Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Comtinued disruptive editing and POV pushing by HypVol

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077 § Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits (second round)

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

I previously reported this user's disruptive editing in the thread linked above, where they were attempting to get some IP users that were reverting their edits blocked. User:Shibbolethink responded saying that they found the edits troubling, but ultimately no action was taken. Following this they seem to have developed a case of the ANI flu and vanished for a couple of weeks so I didn't press the issue further, but now they're back, re-inserting their disputed edits into a number of categories, articles and templates.

A review of this editors contributions will show a distinct pattern of disruption and POV pushing with regards to Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan that demonstrate that they are WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopaedia with regards to those topics. For convenience here's a small sample of some of the problematic edits this user has made (partially copied from the previous report, now updated with extra diffs):

• Replacing neutrally worded 'see also' notes with ridiculous 'Hong Kong belongs to China' POV pushing in templates: [1] [2]
• Replacing the flag of Hong Kong with the flag of china in a list of universities, next to the university of Hong Kong: [3] [4] [5]
• Systematically whitewashing articles to remove all mention of the Special Administrative Region status of Hong Kong: [6] [7]
• Sorting a huge number of articles on various things in Hong Kong into "China foo" categories: [8] [9] [10]
• Recategorising people from Hong Kong into the categories for mainland china: [11] [12]
• Across a huge number of templates removing all mentions of Hong Kong being a SAR and merging their topics into the sections on mainland china: [13] [14] [15] [16]
• Changing a huge number of "Hong Kong Foo" categories from being "Foo by nationality" categories to being subcategories of "China Foo": [17] [18] [19] [20] ][21]
• Describing the flag of Macau as a "regional flag": [22]
• Modifying the location of Macau to imply it's uncontroversialy a part of mainland china: [23]
• Adding some rather POV-pushy leads to a couple of articles on Taiwan's international relations, stating how country X does not recognise Taiwan, it's part of china: [24] [25]

While individually some of these edits may be acceptable taken as a whole they demonstrate a distinct pattern of POV pushing with regards to these topics, at the minimum I think a topic ban from china related topics is required, but a straight up block may also be suitable. I also find this editor's use of their user page to construct a "hit list" of IP's that have been reverting them to be inappropriate. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd fully support an indef. Shilling for Winnie the Pooh and his buddies is an especially unpalatable way to be a POV pusher here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the shitlist from their user page per WP:POLEMIC. – ².O.^Boxing 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is also a concerning post left on their talk page by another account whose only activity is reporting IPs to look out for to HypVol. Slywriter (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: INDEF HypVol

Block for disruptive editing and POV pushing as described above. As far as I can tell, this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They are here to remove any mention of HK as an autonomous entity from Wikipedia. They also appear to be (possibly) socking or meat puppeting [26] with WenningHehn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I think it seems pretty clear here this is blatent POV pushing with no regard for building a legit encyclopedia. indef ban seems appropriate if not a broad china-relate topic ban. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support (OP) Something like this is definitely needed. Could some uninvolved administrators weigh in here please? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Support – would be nice if HypVol were to chime in themselves, given their sporadic editing it's quite possible this hasn't yet been seen by them, but the presented evidence to me is clear enough for that not to be a requirement. AngryHarpy‍^talk 14:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef, the editor clearly does not seem to be here to build a general-purpose encyclopedia. BD2412 T 04:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Vanebbe

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

---

Vanebbe (talk · contribs) is very likely another reincarnation of the indefinitely blocked user User:Zerolandteam385. The editing behaviour is identical, and I have already added the Vanebbe account to the ongoing sockpuppet investigation page (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zerolandteam385). This doesn't seem to bother the person editing with this account (which is typical Zerolandteam385 behaviour). Virtually every edit done by this editor is disruptive and has been reverted, I actually believe that the editor fails WP:CIR. @User:Sandstein, User:Mr.choppers, User:Druschba 4. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support for discipline: Vanebbe has recently created two articles about truck models belonging to The Autocar Company, namely Autocar A and Autocar 64 which are riddled with incorrect information. Speaking as an expert on this topic, I couldn't even begin to edit them. They should be deleted entirely. Sedimentary (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I just found a third article, Autocar_Xpeditor and deleted all the text except for a simple factual statement I added. The article may be deleted, IMO. Sedimentary (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support sanctions - an indefinite block would not be out of line. Vanebbe has made only one user talk page edit and (effectively) one article talk page edit; in the latter case, showing complete indifference to the gravity of a copyright violation. The user does not show any indication of heeding the concerns that multiple editors have raised regarding their editing.

I'm not certain that Vanebbe is a sockpuppet of Zerolandteam385, as the editing does seem somewhat more sophisticated. I would've opened an SPI long ago if I had confidence of sockpuppetry being involved here. But, in any case, this is probably a CIR issue as mentioned above.

Additionally, per Sedimentary, all of the articles created by Vanebbe are suspect and deletion should be considered. --Sable232 (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support This seems like an easy case for sanctions to me. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I am very much assuming that the account is a sock puppet. The editing behavior has remained the same in its basics, even if it has changed slightly here and there over time. I've been following the whole thing for several months, especially because of the many, very poor quality new articles on Russian vehicles. As an expert in this field, I would have liked to have many if not all of them deleted, unfortunately my time and my expertise in the en.WP are not enough. Regards, --Druschba 4 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support I've been paying attention to this user for a while as their articles often end up in the new pages feed and usually have little to no citations and are usually copyvios or made up unsourced material. I thought I would spare them and not bring them up here because they had potential to improve, but it's just disruptive at this point as the user doesn't communicate with other let alone even acknowledge the messages on their page. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support per above.dudhhr_Contribs 19:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

IP edit warring

An IP editor is edit warring at United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It's believed to be the same editor that was blocked several months ago and has occasionally sought to IP-hop to reinstate changes to some specific sections of the page. A previous investigation identified a couple of the IPs and the article was protected. As there is now extensive edit warring can the IP address please be blocked: [27][28][29][30][31]. Another editor has requested page protection as the individual has hopped IPs a couple of times over the last few days. Cambial foliage❧ 16:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Cambial and your likely meatpuppet FDW777 are the ones edit warring. I'm just adding to the article to improve. I would point admins to Cambial edits all reverts of anyone that disagrees with him which is everyone but his meatpuppet FDW777. If you can say what's factually wrong in what've I've added but ye probably can't wee fella as you just want the article to remain in stasis as if you own it.

