think you will find your ability to influence an article will increase significantly. Springee (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Blocked indefinitely (with TPA disabled). Longstanding aggression, which seems to be unrelenting. WP:AP2 in nature. El_C 10:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Some tags on change lists coming up with Welsh language instead of English.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T286679

Not sure of the correct place to log this, but [29] is currently showing the first 3 tags with a Welsh translation rather than English. noq (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Noq: you probably want WP:VPT, although I personally am seeing them all with English translations -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually has already been reported, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tags -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Localhost83

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Localhost83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has only about 50 edits, but they seem to have been quite enough to demonstrate that he/she has no interest in collaborative editing. Some examples:

• I don't win out of stubbornness, I win because you are too braggart to acknowledge my changes were factual.
• I'm not here for cooperating with truth-hiders and abusive admins. I stay on my side until the end and I won't accept any more compromise with you dictators.
• I don't care of your bans, I'm fighting to let truth win.
• clearing the bullshit of an ignorant (that's me, by the way)
• ... you are too lazy to search and too discriminatory to ask for sources only to me ... (that's to HighInBC)

I propose that we give this editor an indefinite vacation. I'd have done that myself if I hadn't reverted his/her edit at Kingdom of Italy. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed for not here. Obviously here to insist on "the truth". RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Good block. Insisting on adding unsourced information because "it is known to them" while lashing out at anyone holding them to verifiability standards. Edit summaries and talk page comments littered with bad faith accusations and personal attacks. After a 1 month block went immediately back to the exact same behavior. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor back to edit warring one minute after edit warring block expires

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

BrightOrion (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) was blocked for 24 hours on the 12 July by Bbb23 for edit warring at AA battery. Exactly one minute after the block expired, BrightOrion once again reverted back in his preferred article version. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Have attempted to notify user but notice template is not working for some reason. 85.255.237.114 (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When substituting a template you need to use a colon, rather than a bar. The correct markup is {{subst:ANI-notice}}, rather than the {{subst|ANI-notice}} you used. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for IP range block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2001:16A2:78D6:3C00:D579:577:3976:8379 (talk · contribs)
• Archived report about this specific IP range and their edits, behavior, and activity
• Recently vandalized the articles of female pro wrestlers; changing the birth date as usual.[30][31][32]

Would an admin please disable "anonymous editing" for this IP range? Every time they return, they do the very same edits. Wario-Man ^talk 02:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Kinu blocked the IP range for 1 week. MiasmaEternal^TALK 03:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think 1 week is enough. After 1 week, same stuff would happen again because this IP user is obsessed with doing such things. Seems it's a hobby for them. Wario-Man ^talk 04:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll try raising it with Kinu on his talk page. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A week is fine. Blocking that /64 for longer than a week probably won't do much good because it will probably only stay allocated for a short while. The editor is going to bounce around on a much wider network, more like a /36. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are interested in dealing with this case, please add these articles to your watchlist:

• Charlotte Flair, Nia Jax, Kelly Kelly, Maryse Ouellet (main target), Tamina Snuka, Taya Valkyrie (main target)

There are more targeted articles but the mentioned articles are their favorites. So when you encounter them, review all of their edits. Because they may vandalize some other articles (female pro wrestlers) randomly. Wario-Man ^talk 13:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP from Taylor, Michigan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

50.4.9.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has repeatedly added unsourced and dubious information regarding Craig of the Creek, usually adding unsourced future episodes or a fake series end date. They have returned sporadically since July 2020 to add such information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced future epsiodes

• Earliest edit, July 2020
• [33]
• [34]
• [35]
• [36]
• Added information about the upcoming season 4 that failed verification

Fake end date

• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
• Fake move to Netflix
• [41]
• [42]

Heads up - I've reported the IP to AIV. If you see any more instances of persistent vandalism by IPs or users, go there instead. MiasmaEternal^TALK 22:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lugnuts' mass-creation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. Today, I stumbled upon User:Lugnuts and found that they are back to their old ways again - creating one or two-line stubs, using database entries as sources even for living people's birth date which is a serious breach of WP:BLP.

Recently, community decided to remove their autopatrolled rights and allowed them to edit and create articles without any restriction based on promise that they will research-well and will follow WP:RS strictly. But, here we are again, they are creating permastubs within span of two minutes and (Redacted)

Now, they are also prolific contributor and their edits are more than 1M and we need more of them. What I suggest now to is give them a rest on article creation (Redacted)and can continue editing articles as they are doing. That will help them to break their habits and may help them to mend their ways.

Lastly, we don't want to loose them either, so article creation restriction is required now as we have already given them a chance. Hope they will cope up with this and will abide by community's advice this time around. Thanks. 95.145.220.124 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Database sources such as Olympedia are reliable sources so perfectly valid for dates of birth- no evidence has been given to the contrary, and if you want to debate this, it should be done at WP:RSN, not by starting an ANI thread about an editor. And not all of these are permastubs- I'm sure most of them could be expanded at some point in the future, and I have historically expanded many articles created as stubs by Lugnuts, which demonstrated my point. Stubs are valid articles, they're just articles that have yet to be expanded. Also, please refrain from making assertions about other users- saying they have OCD is not appropriate, and may be considered a personal attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

IP: I have redacted the parts of your complaint where you make comments about another editor's mental health, and where you claim knowledge of another editor's motivations. Please do not make such comments again, particularly with regards to other editors' mental health.

Have you taken any steps to discuss the particular concerns about these sources anywhere? For example by asking Lugnuts whether he is confident that the sources are reliable, or raising a query at WP:RSN? He might have responded well to a good faith request that he stop creating them while the sources were discussed. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

All the ANI thread stated was the removal of the auto-patrolled right, which happened, and no other restrictions. Since then every single article I've created has been patrolled by another user. Here's a list of the most prolific in that area. In that three months, each page has been flagged as patrolled, with no issues of concern raised (that I can recall). Maybe the IP would like to question those other users to find any issues, or indeed how they know so much about this specific issue for a new user. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm still on a Wikibreak but noticed this and felt it was important enough for a quick comment. User:Joseph2302 is quite wrong and should not touch any WP:BLP until they re-familiarise themselves with policy. Nor should Lugnuts assuming the IP's summation is accurate. Database sources, even if they are WP:RS cannot reasonably be considered "widely published" and are generally not "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". They should not be used as the sole source for a date of birth. If there are no better sources, the content stays out of BLPs. It does not matter how confident editors are that the information is correct. The whole point of BLP policy on this matter is that we need to go beyond the information simply being correct. Whatever else Lugnuts may or may not be up to, if they are indeed violating BLP and they refuse to self-correct, they need to be topic banned. N.B. because I will be logging out straight after, I will point BLPN to this discussion. Nil Einne (talk)

By all means start a discussion at WP:RSN or WP:BLPN about this, but don't threaten me by telling me that I don't understand WP:BLP. I understand it perfectly well, and will not be adhering to your threat that I must stop editing BLPs simply because you disagree on one source. I consider the above a threat and a personal attack on my competency as an editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

My view is that database entries about non-notable sportspeople should be presented not as biographies (which they aren't), but as list entries. Reyk _YO! 09:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No comment on Lugnuts, but I will say it is not appropriate to log out of your account to make a complaint against an editor. It should be done through your primary account. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A BLP discussion has been started at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Possible BLPDOB problem- this should smooth out the BLP-related issues. Though I still question the conduct of an IP whose first edit is a personal attack, and another editor who demands that I must not edit BLPs simply because I disagree with them about the reliability of one source. Both of those things need admin consideration, the sourcing doesn't (as it needs the WP:BLPN discussion). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If that is their first edit then I am a unicorn. This is ax grinding while evading scrutiny plain and simple. I have already given them a warning and will follow through on it if they continue. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this underhandedness does detract from what is otherwise a legitimate concern. That and the ad hominems. Reyk _YO! 12:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have any BLP issues, but I do have notability issues. Lugnuts created stubs for a bunch of Venezuelan softball players from the 2008 Olympics, but on the team lineups I can find from that event, some of them do not appear. I'm pretty sure that being a non-playing squad member of an Olympic team is not notability, especially if one can find nothing else out about them. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Black Kite. I've just double-checked all those, and they did all take part (at the Olympics) at some stage. For example, Bheiglys Mujica's bio states Competed in Olympic Games. Compare with Kristen Karanzias of Greece who is listed as a non-starter, and doesn't have a wiki-article. Also, most if not all of the Venezuelan team won medals at other multi-national tournaments, such as the Pan-Am Games. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff. I couldn't find team line-ups for all the games, so I'm guessing that they appeared in the ones I couldn't find. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• OK, I registered an account. What about Máximo Ramírez, BLP DOB sourced with worldfootball.net. There are countless such problematic bios created recently. John Dirksen (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• John Dirksen Are you going to ignore the fact that your "first" edit was to raise this ANI thread? Clearly you've had other accounts that you're not being honest about.... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • To be fair, it's possible that John has been a dynamic IP editor in the past and really hasn't created an account before. Have people forgotten that IPs are very dynamic, and there are a good number of long time IP editors?Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• The date of birth of footballers do tend to be the subject of reliable sources given the enormous interest in the sport, for example, in the U.K, The PFA Premier & Football League players' records 1946-2015 contains thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of dates of birth of people who have played in the Football League and Premier League. Now, I don’t know whether worldfootball.net is a reliable source (I note it is published by Heim:Spiel, a company that specialises in sport data) but that’s a discussion, I think, for WT:FOOTY and WP:RSN, not here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Just noting that I also have concerns about including DOBs on BLPs that are sourced to a single database as WP:BLPDOB requires DOBs to be "widely published by reliable sources". The BLP policy for DOBs is about a privacy concern, rather than merely an issue of verifiability or reliability ("the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified"). As I also stated on the BLPN thread, this concern should be even more important if the articles are about relatively non-notable individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, if the implied anomaly here is Lugnuts “mass creating stubs” Whilst I haven’t bothered to read every entry here, I do want to address the OP specifically, first off, please login into your main account if anyone is to take you seriously, secondly, The “mass creation of stubs on the part of Lugnuts meet WP:PSA, so that’s a non issue. AFAIK, Lugnuts has a decent knowledge of what is contained in WP:RS and possess the knowledge of how to optimize them, if you are not in agreement with the sources used to back up a DOB in a given article, you are more than welcome to remove the DOB and initiate a dialogue with Lugnuts on the tp of the given article where a consensus should be made, only if that fails is ANI and it’s worthless drama be initiated. Celestina007 (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• I am about to go on a week-long Wikibreak, but I thought I'd pop in before I do so. I think people complaining may have a point when they claim that the inclusion of birthdates for slightly notable individuals violates WP:BLP. However, I am not sure because the databases themselves may be getting the information from a wide range of sources. More discussion is needed. I oppose any further sanctions to one of our most active article creators of all time. These "WP:BLP violations" (if they are) are much milder than a lot of other ones on stubs. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Lugnuts should be banned from creating new articles. He has over and over again shown a complete disregard for the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• I am troubled by the mass-creation of bio stub articles reliant entirely on sports-reference.com and cricinfo.com (or similar low-quality database sources), and oppose it as I don't think passing mentions in databases are sufficient to establish notability, but the basic fact is that (unlike the GEO community) the sports bio articles community just haven't decided yet to tighten up on this. Reviewing Lugnuts' more recent articles I can see some evidence of mass-creation, e.g.,:

• On 12 July, 22 articles created in 58 minutes (11:50 - 12:48). One article every ~130 seconds.
• On 11 July, 36 articles created in 54 minutes (17:29 - 18:23). One article every ~93 seconds.

But I suppose it could be said that many of these are redirects. I think ANI was not the place to bring this, though a general reminder that editors are expected to edit carefully, that mass-creation of articles (even by WP:MEATBOT techniques) is to be avoided without first seeking consensus to create, would not go amiss. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Databases, even when reliable, do not contribute to notability, and the previous ANI close mentioned that Lugnuts' mass creations are problematic because they place a burden on other editors to review them for notability. It is clear that removing Autopatrol has not resolved the issue, since these stubs with no assertion of notability are still passing NPP, so it may be time for an article creation ban. –dlthewave ☎ 17:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

They all have an assetion of notability, hence their creation. The removal of the auto-patrol right was so the wider community could look at my article creations. I've already linked to a list of editors that do the bulk of the patroling. To my knowledge, they have found nothing amiss. Nothing has slipped through the NPP process, so are they doing a bad job? Lets ask them: @Celestina007, Elli, Girth Summit, Govvy, Joseywales1961, John B123, Jupitus Smart, and Onel5969:. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, picking one at random, what makes Clara Vázquez notable? I only see two database sources which would not be considered significant coverage per WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 19:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

All Lugnuts's recent articles I've reviewed at NPP have met WP:NOLYMPICS. Not sure where stubs with no assertion of notability are still passing NPP is coming from? If they are that unhappy with the efforts of NP Patrollers perhaps they'd like to take over and show us how it should be done? I agree with the various other editors above that ANI isn't the place for this discussion. --John B123 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the mention and my first (and only I hope) visit to ANI. I have reviewed quite a few football (soccer) stubs created by Lugnuts over the past few months, I would say each of these would survive AfD (I would vote keep at any rate), they all related to players who have played for national teams mostly in the South American Copa America competition in earlier years. Each article has a talk page (with project biographies, football and the country), a stub mark, a short description, plenty of relevant categories and at least 2 sources i.e. perfectly formed stub articles for notable international footballers who up to now were without articles. JW 1961 ^Talk 19:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• First, I think the standard should be to hold Lugnuts to the same standard we hold any editor to. Keeping that in mind, I see hundreds of these types of stubs every month, from a plethora of editors, and they all get marked "reviewed", based on the history of prodding them, or taking them to AfD and having them kept. I've taken articles (which I've marked for improvement, and have gone month(s) without seeing any improvement) with a single ref to Soccerway, get kept at AfD. I agree that I don't think this is an ANI issue. Appears to be a non-issue at this point. Regarding the above question (and I'm not the editor who reviewed it) on Clara Vázquez, WP:NOLYMPICS would apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Onel and John B123, I do appreciate the work that is done at NPP and am not trying to discredit in any way. My concern is that WP:NSPORTS (which encompasses WP:NOLYMPICS) does not replace GNG; it is merely a guide to help determine whether significant coverage is likely to exist. Quoting the FAQ at the top: Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. It's concerning to see mass article creation based on the likely existence of significant coverage, with no effort to actually find that coverage or prove that it exists.

I do realize that there's a disconnect between our notability guidelines, which require that articles demonstrate significant coverage, and common practice at NPP/AfD, which often allow articles with no proof of notability. It seems that these decisions are not always made according to the relevant guideline. –dlthewave ☎ 20:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: there's de jure policy, and there's de facto policy. The de facto standard is, as you say, that a presumption of notability is notability (though it can in some rare cases be refuted). Expecting random NPPs to deviate from that for a particular editor isn't really fair - changing this view would probably require a large and somewhat messy RfC. Feel free to go ahead with that - but I'm not sure it would be likely to succeed. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. I think the operative word here is eventually. That would infer that at the time of creation meeting WP:NSPORTS is sufficient. Also from WP:ARTN: if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. The question here seems to be are https://www.olympedia.org/ and https://olympics.com/ reliable sources. That's not a matter for ANI.

In an ideal world all articles would be perfectly referenced (amongst other things}. In the real world things are different. Looking at the articles that come through NPP, especially from a few other multiple stub creators, Lugnut's articles are not the ones that cause concern. --John B123 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the mention, Lugnuts. While I somewhat disagree with our loose SNGs here - that's what we have - and the articles of yours that I have seen in NPP haven't run afoul of them. The proper way for unsatisfied editors to deal with this is an RfC, not taking action against individual editors. I do think not having auto-patrolled is reasonable here - since your articles are generally pretty easy to review, there's not too much of a load on the NPP system. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think my workload on new page patrol warrants much input here, however from my experience of Lugnuts contributions, I have seen a lot, but I am not sure I would call it overkill. Every so often I've double checked sources, most of the time I feel they are perfectly valid contributions to wikipedia. I really don't see the point for this ANI and feel that posting from an IP is a red-flag indicator. Govvy (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: the issue as it was last time is that he was creating some stubs with unreliable sources, and no one noticed until he had created hundreds of them. NPP allows us to make sure that doesn't become an issue before anyone wastes a lot of time. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Placeholder I have something I want to say here, but it's non-trivial and I have to check a few things, and won't have time until tomorrow. Please don't block/ban anyone hastily! Girth Summit _(blether) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• AFAIK, notability has never necessarily being the problem but the “mass creation” of articles which apparently irate/vexes some persons. I stand to be corrected, but I have seen somewhere editors are encouraged to “create something! or anything! I think it’s somewhere in WP:STUB as earlier stated all stubs made by Lugnuts meet WP:PSA, honestly this is getting rather tiring. Oh and yeah, I’m seconding Govvy. Celestina007 (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Olympic athletes are presumed notable per WP:NOLY, so anyone citing Lugnuts' Olympic stubs as a reason to ban him from creating articles has no policy to back them up. I have also seen him create articles for athletes who competed on national football teams. I am not aware of the relevant guideline, but I am fairly certain that they are presumed notable too, provided that they actually competed. If Lugnuts' articles were truly problematic, a reviewer would have told him. I create similar stubs For the record, I thought the revoking of his Autopatrolled right was justified for mass-citing an unreliable source. However, all subsequent articles have been problem-free. I do not see any need for an article creation ban, or even an AFC restriction. Honestly, this situation sounds like a pitifully desperate attempt to sanction someone. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment We have never definitively decided whether meeting the sports SNG is sufficient, or whether both it and the GNG must be met, or whether sportspeople are notable who do not meet the SNG but do manage to meet the GNG. We have certainly many of us made very definite statements about which of these three possibiltles is correct, but there's never been a firm consensus holding over multiple years (and, if I'm any example, I've had different views on this over time just looking at my own comments) The only actual policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, and the statement in the GNG that it does not cover all cases. This is WP, where we make the rules and the exceptions, and the only operational meaning of notability is whether it passes an afd--and since repeated afds can give different results, there is apparently no stable operational meaning of notability, nor, as long as we keep to our current ways of decision, is there ever likely to be. In some specialized fields there has been consistent practice, but sports interests so many people that full agreement here is unlikely. Ihave nothing to suggest except a compromise on the underused practice of combination articles (not mere lists, which I think often fail NOT DIRECTORY). DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Every time this matter is discussed at the sports notability guideline talk page or the notability talk page, there has been consensus, and it is documented on the sports notability page: the sports notability guidelines do not set either a lower or higher bar for having an article. The sports notability guidelines consist of rules of thumb that the subject is likely to meet the general notability guideline. Editors can choose to rebut this presumption, though, and illustrate that based on their research, the subject does not meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. However, what happens in individual articles for deletion discussions can vary, depending on what specific arguments are made by the participants, since Wikipedia's guidance on rough consensus doesn't say that arguments counter to guidelines can be discounted. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment (as promised above). I'll be frank: I don't like the way that Lugnuts creates articles. I think that articles should have solid, prose-based sourcing, and content that provides more information than can be presented in a table. If all you have is a nationality, birth dates, the name of a sport and the dates when someone competed in the Olympics or played for a particular team, it seems to me that we serve our readers better by presenting that information in a table or list somewhere. However, that is just my personal opinion - it doesn't have consensus behind it, and I have no right to impose it on other people. I have criticised Lugnuts in the past for creating articles based on sources that require the reader to infer the existence of the subject; that has not been a problem with any of his recent creations, which all use sources which are explicitly about his subjects, all of whom appear to pass the relevant SNG. Whether or not I like that kind of article is not something I consider when reviewing them. The community has not formed a clear consensus to the effect that this sort of article is unacceptable, and lots of editors create them. Yes, Lugnuts is unusually prolific, but I see that as a good thing: his creations in this area are better than a lot of the stuff you see at NPP in terms of the quality of prose, formatting of citations etc. If we are going to host articles of this nature, he should be allowed to write them, because he does a good job of it. In short: people should get off his back. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that perspective, Girth Summit (and others). I won't push any harder for an article creation ban since these stub creations are common practice and don't contain misinformation like the geostubs did. It really is interesting to see the diverse interpretations of policy/practice even within this discussion. If I recall, many of the relevant RfCs had a significant number of !votes from people who didn't think a change was necessary because these stubs fail GNG (to which NSPORTS is subordinate) and we just need to enforce what we have. But when we ask for enforcement, we're told to get the guidelines changed first. As others pointed out, in the end it's probably best to change the guidelines/practices/whatever instead of targeting individuals. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

dlthewave - TBH I don't think this will change until we have a case where tens of thousands of sports bio stub articles have been mass-created using a sports-reference.com style database that turns out to be demonstrable garbage, just like with GNIS/GEONET/etc. for Geo articles. It's only where we can show a massive problem that we can get the attention of uninvolved editors and build a consensus to stop doing this. Otherwise we're stuck in a discussion with the self-same people who are creating these database-sourced bio stubs and who naturally don't see any problem with what they're doing. FOARP (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Just to note that a number of RFCs have been raised and basically not reached any conclusion on the validity of the kind of one-sentence Sport bio articles that Lugnuts often creates. Unless and until that changes there really isn't anything that can be done about this. ANI is obviously not the right place for this discussion. This is unlike the situation for Geostubs, where consensus does seem to have shifted against articles containing solely statistical data copied from databases (see especially the recent cases involving GNIS, the Iranian census, Turkish Mahalles, and GEONET) that are essentially the same as bot-created articles. NPP monitoring of Lugnuts' output in view of the still-recent Turkish village case remains necessary in my view, but again, this is not a matter for ANI. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• Procedural Close While I have seen good contributions from IP editors that improve the encyclopedia, submitting this while logged out is bizarre and I've accidentally done that before too but the fact that it hasn't been re-signed is telling. I've seen many positive contributions from Lugnuts and this sounds more of an issue for squaring WP:BLP with WP:NOLYMPICS, rather than an ANI issue. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saw the comments further up that an account was created. I'm remain concerned about the source here though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone repeatedly adding unsourced material to Sheldon Adelson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Four times now, someone has added unsourced information to the Sheldon Adelson article, claiming that Adelson had a son in 1962 by a woman he had a relationship with. The person adding the information claims to be that son.[43] I can find no Reliable Source to confirm any of it. This is not only unsourced, but it has BLP implications (Adelson is not living, but he died recently). The first three times, it was added by an IP claiming to be the son. After the IP was topic banned from the article,[44] a new user called User:BostonCasinoKid appeared and re-added it, also asserting that they are the son. (BTW although they claim in the edit that they are the son, their edit summary said changes were made after verifying biological son's background information.)[45] I don’t know what we should do about this. Ask the person to prove their identity through the usual channels? Or to submit evidence privately? (It would be primary in any case.) Block them both for evading the topic ban? Simply semi-protect the page? I’d appreciate somebody, or the community, taking charge of this case. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Obviously the same person. I'll block this new account from the article as well, and leave a talk page message. We don't need them to verify their ID or provide private evidence with OTRS; they still can't add this without a reliable source. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, without RS confirming this is just gossip, doesn't matter who the editor says they are. Try to treat them kindly, in case they are exactly who they claim to be. —valereee (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"Try to treat them kindly"!? What makes you think that comment was needed!? Just because it's me who's contacting them!? I am renowned for being a kind person, and I'll destroy anyone who says differently. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to agree that your message was kind. (I'd be afraid to disagree, after all.) Thanks for a simple and straightforward handling of this. I'll continue to monitor the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

As the administrator who page blocked the IP, I support the page block of the new account, as this is clearly the same person. If disruption of that article continues, it should be semi-protected. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Since another IP is making the same type of edits, I have semi-protected the article for a month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial Edit Warring on Genocide Denial

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Genocide Denial is being subjected to serial edit warring over the past few days as editors with varying political agendas are jockeying over the inclusion/exclusion of various countries- Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• And none of them know how to seek the talk page, or search for better, more reliable sources to write better content. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent vandalism/WP:BLP violations at John Schnatter

Looks like someone is creating multiple accounts for disruptive purposes. Probably a lot of rev/deletion needed here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've revision-deleted the obvious BLP violations, and Luk3 has semi-protected the article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Two years of unreferenced genres from France IPs

• 2A01:CB00:E80:1800:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in France has been adding unreferenced genres to music articles for the last two years.[46][47] They have never responded to talk page warnings. Can we get some relief from this person? Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Binksternet - I started the block at two weeks. If shenanigans continue after the block expires, let me know and I'll extend it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Will do. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Troll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This troll 172.218.144.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) needs their talk page access pulled. I forgot that reporting them at AIV doesn't work since they are already blocked. The edits and summaries could use r.d as well. MarnetteD|Talk 04:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 05:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous6348 does not appear to be here to help build an encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Anonymous6348 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be here for any constructive purpose. Perhaps the account should be blocked? I apologize if this is not the right place for this. Quale (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is fine. User blocked, probably screwing around trying to get extended-confirmed or similar and obviously being unhelpful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Familiar edit to the other accounts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello there! I found out of this user [48] User:Jellyjelly34, the same and familiar edit of the other user [49] User:Jellywings19, editing like stuffs on airlines and aviations, adding the airline destination like Garuda Indonesia. Both accounts seems to be have a multiple accounts, with unsourced edit material without a single explanation. I hope y'all check this user. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornerstone2.0 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Cornerstone2.0 per the rules of Wikipedia, please notify the users mentioned on their own talk page. I have notified both users. Can you provide any particular diffs on why you suspect these users may be engaged in sockpuppetry? I am not experienced in stuff like this, but when researching them using the Interaction Timeline all I can see is just both have similar interests. I also look at Garuda Indonesia article, the last edit by Jelly34 is this and this does not have anything to do with airline destinations. Jellywings19 do edit about destinations, notably on this diff. SunDawntalk 11:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Jellywings19 was blocked for disruption, so they created Jellyjelly34 to evade their block. I've indefinitely blocked and tagged both accounts for obvious socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

   Confirmed. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

This edit summary appears to have a legal threat: "if anybody again edits just to mention "Untouchable" Definitely I will drag him into the court." Notfrompedro (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the term in question is a pejorative, I have copyedited Bhoi to remove it. I invite editors with knowledge of India's caste system to take a look. This is a very new editor reacting to a perceived insult. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Its still a legal threat, so they shouos be warned.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

They have already been warned by another editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Generally speaking, when we issue a warning we use the term in its ordinary English sense – identifying a problem, and warning that repetition may result in sanctions such as blocking. My understanding of legal threats is that we take a firmer stand — we don't simply warn them not to repeat it we affirmatively require that they either explain themselves if there is any doubt about the intention, but absent an explanation that it's not really a threat, we expect them to remove the threat which is a little stronger than simply a warning.

I appreciate that the editor has been warned, but that warning doesn't include a requirement that the threat be retracted. I think that's required. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But we also should not bite newbies, unless they show they do not get it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Fuck WP:BITE; threats like this are intended to intimidate people into silence/inaction. If they don't unequivocally retract, they need to be blocked. Simple as that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Which part of "unless they show they do not get it" means we take no action if they do not obey policy?Slatersteven (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, it looks like they received a standard templated Twinkle warning. Maybe the template language needs to be rewritten. Personally, I do not use Twinkle. They have made two edits and their grievance has been resolved. I see no need for a block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Has the legal threat been retracted? WaltCip-(talk) 22:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

WaltCip, you could have checked that yourself. The answer is "no" but the newbie hasn't edited in about 24 hours, and their second of two edits contained the threat. Everyone seems to be ignoring that the threat was in response to a pejorative or slur against an ethnic group that was restored repeatedly by uninformed editors. That's why responding appropiately to legal threats requires us to take a look at the underlying dispute. If someone was repeatedly restoring content to Gullah calling those people a bunch of "N-words", then we would correct the problem instead of just blocking a newbie who complained about it forcefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that Cullen328 took a reasonable, fair, and appropriate response to the threat. Legal threats should not be tolerated, but we also need to look into the situation, understand why such a threat is being made, and handle things on a case-by-case basis when it comes to new users and biting them, as well as some other situations. Remember, Don't overlook legal threats. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

This was an unambiguous legal threat and clearly meant to intimidate in a content dispute. Not only are we not qualified to deal with legal threats they also fly in the face of our core values of consensus and neutrality by causing intimidation. Furthermore our editors don't deserve to be exposed to that, especially if they are making an uninformed mistake.

For those reasons I have blocked the user until they retract the legal threat. Once they retract the threat and agree not to do this in the future then an unblock is fine.

If another editor is also behaving poorly or simply uninformed then that should be dealt with on its own merits, I see no attempts to communicate with the editor who was reverted about this. I will point out that the threat was not aimed only at the person who made the objectionable edit but to "anyone". HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That being said I have made clear to the user that they can be unblocked right away if they retract the threat and agree not to make another. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Not that he needs external validation, but FWIW I think User:Cullen328 handled this correctly. Sure, block the new user if they do it again after being warned, but blocking a brand new user, with no prior warning, for something said in the heat of the moment, in response to being called "untouchable", when everything has already been resolved, is silly and counterproductive. WP has weird priorities sometimes. What's especially odd with this place is that, if Cullen had blocked, HiBC would have been expected to consult with Cullen before overturning the block. But when Cullen makes it clear that his administrative decision is not to block, HiBC can just over-rule him. Weird. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Well it is true that declining to take an action is not considered an administrative action. However if you think it is more fair then any admin is welcome to reverse this block if they feel it is appropriate to do so. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've unblocked, while (I hope) making very clear they can't do that anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is the type of situation explained by WP:DOLT. Thanks, Cullen and Floq. Levivich 03:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually at no point was this being overlooked. The objectionable content was removed, not overlooked. Nothing in that essays suggests that the legal threat is permissible. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course nothing in the essay, and nobody in this thread, suggests that the legal threat is permissible. That's really a whopper of a straw man :-) I was referring to the parts of the essay that discuss when to block and when not to block and why. Levivich 05:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies if it seemed like I was making a straw man, not my intention. Your comment made it seem as though you thought the subject of the legal threat was being overlooked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say about this incident except to encourage administrators to always take a close look at the underlying circumstances before blocking and moving on when dealing with legal threats. Sometimes but not always, the legal threat is a response to ugly and deeply inappropriate content here on Wikipedia. Do not shoot the inept newbie editor messenger without taking a serious look at what caused them to threaten legal action in the first place. If they have a legitimate grievance, deal with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

From a content perspective, I was under the impression that untouchability is an appropriate matter to discuss when its in the context of caste oppression. The removed/reworded content does not IMO reflect that the Bauri were historically, (and to this day by certain sectors) treated in the context of untouchability. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

We are straying into content issues but I feel confident in saying that "untouchable" is an ethnic slur when used in Wikipedia's voice to describe a contemporary Indian caste. It violates WP:NPOV and should not be used in Wikipedia's voice but rather only when directly quoting historical sources. Plenty of sources from 55 to 60 years ago called Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X the "N-word" but we never use such slurs in Wikipedia's voice, do we? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Describing such castes as Scheduled castes is neutral, contemporary language which does not demean people who belong to those ethnic groups. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed straying into content discussion, so I've opened a topic on the TP; my gist was that they were subjected to the treatment of untouchability, which was certainly true, but does not stray into labelling them "untouchables". Best, BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 06:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Incivility and threats by Snowflake91

Snowflake19 started to make edits on the article UEFA European Championship, without discussion and using heated politics-based argumentation. The user was told to go to the talk page and eventually he replied this, which qualifies as incivility, and then he replied this, which qualifies as a threat ("in 24 hours"). The Replicator (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Cry me a river, you have reverted me 4 times without even providing any sources when you was asked to (I provided three highly reliable sources), not to mention that you cross-out my comment at the talk page, talk about being disruptive. And by the way, if you want to make potentially controversial changes its you who should seek consensus at the talk page first, and not the otherwise - remember thats its you who wanted to change something that was established and unchanged for literally 10+ years, so why should others go to the talk page first if you are the one that is making big changes, and then you are actually provided with sources, and you simply ignore them? Very funny, you keep reverting with an edit summary "go to talk page", and then I go to the talk page and you are not really ready to discuss anyway as you are literally like "Im right while you are wrong, go away" even when you are provided with reliable sources, so what on earth do you want to? Its actually you who needs to get blocked, not me. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Snowflake91 Getting a bit too heated. Keep it civil Snowflake. Furthermore, this looks like a content dispute with both parties already violating WP:3RR. I think the best solution would be to continue the discussion on the article talk page, but with the article WP:FULLY protected. Jerm (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

But thats the problem - he is obviously not willing to discuss anything, when I provided him multiple sources, he crossed out my comment and asked for a block instead. Yed, I did violate 3RR, but I was just restoring to the revision (well not entire revision, just that specific table) that was established for so many years and no one had the problem with it, while he tried to force his version without any discussion in the first place. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Snowflake91 Reverting is obviously not working. That is why I am suggesting the article be fully protected rather than just giving out blocks. Jerm (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Aww, c'mon, Snowflake91... Let's not be uncivil and disrespectful toward other editors like that. I understand how frustrating that disputes and edits like this can get. It can be hard to remain emotionally clear at times, and I get that completely. Just remember that incivility isn't going to resolve anything, but only make things worse and more difficult to sort out. I'm not going to fully protect the article at this time, as it appears that the back-and-forth editing has stopped. Handing out blocks obviously wouldn't help the situation either (even though they'd be unnecessary at this point, since, like I said, the edit warring has stopped), so that's out. The Replicator, Snowflake91 - Please work together on the article's talk page, sort things out peacefully, and try and come to a consensus (or at least determine what the consensus is). I'm counting on you two! Remember: when it comes to the project and our core values, you're both on the same team here - work together. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by User:16ConcordeSSC

• 16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Examples of unsourced edits:

• June 29 – diff1
• July 7 – diff2
• July 7 – diff3
• July 11 – diff4
• After final warning – diff5

User is a relatively new editor that frequently adds unsourced information on a daily basis, and has continued this behavior beyond the final warning. They are also marking every edit as minor, despite pleas from multiple editors to stop. The editor is aware of their talk page, evident from replies around the time of account creation, but appears to be ignoring the warnings. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree on this one and second the report. The user, early on, tried to go to DRN with a complaint that his edits were being removed. When I explained to him (by email) that they were being removed because they were unsourced, he then tried to hire me (via email offering a contribution to a charity of my choice) to make the edits for him, ostensibly because he couldn't figure out how to use our system. I told him that, being kinda-sorta-semi retired, I didn't want to do that, that he needed to find sources and make the edits himself, but that sources were required. He apparently chose not to listen to that and decided to just start adding material without concern about sources. He now has over 1,000 edits in mainspace and I'd be amazed if any of the additions are sourced or properly sourced. (To his credit, many are beneficial wikignomish things like this.) On the other hand, the few that I've looked at appear to not be particularly controversial (unlike the ones that got me initially involved) or inaccurate, just unsourced. Since he's ignoring the warnings and creating a voluminous and expanding mess for other people to clean up, it's clear that he's NOTHERE, at least not to support the full mission of the encyclopedia. Regards, |TransporterMan]] (TALK) 16:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I would only add that a lot of the edits are little tidbits of information, like dates and locations, inserted into statements that already carry a valid citation. I was wasting a lot of time hunting for that information in the existing sources only to find that it didn't exist. Very frustrating. Would be best to put out the fire before it spreads further, then circle back to assess the damage. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this user at Sam Peckinpah, where he made a number of edits that looked like vandalism. Perusing his editing today, he seems to be changing punctuation at various articles (usually incorrectly) and to be on some sort of crusade to eliminate the Oxford comma wherever he finds it. Grandpallama (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Even the "beneficial wikignomish" edit User:TransporterMan cites mainly appears to be changing wording to US spelling and removing Oxford commas, which is not especially beneficial and even low-level disruptive. Grandpallama (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the reported user for 36 hours for the repeated addition of unreferenced content. They've received numerous warnings, and it's become clear that the behavior has not improved. I'm hoping that a temporary block will get their attention. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

IP 87.71.158.72 consistent disruptive editing on Arrowverse crossover articles

This IP 87.71.158.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been consistently making disruptive edits to cast tables on Arrowverse crossover articles (Heroes Join Forces, Invasion! (Arrowverse), Crisis on Earth-X, Elseworlds (Arrowverse), and Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse)). Here are their edits on Heroes Join Forces, Invasion!, Crisis on Earth-X, Elseworlds, and Crisis on Infinite Earths. A single diff example to show they type of edit (as they are virtually identical across each article), can be seen with this edit. These edits are adding excessive information to the cast table, which is against current consensus and has been constantly reverted by myself and other editors. Editors have warned this IP (as evidenced by the warnings on their talk page) and they have keep making these edits with no indication of trying to discuss why they are trying to make these changes. I previously reported the IP to ANV and they were blocked for 2 weeks, and that has since lifted and they've returned to making the same edits, hence the need in my eyes to make this report. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP made the same kind of edit in DC Extended Universe (diff). —El Millo (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) And Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) again (Special:Diff/1033556185). Recommend blocking this IP for persistent fancruft. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

IP has concerns about the Palmer Report page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Palmer Report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An editor named "Dr. Swag Lord" has essentially hijacked the Wikipedia article titled "Palmer Report" and turned it into his own personal playpen for carrying out what appears to be a personal vendetta. For instance, the article previously included links from USA Today and the Washington Post that referenced Palmer Report in a positive/neutral light. Unfortunately Dr. Swag Lord took it upon himself to remove these, in an effort at making sure that the page was 100% negative in nature. This makes clear that he has a personal bias and/or personal vendetta toward Palmer Report, and that he has no business editing this page.

Further, when an established editor named "EraserHead1" who previously worked on the Palmer Report article returned to ask questions about why it had been whitewashed, Dr. Swag Lord threatened him and chased him away, saying "Please go somewhere else. Do not reply here again."

This is wildly inappropriate behavior for an editor. Dr. Swag Lord's edits are intentionally biased in bad faith, and his abusive behavior toward editors who question his unilateral edits are proof that he's attempting to operate this page as his own personal playpen. Remove him, and half the current problems on the Palmer Report page will disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see the big yellow banner at the top of the page: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}~~~~ to do so. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(comment from involved editor) There is already a request that Talk:Palmer Report be protected at WP:RfPP because of tendentious and unproductive IP comments, likely stemming from the Palmer Report's own attempts at Twitter brigading, which have been ongoing for some time ([50], [51], etc).

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and I have been on the opposite ends of at least one disagreement in the past, but this is not one of them—their behavior on that article has been reasonable and well within the bounds of policy, despite considerable unpleasantness levied against them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

You appear to be under the impression that Dr. Swag Lord chased the other editor off his personal Talk page. This is NOT the case. Dr. Swag Lord engaged in this behavior on the Talk page for the Palmer Report article, which means it was abusive and threatening in nature.