Seems a bit wobbly grounds for a sockpuppet claim, just everyone they don't agree with they claim is a sockpuppet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from aspersions of other editors. If you have concerns about Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry then file a claim against the one you suspect, provide evidence and let a CU and/or admins determine this. Claiming another editor is doing this is a very serious charge. Please use it sparingly. Please stop the edit warring and disruptive editing. According to WP:BRD if you add something and it is reverted the next step is to take it to the articles talk page to try and prove your position. Please do so and cease trying to re-add the edits. --ARoseWolf 17:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why it's so hard to be kind to others and not immediately assume the worst. Try to exhaust every option of resolving the dispute before coming here. --ARoseWolf 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. My protection summary reads: Per Roy, but for longer. Sock or not, too much WP:BATTLEGROUND from multiple unconfirmed accounts. Anyway, I remember this (vaguely). IP, I can personally attest that Cambial Yellowing and FDW777 are not MEAT editors, and that their contributions span far beyond this page or even general topic. El_C 17:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, El_C. --ARoseWolf 17:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but all i've seen is them making the exact same revert of edits, there's no difference in approach, just wholesale reversion of any edit they haven't made. They seem like friends. When I saw Jimbo Wales talk about wikipedia he said every editor is treated equally and that everyone owns wikipedia and no one owns any article they for everyone to contribute to. Why keep supporting people who just gatekeep articles reverting any updates or changes. As you've locked us regular folk out. you should update the page to include more recent analysis I was planning to do it tonight. Lots of good stuff in there fella. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/uk-internal-market.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

IP, I'm not going to do that. This isn't a subject with which I am familiar or even that interested in. In any case, it's best to be straight forward: WP:ASPERSIONS are unwelcome and are, in fact, prohibited. In a broader sense, content dispute are expected to be resolved on a respective article's talk page. If that effort reaches an impasse, there are dispute resolution requests (like a Request for comment), that one could avail themselves of. Not sure there's really much to add to this explanation; straying from this crux seems kind of pointless, tbh. El_C 18:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding request for comment or similar, we had Talk:United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020#Structured lead moderation where the current lead was agreed. In fact, the key fact regarding the lead (that the only way the act can prevent internal trade barriers is by restricting the power of the devolved governments to create them in the first place) was never refuted. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to see the discussion. I'm sure this can be resolved on the article talk page and if there are changes they can be added at the end of the protection phase. I left a welcome message and some helpful hints for the IP and they have been instructed of the proper way to resolve disputes without edit warring. Not sure there is much more needed at this time. Thank you for the quick action, El_C. Happy editing everyone! --ARoseWolf 18:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C I'm didn't start throw aspersion around now did I? Has FDW777 made any constructive edits to the article or have they just done the exact same reverts Cambial has? look at the article history page fella, its clear FDW777 has literally continued edit warring by reverting the article yet again. If you are not interested in the article why lock it so only FDW777 and Cambial can edit it? and isn't that unhelpful since they never update the article or correct its problems and even delete tags others place to help in the improvement effort. Seems a bit one sided fella, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.2.89 (talk • contribs)

Please WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT your comments, IP. I've been doing it for you for a while now, so maybe it's your turn to account for your own comments...? Otherwise, I'm finding you to be unresponsive and evasive and I am not inclined to repeat myself again, sorry. El_C 20:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

IP, the aspersion was calling a fellow editor a "wee fella". I understand that may be a cultural thing where you are as you have continually used "fella" to refer to many other editors, myself included, but its important to note that not everyone comes from the same location or has the same experiences in life. For me it was not necessarily the fact you called them this but the way in which you used it that made it an aspersion. You were talking down to them when all they were doing was upholding Wikipedia policy. You may not like it but WP:BRD is non-negotiable with the only exceptions being noted in the policy. You MUST take the edits you want to include or remove to the article's talk page as you were the one that initiated the changes to a stable article according to the history. --ARoseWolf 11:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious this is PlainAndSimpleTailor (eg previous IP: 79.66.51.226 (talk · contribs)) and this is block evasion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Whomever indeffed PlainAndSimpleTailor, they are not to be trusted! El_C 12:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

El_C, Exactly! Now we are getting somewhere. --ARoseWolf 12:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Communication issue with 51412techno

51412techno never explains his edits and has no contribution in any talk pages. His talk page is also full of warnings and I see no hope if this user will comply with WP:COMMUNICATE. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The latest 400 edits of the user do not have a single edit summary. The edit summary usage of 0.7% is the lowest I have ever seen. This, despite multiple warnings from me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You're right he doesnt seem to be communicating, however I'm not seeing much disruptive editting in his recent edit history. Wikiman5676 (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors are required to communicate. Now that he is not responding to this report but still editing, I think he should be blocked until he recognizes the requirement to communicate. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton

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

---

Calton started off by reverting one of my previous edits on 2021 and reinstating Michael K. Williams in spite of the fact there was no consensus in favour of his inclusion - and he did so with an edit summary inappropriately referring to myself as "Mr. Gatekeeper"[32]. Then today he went on Talk:2021 and engaged in the thread started by PeaceInOurTime2021 regarding Norm Macdonald in an extremely hostile and patronising manner laced with personal attacks directed exclusively towards me, of which you can openly see for yourself on the Talk page[33].

I called him out on his attitude both on the thread as well as on a message in his personal Talk page saying that I didn't think his conduct was appropriate and that we are perfectly entitled to agree and disagree without resorting to personal attacks[34]. He completely ignored my message on his Talk page and continued to double down on the Talk:2021 page - as well as outright singling me out and painting me as the only person questioning Macdonald's inclusion, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. I also note as well looking through his personal Talk page that he has a history of extremely unpleasant behaviour towards other users. Hopefully this can be swiftly resolved. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Calton♂ An extended confirmed user, 16 years 10 months old, with 78,371 edits. I don't think that was his first contribution. Anyone with a blue link can be included on the list of deaths for a year, as is standard practice and standing consensus for inclusion in lists. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, what I mean is that it was his first contribution to the 2021 page in recent days, and one that was problematic right from the outset. I'm aware that this user has been around for a long time haha. Thescrubbythug (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Without commenting on the current situation, it is not true that "anyone with a blue link can be included on the list of deaths for a year", we have more than 10,000 pages on people who died in 2020 alone: including them all on the main "2020" page would be impossible, so some editorial discretion on who to include and who to exclude is necessary. Everyone can be included in their respective month list though, e.g. Deaths in January 2021. Fram (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Conceded. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Would be best for Calton to open a discussion at the article-in-question & seek consensus for who he wishes to include. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You mean like at Talk:2021#Norm Macdonald, where he's engaged in exactly such a discussion? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This report isn't over a disagreement in a discussion. It's entirely to do with the personal conduct and behaviour of the person in question, and his refusal to engage without hostility or resorting to personal attacks (i.e. "Mr. Gatekeeper"). Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you're being accused of ownership of said-article. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

He has made constant accusations of gatekeeping towards me, yes - and without properly going through the history of the Talk page discussions and how several users (not just myself) have voiced that we need to be stricter on who should be included in general, with politicians, sports figures and entertainment figures being categories that have been singled out. I find that and his overall uncivil attitude toxic, and an issue that has the potential of alienating anyone who might otherwise want to contribute. Thescrubbythug (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just asking and not saying anything about the behavior of the individual but is there a clear consensus that is described and defined somewhere? I had a similar issue come up on one of these lists where it was specifically declining and reverting any mention of tribal affiliation of Indigenous people where nationality was okay to be included. So if a person that dies was Cherokee you could not put Cherokee American, only American, in the description. Even putting that they were a chief of said tribe was reverted. Examples aren't needed because I'm not complaining now as it was explained thoroughly to me why. I may not agree with that but if it is consensus then it should be followed. I just can see an example of where someone is trying to add a name and being told no because consensus says no but no one has specifically pointed them to said consensus where it can be easily viewed and defined. Not at all saying that isn't the case and not at all saying aspersions and attacks are justified. We should remain civil at all times, especially when we feel challenged or are angry about something. Just a curiosity. --ARoseWolf 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Williams? There was an attempt by one IP user to add him multiple times (and was also problematic in terms of behaviour as well, as seen in a previous report here), but besides that there was little discussion on him. He ended up being bunched in with Sarah Harding on the Talk page (again, due to the IP user essentially saying Harding and Williams should be included more than Mikis Theodorakis or Jean-Paul Belmondo, whose inclusions were never in dispute), but there was little comment beyond myself and Jim Michael agreeing that he does not warrant inclusion. Thescrubbythug (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It does seem that WP:NPA is being breached here—Calton may disagree with individual reverts but the onus in the BRD cycle is always to discuss the merit of your change, not to attack the reverting editor. "Mr Gatekeeper" may not be the most cutting of insults but it does belie an attitude to editing that's entirely at odds with BRD. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, Calton is being too confrontational in the discussion and edit summaries. It's entirely possible to disagree without the hostility. Levivich 17:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This is just how Calton edits. If you've ever had a different viewpoint than him on an article you've probably experienced it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A longstanding WP:BATTLEGROUND exemption from the gods? No one can explain the riddle behind these mysterious powers! El_C 18:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If this is “just how Carlton edits”, then how has this been tolerated for so long? Clearly it’s very problematic and a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV, and the fact that he gets away with it seems to make him think that this conduct is at all acceptable. No user should be above these basic guidelines. Thescrubbythug (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I hereby penalize Calton two demerits for being rude to you. Levivich 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thus spoke Levivich the terrible WP:UNBLOCKABLE! El_C 02:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

It probably doesn't help much that Calton is correct. That's when he can be most annoying. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The end justifies the meanie, as it were. El_C 02:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Except Calton had absolutely no right to constantly attack me and accuse me of gatekeeping because I held a difference of opinion on Macdonald’s inclusion, and a lot of his attacks came on the basis of unfounded grounds such as the inclusion of Olympians (which had already been discussed previously on the Talk page where there was agreement on including gold medalists), and outright saying I’m the only one questioning Macdonald’s inclusion (hell, I didn’t even start the discussion thread questioning his inclusion). I don’t believe the way he went about everything (“Any more arbitrary lines you want to redraw? And you know about Macdonald's significance outside the U.S. and Canada, how? And this is important, why?”, among other examples of his hostile and patronising attitude) is at all acceptable, and I sincerely hope that this isn’t dismissed and that something can be done, on the grounds of WP:NPA and WP:CIV - even if it’s just to have all the personal comments targeting me removed and/or to have him edit his comments so that he can make his argument without referencing me or attacking me. Thescrubbythug (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This wholesale removal of comments by Calton was quite inappropriate, Thescrubbythug. That action is more aggressive than anything Calton said. Please self-revert right now. Bishonen | tålk 11:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC).