As for the legitimate sourcing from USA Today and Washington Post that Dr. Swag Lord removed, he did it more than a week ago, back when he and his partner JohnPaos decided to eliminate half the longstanding text from the Palmer Report article while they thought no one was looking. Dr. Swag Lord has since buried that whitewashing under dozens if not hundreds of followup edits, which appear to be an attempt at making it impossible to revert the portions of the page that they removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk • contribs)

Can you please provide the diffs of these removals as I requested on the article talk page? You're right that I incorrectly assumed "Please go somewhere else. Do not reply here again." was from their user talk page, thank you for clarifying that. Again, this is why specific WP:DIFFs are important. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Here where Dr. Swag Lord began his hatchet job on the article, removing legitimate sourcing from USA Today and Washington Post, and making false and unsubstantiated claims that Palmer Report has issued "death threats" against people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palmer_Report&diff=1031370350&oldid=1031369897 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is a continuation of the discussion at the talk page of the article in question. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d(Crossed out false signature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I doubt this IP is a new user, I am guessing they are using an IP to hide a history in this topic. A curved stick that turns around and returns when thrown comes to mind. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk • contribs)

• Some elucidative background here is that Bill Palmer (the owner of the Palmer Report website) made a bunch of tweets saying a variety of things about his site's Wikipedia article; the smoking gun, more or less, is "If you have some experience editing Wikipedia and you want to take a crack at starting to remove the baseless defamatory nonsense that's been added to the page, go for it [...] Keep in mind that this is a war of attrition. You have to wear the rogue editors down". Since he has almost a half-million followers, you can imagine there's been a fair bit of fracas since then. I haven't seen any misconduct on the part of Dr. Swag Lord. For the record, I am opposed to describing the website as "conspiratorial" (since "factually inaccurate" seems to be both more objective and more meaningful), but none of my interlocutors there have done or said anything beyond the pale. It's to be expected that people will get worked up about political topics, but there is nothing I've seen that warrants action at AN/I. jp×g 02:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Palmer has now tweeted a direct link to this AN/I thread and encouraged his followers to "add their two cents". Hi, Bill! Put me in the screenshot, please. jp×g 02:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately this may justify the unusual step of semi-protecting the talk page. I know we try to avoid this, but this has been bad for a while and is only getting worse. The comment "Keep in mind that this is a war of attrition. You have to wear the rogue editors down" makes their strategy clear. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and semi-protected this talk page for 1 month in response to a request at RFPP Special:Permalink/1033663709#Talk:Palmer Report. As always I welcome review. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think it might be a good time for some uninvolved admins to start to exercise a bit of their discretionary authority under WP:AMPOL. This is getting a bit out of hand. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any specific sanction in mind? I will consider it if the current semi-protection does not mitigate the situation. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a complaint discussion about Dr. Swag Lord. Do NOT attempt to hijack this complaint and turn it into something else. HighInBC is completely out of line for locking down the Palmer Report Talk page. This action needs to be undone, and HighInBC needs to be permanently banned from the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Note I have blocked this IP for making legal threats[52]. It seems I have been reported to the FBI. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend any uninvolved admin close this report and any of the many additional ones likely to materialize here under the direction provided by Paragraph 12 of the WMF's Community Culture Statement [53] which guides us to "stop hostile and toxic behavior, support people who have been targeted by such behavior". The subject of the article at the heart of this report (Palmer Report) has been engaged in an escalating pattern of off-Wiki threats that is becoming increasingly extreme, calling on its followers to wage "war" [54] against Wikipedia editors; in now-deleted tweets they have threatened civil and criminal [!] action against editors, threatened to dox editors, and more extreme acts which policies preclude me from describing. I'm probably involved in this matter, since I've made a few small edits to the page, but the situation has become so dire that this may qualify as one of the "straightforward" cases imagined by WP:UNINVOLVED. I am in complete concurrence with GorillaWarfare's evaluation of Dr. Swag Lord Ph.D.'s operation in the article, and that they have been completely compliant with our policies and guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 03:33, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No objection to closure. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems appropriate. Editors have been reported to the FBI, legal threats have been made, Wikipedia will no longer exist, Jimbo is going to prison... and it's only 03:51 UTC! jp×g 03:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report Mischaracterization

The editor's descriptions of Palmer Report such as "Palmer Report is an American left-wing and conspiratorial political blog" and "the amount of misinformation stemming from Daily News Bin was comparable to that of InfoWars" is misleading and bordering on slanderous.

The editor quotes other writers, but does not provide the link to the sources. The criticisms of Palmer Report are unfair and unsubstantiated. One simply needs to read each article to see that every assertion references resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorraineevanoff (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This comment seems like it was put here by accident, and intended for either Talk:Palmer Report or the section about that dispute directly above. jp×g 02:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well Talk:Palmer Report is semi-protected now. If you want to move it to the section above and remove my closure I have no objection. If so you can just remove this response from me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I am a doctor and not a lawyer but I do believe in the right of free speech. If Palmer wants to seek help, I am happy to give it. I have been reading his reports for over four years. I tried to post some facts on the talk page but got a message saying it was closed. I would like to request it be opened again as I think new and maybe less emotionally involved people should converse.

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:50F4:4E9F:D315:9D00 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:50F4:4E9F:D315:9D00: I don't think there is anything that prevents you from creating an account and going there, but I would recommend reading WP:CANVAS (and possibly WP:V and WP:RS as well) before chiming in; since content disputes are resolved by consensus and not vote count, a larger number of people saying the same thing is not likely to affect the outcome much. jp×g 03:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not the venue to do so. Please discuss over at Talk:Palmer Report when the protection ends in a month. There is no legal right to edit Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

We might as well keep this in one place, reversing my close. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Reodorant

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

Reodorant (talk · contribs) keeps on relating the concept of Transylvanianism to the marginal Transylvanian autonomist or independentist movement. The person behind has used way more (IP) accounts for doing these changes continously, recurring to fake edit summaries and additional changes to add Transylvanianism once again in unrelated articles. But first of all, I need to define Transylvanianism.

Transylvanianism is nothing but the promotal of good interethnic relations between the Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania (a multiethnic region). It is not independentist, autonomist and, by definition, it is not regionalist as well as this user claims. The page of the latter says this: "Regionalism is a political ideology which seeks to increase the political power, influence and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions." Not the case of Transylvanianism. I explained further, with links to reliable sources, the concept at User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (one of the IPs of Reodorant). At first we discussed (months ago already), but then they stopped replying to me.

Here are the fake edit summaries I mentioned: [55] [56] (this one is quite obvious). And that's it from this account but there are way more. They are not in chronological or any particular order, because I am not willing in wasting more time with this issue.

• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:B909:B054:CB9D:97DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [57]
• 2a04:2413:8003:b380:b54a:99e2:5b5f:61e1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [58] [59]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] (this is the IP I discussed with and stopped getting replies from)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:D8B:A350:B112:1D74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [66]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:7032:7AB9:62C5:53F6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [67] (fake edit summary)
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:794C:C6E6:860C:FFDD (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [68]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:5D72:A717:297A:F4D9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [69]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:E402:1151:5613:79DE (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [70]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:1CBE:E342:7BD0:1A38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [71]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:2430:F681:D7A2:8477 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [72]
• 2A04:2413:8003:B380:F591:9066:CBE2:F780 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [73]

This is not an easy to track issue, it's very tiring and time consuming, and it has been going on since FEBRUARY! I want it to stop so I don't have to check the histories of those pages every once in a while anymore. By the way, I didn't specify it earlier, but the pages where this conflict has been happening are these: Regionalism (politics), Template:Stateless nationalism in Europe, List of active separatist movements in Europe#Romania.

I also note I already reported this here before, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#IP.

I please ask any administrator to take the measures they see necessary so this doesn't happen anymore. By the way, out of this, I see Reodorant is a good contributor to Wikipedia, so perhaps blocking them from editing those three pages might do it. Super Ψ Dro 21:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a tip, those IPs are all the same subnet prefix so you can see their combined contribs using 2A04:2413:8003:B380::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It's probably the same person (see WP:/64). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:Contributions/2A04:2413:8003:B380::/64 for one month for apparent logged-out edit warring about Transylvanianism. I've also blocked User:Reodorant five days for the same thing. Reodorant's deceptive edit summary 'orthography' when adding the link to Transylvanianism is an example of editing in bad faith The same IP range was partially blocked from article space for a week back in May. Since the end of April the editor has managed to register an account but didn't stop warring. Due to the nationalist subject matter (Romania versus Hungary) I'm also alerting Reodorant to WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Great, many thanks for dealing with this! Super Ψ Dro 07:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[74]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

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

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

• Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[75]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[76]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[77]].

Edit: this list of grievances was started on 24 Feb. POLEMIC notes grievance lists are only permitted when used for dispute resolution in a timely manner. Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[78]].
• Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[79]], [[80]], [[81]], [[82]], [[83]].

• Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
  • Odal rune RfC [[84]]
  • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[85]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[86]].
  • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[87]]
  • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[88]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions

• Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
  • Earlier today [[89]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[90]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[91]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"

• Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[92]] 2nd [[93]]

• Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
  • [[94]], "This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more"
  • [[95]], "Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers "

I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[96]], Noteduck's page [[97]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from American politics, broadly construed. The bloody topic is enough of a permanent battlefield as it is, without the encouragement of new warriors to join the field. ——Serial 13:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If it's a violation of an AE warning, shouldn't this be at AE as well? Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page.[98] My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page.[99] "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before.[100] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[101] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[102] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[103] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[104] (plus BuzzFeed News[105] and Bellingcat.[106] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[107] I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER.[108] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[109] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[110] Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere,[111] and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Noteduck, please indicate when you change your text. You have made significant changes to your reply above. As I noted below such changes may result in replies to your text that no longer make sense since the original text has been altered with items added/removed. Springee (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It makes me uncomfortable when editors cite mental health conditions to explain their on-wiki behavior. A lot of people suffer from a lot of things; anyone who is not healthy enough to participate here should immediately log off. Levivich 14:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.[[112]] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements[[113]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[114]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[115]] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias [[116]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[117]]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I ended up here because I lurk at HiLo48's talk page which references an ANN which references this one. I've seen Springee at work and they are a careful, polite editor who stays on the high road even when confronted by rough behavior such as that described above. I find the above construction of trying to paint an incorrect picture regarding Springee very opposite to that very telling. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

North8000, what points in particular do you consider incorrect? –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically every (mis)characterization and claim about what every diff shows.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
  • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs [118][119]. Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
  • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC [120] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
  • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [121] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [122]. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.[[123]] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake, don't pretend that Odal was some backwater article. You know it was well-trafficked and heavily edited after the CPAC incident, and you're having a meltdown because someone responded to the same RFC that you did.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first 1RR violation that I've seen from Noteduck, and they quickly apologized and self-reverted when it was pointed out. On the other hand you and I have had several disagreements over what constitutes a revert, so I asked an admin for advice and it seemed to me like the three of us had a nice productive discussion about it. Do you see it differently? –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. During the first month after the AE closed (24 Mar-24 Apr) Noteduck edited 7 article/talk pages that could be seen as AP related (Dennis Prager, WSJ, CPAC, Odal rune, Candace Owens, Douglas Murray, Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson, 2020 US presidential election, A People's History of the US). Of those I have no involvement with the last 2. Noteduck had no involvement with WSJ, CPAC, Odal, Owens and Carlson but was either opposing my RfC comments or reverting my edits. They did have prior involvement with Ngo, Prager and Murray. If their comments and edits weren't related to mine it would be easier to see this as just hitting the same topics.

Was it Noteduck's first brush with edit warring? Edit warring was one of the AE concerns. You also haven't made it clear why you were quick to warn me when you felt I crossed the line but you didn't even provide a curtesy notice to Noteduck that they had crossed the line. When you asked an admin it was clear that you were fishing for sanctions and made accusations of 1RR violations on my part which you have yet to support. Springee (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Back to the sandbox thing: If we give you the benefit of the doubt, you had a list of grievances up for a month and you're claiming that keeping a similar list for three days violates POLEMIC. This is one of those things that really feels like a double standard: It's hounding and uncivil when Noteduck does it, but we're expected to give quite a bit of leeway for your similar actions. If you're so concerned about it, I would hope you would remember to keep your own sandbox clean. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The grievance list was started by Noteduck 10 Feb. It's almost July and and still being added to. Do you consider 5 months timely? Blanking means little if they note that they can bring the blanked content back (the "blanked" content was added below) and if they keep adding new entries. You claim what I did was similar so lets compare. A specific list in less than a month, used at AE, never used again until blanked when the sandbox was cleaned a month after the AE closed. VS a continuous 5 month list, including many obvious errors, a portion was blanked but in a way that was easy to restore after multiple complaints that the list violated POLEMIC. The accumulation has continued even after several POLEMIC warnings. It's clear Noteduck has decided I've wronged them. To that end they are making a list, following me to continue their grievances at other articles, trying to drum up other editors for support (yourself included) and not trying to claim "but civil POV pusher" rather than reflect on their own actions. If they agree to stop personalizing disputes, MfD the list, and leave me alone all would be fine and we could close this right away. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

on the point about leeway: Springee has been editing for more than a decade and has far, far, far more editorial experience than I do. I've only been regularly editing since December 2020 (I have a handful of edits under an old account earlier in 2020). "Springee" gets 98 hits in the WP:AN archive; "Noteduck" gets 5. Springee should know the rules very well by now - and in fact, Springee does appear to know them when it suits their perspective. There's no reason for Springee to claim ignorance of editorial policy or expect preferential treatment Noteduck (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page[124] don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page,[125] dragging me away from other Wikipedia projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion [[126]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[127]][[128]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[129]][[130]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[131]]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Just re the ping: sorry, I'm incredibly busy right now. I know I'm related to this stuff, and your retelling looks accurate at a glance, but I'll chime in properly a bit later when I have time. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• An earlier encounter between User:Noteduck and User:Springee was a lengthy mediation about five months ago at DRN, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU. My observations were that these two editors disagreed on content, and that Noteduck was verbose (which is common and unhelpful at DRN). It was a difficult content dispute that ended up as a lengthy RFC that was really six RFCs rolled into one. All of the parties in the dispute were civil, which, like accuracy, is a duty rather than a virtue. It was preceded by Noteduck filing a Request for Arbitration that the arbitrators and I agreed should go to DRN. I haven't been involved with subsequent interaction between Noteduck and Springee. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary [132][133]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier.[134] I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox.[135] As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix"[136] without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month.[137] Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion [[138]]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

About 20 KB, by Noteduck (talk · contribs)

In May 2021 Springee expressly named a belief that the Cato Institute was an RS, but the SPLC was not, again expressing their selective assessment of sources based on their ideological position. Partisan reverts: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[139][140][141][142][143][144] The New York Times and CNN,[145][146] National Review(!),[147] The Washington Post,[148] Newsweek,[149], The Washington Post and NBC,[150] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[151], Vox and The Daily Beast[152], the Los Angeles Times,[153] The Intercept,[154] the [[BBC],[155] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[156], BuzzFeed News,[157] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[158], Salon (website),[159] Forbes,[160] the Seattle Times,[161] Reports sans Frontieres,[162] New Republic and NBC News,[163] the Chicago Sun-Times[164] Politico and four other sources,[165] The Independent,[166] Daily Dot,[167][168][169] Reuters and Fox News(!)[170] Middle East Eye,[171] The Huffington Post,[172] Mother Jones,[173] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[174][175]Des Moines Register[176] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[177][178] and academic articles[179]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[180] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[181] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[182][183][184][185][186] - Wall Street Journal here[187][188] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[189] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[190][191][192][193][194][195] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[196][197][198][199][200][201] record of misinformation on climate change. On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[202] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[203][204], 7 March 2021,[205][206] For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[207][208][209] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[210][211][212][213][214][215][216][217][218][219], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[220] unwarranted deletion of material[221][222][223] especially misbehavior related to guns[224][225][226][227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244][245]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[246][247][248][249] and whitewashing pages of firearms[250][251] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[252] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[253][254], [255][256], [257],[258],[259] Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[260] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[261] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[262] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[263][264] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[265] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged. UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a personal veto S, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[266] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021 [267][268] July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[269] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[270][271][272][273][274][275][276][277][278][279][280][281] June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[282][283] June 2020: Andy Ngo [284][285][286], Tucker Carlson[287], Burt Rutan[288]

Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

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

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine[289] and Springee's[290] contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Re-open and support - Robert McClenon has withdrawn this proposal, but I'd like to repropose it. There is a problem that has to be solved here, and I think this proposal solves it better than any other, and specifically better than any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. Loki (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The sandbox demonstrates tendentious behavior by Noteduck toward Springee, and an overview of User talk:Noteduck and its edit history shows Springee repeatedly complaining about Noteduck's edits and fighting between the users. Out of 145 edits to this user talk, Noteduck themselves made 46 and Springee made 44, or about 1/3 each of the entire edit history. A third opinion will be needed to determine if either user's edits about Andy Ngo are problematic, which would warrant a topic ban from this BLP or post-1992 American politics more broadly. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC) 18:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 I'd be happy for an uninvolved party to look at Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, though it needs to be said that these are just part of a much larger pattern of blocking unflattering material on pages related to right-wing politics, particularly through the relentless and protracted contestation of material on talk pages. Note that Springee has made 521 edits on Talk:Andy Ngo (16.64% of ALL edits made to the page)[291] Noteduck (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - the two don't want it, the proposer withdrew it, and the problem is Noteduck, not Springee - there should be no false equivalence here. I say more below. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal #2

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

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

If you'd like to see it deleted, why don't you nominate it for MfD yourself? –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I considered that but if we decide to MfD here it will be easier to ensure it is completed. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the discussion above, I'm not sure there's agreement that Noteduck's actions merit a warning or even meet the criteria for those issues. It may be wise to wait for more input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins, before making further proposals to close. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as proposer As the mildest remedy that has a reasonably good chance at resolving the situation. I didn't fully understand Springee's response/post. But they are referring to work there by Noteduck that appears to be aimed at using the system to "get" someone vs. just to solve an issue, would agree that that should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've had limited access recently and will for a while longer. I think it's clear that Noteduck has been campaigning against me (see the diffs showing them contacting other editors out of the blue and in cases which they weren't previously involved). The POLEMIC list started in Feb is also a problem. Yes, they blanked it but then started it right back up so it never went away and as the collapsed section below shows, it's still very accessible. This list is a serious problem when editors presume it was in any way shape or form reliably collected. In addition to the fact that most examples don't contain context, they also have a lot of just plain wrong claims (saying sources were removed in cases where I was moving blocks of text, saying I violated 1RR when I self reverted then restored to correct my edit note etc). Finally, trying to bring being bipolar into this! Levivich is right, if a this is a problem that results in confrontational behavior then the editor should stay out of confrontational areas. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment not particularly sensitive Springee. At any rate, Springee seems to want an asymmetric rule that I can't collect material in my sandbox for use in WP:AN complaints. As we've already observed, this is a total double standard. I'll certainly be more mindful about the "timely" requirement of the policy but surely this is an important part of the sandbox function, especially for the sake of transparency about upcoming complaints. One glance at my sandbox reveals that the large majority does not focus on Springee but on my various pet projects to improve Wiki. I just made Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate btw and I'm quite happy with it Noteduck (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no double standard. You have maintained a grievance list since February. That is only allowed if the contents are to be used in a timely fashion which you have not done. It doesn't matter if only 1% of the list is a POLEMIC, 0% is the upper limit. The fact that you deleted the list on June 19 means nothing if you show that you have learned nothing and started a new one. Springee (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit confused here, was Noteduck not supposed to start a new list (as new issues emerged) after deleting the previous one? –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I think that the "timely" part serves to make a distinction between complaints to try to resolve a current problem vs longer term constructions to try to "get" (deprecate or remove) an editor or just do battle with an editor. And the latter is presumably a reason for the polemic rule, particularly against another editor. Perhaps, in addition to the proposed gentle warning, if Noteduck could (you) agree to be extra careful and mindful of these objectives? North8000 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good distinction. A month is reasonable period of time to collect diffs but if this list is still here mid July it will be a clear POLEMIC and now Noteduck would be clearly warned about the policy. Springee (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

well yes, I can certainly aim to keep material in my sandbox for no more than a month in line with the "timely" language of the policy. The material I gathered was not intended to be part of some aimless, vague polemic but rather the concrete basis for a WP:AN complaint. The sandbox is a convenient place to gather such evidence, which I'm sure is why you've used it for the same reason Springee Noteduck (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee, just observing an example from the last couple of days - I'd work on this pattern of wholesale reverts,[292] especially since other editors have raised concerns about your editing related to right-wing politics. I've reminded you of WP:ROWN multiple times, and with more than a decade of experience I'm sure you know it well too. You correctly note that this material was about Kirk, not TPUSA, so doesn't belong on the latter's page. Why not move this material to the Charlie Kirk (activist) page, or if you think the material does not belong on Kirk's page either, take it the Kirk talk page or the editor in question's talk page? Noteduck (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

If timely is your intent why gave you been collecting grievances for 5 months with no action? I'm glad you are able to recognize that the content I removed from TPUSA does not belong on the page. I'm certainly not obligated to try to make a case for the content to be DUE on another page which is what you are asking me to do. Springee (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee I'm merely recommending that given your experience and your focus on pages related to TPUSA and proximate topics, you could assist less experienced editors. I see you have again reverted the eight word sentence I added to Andy Ngo,[293] though your rebuttals haven't been substantive. You initially referred to WP:OR, and now WP:V, without specifying what part of either policy you are grounding your argument in. I recommend basing any objections to new edits in the specific language of editorial policy rather than a broad-brush rejection Noteduck (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I and several other experienced editors did try to help you early on. Our efforts were met with hostility to the point that an AE was filled against you and you were formally warned. The Ngo material has been reverted by two editors and fails WP:V. The ONUS is on you to correct the problem. That you restored the same content you violated 1RR to add further shows that you didn't take your logged warning to heart. Springee (talk)`

Springee recently launched an action in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard[294] in relation to my aforementioned short 14-word sentence.[295] They also are waging an ongoing fight on Talk:Andy Ngo to contest this same material.[296] Noteduck.

Mis-characterizations aside, those are good examples of the Wikipedian, polite, and content-focused way to deal with content questions/disputes. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages like Andy Ngo ("Springee" gets 600+ hits in the page archives), whoops strike through Charlie Kirk etc. I had it on the brain because of the point about TPUSA above - please don't cherry-pick. As I noted in the earlier dispute in April, based on samples of around ~1000 of your recent edits, at times 95%+ have related to conservative politics-related pages. I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying (talk) Noteduck (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting... let's see, how many edits do I have to the Charlie Kirk page... [[297]]. It looks like zero. I'm glad to see you have found other areas to focus on. Hopefully that will mean you no longer need your POLEMIC violating list nor will need to hound me or attack me. That would be great. Springee (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

In response to your edit above[[298]], it is always a good idea to have your facts correct before lobbing criticisms. That is one of the issues with your POLEMIC grievance list. The fact that it violates POLEMIC is another. Springee (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional support - a first time warning is customary for new editors, but in this case, it is overly gracious, especially considering Noteduck's comment just above Springee's which begins with "A gentle piece of advice to Springee", and their noting that 95% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics. Wow - that statement provides some pretty big evidence of HOUNDING. Why should any editor care, other than a POV pusher, if 100% of Springee's edits are to conservative politics? Those are the articles that need attention because of strong POV pushing, and left-leaning news media that dominates the echo chamber, not to mention an issue of noncompliance with RECENTISM and NOTNEWS; all of which means there is typically more work to do on those articles. We leave our biases at login. WP is a collaborative project - we don't "advise" other editors whose views oppose our own, especially veteran editors, where they should or shouldn't edit. Admins are the ones who make that decision when there's proven disruption, and right now the only disruption I'm seeing is coming from Noteduck. I commend Springee for exercising such patience. Atsme 💬 📧 10:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, how do you feel about Springee's similar assessment: Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity, followed by a detailed analysis of Noteduck's edits? Why is it OK for Springee to calculate percentages of where Noteduck has been editing, but when Noteduck does the same thing it's considered hounding? –dlthewave ☎ 05:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Dlthewave - for the sake of brevity, Noteduck's comments are political in nature, whereas Springee is being hounded and is expected to provide evidence of same. Atsme 💬 📧 11:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

As you note I think that a close review of this ANI thread itself says a lot about the situation. I'm not sure if you meant that my proposal #2 was too mild but for better or worse that's sort of how I roll. Perhaps a one way interaction ban would have been a better proposal to give decisive relief to Springee and be a stronger "we really mean it" regarding battleground mentality towards another editor. But the warning remains as the alternative that I support. And Springee themself supported it and so they likely feel that it is sufficient, at least at this "give it a try" stage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what part of WP:HOUND would proscribe "a gentle piece of advice" or how it displays a battleground mentality. I offered what I see as sound advice based on my experience that it's much more fulfilling to create pages and make extensive original contributions to Wiki rather than have to spend lengthy amounts of time on talk pages, which is where contentious political articles often end up. Springee has certainly aimed to correct perceived errors and issues reminders of policy when they've seen fit, sometimes in quite strident terms, on my talk page (see User talk:Noteduck). I've been distracted and busy working on unrelated projects, but I've wiped the perceived breaches I noted, which made up a small portion of my sandbox, in a good-faith compliance with Springee's request.[299] I hadn't been alerted to the “timely manner” requirement prior to this ANI notice but I'm fine with interpreting it as one month and not leave material for policy complaints in my sandbox for longer than this. This is by no means a repudiation of any of these points. I think that while I don't agree at all with the basis of this WP:ANI notice I've engaged in a constructive and good-faith manner Noteduck (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The first you heard about it? Why didn't you understand the problem when I warned you about POLEMIC on 10 April [[300]] and then again on 25 May [[301]]. It was only on 19 June that a 3rd warning finally resulted in you removing the content. Why did it take two months? Certainly you should have been aware of the timeliness requirement the first time I provided a POLEMIC link in the warning. Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee none of your posts on my page referred to the timely manner requirement. Noteduck (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That makes your failure to remove even worse. The first time I just said it violated POLEMIC. You didn't bother to follow up and check so that's on you. Either way, you were informed. The second time I included this part, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.". So you just decided to ignore the whole thing since the only reason to keep such a list would have to fall under the timely exception. If you weren't aware of it, after being told where to look, what more do you want. It's clear you were keeping the list despite knowing it was against user talk page guidelines. Springee (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not the best representation of the facts. Having started to regularly edit Wiki in December 2020, I had of course seen other editors use their sandboxes to assemble ANI complaints and discuss the use of sandboxes for this purpose, and in fact on 10 February I made an enquiry on your talk page about material you were preparing in sandbox for a complaint against me (though it was quickly blanked).[302] You did indeed quote WP:POLEMIC in a post on my talk page on 25 May, specifically the passage warning against Example text For context, the very next sentence of WP:POLEMIC, in the same dot point, reads: "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." Why omit this, especially given that your main objection here appears to be related to the timely manner requirement? On 25 June you referred to the specific phrase timely manner in this complaint.[303] It seems unduly to think I deserve sanctions based on not heeding specific points of editorial policy Noteduck (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As someone who's often edited on American political topics where both Springee and Noteduck were participating I have never seen a dispute between them that I honestly felt was Noteduck's fault to begin with. This is not to say that Noteduck has been a perfect editor, but that I strongly oppose any one-sided sanction against Noteduck. For what it's worth, I would support the interaction ban above or even a one-way interaction ban against Springee: I think that there's a far better case to be made for Springee hounding Noteduck than vice-versa. Loki (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying this because you can think of any actual examples or just because you see this as a tactical move? Noteduck was warned about civility and edit warring at AE. Did other editors (myself included) start those problems? Springee (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing says "battleground mentality" like speculating about "tactical moves". Please, try to assume good faith. –dlthewave ☎ 11:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

struck Springee (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Loki, Springee has given pretty substantial examples of hounding. Perhaps you could give some to support your assertion of hounding by Springee?North8000 (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh certainly. Of the 37 sections on Noteduck's talk page, 11, or roughly a third, are sections started by Springee accusing Noteduck of bad behavior: [304], [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313], [314]. When these accusations have been actually reported to admins, none of them so far have resulted in sanctions for Noteduck more serious than one unenthusiastic warning once. Loki (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There have only been two trips to the notice board, the AE that resulted in a warning and this one. If you look, many are good faith efforts to help a new editor learn the ropes. Others are for the exact behaviors that resulted in a logged warning. It's unfortunate that you and Dlthewave are condoning vs discouraging such behaviors. Even if you think Noteduck hasn't crossed a sanctionable line why encourage it? Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, that's not hounding. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Loki and dlthewave for helping to set the record straight here. A search for edits made by Springee in my talk page history reveals 44 edits by Springee, or more than 30% of all edits in the page's history.[315] A search of Springee's talk page history shows 13 edits by Noteduck (though all have since been wiped).[316] This is hardly commensurate with the accusation of one-way, targeted WP:HOUNDING. Springee hasn't explained how they arrived at the point that "over 50% of Noteduck's edits since 25 March have been about me 'in some capacity'" [inverted commas mine], which they will need to clarify, and again I invite editors to look at the diversity of the contributions in my edit history[317] and sandbox.[318] Springee's stated desire to avoid interacting with me is hardly commensurate with their recent actions on the Andy Ngo talk page, where they:

• on 18 June Springee pinged me in a subheading I had no prior involvement in,[319] having reverted a not prominent, 14-word short sentence I had added to a body paragraph on Ngo's page[320]
• continued to contest this short sentence at length on Ngo's talk page for close to another two weeks, including repeatedly interacting with me without apparent distress[321]
• on 25 June took this same short sentence to the no original research noticeboard,[322] on the basis that it purportedly failed WP:V requirements, only for other uninvolved editors to quickly affirm my longstanding interpretation of the contested sentence.[323][324].

Given the outcome of the WP:NORN discussion they launched, I hope Springee will be restoring the material. As I've noted above,[325] I did not receive a specific reference to the point about assembling complaints in the sandbox being done in a timely manner from Springee, and would have applied the policy (though its wording doesn't lay out precise instructions for how to adhere to it) as best I could had I known. I'm happy to field any further questions Noteduck (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? There is not a consensus of support and there are concerns about weight for such a claim. Springee (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

do you not agree that the counter-arguments have been quite comprehensively refuted? Noteduck (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

A review of this ANI thread alone says much about the situation. Seeking to resolve a situation vs. seeking to deprecate an editor. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per arguments of above support !votes, and how is this still open and unresolved? Closing with a warning and move on sounds reasonable. I also agree that the "evidence of hounding by Springee" above is not evidence of hounding. Levivich 18:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Prefer topic ban for Noteduck, support warning if not. Their logged warning from March says they need to abide to policies while editing in the topic area of American politics, and they have not been doing so regarding WP:HOUND and WP:DISRUPTIVE. The time for warnings is past; it is time for more than a slap on the wrist. (Closer: Note that Serial supported a topic ban also right after Springee's opening.) It's not like bans can't be appealed in the future anyway. It is clear from the above, both the evidence and from their own words, that they persistently hound Springee and are WP:NOTHERE to encyclopedically and neutrally portray American politics, but rather, to right great wrongs and portray conservatives as negatively as possible. That is exemplified by their own statement above: A gentle piece of advice to Springee btw: I recommend aiming to diversify your interest base beyond right-wing political pages... Only a POV pusher and hounder would say that. If this is what they say openly at ANI, I can only imagine what these article talk pages (many of them being BLPs!) are like. This crusade is WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for; it is the epitome of tendentious editing. A Wikipedia that is nothing but hit pieces on the right will do nothing but preach to the choir on the left, anyway. The topic area in no way benefits from these POV pushers that work their way in occasionally. Whether many editors agree with the POV being pushed is no grounds for leniency. Noteduck themselves states above, I've pivoted away and have found creating diverse and original content elsewhere much more satisfying, so let's help them stay away from this topic area. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in part due to the vagueness of the proposal; what exactly does a warning to avoid behaviors described by essays we've all seen actually amount to, particularly when the dispute is over who is hounding whom? In my general experience, a significant fraction of what gets described as "hounding" ends up being clashing opinions on areas of shared interest, exacerbated by a kind of passive aggression for which Wikipedia is unluckily fertile ground. I'm not sure that isn't the case here. (For example, on the face of it, "try working in a different topic area for a little while" can actually be darn good advice. I've given it to myself plenty of times. What matters is the tone in which it is said, as it were.) XOR'easter (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

For better or worse, it was deliberately a soft proposal, including avoiding an explicit finding of hounding behavior while having a good chance of providing the relief that is owed to Springee. Ifr that doesn't work, more concrete explicit findings and direction could be provided at that point.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Suppose an ANI report had been opened on an editor who was adding labels to pages on figures like, say, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez based on right-wing opinion outlets, telling their opponent to edit pages other than "left-wing" pages and following that editor around, talking about them all the time, and keeping a polemic about them. Would we be seeing the same sort of replies here? I suspect not. They'd probably be indeffed. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support warning only - I think Noteduck is being too combative towards Springee. If this continues, we can move on to IBAN. Hopefully that will not be needed. starship.paint (exalt) 15:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Overview of recent discussions at Talk:Andy Ngo

@Noteduck: Very well then. Looking at the most recent edits on Talk:Andy Ngo, I see that Springee keeps getting into content disputes.

• On 17 May, they disputed whether content added by Cedar777 (talk · contribs) about Don't Shoot Portland was WP:DUE for Andy Ngo. JzG (talk · contribs) stepped in and agreed with Cedar777's addition of the content. It's still in the article.
• On 10 June, you contested the removal of content by Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), which he alleged to be biased and poorly sourced. That's when Springee rebutted your claim, arguing that the BuzzFeed News piece in question is biased and that the statement might have been WP:UNDUE as well. You also contested some commentary by third parties about Thomas Meng (talk · contribs), again insisting that the repeatedly used term opinion is a misnomer in this discussion. The statement cited to the BFN piece is still in the article.
• On that same day, Springee argued with Cedar777 over an edit by Meng that condensed several citations to the same source, per WP:OVERCITE. Then, they mentioned out of the blue that they reverted one of your edits [326] that allegedly misrepresented the sources cited and was undue. Another argument ensues on the talk page, this time a bit longer and with more involved parties. Ultimately, Springee won the dispute.
• A discussion on 17 June about covering a recent attack against Ngo, where Springee was involed. They also challenged an alleged WP:SYNTH addition by SomerIsland (talk · contribs), but then flip-flopped.
• A discussion on 19 June where neither you nor Springee was involved, apart from an aside by the latter about naming references.
• A discussion on 21 June about an ambiguous sentence. Springee definitely had a good point to raise, and there was little or no dispute.
• A discussion began on 30 June about the weasel word widely as used in a statement about RS consensus. You dropped in and changed the word to frequently [327]. This word change was supported by other participants, apart from Springee, before TomReaan90 (talk · contribs) pivoted the discussion to a conversation about Al Jazeera and the Iraq War.
• That was the last discussion involving you, but it looks like subsequent discussions involving Springee are good-faith and they do not fight with anyone else.

In summary, Springee is editing Talk:Andy Ngo a lot because they are heavily involved in good-faith edits and discussions regarding the article. So it's clear that Springee's edits are unproblematic apart from their interactions with you, although I don't have enough evidence to evaluate your edits about Ngo. Maybe someone can evaluate the archives, but I need to go to bed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to look at my Ngo edits LaundryPizza03. I'd refer to diffs like this one as proof of my commitment to rigorously evaluating evidence on the page.[328] It's necessary to see this all in the context of how Springee fights at length to get flattering sources added to Ngo's page, no matter how feeble.

• For example, take Springee's extended contestation in April in favour of restoring material from "Lacorte News" (apparently an obscure source tied to Fox alum Ken LaCorte).[329] Springee was very lucky to avoid a topic ban later in April after an action brought by User:Dlthewave,[330] brought about after Springee made a protracted attempt in March-April to get material from the deprecated Daily Caller[331] and Daily Signal included on Ngo's page.[332] Although Springee had reverted material from the Daily Signal from Ngo's page in February on the (correct) basis that it wasn't an RS,[333] in March[334] and April[335] they defended Daily Signal's reliability on Ngo while rejecting WP:GREL-listed The Intercept,[336] as well as turning to other weak sources like Daily Wire, The Western Journal, and a celebrity gossip site called "Meaww" to buttress their LaCorte News point.[337] On 25 May there were happy to treat a website called "Katu", and the very non-impartial The College Fix as a reliable account of a BLM protest reported on by Ngo.[338] With sources like these, Springee has been hyper-permissive and emphasized context, while warning against rejecting sources outright.
• Compare this to the scrutiny they have subjected a recent 14-word sentence sourced to Rolling Stone and Jacobin (magazine) to: reverting it on 18 June,[339] extensively challenging it on the Ngo talk page[340] on the frankly, clearly incorrect basis that the Rolling Stone source didn't support the claim in the sentence,[341] opening a WP:NORN discussion on the sentence on 25 June,[342] and after their argument was comprehensively rejected, now maintaining the material is undue.[343] See also these extended challenges (both from April alone) Springee made to The Intercept[344] and Bellingcat, which Springee took to WP:RSN to see their point be quickly rebuffed[345] having contested Bellingcat content since November 2020,[346] plus objecting to a thorough and methodical Buzzfeed News piece in June.[347] Look at the stringency of Springee's evidentiary standards for Bellingcat and Daily Dot[348] compared with some of the above-mentioned obscure (and weak) sources more flattering to Ngo.

Go further back and you see block reverts of the SPLC,[349][350] Daily Beast,[351] Columbia Journalism Review,[352] The Guardian,[353], Salon (magazine) and Rolling Stone,[354][355][356] Washington Post and Los Angeles Times,[357][358][359] Seattle Times,[360], BuzzFeed News[361] Daily Dot,[362], Willamette Week[363] The Oregonian[364], the Los Angeles Times[365] - by no means a complete list. I've repeatedly reminded Springee of WP:ROWN without success. Springee often rejects new edits by invoking BLP, or employs an "injunction": block reverting an edit, starting a talk page discussion, and proceeding to resist any change at length on the talk page, while claiming there's no consensus for change. The clear, repeated pattern is that Springee fights hard to include sources seen to be flattering to Ngo, no matter how feeble, while those perceived as unflattering, even if high quality, are subject to impossibly high standards. I've seen them follow this same edit pattern across a range of political topics, and am happy to provide more diffs on request Noteduck (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

And this is more of the same falsehoods. What you call an "extended fight" was a civil and not long talk page discussion where Springee was on the same side as numerous other editors. The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE. Meaww was only mentioned as a left-leaning source and alongside The Oregonian. He's right about Rolling Stone and Jacobin. The former is an entertainment magazine, not a serious news outlet, and does not have any pretenses of objectivity; the latter is openly opinionated and ideological for socialism. He's well within his rights on the rest, since context, due weight, and other policies matter, and discussion and being careful are very important on a WP:BLP. Many of those outlets are also inappropriate for political topics as they are very ideological and/or are not serious mainstream news sources that aim for objectivity, namely the Daily Beast, Salon, Willamette Week, and the Daily Dot. The only problem here is when editors such as yourself push for such glorified group blogs as sources on a BLP and then harass editors who disagree. Time to put a stop to it. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: As shown below, Noteduck revised their comment after I replied; the version I replied to is here. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I disagree that the Daily Caller/Daily Signal issue was "dismissed" at AE. It was in fact closed with a reminder to Springee to "Please be more careful with unreliable/deprecated sources" along with a RS/verifiability reminder to the only admin who supported his point of view. I share Noteduck's valid concern that Springee has been challenging clearly reliable sources as biased while at the same time promoting sources that are so unreliable that they've been deprecated. Frankly I don't see how a good-faith editor can challenge Jacobin as too biased to use, while pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

"Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened; the clarification and pushback on your AE report is explained there and I'm not relitigating it. Also, deprecation "is not a blanket retroactive "ban" on using the source in absolutely every situation", though one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I recognize your opinion on the matter, but I need to ask you to respect the final outcome of the AE report instead of trying to relitigate. Although several editors (including yourself and one admin, who was admonished for their comments) did disagree, consensus among admins was clear: It was inappropriate to use Daily Caller in that context and Springee was reminded to be more careful with such sources. Unless you can explain how you interpret the outcome differently, I'm going to ask you to strike "The Daily Caller and Daily Signal stuff was dismissed already at AE" and the accusation "Pushing for inclusion of a Daily Caller cite" is a grossly misleading picture of what happened". I also ask that you strike "one wouldn't be able to tell from the constant push to get every right-leaning opinion outlet as de facto banned while left-leaning opinion outlets are mostly marked as green at WP:RSP" as inappropriate off-topic commentary. –dlthewave ☎ 22:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, per WP:REDACT (talk page guideline) please do not edit your comments after other editors have replied. if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. This was mentioned to you early on in this discussion (without a specfic guideline) [[366]]. After being asked the first time you have continued to edit your comments after other editors have replied without proper edit markups (examples [[367]] [[368]][[369]][[370]]). Please follow talk page guidelines going forward. Springee (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Springee thank you for the useful heads up on WP:REDACT policy. I noticed that you weighed in on a discussion on talk:The Wall Street Journal today,[371] shortly after I entered the same discussion yesterday.[372] While you're of course welcome to do so, this isn't really commensurate with your stated wish to avoid me due to hounding or obstructionism. If my edits no long bother you perhaps make that clear Noteduck (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, in fairness, Springee has actually been involved in discussion on that talk page concerning the WSJ's editorial board from before you even joined the project (diff). El_C 07:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

El_C they did indeed, but Springee's willingness to be involved in a new survey and discussion where I'm present and where we can respond to each others arguments doesn't suggest that they feel uncomfortable or crowded out by my edits. By the way Springee you said in your complaint that "over 50%" of my edits since March 25 have been about you "in some capacity". What do you mean by this exactly and how did you reach that figure? Noteduck (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the same RfC isn't WP:HOUNDING and wouldn't even be restricted by an WP:IBAN as long as you're not directly responding to each other. I too would be curious about the 50% statistic since some of the initial hounding accusations were also just Noteduck commenting in the same discussions as Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO this misleading construction further shows what the situation is and that Springee needs and deserves some relief. Some have in essence said that my "just an oblique warning" proposal #2 is too mild and that is probably true, but this needs to brought to some type of conclusion to provide that relief. If it doesn't work, something stronger can be tried later. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That Noteduck should be topic-banned from post-1992 American politics, or at least the associated BLPs? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:06, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a topic ban would be appropriate unless there's an overall pattern of disruption in the topic area. The accusations we're discussing here seem to be limited to their interactions with Springee. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I was about to say much the same thing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Responding what the "something" in the "Something stronger can be tried later." would be is a matter of conjecture at this point. But a topic ban is not what came to mind when I wrote that. Certainly even what is on this ANI page itself reinforces the situation. Besides hounding, no editor should have to endure a continuing aggressive onslaught of such things including mis-characterizations. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

North8000, your comment would be taken more seriously if you could specific examples of these mischaracterizations and what exactly is problematic about Noteduck's conduct in this discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 21:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Well asserting/implying that nobody takes my careful summary seriously is not a good way to start.North8000 (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

My assessment didn't come from just any one item, it was deriving from an overview of the whole thread here. A part of that overview is that IMO I'd guess that at least 90% of Noteduck's posts here have been trying to deprecate Springee rather than addressing the topic at hand. Regarding specifics, nearly every use of diffs in that type of post had a negative characterization (IMO mis-characterization) of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you point to one diff and explain why it's mischaracterized? I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually have any examples, since I've already asked before with no success. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on limited encounters not going too well, I choose to not deeply engage with you. But one structural note....I identified "mis-characterization" as just IMO. My statement in that area without the "IMO" qualifier was "had a negative characterization....of Springee that did not arise from the diff itself." You (or anybody) should feel free to reject or accept my assessment, or to skim this thread to assess whether or not they think that assessment is correct or incorrect. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

IP Sock

(Please note that my post below was moved here and the heading created by Dlthewave. While I noted the sock/evade basis for removal by someone else of the post, I am not knowledgeable enough of that IP situation to have identified it with this title) North8000 (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

There have been posts entered by 69.156.107.94 which have been removed per evade/ sock of blocked. The is IP has a history less than1 1/2 weeks old and ~90% those posts have been on this thread attempting to deprecate Springee. Springee is a polite, policy-conscious editor who has been subjected to far too much of this stuff from a few individuals. This type of abuse of editors must be stopped! The have asked for relief from the most egregious portion of that. I proposed an action which is probably too mild but something must be done! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

For that IP address, a lifetime of 6 edits, the first fixing a typo in July 2021, and then 5 of the 6 were all on this page in the last 2 days attempting to deprecate Springee.North8000 (talk) 11:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I've moved this to its own subsection since the IP comments are a separate issue the won't be helped by warning/sanctioning Noteduck. It looks like Awilley is handling the situation and has been notified. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was too slow on the draw. The sock was blocked via SPI. ~Awilley (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism/OR by Legaiaflame

Legaiaflame has repeatedly inserted subtle vandalism (i.e. changing numerical values without explanation or sourcing) into articles, and to a lesser extent engaged in original research. He has never used an edit summary to explain his actions, nor has he ever used a talk page. He has been given plenty of warnings, including two final warnings this week, and he has completely ignored all of them.

Examples of diffs:

[373], [374], [375], [376], [377], [378], [379], [380] Loafiewa (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not providing a reason in the edit summary doesn’t automatically classify an edit as vandalism. However, not providing a edit summary, especially to added unsourced content, is highly disruptive. Jerm (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As is altering sourced content without an explanation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Based on the editor’s talk page, they have a history of adding unsourced content and not providing an edit summary and have ignored a multitude of warnings. A block should be implemented. For how long? I don’t know. Jerm (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that they are editing through the Android app, which is a known issue with people getting notifications about their talk page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm true, but you could also enable email and get notifications through there. I do that as I have a busy lifestyle, and emails come to my phone so i can easily click them :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They don't have email enabled. If they don't know what a talk page is, or that their app is bugged, they wouldn't think to enable email to get around the bug they don't know exists. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Can they not subscribe to their talk page??Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Surely Legaiaflame could respond to the messages on their talk page if the editor can edit articles. Is the Android that difficult to use when it comes to responding to messages? Jerm (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Jerm, Wikipedia:Mobile communication bugs, it's that difficult, or in some cases, simply non-functional. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If that's true, how should this case be handled then? Can't block an editor who can't respond to messages, but it also has me wondering, the editor can still read the messages. If so, Legaiaflame shows no sign of discontinuing their editing pattern despite the multiple warnings. Jerm (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Would it be worth considering giving them a 24 hour block, just so that way they might actually look at their talk page? As Jerm said, there's no reason to believe they'll change their behaviour now when they've been doing it for so long, and learning to WP:COMMUNICATE is not optional. Loafiewa (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I support a 24 hour block. If nothing is done, Legaiaflame's editing behavior will continue. Jerm (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If it's subtle vandalism, ie the info is false, then blocking is the only solution. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the thing though, it's not really vandalism, but not filling out the edit summary, not providing reliable sources for their changes, and ignoring concerns/warnings from other editors on their talk page. The editor would be blocked for WP:NOTHERE reasons but for only 24 hours. Jerm (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Are the edits factually accurate? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The cost of blocking needs to be weighed up with the fact that this is a long-time user who is intermittently active and continuously active over the past 12 months. If you block them, they will not see any block reason due to the inadequacies of the Android application. They will just see "You have been blocked from editing." or some variant thereof. Odds are, that will cause them to leave permanently. There is only one technically possible way (that I know of) to send a message to them, but it would violate policy.

If the edits are factually incorrect, then there is no option but to block. But if they are factually correct, then I think we can bear out imperfect (but ultimately encyclopaedia-improving) edits until the WMF decides to fix the damn app. But we've seen a lot of these ANIs recently. I appreciate it'll take some time for the WMF to fix this mess, but it's trivial for them to implement a hack that lets us send custom messages to these editors (through, for example, an edit filter). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Well let's see, their edit claims the M-16 "In the 1970s, the United States developed the M16 rifle" the thing is, it entered service (I.E. had already been developed) in 1967 (Note this was when it was adopted by the US army as the mM-16, note when versions were issued for fields tests). Now anyone who knows anything about the Vietnam war, or the M-16 would know this. So (even if it was a mistake) it was just a number they plucked out of their head.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If our article onM16 rifle is accurate, it entered in service in 1964 apparently, and was designed in 1959, ie the late 1950s. The edit quoted in the OP is RandomCanadian's rollback; that user's edit was actually this, which seems correct? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I was going by when it was called the m-16, not when it was called the XM whatever it was. Not sure it's vandalism persee so much as a desperate desire to increase edit count by any means. So they just make random changes based upon assumption, OR or just plain "giveitashotism", either way, it's disruptive.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

But this is an Android app user. Why would they want to increase their edit count? They have never used a project page (probably don't even know about them) and I don't think they can even see their own edit count. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Then why make these meaningless (and apparently in some cases totally wrong) changes? By the way, it might not be about them seeing it. I note even their early edits seem to be this kind of minor change (always undone). So if it is not "just to get their edit count up" then it must be a form of vandalism, entering tons of incorrect information just to make pages inaccurate (but subtly so, in the hope no one notices). If that is the case a site ban is in order as they are not here for any good reasonSlatersteven (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

To make conjecture, I'd guess the reason that they like to make so many edits as once is just to make it more difficult for other editors to sift through all of them and make sure they're accurate, and thereby make it go easier for their edits to go unchallenged. Their edits to .44 Russian, Browning Hi-Power, M1917, are deliberate factual errors, and there's just no other way around that. They might do some good gnoming here and there, but I don't really think it's acceptable for an editor who's been editing for upwards of a decade to still think it's okay to just make stuff up in their edits. Loafiewa (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor for repeatedly adding unreferenced and incorrect content to Wikipedia. On the matter of the Android app, that is a very, very sad situation. I am an administrator who does 99% of my editing on Android smartphones and have for many years. I am a consistent advocate for mobile editing because I have proven that it can be done productively. But I use the fully functional desktop site on my phone, instead of the miserable crippled Android app. This is a very sad situation, but we cannot have an editor adding bad content on a whim when we cannot communicate with the editor. The responsibility for this is on the WMF. They should not offer any app or site that doesn't allow fully functional collaborative editing. They have poured gigantic amounts of money into these failed apps, when the 20 year old desktop site works just fine on billions of Android phones in service. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible that, after being blocked, one may take some initiative and log into the desktop site to learn more about why they were blocked, or try get in touch with someone to discuss. I doubt the WMF really cares about this block, since they've already explicitly said they care for 'the big picture' (ie the overall statistics) rather than what happens in individual cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi admins, want to report User:Davey2010 for his tedious editing behaviour on selfie. I wanted to make some improvements on selfie article with some additional selfie options but Davey reverted me thinking the previous version was fine when in fact the images kept overflowing. However my version [381] with the added images but I thought I was doing what was right. I am getting used to it, but Davey2010 keeps reverting me for no apparent reason. Am I worthless around here? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You replaced a whole bunch of images and reduced them for no actual reason. Although not apparent I did reinstate all text changes once the edit conflicts stopped happening.

You were told on the Selfie talkpage to start an RFC so why are we here Nim?. Also you're well aware of BRD and are well aware that once you're reverted you need to seek consensus for your changes although sure it takes 2 to edit war so I'm not entirely blameless here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I don't think ce is a very good edit summary, the crux of Davey's objection (from talk) seems to be 'unnecessary'/'not an improvement'. I see you tried discussing on the talk page but this does seem to be a content dispute and so have you tried following the other steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Your next steps I think would be to invite the participation of other editors (from WikiProjects) and/or starting a WP:RFC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah sorry the "ce" and "reinstate few changes" wasn't me trying to sneakily add the content back - I was trying to reinstate the text and then trying to make copy edits after but kept hitting edit conflicts everytime I was trying to make those changes. –Davey2010^Talk 14:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The best solution is for Davey to revert it back to my version for now and we can sort a version. His version is not good as he has removed some crucial images like the drone selfie which is completely different. Some of the images had to be removed as they were crushing the article. Davey2010 seems to have favouritisms for users like Vauxford and some others, but not me. I don't know why I came back in the first place. Wikipedia was already a mess when I've arrived and I don't think I'm a valued editor anymore. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have never edit warred (for the last 7 years) until today. Also User:Davey2010 shoved WP:BRD down everyones throat and this is ticking me off as its not a policy. What am I doing? Wikipedia is a mess as it is. Users always get their own way, and this is completely bollocks. I'm trying to act as a normal editor, and improving but users like him are the main reason why I'm getting driven away from editing. What do I do next leave, abandon my account, create a new one?? What do I do, as I want to be involved with the images only as I've explained I'm bad at writing. I am planning to leave Wikipedia once again if Davey2010 reverts me once again. In fact look at his block log for edit warring, do you think that makes sense? Btw I have reverted to my version for the moment and initiated a talkpage discussion section, hence why I went middle ground and removed all my own work images, but kept the flickr ones. Its sad that I have to get all crazy and stuff, but unfortunately, my actions are sadistically coming back to haunt me with mental problems and psychiatrist reports and all that that upsets me from editing Wikipedia. I hate bullying, personal attacks and other nasties and this sadly comes down to my pain. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to create more drama but BRD is widely followed and I've followed it for the past 5 years - You were the one who created changes, You were reverted and so you now need to seek consensus for your changes.... If I made a whole heap of changes and were reverted - I would need to seek consensus....,

Everyone has things they enjoy here but Nim images have been the issue with you for some time and I did tell you here to steer clear of images ... but instead that's been your main focal point again and again it's been something that's sort of been the subject at ANI (Obviously I'm the main subject but I mean images are the reason I'm here essentially).

I get the impression at times you make unnecessary edits for the sake of making unnecessary edits. I'm all for image replacing providing what you're actually replacing is better which 9 times out of 10 it's not.

I fail to see what my block log has to do with it given my last edit warring block was in what 2014 (7 years ago!) and unfortunately not to be nasty but Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Anyway I shan't revert there any further and will back off from here. –Davey2010^Talk 14:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I know, and I'm sorry. I did create an WP:RFC but times are changing and my BDR method is much better. But yeah lets put this to bed and go to sleep --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• FYI they've now reverted again[382]. –Davey2010^Talk 15:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh right... But I have stopped now, and this is the only article I have edit warred. In hindsight I only did a partial revert. I'm giving up editing if I cannot do images because as Ive mentioned, i cannot write for long periods of time. I compromised so in my opinion, there's not really much point in me being blocked. In my view, it achieves nothing, and a simple apology coupled with a middle ground point takes the cake. So in summary, I am very sorry how I acted today with my edits and promise to be a more productive editor going forward without edit-warring.--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - I appreciate your apology, but I'm starting to see a pattern of editing with you that concerns me. You've been topic-banned from all pages relating to automobiles, broadly construed - and if my memory serves me well, this topic ban stemmed from repeated disruption in relation to the addition and replacing of images on those articles. Now we're here, and again, we're having issues with edit warring that involve the same thing - the addition and replacing of images on the Selfie article. I understand that images interest you and that this is a big focus for you on the project. That's completely fine, but you need to understand that edit warring and causing disruption isn't going to help you, nor is it going to help the project. I don't want to see you in hot water like this, EurovisionNim. It's not good - especially when you already have an active sanction in place. Please please take this as a lesson learned; take some time to review and make sure that you understand Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, and please work things out peacefully with Davey2010 and come to a consensus on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is most definitely ending up as no action and I honestly do not see anything necessarily disruptive to the point where an ANI has to be opened. if you are having content disputes, there are other methods such as WP:3O that can be quite helpful. My take is if you are editing here it’s almost impossible to have everything go “your way” what I can tell from content disputes is that more often than not, a compromise is the ideal solution, Davey2010 and EurovisionNim you both are mature enough to meet each-other half way without an ANI being evoked. Celestina007 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 I apologised. And yes, I do agree. Hence why I went for middle ground :). In hindsight what do blocks achieve? Nothing. It is not the ideal solution and compromising is the way to go :) --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 00:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Why have you not stricken your OP comment and requested that this thread be closed with no action? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hijiri88, I don't know how to do it. But i don't want to be blocked for making unnecessary closures --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You can strike comments by using <s> and </s>, like this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - Blocks are applied for many reasons. The typical reason that a block is applied is to prevent further disruption to the project when it appears that it will continue if no action is taken to stop it. That being said, you could've been blocked for edit warring earlier, as this is what was occurring on the Selfie article. I'm happy to see that it didn't happen, but such a block would've been justified had the edit warring not stopped. As I said to you above, please be careful, please refrain from edit warring, and please work with Davey2010 to come to a consensus on the article's talk page. Mistakes happen and your apology is appreciated. However, it concerns me when I read the responses above and see that you reverted the Selfie article an additional time after this ANI was started. Your response, "Oh right... But I have stopped now", makes it seem like you were pushing the limit until someone called you out on it, and committed to stop edit warring only after being asked to do so multiple times. It shouldn't take that much of a collaborated effort by the community to get you to put the brakes on, stop, look up, and listen. I'm also not happy to see the edit summary you left with this edit. "I am happy to be partially blocked from this section"? This reads to me as if you're doubling down on Davey2010 instead of doing the right thing and taking the dispute to the article's talk page. That's not something I want to see. Please slow yourself down, and please remember to discuss content disputes rather than engaging in edit warring. Like I said above, it wouldn't hurt for you to take some time and review Wikipedia's policy on edit warring just as a refresher. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask and I'll be happy to answer them and help you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah. Look, i think I'll take a small break from editing and do some other things. But surely, there are bigger things. Yes, that's no problems, I will review it during my break. Cool champ! I'm suffering from a lot of personal problems, hence my behaviour hasn't been up to scratch. But what I did for the selfie article is do the half-half method, so to reach a compromise. But i didn't think adding images was a big deal. Yep ok I'll nip a small break for a while. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 05:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - If you feel like you need to take a break from editing, by all means, do what you feel is right for you. EurovisionNim, please know that this discussion isn't meant to, nor is it trying to, chase you away from Wikipedia or from editing. We want you here, and we want you to be part of this project as an editor. I've made more than my fair share of mistakes on Wikipedia; I'm telling you these things not because I'm perfect, but because I've experienced making mistakes many times before. All you need to do is internalize what you've learned from this discussion, and apply what you've learned to your future edits. Commit to being better than before this discussion started. That's all we ask you to do. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sorry Oshwah, Davey2010 and Sjeintspen. I did put a discussion forward as mentioned. But true, if its a breach of policy. I do apologise, but sometimes you owe smaller leeways. Let me know if you guys need anything, as I'm only back after a week and I think if no one reverts one another we would not have this discussion. I have. 6months to improve myself, and there's a good chance we won't need this discussion. Anyway, case closed, move on and forget about it. I will read the WP:3RR and other aforemented policies where necessary and become a lot more constructive.--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

EurovisionNim - Again, I appreciate your apology and your willingness to improve your edits and your behavior. Just remember that starting or participating in a discussion on the article's talk page over a dispute doesn't mean that you can continue to revert edits to the article in a back-and-forth manner while the discussion is ongoing. It's still considered edit warring if you do that. Instead, you need to participate in the discussion regarding the dispute and refrain from reverting the article at all until the discussion comes to a consensus or a conclusion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, I wasn't too aware of that policy prior, but yes that can happen! I want to improve for the better. I made the mistake, I face the consequences and improve. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 06:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• tedious editing – To my surprise, there's already WP:TEDIOUS, which redirects to WP:Tendentious editing. I don't think these are the same concept at all. EEng 03:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: you may be interested in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 12#Wikipedia:Tenditious. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Seriously, TEDIOUS ought to redirect somewhere else, but unfortunately it's got too many invocations already. See also WP:TENDONITITS. EEng 13:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Isn't that what people get scrolling through your talk page? :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  Excuse me, that was supposed to be WP:TENDONITISEDITING. I TITS little experience have with. EEng 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent addition of unsourced content by User:Yeti Dai

User:Yeti Dai is continuosly making edits on Third Oli cabinet and KP Sharma Oli. This user made article Third Oli cabinet which fails WP:Notability. He seems to be biased in all his edits. When deletion discussion was added he removed. He removed it multiple times when added by me and others to discuss. There never existed Third Oli cabinet. Fifth Deuba cabinet, 2021 succeeded Second Oli cabinet as you can see on the above articles. So, I also suggest either to delete or merge the articles if anyone concerned sees this. This user has been linking this article on various other articles vital in Wikiproject Nepal. So, I request for a block on him. Please see his contribution list to verify.103.10.29.85 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IP did not notify Yeti Dai. I did. —C.Fred (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't see anything inappropriate with the user's edits. Yes, they removed an AfD template from Third Oli cabinet; however, there was no discussion, so removal of the template was appropriate. As far as the content dispute about starting an article for the third cabinet, that is a matter to be discussed at the article's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations by Firejuggler86

• Firejuggler86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Firejuggler86 is repeating unsupported false claims about me, and I want it to stop. Here are relevant quotations and diffs:

• Firejuggler86 on 3 July:  "you want to change the guideline to broaden the scope to cover historical, sociological, and political areas, so that you can win one particular content dispute"[383]

• Me on 3 July:  "I do not want to broaden the scope of this guideline. Stop making this false accusation."[384]

• Me on 3 July (at User_talk:Firejuggler86):  "I do not hold the views that you claim I hold. You either need to stop attributing opinions to me and other editors, or you need to provide diffs to back up your claims."[385]

• Firejuggler86 on 10 July:  "Your side were the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics."[386]

• Me on 10 July:  "@Firejuggler86, please provide a diff to your accusation that I ever said anything about wanting "to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics", or I will take you to ANI for making false accusations against me after being warned to stop it."[387]

(Also:  "My" side?  I didn't !vote in the RFC being referenced, so I wasn't on any "side", but if I had been, I would have !voted the opposite of the way that Firejuggler repeatedly claims.)

Firejuggler86 has been editing since being told to stop it, but has failed to provide any diffs supporting the false claim (an impossibility, because those aren't my views), to strike the false accusations, or even to say that they won't continue to make up inaccurate and unsupported stories about other editors' alleged views whenever they feel like it.

We could prevent future problems by simply blocking the editor, but perhaps a wider audience will be able to come up with a less harsh option that will be equally effective. This is indirectly a COVID-related dispute, and Firejuggler86 might just be copying some of the bad behavior that some other editors have displayed in COVID-related discussions, so if you'd rather that I took this to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, let me know. I'm here because I think it's probably better to process it as a type of of WP:NPA#WHATIS, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I queried Firejuggler86's claims about editors at that discussion, and asked for diffs. I see also that Graham Beards| raised concerns about wrongheaded claims about editors. It is notable that Firejuggler86 was previously entirely uninterested in MEDRS until they decided to add their revert to the two others also by editors that had hitherto shown no interest in MEDRS. Covid related discussions are heated enough with all the politics involved, but recently misinformation about guidelines, their scope, their purpose and the intentions of those who wrote them, seem to have taken on a new level. It is one thing to have an opinion that one can agree or disagree on, but Firejuggler86's comments at the MEDRS discussions seem entirely divorced from reality in terms of their description of what has happened and the motives of those involved. -- Colin°^Talk 07:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping for Graham Beards, who was mentioned with a small typo in the comment just above. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know where this bile from Firejuggler86 is coming from, but their accusations are as wrong as they're rude. In a topic area where there has already been a significant waste of time based on false statements about policy and editor motivation, their comments are very unhelpful, almost seeming designed to try to escalate tensions. Alexbrn (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Huh. They threw an accusation at me, too (my reply with a pointer to Wikipedia:Casting aspersions was here). Lacking any ability to infer the contents of someone else's head, it's still hard not to see their comment as an attempt to escalate tension, as you say. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Fun fact: in the first diff, Firejuggler says "...an editor that uses the words 'medical advice' when what they actually mean is 'medical information'"; i.e., a factual statement is misread as a kind of deontic statement. I just reverted this diff of theirs, where they claim a factual statement was actually a judgment. No. The Historia Regum Britanniae is pseudo-historical: fact. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• There is a lot of confusion in terminology in that dumpster fire of a discussion and I agree with the sentiment in the first part of Firejuggler86's comment here (specifically this portion: Medical advice is generally defined as "providing diagnoses and prescribing medication". Do any of you seriously believe that Wikipedia editors are at risk of trying to diagnose readers and/or prescribe medication to them?? No. What y'all are doing is jumping on every instance of an editor that uses the words "medical advice" when what they actually mean is "medical information"), although I'm unsure if people are doing it deliberately or if it's just miscommunication (per AGF I'll assume the latter). However, generally when people are using "medical advice" in that discussion, they mean it in the broader sense of "providing information that a reader could then use to self-diagnose and treat themselves" and not a Wikipedian saying "Hey Bobby, sounds like ye got COVID. Pop to your local chemist and buy some hydroxycloroquine mate." and WhatamIdoing is one of the editors taking the most conservative definition of the term, so I can see where Firejuggler86 is coming from. But as I say, I think it's probably just miscommunication resulting in somewhat inflamed discussion, and not bad intent of either side.
  I don't understand why this has been brought here, or a block proposed. I'd advise Firejuggler not accuse editors of dishonesty but editors aren't required to abide by parliamentary language. The evidence presented does not support any action, IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  While I'm here I may add that there are various other aspersions in that discussion (not from any of the editors commenting or mentioned in this ANI) that are worse than the one presented, on both sides really. The proponents for the change, above, cannot find themselves faultless here. They've either implicitly presented the RfC as a referendum on the origins of COVID-19, or stood back and allowed others to assume such (for the votes?), which only stowed the flames for comments such as [388][389]. All of us should learn a thing or two from these events, because indeed I don't think anyone really tried to honestly engage with the arguments of the other side, and the cause of that was the rush into an RfC caused by the proponents' attempts to forcefully and immediately remove long-standing text to 'prevent the community from being confused'. The result? Unsurprisingly, a hurried RfC, and mutual distrust. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I am here because:

  • I have a very long history of narrowing the scope of MEDRS.
  • I wrote Wikipedia:Biomedical information for the purpose of narrowing the scope of MEDRS.

  but @Firejuggler86 has repeatedly and falsely claimed that:

  • I want to expand the scope of MEDRS.
  • I support a proposal in an RFC that (a) I never !voted in, (b) I have said I would have opposed, (c) I think was ill-considered and badly phrased, and (d) I have publicly said has obviously failed to gain consensus.

  and these claims are being made despite being repeatedly told that none of this is true.

  NB also that the group Firejuggler86 seems to be calling "my side" are the people who also voted against the RFC to expand MEDRS at Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information. Voting against an expansion of MEDRS is being twisted by Firejuggler86 into supporting an expansion.

  There are many destructive things that editors can do on wiki without consequences, but repeatedly posting incorrect statements about what other editors have done isn't one of them. Notice that I don't make any claims about why Firejuggler86 is spreading these false rumors. But whatever the reason, Firejuggler86 needs to stop making false statements about other editors. It's really that simple. As far as I'm concerned, a note that says "Hey, sorry, I won't say that again" could be sufficient (assuming the editor actually does stop). But if the only way to stop the false statements is a block, then that's also okay with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • What about all these occasions in that same thread where you accused/insulted other editors allegedly using Wikipedia to dispense medical advice, for example, That's a fundamental reading (mis)comprehension problem that shouldn't be seen in 12 year olds [390]. especially when it comes to a level of reading skills we normally expect from 12 year olds [391]. You even made a legal threat here [392]. Where are your diffs that show a bunch of editors dispensing medical advice? I can understand if Firejuggler lost patience with you in that thread. Geogene (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

    I didn't accuse anyone of giving medical advice. I quoted multiple editors who said that they thought the purpose of MEDRS was to tell editors how to give medical advice. If they're embarrassed now that because they said something that they now think is wrong, then that's not really my fault. They could go correct their errors.

    As for a supposed "legal threat", I said "this is a friendly reminder that when unlicensed people give medical advice, that's considered a crime in most of the world." That is not a "a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors" (the definition in our policy). Editors who provide information about real-world facts, without even hinting that they intend to engage in any external legal process, are not making legal threats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  So it's legal advice, then? Of course it isn't. But if I were to repeatedly accuse you (and that could be an individual you, or collective you) of dispensing legal advice, and suggest you could be jailed for it, wouldn't that test your patience and ability to assume good faith? I think it could even be considered disruptive. Geogene (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  A plain statement of facts about real-world legal systems, such as I made there, is legal information. Information is not the same as advice, even if a well-informed person might take different actions than a person without that information. For example, a Wikipedia admin in possession of general legal information about libel might decline to provide a WP:REFUND of a deleted page, even if the admin received no legal advice about the situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I already said that, yet you're acting as if I don't know this? This is obnoxious. Geogene (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Your report depends on two edits AFAICS (3 July, 10 July), as the others are just diffs of you giving warnings and not diffs of the editor. As far as I can see, their 10 July comment that prompted this ANI ("Your side were the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics.") does not make a comment about you specifically but rather "your side" (ie, the proponents and supporters). That does not seem to be a personal attack, and this rhetoric is better than the language used by some of the supporters. When considering this, the 3 July comment, the full comment being (No. What y'all are doing is ... - ultimately because you want to ..., and considering "Y'all" is clearly referring to your group, it's unlikely the subject changed half way through the sentence. So neither of those seem directed at you individually.

  More generally, this wouldn't be the first time when people have accused the MEDRS writers of trying to scope creep MEDRS [393]. Considering the concerns expressed in 2015, the comments there and above which amount to nothing more than WP:OWN (eg It is notable that Firejuggler86 was previously entirely uninterested in MEDRS until they decided to add their revert to the two others also by editors that had hitherto shown no interest in MEDRS), and the proponents' behaviour as a result of statements expressed at WT:BIOMED, it's very difficult to even say the allegation is patently false.

  Sorry to say that although the proponents are all respectable editors, I think they've mishandled this situation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Claiming that I'm on a particular side is claiming that I share that side's opinions. If @Firejuggler86 didn't intend to claim that I was one of "the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope", then Firejuggler86 could have used other words, like "Those other editors wanted" or "Some people wanted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  "does not make a comment about you specifically but rather "your side" (ie, the proponents and supporters)." -- no, but these two diffs do demonstrate a very clear WP:USTHEM mentality, which in and of itself is troublesome as examples of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

  I think, for that reason alone, the user should receive an admonition and a very temporary (7 days? 14 days?) topic ban (not a block) from COVID-19 articles. Something extremely mild that allows the user to gain some distance and introspection about these articles and whether this really is a "my side" vs "your side" type situation.

  Re: whether your link shows "scope creep," I actually think the result of that RfC in 2015 was to narrow MEDRS, if anything. And has not much of anything to do with this ANI report, except that it's orthogonal to the whole thing about "medical advice." It was true then as it is true now, MEDRS is not about medical advice, because no one should be giving medical advice on wiki.

  I think WhatamIdoing was absolutely right to caution users against giving medical advice. That was no more a legal threat than saying "hey, by the way, there's a reason MEDRS isn't really about medical advice, and it's because we're not allowed to give medical advice." Which is also a perfectly appropriate statement. I say that as someone who very recently started giving medical advice (yay graduated licensure) and definitely does not want wiki doing it! We have enough problems getting it right in the real world!--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Once again, who is giving medical advice? Geogene (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Geogene, that wasn't really the point of my comment. I explained that using the idea "we shouldn't be giving medical advice at all" to help demonstrate why it's wrong to say "MEDRS is about medical advice" is perfectly reasonable. I did not accuse anyone of giving medical advice, and I don't believe WhatamIdoing was doing so either.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect that Geogene is trying to convince us that since nobody's actually giving medical advice on wiki (or, more precisely, since giving medical advice is banned by the TOU and we remove it from the wiki whenever we discover it), then it shouldn't matter if several people, including himself, said things like "MEDRS specifically applies to medical advice". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  Reminds me of the ol' rhyme: "Who took a cookie from the cookie jar?" "If not me, then who?" (looks around conspicuously) There's nothing wrong with being wrong once in a while, it's an unfortunate consequence of being human.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I agree; we all make mistakes. A long-time admin has said that you're not a real Wikipedian until you've made at least fifty mistakes. (Read about it on Medium.com.)

  Where this stops being a mere mistake, and turns into a behavioral problem, is when you make a false accusation, you're told (twice) that it's wrong and to stop it, and then your next post-warning edit to the same page is to repeat the same bad behavior anyway, with only minor tweaks to the wording of your false accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  No need to suspect, you could simply have noticed my followup from June 30th, immediately after below that comment [394]. How did you miss that? It's still near the top of the page history. Geogene (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  And has not much of anything to do with this ANI report: It seems to be the discussion the editor was referring to when they said Your side were the ones that wanted to CHANGE WP:BIOMED by expanding its scope to include matters of history, sociology, and politics. That failed, and now you're ... (ctrl-f that 2015 RfC discussion for "history", etc.)

  The user should receive no sanctions at all. Personally I think there is no conduct issue here, but if an admin disagreed then for fairness they must also sanction the supporters who actually made (false) allegations of impropriety. That admin must also examine whether this allegation was baseless, and to evaluate that they would need to look into the behaviour of the proponents. If the allegation isn't baseless, then there is nothing to be done about Firejuggler86.

  At this point I'm more concerned about the following:

  1. I linked two example diffs that contain actual and provably false aspersions and battlegrounding, but nobody has decided to condemn that behaviour or call for sanctions on those editors. Surely if this ANI is just about behaviour then we should care equally about the improper behaviour of supporters too?
  2. Just above, WAID says I quoted multiple editors who said that they thought the purpose of MEDRS was to tell editors how to give medical advice. If they're embarrassed now that because they said something that they now think is wrong, then that's not really my fault. Precise language matters to clearly express ideas of course. However if confusion caused by language is clarified, but you continue attacking the argument with your original misinterpretation to make it easier to attack (something a politician might do), then that is dishonest. WAID has certainly been informed of the intended meanings at this point, by at least threefour editors, including myself (above). I don't think that original definition made sense anyway, unless you believe > 20 long-time experienced editors (quoted) are under the impression that the English Wikipedia has a place for readers to mention their symptoms and have Wikipedians diagnose and treat them (WP:Medical desk?)

  ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I have seen editors claiming that they magically know that other people meant something different from what they wrote, but I haven't seen anyone clarifying their own comments.

  All of this is a side show (or perhaps a premature re-litigation of a still-unclosed RFC?): @Firejuggler86 has accused me repeatedly of trying to require medical sources for non-medical information. These accusations are false. Firejuggler persisted in making these false claims after being told directly that it was wrong and to stop it. I need Firejuggler to stop posting false accusations about me. That really doesn't seem like a complicated situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  I thought we already established that the editor was not making any comments about you individually, which is quite apparent if one reads the full diffs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Making false accusations about "your group" is still making false accusations about "you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Making repeated unsupported false claims of wiki-misbehavior of a Wikipedia editor is particularly stressful and abusive against an editor who strives to and does do things properly and garners respect for doing that. This is abuse of an editor and must be stopped. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

User:RajasthanBot

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

I just came across this account checking on the requests made at WP:RFUD. The bot message on the user page says This user account is a bot that uses AutoWikiBrowser, operated by RajasthanBot (talk). A bot operated by a bot? They appear to be making minor edits, but there's also at least one page creation. Also the account is not listed as approved for using AWB and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RajasthanBot does not exist. I'm going to block the account for impersonating a bot. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a confirmed sock of DM Shankar Patel, which is what I was expecting. I still don't quite understand where the whole "bot" thing comes into play, but, in my opinion, it's not worth spending a lot of time thinking about why socks do the things that they do. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, all we can do is react. Thanks for checking into this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User TrangaBellam repeatedly editing my comments without my permission

Despite notifying them of WP:TPO and restoring my original comment[395][396], TrangaBellam has once again edited my own comment without my permission,[397] and again while posting this incident.[398] Viewsridge (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fortnight-old editor who is extremely well-versed in Wiki policies (and wiki-syntax) since the very first edit. He has been adding hoaxes to the article (by citing sources which don't support his claims), overriding relevant RfCs happening at other talk-pages, and trying to be as disruptive as possible. This disruption also includes giving out-of-place replies to me in a different subsection, where it makes no sense. WP:IAR is applicable. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Viewsridge, read further down on TPO, specifically WP:TPO#Non-compliance. TB did the right thing in moving your comment to a more appropriate place rather than out-of-place on the bottom of the page responding to something that has nothing to do with that thread. It is completely allowed to keep conversations organized, and there was no malicious editing that I see; the context remains as you intended. Nate • (chatter) 20:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Continuous disruptive editing from ip

The ip User:103.100.80.26 has been continuously been making unconstructive and disruptive edits to Shimpi. They have added unsourced content [399] [400] [401] [402] [403] [404] [405] [406], engaged in personal attacks [407] [408], and have removed sourced content [409] [410] [411] [412]. Their edits have almost always been reverted by editors [413], and they have received many warnings on their talk page [414]. The page Shimpi is dually protected by sanctions on pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanista, along with sanctions on South Asian caste groups. Administrative action must be made in order to prevent further damaging and disruptive edits the ip may make to the page. Chariotrider555 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). Alternating with a couple of IPv6s for variety; I'd suggest semi-protection. (They're very persistent - I deleted this vanity post by '26 on 5 February 2021, and my DABfixing colleague Lennart97 deleted it again on 13 February.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It's also good to note that this one contains a WP:LEGALTHREAT. Lennart97 (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I've semi protected the article for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Səlmanöğlu

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

• Added an entirely unsourced section to the Language shift article: "In Iran, during the last hundred years, many measures have been taken to Persianize non-Persian speaking people with a lot of propaganda and ridiculing of non-Persian speakers, while 50% of Iranian people are non-Persian speakers." No edit summary, source or explanation.[415]
• Removed "Persia" from the Afsharid dynasty article ("Delete a word that is not necessary to say and It is against the national interests of the iran")[416]
• Added numerous historical Iranian kings to the List of Azerbaijanis article. No edit summary, source or explanation.[417]
• Changed "Persian" into "turkish" on the Ismail I article, accompanied by a non-WP:RS link.[418]
• Removed "Persian" from the Mohammad Reza Golzar article, only keeping "Azeri" (which he later turned into "Azerbaijani"). No edit summary or explanation.[419][420]
• Removed a link to "Azerbaijan (Iran)" from the Tabriz Khanate article. No edit summary or explanation.[421]
• Has been given numerous warnings[422]-[423]-[424]

Looking at the compelling evidence, it is safe to say that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban. Səlmanöğlu should no longer be able to touch pages related to Iran. Jerm (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello.