Calton's entire conduct and behaviour towards me was completely inappropriate and aggressive, and there seemed to be a reluctance here by anyone to do anything about it in spite of blatant violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. According to WP:RUC, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor". Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, aggressive or unfriendly comments are not inherently personal attacks and would not merit automatic removal that invokes WP:RPA. El_C 11:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How is "Mr. Gatekeeper" not a personal attack, or comments such as "The BBC News reference seems to have escaped you. I skipped over a Guardian reference because I thought it was overkill, but apparently not. Any more arbitrary lines you want to redraw?", "Since gatekeeping is what you're doing -- and looking at your editing history on this page, have been doing -- "gatekeeping" is what I'll call it", "Thescrubbythug is familiar with these shows, right?", or "Why yes, yes you can, your unwillingness to do so notwithstanding. Certainly the rest of us editors can" that are blatantly derogatory, accusatory, and designed to insinuate that I'm an idiot for disagreeing with him. Why do we have "Be polite and avoid personal attacks" as a rule for talk pages if they're not going to be enforced and when they are clearly violated, they are dismissed with an "I hereby penalize Calton two demerits for being rude to you" and nothing is done. How is his standard of behaviour at all acceptable? Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thescrubbythug, while that's uncivil, it isn't a personal attack outright. You are conflating impoliteness with personal attacks. As an aside, that is how Calton had been getting away with it for all these years. They only rarely cross the line from incivility to personal attacks, and they tend to be right on the content. So, if a personal attack = 1, any disparate incident would usually be at, say, 0.5. That, even though in total it's on the high end. It's a bit of a perennial problem on the project which is far from limited to Calton, though they embody it well, I think. El_C 11:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted back, though I still maintain that all of his comments personally targeting me rather than choosing to comment just on the topic at hand is very problematic. Thescrubbythug (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A personal attack is more like, "El C, I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberries!" whereas incivility is just "El C, you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!" ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

How dare you question farcical revered aquatic ceremonies! El_C 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

'ELP! 'ELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED! Now you see the violence inherent in the system! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm Holy Hand Grenade'ing this silliness! El_C 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Calton speaks

Well, that was fast. I go away and come back to this. But thanks to the people who stepped up to speak for me, especially Bishonen. My two iron rules of Wikipedia are "Rule 1) Bishonen is always right. Rule 2) If Bishonen is wrong, step back and see where you went wrong, then go back to Rule 1."

Well, I have a few things I'd like say, namely that this whole circus is WP:BOOMERANG-worthy. In a nutshell -- because it's Saturday and I'm heading out of the house right after I type this, while it's still daylight -- the reason I talked about Thescrubbythug in Talk:2021 as part of a content dispute is because HE is part of the content dispute, as it were. In sum -- diffs later -- he has made judgments without research, in favor of his own subjective opinion of what is important and what is not; has made false -- or at least highly bad-faith -- statements; ignored arguments; shifted goalposts; and has done his best to weaponize behavior policies to take ownership of the page. I mean, the paragraph above that begins with Except Calton had absolutely no right... encapsulates a whole lot of what I think is wrong here.

I will say more later, when I get back and when I can condense it to less-than-mind-numbing detail. It's harder to write short than it is to write long. --Calton | Talk 05:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Once again, you are accusing me of “ownership of the page” and of “weaponising” behaviour policies when it is perfectly obvious that I would have taken absolutely zero offence or issue with you had you simply made your argument in favour of Macdonald and not gone out of your way to attack me and make personalised accusations towards me, in spite of the fact that I didn’t even start the original thread and that I was not the only person questioning Macdonald’s inclusion. To now accuse me of filing this report when I made it absolutely clear that it had nothing to do with agreement or disagreement on the Macdonald topic, and everything to do with the way that you acted towards me is honestly disgusting and deeply problematic. “Shifting goalpost” is a ridiculous assertion, especially considering that you’ve obviously not followed the history of the Talk:2021 page and the discussions by multiple regular contributors about the need to be more selective about who to add onto the page, and by which criteria (especially with politicians, sports figures, and entertainment figures) would be most appropriate. It has been an overarching, ongoing issue over the last half year or so, and to specifically target and attack one user (myself) over this without even attempting to learn about the background context of these debates is inappropriate. In any case, I’ve already made clear that the issue isn’t agreement or disagreement over Macdonald; the issue is you and and your violations of WP:CIV (which the other admins here agreed was problematic), as well as referring to me as “Mr. Gatekeeper” in the most petty way possible. Don’t try and make this about anything other than that. Thescrubbythug (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Only one way to settle the whole dispute & avoid any editor being blocked. Come up with an inclusion criteria on International Year articles, for who should/shouldn't be added to the birth/death sections. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Target of Overzealous Editor