• About deleting name of persia from Afsharid dynasty article is that today the official name of the country is IRAN nothing else, writing other names instead of official name of the country which is IRAN is kind of misleading the readers.
• About article of Ismail I I must say word of Khatay'i is a Turkish word and I also added the sources that word have nothing to do with persian language. If it written like (خطا) it will be Arabic and if we write like (ختائی) which is the write form it will be Azerbaijani which is name of a place and according to the source which I added it is Turkish word you can study these sources.[425],[426],[427],[428] and now again you persianize the article without any sources.[429]
• About adding the king's you can go and read their personal articles in wiki you can see they where born in Azerbaijan of Iran and also ethnically they are Irainian Azerbaijani and also they had sources.
• And also Mohammad Reza Golzar is not persian he is an absolute Azerbaijani and I added a source and as you can see in this video in (1:50) he say proudly I am absolute Azeri he don't say I'm perso-azeri did he say? And also in this video in (00:04) he said I'm proudly Turk(please watch and listen them carefully) and also Azerbaijani or Azerbaijani-Turk or azeri are same.[430]

your act's are really shameful according to your edit history and your act's we can say you are anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Iranian and you just want to persianize every thing.Səlmanöğlu (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Səlmanöğlu:

• writing other names instead of official name of the country which is IRAN is kind of misleading the readers: Not mentioning this name is anachronistic. The Afsharid dynasty existed from 1736 to 1796, while the name Iran was adopted much later in 1935.
• The source you used [431] appears to be a Wiktionary clone, which is not a reliable source, and isn't about Ismail I. خطائی seems to mean different things in different languages; could an uninvolved editor give a comment?
• Quoth LouisAragon regarding your entry on Ismail I: The given "sources", many of which are non-WP:RS, don't state that Ismail I was an "Azerbaijani". [[432]
• You are correct that Golzar is of Azerbaijani descent, but he is of Iranian nationality, so we may call him an Iranian Azerbaijani.

Given their problems with using RS, I support the proposed topic ban from Iran-related topics. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

About meaning of KHATA first lets go and check the correct spelling shape that is (خطا) or (ختا). It is better to go to Ismail I own poems.

ظلمتِ زولفونده کؤنلو بو «ختايي» خسته‌نين////خضره بَنْزَر کيم، گؤرونمز چشمهٔ حيوان اوْنا

or in another poem:

بو «ختايي» نين مقامى آستانيندير مدام////چون سنى شاهِ کَرم اؤزومنى قنبر گؤرموشم

Now lets go and check what is the meaning of Khataʾi«ختایی». we can go and check persian dictionaries.

1. Dehkhoda Dictionary : Relate to KHATA. From the people of KHATA

meaning of Khata: It is the name of a province of the Turks.

2. Amid dictionary : From the people of KATA.

meaning of Khata: A land in ancient East Turkestan

3. Moin Encyclopedic Dictionary :From the people of KATA.

• As you can see ختا is the name of city or land in ancient East Turkestan and ختایی means a person from there ex. England and English. any ambiguous point?Salman.oglu (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• Səlmanöğlu, what you're doing is well outside prevailing practice. As such, you can't force your interpretation across multiple pages. You need to work on gaining the consensus to do so through discussion. But not here, this is not the place for that. El_C 09:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• But it is absolutely unfair and unlawful to ban my account because:
• As you can see here[433] on 09:18, 11 July 2021 the user LouisAragon said that: If you reinstate this self-interpreted unsourced content again, you will be reported to ANI. and then after that did I restate unsourced content again ?? Absolutely NO. [434]
• About this[435] which is written by LouisAragon on 18:17, 9 July 2021, as you can see here[436] in my history up to that time I did not have any edit relating to the Armenia or those kind of things and why he told me god know!
• About this[437] edit I must say it was just and just nominal similarity of two article nothing more that then I fixed it and finish and does not have nothing to do with this topic.
• As you can see what ever I edited have so many authentic sources and we can just speak and debate about the articles and the sources why you want to return your unsourced text which you can see here[438], It is meaningless to ban someone account without any warning with out any violating rules.

I didn't have any wrong act and I didn't violate Wikipedia rules, I always respect them. I didn't receive any warning before and again repeat that it is absolutely unfair and unlawful to ban my account because I didn't violate Wikipedia rules.Salman.oglu (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Salman.oglu, this isn't a legal matter, so please do not (repeatedly) use the word "unlawful." That is inappropriate. In any case, the warning has now been issued (by me above), so please heed it going forward. El_C 02:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Liverpoolpics et al: Bizarre editing pattern

I propose that Liverpoolpics be banned or at least have their editing severely restricted.

[[So on my watchlist today I found that Frombowen (talk · contribs), almost definitely a sockpuppet of Liverpoolpics (see below), had added a photo request to the talk page of Mary Brown Austin, who died in 1824, before the commercialisation of photography. I thought that was particularly bizarre, so I checked out their contributions, almost all of which were similar additions of photo request templates to seemingly random articles and basic (and often barely necessary) WikiProject tagging. Since they had made only a few hundred edits, none of which were in the main namespace, and been unresponsive to the message on their talk page by Fram, I indef-blocked them for disruptive editing and mass-rollbacked their edits.

On checking their contributions more closely, I found a particularly egregious photo request added to Talk:Hacienda HealthCare sexual abuse case ... far be it for me to judge, bubt what exactly would one want a photo of for that article? Fram removed the photo request but it was readded by Liverpoolpics (talk · contribs), who also spends much of their time adding photo requests in a remarkably similar manner, but has made over ... 61,000 edits! At this point it's worth noting that the documentation at {{Photo requested}} says: "It is not a general-purpose "no image present" indicator. Editors placing this template on a talk page should provide information about what photographs are wanted."

But Liverpoolpics is problematic in many other ways, most notably with their insistance on using the articles for creation process to create new articles and often having them rejected, as can be seen by their talk page and many archives (which I've just added links to), which have hundreds upon hundreds of such notices. An example of their repeatedly rejected work is Draft:Ølsfjorden. After at least four years of trying to write articles, shouldn't an editor have the competence to do it correctly by now?

Their early edits are particularly unusual for a new editor, adding images and removing photo requests from talk pages, which makes me wonder if they previously had another identity here. For their years of tying up the AFC backlog and their bizarre way of going about making photo requests, I think they should be indef-banned or have their editing severely curtailed. The only reason I haven't done it myself is that the situation just seems completely bonkers to me and I'd like to perhaps find out more about what on earth is going on here. I know it's a different site and all, but also see their Commons block log. Graham87 19:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've notified the AFC project. Graham87 19:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment). Based on what I can find, I'd have serious difficulty in getting Ølsfjorden (no) through WP:GEOLAND, even though it clearly exists. It doesn't look like one of Slartibartfast's more distinguished efforts. Narky Blert (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(Full disclosure - I came here from the notice on the AfC talk page). I've come across Liverpoolpics many times at AfC and find their editing pattern baffling. The MO consists of submitting articles that have been translated without attribution from another Wikipedia (presumably machine translated), and which are often unsourced or supported by one or two references of dubious quality. The draft inevitably gets declined for being poorly sourced, at which point they add one more source which is usually unreliable and/or doesn't support any of the statements in the article, and resubmit. Repeat until someone finally gets annoyed enough to either reject the draft, or begrudgingly accept it, as some of the topics are probably notable but the drafts fail to show that. For an example of this pattern, see [439][440][441][442][443][444], or really any other of their AfC submissions. Several users have noted that this behaviour is not productive [445][446][447], but they continue to do exactly the same thing.

I have wondered whether there is some sort of undisclosed automated editing going on here, as the behaviour is very repetitive and you'd expect a normal editor to change their approach after years of their drafts getting declined. This could also explain the indiscriminate photo requests and problematic mass uploading on Commons. I don't know whether this is actually the case, or whether Frombowen is their sockpuppet or just someone else with the same strange preoccupation with the photo request template, but regardless I share the OP's serious concerns about their editing. Spicy (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Just wow! Also, if you believe this message on User talk:Frombowen], I have a bridge in Brooklyn, Hants County, Nova Scotia to sell you. Graham87 07:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a real problem here. In April 2018, they received a detailed explanation of why they needed to attribute the original version of Wikipedia articles they translated: User talk:Liverpoolpics/Archive 1#Translating from other Wikipedias. Their creation log shows that after that, they started including an attribution on the talk pages of their newly created articles, but at some point, they stopped attributing translations, as seen in User talk:Liverpoolpics/Archive 15#Important advice from December 2020 and User_talk:Liverpoolpics#Translations and drafts with poor sourcing from a couple of weeks ago (also linked by Spicy above). In the latter thread, where they were asked to go back and add attributions to their created drafts and articles, they acknowledge the issue but they have not done anything about it. For some reason, the Norwegian Bokmål (no.wiki) Wikipedia seems to be one of their preferred origin Wikipedia versions (also for articles about topics with no connection to Norway), but it is eminently clear that they don't understand Bokmål, and that they don't even try to read the sources they add. As pointed out above, their treatment of sources appears to be to look for anything that mentions the subject they are writing about, and then add that as a source at some random place in the text. But there are other issues as well: have a look at the recently-declined Draft:Åse Svenheim Drivenes where the female pronoun hennes, "her", in the original was translated into "his" ("His directorial debut", "His second documentary film") although none of the sources indicates that Drivenes uses male pronouns. I understand that it might not be obvious to a person who does not speak any Scandinavian language that "Åse" is a female name, but this source, which Liverpoolpics added to the draft after the most recent decline, is in English!

It has to be very frustrating to receive all those decline notices and other feedback criticising their edits, but it is simply baffling that they don't change anything, or ask what the problem is if they don't understand the feedback. I admit I am a bit frustrated myself since I've put a bit of time and effort into explaining these things in the last month or so, and I imagine that people who have been interacting with Liverpoolpics for a longer time must be much more frustrated than I am.

While many of the drafts Liverpoolpics creates are about notable topics, they are making it more difficult for Wikipedia to cover those topics. I would support some editing sanction, either in the form of a ban on creating and re-submitting drafts in this careless way, or as an outright block. --bonadea contributions talk 08:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd like for another CU (Ponyo? NinjaRobotPirate? TonyBallioni?) to have a look at the overlap between Frombown and Liverpoolpics. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Have they claimed anywhere not to be the same person? CU-wise it's fairly  Likely they are. Either that or they know each other and are working in conjunction.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I can't find a single statement that they've made about each others' accounts. I forgot to mention it last night, but I also started a discussion about this at Commons, for whatever it's worth. Graham87 16:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Having received no serious objections, I'm about to indefblock this user. This edit will serve as a permalink for the block notice. Graham87 02:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Change block settings

Can someone deny 5.149.15.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) talk page access please? DuncanHill (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill:  Done - TheresNoTime ^😺 09:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we both got there at the same time. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So efficient we did it twice eh HighInBC - TheresNoTime ^😺 09:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Great minds something something... HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @TheresNoTime: and @HighInBC: DuncanHill (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Heads up: Caliph of Islam again

Previous thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#Users excessively posting about Caliphs of Islam at help desk

First hints that this might be cropping up again. See edits by Muhammad Hashir 786 (talk · contribs · logs) (and also 39.44.38.139) to an ancient AfD & my talk. (Not watchlisting ANI) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) We're We've also been seeing some slight activity at the help desk in the past few days. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The semi-protection of Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate has stopped some of the disruption, although it may have simply transferred it elsewhere. What I'd like to know is why they are asking Google who the current caliph of Islam is to start with... FDW777 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

And I'd like to know why some editors who usually seem quite level headed think that it's possible that Wikipedia is to blame for what Google displays, even if (as in this case) it's clear that Wikipedia has things right. I've seen several instances of this. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

They are Googling and coming here because they believe that they are investigating and rectifying an insult against Islam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could transclude WP:CALIPH into page editnotices? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That, and also create a FAQ in the affected articles' talk pages as well. The latter's been done at Talk:Adam's Bridge, which has seen its fair share of brigading. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ won't help, speaking from experience at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput. Most of the people coming here and complaining do not read FAQs, previous threads, or anything that goes against what they know to be right: that Wikipedia and Google are joined at the hip. The consequence is that WE get the complaints because they don't care enough to realise or admit that complaints to us are a waste of time and that we're on their side this time, if only because Google is very much an outlier here with respect to their search results compared to Bing, DDG, Yahoo, etc. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I remember that the last time this happened, some big-brain managed to copyedit the lead of the guy's article so that Google's idiotic scraper would stop claiming that Wikipedia said he was the Caliph of Islam. Would it be possible to do this again? Obviously, this isn't a permanent solution -- the permanent solution would likely involve a Google manager being introduced to a wet trout -- but it would help to ameliorate the immediate issue. jp×g 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because if they're still complaining about this then as far as the Google search goes the calls are coming from the visitors inside the house. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Filter 1106

• 1106 (hist · log)

Would it be possible to possibly expand the use of the edit filter set up back in December to also catch this sort of thing on the Help Desk or any other pages where this is a constant issue, or would that result in too many false-positives or be technically impossible/inviable? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 12:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz and GeneralNotability: maintain that filter I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's currently disabled, which is why it's not stopping anything. I have re-enabled in log-only mode; no objection to anyone setting it to disallow, but I don't have the bandwidth right now to monitor it for false positives. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

False positives were previously becoming an issue, and I'd suggest before enabling disallow that it will need a rethink.. perhaps make it page-specific for disallows at a minimum, but probably a wider rethink. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:Help desk seems to be the main page where the drive-bys are happening; I expect this is because the relevant article talk pages are semi-protected? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The pages hit so far (since the filter was re-enabled) do not include the Help Desk, but do include Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, Talk:Mirza Tahir Ahmad, User talk:124.109.47.86, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (twice). It's a similar distribution to the previous event. I think we can probably split off the WP namespace, but may have to tolerate a bit more in talk namespaces, or rely on protection or something. I sometimes work slowly, so in the meantime I've re-enabled and made public 1108 (hist · log), which does something similar, for monitoring purposes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Narrowing the filter's focus to WP space only makes sense, since that's generally where I'm seeing a fair amount of drive-by disruption. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Dabdibdub1000 adding unsourced or made-up content

• Dabdibdub1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nearly all of this user's edits consist of adding unsourced info (example), changing statistics "in my opinion" (example) or adding made-up sources that link to 404 pages (example). This user has been warned many times, although those warnings seem to have all been ignored. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what's listed above, the user never responds to warnings on their Talk page. The one time they "talked" was to yell at Cluebot Commons. I've indefinitely blocked the user for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting question: Is it possible to personally attack a bot? I mean, bots aren't persons. Or are they? Inquiring minds want to know! EEng 14:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Pah! You, EEng, consider yourself an "inquiring mind"?! nagualdesign 17:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I was speaking of my esteemed fellow editors. I don't need to inquire because I already know everything. EEng 17:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point. nagualdesign 18:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ninenine99 back again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2603:8000:B03:5D32:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Ninenine99 was indefinitely blocked earlier this year and has been periodically returning to disrupt with a new IP range each time. This one has been active for a couple months now with identical areas of interest (automobiles and professional wrestling) and identical behavior (changing specifications, adding OR, and the fixation on vehicle size classification). --Sable232 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. Since he was screwing around with templates I'll let someone more familiar with the subject determine what needs to be reverted, don't want to use mass rollback and accidentally blow up a bunch of pages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And, almost like clockwork, back yet again with a new IPv6: 2603:8000:B01:8AD4:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

--Sable232 (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock expiration, needs renewal: Brettandelle case

• 51.9.50.128/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brettandelle/Archive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#London IPs targeting me with reversions
• 143.159.171.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Our dear friend Special:Contributions/51.9.50.128/25 was blocked for a month but it wore off. Disruption has resumed. Can we cut them a nice new slice of rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reblocked Special:Contributions/51.9.50.128/25 for another three months. The /24 range you listed is still under a block that will expire later this month in August. Report again if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Managua hoax music stats

• 186.77.197.125 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.77.197.189 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.77.196.205 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 186.77.196.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Someone in Nicaragua has been adding hoax material to music articles for some time now, often completely made-up names of artists and songs filled with imagined chart stats and sales certifications. For instance, this edit adds information about the song "Based on Me" by Hope, which doesn't exist. If they are not adding new hoaxes, they are changing valid chart stats to hoax names and stats.[448][449]

Previous instances of this kind of behavior have come from 186.77.197.189 and 186.77.196.205 in February 2021. The latter instance uses the correct artist and song name but fabricates chart stats, for instance saying the song peaked at number 14 in the UK, despite the actual un-cited UK source not listing the song.[450]

Another case from last November involves a fake award listed.

Not one bit of communication has come from this person despite multiple warnings. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the 186.77.196.0/22 IP range for one week. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User Tom.Reding operating an unapproved WP:MEATBOT to perform useless tasks.

Tom.Reding has been operating a MEATBOT from his account to add the template Authority Control, a template specifically designed to direct readers to off-wiki resources, to redirect pages in a singular display of complete uselessness. Redirects are not pages for readers, you will only see the redirect page if you use the Wiki search and select the redirect directly, rather than the more prominent link to the article its redirected to. In all situations (google etc will provide the article target first and so on) a reader will not know the redirect page even exists unless they are an experienced wikipedian.

BAG have confirmed there is no approval for a mass addition of a template to redirects and that there is nothing they will do. Tom.Reding has confirmed they will not stop this and are saying that the AC template page gives them the authority to make hundreds of useless automated edits. I manually reverted approx 50/60, and of those the entirety of the template consisted of a link to Musicbrainz, a site which is neither a reliable source nor should be used as an external link per WP:ELNEVER.

There are multiple problems here. Firstly Tom.Reding is editing in a bot-like manner despite no clear consensus for the task. A task they know is controversial because they have previously been involved in a conversation about this exact issue and link. Redirects are pages specifically designed not to be seen. AC is a template specifically designed to be seen on articles to direct people elsewhere. Adding a template that contains external links we should not be linking to, to pages that we dont want readers to see, is possibly one of the most useless examples of automated editing in recent history.

Secondly BAG seem to be under the impression that no approval is required by them for bot-like editing on editor accounts, despite the very first line of BOTPOL saying the policy applies to all automated editing, and MEATBOT specifically addressing editors rather than bots.

Thirdly, I challenged by reverting approx 50 of god knows how many edits Tom.Reding made, these were subsequently reverted. One of the reasons for BOTPOL is to make sure that mass-edits have community approval before they are made, precisely because it is difficult to revert an editor using automated editing. Its editing behaviour that edit-wars in a fait accompli and is a massive pain to deal with after the fact. If BAG are under the impression that bot-like editing doesnt require bot-approval because its from an editor account, there is little a normal editor who doesnt use automation can do to counter this brute forcing of an editors actions. This precise "I'm going to make my automated edits regardless of the lack of consensus to do so" is exactly the behaviour that Betacommand and Magliotis were sanctioned and ultimately banned for. And it took absolutely fucking years of disruption to deal with them.

I am requesting that 1. BAG are informed by the community that per the wording of the policy, yes they are required to approve all mass-edit tasks regardless of which account makes them. 2. Tom.Reding is banned from making automated edits without an approved BAG submission and clear community consensus (not pointing at a template talkpage, an actual discussion) they should be made. This is not their first rodeo here, much like Mag and Betacommand before them. 3. Someone mass-revert Tom.Redings recent AC template additions. I do not use automated tools, but in the absence of any action I will make a point of installing or writing my own to counter this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said there, I'm of the opinion that this is effectively an unapproved bot. It's indiscriminate mass-addition of templates to articles, which, per the bot policy, does require BAG approval. I think BAG would deal with an approval request that came its way, but it doesn't deal with enforcement of unapproved bots on human accounts, which is an administrative issue, so I don't know what you're getting at with #1.

For #3: This issue stems way beyond just redirects. The only community consensus and bot approval was that it may be added to biographical articles (RFC, BRFA). That's ~1 million articles. Yet the template has 2 million transclusions, and Tom has been adding it to non-biographical articles for quite some time. To the best of my knowledge, this was done without any bot approval. Those edits cannot be reversed without making 1 million more edits. In my eyes this is a fait accompli. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Specifically to address that when a BRFA comes in for mass edits run from an editor account rather than a bot account, a member of BAG doesnt say 'You dont need BRFA for this because its not a bot'. I also dont accept that just because of the sheer amount of them they cannot be reverted. Either they can be reverted by automation, preferably by the person who made them, or by someone else who has the requisite ability to do so. I have the technical skill, but am largely uninterested in writing scripts. But without a satisfactory conclusion I will make the effort to write one that will go through Tom.Redings contribution history and automatically revert the addition of that template to anywhere other than a biography article. It cant very well be argued this isnt allowed when the original edit spree is waved off with fait accompli. Its only a fait accompli if no one makes an effort. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW this is technically indistinguishable from a bot. That's 12 edits per minute of very routine stuff, done for years (?). His editing session of this task yesterday lasted hours. I'd be genuinely surprised if Tom.Reding has the patience to sit at his desk for hours each day and just keep clicking "Save" 12 times per minute in AWB, and think it's more likely a modified copy of AWB is being used that allows for fully automated use without a bot flag, or some kind of autoclicker. Regardless, per WP:MEATBOT it's irrelevant whether this is actually a bot or not. Those edits are indistinguishable from bot edits to me, and their very nature is one that should require prior approval and community consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is even the point of adding authority control templates to redirects??? I agree with procrastinating reader that this is practically equivalent to an unapproved bot.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

After reading up a little more on the subject, I realize that the templates could be useful on certain redirects, but that still does not excuse running an unapproved bot.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Without getting into the bot aspect, my issue with these edits is they don't explain why they're helpful to someone like me who has no idea what they accomplish for humans. Tom Reding always explains it when I ask, which I appreciate, but based on the number of similar questions I think the edit summaries need to link to an actual explanation of what these authority control edits do. I think that's an AWB issue rather than an authority control one, however. Star Mississippi 13:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Surely it's a User:Tom.Reding issue rather than either an AWB or authority control one? Editors are responsible for the edits they make, whether using automated tools or not. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger it had been explained to be elsewhere that the limited info was a function of edit summary limits with AWB. I may be wrong on that though, but that's why I was thinking it was an AWB issue. Star Mississippi 17:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As I've described on my talkpage @ User talk:Tom.Reding#Authority control on redirects, WP:MEATBOT doesn't apply here, and is simply being referenced by someone who doesn't like it grasping at straws.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: allow me to disabuse you of the misapprehension that this is just one editor who doesn't like it (or as you said on your talk page, who is screaming at windmills). WP:MEATBOT applies, and you need to work with on this, or you'll end up like Rich Farmborough and the other mass-editors of the past. You are past the point where you can claim you are doing nothing wrong. Levivich 16:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Levivich is right, concerns about this are not limited to just one editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well I guess I'll stop then.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Regarding your new task: Firstly, does this task have BAG approval? Secondly, why is it being added to articles where it produces no visual output? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Adding taxonbars to articles about taxa is a highly desirable activity (I've spent quite a bit of time in the past doing it myself, particularly for spiders). It's supported by every WikiProject concerned with organisms, so far as I know, as it provides links to entries in taxonomic databases. The taxonbar template won't produce any visible output so long as there are no links to taxonomic databases in the Wikidata item, but these are almost certain to be added in future, which will cause the taxonbar will become visible. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The line between "botlike editing" and "humanlike AWB/semi-automated editing" is always slippery, and could really use some more explicit guidance in our PAG. There are semi-automated editing sprees that are sloppy, making lots of mistakes and/or not checking each edit before making it; there are semi-automated editing sprees that make invalid/unhelpful edits (which seems to be an assumption going into this thread that has since been challenged by the documentation of authority control); and then there are semi-automated edits that are helpful, but just numerous. It's this latter category -- when someone is making changes competently, carefully, and helpfully, but at a high rate, that our rules are unclear. It looks like the number of edits Tom made to add authority control to redirects numbers in the thousands (based on my clicking "older 300" repeatedly and still not having reached the end). Would that be allowed if it were to, say, fix a common spelling error, fix MOS errors, etc.? If so, I don't think we have a problem here (more likely this is about differences in perceptions of Wikidata-related edits' value). But if so, we need clearer guidance about what is/isn't allowed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

One implicit criteria for a MEATBOT is that it actually needs to be reasonably possible for it to be a bot. It's difficult for a bot to fix common spelling errors with accuracy (see WP:CONTEXTBOT). If someone is fixing errors at a high rate and doing it competently, then either a) they've developed a very good algorithm, or far more likely b) they're doing it semi-automated, not automated. Plus, everyone agrees that actual spelling errors should not be in articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Incivility between Autodidact1 and The Rambling Man

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• User talk:Autodidact1#MOS=Manual_of_shitty_typography
• Autodidact1 (talk · contribs)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

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

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

That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "1⁄2" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+2⁄3" to just "2/3" and "210+2⁄3" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Wikipedia:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I believe I displayed uncharacteristic restraint in that particulat interaction [451], but had I reviewed his contribution history he'd certainly have received a more severe correction. Nothing inspires me like pseudosophisticated stylistic pretension. EEng 02:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.

Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sayeth Ritchie333:

One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime.

EEng 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

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

@Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug that deeply into the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Copy-editing as a battleground

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

According to Autodidact1:

• Using "via" instead of "using" is "vulgar": "Replaced the vulgar preposition 'via [sic]' with a descriptive verb, 'using'."
• Using "...he singled off Welch" instead of "...he singled against Welch" is "vulgar": "Replaced vulgar 'off [sic]' with appropriate, 'against'.
• "as well as" are vulgar words in Fargo, North Dakota: "In two paragraphs, replaced three vulgar words, 'as well as [sic]' with the correct one."
• They are an ornithological expert, and their knowledge is vital to the accuracy of I, Tonya: "That's not a 'parakeet [sic]'. Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure." and "An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.", as well as this elaborate rationale for their edits.

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

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

Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me -- well, ain't that a fantastic line. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

He certainly knows a lot about vulgarity. EEng 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass (good personal attack though!). I was repeatedly asking the user to show some level competence by being able to recognise their own error-strewn contributions. I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass

Spare me. Hell, spare all of us the act. How many times did Autodidact1 ask you an extremely simple question that you point-blank refused to answer? Five times? Six times?

I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it

It's kind of hard to say that you're trying to teach someone something when you refuse to tell them what it is that they're supposedly doing wrong. You were trying to provoke him, and, frankly, you two deserve each other.

(good personal attack though!)

Descriptive language. Describing your behavior. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. Sure, but I couldn't care less. And if an editor who refuses to acknowledge MOS (which I told them about) and can't find their own errors, that's a lack of competence. Frankly, this, like that user's edits, is a gross waste of my time. As usual this place is full of people who think they're making a difference but who really aren't. Get to a conclusion and people can get on with their lives. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, there's no problem-in-the-ANI sense with your conduct here -- I would call it suboptimal, certainly, but I don't think it demands any sanctions. I think it's more just the general frustration many writers feel when people come around and tinker with articles for the worse, and that any good admin should be able to recognize it (and in turn that this is why so many people demand high-level content creation from admin candidates). I think Autodidact1's conduct is the important one here, and that there seems to be a sustained pattern of conduct problems stemming from copyediting. Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well only one of the two people who were dragged here was detrimentally editing Wikipedia, causing damage and disruption to our content and readers, and that individual has carried on doing it during this ANI. Meanwhile, some users feel obliged to take the chance to level personal attacks at me: instead of at the disruptive user's talk page where he personally attacked me half a dozen times, do it here instead! Anyway, as I said, unless someone wants to actually do something about the ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, this thread is now a proper dramaboardz timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. So you think an accurate description of you is a personal attack. huh? Sounds like you could use a little self-perspective. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a personal attack. Obviously. Bye now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That's a strange new meaning of "obviously" I was previously unaware of. Your eccentric definition might explain your blathering on about "obvious" errors on User talk:Autodidact1. --Calton | Talk 10:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you still here? Deary me. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• Now look, let's not get into it here. Everyone knows that TRM is one of the biggest ass-ets we have around here, and does a lot of good work. And speaking as one ass-et to another, TRM, you could have handled the situation better. But the only actual problem right now is that Mr. Autod is going around pissing on everything, hardly if ever improving things and frequently screwing them up. EEng 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. I've tussled with TRM before but he was only mildly snarky this time, with provocation. The only behavior in need of action here is Autodidact1's. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  No comment from him here yet, but... Vaticidalprophet 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• Support as proposer. Since Autodidact1 seems to just be ignoring this, and since they seem to lack competence in doing so, I think we need to prohibit them from making edits against the MOS. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Alt wording: Autodidact1 (talk · contribs) is banned from making stylistic or grammatical, or WP:ENGVAR changes to any article, broadly construed. This wording is similar to that TBAN imposed on Anthony22 (talk · contribs), to avoid haivng to judge if the edit violated MOS. They clearly have a habit of labeling styles as "vulgar" or otherwise improper, and some edits, such as Special:Diff/1017446054 at Brent Strom about MOS:FRAC, inadvertently changed factual information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Rambling Man accused me of making errors to an article that I edited without any evidence or without a link to the supposed errors. He reverted my changes because they violated the MOS. He persisted in accusing me of making errors when I only changed the converted fractions on typographical grounds. He has now assembled a posse of editors who want to ban me entirely. I've made over 5,000 edits and only a handful have been reverted. Almost all of my edits are usage corrections or improvements to prose, such as rewriting sentences to remove clichés. Rambling Man is guilty of character assassination; he's the editor who should be sanctioned. My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If, at this late date, you still think your edits don't change facts or introduce errors[sic], then there may be a WP:CIR block in your very near future.[sic] I suggest you move quickly to show that you recognize where you messed up article facts.[sic] (Hint: It's explained in this thread.[sic]) EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [sic].

• The problem with "may not make edits against the MOS" is that no one on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) has absorbed all of MOS -- it's beyond human capability, so there would need to be a warning issued for each new kind of transgression. I think Mr. Pizza's idea is better, though I fear it may be overbroad. A third formulation to consider might be Autodidact1 needs to cut out the half-baked pedantry. EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Valid point. Maybe just a warning for disruptive editing, along with an explanation that introducing error in an attempt to "fix" what isn't broken is disruptive. At this point I think we could give an only warning, as Autodidact1 seems to be rejecting the notion that this introduced error. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time on this fail to note that in the very diff provided above, my summary was "actually changing the meaning of the sentences". If that wasn't clear enough for the user making the repeated errors to find, I call WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time...

  And what makes you think anyone missed it? What makes you think that one bit was sufficient? Also, how, exactly, is it "ironic"? Is it like rain on your wedding day? --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm bored of this thread and the pointless point-scoring here. Have fun, I'm going to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to bold an oppose, but there is so much to the MOS (and frankly, some of it is unhelpful or even arguably wrong) that I'd be happier simply blocking them for CIR if they continue to make factual errors without any recognition that they are doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Introducing factual errors while making stylistic changes is harmful, blockworthy incompetence, so much so that I'm even going to pass up this opportunity to give TRM a hard time–a difficult but justified sacrifice. Levivich 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with a blanket ban on MOS edits is that it's treating a symptom: yes, it'll stop the half-baked pedantry in that particular area, but it's no the only space where Autodidact1 exercises their unsourced certainty. Take their edit-warring at I, Tonya

• 07:14, June 22, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ →‎Critical response: That's not a "parakeet [sic]". Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure.
• 20:46, June 23, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.

Their response on my User Talk page It's a conure of some type, and if you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conure you would agree with me, assuming, of course, that you actually saw "I, Tonya", which I doubt...".

However, the very lede of Conure includes The term "conure" is used primarily in bird keeping, though it has appeared in some scientific journals. The American Ornithologists' Union uses the generic term parakeet for all species elsewhere called conure, though Joseph Forshaw, a prominent Australian ornithologist, uses conure.

So this is someone who not only practices unsourced, self-assured pedantry, it's self-assured pedantry that that's contradicted by the source that they claims supports them. That's a WP:CIR issue at work. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like Autodidact1's got a case of WP:ANIFLU. EEng 17:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Well that's easy when you're not being asked to explain anything nor being told that there's a definitive approach to your edits going forward. This case will be toothless and nothing changes right now. What's the proposal? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, then... Autodidact1, do you recognize that many of your edits created problems and introduced errors? EEng 21:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  The user continues to edit without responding here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• I commented at User talk:Autodidact1#Warning: collaboration is required (diff) and will review any claims of further problems. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• I thought the username was familiar when I first saw this thread - it's come back to me. I actually referenced my only interaction with Autodidact1 in my answer to Question 3 of my RfA (Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress?) The disagreement again centred on their dislike of the word 'via', and they used unnecessarily critical edit summaries to describe the use of the word here ("pretentious") and here ("lazy" and "stupid"). They did not respond to my talk page post here, in which I pointed out that the dictionaries and style guides that I turned to had nothing negative to say about the use of the word, and that it seemed entirely natural to me. I'm disappointed to see that they have continued to remove it, and to pour scorn on people who use it, based only on what appears to be a personal dislike of the word. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
• The user just repeated what they wrote here on their own talk page. This shows a clear lack of understanding of the issues at hand and an apparently complete lack of competence. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

  The user is still in denial about the errors they introduced (to whit: My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors), along with their contra-MOS edits. Someone needs to explain explicitly as it's clear that competence is a serious problem here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

• We've already got several retired equerries late of H. M. Stationery Office wandering about the project grumbling about dashes and vulgarities and typographical monstrosities. We don't need another pompous Sir Scoldalot. He's shown himself stubbornly incapable of recognizing his own fallibility so I think an indefinite block is now in order. [sic] EEng 09:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• Via con Dios? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
• So the same person who berates other editors over word usage issues would have us believe that My edits improve articles, [sic] not change facts or introduce errors is good English? Sorry Autodidact, but if you're going to be a supercilious, self-appointed grammar cop, you're allowed zero mistakes of your own. I'd support an indef for competence reasons. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Well, looks like Autodidact's ANIFLU has turned into ANICOVID. Can we please end this is [sic] an indef until he ackowledges the issues with his edits? EEng 04:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  ackowledges [sic]? Vaticidalprophet 13:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Watch it or I'll sic my dog on you. EEng 15:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps they really are sic [sic]... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  Mebbe. Just skimming this thread made me sic [sic] from the ick. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: indef block

Sometimes the community shows way too much patience in the face of patently obnoxious and disruptive behavior. This is one such case. The above thread (and its diffs) contain ample evidence that Autodidact makes careless mistakes in article space, refuses to follow the MOS, responds to criticism with juvenile insults and whataboutisms, and pulls a vanishing act when faced with the prospect of being held accountable. This is not something that we should tolerate any longer.

• Support as proposer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support (indef block as an ordinary admin action, or community site ban; either way) for long-term disruptive pedantry, even after this thread was opened, with apparently no hope of change. See, e.g., this July 1 message as an example: [452]. We don't have time to follow and check their edits, at some point it just has to end. Levivich 17:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban at this point as a net negative to the encyclopedia, and who wouldn't stop digging when reminded of the First Law of Holes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support either indef or site ban. EEng 05:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef as an ordinary admin action. And certainly support the closure of this long-lasting section at an ordinary admin's earliest convenience. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 09:55, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef - clear net negative; would need a convincing unblock request to be allowed to edit again.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ... for now. They seem now to be discussing things on their talk page. I think there is a chance they are beginning to understand things a bit better now. Their attitude aside, they do seem to make a lot of constructive edits. Paul August ☎ 17:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  They're not discussing anything, just hitting out at others and denying any responsibility for errors introduced. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support ordinary indef that can be lifted from an ordinary appeal to a sympathetic admin. I don't think the level of annoyance here justifies a site ban, and I don't believe the subject here could never be a productive editor. If the block gets lifted and he starts the drive-by pedantry back up, well, we'll be back here soon enough. Vaticidalprophet 06:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

<sound of crickets> EEng 05:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: Autodidact1 last edit was on July 2. Paul August ☎ 12:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's called WP:ANIFLU. It's not unusual. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe CHINAFLU? Or else just good sense! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef ban by community—Autodidact1 should have lived up to their user name by now. In a collaborative project, raising autodidacticism to a principle in editing and in relating to other members of this project is disruptive. Autodidact1 does not seem to take criticism on board easily (a few days after opening this complaint they blanked their talk page). Their participation in this boomerang is not showing understanding of why editors here find their editing problematic. This discussion is a time-sink. (Indefinite is not infinite). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 10:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Indeff. In their last post they seem to have said they'll no longer revert fractions. Ignoring previous "fraction" edits, then on reviewing their contribs I'm seeing about 80% +ve, 15% debateable & only 5% -ve (such as where they miss subtle incorrect changes of meaning they've introduced like here or where the abrasive nature of their edit summary outweighed a trivial improvement.) 80% good edits is better than I'd rate most. While TRM was in the right & their impatience understandable, their approach was non collegial. So it's easily forgivable that Autodidact1's response to the criticism was sub optimal too. The disruption here seems no where near severe enough to justify going straight to an indeff for an occasionally grumpy but useful gnome with no prior blocks. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  You missed the part where there was literally no comprehension, acceptance or regret for introducing errors while editing directly against the MOS while then engaging in countless personal attacks, right? I wonder why. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Unlike the Brent Strom edits where they clearly in the wrong, I dont blame Autodidact for the timewasting MOS contention. MOS is a big document with several subpages. Considering the gulf in experience between the two of you (Auto has < 4k edits) it would have been kinder to point out the specific part you felt they were violating. They did ask several times. I guess you were thinking of MOS:FRAC, but even that doesnt seem especially explicit in mandating {{frac}} useage. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Weird, he deliberately and wilfully violated MOS, knowingly so, and described it as the "manual of shitty typography". To claim some kind of good faith ignorance of what they were doing is patently absurd. And calling someone a lying SOB is find too I suppose. What a weird messed up place this really is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  P.S. In the very first edit about this on his talkpage, the title of the section was MOS:FRAC. Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, MOS:FRAC doesn't seem to explicitly mandate using {{frac}} , though it certainly describes how to apply if editors make the choice to do so. Your claim that Auto was deliberately violating MOS seems false. (though I'll happily apologise if you can supply diff(s) that unambiguously demonstrate the opposite.) Auto repeatedly asked you to specify the MOS error, you just get doubling down on your dubious claim without specifying. Little wonder they eventually started to accuse you of lying. Even when you finally supplied a diff pointing out a specific mistake, the obvious error there was mathematical, not MOS related. Going back to the lying thing, if you wish to appear sincere, I'd suggest not repeatedly wishing an editor well, and then once it becomes clear you have some support on ANI, pivot to arguing for an indeff & badgering editors who dissent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  As you said, it was a clear case of WP:CIR and WP:NPA but yeah, just let it slide. I don't care about what happens to this user, but I do care when people make assertions that are simply bogus or give a perspective which is demonstrably one-sided. That's not badgering, that's simply correcting the record. I made no dubious claims, that's utter claptrap. The user repeatedly re-asserted the same edits containing the same errors, MOS and not MOS-related time after time after I gave warning after warning. But hey, let's just let people wilfully disrupt Wikipedia and make many personal attacks with impunity. Good one. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  At least nine more false assertions in that post. As you wish to let this slide I won't dwell on them. The one point I can agree on is you do seem to care a great deal about accuracy. Passion isn't always a +ve, but in your case it does seem to result in excellent content creation, for which you're much appreciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The disruption doesn't seem bad enough for an indef yet.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indef for now. I'd support a block from article space, which might give this editor a chance to see which of their proposed edits are going to be seen as harmful and why. —valereee (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC) Moving to Support for an ordinary indef that can be lifted by an individual admin because this seems to have become a case of ANIFLU. Autodidact1, you can't just ignore a problem away. If you aren't going to engage here, IMO we need to engage you on your talk during an unblock request. —valereee (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Vaticidalprophet. Seems to be a total time-sink, complete with a case of WP:IDHT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose — Although TRM was indeed correct I’m opposing an indef For reasons predominantly covered by Valereee, and additional input by FeydHuxtable and Paul August. I feel an indef is a bit of stretch. I don’t see anything here a stern logged warning won’t solve. Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Lugnuts. No room for immaturity. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 10:16, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Move to close

Congratulations! Your request for closure has advanced to within one month of the front of the queue!

Please can we see the back of this? There's clearly a split community here, which means the result should default to the status quo. There's nothing practical to be gained by continuing this thread. Warnings, stern, logged, or otherwise are irrelevant, no interaction with the user over the past week or more means this is a waste of community time and energy. Please let's move on. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

As long as I still get full pay for joining your posse. I don't cabal for free you know. Levivich 19:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Just let Rambler treat you at Claridge's. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Filed at closure requests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:12, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this some bizarre joke? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I could close this unless my earlier wise crack makes me involved. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also cracked wise, or I would have closed this by now. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So the answer is: yes, this is a bizarre joke. Can we get on with this please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed this, but no issues if an admin wants to delete my closure and redo it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GiantSnowman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could something please be done about User:GiantSnowman? He has been warned before, and is constantly condescending to other users (such as this edit). Also, this edit is very WP:OWN - "last good version? Just because it complies with how he wants his article to look? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Where was the attempt to discuss any concerns you had with me before running to ANI? Where was the notification to me of this discussion? (luckily I found it on my watchlist).

Regarding the diffs you have posted - the first edit is factually correct a valid comment (you have not complied with BEFORE, have you?), the second edit also valid (especially given another editor later restored the same height template)...nothing to see here as far as I'm concerned. GiantSnowman 17:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How do you know "have not complied with BEFORE" is "factually correct"? Levivich 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well given they nominated two articles for AFD only one minute apart, and made no mention of searching for sources (I have found straight away). I have clarified my wording, however. GiantSnowman 18:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please, post the sources that you have found. Or, better yet, put them in the articles to begin with. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've already found and added 2 further sources. Have you really brought me to ANI, wasting everybody's time, because you're annoyed I'm opposing your attempt to delete an article I started? Pathetic. This is not the place to argue about the notability (or not) of an article, that's what AFD is for. GiantSnowman 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You're kidding right? "Player is called up to international team" is NOT enough to prove notability! This was the only source added since my nomination. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Again - this is all for discussion at AFD, not ANI (and I added another source in between your PROD and AFD, did you miss that? No need to answer.) GiantSnowman 18:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And yet again, condescending! You're only proving my point. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Hypocrisy yet again. YOU did not comply with BEFORE here. The difference is, Simons met GNG, while I cannot find any real sources that prove that Tié does. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

BEFORE applies to nominating articles for deletion, not commenting on them. You are also - and I'll AGF and assume you merely forgot, as opposed to deliberately mis-representing facts - forgetting this later edit. GiantSnowman 18:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, I did look up both players, and have found NO significant coverage. And you are still yet to provide said evidence. I'm not forgetting anything, you changed your mind on your decision when you realised that the player was indeed notable. That doesn't mean you didn't check in the first place to see if he is. This may not be a breach of any "rules", but it's still irresponsible editing. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Then why didn't you state that on your AFD nomination? Why didn't you add the sources I found and added if you did a search and found them as well? But let's get this straight; you have an issue with me changing my view on an article's notability after somebody found and added a detailed source? I would say that is the opposite of irresponsible actually, but what do I know, I've only been editing for 15 years... GiantSnowman 18:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I stated that both players failed GNG. They do. There is no need to cite each and every source in both articles with reasons for why they do not pass GNG. And here you go, twisting my words. I said that you were editing irresponsibly by voting to delete Simons without looking through the article to see there were numerous sources which mean the player passes GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, there is no reason to cite each and every source because none of them are SIGCOV. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not re-hashing an AFD from 14 months ago, but - GNG is subjective, and I was not the only person to think he failed GNG. Not that I need to justify myself to you, but you're making assumptions about what I did and did not do. I always check the article and Google the subject before !voting, actually. GiantSnowman 18:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You did? Then why did you change your vote from delete to keep? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I've already said - "somebody found and added a detailed source". And like I've already said - "I'm not re-hashing an AFD from 14 months ago". Last comment on the matter. GiantSnowman 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So, someone else found and added and added a detailed source? Sounds to me like you didn't Google enough then. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The second edit is correct, the editor reverted unsourced changes and an unexplained removal of the {{convert}} template. —El Millo (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The editor in question retaliated by calling me an "idiot". WP:BOOMERANG? GiantSnowman 18:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This statement is factually correct a valid comment. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Doubling down on referring to another editor as an "idiot"? Probably not your smartest move. WP:NPA. GiantSnowman 18:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a difference between calling someone an idiot and calling them ignorant? Asking for a friend...

Let's all agree that (1) it's counterproductive to accuse nominators in AFDs of failing BEFORE, (2) WP:LGV is standard lingo, (3) everything after that has been editors just losing their cool, and (4) none of this is really ANI-worthy and we should all just move on to something else. Levivich 18:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They called me it in that edit summary and repeated it here; I made a comment somebody had not done BEFORE because they did not show any evidence of having done so, including nominating two AFDS one minute apart. So yes, there's a difference. But nice to know you have a bigger concern with my comment than any of the comments or behaviour of the OP! GiantSnowman 18:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering this is not the first time you've had issues with other editors, perhaps it's time for some self-evaluation. (No disrespect meant, this is genuine concern). Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

And on the first charge, the shoe appears to be on the other foot: personal attack -- Jibal (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing that out - is it acceptable for the OP to say "is there something wrong with you?" to me? @Levivich: would you like to come defend them again? GiantSnowman 18:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jibal: There is absolutely nothing wrong with that edit. It is not a personal attack at all. An editor was condescending to me (again), so I asked if there was an issue? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

All three of those statements are obviously false: there is much wrong with it, it is a personal attack, and that's not what you asked. WP:Boomerang -- Jibal (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

So this edit has just cropped up. So now GS is going through my recently created articles? Kind of weird. But ironically, this article with one source has more SIGCOV in one article than either Tié or Paulsen do. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." -- the failure to do so was the first of many violations here. WP:Boomerang -- Jibal (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, usually I don't interact with others on Wikipedia (for the exact reasons given above - I don't like people like GS interacting with me the way he does). I just get on with editing. I don't know all the specific rules of Wikipedia. Sorry for the violation, officer. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a large warning on this page giving the rule. As for the condescending comment: WP:Boomerang -- Jibal (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, since being condescending is apparently allowed on Wikipedia, I don't see why some users are allowed to be, and some aren't. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Attempting to justify your "Sorry for the violation, officer" comment to me on the basis of your dubious charge against GS is not a good way to make your case. If you think that your comment is justified, then you're arguing that GS's is too, in which case your whole argument collapses. I seriously suggest that you read WP:Boomerang and drop this whole thing. As my intent is not to provoke you, I will not post again here. -- Jibal (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you do the same. All of your edits have been aimed at me, with nothing being said to GS. Please read this. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Jibal: you're not helping by ending each of your comments with WP:Boomerang. Let's be better than that.
  @GS: is anything David said to you worse than things you've said to me or others that I've complained about in the past? To refresh your memory, is "idiot" worse than "ignorant", is "what is wrong with you?" worse than "your obsession is flattering"? Did you get sanctioned for those? No? So let's take it easy on the calls for sanctions.
  I again invite all parties to move along before no parties move along. Levivich 19:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Levivich, for being a sane voice within this madness. I'm happy to move on. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I repeated it because it had been ignored. I don't think the editor has read it yet. All my comments were made with the intent to be "better", and I think the criticism is out of place. And the rest of your comment strikes me as a tu quoque fallacy, so maybe we can all be better. -- Jibal (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• With all due respect Levi, I don't see how your prior history with GS is relevant here. The OP opened this thread with the intention of getting someone to do something about very mild criticism from GS. Meanwhile, the OP is engaging in far more blatant condescension of their own. The calls for a boomerang are perfectly reasonable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Any prior history is entirely relevant, because it just shows that this is not the first time this editor has been involved in conflict with other editors. If there is a common denominator each time, surely it is best to focus on them with regards to sanctions? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you believe GS should receive sanctions? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just noticed this thread after having !voted keep in one of the referenced AfDs and having removed a CSD tag placed by the OP. IMO, it's pretty condescending to ask another editor if there is something wrong with them. This should be rule #1 for ANI: don't do the very thing you are accusing someone else of doing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  The more I see condescending comments like this one from the OP, the more I think a boomerang might be in order. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You are voting keep in AfDs because you think these players will appear at The Olympics. This is more disruptive than an off-hand comment highlighting how ridiculous your logic is. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say I think that they will appear. I said we should wait a few weeks to see if they appear before having the deletion discussions. This is hardly comparable to writing articles about imaginary wars that might happen someday. It's almost as if you are in such a hurry to discredit my opinions that you haven't taken the time to understand them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, "Paulsen is slated to appear in the Olympics". Says who, besides yourself? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is on a roster of people who might appear in the Olympics, which means that there is a strong possibility that he will. If he doesn't, we can easily revisit the matter in a few weeks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The complaint seems like a mishmash of disagreement and nothing actionable. I've had a run-in or two with GiantSnowman but on reflection they have always come out it well, dignified and fair, almost to a fault. I don't really know why this is even still a thread here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's abuse of the process, especially since the required talk page notice was not made (until that was pointed out for the second time). --- Jibal (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jibal, you've posted over a half dozen times in this section (after not participating at ANI in nearly 15 years) and you've only posted in the section about your own behavior once. You might want to go take care of business, because this feels kind of pot-stirringish. —valereee (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Valereee There is no rule limiting an editor's participation in a case, even if an editor is also subject to one. Please leave the editor alone. Jerm (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jerm, I've got my opinion, you've got yours. —valereee (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This digression from the main topic doesn't appear to add any value or more information to the matter at hand. I suggest you both take it elsewhere and allow the subject being discussed to continue unhindered by your chat. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG: Other than Davidlofgren1996 taking their sweet time in sending an ANI notice to GiantSnowman, calling GiantSnowman in the edit summary an "idiot" is unexceptable. Also, ANI is not meant to handle complaints concerning the accuracy of an AFD keep/deletion reasoning of another editor. Let the AFD closure determine that. ANI really handles inappropriate behavior of an editor such as the WP:NPA violation by Davidlofgren1996 against GiantSnowman. I highly recommend this case be closed with a warning to Davidlofgren1996. Jerm (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• I agree on the call for this to be closed, for David's own good, as he seems to be digging himself a deeper hole.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problem with user Xezbeth

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know why, but lately Xezbeth has done a lot to reverse the number of edits on Japanese voice actors occupations incorrectly than me and the amount of IP that we have correctly corrected Japanese voice actors articles as well of the live action actors, now he says that all this time I do vandalism both on Wikidata and here and even so it is believed that it is necessary to add 3 or 4 occupations each (see 1, 2 and his or her contributions) and when I realize something , those occupations that were added by all users in the past have been looking for years uselessly in English Wikipedia because the separate occupations (e.g. Actor and voice actor) should be removed instead of merging them without any problem and on the subject of the short description, I myself complied with the data inclusion rules carefully and without vandalism (see below) but apparently he decided not to listen to me and has blocked me for a month because I have done vandalism imagine, I did not vandalize, I am not obsessive with any of the articles and I do not spam, I only came to correct everything that the IPs of unknown origin vandalized because one of them had been speculating if any of them debuted as a singer or something like that.

Honestly, I do not know what to do with him and her to stop continuing with their meaningless reversals, what if I ask is that they help me understand it, what I do all the time is to comply with the rules here, not he or she this has nothing to do with my edits, remember what two or three rules said WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, I try to make peace here on Wikipedia if he had not reached a point of mutual agreement without any threats. 179.52.204.4 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7falcon23, LGBT-phobic Afds and WP:NOTHERE behavior

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:7falcon23 recently nominated Queer coding for deletion for a rationale that is not only invalid, but also very LGBT-phobic. "Never in the history of Disney animation has there ever been an LGBTQ character unless its Onward. Painting beloved characters such as Jafar and Scar as queer is ruining the nostalgia and golden shimmer of the Disney classics." However, their comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna as a gay icon made me want to bring this to ANI, as it indicates they're WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to impose an LGBT-phobic viewpoint on the site:

• These articles foment division and hatred towards the heterosexual people and is a sign that these criminals are desperate to see at least 10% of the world population converted to LGBT before their mortal lifespan is finished. If this continues the fiefdom of LGBT will dominate and completely make Wikipedia's suffix meaningless.
• Armed with their liberal news media they have completely hijacked films such as Luca and Mitchells vs. Machines.

Stuff like accusing articles about LGBT topics of being anti-heterosexual, throwing around conspiracy theories that Wikipedia users writing about LGBT topics ("criminals") are trying to brainwash a big chunk of the population to be LGBT, and that Disney films are being "hijacked" with LGBT people, just screams issues related to WP:NONAZIS that need to be taken care of immediately. 👨x🐱 (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• I stand by my belief that the article Queer coding is a wrong article becauase I have seen characters like Jafar and Scar in the movies and they weren't ever portrayed as LGBT. Also that article has pride.com/blogspot/youtube as citations. How can you label me as a Nazi when I adddressed a legitimate NPOV concern. And looks like from my nomination I am the only one who is on one side. Its frustrating when I am the only one in a debate who doesn't have any support. Last time its was an article on how Judy Garland is a gay icon. Many baby boomers grew up watching Judy Garland, and one day to find such an article under the template is in my opinion a disrespect to all those traditional viewers. This is the same issue with animated movies.7falcon23 (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article should not use Youtube and blogspot sources but rather more reliable sources (although I haven't researched the reliability of pride.com), and I get the frustration of having no one on your side in a debate. Plus, even though Queer coding is a notable topic, you're absolutely right that Wikipedia articles need to be NPOV. However, you're going above and beyond stating there is an NPOV issue and making conspiracy theories about the LGBT community trying to take over the world with an evil agenda of some sort against tradition or values or whatever, which (1) Wikipedia is not a place for users to conceive of theories about conspiracy and (2) the theories strikes me as having very fascistic, alt-right tendencies. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    Just to clarify: the YouTube source is a professional interview by ArtInsights Animation and Film Art with Andreas Deja, the animator for the Disney film in question. The Blogspot ref is Andreas Deja's blog post in which he discusses his creative process in drawing those characters, and WP:SPS states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert. These are acceptable sources for information they support in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I stand by my belief that the article Queer coding is a wrong article becauase I have seen characters like Jafar and Scar in the movies and they weren't ever portrayed as LGBT. -- First, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on evaluations of the subject matter by editors. Second, the article doesn't say that they were ever portrayed as LGBT, so this belief isn't even relevant. How can you label me as a Nazi when I adddressed a legitimate NPOV concern. -- I don't want to comment on the charge, but a) even a Nazi could address a legitimate NPOV concern and b) it hasn't been established that it is a legitimate NPOV concern. And looks like from my nomination I am the only one who is on one side. Its frustrating when I am the only one in a debate who doesn't have any support. -- a plausible explanation for this sort of situation, in fact the most plausible explanation, is that the sole person on one side is in the wrong. Last time its was an article on how Judy Garland is a gay icon. -- a web search for "judy garland gay icon" strongly suggests that this is a well-established fact. Many baby boomers grew up watching Judy Garland -- this has no bearing on the fact that she's a gay icon. and one day to find such an article under the template is in my opinion a disrespect to all those traditional viewers -- this is not anything like the sort of basis that determines Wikipedia content. -- Jibal (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I have WP:SNOW closed that discussion, as it was clearly not leading to deletion. I'm not sure what administrative action is requested here; this seems to be a new editor who doesn't understand WP:AFD policies, but I'm not sure what else is demonstrated. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I believe the main concern is the user’s uncivil, immature, highly bigoted behavior and how it might continue in the future. The user also seems to think they are entitled to support, and if they do not receive it they have the right to bypass the normal AfD process in a way that goes beyond simple misunderstanding. Dronebogus (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • This is not a issue of a new editor not understanding AFD. The user has been contributing on here since last year, as what is of issue is a potential LGBT-phobic agenda from the user that indicates WP:NOTHERE. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • 7falcon has less than 50 edits. It's very possible 7falcon didn't know talk pages existed until yesterday. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I see two possibilities: 7falcon23 genuinely believes in what they're writing and will continue to pursue their agenda to WP:RGW, or 7falcon23 is trolling the project. Either way, they should not be allowed to continue to edit. Schazjmd (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • 7falcon23's apparent inability to understand that gay icon and gay person mean different things is concerning. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I was going to caution 7falcon23 about editing articles about gender, but it appears they've been indef blocked already. Probably for the best. Isabelle ^🔔 01:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Courtesy link to thread that immediately preceded this one, and Special:Permalink/1033975070. Will RD2 be necessary and feasible for any of this user's edits? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• I was actually just about to make a post about this fellow, considering this is now the second time he's gone on a homophobic rant at AfD. This is textbook WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW (except in this case it's actually WGR). Mlb96 (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds like he's gay. EEng 02:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP edit-war over genres

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Please could someone block the above IP for genre-waring? Esp. on the back of these personal attacks too: one and two. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date-changing vandal in North Carolina

• 2603:6080:9D04:F600:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Gastonia, North Carolina, has been changing release dates on a few song articles for the past six months. Some false chart stats have been posted, too.[453] They have even worked against their own date changes.[454][455] No blocks or warnings before today, but his person is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Pure, creeping vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked /64 for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

CIR issue with User:Andyphan25

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Andyphan25 has created several Wikipedia pages in the Help category: see here. These pages duplicate existing topics, and are going through MfD. I told this user that creating such pages is not useful if they duplicate existing topics here .

A major issue that I've noticed is that the Help pages, and every edit performed by Andyphan25, consists of nonsense. It's not merely poor English; the pages don't make any sense. I think there is a serious competence issue here as a result.

I want to add that I've been away from Wikipedia largely for a long time; this does appear to be the best place to post this, please let me know if I've made a mistake. I will notify this user I have posted here. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef as WP:NOTHERE. The "prose" (such as it is) almost looks like an AI that has been trained on existing Wikipedia documentation trying to generate new documentation. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bludgeoning, edit warring, and CANTHEARYOU by Dan Koehl

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Dan Koehl is currently on a mission to wp:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on Wikipedia, namely the use of the term Viking to refer to medieval Scandinavians during the Viking age. He is doing to this by:

1. spamming talk pages with endless repetitive discussions that include the same statements and images over and over across multiple pages, in multiple sections added all at once: [456], [457], [458], [459], [460], [461], [462], [463], [464], [465], [466], etc. etc. This isn't even half the "comments" that he's made since July 12. Edit: most of this can be seen at talk:Viking expansion and talk:Vikings.
2. edit warring over the addition of templates they've added [467], [468], [469], [470]
3. edit warring over unsourced and irrelevant content they they've chosen to add to the section discussing the term Norsemen at Norsemen: [471], [472], [473], [474]

Dan Koehl at the very least needs some sort of time out. He's been told by multiple editors that the page Viking follows wp:COMMONNAME, but he just keeps making the same arguments over and over. When he's reverted or someone confronts him on this, he accuses others of acting as a "mafia" and casts aspersions about admin abuse. This has gotten out of control.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to say, I've tried pretty hard (after being accused at AN3 of 'trying to manipulate' the discussion) to reach this editor with no joy. —valereee (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

From the tone and content of his various filings at admin boards, Dan Koehl does seem to be here on Wikipedia for WP:BATTLEGROUND purposes. In my experience, when someone appears to be trying hard to get blocked they are likely to get their wish. They have already succeeded in getting blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia on 15 July 2021 for a period of three years. The reason given by the admin there was "Unable or unwilling to behave. Previously warned and blocked several times, including a one-year block a few years back." EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I can add that they've been spamming this image with various ethnic slurs on multiple talk pages (and multiple times per talk page) to try to make their point. They've added it here, here, and here just at talk:Vikings and also here at talk:Viking expansion.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

probably to make a point. sigh. I feel I've entered slightly into involved territory because they accused me of trying to manipulate discussion, so I'm reluctant to take admin action here. —valereee (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP Vandalism at Trung Le Nguyen

There's some repeated IP vandalism happening at Trung Le Nguyen despite multiple warnings. Morgan695 (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, please make reports of ongoing vandalism at WP:AIV instead of this noticeboard. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

ÜçDörtBeşş personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The user ÜçDörtBeşş made a personal attack on my talk page.[475] His attack was racist: "Ermeni y(...) olmanız hakkında" (About you being a Armenian s(...)). Can you please block this user, thank you.--V. E. (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Faysal.Mahamud.khan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Faysal.Mahamud.khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has had a large history of disruptive editing, more recently related to page moves, with this move being the last straw due to incivility. Is there an admin that can take action before this gets worse? Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Affected pages have been deleted, but the user has still shown signs of incivility, taking their perceived rage into both their Talk page and my own in the past few minutes. This seems like it could go out of control. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the disruption noted by JalenFolf, the user also moved a draft created by brand new account User:OP VINCENZO into main space (List Of National Association Football Teams By International And Confederation Trophy), which unlike the others, has not been deleted. I have therefore indeffed Faysal for disruption, personal attacks, and sock or meat puppetry, along with OP VINCENZO.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple issues from User:Truth Teller1222

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Truth Teller1222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Truth Teller1222 began their tenure here on Wikipedia by making BLP violating comments against a public figure ([476]), and their contributions to the site don't really seem to have gone uphill since then despite multiple warnings (since deleted from their talk page): [477], [478], [479], [480]. Basically all of their edits have been WP:NOTFORUM type posts to talk pages about various publications (for example [481], [482]), WP:IDHT regarding our reliable sources policy (for example [483]), and an attempt to add poorly-sourced OR material about a Twitter feud to an article.

Given the blanking of warnings, lack of improvement in behavior, and restoration of a talk page post that was removed for being forum-y it doesn't appear they intend to try to collaborate here, nor does the RGW username give me much hope in that regard. I considered blocking them myself, but I'm WP:INVOLVED with respect to the Palmer Report article and so am leaving it up to someone else. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Anything with WP:TRUTH in an editor's username should at least be a yellow flag. 👨x🐱 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  Ray's Razor: Any editor whose username includes the word "truth" shall be assumed disruptive until conclusively shown otherwise. (See #258 of [484].) EEng 05:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would encourage an uninvolved admin to use Discretionary Sanctions to topic-ban them from American Politics. They got drawn to the site because of political controversy, and if they continue to edit in the AP2 topic area will certainly get themselves blocked from the whole site. TT12 restored this edit after a DS warning; clearly they aren't getting it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE, which is only really part of their problem, but it's not worth the time to be more elaborate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible range block?

There seems to be an IP range that is continuous/persistent in WP:DE speculation (WP:CRYSTALBALL) regarding Nickelodeon's Kids' Choice Awards ceremony. From what I've reverted many times, they are always adding information/data for future year ceremonies, despite no source(s) indicating that it is actually happening. They have mainly been at Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards and Template:Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards. The template has been protected thanks to them, but now they've most recently been at the main ceremony article, the latest adding information for 2022, despite there being no source of it actually going to happen- again, purely speculation.

Is there any range that can be blocked for this IP? Because I would think 2600:1003:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 would be way too big a range and would get a whole bunch who isn't this same person, but it seems to be the only possible range for this. Should be noted that the /32 range has been blocked before- previously in January 2017 and November 2018. Also, not sure if it is the same person as all the Kids' Choice Awards- related edits, but it does seem like the range tends to be problematic at times... (see User talk:2600:1003:B009:C935:0:50:B42F:2C01 for example- [485] and [486]).

Just as an FYI, I've left an ANI notice on their latest IP from the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards edits today. Any help regarding this would be appreciated, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just saw there is a range within the range blocked- 2600:1003:B010:0:0:0:0:0/44. Hoping there's another 'range within a range' that can be blocked for the IP linked to the KCA edits... Magitroopa (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

103.246.39.46

103.246.39.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has accumulated 7 user warnings since 15 July, in connection with unsourced or poorly sourced content and edit-warring. In addition, they have been insisting on adding poorly sourced content at Legal system of Saudi Arabia (history). They seem to have an anti-Arab bias: [487][488]. I recommend a block per WP:DIS/WP:CIR. JBchrch talk 15:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Arab bias?? You seem to have a pro-Saudi bias. The sources are good sources.103.246.39.46 (talk) 05:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, why did you call Boko Haram an Arab group? It is a Nigerian organization with Black (sub-Saharan African) leadership. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You do know that many Africans are Arab background anyway. And vice versa. This Boko Haram group is also connected to Al Qaeda, bin Laden and ISIS.103.246.39.46 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, please furnish a link to a reliable source that calls Boko Haram "Arab". Far less than 1% of Nigerians speak Arabic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

We are not talking about Nigerians per say. This particular group is not necessarily representative of Nigeria. This group uses Arabic103.246.39.46 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar issues in the IP making the repeated claim that the Nice truck attacker "drove his truck into many people and also shot at them", which is at best misleading and at worst false (he drove a truck into the public, then shot at police). Despite clear talk page requests to stop making the statement, the IP is still adding it to articles. They're also past WP:3RR at Alpes-Maritimes now. --Lord Belbury (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

No, he did both. And police are also people103.246.39.46 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for edit warring. No opinion on other claims here. 331dot (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Helios007

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For Helios007: (talk) (block log) (logs) (filter log)

Possible hacked account. At the very least a bad actor: persistent disruptive editing.

Talk:Arjun (tank)#Half boiled liberals

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_(tank)&diff=1033872601&oldid=1033833092

––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 09:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Also made remarks such as "Wikipedia is not your property or your father's property" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Echo1Charlie#Misquote) , and called fellow editors 'idiots' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arjun_(tank)&diff=1034024369&oldid=1034023973) —Echo1Charlie (talk) 09:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• The removal of others' posts here as their only edit to this discussion makes this pretty clear. Indeffed for disruptive editing, this looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR. —valereee (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• User has broken the WP:3RR with five attempted reverts within a 24 hour period at Arjun (tank). ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 12:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jibal personal attacks and POLEMIC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

I think this post is a clear and inexcusable NPA violation [[489]]. The background is Jibal made some comments in reply to a discussion on the Tucker Carlson talk page which cast aspersions on involved editors (none listed by name) [[490]]. I noted this was not an appropriate comment for an article talk page. The reply was to expand the comment [[491]]. I posted DS notices to their talk page which were removed while my name was added to others on a list of "Unpleasant people who have posted unpleasant things here". When I noted that was a POLEMIC violation the opening comment was posted. As a smaller thing, they comment on Soibangla's talk page [[492]]. Springee (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#First_offenses_and_isolated_incidents "Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported" -- I don't think this qualifies. I would note that I removed the POLEMIC violation as soon as I received notice. I would also note that I removed the "clear and inexcusable NPA violation" within seconds of posting it. I will not be responding to further comments from the above user. -- Jibal (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

This wasn't a first incident. You attacked editors on the Carlson page. You had a list of "Unpleasant" editors on your talk page since 2018 [[493]]. Additionally, your Carlson comments were lecturing others about the rules of Wikipedia. Which rule allows profanity laden personal attacks? Springee (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

In line with our personal attack policy I have left a warning to this editor. While I feel we should be more strict with personal attacks I don't think the current policy justifies further action beyond this warning in this case. Should this pattern continue however it will become actionable. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything that Jibal posted is bile and still remains in the changelogs. Aside from a one and only warning, I propose that no disciplinary action is taken, though that their entire talk page and anywhere else their polemic garbage has been spread is redacted. BOTTO _(T•C) 04:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I will note that Jibal was aware enough of there being a personal attack policy that they posted that another user should check that policy (admittedly well in the past), and that problematic treatment of other editors has been a recurring feature of what little Wikipedia involvement they've had. I was on his list of the "unpleasant" because last month I placed a harassment caution template on his page after they had placed a series of responses to talk page discussions of a decade-gone editor with such additions as "LOL!" and "Wow, what a piece of work". I would heartily recommend that the editor reconsider their approach in dealing with other editors in general. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Jabil is trying to argue that they should be excused for a very clear and obvious personal attack because they weren't aware of the rules? While I might accept that, here they are lecturing others (a day later) about the exact same rules.[[494]] In the mean time the edit history still shows the attack. Springee (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Unawareness of the personal attack policy is not the reason they got a warning in stead of a block. People are assumed to already know that insults are bad before they get here. I don't think for a second that they thought it was okay.

The reason they got a warning is because that is what the policy calls for in such a situation. Blocks are reserved for egregious attacks and ongoing patterns of attacks.

Is the personal attack policy too lenient? I think it is. However until there is a consensus to make it more strict it is what I have to work with as an admin. If you go to WT:NPA and propose stricter standards I will probably support you. But as an administrator I need to enforce the policy, not what I think the policy should be. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not making the argument attributed to me here. I didn't ask to be excused, I simply said that I didn't think it was one of those rare "Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention". As I have noted several times, I removed the PA immediately, as well as the violation of POLEMIC upon notification. If there were a way for me to remove the ill-considered and offensive comment from the changelogs, I would do so ... I did a childish thing and stupidly expected somehow to get away with it, which gives little credit to the editors and administrators here, who are certainly no fools. Having ended up at ANI for the first time, I've decided to behave differently. That I subsequently pointed out a personal attack elsewhere on this page should not be held against me, I think. I apologize to User:Springee and everyone else for my previous behavior and expect to be held to it. -- Jibal (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I am very close to blocking Jibal right now, but maybe it won't be needed...? Hopefully. El_C 22:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You reverted talk page edits I made a month ago, saying "Jibal, what are you doing? Please don't respond to comments from 2011. That is just plain weird". I agree and won't do that sort of thing again. Looking at it objectively, it clearly serves no good or useful purpose and is understandably objectionable. If I feel that sort of urge again, I will find some other place to do it, not Wikipedia, which deserves better. I apologize. -- Jibal (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I also see that you removed a link to a WP page from my talk page. I've never looked closely at the policy you referenced before. I see that it says "As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"." ... that doesn't apply to me, as I agree with the link I posted, but I suppose that it doesn't really matter whether I agree with it or disagree with it. I accept your judgment that it doesn't belong on my talk page. -- Jibal (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

As for "If you're unable to be gracious about your own missteps, best to say nothing", please see my latest edit to my talk page ... I hope that qualifies. -- Jibal (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin) I appreciate seeing Jibal showing some recognition of past missteps, and as one of the people he deemed "unpleasant", would be fine with him seeing no further sanction at this time. May he contribute mightily to the project! --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pong3SouthFrieza34

This man making a WP:EW by making claims that the revival series of Johnny Test is the seventh season of the original series, but it actually isn't since Netflix lists the show as a separate series.

This is the same situation that has happened to previous shows that were revived on streaming services, like Animaniacs and iCarly. While some do claim the revival is a seventh season of the original series, it's not according to Netflix.

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As the notice in red near the top of the page reads, you must notify the user you are reporting on their user talk page. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Pong3SouthFrieza34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done it for you. However, this seems like a content dispute, which is not dealt with here. ◦ Trey Maturin 19:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Anything more suitable with this discussion? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan: (Non-administrator comment) Report to WP:AN3. They edit warred on Johnny Test (2021 TV series) (1, 2, 3, 4). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

IP removing references, making nonsensical changes on Faust article

• 72.92.0.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.92.1.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.92.1.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These IPs has been making low-quality, constantly reverted edits on the Faust (Avatar Press) page. This appears to be the same user, identifiable by the type of edits they make (and the fact that their scope seems entirely limited to this comic and its film adaptation). Usually they remove sources [495] or context [496] [497] [498] for statements to the point where sentences become meaningless fragments because the subject has been removed. Their edits also incorrectly change grammar and sentence structure [499] [500].

I am not sure if semiprotecting the page or directly addressing the IP [range] is the best course of action. Typically I've been popping over to the article every few months to make sure that Spawn hasn't been nonsensically cut out of that one sentence they seem to dislike, but obviously this is not a long-term solution. --Mashed Potate Jones (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

User Nkemonwudiwe Nothere and Coi Editing

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

• In the last 11 years the editor Nkemonwudiwe has violated our policy on image copyright over and over again, see [501] [502] [503] to mention a few, simultaneously and more worrisome for me is their edit pattern, which is consistent with the edit pattern of editors engaged in less than ethical practices which comprise of creating promotional articles for non notable persons or articles they have a COI with, see this article. A quick glance at their talk page, see here tells the story. I do not know exactly what should be done thus I’m bringing this before the community. Today they created a very promotional article yet again see [504]. Celestina007 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

  I changed all the links in your post to wikilinks, as they go directly to pages in the mobile version. I just A7'd another new article, PROdded an unused file of a person without an article, and FfD'd a file almost identical to a subsequent upload. Jane Michael Ekanem was previously deleted by AfD in 2015. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03, thank you, editing via mobile can be tough. The assistance is appreciated. Celestina007 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Indef block proposal

They have had ample time to respond but have chosen no to, which is indicative of the obvious, thus I’m Proposing an indef block on Nkemonwudiwe as WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and using Wikipedia for promotional purposes

• Support — As proposer. Celestina007 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There has been some time ("ample" is a subjective adjective in this case), true, but the user has not edited at all in the past ten days, let alone in the four days since this ANI was opened; i hardly think the need exists to rush to a conclusion in that way, especially as small bursts of editing with large gaps in between is typically the pattern of contributions. If we block, it will have the appearance of coming out of nowhere, which i don't believe is particularly helpful. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support The behavior Nkemonwudiwe is engaging in is unlikely to stop unless the user is blocked. 11 years is quite a track record. Matuko (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Long history of promotional COI editing, which is chronic enough that this should not be archived until an admin closes to evaluate consensus. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• They haven't edited since July 4, a week before this ANI, as pointed out above. They've only made a few edits in 2021 and 2020. Looks like maybe one upload to commons in April and a few in 2019. I'm not sure when the last enwiki upload was. I'm not seeing what a block is going to prevent. Levivich 02:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation by new user

Not sure where else to report this. Raxythecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is going around claiming to be me. On talk pages as well as in article space. Just review their contribs for today... Skyerise (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have indef blocked this user for harassment. I am not seeing any useful contributions from this new user. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that skyrise and raxythecat have no similarities? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment} Expressing no view on that suggestion - it's rare for someone to start an argument with themself in a public forum, but it's not unknown. In the late 1940s, my father's oldest friend enlivened the correspondence columns of the Newbury Weekly News with letters from a retired colonel and from an elderly widow about ornithological sightings; which grew increasingly vitriolic, personal, and abusive. Trolling long predates the Internet. Narky Blert (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A cursory look reveals no similarities to me. -- Jibal (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we can safely disregard the possibility that they are the same person. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

82.16.147.172 repeatedly removing image

82.16.147.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing an image of Priti Patel from British Indians, because apparently "Everybody is sick of seeing her face". Could an uninvolved admin take a look? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A three-day wikibreak has been awarded to the IP. Mjroots (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Averroes 22

Averroes 22 has repeatedly called me an antisemite for reverting some unencyclopedic rubbish it put into Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

• Here, "Warring: anti-Semitism" and "motivated by anti-Semitism".
• Here, edit summary "Reverting edit by anti-Semitic editor".

This is intolerable. I would have immediately imposed a block if the target of this calumny was someone else, but since I'm the one under attack it would be better if another administrator takes care of it. Zero^talk 14:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• And continuing in a second article here, edit summary "Reverting edit by anti-Semitic editor".

Please put a stop to this. Zero^talk 14:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I'm sorry, I thought everything that was written in the sources could be put into the article. --Averroes 22 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a report about sources or articles, it is about you making personal attacks. I consider your response to be a continuation of those attacks. Zero^talk 15:17, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks for personal attacks against editors reverting Averroes 22's insertion of garbled commentary into articles. Block length reflects this editor's block history. There needs to be a significant change int heir approach to Wikipedia and other editors. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Also in the last few days he was removing number of sources claiming that the source doesn't support the text, for example: here); in the talk page some users showed concern that this user has been removing sources en masse, and making false statements that are not supported by the sources like here. Then last month he was adding misleading POV text,[505][506] even after being told not to.[507] This all comes after a pretty huge block log. I think a topic ban from 'religion' is absolutely warranted. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

HOUNDING, TAGBOMBING, etc.