I have had issues with Mztourist in the past. Starting earlier this year when he nominated numerous AfD. At the time I was unaware of the rules and will admit revenge AfDing back, but only articles I felt were questionable and worth discussing. Mztourist has continued to AfD my articles on a regular basis some being deleted, some merged, some staying in place. One article was AfDd last year Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (2nd nomination), and as he did not get the response he wanted, he recently AfDd it again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination). I ran across an article that had a single source for the entire article, which happened to be one of Mztourist and accidentally PRODed the article when I meant to AfD it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Carney Jr.. I was immediately accused of REVENGE, and was told I didn't know what I was talking about and in general handled very rudely. I tried to explain, but was simply accused again. I would have discussed the matter further, but was "banned" from his talk page. The discussion continued on the AfD for Carney. I was looking over other AfDd articles, and added two Bibliography entries to Mac Ross, attempting to improve the secondary sources to unsure notability. This happened to be another article Mztourist is AfDing, my two book bibliography entries were immediately deleted by Mztourist claiming "They are not yet referenced in the page," however bibliography entries do not need to be referenced in the page so I undid the edit, and replied "Stop reverting my edits, I am contributing to the bibliography and providing secondary sources." Mztourist then commented in the Talk:Mac_Ross. He immediately accused me of edit warring, which is what he was doing. To be honest, I am tired of being disrespected, belittled, and harassed by Mztourist. I would like requested an interaction ban for the both of us, because I do not believe anything else will resolve the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If anyone should be making a complaint here it is me. I have previously complained about Jamesallain85 here in June: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's concerns about User:Jamesallain85. Jamesallain85 was warned about REVENGE AFDs as a result of that discussion. I AFD'ed Jack C. Titus on 19 August: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack C. Titus. Jamesallain85 was temporarily blocked for WP:SHARE in that debate, the page was merged. I then AFDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy J. Edens (3rd nomination) a page that I had AFDed over a year ago, but which was kept on a misinterpretation of the now-deprecated WP:SOLDIER. As you will see there is currently a vigorous debate on the sourcing showing that it was a legitimate nomination. Jamesallain85 then sought REVENGE just as he did with previously with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Jacobson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John B. Selby previously, by PRODing Robert B. Carney Jr.. I dePRODed the page with an explanation and Jamesallain85 then came to my Talk Page: User talk:Mztourist#Proposed deletion of Robert B. Carney Jr.. Jamesallain85 PRODed the page again. I banned him from my UP as I'm entitled to do and he then AFDed Robert B. Carney Jr. and you can read that discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert B. Carney Jr. particularly comments such as "You don't get it, my goal isn't to delete this page. It was to draw attention to a poorly sourced page.". Jamesallain85 has also !voted on a number of other current AFDs in which I have been active. In relation to Mac Ross he added books to the bibliography which are not referred to in the page and I deleted them with an explanation and he reinstated and I deleted them again, he reinstated them and I opened a discussion about his edit warring on Talk:Mac_Ross. Jamesallain85 claims that I have "disrespected, belittled, and harassed" him, but I contend that is what he has done to me. I have AFDed his pages because I believe that many of them are poorly sourced with tenuous to non-existent notability. Rather than addressing this he has continued to pursue REVENGE. Mztourist (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Not commenting on the rest of this as of yet but AfD is "not for article clean-up". We shouldn't be submitting articles to AfD because we feel they need to be properly sourced or cleaned up. If anyone wants to bring attention to a poorly sourced article you can post it on the article talk page or post a link on a relevant wiki-project. You can even ask a question about it on the Teahouse if you want to know where to bring it up. An article being poorly sourced is not a reason for deletion. If you feel it is not notable that is a different thing altogether. Regardless, content discussion is for somewhere else. --ARoseWolf 16:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I AfDd an article that had zero evidence of notability. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

On that same note, why is Mztourist AfDing articles and then trying to undo any improvements which would help keep the article. The article I AfDd and article with a single obituary as the only source for an entire article. There was nothing in the obituary which in itself that was notable. There have been many discussions on this topic, being a General is not automatic as Mztourist has stated several times. There were no notable awards, the highest being the Legion of Merit, something else Mztourist has stated. There was no evidence with what was on the page to speak of its notability other than it was printed in the Washington Post, which again by itself isn't notable. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You AfD page after page you claim are poorly sourced, and if I AfD one page of yours which contains a single source for SIGCOV I am REVENGE targeting you? I tagged another page of yours that didn't contain a singe source, do you understand the irony in your statement? I would like to point out some of your statements which point to your hostility: "You clearly don't understand SIGCOV and I can't be bothered engaging with you" "you're banned from my Talk Page now" "I have a habit of not continuing with pointless discussions with someone who can't tell whether or not a topic is notable." "I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to you." " this page is being kept, better luck next time" Mztourist has repeatedly engaged in belittling, hostile, and unprofessional dialogue. If you don't see things from his point of view you are pushed down and mocked until he gets his way. He is quick to AfD article after article, but cannot take any criticism concerning his own. He simply denies it claiming the other is at fault because they just don't know and it is a waste of his time to discuss or explain it. He has engaged in edit warring unto the limit only to turn around and try to blame me for edit warring him, for adding sources to an article he is trying to AfD. I am beginning to question what Mztourist motives are on this platform. Jamesallain85 (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Jamesallain85, it gets very confusing. Your nomination says "Fails WP:GNG even with added references." as a reason for why you put it up for deletion and then you lay out your case for why. That's perfectly fine as far as a reason and a plausible explanation. But then you later say "You don't get it, my goal isn't to delete this page. It was to draw attention to a poorly sourced page. The only person that gets enjoyment of deleting pages and reverting around here is you.", the you being Mztourist I suppose. Is it because it fails GNG and you are seeking deletion or is it that you are not seeking deletion and only wanting to draw attention to the fact you believe it is poorly sourced? --ARoseWolf 17:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's true, and frustrating, that people often participate in AfD debates without doing reasonable diligence (i.e. WP:BEFORE), but this seems like kind of a silly AN/I thread. It doesn't look like there are diffs here to support the claim that Mztourist is engaging in bad faith at AfD: if they are indeed nominating a bunch of your articles for deletion on spurious grounds, surely there is a big list (rather than the couple you've mentioned here)? For what it's worth, they do not seem to be making ludicrously bad nominations — about 36% of their nominations have closed "keep", "speedy keep" or "no consensus", which is roughly in line with aggregate AfD statistics (around 25% of all AfDs have closed as "keep", "speedy keep", or "no consensus" since 2014). jp×g 08:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Pitzzaboy

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

---

This user has continued to disrupt Wikipedia through copyright violations and disruptive editing. Pitzzaboy has been warned countless times by other users, such as Bonadea, HurricaneEdgar, LightandDark2000 and Chlod, for copying within Wikipedia without attribution ([35], [36], [37]). Most recently, they have created Draft:Tropical Storm Ana, which was a blatant copy-paste from 2021 Atlantic hurricane season without attribution. Pitzzaboy has also edit warred recently on the Typhoon Chanthu (2021) article, while claiming that his article should not be deleted because it was his work and his work alone. This comes after at least one warning regarding edit warring. Finally, Pitzzaboy's talk page contains of nearly one dozen warnings spanning from August 2021 to the present. At least one ANI report has existed in the past month, as well as one 3RR report. Enough is enough, and this warrants an indefinite block. Destroyer (Alternate account) 15:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Based on reading their contribs and their user talk page I tend to agree with @Destroyer. It may be that they don't understand how to be a constructive editor here but they also don't seem to be willing to or are unable to learn from past mistakes even to the point of doubling down on them. I would hope that they could accept constructive criticism and guidance but history says otherwise. If anyone sees how this could be remedied without a block I would be in favor of that. The disruption can not continue. --ARoseWolf 16:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @ARoseWolf: An alternative is mentoring, but I honestly don't that that that will help based on this user's responses as well as their actions on my talk page (partially blocked from editing it). Destroyer (Alternate account) 16:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

    (Non-administrator comment) It may be worth directing them to WP:REUSE which seems to be the most pertinent policy here; if they have any trouble with it then CIR applies but it's worth giving them a fair shake at seeing the difference between public domain and our licensing on contributions. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 16:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

    • Excellent idea Grapple X. Thank you! --ARoseWolf 16:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Gave the editor a final warning. Will not hesitate to indef as he clearly did not learn from the prior block. Star Mississippi 20:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Pitzzaboy

Pitzzaboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly creating and re-creating inappropriate articles, despite several warnings. They have created multiple poorly-referenced and unreferenced stubs about WP:MILL topics, including 2021 Pacffic Coast heat wave [sic], List of Campgrounds in California, July 2021 California wildfires, and Rutherford Beach, Louisiana. They are currently edit-warring their latest article, 2021 California floods, out of draftspace despite three editors (TheAafi, Liz, and myself) telling them it is not ready [38], [39], [40], [41]. They are already partially blocked from 2021 California gubernatorial recall election and User talk:Destroyeraa for disruptive editing. At this point, a full block is warranted. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

By my quick count, Draft:2021 California floods has been moved 7 times in its short life. That's the editing aspect of Pitzzaboy's contributions that I am familiar with. This seems to be a recurring problem among some editors with incidents seen as weather/environmental emergencies. I don't think an indefinite block is the answer but maybe a limited one so that the editor sees that move-warring is never a smart move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Liz, to be clear, I'm not advocating an indefinite block. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There's another section about this editor allready open above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pitzzaboy 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Merged, thanks. Pinging Star Mississippi, who threatened to block above if disruption continued. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be barred from moving drafts to article status. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tartan357. I had protected 2021 California floods for a week before deciding on a one week block. I have no issue with that being shortened if there is consensus and the editor starts to communicate that they understand how to edit collaboratively, or extended if they double down. this is notable enogh and AFC allsow isn't for natrual disasters shows they both misunderstand consensus and Wiki policies as I can't find anything to indicate AfC is limited to one category or another.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Mississippi (talk • contribs)

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

Rogue Admin?

Bishonen has unilaterally and inappropriately blocked me from accessing my own user talk page without warning or rationale.

This attack, this revert where you prevent Valjean from fixing their own typo, and this revert + baseless claim of an insult, repeated here, all here on your own talkpage, are unbelievably petty, separately and together. Please note that Wikipedia including this very page are supposed to be for collaboration, not an opportunity for frustrating and abusing others. You have been blocked from this talkpage for 12 hours. If you wish to request unblock, I suggest either WP:ANI or WP:UTRS or appealing directly to me. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

In the process, it also appears he has also blocked me from all editing. As such, I cannot contact him on his talk page. No policy was cited. No warning was given. Just, bam, a block for removing content from my own talk page.

WP:REMOVED clearly states "Policy does not prohibit users...from removing comments from their own talk pages...", which is what I did. I am not obligated to keep snide/disparaging remarks on my own user talk page. It was under this criteria I did so despite hounding from another editor who wants to interject his commentary.

Had a conversation ensued, perhaps we could have talked about it and/or resolved it. Blocks should not be given out in this manner.