Timtrent has been hounding me since March 19. I am a declared paid editor and have followed all of the Wikipedia guidelines carefully, including immediate upfront articletalk and userpage declarations.

Prologue

I have created three new-article drafts (titles are the bold sections below), all submitted to AFC over a two-week period in February (along with userpage and article-talk disclosures). All three AFC submissions were declined in rapid succession [508], [509], [510] (even though the last two were unrelated to the first and were two weeks later in the AFC queue) on March 15 within the space of 35 minutes [511], by User:Kashmorwiki, an admitted sockpuppet of a globally locked editor [512], whose account is also now globally locked [513].

Greg Fleming

When I asked for help regarding these rapid declines, specifically regarding Draft:Greg Fleming (businessman), at the AFC Help page [514], Timtrent tagged the draft as containing paid contributions [515] and commented at the top of the draft that it had a WP:CITEKILL problem [516]. I corrected that problem [517], [518], [519], removing all "extra" citations for single facts, and reducing the total number of citations used by 14%. His comment also said "We need to know what makes him notable" [520], so I added a summarization of that to the lead: [521]. Five days later Timtrent left a negative and somewhat threatening comment at the top of the draft: [522].

To address his concerns, I addressed him at length and in good faith on the talkpage of the draft [523]; however he did not reply helpfully or respond to any of my points, but rather brushed me off by saying only "AlI can offer is advice. I hope you are correct. I suspect I am." [524] When I resubmitted the AFC draft two months later, Timtrent declined the submission within less than 14 hours as being insufficiently notable: [525]. When I demonstrated on the draft's talkpage, with dozens of major news articles and a number of well-known books, that the subject has been nationally and internationally notable since 2006, Timtrent did not respond helpfully, and in fact added a personal attack: [526].

Mike Salvino

Two hours after leaving a personal attack on the talkpage of Draft:Greg Fleming (businessman) [527], Timtrent TAGBOMBED Mike Salvino with five undiscussed tags [528] three minutes prior to nominating it for AFD [529] and recommending that the article be salted (bolding in original) [530]. The AFD passed unanimously as "Keep" [531].

Rockefeller Capital Management

1.5 hours after Timtrent's last edit to the Mike Salvino AFD [532], he declined Draft:Rockefeller Capital Management [533], claiming that the subject lacked significant coverage, that the draft was written like an advertisement, and that it suffered a bombardment of citations, even though the subject has abundant independent reliable-source coverage and even though over a month previously I had carefully cleaned up, copyedited, and trimmed the draft plus removed all unnecessary citations [534] and commented out the infobox [535], and had so stated at the top of the draft [536].

Summary

At this point, after the hounding, stalking, threatening, tagbombing, bad-faith AFD, personal attack, and refusal to discuss, I feel I have no choice but to file this report in order to remedy this situation. I feel I have acted in a good-faith and civil manner to all legitimate issues involved, but have been met with stonewalling and further attacks. Thank you for your time and consideration.

--TerryBG (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• @TerryBG, the editor Timtrent, is easily the kindest and most accommodating anti upe editor I’ve ever encountered, so this ANI thread is a major anomaly, what I can see here is you were making too many errors and they added you to their watchlist, it isn’t hounding if you are on their watchlist and they correct you if you err. Articles by declared Paid editors are scrutinized under a larger microscope, what you are experiencing isn’t solely applicable to you but a universal approach when dealing with articles that were created by declared Paid editors, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, any article retained on mainspace has to speak for itself on why it is encyclopedic and deserves to be published on mainspace. Being notable, and being of encyclopedic value are different things, anyone can be notable, but how is it encyclopedic? Every thing Timtrent has done is in accordance to policy. If you are unsatisfied about this, then it really becomes a “YOU” problem, Timtrent isn’t mandated by policy to clean up after you or help you source your article better, the onus lies on you. Prior creation of the aforementioned articles, did you read and internalize WP:RS? Celestina007 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Celestina007 Neutral editor here. One of the articles which Timtrent attacked from on high and nominated for deletion was overwhelmingly "kept". Why would that be, I ask? doktorb _words^deeds 23:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk, I’m NOT entirely sure how this comment correlates with the topic of the thread, if or not it was overwhelming kept does not validate nor prove hounding, hence my confusion on what your comment has to do with the topic at hand. Furthermore you can’t be “neutral” and in the same comment use the word “attacked” , it is contradictory to say the least. Celestina007 (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina, I'm reporting actions (hounding, stalking, threatening, tagbombing, bad-faith AFD, personal attack, and refusal to discuss), not character or disposition. AFC reviewers are required to have "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews" [537], [538], and Timtrent has repeatedly failed to do that. In addition, after my demonstration that Greg Fleming has been notable nationally and internationally since 2006 [539], Timtrent refused to discuss and added a personal attack, even though AFC guidelines state at least three times (in WP:AFCPURPOSE and WP:AFCSTANDARDS) that "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and published to mainspace." I would ask that you put aside your personal experience with and opinion of TimTrent and respond specifically to the specific actions I have reported, and that if you are referring to policies, please name and quote the specifics of the policy(ies). Thank you. TerryBG (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just on the content: Fleming is certainly notable. Bit lazy to check it thoroughly to see if the draft is puffy, but I'd note that even articles at HQRS (eg Reuters) about the subject read a bit puffy too, so... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• TerryBG, not sure you picked up on this, but payed editors aren't too popular on the project (with it being a volunteer project and all). I'm surprised, then, that you'd opt for such a long-winded report, one which repeats multiple diffs and incidents, including about a purported personal attack that isn't one (being a bit testy is not a personal attack). Anyway, please be more succinct.

That having been said, Timtrent, maybe let another AFC reviewer attend to TerryBG's submissions for a while. I think that would be good for a number of reasons. But I'll stress that overseeing 3 pages from the same user is not hounding, and that a reviewer may assess (follow up on) such a page repeatedly. That isn't hounding, either. El_C 02:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi El_C, I appreciate your comment. Could you also comment on the refusal to discuss (in violation of AFC reviewer guidelines which state that reviewers are required to have "a willingness and ability to respond in a timely manner to questions about their reviews" [540], [541]), and on the undiscussed tagbombing? Thank you. I realize this was a long report but I couldn't figure out any way of shortening it without leaving out significant details. TerryBG (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

TerryBG, I think what I already said suffices, for now. El_C 02:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• I will let my edits speak for themselves. I'm interested in article quality. I believe that an editor who is paid for their contributions has a duty to earn their pay by getting it right. I have no interest in this editor, and had forgotten completely about them. I have nothing to add. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - This is not the first time that I have seen a paid editor file an unreasonable complaint against a volunteer editor. I wonder whether some corporate editors think that, because they work for pay, they are the managers of the volunteer editors and can report us to our bosses if we don't take their direction. I am sort of inclined to think that the best way to deal with reports such as this one is by ridiculing the filing editor for their presumption. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm available to help with that. EEng 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Helmet? What helmet? Soft roads! El_C 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Despite the discussion here [542], fact is that guys on those stupid noisy Harleys always look gay [543]. EEng 05:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Anyway, this noticeboard thread is probably a good a venue as any to source the claim that cats love whiskey... El_C 12:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed Close

The filing editor seems to think that, because many paid editors do not make the required declaration, they have special privileges because they have made the required declaration. They don't, and instead have most of the privileges of volunteer editors, except for the right to make COI edits directly. I propose that this thread be closed, because no action is in order with regard to User:Timtrent and the filing editor has already been ridiculed. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Looking at their contributions it seems that they may only edit here during shop hours. Do you think they ought to be given a further chance to throw sticks at me when they get to work on Monday? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

IP changing pronouns at RiRia Niimura

2600:8807:600A:6600:930:98B2:BC9C:4DF6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• I first reverted the aforementioned IP's edits when they changed the pronouns and removed a mention that the subject is non-binary. In my edit summary I said: "They are non-binary according to their Instagram account, though use she/them pronouns". When someone accepts multiple pronouns, I tend to revert to the ones present on the stable version. The IP proceeded to do that two more times, and on the third time I tried talking with them on their talk page. Moments after that, the IP decided to change the person's pronouns to "it", here. Not sure how to proceed, having reverted three times, attempting to talk to them, and then this transphobic edit. Isabelle ^🔔 16:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The "it" was clearly not good faith, and as such I've blocked the user (upgraded to a longer rangeblock, thank you NinjaRobotPirate). Is there an issue with using "she" since that's specified in the subject's Twitter and Instagram profiles? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    @Ohnoitsjamie: Thanks. In the video, they essentially say they are non-binary and, as such, fully support the LGBTQI movement. Although I felt the information present in their social media pages were enough, I also tried to find a more clear statement from the subject themselves to start the discussion. Isabelle ^🔔 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Isabelle is nothing but a liberal piece of trash. One look at their page proves it! I got IP's for years, good luck blocking the crusade! You will be cancelled keyboard warrior!

    Classy comment, 47.206.140.65. Does it ring a bell with anyone? Narky Blert (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

    • Well I've blocked 47.206,140.65 for blatant unacceptable personal attacks and comments. Canterbury Tail talk 19:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

      Might be worth blocking the /16 range. Isabelle ^🔔 20:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagreement over fair use images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Earlier today, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed a fair use logo from Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, arguing that the "n.a." in the file's WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#2 are insufficient to claim fair use. However, those are added by default for non-free logos by Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Looking into the history, I saw there's a discussion ongoing about this at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard, in which The Rambling Man has participated. Reading that discussion, it became clear to me that The Rambling Man feels quite strongly about this issue and has removed other fair use files for this reason in the past. However, other editors in that discussion disagree, and there doesn't appear to be consensus to change the Upload Wizard (at least not yet). I raised this on their talk page and reverted. We exchanged a couple reverts ([544], [545]) and talk page discussion.

The Rambling Man is arguing (with some borderline uncivil comments) that I don't understand our policies because... I'm uploading files with the Upload Wizard. This is obviously ridiculous. If there's a problem with the Wizard, then it can be changed, and they're already discussing that. In the meantime, I'd like to get my fair use file restored without having to go over 3RR. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Our policy at WP:NFCC is clear, it states Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met. i.e. we can't just suddenly declare that certain criteria are "not applicable". It is abundantly clear, i.e all ten criteria are met. Suggesting that some of them are "n.a." is a failure to meet our policy on NFCC. This has come about a few times because people think a "wizard" does all the work. The wizard helps but ultimately it needs an actual human to fix this. It's not actually about fixing the wizard, it's about people taking responsibility for compliance with NFCC when they upload/maintain non-free images. It's a really easy fix, as I noted on my talkpage, but apparently that's a bridge too far for some users. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oh, and this heading here should be "The Rambling Man commenting out fair use files and asking for the n.a.'s to be replaced with real justifications". But yeah, whatever. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  That's not funny. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  As you like. Nor are you, nor is this comment useful. The point here is that I wasn't "removing" images, I was giving fair warning that the fair use criteria wasn't being met per our NFCC policy. What is your point here? How is your point cromulent? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Different titles reflect differing views, seriously consider them, please. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  You are obviously (or deliberately) oblivious to several threads on how the titles of AN(I) and Arbcom cases bias their outcome. I suggest you leave this alone now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the crux of the matter that the article wizard needs to help users add #1 and #2? Because as far as I'm aware, we do need to fulfill these parts of NfCC to meet our policy Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, apparently. Some users are arguing at Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard that those are trivial for logos. Regardless of what is decided there, I think it's unproductive to remove individual files in masse simply because they contain default language added by the wizard. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe NFCC gives off any impression on us being anything other than strict. I'm happy if this is changed on the backend, or if each one is manually updated - however, we can't have fair use images without the criteria being explicit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that User:Jon698 has now entered a rationale for the n/a entries requiring an explanation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• (ec) Turns out that another decent editor fixed this issue which was pretty simple. But instead lets have a month-long ANI instead. So the file can be restored now the policy requirements of NFCC are met. A shame someone else had to do it for you but we got there in the end! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• The issue lies here. Seems like a bug with the script, but it's apparently always been this way. Iff this is required, then there could be many logos not in compliance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, exactly. Removing logos one-by-one for not being in compliance when the issue is systemic is not productive. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  The point is that whether there's a bug with a script or not, people uploading fair use images and failing to properly meet our policy on WP:NFCC isn't something we just "ignore" or get indignant about. Just fix it, and my advice all along was to do that. This was blown all out proportion sadly by this user who refused to just tweak the NFCC criteria that were listed as "n.a.". Someone else did that for them. What a lame response to a reasonable request. And yeah, blame the "wizard". Good grief. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  BTW the note in the script says:

           // I hate FURs filled with trivial/predictable/redundant verbiage,
           // so we'll just cut it short. And don't anybody dare complain that
           // that's not a valid FUR.
           descFields.Replaceability = "n.a.";
           descFields.Commercial     = "n.a.";

  Personally unsure of how legitimate that is, but sounds like it needs wider discussion elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is a red herring. Whatever the "wizard" does is irrelevant. Users are responsible for the content they add to Wikipedia. If it fails to meet policy, including NFCC, that's down to them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Let's say this violates policy. Then you caught one specific case and pointed it out, but there are probably hundreds (thousands?) of other cases. There are several non-free file categories that the script sets "n.a." rationales to. I don't really have a position on this ANI and I'm not saying either you or Tartan acted improperly; I'm just saying that if this kind of value violates NFCC then the script needs to be changed to force users to enter an explicit value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  It does violate policy, the uploader didn't meet NFCC, a policy. And sure, there are plenty of examples similar. Does that make my commenting out and advice to fix the "n.a."s incorrect? Does it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's absolutely nonsense in my eyes. This probably needs a wider catchment, but we can't just have items uploaded without FURs on someone's whim. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• That code snippet is funny. This is one of those let's-fix-it-at-the-source situations: how about replacing "n.a." with something like "[PLACE FAIR USE RATIONAL HERE]"? Levivich 21:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. Or "ADD HUMAN INPUT HERE". Which, of course, is the crux of the problem. Actually having to take responsibility for certain elements of NFCC. Who knew? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And just another aside, if the uploader had done this properly, I guess they'd have used the {{Non-free logo}} template. I don't know why some users think that a "wizard" is a free pass to malformed and inappropriate uploads. I get it that a "wizard" is supposed to help, but the code fragment above clearly indicates little-to-no respect in general to what we're trying to maintain and perhaps the "easy-to-use" approach is now resulting in hundreds (thousands) of uploads being inadequately described. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, the wizard did add the {{non-free logo}} template, though... ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And then you're responsible to ensure your upload meets WP:NFCC. You didn't and now you're blaming everyone else for your lack of attention to that detail. Do you want to continue this or do you want to close it down and accept that the issue has now been fixed and you realise how it went wrong? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I don't agree with that characterization. I happen to agree with the authors of the wizard that that is a valid FUR. Also, WP:CIVIL. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well of course you're entitled to believe that "not applicable" is a valid FUR component of a policy we have which says all ten criteria need to be fulfilled. That, in itself, is patently absurd, so I think this is a done deal. Also, WP:CIVIL. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, what have I said that is uncivil? I do not believe I have made any uncivil remarks, and I'm sorry if something I said was interpreted that way. I objected to you accusing me of blaming everyone else for [my] lack of attention to detail. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"... This is obviously ridiculous ..." not at all. Park your horror. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

And are you sure about that? It looks like it used the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template, which is still there. Did it use the logo fair use template or another one? Can you clarify please? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, yes I am sure. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the "Non-free use rationale 2" template. It's done now, you're lucky that someone else has fixed your missing fields. So perhaps you can now accept that you need to move on and add these fields (per policy) going forward. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, look again. The non-free logo template is in the licensing section, where it belongs. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm honestly done with this. You've brought me to ANI to complain about me removing a fair use image which was inappropriately justified. You're now clear on why that's the case. Apparently using a wizard absolves people from any kind of responsibility. It doesn't. It would have been much better to fix the issue rather than all this, but hey. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I don't have to agree with your interpretation of the policy. You're not entitled to that. I'd rather go with the consensus version. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The consensus version? You mean the "wizard" version? Give me a break. This conversation is over, it seems like you're arguing for arguing sake now, especially as someone else has kindly finished the job for you. Hopefully you'll learn from this. NFCC isn't a community thing, it's a policy. Comply with the policy. Or else stop uploading fair use images until you can get to grips with it. End of story, cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I just added a tracking parameter to the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} and set my bot to update it. It's used on almost 200k files so it'll take ~24hrs to finish, but judging by how quickly Category:Non-free rationale as na is filling up I suspect there's quite a lot of these... If this is really a problem, I'd be more worried about that than this spat over a single image. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, that's my concern. This affects a LOT of files. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh right, so just ignore it and censure the guy who pointed it out. Well done! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am pinging @Future Perfect at Sunrise: who is one of those that maintains the Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard, and has had past discussions in this area with TRM and myself (see current top thread on talk page of Wizard). There has been disagreement between whether the Upload Wizard (which is where these n.a.'s are coming from) are good or bad with no resolution, with FutPerf adamant that NFC does not require them and the Wizard avoids requiring them to do so under the KISS principle (I personally disagree, and TRM disagrees far more strongly to the point of considering them removals). It is important that the Wizard's output match expectation, and if based on this ANI that TRM is acting right and the Wizard's output is "faulty", then the Wizard likes needs updating. --Masem (t) 22:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm completely bemused by the concept that a "wizard" would do all the work. It's supposed to help with an upload, but then it's down to actual human beings to fulfil the remaining requirements of our policy on NFCC. To attempt to avoid that is disruptive and contrary to policy and should be considered problematic to Wikipedia. People have been blocked or banned for less. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  If the Upload Wizard fills the space with a n.a., then it's reasonable for a not-so-experienced editor to assume that at the very least it is not incorrect. Many editors are not attempt[ing] to avoid fulfil[ling] the remaining requirements of our policy on NFCC, they just think that leaving the n.a. there is correct based on that the Wizard did it. It should be fixed so that it can either be filled properly using the Wizard or that it is unambiguously clear that it should be manually filled afterwards. —El Millo (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  (ec) I agree, but once someone has been requested to fill in the "n.a." fields, it should be straight-forward, which is the case here and many other times. Don't blame the wizard, the human is always the problem. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Both users' positions seem reasonable, especially since the values at File:LP New Hampshire logo.png are a bit cookie-cutter, but I don't see the value in picking apart individual uploads with the tool, especially when the issue has already been discussed. There's a limit to how much you can chastises users for using an official tool linked to in the sidebar. At this point it's apparent this is not an ANI issue though, and discussion should be redirected elsewhere. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, after asking someone to fix the rationale, we get an edit war to reintroduce the image? That's not reasonable. And no, I didn't "chastise" the user, I asked for a properly formed NFCC rationale. Per policy. What was reasonable about the user's behaviour here? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Evidently there is a dispute between knowledgeable users (yourself and Future Perfect at Sunrise, who coded this behaviour into the wizard) on how NFCC 10c should be interpreted. That makes this a content/policy dispute, not a user behaviour one, yes? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, it's a WP:CIR issue if users are using wizards and then claiming their behaviour absolves them from responsibility. I'm sure you know that but whatever. It's never been an ANI issue but I wasn't the one making the big fuss. If you upload fair use images, KNOW HOW NFCC WORKS, don't assume a terribly-coded "wizard" does it all for you. Fair use isn't a joke, it's something we need people to understand. Clearly, in this situation, that's not quite worked out. I'm happy to accept an apology from Tartan357 for their misunderstandings and unnecessarily hostile approach here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: Please, just drop this. I don't see a point in perpetuating this thread when both of you got what you initially asked for: the file has a complete NFCC rationale and has now been restored. It shouldn't matter who does what thing as long as it is done, right? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, we fixed this specific problem, but it's quite surprising to see the complete reluctance to actually fix a policy-based problem. I'll remind you, it wasn't me opening a thread at ANI because I can't upload fair use images correctly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue of those rationales was discussed several times over the years at WT:FUW, the last time only in June. The Rambling Man was there, didn't get a consensus for changing it – or didn't in fact participate in any efforts to improve it, other than reiterating that he didn't like the status quo. For him to now go round removing random images yet again, knowing full well that these rationales have been accepted and endorsed by the community for almost 10 years, is unconstructive behavior, to say the least, but that's probably what we've all come to expect from him.

Any discussion about improving the wizard can of course continue on its talkpage. I maintain my position that those placeholder values are the least of several evils. The exact form of the placeholder ("n.a." or whatever else) is open to discussion, but forcing uploaders to actually write their own stuff into those slots (the ones where compliance is trivially obvious for a given category of files, such as "replaceability" for logos) will lead neither to better rationales nor to better uploads, but to the exact opposite. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Of course, simply editing the n.a. fields after the upload isn't rocket science. Ho hum. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The 'opposite' would be that if the field is not filled in manually it wont let you upload an image. If the field is filled in manually with an non-valid rationale, then per WP:NFCC the image will be removed until it has a valid one. This is not substantially different from the current situation where you pre-fill it with duff/placeholder text. You have basically automated the act of deliberately ignoring NFCC and taken it away from editors. Well done on your approach to helping editors comply with one of our core policies there. Your 'lesser evil' is dependant on someone else coming along afterwards and fixing the problem rather than enable editors to understand our policies at the point they are required to use them. Well done on your approach to educating editors on our policies too. Bang up job all around I would say. WP:NFCC is non-negotiable. A non-free image either has a valid fair use rationale or it doesnt. If it doesnt, it gets removed. "Not applicable" is not a valid rationale for any non-free image. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What's "not applicable" is of course not compliance with the NFCC. As I've said dozens of times, what's "not applicable" is the need to explain that compliance, in those (few) specific sections where it's trivially obvious. Even with non-free use rationales, common sense applies. Things that are fucking obvious don't require fucking explanations. Nobody needs to be told why, if you're going to illustrate an article about a work of art, you cannot illustrate it with anything other than that artwork itself. Forcing uploaders to compose their own essays about such things only takes away their attention from those things that really matter – those parts of rationales that are specific to an individual image and actually need individual input (e.g. why do you need a screenshot of this particular scene; why couldn't you do that with text alone, etc). We want uploaders to concentrate on those parts and fill them in in plain, simple words. We don't want them to start copying over some nonsensical pseudo-legalistic boilerplate from elsewhere, like all that nonsense we had in the "canned" rationale templates. That helps nobody; it will only contribute further to the misunderstanding that all parts of the non-free use rationale are that kind of bureaucratic red tape, to be filled in mechanically and mindlessly.

Now, if you have a good idea about what else we should put in those few specific slots where we've been using "n.a." up to now, without causing information overload and taxing the attention span of the average uploader, do feeel free to head over to WT:FUW and propose it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It is required that an explanation is given for why a non-free image satisfies NFCC. I have no need to head over to WT:FUW and propose anything, it is up to those in charge of the FUW to comply with the current policy. If, as you indicate, there is no consensus to change the FUW to stop it inserting incorrect rationales for NFCC criteria, then the consequences of that decision is that images uploaded through the wizard will continue to be removed where they lack valid rationales or obviously incorrect rationales. Now they can either manually put something in before or after the image has been uploaded, but leaving it as "not applicable" will have those consequences. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Since those rationales are perfectly valid, and have been accepted as valid by project-wide consensus for more than 9 years, the consequences are that people who enage in spurious image removals for no other reason than their disagreement with those details will be blocked for disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

"Not applicable" is not a valid fair use rationale. "This criteria is met because XYZ" where XYZ is a valid reason would be. Threatening to block people who remove non-free material without valid rationales will not end well for the admin. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ooh, threats from an involved "admin"? Honestly, you really couldn't make this up. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Ok here's my two cents: if the images are in fact logos, then having a FUR of "n.a." isn't ideal but it doesn't mean the image should be commented out or otherwise removed until the FUR is supplied. What's required is that a fair use image have a fair use rationale; it's not actually required that the rationale be coded into the template, and if the rationale is obvious, as it is for logos, then it's not doing any harm to have the image remain even if the rationale isn't added to the template. If TRM wanted to volunteer to remedy this situation, TRM should have supplied the rationale for logos (like "it's a logo of a company in an article about the company") rather than going around removing the logos. (I'd feel differently if the FUR was non-obvious, eg for pics other than logos.) But removing the images isn't really necessary and isn't the best solution. TRM: this is much like the last time when autodidactic asked you for examples six times and you refused to provide them: your approach to solving these problems makes the problems worse, not better. Sorry but it's true. Your responses in this thread suggest to me you are outraged by this and that's weird (you seem to take it so personally?) and counterproductive. If logos with "n.a." FURs is having an emotional effect on you, take a step back. At the same time, I can't figure out why the wizard doesn't just add the same boilerplate to the template code that already is presented to the user as part of the Wizard when they're selecting the FUR, eg "logo in an article about the organization" should be the default FUR for logos, "cover art used in an article about the work", etc. "n.a." suggest "not applicable" or "not available", which is not correct. Levivich 12:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Not at all, i explained clearly that n.a. is not acceptable, I pointed to NFCC which is the policy. Honestly, you couldn’t make this up. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

What you're not focusing on is your chosen remedy. While you are correct that n.a. is not applicable (heh), that doesn't mean removing the image was the right thing to do. For example, edit warring is against policy, it doesn't mean we remove editors for every 4RR. Instead of making an edit removing the image you could have done nothing or made an edit supplying the FUR, either of which would have been a better choice. Removing an image with an obvious FUR because the template field says "n.a.", like removing the logo of a company in an article about the company, is WP:POINTY: it's making the article worse (disrupting it) for the purpose of making a point about the wizard. What I'm telling you is that you have a knack for identifying the right problem and then implementing the wrong solution. And I'm like the umpteenth person to say this to you over the years, am I not? Levivich 12:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, it violates your interpretation of NFCC. There’s a key distinction there. Let’s consider the implications of if you’re right. Category:Non-free rationale as na is at 31,000 files and counting, will perhaps reach 100k by the time the refresh finishes. That would imply one of two things: either we have 100k files without a proper free use rationale, which would be a crisis, or our free use policies are too strict and encourage bureaucratic paper-work filling (if so, they must be adjusted). Given that the WMF has not yet been sued over this, I’m inclined to assume that either it’s the second option (our policies are too bureaucratic), or your interpretation is wrong. ProcSock (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no 'interpretation' of NFCC. All non-free images have to satisfy all 10 criteria. This is not a vaguely worded policy that is hard to parse. There are no criteria that are "not applicable". Either non-free work satisfies the criteria, or it doesnt. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They need to satisfy all ten, but the documentation requirements are exclusively spelled out in #10. The dispute here seems over the requirements of 10c, which requires a free use rationale to be provided on the image description page. ProcSock (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue points to the editors that have maintained the Upload Wizard (in the code pointed out above) that reject having to even include basis "cookie cutter" rationale pieces, given that the Upload Wizard is used by majority of editors to upload images. We don't have a proactive NFC review after the upload is made, so it is inappropriate to say our non-free policy is too strict. Further, this has nothing to do with legalities, or at least the chance of WP being sued. It is not a "fair use" policy, it is a "non-free" policy because we want to encourage the minimum amount of non-free media and encourage free media whenever possible. Filling in all 10 NFC criteria is a means to justify why the non-free is allowed to be used - and by happenstance better support a fair use defense, but that's not the primary goal. That's why all 10 metrics should be filled out beyond an "n.a.", even if for something like a logo the bulk of the rationale will be the same between all logos. --Masem (t) 15:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and commenting out fair use images being used with insufficient material in every field should not result in being threatened by some involved admin, such as Future Prefect with being blocked. While no shock, that's a really outstandingly bad attitude for an admin here. I'm flabbergasted by the users here defending this. It's pretty bloody obvious that if asked for rationales to be properly filled in, they should be. Laziness is no excuse. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Fix and remediation

I think the immediate issue, of the one particular image, is solved here. It seems we're at risk of missing the forest for a twig—one of the primary tools editors use to upload files has been generating invalid nonfree rationales since 2012.[546] From the script ProcrastinatingReader is running, we may have tens or even hundreds of thousands of impacted files. Given that, removing them all on the grounds of an invalid rationale (and thereby subjecting them to F5 deletion after a week) is not a realistic solution to the issue, even though it technically is justifiable.

The immediate concern is to fix the Upload Wizard script. As a stopgap measure, we should immediately change the "n.a." to something like "YOU MUST COMPLETE THIS FIELD MANUALLY FOR YOUR RATIONALE TO BE VALID", hopefully at least drawing the user's attention to the requirement. Following that, we could determine if there is appropriate boilerplate text to use in those instances (in which case we have the wizard use the text there is consensus for in those cases), or if that is not possible, have it put up a prompt/dialog for users to hand enter the reason at upload and disallow the upload if blank.

The bigger question is how to remediate all the bad rationales we already have. If we can come to a consensus that "boilerplate" text is appropriate in some or all of these cases, I would not object to a bot simply replacing the "n.a." with the appropriate boilerplate text where indicated. If that is not true for any of these, well—then we've got a big old mess, and a lot of work. In that instance, I think automation could still be useful in two ways. First, it could put images which still have any "n.a." after boilerplate has been inserted where possible into a category for editors to examine, determine if they meet the remaining criteria, and add an appropriate explanation if so. Second, many of the uploaders of these images may still be active editors, so it may be useful to leave an automated talk page message letting editors know that image(s) they uploaded were impacted and what's needed to resolve that. After some grace period (the length of which will need to be determined once we know how many images remain impacted and must be done by hand), the images still not fixed will once again be subject to removal and F5 deletion. This is of course just off the top of my head, but I think it's at least a start as to how to clean up this mess. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

That "stopgap measure" would be the very worst of things you could do. The wizard is designed to elicit all relevant input from the user and assemble a complete file description page from it. Users rightfully expect that. If you think there's something more that should be added, you'll have to change the wizard so that it actually asks the user for it during the input process (which of course can be done, though I continue to warn against it). If you instead just leave a note to the user that they must add something else manually after the fact, you're basically just thumbing your nose at them. In that case, you're just breaking the wizard. It will be better to just return to the old Special:Upload. Have fun policing the rubbish uploads that will get you. As for the old cases, if you think they are invalid, you could have changed something ten years ago; everybody knew what the wizard was doing back then. I personally continue to believe nothing is broken and nothing is in need of repair. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Which is of course patently untrue as "not applicable" is absolutely not a suitable justification for elements of NFCC. Indeed, that you have even threatened to block people for commenting out fair use images with such erroneous justifications speaks volumes, it appears you are too involved here to give a balanced view on this problem with the "wizard" which fails. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Right now, the tool is apparently not behaving as intended, if its intent is to elicit all relevant input from the user and assemble a complete file description page from it. It is not getting all necessary information, it is generating incomplete rationales, and its users are not being warned of that. With the "stopgap" measure, the first two will remain true, but the last will change at least to that its users are being warned of that. That's at least an improvement. Certainly the ultimate goal should be that the tool actually does generate complete rationales, but that will take time to achieve, and in the meantime we at least need to stop generating more bad rationales. No criterion ever may be marked "n.a.", since each and every criterion is applicable to each and every use of each and every nonfree image. There will never be a case where one is "not applicable" (which is what "n.a." stands for), but in this case it could also stand for "not acceptable". If you have a better idea for a fix, by all means put it forth, but it absolutely must be fixed, and sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

"All necessary information" means: all necessary input from the user to allow us to judge if their use of the file is adequate. The contents of those particular slots aren't that, because they are trivial, predictable and self-obvious. No information value whatsoever. But well, if you must, there are several options in principle:

1. Make it insert some other placeholder string, other than literally "n.a.", to convey the idea that this particular criterion for this particular class of files is trivially and obviously fulfilled without further need of individual explanation. That's what the "n.a." was always meant to convey; if "n.a." is felt to be inadequate for that, I'm open for suggestions. People could have made such suggestions 9 years ago.
2. Make it (automatically) insert some boilerplate providing an actual explanation for how it's fulfilled. That boilerplate will by necessity be stupid and trivial, and therefore harmful, but of course that's also possible. I have general objections to doing this, but this will also be technically easy to do.
3. Offer the same kind of boilerplate explanation as a pre-filled option in an input field presented to the user (along with the others they already have to fill in), and then insert either that or whatever else the user overwrites it with. Slightly more involved in terms of coding, but also possible.
4. Simply offer an input field and force the user to provide their input individually. This will lead to nonsense responses in like 98% of all cases, have absolutely no positive value in improving the rationals, and cause an unavoidable loss of acceptance among the users being forced through it, but if you insist, be my guest.

Don't expect me to help with coding any of options 2–4. But it's a wiki, after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

How about "fair use rationale evident from usage" for #1 as an interim measure (and #3 would be the best long term fix imo). Levivich 16:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not like to do #1, as that will just make invalid rationales with different language used, which will complicate any automated process for remediation. #2, if it turns out to be feasible, is ideal, since that both allows for automated remediation and is technically the most simple to implement (just changes to the values of some string constants). Looking at some areas affected, I think there is a realistic possibility for it at least for some areas. For example, with a logo, the "replaceability" portion could read Any derivative work based upon the logo would be a copyright violation, so creation of a free image is not possible., and the "Commercial" one could read The use of a low-resolution image of an organization's logo in the article about that organization will not impact the commercial viability of the logo. So the hope certainly would be that there is a broadly applicable boilerplate like that for all the areas, and we could take care of this with as little pain as possible. If for any area widely applicable boilerplate is not possible, it should be #4; the uploader should then describe in their own words how the criterion is passed in that particular case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

This is tantamount to what I suggested from the get-go yet was still threatened by the involved admin user who said it would block me if I commented out images with incorrect fair use rationales because of the erroneous and lazy use of the not-so-magical "wizard". When all is said and done, there's clearly no reasonable editor here saying that "n.a." is a valid rationale for any NFCC criterion, and the badly-coded "wizard" shouldn't do that any longer, or at least those who use the "wizard" should be aware that it's not fit for purpose and their file uploads need work after the event. "evident from usage" is absolute nonsense, by the way. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree, not funny. What they did to you this time, I mean. If any credit is due, real recognizes real and you were right all along. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack in defense of vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

05:21, 19 July 2021 (UFC)

This extensive message left on my talk page makes me believe there's no way User:Rccapps misunderstood their edits or my edits, and that they are simply peeved their vandalism was corrected. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 05:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"FormalDude", let me repeat/paraphrase here what I wrote on your talk page: the "who is hot as hell" clause was not my contribution. My only contribution was a valid punctuation correction of a non-restrictive relative clause. So unless you are suggesting grammar/punctuation correction is vandalism, you are not now assuming good faith on my part with your insinuation that "they[sic] are simply peeved their[sic] vandalism was corrected." Nor were you assuming good faith then when you claimed my valid punctuation correction "did not appear to be constructive." According to the edit history/log, you reverted my punctuation correction first (taking the time to tell me it was not constructive), and only then did you remove the actual vandalism. As I commented on your talk page, you could have removed the entire clause - corrected punctuation and all - in a single edit without making an inappropriate reference to my edit. It would have taken less effort. But the extra effort to impugn my contribution, as well as your subsequent dismissal of my counter-critique, makes me believe you have abandoned good faith in favor of ego. But we can still make this right, as I proposed on your talk page. I will further refine my proposal here: if you remove/retract all of your comments from "did not appear to be constructive" until now, I will remove my comments in response. If you don't have the editing authority to do that, perhaps the administrators (whose attention you've undoubtedly attracted) can assist you. Rccapps (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You're right it is not your contribution because you've never contributed to Miesha Tate and accordingly I notified User:174.250.0.9 of their edit that maintained vandalism on the page: 05:43, 17 July 2021. Clearly you made the edit while logged out and saw my response and are now incorrectly accusing me on your main account. And BTW I did actually remove the vandalism if you look at the page history, which is apparently hard for you. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• User:174.250.0.9 (who is currently blocked) made the edit in question that User:Rccapps called theirs (even though they've never edited that page). ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming even more bizarre, so let me see if I understand you, "FormalDude". You just wrote that "...you've [meaning me] never contributed to Meisha Tate...", and then in the very next sentence, you wrote that "...you made the edit while logged out...". I can accept that my punctuation edit was made while I was inadvertently logged out. If so: oopsie! But it is still my edit - I'm not dodging responsibility for it. As to "now incorrectly accusing me [meaning you]", accusing you of what? Do you deny labeling the punctuation edit with the phrase "did not appear constructive"? Because that's the basis of my "accusation". Do you claim that the punctuation correction itself was incorrect? Because that was the substance of my "accusation". As to your further commentary "...BTW I did actually remove the vandalism if you look at the page history, which is apparently hard for you," you are failing to stay calm. I have acknowledged more than once that you removed the vandalism, as well as the provenance in the page history, most recently in my first comment on this very page (see above): "According to the edit history/log, you reverted my punctuation correction first...and only then did you remove the actual vandalism." Your insinuation that viewing this edit history is "hard for you [meaning me]" is clearly baseless. Why are you digging yourself in deeper? Rccapps (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay you have both had your say, now wait for the outside opinions that you came here for. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Observation. Rccapps admits to editing logged out as 174.250.0.9 who is part of a /18 partial-rangeblock on a happy tree friends LTA, @Ohnoitsjamie: might want to look at that to see if this is more than coincidental. As for FormalDude's vandalism warning of 174.250.0.9 it was miss-placed as the edit merely corrected punctuation. The warning should've been placed on 2600:6C4A:1B7F:A757:1895:A3CF:41CF:2AA0 talk page only as they inserted the vandalism. FormalDude should retract their wrongly placed warning.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Eostrix on all points made. I will add that correcting the grammar on vandalism shows a bit of carelessness. Surely they must have read the sentence in order to fix the punctuation. Other than looking into the suspicious IP range I don't think anything here requires an administrator. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that correcting punctuation on an added vandalism clause is less than optimal as a more alert editor would remove the vandalism, however it is not vandalism.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Making orthographical corrections to obvious vandalism is not constructive editing - I don't see anything wrong with FormalDude's Level 1 warning to the IP. Rccapps has made it clear that he didn't 'accidentally' leave the vandalism on the page - he thought it was funny, so fixed the punctuation rather than removing it. That is unconstructive, but instead of apologising for a silly joke, he has insulted FormalDude, and wasted a load of time with supercilious pedantry bordering on trolling. I see that as disruptive, and will block his account if he makes a habit of it. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt the deliberations, but I feel I must counter a point or two made by "Girth Summit". I'm not sure if the "silly joke" refers to the original vandalism or my grammatical correction, but the former was (as has been established) not my doing, and the latter was not a joke. The fact that I found the vandalism mildly amusing doesn't mean I endorse it, let alone wish to practice it myself (nor have I). I take proper grammar/punctuation seriously, and I don't believe understanding - let alone vigorously defending - the use of proper grammar is any more supercilious or pedantic than the use of such uncommon words as "orthographical", "supercilious" and "pedantry". Block my account if your conscience so dictates - it's your platform, not mine - but I vehemently disagree with the bad-faith label of "disruptive." Rccapps (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not investigated this so please excuse me if I am misunderstanding, but I will also block anyone who glorifies vandalism with any affirmation. The only thing to do with vandalism is to revert it with a very low-key edit summary ("rvv" is good). See WP:DENY. Do not correct vandalism and do not keep it around. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Rccapps, disruptive editing is not necessarily done in bad faith. Perhaps you really are the sort of person who thinks that it is constructive to correct the punctuation of what you yourself describe as chauvinistic vandalism, and who thinks that it is collegiate to describe people who remove such content as humorless wiki-gendarmes. If you were to see a badly spelled racial slur in an article, perhaps you also believe that it would be constructive for you to fix the spelling? I don't know anything about you or your motivations, but I do know that such edits are not constructive, and that insulting FormalDude was a violation of our policy on personal attacks. This platform is no more mine than it is anybody else's, but I do have a mandate to prevent disruption to this project, and I am very close to blocking you at this point. Never do anything like that again. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Excessive hyphen use aside, I don't think a block is needed. However a light admonishment for recognizing vandalism and correcting the punctuation instead of removing it is in order. A firmer admonishment for insulting the person who called you out on it is also in order.