I am asking for the block to be overturned and editing privileges restored. Buffs (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In the process, it also appears he has also blocked me from all editing." How did you leave this post then? Also, you're required to notify Bishonen on her user talk page when you file a complaint here, even if it is ungrounded. Cabayi (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Cabayi, I can post here on ANI. I cannot post on his talk page or anywhere else on WP (otherwise I would have talked with him there). That's why I tagged him/pinged him above; it's the best I can possibly do. Buffs (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  What happens when you to try to post to Bishonen's Talk page (Bishonen is a she)? --Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Your block log shows that your own talk page is the only page from which you are blocked. Cabayi (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  (EC x bazillion) It appears to be working now and I was about to post and instead got an EC (thanks TNT for the notification). Buffs (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a big difference between just removing someone else's comment from your talkpage and doing that while leaving a personal attack behind, which is the reason Bishonen blocked you from your talkpage temporarily. Isabelle ^🔔 18:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I find "User of unreliable sources" to be quite insulting and, if we're being this loose with the definitions, a personal attack. At a bare minimum, that's subjective and I'm entitled to my own opinion on the matter. I do not have to keep disparaging remarks on my talk page. I don't need to keep whatever headings and remarks people put on my talk page, especially someone who is gaslighting me. Even if you find that such a remark is (inexpicably) acceptable, a warning would be MUCH more in line than a block. Buffs (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × a million) Buffs, long time. Rogue admin? That nomenclature brings me back! But in fairness, you can't just do whatever you want on your talk page (i.e. if it is to expressly berate someone). So, while it is unconventional (new to me), I don't see an issue with the action itself if it is meant to prevent further disruption. As for block weirdness, that partial block targets your talk page only, so I'm at a loss as to why it would affect any other page. BTW, I've internalized your point (from years ago) about keeping detailed WP:ECP protection summaries (despite my dumb, reflexive protestations at the time), you'd be pleased to hear. El_C 18:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is clearly the easiest way to gain adminship. A lot easier than running the gauntlet of RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  El_C, Is that little snide remark really needed? Indeed, you did go rogue and your block of me was overturned...feels like a continuing grudge... Buffs (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs, I'm not sure what you mean. Snide how? Complimenting you? Being friendly? Me not hearing the term Rogue admin in literally years? Not sure I know how to phrase any of that better. Also, I unblocked you myself, that block was not overturned (I think you mean at AE, where indeed, my non-block sanction of you was overturned, overwhelmingly, and embarrassingly so, for me). But, back to the now, you trying to clutch onto a faux typo of great offence, well, that's a major hmm from me. Self awareness and all. El_C 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, right, me as the rogue admin in relation to you. Of course and indeed. But, no, I meant that nobody uses the term Rogue admin anymore, it's very old school. Nowadays, it's just admin abuse — I know, boring and plain. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 19:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, point taken. We'll just go our separate ways with a shrug and a simple fist bump. Later. Buffs (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Dig it! El_C 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × many) The last few edits before the block are remarkably petty, and it is decidedly disruptive to prevent another editor from copy-editing their own post, so a block from a single talk page for 12 hours is actually quite reasonable. I double checked the block log, and I'm not seeing anything there prevent Buffs from editing anything besides User Talk:Buffs. The justification of their edits based on WP:REMOVED is also quite silly, and entirely contrary to the basic spirit of WP:TPG and WP:CIVIL. If Buffs would recognize that they were being a bit much, I'd be willing to unblock. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  As stated above, if this isn't allowed, I'll just delete it. It wasn't just copyediting their post, it was changing the meaning entirely from "this is how WP treats unreliable sources" to "you are a user of unreliable resources". And yes, he indeed is gaslighting the situation by pretending I'm somehow reverting in violation of WP:BRD when, in fact, he was the one who reverted. These comments are my opinions/assessments of the matter; they are no more personal attacks than his. Buffs (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 I'll take you up on that. My intent at this point is to just delete it. Buffs (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Buffs, that's not going to fly, sorry. this was clearly a typo, but even if you're not extending that level of good faith, you reverted in the content containing the disputed source. Describing it as post-hoc revisionism isn't reasonable. You can challenge Valjean's characterization of the situation if you like, but your response was utterly disproportionate. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps we have some wires crossed here. My assessment of his actions of gaslighting/WRT WP:BRD is in response to his OTHER edits, not those on my talk page. Buffs (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe, but the other conduct is irrelevant; your conduct on your talk page is why you were blocked, and your refusal to address it is why you remain blocked. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've stated both above and below that I will simply delete such remarks from anyone in the future as is directed by WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages". Likewise, I'm not going to respond to Valjean. I'm completely disengaged from him from this point. The block no longer serves a purpose. Buffs (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)^7 Based on the diffs you've provided, you didn't simply "remove comments", though. If someone tries to fix their own typo to ensure they communicated what they intended, reverting that person's typo fix out of spite (I'm struggling to find a good faith alternative) doesn't fall under simply "removing comments". There's also the message you used when redacting, accusing Valjean of "gaslighting" and characterizing as "insults" things that don't really look like insults to me. That said, I think we usually give users a lot of latitude to, for example, redact comments (as long as it's clear they've done so) and vent on their own usertalk, so a block without warning seems a bit much IMO (and FWIW I'm not someone who typically says "but there was no warning!" for long-time editors who should know better -- it's my impression that this isn't all that far outside what many people expect to be able to do with their own talk page, so a warning seems like a good idea here). It's also not excessive enough (12 hour partial block amid disruption) to really object much either, though. PS: {{pronoun}} is your friend. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, Rhododendrites. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Block review

• Endorse block Perhaps OP should read WP:NPA Twelve whole hours? Talk pages are not our own. They are the project's and are to be used within such policies as WP:CIVIL. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  A block without warning is excessive. "In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking." Buffs (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• non-admin comment I would like to basically state what Deepfriedokra said about talk pages above but in my own words (That might be easier to understand). The Wikipedia project is the only thing that owns any talk page. They are simply letting us use user talk pages as a way to communicate with other editors on the account of us not violating any policies on them. If we violate a policy on a user talk page, the project can get rid of our ability to use it for any amount of time because they are the only ones who own talk pages. Technically, not even the founder of Wikipedia owns their own talk page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse block The policy against personal attacks applies everywhere, and the brief and lenient block prevents Buffs from engaging in personal attacks on the page where the attacks were taking place, and we can all hope that the attacks will not resume. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, so when I find something insulting or someone is gaslighting a situation, what exactly am I supposed to do? Do I just leave it there? Or is this a one-way street. Buffs (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Buffs: Not engage and definitely do not do the same thing back. Try and remain calm and take a break if you feel like you're getting mad. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry | Discord: Blaze Wolf#0001 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Simply removing their message(s) and asking them not to message you again is perfectly fine. Such removal is even explicitly exempt from the edit-warring policy. Persistent messaging towards a user who has made such a request is usually treated as harassment when reported at ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  So, I could hat the conversation, delete the conversation, but removing it and saying I find this insulting isn't acceptable? Buffs (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block per above.--Berig (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Endorse block per above. It's only 12 hours, why do you have to accuse Bishonen of being rouge? dudhhr_Contribs 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I reacted to that as well.--Berig (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Drama, drama. The section is gone, the block is endorsed by enough others to be kept until automatic expiry, Valjean should probably avoid messaging Buffs again and that's it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• If Buffs had appealed the block to me (which was one of my suggestions) with something halfway decent such as "I was angry with Valjean, but I'm over it; I promise to use my talkpage in a collaborative manner", I would have happily unblocked. (Note that I do not by any means suggest they apologize, or admit they did anything wrong. No forced apologies for me.) As I would also have done, for that matter, if they had posted a decent unblock request here on ANI. But in response to this doubling down, no, I will not. I will say, though, that if any other admin feels like unblocking, they should feel free to do so without consulting me, or waiting for anything else. The block is so short that an unblock would need to be pretty quick to be meaningful, so just unblock if you want to. Bishonen | tålk 19:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