I hereby admonish thusly. Perhaps we can close this thread now? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Chatterjee95

User:Chatterjee95 has been creating countless spin-off articles (mostly filmographies) and categories which have all been redirected or deleted. The issues with his editing have been noted multiple times by different editors (for example here, here, here or here) (just see the whole of his talk page actually), but the editor doesn't change his appraoch or asks for any clarifications whatsoever. I noticed them when new page patrolling, when they created List of awards and nominations received by Tiger Shroff, a completely unnecessary spinoff (the awards section in the main article is very short anyway).

As this user is just wasting their own time and that of new page patrollers (and category patrollers and so on), and nearly everything they do gets deleted or redirected anyway, I think it is time for some sanction, perhaps a short block, to get their attention and to steer them towards actually helpful edits instead of this. Fram (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. I'm actually not sure that putting a clock on this would be the best. Happy to lift it, though, even with a nominal acknowledgment of the issues and commitment not to repeat the behaviour. El_C 11:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

On further thought, I downgraded the block from sitewide to a mainspace p-block. El_C 11:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hoax articles by User:WVkiddo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

WVkiddo (talk · contribs) appears to be creating hoaxes and providing false information for related images on Commons. Sources for articles (e.g. Ken Flores,Ken Souder) resolve to nothing.Citing (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Also they added false information to David Portnoy. Chelcie Lynn may be a real person but given these bad faith actions I think it should also be speedied.Citing (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm getting 404 page error and domain issues from the reference of Ken Flores and Ken Souder, and no news of David Portnoy passing away as the editor indicates in their edit here. Jerm (talk) 19:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Their images (cross-uploaded to commons) also appear to be copyvios and hoaxes.Citing (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(ec) None of the links in either article worked, and researching online I can find nothing to corroborate that these people exist. Deleted as hoaxes. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And add Jim Patrick (manager) as another hoax. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore Would you mind blocking the user too?Citing (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I feel like this is a bad thing, and that they're absolutely not here to build an encyclopedia. Jorm (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

They are, and I've indef'd for that. Was getting ready to but work called me away. Just did it now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:23.90.179.162

IP is abusing talk page access. IP is already range blocked for a period of 2 years 7 months. —chaetodipus (talk) 05:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Persistent harassment by User:JesseRafe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• JesseRafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BlueboyLINY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My talk page has been invaded by JesseRafe on 5 different occasions, beginning notably with a false accusation of my being a sockpuppet here. And continuing on to try to make the vanguard article vastly different from state street and blackrock. Perhaps most egregiously, he actually tried to argue on behalf of blueboyliny here claiming that I was the editor who refused to go to the talk page. He also accused me of being WP:NOTHERE, despite hundreds of constructive edits and only a few instances of reverts. In each instance of reverts, I do always go to the talk page to discuss with other editors so that we continue to strive to make wikipedia a cleaner and more inclusive environment, and the blueboyliny case actually resulted in blueboyliny being banned, so.. Thank you for your consideration. Sucker for All (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: BlueboyLINY (talk · contribs) was partially-blocked from article space to get their attention. They were not banned, nor have they ever been. The block has since been lifted, and is irrelevant to any dispute between SfA and JesseRafe. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell everyone about the part where you wrote "deleted the jesserafe, doggy, shoestringnomad, lovi circlejerk ..." Levivich 18:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sucker for All, I've already advised you that you have no reasonable beef against JesseRafe and that you should drop this stick. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

JesseRafe has commented on your talk page 4 times, all of which were to leave templated warning messages. I'm not seeing any evidence that your talk page has been "invaded" by them. The first message was a SPI notice - leaving them on the talk pages of users involved in a SPI is completely standard. The next two were edit waring notices, and given that you've reverted The Vanguard Group to your preferred version 9 times at this point ([547] [548], [549], [550], [551], [552], [553], [554], [555]) they seem like completely appropriate notices. The final notice was a warning that referring to other editors discussing your conduct as a "circlejerk" [556] was inappropriate, which doesn't seem unreasonable. If there's an editor being disruptive here it doesn't seem to be JesseRafe. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason to keep this discussion open. @Sucker for All: You are not being harassed. The warnings left on your page by JesseRafe were appropriate and warranted. Continued unsubstantiated complaints against this editor are likely to result in actions against you. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attacks and casting aspersions

LeontinaVarlamonva (talk · contribs)

The editor keeps accusing me and other editors they don't agree with of "using Soviet tactics", "wanting what follows Kremlin's favorite talking points", "clean up things that Kremlin would not like" etc. etc. They have been warned by another editor that it is a breach of WP:CIVIL, but to no avail. This poisons talk page discussions and makes it impossible to make an argument based on the Wikipedia policies (this is an example of a discussion that should be about sources and notability and not about personal attacks). Also, this editor reverted my edits of Transnistria article, a topic they had had no interest in before my edit. I propose that the editor is reminded about WP:CIVIL and prevented from hounding me. Alaexis_¿question? 13:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I was registering my opinion about trends that I think I'm seeing, this includes not only Russia but also edits on China-related pages, where there have been attempts to whitewash facts. I'm sorry my straightforward manner hurts someone's feelings but facts hurt, which is why there is attempt to change them by all means. Also keep in mind that during the latest interaction, I was pinged for my opinion and only after that I offered my viewpoint, which is what it is. --LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 10:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Straightforward would be "You should not have made that edit because XYZ, lets do ABC instead because its supported by blahblahblah." Not calling something a "soviet tactic" or saying users are "doing what the Kremlin wanted" That is not straightforward, its uncivil and casting aspersions. Find a better way to discuss things. If you think these editors legitimately are editing NPOV- then report it. Don't just accuse. Otherwise- discuss civilly or move on. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Group of new editors adding/removing whitespace

Hi. Might be nothing, but there could be something going on with these accounts all either adding/removing a whitespace. I recall something similar happening before with sleeper accounts trying to get auto-confirmed. I've not notified any of these accounts of this discussion (yet), but let me know if I should in this case.

• Basudev Routizer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Crypto Satanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GlowingHash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Removing un-necessary white space, is good. Adding them, is bad. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This might be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isuzu.tf, a rather bizarre sockfarm that seems to focus on whitespace removal edits. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The rate of edits suggests a possible unauthorized bot. My gut is to warn, then block if there's no communication back. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• All three accounts CU-blocked by NinjaRobotPirate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not really 100% sure of this, but I think it's Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון, but it's someone who's activating sleepers to get a bunch of accounts extended confirmed. I suspect there's going to be more showing up. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Your hunch paid off! Tommy von Mellenthin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Same m/o as the others. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, same IP range. Blocked two more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:NickCT edit-warring, re-inserting names of criminal suspects and disregarding consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This user has been persistently edit-warring and ignoring consensus that developed against naming suspects in the Assassination of Jovenel Moïse. The consensus developed on two pages Talk:Assassination of Jovenel Moïse and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assassination of Jovenel Moïse.

Despite this User:NickCT has restored suspect names (which he had originally added) thrice after I removed them [557], [558], [559].

The reason for restoring he claims on User talk:NickCT#Please don't restore suspect names is that since it's a rapidly evolving article, "new consensus" is needed. However , the only thing NickCT has added are new suspects. When I pointed it out, he claimed that the name of the suspects are now being more widely covered. But I already pointed this out to other users on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assassination of Jovenel Moïse in my very first comment Multiple sources have discussed their names and why their identities and nationalities are important, being entrepreneurs and ex-soldiers ensnared in the assassination. Yet they decided against including names of suspects.

Just because the consensus was made a few days ago (the last discussion was about 2 days ago), doesn't invalidate it. Yet NickCt has been wilfully disregarding it and has continued to add in the names despite a warning. A mere edit-warring is not really a problem, but an edit-warring where you keep re-inserting names of suspects despite probability of victimization and disregard consensus by making up your rules, is too far gone. I request a block on this editor. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... Disappointing that LéKashmiriSocialiste didn't want to discuss this on the appropriate talk pages. Reviewing the the revision history for the page in question, it's pretty clear there may be some WP:OWN issues. It also seems as though LéKashmiriSocialiste] may have hit WP:3RR on this topic, so it's odd he'd come here to complain about my edit warring.

This appears to be a newer editor. I'll work with him to develop consensus. NickCT (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all User:NickCT you are clearly engaging in disrespectful mocking behaviour. Secondly yes I did breach 3RR but it was on accident and me reverting someone who makes up his own rules is bound to make that happen, especially when I have a poor memory. I thought I only did 3 reverts. But at least I didn't impose my own rules on the article. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: - I wish you had continued discussing this topic with me rather than coming here. I'm really not sure what behavior has been "disrespectful mocking behaviour". NickCT (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You were warned not to disregard consensus and unilaterally chose to do so. Besides starting out with "Hmmmmm.... Disappointing that" is exact mocking behaviour and so is talking in teasing terms like, "Reviewing the the revision history for the page in question, it's pretty clear there may be some WP:OWN issues. It also seems as though LéKashmiriSocialiste] may have hit WP:3RR on this topic, so it's odd he'd come here to complain about my edit warring. This appears to be a newer editor. I'll work with him to develop consensus." This despite my own talk page going back to 2020. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

How far back does my talk page go?

It is "Disappointing that" you came here. This was not the right place to come until you've attempted to resolve your content dispute on the relevant talkpage. NickCT (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You could have exclusively used the talk page instead of restoring your edits multiple times and deciding if a new consensus is needed. You're also fighting over some English words. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

You could have also used the talkpage. You still can..... I'm explaining English words. Not fighting. NickCT (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I did message you many times over it and you decided to disregard them. Someone needs to revert and maintain status quo. See WP:STATUSQUO. And you violated a consensus you were fully aware of. Meanwhile you are trying to troll me. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Once again, "consensus" involves multiple people. Not just you.

Anyways, I'm going to restrict comments about content to the relevant talk page. NickCT (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickCT: why are you saying repeatedly that LKS needs to use the talk page when they obviously already are, and have used multiple talk pages to discuss this with you? You appear to be being disruptive. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. I was explaining my edits on the talkpage, LKS was just reverting. He He only started discussing after the second or third revert. When you say "they obviously already are", his last comment were from a couple days ago right? He wasn't using the talkpage as he was reverting. 00:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I did so after the second first revert. But even before then I warned you why names of suspects couldn't be added in edit summaries which you clearly saw. And you kept reverting instead of simply discussing and maintaining WP:STATUSQUO. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why say "actually" when you're just repeating what I said? Edit summaries aren't a substitute for talkpage discussion. NickCT (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I went to the talk page after my first revert, I'm sorry for the confusion. But I said "actually" because you aren't sure. When you're told you can't add names of suspects and it's against consensus you should easily understand that. And talk page discussions aren't an excuse for edit-warring or violating consensus. You knew fully well the consensus was against it and yet you continued to add the names. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused why the first time you came to the talk page, you seemed to agree with my comment about not reverting, then you reverted anyway without further discussion on the talk page. NickCT (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Like I've said repeatedly consensus is not in your favour. I assumed you knew that since the comments about it were visible publicly and you certainly didn't express ignorance at any point, but simply demanded a new consensus. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If you didn't think consensus was in my favor, why not say that on the talkpage before reverting? The fundamental issue here is the reporting on this recent event has changed substantially in the past 48 hr, and you seem to be deferring to comments made a while back in coming up with your perceived "consensus". WP looks a little bit silly when it moves slowly like this. NickCT (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why would I need to say something that would be publicly visible to you? Because unless you didn't read them, there are 3 or 4 people against (I'm not sure about Susmuffin). I actually did say consensus is against you many times later on, you continued reverting. The only thing that changed in the last 48 hours is new names. That doesn't matter. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Because edit summaries aren't a substitute for talkpage discussion. Those 3 or 4 people haven't commented for days. We seem to be going in circles. NickCT (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

They are enough to inform you and make you aware. Which was my purpose. And the fact is those comments are easily visible. That is if you tried to read them. If you didn't bother reading them before jumping into the argument then it isn't my fault. It's yours that you didn't bother. Those comments were posted at least two days ago, not two years ago. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm on wikibreak but since this is a BLP issue I got a bit involved in I felt the urge to comment. I don't think this needs to be at ANI at the moment. But User:NickCT is making up the idea there is a new consensus developed over the last 2 days. There is no such thing. If there was an earlier consensus and I have no idea if there was, then it should be respected until there is clear evidence it has changed. not NickCT just making crap up. One IP raising a highly flawed argument and NickCT insisting things have changed is not an indication consensus has changed when there was I think over 105-7 editors involved in the earlier discussion, and nothing particularly new raised by either of them. If NickCT keeps at it and there is no actual indication consensus has changed then yeah, partially block them. But we're still a while away from there. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies I was mistaken. Taken both pages together, the number was 5-7 depending if you count me (since I was skeptical of reasons given for including the names, but never came to the conclusion we must exclude them) and another editor who said they removed the names and it looked fine, but didn't otherwise comment on whether it was necessary. However I also see the IP was already involved. This makes it even more perplexing why their argument at BLPN included stuff already dealt with but whatever. We still cannot take NickCT and the IP claiming things have changed then mostly repeating arguments already discussed or otherwise flawed and no one bothering to respond as an indication there is a new consensus over the past 2 days, despite NickCT's apparent belief of the contrary. Nil Einne (talk) 06:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

For fairness I notified the IP who I mentioned in both my comments above, and the other editor who I didn't name but who's actions I directly mentioned. I did not notify the other participants of the talk page or BLPN as my comment on their actions was very broad. Nil Einne (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• Lots of noise. I'll keep it short. Nil saying an editor's argument is flawed doesn't make it so. Even his repeating it. For all the words here, empty broadsides simply seek to further needlessly encumber a page. (Nor does his saying an editor claimed things have changed is true - when the editor said no such thing). This sort of "reasoning" creates more heat than light. 2603:7000:2143:8500:E833:D2A0:C535:3756 (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I'm about to leave but I have to say I just looked into the most recent edits and I'm even more perplexed who's claiming what. I may have been mistaken about what NickCT is saying, and if so I apologise. Although in my defence, I don't see any way I could know from their comments on either of the three places that they were trying to develop a consensus for something other than what the earlier discussion at BLPN was about. The earlier discussion started off about whether it was okay to have bulleted point list of names of all suspects. Again I'm not evaluating consensus but several people objected to such a list for various reasons. Although I didn't explicitly oppose such a list, I did raise the issue that if for some reason these names mattered, this should be established in the article with reference to sources. It seems NickCT is not arguing for such a list, but instead for discussion of certain individuals along with their names. While BLPNAME issues still arise, this is quite a different thing from simply including a list of names. It may very well be that there is also merit to discuss in our article some suspects including their names and so consensus develops or has developed for that (although I think at best at the moment there is no clear consensus either way). Yet in that case, it may very well be the earlier consensus against including a list of names of all the suspects still holds. I think editors involved in those discussions need to be a lot clearer what they're advocating for. Assuming there is consensus to discuss and name some suspects, there may remain some dispute over other suspects whether to discuss them at all, or just whether to name this. All this can be resolved via discussion on the article talk page or maybe BLPN. I'm still fairly sure there is no clear consensus to include or exclude any particular suspect's name. I don't even think there is consensus to include any suspect's name, possibly not to exclude either. There may be consensus against a list of all suspects although I haven't personally evaluated that. IMO having looked at this more carefully, it would probably be better if all sides stop saying a consensus exists and focus on discussion to achieve it, again with clarity on what they're asking for. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: - re "I could know from their comments on either of the three places that they were trying to develop a consensus" - Agree. As I mentioned above, it's unfortunate this discussion was split. Can we move content discussions to the relevant talk page? I guess one benefit of coming to ANI was that at least we got more eyes.... NickCT (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@NickCT: There is nothing wrong in comments on another page. Hadron had requested opinions on the issue after coming at an impasse with other editors, including me. It's not like they're difficult to find, especially when the link to them was available on the talk page of the assassination article. There isn't going to be any new consensus because you demand it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we move content discussions to the relevant talk page? NickCT (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussions stopped 3 days ago, there's no point in transplanting another page's entire discussion that is not ongoing. It's just you fighting over the issue currently, so there's nothing to move. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

NickCt has broken 3RR himself, something he's been chiding me over even though I only did it by mistake, and left a mocking edit summary to punish me if I reverted again: [560]. He is also threatening me "that he won't be patient" over it despite doing the same behaviour if not worse. I don't know if he's aware or not, though it seems he is given he's been keeping a count of reverts. But he's certainly too aggressive. On the talk page of the article too he threatened me [561]. Please just block him already for edit-warring, disregarding consensus and hostile incivil behaviour. He's trolled me in the past too. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

LeKashmiriSocialiste, perhaps we should review your conduct first. You were blocked indefinitely last year for edit-warring and personal attacks, and then unblocked after making assurances about how you would work collaboratively to resolve future disputes, including "I will avoid attacking/insulting any person in future." Yet, you have used an edit summary insultingly to suggest that the other editor can't fix his own spelling and grammar ([562]). A month later, you were blocked for edit-warring, after which you made another assurance: "I have no intention to edit war at all In fact I won't even revert anyone anymore once I am reverted". Yet, here we have you persistently reverting after you were reverted ([563] [564] [565] [566]). I understand you are citing consensus on a BLP matter for your reversions (and NickCT cites that consensus has changed), but as edit-warring policy says, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Perhaps you should work harder to abide by your assurances. Editing restrictions aren't ideal, but perhaps a 1RR restriction will be beneficial, given your acknowledgement of breaching 3RR and that it is bound to happen with your memory issues regarding multiple reverts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure let's review my behaviour User:Ncmvocalist. There are key points you missed our Yes I was blocked last year but I was new and apologized. Also when I said "I have no intention to edit war at all In fact I won't even revert anyone anymore once I am reverted" it was me offering an exchange for my unblock. However that assurance and condition wasn't accepted [567]. Even in my unblock request which was declined you can see no such condition is mandated [568]. So me reverting a very disruptive editor who won't consider a consensus isn't any violation of any assurance (which wasn't even accepted btw).

As far as "I will avoid attacking/insulting any person in future" goes, I didn't insult anybody. All I did was note their behaviour and criticise them for it, "You can fight a lot NickCT but you can't fix grammar and spelling mistakes in your own edits despite being made aware." That wasn't meant as an attack or insult, but in a neutral (though frustrated) tone. If that looks like an insult or attack, it's you incorrectly reading it.

It's ironic that you want a restriction on me for forgetting I breached 3RR, but you have no problem with another person breaching 3RR. I'm not the one who disregarded consensus here. Nor I broke any assurances. If you solely want to blame me then go ahead. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Also User:Ncmvocalist, if you didn't notice NickCT has been haranguing me about language skills and even trolling me over it [569], [570], [571], [572]. You can get whatever restriction you want, you can be assured I won't violate it unlike NickCT or troll people like he did to me. I fulfil a promise made (unless others discard it first). LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

...when I said "I have no intention to edit war at all In fact I won't even revert anyone anymore once I am reverted" it was me offering an exchange for my unblock. However that assurance and condition wasn't accepted.... The unblock process offers an opportunity to demonstrate you have learnt your lesson and will behave appropriately in any event so that a block is no longer necessary. At that time, you never actually said that your assurance was purely conditional upon you being unblocked at the time and that the assurance would fall away if your unblock request was declined, did you?

You also say I didn't insult anybody. All I did was note their behaviour and criticise them for it. Even so, that should still be avoided in an article edit summary.

I haven't said there isn't an issue with NickCT's conduct or that you are solely to blame. I have just said we should start with reviewing your conduct because you are edit-warring just about a year after you were blocked for doing so. Also, you are now egging for a block against another editor without acknowledging that you were in fact edit-warring - irrespective of whether or not you broke a bright line rule and irrespective of any dispute about the current or future consensus as such. I am not suggesting you be restricted because of the bright line rule itself; I am suggesting it would force you to cease edit-warring in the future and engage in more talk page discussion in the event of a dispute - which is beneficial as a whole.

Yes, I noticed the exchange on your user talk page about your prose - though I think it is a stretch to assert NickCT was "haranguing" or "trolling" you about it. While NickCT didn't need to question your English proficiency specifically, I think it is clear that he did so openly on your user talk page with a view to clarifying concerns he had about your use of language (such as a sentence in the article beginning with the word "Per"). AGF. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually it was conditional because it was part of my unblock request and it was me assuring that's what I'd do if unblocked. And my unblock request was declined [573]. So I have no assurance to honour. If you want me to honour something that wasn't even accepted by others, it's not going to happen. I think I know more whether it was conditional or not?

Secondly yes, I did not insult anyone. "You can fight a lot NickCT but you can't fix grammar and spelling mistakes in your own edits despite being made aware," was describing the truth and was a reality. NickCT has been fighting and I did tell him how his own sentences had mistakes (which he didn't correct): [574].

Lastly Wikipedia is open on public so harassment on talk pages will be public too. And he wasn't expressing any concern, he was straight up mocking and threatening me. Which extended beyond my language skills. Someone who is expressing a concern merely does not say things like this (especially see the fourth one):

Ugh oh. You seem to be over WP:3RR, so technically, I could report you. Do you want to restore the content? - Threating me and mocking me, so I'll restore the content. [575]

Based on some of your linguistics, I think English may be your second language? Most of your writing is very good, but so you know, words like "mastermind" are more typically used in English fiction and typically not in formal reporting/recounting. - Claiming my English as poor and claiming that news sources don't use words like "masterminds", when in fact they did on the very same article he edited: See this Washington Post article.

Regardless, the way wikipedia works is that I catch your bad language and you catch my bad "leads" and together we make a well written article. - Mocking me after I pointed out his own mistakes. [576]

That seems a little cynical. "Mastermind" is a word, but using it the way you're using it sounds a little "comic-y" in English. If the obvious "comicy" insult asides from terming me cynical and highlighting with quotation marks didn't already suggest a direct insult, you're obviously ignoring it. This was especially showing his rude behaviour. [577]

Those comments above are not really just expressing concerns. I will call for block of someone who has repeatedly harassed me, edit-warred, discarded consensus per his own convenience. Even if you deny, most of the allegations I've made are right for any neutral observer. Is that not wrong for you or am I the only one who can be wrong? I also notice that you haven't commented on his edit-warring. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

When you make a public assurance and do not explicitly say that it is temporary or conditional, others would reasonably expect you to abide by that assurance in any case; it is a matter of personal integrity. Wikipedia is not a marketplace where you exchange assurances to behave only if you are given what you want. By the way, the diff you have provided ([578]) does not show that your unblock was declined. As I understood it, your unblock was declined because your block already expired, not because of your assurances being inadequate.

I note that you have yet to acknowledge that your commentary about NickCT in an article edit summary was precisely what to avoid in an edit summary.

Even if you deny, most of the allegations I've made are right for any neutral observer - it seems you have difficulty dealing with disagreements appropriately. As a neutral, uninvolved editor, I am telling you that your allegations of harassment and threats lack merit. For you to repeatedly accuse NickCT of harassing you without evidence amounts to a personal attack.

Like you, NickCT ceased edit-warring too. Noting that blocks are not punitive, perhaps that is why nobody else has agreed with your calls for a block either. Perhaps you should drop the stick and move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all what I said wasn't temporary, but conditional. And yes my unblock was declined, it is right on my talk page which you are ignoring. I tagged the wrong diff sorry, here's the correct one [579]. Yes my unblock was declined. And so I discarded my assurance as the admins didn't accept my request.

If you feel what I said to NickCT is wrong, you should tell him to apologize for what he said first. My edit summary wasn't meant as an insult anyway, but just as a criticism of his disruptive behaviour. So I'm not saying sorry for that.

Nobody has difficulty dealing with disagreements here except a certain individual. NickCT never ceased his edit-warring. He just warned he'll complain me over breaking 3RR again, and he proceeded to do the same by making a 4th revert. It was me who never reverted him again. [580]

I just notified the admins of NickCT's behaviour of knowingly breaking 3RR once after the initial dispute and never said anything again. It was you who came in to start blaming me for everything and deflecting everything I pointed out to you NickCT did. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Btw NickCT has directly insulted people recently, calling those opposing his proposal as fascist idiocrats. I'm sorry Ncmvocalist but this is a real example of behaviour that shouldn't be performed on Wikipedia. I called for his block because he deserves to be blocked without a doubt. Blaming me can't give him a free pass. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You have actually shown in that diff that NickCT provided examples of sources to address a request by outsiders who participated in the RfC. Rather than misleadingly characterising other editor's contributions, you should drop the stick and move on - as I suggested already. Unless you are incapable of voluntarily doing so, please disengage, so that outsiders can evaluate what is being said in the content dispute without the distracting conflicts that your combative editing style has contributed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It was just a wrong diff not misleading, mistakes happen sometimes in large discussions. Here is the right diff where he calls people fascist idiocrats. I don't think insulting people just because you have sources is justified?

You have actually been that to the page yourself, [581] and it's quite easy to see that comment as it is the one you replied to. Pointing out someone blatantly insulting people is not combative. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MetalDiablo666 being belligerent and ignoring edit guidelines

I added a redlink to a musician, whom I believe is notable, to a couple articles, including Suicidal Tendencies. After I did this, User:MetalDiablo666 reverted me, and kept doing so even after I pointed him to Wikipedia:Red link. When I posted to his talk page (User talk:MetalDiablo666#Redlinks), he posted this highly inappropriate vandalism warning to my talk page. Could somebody please discuss these issues with him?—Chowbok ☠ 14:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Exactly how was I being belligerent when I kept reverting your changes, when I actually wasn't? Yes, I am aware of the guidelines, but the fact that not every article that doesn't exist needs to be "redlinked" (even if he or she is notable) is the only reason I kept reverting your changes. Also, I never said my edits or your edits were vandalism. I think you're confused. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Well, you're both edit warring, so stop that. Put the article back to the status quo, and have a chat on the talk page about whether the redlink would be useful. Redlink are allowed, but they're not obligatory - this is a matter of editorial judgment, which requires discussion to resolve. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah I agree that, if User:Chowbok agrees or disagrees that a "notable" member that has no article should be "redlinked", then it's better he/she should discuss it on Talk:Suicidal Tendencies. Other the other hand, I don't see a reason why he needed to be "redlinked" but I do apologize for being "belligerent", even though I was not, when I reverted Chowbok's changes. MetalDiablo666 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• MetalDiablo666, both you and User:Chowbok were edit warring, so you were both being belligerent. TSventon (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This looks more like a content dispute than a behavioral issue. I think this case should be closed with a warning to both editors not to continue to edit war and just use the article talk page to resolve whatever issues. Jerm (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) <sigh />. This a pure content dispute, and nothing like ANI-worthy. If you think he's notable, the best approach is to do the research, write the article, and let the community decide at WP:AFD or WP:PROD. Failing that, create the redirect Louiche Mayorga and point it to the most appropriate target, tagged as {{R with possibilities}}, {{R from member}}, Category:Living people, and whatever, sorted as {{DEFAULTSORT:Mayorga, Louiche}}. How difficult is that? I could point to any number of non-notable band members who readers might be searching for where a redirect gives them useful information. Narky Blert (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• The DE template warning by MetalDiablo666 is unjustified and unhelpful. The rest is a content dispute that has resulted in an edit war. AN3 would have been a better venue to raise this complaint. Both of you should have gone to the article's talk page after one revert. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lack of etiquette behavior at User talk:Tarl N.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User violated WP:EQ: @Tarl N.: dedicated me in his edit summary and talk page the next messages: "Clean up, and formally tell Veloz that he's not welcome" and "you are no longer welcome on this talk page". I´ve requested him to stop his attitude but but he has responded with the next message: --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like you're not welcome on his talk page. I would, therefore, stay off that talk page. Problem solved. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

As a note, do not edit other contributor's comments, as you did here. Best regards, Isabelle ^🔔 02:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"I´ve requested him to stop his attitude" = Avoid messages that incite hatred and a worsening of the encyclopedia environment or I will report you to the administrators for etiquette violations (bold is my emphasis). Piquito veloz, hopefully the etiquette irony won't be lost on you, either. El_C 02:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry my level of english is basic, but i try to say "para usted de incitar al odio con sus mensajes" --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

First, Tarl N. acting like the owner of his talk page but user pages and talk pages not are his property, is CC-BY-SA. Second, because he feels that his talk page is his property, he believes that he has the right to commit violations of etiquette. I have never told him to leave my talk page and always I have answered objectively why i think that the images of Celestia can be allowed without any kind of insults. --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Piquito veloz, and this is better how...? You are being inflammatory, beyond mere etiquette. This is WP:NPA territory. El_C 02:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Piquito veloz, Tarl N. can choose whom they wish to edit their own talk page at their discretion (barring certain exceptions which are inapplicable here). El_C 02:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Piquito veloz, he does in fact "own" his talk page in the parlance of Wikipedia. He can ask you to stay off, and he need not do so in the most polite terms. Others may disagree, but it appears to me you are very distinctly in the wrong here. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Argh. I had asked EdJohnston (on his talk page), to intervene. I have entirely lost my taste for Wikidrama, I just wanted him gone - He'd pissed me off, and I walked away for over a week to allow myself to cool down before telling him to stay off my talk page. His response was to not only refuse, but to delete my demand (again, modifying text I placed on my own talk page). I have a pile of problems with his edits, but he's not my problem. I'd hoped that with Ed telling him to stay off my talk page, this issue would go away, but I find I'm being mentioned on ANI, so I was forced to engage. For the record, I find veloz's behaviour to be unacceptable and don't care to interact with him.

Since he mentions he's not fully conversant in English: Piquito veloz: Tu atítud me ha encabronado. Estoy harto, te prohíbo utilizar la pagina User talk:Tarl N. - y tengo derecho de prohibirte.

Oh, and by the way, I note I have not been notified of this being brought to ANI. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Piquito veloz, I'll be as clear as I can with the following warning: if you edit Tarl N.'s talk page again, I will block you for harassment. El_C 02:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I don´t know what is the problem. I always answered him why i think Celestia images are allowed without any insult to him. If I tell him you're not welcome, he won't ever be able to go to my talk page too? --Piquito veloz (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Leave Tarl N. alone, Piquito veloz. They are not obliged to engage with you on their talk page in any way whatsoever. Stop imposing and take the out. Clear? El_C 03:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent promotional editing at Michael Knowles (film producer)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Requesting a user block and page protection, if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Done I have indefinitely partial blocked the user who was adding promotional and unsourced material from editing the article. They may still edit the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partial block? One IP range from Thailand, one article disrupted

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Back of My Mind (H.E.R. album)
• 2405:9800:BA12:8606:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Can we get a partial block to stop a Thailand IP range from editing Back of My Mind (H.E.R. album)? They keep adding fake songwriting credit to Martin Mars. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi protected. One week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revdel on edit summary

Used questionable language that leaned towards slurs [582]. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I just moved my request from here to AN to have the edit summary cleared via here. Jerm (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Eternal Shadow Edit summary was cleared. Jerm (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Jerm Thanks. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

JMyrleFuller and WP:CBALL edits

User continues to make unsourced WP:CBALL edits despite warnings and ANIs. Most recent example adding "It will presumably carry the Sinclair-produced newscasts WUTV has been carrying since then in the event of sports preemptions" edited without any source.

User acknowledges actions adding CBALL/unsourced content after it was reverted by another editor.

Two previous ANIs within last 18 months resulted in no action:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1027#JMyrleFuller pattern of unsourced and WP:CBALL edit
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1054#JMyrleFuller continued unsourced WP:CBALL edits

Even though the user acknowledges issues with CBALL edits, pattern of behavior will likely continue without admin intervention. AldezD (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

My perception is that JMyrleFuller is a generally productive editor who makes an occasional mistake. In this specific case, they acknowledged the error readily. I do not think that any block or editing restriction is called for at this time, but I will leave a gently worded warning on their talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanking someone for pointing out why an edit was reverted and supporting the reversal is not something that an editor should be punished for. "Two previous ANIs within last 18 months" -- all brought by the same person. "resulted in no action" -- appropriately so. There are a small number of incidents over a long period and each time JMyrleFuller has been gracious, including hsr response to this latest warning.-- Jibal (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Spam website?

User:Pushkaraj1405 is adding english.gnptimes.in as a reference to several articles. I didn't find anything about the website. When I checked website, I find out the Pushkaraj Gharat (User:Pushkaraj1405) is one of their authors. Could any admin please review it? Thanks Hasan (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ulubatli Hasan, thank you for reporting this. If it were a less clearcut case of WP:CITESPAM, I might have directed you to WP:RSN to discuss the source; however, this is an obviously unreliable source, the editor is clearly affiliated, and all of their contributions have been to add content based on that source. I have reverted those edits which had not already been addressed, and asked them to stop doing that. Please let us know if you see them continuing with this. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ulubatli Hasan, for what it's worth, they do seem to listen when addressed on their talk page, so I think you can take it up with them there. For now, I see that Girth Summit already has. Cheers. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 11:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've indef blocked the account as NOTHERE. I tried explaining that their two-person news blog wasn't a reliable source, and gave them links to RSN in case they wanted other opinions, but they insisted that they would keep adding it, and threatened to use socks to do so if blocked. What's the procedure for blacklisting a website? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Narky Blert (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Archi 1293

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Will someone checkuser this Archi 1293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since his behavior is just like Charli 250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

103.246.39.46

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

17 July 2021 ANI thread

Immediately after coming off their block, 103.246.39.46 goes back to edit warring Legal History of Saudi Arabia and adding poorly sourced, negative content about Middle Eastern figures [583] (none of the sources say that Said is corrupt). JBchrch talk 08:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange vandalism on Jimbo Wales and other pages, possible socks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikedneeded (talk · contribs)
• Flylikeaseagull (talk · contribs)

The first one, Wikedneeded, has been spamming the entirety of the article Nightingale College along with a plea for help for someone named "Ikip" and a lawsuit. To Mr. Sanger's page, to Mr. Wales' page, and so on. I'm not sure why they have not been blocked already, these are high-trafficked and watched pages. Also the posting of a youtube link to an article, which was reverted. Next, Flylikeaseagull restored some of the reverted edits here, and also posted the same youtube link in another article. ValarianB (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, so for some background User:Okip (formerly Ikip, but he lost his password) got himself permabanned almost a decade ago for trolling and socking. While "inclusionist (wiki)lawyer" isn't an inaccurate description of this editor, I don't think he is an actual lawyer, and it's unclear what he could possibly have to do with whatever these two people are agitated about. This seems like an incomprehensibly bizarre false flag operation somehow. Reyk _YO! 14:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, Infinitepeace and these two editors are in the same city. That's not really saying much given the size of the city, but they're editing the same articles, restoring edits made by Okip socks, and referring to Okip/Ikip in bizarre rants. I really don't have the patience for this any more. I used to, and I would take hours if necessary to get to the bottom of what was going on. I would read every tl;dr rant posted to someone talk page, and I would engage with them to find out what their grievance was. I just can't keep up that level of engagement with the project any more. It's too emotionally draining, a huge time sink, and I can't even recall a single time when something useful came of it all that effort, anyway. So both editors are blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As the numbers of people who can root out problems like this dwindle, the need to not dig that deep will increase. There just isn't time to do it all. I don't blame you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • My thanks as well. I ducked the issue but reverted Wikedneeded and thought I should have had the courage to indef them. I agree that as the number of long-term troublemakers increases, we are going to have to start getting more ruthless to avoid arguing for hours every day. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP 74.88.193.39

After being blocked twice for persistently making unconstructive edits, and not communicating a word, the user has made another unconstructive edit on Monmouth County, New Jersey. Needforspeed888 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wikipedia administrators please take action on User:Kevo327 and User:BaxçeyêReş users. Articles about Azeris and Azerbaijan are being vandalised and I have to open a new Wikipedia page to do something against these users. Please check the edit history of these users and then ban me. Thank you. IsmayilovAkif (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EljanM, you just made admins jobs easier by admitting your a sock. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You will also be banned. I won't you allow to delete Azerbaijani names. Shushi is not the main name! [584], [585] IsmayilovAkif (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Nope, but you were indef'd by NinjaRobotPirate. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of verified contents

Edu1388 (talk · contribs) and J1577 (talk · contribs) removed a verified contents without giving legitimate reasons or evidence on List of 2020 Summer Olympics broadcasters, it was multiple times repeated. Suspect both also the same person giving the history --Aleenf1 12:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You've already filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/J1577 which lists both users, so maybe let that run its course...? El_C 13:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:FormalDude

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:FormalDude responded to an RFC request for the Talk page of the template for The Beach Boys, which asked if Bruce Johnston should be included on the top line. He gave his initial two cents in favour of the status quo. But then I responded to Alsee's response suggesting to have the template reflect the standards of other music-related infoboxes, which is to include the current, active band official band members on the top line, and historical members on the bottom. My response was neutral and basically to detail what that was to entail, and I did not indicate support or opposition to Alsee's suggestion. For that, I was accused of "moving the goal posts" by FormalDude, an accusation I found blatantly false and contemptible under the circumstances. I asked him on his talk page to withdraw the accusation, to which he doubled down and began to act, in my view, in very bad faith - responding sarcastically to my response and completely ignoring what I had said when I was responding exclusively to Alsee's suggestion and nothing more. If this user had engaged in the discussion respectfully and without making accusations, there would have been no issue. Hopefully this can be resolved in good time. --Thescrubbythug (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The conversations at User_talk:FormalDude#Slander and Template_talk:The_Beach_Boys#Discussion speak for themselves. Thescrubbythug apparently hasn't read WP:ABF or WP:CIVIL. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 06:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your conduct speaks for itself more than anything. Your accusation towards me and your antagonistic, sarcastic responses - which you are still doing here - is at the heart of this issue, and why this report has been filed. Had you not made your accusation, and had you conducted yourself respectfully and without any shred of antagonism, there would be no issue here. This has gone far beyond the original discussion about the template itself. Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, FormalDude's contention about you "moving the goal posts" is not slander (or libel, or any kind of defamation). It isn't even uncivil. Please don't use legalese to browbeat your content opponents. That is highly inappropriate and is a cause for sanctions. El_C 07:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

He made a false accusation about me and proceeded to respond with sarcasm and condescension. I asked him to withdraw, and explained how responding neutrally to somebody else’s suggestion and what that suggestion would entail does not constitute “moving goal posts”. How else am I to react to that? Thescrubbythug (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You say it's false, they're permitted to argue otherwise. How are you to react to that? Like the intellectual challenge it reads as, rather than it being about your integrity, somehow. El_C 07:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm looking at that RfC myself right now, and I'm thinking the WP:BATTLEGROUND here is certainly running in both directions. Mind you, I don't want to be hyperbolic: the level of tendentiousness is minor all around, and I think we should be able to repair this discourse without the need for any more substantial action than reminding these two to AGF and attempt some geniality. But to the extent there has been some tension here, I don't really see it starting with Thescrubbythug , necessarily; FormalDude started his involvement in the discussion by making a statement that TST's prompt was not neutral or concise, neither of which assessment I think is reasonable: it's a pretty straight-forward prompt of one sentence which provides a query without biasing language that I can see. After that, several of FormalDude's comments were...if not super-inflammatory, at least kind of passive-aggresive (in my opinion, any time an editor begins a talk page comment with "Gee", they really ought to take a pause to consider the tone of what they are about to say). Up until several comments in to the back-and-forth, TST was pretty scrupulously polite.

Of course, Theccrubbythug pretty much completely lost the plot and dipped off into histrionics starting with the post which begins with "This is slander". But in any event, I think both sides need to take a pause for the cause and consider their approach here. There's more than a bit of apparent hostility to the mere fact that an RfC has been started, but unless there has been a previous one (or similarly large and explicit discussion) treating this issue, this was the appropriate process to use to break the loggerheads. If TST's opposition on this issue is convinced they will prevail on the consensus, they should lean into that support rather than utilizing loaded terminology, such as invoking WP:SNOW prematurely and language such as "knock it off" and "utter waste of time" (to be clear, though, those last two comments are not FormalDude's, but those of another editor on his side of the issue). TST seems to be implying that they feel they are working against an WP:OWN attitude here, and such rhetorical tactics will only feed that perception. The RfC should proceed, but more to the point, I think these two (having for the moment exhausted reasonable commentary on eachother's thoughts) should not pursue the meta discourse further and should avoid responding to eachother altogether until the discussion has evolved some. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You're going into what our actual debate was over, and even further back than that by bringing up my comment about the RfC neutrality, which is not what this AN/I is about and wasn't even been mentioned by the reporter. I believe this noticeboard is for evaluating the conduct of users rather than weighing in on who was right in edit disputes.

Furthermore, I was not the one who said "knock it off" or "utter waste of time", that was @Alsee here. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 08:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

explanation for striked comment

striked as I see you've changed your comment. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 09:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Actually, no: I took care to make sure those comments were not attributed to you in my original post ([586]): you must have missed it. But that happens, no worries: appreciate the strike. Snow let's rap 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC) @Snow Rise: My bad, I did miss that somehow. By the way, do you know why my strikethrough isn't appearing correctly? I can't for the life of me figure out where I'm going wrong in the syntax. ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 10:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Unfortunately, no, I don't! I only saw the content of the striked statement by examining the wording in the edit console. But I think it's fine to leave it as is: can't see as what difference it will make at this point. Wikicode can be finicky at times: you probably have a random apostrophe somewhere in your post that the template can't countenance the look of. ;) Snow let's rap 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware of the purpose of ANI. I believe my comments are very much on point to the behavioral questions involved. I mentioned your comment about the prompt because I don't think the observation was an altogether accurate one, and I'd like you to consider that maybe you came out swinging on this one, and that your tone towards the RfC and its author might have been a little more...let's be diplomatic and say more strident than it necessarily needed to be. It seems that you don't find the RfC a worthwhile use of time, but the fact of the matter is that it is the appropriate and recommended community solution for formulating or ascertaining consensus in these circumstances. I don't think the specific comment which prompted Thescrubbythug to come here violates any behavioural policy (certainly not to the degree of requiring community action), and I think he needs to take that feedback to heart. But with equal frankness, I must tell you that I think there was a more than perceptible undercurrent of unnecessary hostility in the manner in which you responded to TST envoking the RfC, and I think he continued to show restraint in the face of that attitude...right up until the point that he didn't and seriously overreacted. I'll repeat my advice to both of you: you've each said your peace regarding eachother's read on the issue, and now it's time to wait for the FRS to do its work and bring in additional perspectives. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I can understand your concerns with my bluntness, but it's just bluntness–not stridency. If I didn't find the RfC a worthwhile use of time I would not have commented on it. My comment suggesting a procedural close is participation in the process of reaching a consensus. I don't think I "came out swinging" by politely asking for a more neutrally worded RfC. Especially since TST's summary of the RfC states his argument so well that he didn't even feel the need to make a comment on his position in the RfC, as it completely explained in his supposedly neutral summary. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 10:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, fair enough: personally I didn't see a problem with the wording of the prompt, from a neutrality standpoint--and just for context, RfC is an area I spend a lot of time on, and I've handed out my fair share of admonitions in that area, as an FRS respondent. But clearly that's a question on which reasonable minds may differ. But putting that question aside, I just felt that the build-up of tension between you two was not entirely one-sided. Let me put it that way, even as I attempt not to stoke the issue myself: because I really do think this issue is a tempest in a teapot to the extent that there has been feedback provided here and we should probably let it go at that so the situation doesn't become larger merely as a consequence of excessive examination, which unfortunately is one of the downsides to ANI at times. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The only part of this I will respond to is that I did not comment on my position explicitly because I already gave my two cents and explained my position in great detail in the original discussion with ILIL, and the purpose of the RFC was already summed up succinctly by Snow Rise above. While I admit there was overreaction on my part, as I explained in my response to Snow Rise, I still find your overall tone from the “goal post” response onwards contemptible (even if it doesn’t necessarily break the rules here), and I do not wish to have any further interaction with you - on this matter or in general. Have a good day. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not saying you're not entitled to defend your conduct in the light of feeling put upon, but since you made a point of saying you would consider my feedback, let me add this: I think the wording "contemptible" might be another example of something that is a bit heavy for these circumstances. FormalDude's comments may have had some slight amount of bite to them, but you've already admitted your own response was not entirely measured, so please consider applying any lesson you take from that situation to the immediate circumstances. Slight criticism from yours truly not withstanding, FormalDude's conduct was good faith in motivation and certainly not warranting of an ANI filing, at the end of the day. Beyond that, I get the sense that he is happy to let the matter go from here, same as you seem to be. So let's apply de-escalating language, if there is anything more to say--though I think that backing away from the topic (as you have proposed to do of your initiative) is even better and shows level-headedness. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your even-handed, fair response Snow Rise, and understanding precisely where I took issue with FormalDude - I think you summed it up better than anyone else could have. I’ll admit at this stage that I overreacted a tad bit and will continue to reflect on your feedback, but I also do not take kindly to users taking such a tone particularly when it is insinuated that I attempted to “move goal posts” - and when such an accusation was not levelled at the user I was responding to (Alsee). For my part I’m going to stay out of further discussions on the RFC, and certainly intend to have no further interactions with FormalDude. But as you put it very well, starting the RFC in the first place was important so that we could get the viewpoints on the original issue from more than just two (admittedly passionate Beach Boys fans) users, and to get more solid consensus on the issue one way or the other. Thescrubbythug (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense--thank you for being willing to take that step to help seal the end to the matter. Snow ^{let's rap} 13:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ya, there is no slander, libel, or personal attack here. This is just regular discourse. When one standard is being argued and another standard is brought up then "moving the goal post" is a perfectly polite way to complain about it. This does not need admin attention. I suggest you go back to your content discussion and carry on with the point you were originally trying to make. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur with El C and HighinBC: there is nothing here that approaches a personal attack, or even plain incivility. 'Moving the goalposts' is not an accusation of bad faith, it's just an indication that someone thinks you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion. You can respond to that perfectly politely by explaining why you thought your comments were relevant and on-point: it's not the kind of thing to demand that someone retract. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no incivility in that RfC at all, and don't even find hostile/strident. I didn't read the discussion above the RfC, maybe things were already brewing up there and the goalposts characterization just set it off, but there is no personal attack. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest Thescrubbythug and FormalDude both pause for a breather, that both try to dial it down and just to see what the RFC brings. Right now there appears to be no need to sanction anyone - if this doesn't flame up further. It was not reasonable for FormalDude to blame Thescrubbythug for "moving the goalposts". *I* was the one who rejected the previous goalposts and I introduced new ones I believed more in line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. In an RFC it is absolutely appropriate for involved parties to seriously consider the input of outside parties. It was also not reasonable for Thescrubbythug to escalate such a trivial error into an ANI against FormalDude. I perhaps deserve some of the blame for voting "Knock it off" directed at everyone on the page. Sometimes the solution to a dispute is to realize both sides are arguing the wrong issues, and I was not gentle about it. The prior discussion was a wall of Original research and fan-opinions on which band-members were "worthy" of top line billing. I was a little irritated at having wasted my time reading it and finding nothing constructive. Alsee (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:NOTHERE editing by user:Eltur Mirzayev

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

1. Changed "Safavid Iran" into "Azerbaijan". No edit summary/explanation.[587]
2. Replied "FREE SOUTH AZERBAIJAN" after being given his second warning.[588]
3. Changed "Iranian-French" into "Azerbaijani-French". No edit summary/explanation.[589]
4. Did the same thing once again. No edit summary/explanation.[590]
5. Replied "Tabriz is the land of Azerbaijan! And everyone born in tabriz is Azerbaijani." when being given his first warning. [591]
6. Changed "Tabriz, Iran" into "Tabriz, Azerbaijan" (even though the city is literally located in Iran). No edit summary/explanation.[592]
7. Changed "Iranian-French" once again into "Azerbaijanian-French". Edit summary: "Don't change the edit i made".[593]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say said "user" is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks somewhat similar to this recent case (now archived). This is more extreme though. I agree with the suggested block, clearly WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

After viewing their contributions, they're really not active. The editor also does mobile editing which explains why they don't fill out the edit summaries, and they have only received three warnings total since their account was created; two in May and 20 July. Eltur Mirzayev hasn't received much complaints about their edits via the three template warnings. I'm not entirely sure anymore if a block would be the appropriate action. Jerm (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because "Eltur Mirzayev" has made comparatively few edits, it doesn't mean he/she should be given a free pass. Its not about the quantity of his edits, its about the overal quality (or better said, the lack thereof). The attempts of "Eltur Mirzayev" at a) changing sourced content b) adding unsourced content c) making irredentist ethno-nationalist WP:SOAPBOX statements when issued warnings (i.e. "FREE SOUTH AZERBAIJAN") speak for itself. Not a single edit that he/she has made so far, which includes the accounts' very first edits back in 2020,[594] were actually constructive. In addition, most of the articles he edited are well within ArbCom (WP:AA2) territory. Take a look at the contributions of similar WP:SPA drive-by accounts/IPs and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking about proposing a tban, but based on their behaviour on their own talk page, perhaps a block might be the only course of action. And the evidence you provided concerning edits made on articles does seem to warrant a block. So it would be safe to say their other edits are not really accurate, and if a block was implemented, the Wikipedia community wouldn't be taking a loss. Jerm (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Neutralhomer

In 14 years and over 8k edits, I have never needed to drag anyone to ANI. Until now. I literally begged Neutralhomer for an agreeable resolution and to avoid formal sanctions: Please explicitly withdraw your reverts on WP:Notability (media) and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and end this agreeably. Your rapid fire 4 reverts warring against three people leaves you bright-line toast. Please acknowledge it so we can avoid formal sanctions. edit: Their response was You have to make a case,[595] so here we are.

Neutralhomer has been notified of this discussion: [596]

First evidence, bright line violation of three revert rule. 4 reverts in 22 minutes on WP:Notability (media), edit warring against THREE different editors:

• 00:31, 19 July 2021 Revert 1
• 00:41, 19 July 2021 Revert 2
• 00:48, 19 July 2021 Revert 3
• 00:53, 19 July 2021 Revert 4

Background evidence: Neutralhomer has been explicitly crusading on an agenda of, I quote, "no deletions" in his pet topic area, radio and TV broadcasting.

I updated WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media to say Licensed radio and TV stations have had conflicting outcomes if they lack significant coverage in Reliable Sources because, since June 12 there have been 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AFDs all closed as deletes due to lack of significant RS coverage. In that time span only 1 2 AFDs closed as keep explicitly on the basis that they DID have significant coverage in reliable sources. My edit was, if anything, generous to say "conflicting outcomes" given that evidence of 100% delete outcomes when there is a lack of significant RS coverage. Nonetheless Neutralhomer reverted here as well for indiscriminate "keep" wording.

Neutralhomer's AFD stats show that on the last 9 Radio AFDs they cast 9 indiscriminate 'keep' votes. Only one AFD closed as keep (after sources were found and added), 4 closed as redirect, 3 closed as delete, and the only reason the final AFD has not yet closed as delete are "per Neutralhomer" and appeals to a falsified WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. This perhaps explains Neutralhomer's battle to hold onto a lost cause in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, it is a purely circular argument to evade consensus.

Neutralhomer has a banner message on their talk page. It currently includes the following: After 16 years, all the work that was started by Dravecky and many others (myself included) is being destroyed by a few deletionists. WP:WPRS and NMEDIA is being destroyed by people who couldn't give a fuck less. I have done my part to keep the walls from crumbling, but I can't hold them back when I'm there only one here.
So, I am going to walk away. I don't want to, but I have to. I will watch from the sidelines, but I will not participate. I've done what I can to help the project over the years, to help it grow, to help it flourish. It isn't just me, many, many, many others have done the same. But apparently the community-at-large is OK with a few coming in and destroying that work.
That message makes it abundantly clear that Neutralhomer is aware that the broader community does not support their crusade, that they feel they are the "only one" fighting to hold back the community. Neutralhomer states that they "have to" walk away on this issue. A (very limited) topic ban would help them do exactly what they say they need to do here.

I do not want to restrict Neutralhomer's ability to edit articles. As far as I'm aware they have been a productive editor in article space. However I would request a narrowly tailored topic ban from (1) Broadcast AFDs, where it is clear they push indiscriminate keeps; and from (2) policy/guideline issues of Notability-of-broadcast, where they are disruptively warring. Alsee (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "begg[ing]", but OK. I made it clear Alsee didn't "have" to do anything, they "wanted" to. See this edit summary "Last chance to avoid formal sanctions". Clearly they are gunning for me.

I had disengaged, still have. Though looking at their edits (since they looked at mine, it's only fair), this is their first foray into NMEDIA territory.

Now, I did exceed 3RR, I admit that, I admitted that on my talk page, and I will take the ding for it. But what I will not take the ding for is is this user's understanding. NMEDIA remained an "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline" during the rewrite. After the admittedly failed rewrite, it didn't become an essay or a "failed guideline", it stayed an "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline." This never changed. Why Alsee and others feel it did is beyond me. I won't take the ding for that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my edits are supposed to be relevant, but 8 July 2021 I assessed consensus and preformed a closure on Village Pump. On that page revision[597] I saw a notice of There's an open RfC proposing to make WP:Notability (media) into a {{Guideline}}. My next edit was on that RFC.[598] I walked into this as a random uninvolved RFC invitee. I followed some links and examined some old radio AFDs, and I participated in a few open radio AFDs. Between the RFC and AFDs, I saw a small number of people were pushing a contrary-to-consensus agenda. Most of them appear to have gracefully adjusted to the RFC consensus, but one individual (Neutralhomer) dug in for a single-handed war against the world.

Regarding Neutralhomer's comment Why Alsee and others feel it did is beyond me: It is fine and normal for someone to not (yet) understand a particular point. However it is a serious problem when they know they are singlehandedly battling many editors at the same time. It's not about who's right or wrong. Neutralhomer couldn't escape the battleground even when they full well knew they were toast for revert-spam, they couldn't escape the battleground even when I double-please offered to let them withdraw their excessive reverts end this agreeably. Alsee (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing why this needs to extend beyond AN3 and the relevant talk pages. As far as the tone of NH's edits recently, I think it's pretty understandable to be upset when the trend of GNG expanding to apply to SNGs hits a topic area one has worked hard in (or rather, when there's greater attention to the fact that one such SNG you've used for years doesn't carry weight because it's not actually a guideline). NH also isn't necessarily wrong here. If a page is a proposal that's rejected, it makes sense to label it a failed proposal. If something was an information page or essay before and a rewrite of said page fails to be promoted to guideline status, that doesn't turn the page into a failed proposal -- the RfC or the rewrite would be the proposal, not the information page/essay. The change from supplement to essay is one I agree with, but also a change which should be decided on the talk page rather than taken for granted (and I see that it is being discussed). There's a single revert at WP:OUTCOMES, and no discussion on the talk page, so hard to see a big problem there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The big problem is NeutralHomer's attitude. He seems to think that browbeating others into doing what he wants is acceptable. As an example, see this RFC discussion where he thought it appropriate to argue with anyone who Opposed the proposal then, when asked to stop doing so, complained If I didn't respond, I would be "failing" anyway. So, might as well "fail" in dramatic fashion.

This further expanded to his trolling my talk page for asking him to stop, where he bemoaned that he was not allowed to have a conversation. And then decided that since I replied, that meant he could drag it out: just seeing how long you can go by having to have the last word in this conversation. :)

NH just likes to poke people and civil POV-push. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what POV NH is pushing? Thinking there should be an SNG on something isn't really POV-pushing. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Elli NH isn't pushing for an SNG, they are warring for I quote, "no deletions" in their pet topic area. Their editing in AFD and in WP: has been a disruptive crusade against consensus. NH's talk page banner makes it clear that they know they are the "only one" in this battle against the community, and that they know they need to "walk away" from the fight.[599] A narrow topic ban will help them do what they said they need to do. They couldn't even accept a lifeline when I offered to allow them to withdraw their bright-line revert violation, without sanctions. Their response was You have to make a case,[600] so here we are. Alsee (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alsee: drop the "edit warring" thing. NH made a mistake and reverted four times, that doesn't mean a topic ban is necessary, nor that you're right about anything else. They've acknowledged it, now drop it. You seem to think that because they violated 3RR that they'll get slapped with whatever sanctions you deem necessary - that is not in any way the case.

Having an opinion contrary to the general consensus of the site isn't disruptive either. Consensus can change and it's good to have opposing views. If we only allowed people who supported deletion to !vote in AfDs, they'd be awfully boring and pointless discussions. I haven't seen how NH's editing in this topic area is anywhere near what warrants a sanction. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Elli I did not suggest that having an contrary opinion was disruptive. However knowing that one's view is contrary to consensus and knowingly making false / misleading edits across many pages is disruptive. NH knows the content of NMEDIA is contrary to consensus yet they bright-line warred to assert semi-official "Notability Supplement" status for it, to deceptively badger AFDs with it. NH knows that the relevant AFDs have been closing as delete yet reverted the Outcomes page "keep", to deceptively badger AFDs with it. In most of those AFDs they post more comments than anyone else, trying to use official-looking links to present knowingly-false illusion of community support. And per their user_talk banner (1) they know they are waging a one-person battle against consensus and (2) they know they are past the point they need to stop. If someone wants to build support to change policy or guidelines, great! But NH isn't doing that - they know they have crossed into futile disruption. I just looked further and found NH AFD voted to keep stations that literally never existed. How many junk AFD-votes does someone have to spam before is deemed actively unhelpful? In one AFD, NH told someone you might want to request [a topic ban] against me as well cause....[601]. How does that sentence end? Alsee (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment 5 of those 9 broadcast-related AfD !votes cite a similar argument made by Superastig (talk · contribs). In the most recent of these, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXFU, they used sources inadequate to prove GNG and told others not to ague with them; Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) characterized this as an explicit WP:ICANTHEARYOU, which suggests that they may be worth investigating as well. Weak support a temporary topic ban from WP:BCAST and broadcast media AfDs and PRODs, per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Kevinlansmann

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kevinlansmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly violating WP:LIVESCORES. Most of this user's edits had been reverted due to that. Have been warned and did nothing to improve. Flix11 (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User is one of several reincarnations of globally banned account Charli_250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Several sockpuppets have also been blocked/banned in deWP (de:User:Charloottinutzhorn, de:User:KevinKevin03, de:User:Kevinkevin0306 et al.). --Roger (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I entered punctually at the final whistle and not before. This is not a live ticker and if you then reset my change, it is simply not fair. One could also have added the substitutions and not to revise them. Kevinlansmann (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there is no case for this group of socks. I have blocked Kevinlansmann and all of the accounts noted by RoBri (they all have been created this month and edited on en.wiki). Roger, if you know of more, please post them here; my German is very limited. My guess is there are more of them, so a CU would be helpful. Some may have edited only at de.wiki, but Kevinlansmann has edited only at en.wiki. I think it's important to start a case and, unless discovered otherwise, assume that Charli 250 is the master. Perhaps an SPI clerk can do so? Blablubbs? Anyone? Doesn't have to be a clerk.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Bbb23:  Done, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Charli 250. Blablubbs (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Blablubbs: As always, thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Happy to help – for what it's worth, I'm seeing no additional socks in the archives of dewiki's Vandalismusmeldung (which also handles block evasion). @RoBri: Thanks for catching this, please feel free to give me a ping if anything new pops up on dewiki – I speak the language, I'm just not around on the wiki much. Blablubbs (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I got blocked from WP:AIV by Materialscientist for reporting this sock. Can you unblock me? Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You didn't report the account to AIV as a sock, but as a VOA. It was a bad report. I agree with Materialscientist's block.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: How am I supposed to know that he was a sock? I don't know who Charli 250 was. I reported simply because I noticed he had a substantial amount of reverted edits. I usually reported blatant vandals, even when he/she was let go by others. Maybe I was too harsh. Thanks. Flix11 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP Special:Contributions/78.54.234.224 has also been used in deWP and enWP. Charli250's/Kevinlansmann's sockpuppets are quite easily recognisable in Special:RecentChanges (RC); he(?) edits disruptively and in a hectic manner in current or seconds-ago-finished sporting events and -matches in various WPs, mainly in deWP and enWP. --Roger (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continued disruptions by unresponsive editor

Mark P. 8301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See former discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1068#Long-term disruptions by Mark P. 8301.

Since I last encountered them and wrote a comment om their talk page in March, I see that they have had a short block in May for adding unsourced content and were warned again in June. When I came across them today, I can see that nothing has changed. On the contrary, of the handful of edits I checked, they all were additions of plausible-looking, but questionable and completely unsourced material.

During their almost 2000 edits, they have never edited a talk page or a user talk page, and they have never used an edit summary. --T*U (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP on Brown Line (CTA) and other Chicago-area rail lines

76.29.49.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is a blatant case of WP:NOTHERE. IP has repeatedly added false information to Brown Line (CTA) regarding an unsourced closure date for supposed line maintenance. The IP also uses vague edit summaries such as "Google", when in fact no verification of news or stories about this line closing can be found via Google search (the IP is actually referring to a temporary closure of the Epcot monorail in Disney World). IP has been asked to use the talk page after their second block, the Brown Line article has previously been set to Auto-accept Autoconfirmed users, IP ignored a warning from this morning and has previously been blocked for 24 and 48 hours. Cards84664 20:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP seems to have been the same person for many months, so I've assumed it's static enough that a 6 month block isn't unreasonable. At the very least maybe this will cause them to discuss this on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Syan Atta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Syan Atta has repeatedly failed to use descriptive edit summaries; please see their contribs as there are too many edits without proper edit summaries. Additionally, they have been repeatedly warned for MOS violations [602][603][604]. They have also tripped the notable people disruption filter [605] (false alarm). --Firestar464 (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hang on a minute - am I missing something? This looks like a three-day-old account, and you're bringing them to ANI because of poor formatting and a lack of edit summaries? I see a couple of unhelpful templates on their talk, has anyone actually tried speaking to them directly and explaining what the problems with their edits are? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll add that the filter trip looks like a false alarm. That filter is there to prevent vandals from adding their friends' names to articles while noting the remarkable phatness of their asses. It's not there to stop people adding the names of local politicians. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

A good-faith editor would and should probably try to discuss with the editors on their TP. (As a side note, courtesy ping Rdp060707.) Firestar464 (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, a good faith editor who registered an account just three days ago might not know how to respond appropriately to templates telling them they're being disruptive. Before reporting brand new accounts for disruption, you could try actually talking to them (without the use of templates) and seeing whether you can get a response. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Firestar464 (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this account has never edited a talk page, including their own. Probably haven't discovered them yet. And unfortunately they may be editing on their phone, which means it can be really hard to get their attention. If the edits they're making to article space are actually disruptive, and they don't start discussing, we can p-block from article space to try to get their attention. It looks like their edits at Kingharia may be an attempt to correct what they see as misinformation -- they're changing that the Kingharia are singers and beggers to singers and farmers, for instance? —valereee (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request edit review (personal attack)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greetings. I'd appreciate an admin review of this edit. Being an experienced vandal reverter, not much surprises or upsets me, and my concern is for others who may be subjected to this kind of thing. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As one who reverts vandalism a lot, stuff like this isn't surprising. You don't need to start a ANI case just have an admin assess obvious disruption/vandalism. Just report the individual to WP:AIV which I have and has already been dealt with. Thank you Admin Ohnoitsjamie. Jerm (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not an inappropriate place to post this. While AIV could probably handle this, it is not simple vandalism. It is a serious and gross threat of violence that required revision deletion. Jusdafax made no mistake here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC Never said ANI wasn't the right or wrong noticeboard, just said AIV can handle it and has always handle these type of disruptive individuals. And there was nothing inappropriate about my comment. Jerm (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay that is fine. By the same token I never said you comment was inappropriate. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You posted "This is not an inappropriate place to post this." right after my first comment, and you're saying you weren't referring to my comment? Yeah, not buying that but whatever. Jerm (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And you said "You don't need to start a ANI case". I felt Jusdafax could interpret that as not being welcome to post this here, so I clarified that they did nothing wrong. Look if you want to get into this then you can post on my talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, this is very much problematic and I can appreciate why you would be disconcerted Jusdafax. If I had the mop and the range block knowledge, I'd be working out a block right now. But the best I can do is add an assessment here to improve the odds of getting admin action on this by stressing the severity of the behaviour here. I don't want to repeat the content of the edit verbatim since I expect it will be revdelled, but it involves an offhand reference to the sexual assault of a fellow editor, combined with a BLP violation. It is extremely weird and worrying. Let's hope it is addressed with alacrity, though it will require someone to work out the range. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. Mops are on it today. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 04:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to all. Cheers! Jusdafax (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• What an obvious BLP violation that is. Requesting RD2 via WP:IRC... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Even better! Much obliged. Jusdafax (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have revision deleted several revisions due to RD2. Sorry you had to experience that here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also blocked talk page access and e-mail for the range. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Why? I don't see any edits on talk pages in the range. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Their user talk page, not talk pages in general. Given the postings by this person they do not need access to their user talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The IP hasn't used any talk pages yet so there isn't a need to revoke user TP access. Jerm (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

When a user makes gross threats of violence then pre-emptively removing talk page access before they use that talk page to do it again is perfectly sensible. I very much see the need. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say this falls within the purview of administrator discretion regardless, but I would have to go with HighInBC on this one in any event: once someone has, in any context, glibly used the verb "rape" in relation to another volunteer on this project, we can safely determine that they have no legitimate need to communicate with anyone on Wikipedia. In that light, blocking the user talk in addition to mainspace editing has no downside, even if we don't yet know whether the user would have used it as a last avenue for disruptive behaviour. All of this is, of course, subject to the usual caveats regarding duration that come with blocking an IP address, but without going into the detail there (WP:BEANS and all), HBC is clearly in conformity. The potential upside of completely silencing an editor willing to make such comments is entirely warranted when weighed against the extreme unlikeliness that the IP talk page is going to need to be used for legitimate purposes over the duration of the block. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

damn. vandals don't like you. Of course someone making such a threat loses TPA and email. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Vandals used to go after my User page, but it's been a while. Lately it's been my Talk page. As noted by others here, this case was more extreme than the garden variety threat, and I appreciate the measures taken. As I say above, my concern is for inexperienced vandal reverters not previously exposed to this sort of thing. Add in the blatant BLP vio, and it seemed appropriate to bring it here. I'd like to thank you all, everyone, and suggest we close this. Best wishes! Jusdafax (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:GorillaWarfare and Nick Fuentes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

My dignity is seriously violated. I am making this page because an administrator user User:GorillaWarfare has reverted my edits,where I provided a reputable source ( Anti Defamation League) and citation of the fact that public figure Nick Fuentes is a White Supremacist, Anti-Semite, Homophobe, and Neo-Nazi According to the ADL. After I made only 2 such edits to the article, as my first was reverted by the same user, I received spam messages on my talk page totalling five edits in total and four in rapid succession by this same user, So that my Talk Page is now over 5000 bytes. I am gravely offended by this rude conduct not even two hours after after I created my Wikipedia Account. I am Jewish and I was personally offended how this user discounted Nick Fuentes history of racism and antisemitism. I have a serious issue here with the rude and demeaning behavior of your administrator Gorilla Warfare. AlbanianHernia (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that AlbanianHernia vandalized my user talk page while leaving the ANI notice... at first I thought perhaps they were just a strongly opinionated POV-pusher (who somehow thought it was appropriate for an encyclopedia article to say that attendees of this conference were "racist white trash scumbags"), but now I think they're just trolling. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I did not mean to vandalize your page. I was scrolling down and thought I had reached the bottom. AlbanianHernia (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

...and then a cat walked over your keyboard, changing the text "sunandclouds" to "sunandbutts"? Please. Indef. Levivich 16:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You wrote, in an encyclopedia article, "racist white trash scumbags." Undoing that (and the rest of your edits) isn't because (a) you're necessarily wrong, or (b) nobody has said such things about these people before; it's because we adhere to a neutral point of view and have strict rules for how we talk about living people. If you have questions about why an article is written in a certain way or want to propose changes, use the article talk page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• curved flying stick should be applied to filer.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is probably trolling - few rational humans over-reacts like that, and the article edits appear designed to be reverted so fake outrage can be expressed - but on the off chance it isn't, I've left a final warning on AH's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, allow me to explain what has happened here. GorillaWarfare reverted your edit, because it added the qualifier "notorious white supremacist, anti-Semite, and homophobe" to Nick Fuentes' mention in the lede of that article.

That's highly unencyclopedic writing, and an entirely unnecessary POV insertion in the lede of the article. The lede does mention that it's been described as far-right and white nationalist, and Fuentes' page describes him as a white nationalist.

GW thus rightly reverted your edit. You then edit-warred the information back in. In response, GW reverted you again, not citing our policies about writing about living people, but certainly well within the spirit of them (and within the exception they carve out in our rules prohibiting edit warring), and placed some welcome templates on your talk page, along with some mild warnings about your edit.

Everything GW has done has been very proper, thus far, with her only possible misstep being not explicitly mentioning WP:BLP in the edit summary of her second revert.

The fact that you are offended by all of this is really immaterial: ANI does not exist to satisfy your sense of decorum, but to stop disruptive editing. As it was your edits which were disruptive, your best course of action is to (politely) ask GW to explain why she's reverting you (or take that info from my message here) and recognize that we won't be writing that way about living people. If you need further guidance on how we write about living people, then asking for assistance at the article talk page, at GW's talk page, at my talk page (see the "tell me all about it" link in my signature) or even at your own talk page. Someone is almost always ready to patiently explain such things. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's probably worth taking note of the fact that, among AlbanianHernia's less than a dozen total edits, several of them demonstrate more substantial technical knowledge than a legitimate first time editor is likely to have: their first and second edits were to bluelink their user and user talk pages, they created and utilized an archive, and otherwise demonstrated a working knowledge of our markup. I think it's safe to say, these telling features combined with the targeted disruption, that we are dealing with a sock here, and I wonder if there is anyone working in sock control in the context of the American conservative politics who might be able to recognize the most likely sock master. That said, with the user account indeffed regardless, this might be superfluous...unless they are still an active contributor with their main account. Worth considering, I think. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

AfrikaMoja

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AfrikaMoja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging is some fairly extreme POV pushing at John Magufuli, trying to portray any criticism of Magufuli as Eurocentric, adding editorial commentary not supported by sources, and posting hateful comments about LGBT people. I'd suggest that WP:NOTHERE applies. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There is also an element of WP:3RR here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. The homophobia expressed by this account is beyond the pale. Also, the English Wikipedia project is subject to US law, not Tanzanian, and that presumably includes any relevant hate speech statutes. El_C 21:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism in Special:Tags?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following tags have had their display names changed to gibberish:

mobile edit - displays as: Golygu ar declyn symudol

mobile web edit - displays as: Golygiad gwe symudol

visualeditor - displays as: Golygu gyda'r llygad

Nathanielcwm (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Tags_in_Welsh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

All of these problems with Welsh translations reminded me of this story. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's hilarious —valereee (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Welsh is not gibberish, but we should be displaying things in English if the viewer has not asked for another language. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be an ongoing technical issue here with the Welsh displays which is being discussed elsewhere. And as a Welsh speaker, it has made me chuckle a bit that it has been misinterpreted as gibberish or vandalism! Girth Summit, thank you for reminding me of that article, too. :-) Patient Zero^talk 22:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Super.mix5101 WP:NOTHERE

The aforementioned user, in the past few months alone, has vandalised beyond a Level 4 warning, threatened to sockpuppet and edit war, and is now creating nonsense articles. Patient Zero^talk 00:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Talk:ملف:اسلمي يا مصر.ogg, the editor is making a personal attack but to who? I assume you Patient Zero. Here's also the threat to sock: [606]. Jerm (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Deep joy. Well, that's also worth taking into consideration. Thanks for the heads-up, Jerm. Patient Zero^talk 01:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Patient Zero a more fullsome report would help in getting a quicker and more comprehensive review of the purported disruption; can you please provide at least a few diffs of the vandalism, and especially the threat to sock? Some degree of support for accusations of policy violations is expected here, as per the notice at the top of this page; it's just not reasonable to supply just the user name and expect the community to dig through the entirety of their contributions to find the bad faith conduct, especially when you, as the person raising the concerns, are in a position to direct us to the particular problems.

I do see on the talk page the promise to the keep re-adding the content in dispute (which yes, I think might be interpreted in the circumstances as a promise to edit war) and I also note there is a previous ANI about 90 days back, brought by Indy beetle ([607]), but it seems the report was not acted upon. But further context regarding the "nonsense articles" and threats to sock would be appreciated and will get the admins and community members here to the heart of the matter much quicker. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh nevermind on the threat to sock: that has been supplied by Jerm--thank you Jerm. Still, some of the other details would be helpful, particularly with regard to the articles you find problematic. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's an example in diff form should anyone need it, though I'd posit the user talk page provides enough detail. Patient Zero^talk 01:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I also found this personal attack. I have no comment on the accuracy of the content, but with the threat to sock and this comment to continue edit warring, it's quite obvious the editor is WP:NOTHERE. Jerm (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, enough wasting time, blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, RickinBaltimore. Patient Zero^talk 01:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I can certainly do that, Snow Rise. The disruption can mostly be seen at the editor's talk page, and the nonsense article was ملف:اسلمي يا مصر.ogg. Jerm has kindly provided a diff of the threat to sock, however given the transparent and highly visible nature of the threats I saw no reason to provide a load of diffs when finding them on the TP is more accessible. Patient Zero^talk 01:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree this is all adding up to WP:NOTHERE (or at least WP:CIR), though I'm not sure whether there is enough disruption as yet to geenlight a block without further attempts to rehabilitate the user's approach--though you may get lucky on the draw and attract the attention of a more pro-active admin. Personally, given the indications, I doubt there is much use in trying to reason with this editor, as they have evidenced little understanding of our consensus processes or willingness to educate themselves about them. Still, as a pro forma matter, we usually have at least a little more engagement with a new editor before a block.

But the nature of the article ملف:اسلمي يا مصر.ogg might help press for action here. Since not everyone here can look at the contents of deleted articles, can I trouble you to characterize the contents of that article? Did it appear to be outright trolling? Or a good faith effort to create real content that was merely inappropriate or infeasible for a Wikipedia article. From the previous ANI, I rather got the impression that they were POV pushing (possibly against consensus), but had actual encyclopedic goals--but there seem to be language and technical competency gaps making it hard to know for sure.

Anyway, again, given the ambivalence to contrary views and working toward consensus building, compounded by outright PAs (which aren't the worst in the history of the project by any means but do contribute to the general sense of tendentiousness), I don't see this editor staying and I wouldn't weep if an admin dropped a WP:CIR block right now. But realistically, an admin may want to see additional efforts at engagement before acting. Let's see if Super.mix responds to the notice and can provide even a little context for their actions and demonstrate one way or the other whether they can accept the constraint of policy and consensus on their activity here. I think we are all probably on the same page as to how that is going to play out, but it is the typical way forward from this point, unless an admin just decides to cut through to the quick and block on their discretion. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind: said proactive admin has manifested in the noble personage of RickinBaltimore. :) Snow ^{let's rap} 01:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Snow Rise, it was just the same string of letters typed into the main body of the article. Nothing of note or value --Patient Zero^talk 01:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, well that would seem to foreclose the possibility of anything else but straightforward vandalism, justifying the block even further--not that it was really needed, imo. But I think we should probably presume that efforts at the promised socking may be forthcoming at Egyptian revolution of 1952 and related articles. So I'll repeat my ping of Indy beetle so that they are aware that they may see this user return to that space under another account. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely worth keeping an eye on the article and the situation. Patient Zero^talk 01:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)