  As stated to the top of this page, I was unable to do so, or I would have talked to you personally first; I don't go to ANI. I suspect a transient system issue. Explaining what I did is hardly "doubling down", just giving my perspective on the subject. If it makes a difference, I found Valjean's comments to be offensive and gaslighting, but he isn't replying and I don't intend to use my talkpage for anything other than collaboration. In the future, I'll just delete remarks without commentary. Buffs (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Buffs way of communicating isn't ideal, but I'm not sure it warrants a (partial) block. At any rate, I think Bishonen should have warned Buffs first. If a warning would be ignored that could be followed up with a block, potentially for more than 12 hours in that case. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• Claiming @Bishonen to be a possible rogue admin is a bit over the top similar to some of the nuances surrounding the talk page edits. It is wholly unnecessary to categorize them in this way whether you agree with the block or not. She acted out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved. If both editors would remember that civility is not just a request but is policy and there is an expected etiquette when dealing with user talk pages then this wouldn't have been necessary. While all articles and pages here belong to Wikipedia and not the subjects or editors for which they represent, we do make allowances, such as if an editor requests that someone not comment on their user talk page or blanking a user talk page. I would hope that @Buffs would realize that the petty responses and small digs they are making at fellow editors is not really the way we want to approach building a collaborative encyclopedia. Likewise, I would expect that @Valjean will realize that @Buffs didn't take kindly to their remarks left and will refrain from doing so going forward. Even if they are justified in leaving remarks on the user talk page it has clearly been disruptive to the point that we are here discussing it over a 12 hour talk page block. This is just a genuine reminder to remain civil and show a little kindness and understanding towards each other, that's all. --ARoseWolf 19:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  (repeat remarks as to address the correct person...) I did not "claim", I questioned whether she was going rogue. Obviously, several people here agreed that a warning was more appropriate, though it's not unanimous. Likewise, she did not act "out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". Both of us hadn't spoken in nearly 24 hours. A 12-hour block was unnecessarily punitive when simply talking to me would have been more productive and/or a warning would have been more appropriate. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I read most of your interactions with @Valjean including the comments on other user talk pages besides your own. You both have been taking shots at each other. It was reasonable for Bishonen to conclude it may continue. I am not them so I can't speak for them and I may have acted differently or I may have acted the same. "Claiming" or "questioning" whether she has gone rogue when you at least had some understanding that wasn't the case by their response to you is just more of the continued goading and taking shots that has been going on here. Its not an effective way to collaborate and it is disruptive. Of course there are some that are going to disagree with the block. If there are a thousand human beings in a room you will get a thousand and one opinions. Everyone can have their opinion and they are all valid. All I am doing is reminding everyone to remain civil and show a little kindness. --ARoseWolf 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Most importantly, we've found something El C and I can agree on. "Rogue/rouge admin" takes me back, too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I did not "claim", I questioned whether she was going rogue. Obviously, several people here agreed that a warning was more appropriate, though it's not unanimous. Likewise, she did not act "out of necessity to stop a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". Both of us hadn't spoken in nearly 24 hours. A 12-hour block was unnecessarily punitive when simply talking to me would have been more productive. Buffs (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I also don't agree with "a potentially escalating situation that was quickly becoming uncivil and disruptive for both editors involved". As far as I can see, Valjean was civil throughout, and Buff's nonsense about Valjean "gaslighting" him is IMO just that: nonsense. Bishonen | tålk 20:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

  Are you serious Bishonen? Valjean is being "civil"? Let's look at just his most recent remarks about me here at ANI:

  • "I have encountered skunks many times."
  • "so unpleasant"
  • "most unpleasant editors I have met here"
  • "leaving a misleading situation"
  • "This development is unexpected, but not surprising. It's karma at work."
  • "Unpleasant [person] who push[es] fringe and unreliable sources" (NOTHING I posted wasn't verifiable from other sources. NOTHING I put down was a "fringe" view in the slightest)

  Right...and I'm the one being blocked for removing insults from my talk page. And Valjean doesn't even get a warning for calling me names (in this case a skunk..among others. This seems appropriate/civil to you? Buffs (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh... you think when I described, above, the interchange on your talkpage and Valjean's civility in it, I should have taken into account the comment Valjean would post here on ANI, below, eight minutes after my description? Really? I'll acknowledge that no, I don't think it was appropriately civil of him to mention skunks in the way he did; in fact, I wish he hadn't thought it necessary to post here at all. But that has little to do with what I said above. No, you didn't remove insults from your talkpage. That remains nonsense. Bishonen | tålk 21:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC).

• Why are you arguing with me? I didn't say you claimed anything. Indeed, I'm not contributing productively to the actual discussion at all. While I'm here, though, I'd like to officially announce that "gaslighting" has joined "stalked" and "harassed" as words that no longer mean anything on Wikipedia, due to extreme overuse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm arguing with you because I missed the spacing...arg...my bad. Buffs (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to ToBeFree for pinging me. This development is unexpected, but not surprising. It's karma at work. Unpleasant people who push fringe and unreliable sources tend to get blocked for any one of many possible faults.

This all comes down to honesty and AGF, something Buffs repeatedly failed to do. They deleted my comment, leaving a misleading situation for later readers to see me in a bad light. I also made a typo in the heading of my comment and didn't notice it until later. When I tried to fix it, Buffs refused to allow me to fix it, which was another serious failure to AGF. AGF is a very basic and important policy, and admins should hand out more blocks for its violation.

I have encountered skunks many times. Once one sprayed our dog in the face right in our open bedroom door in the middle of the night, whereupon the dog ran through the house desperately trying to rub off the thick yellow dripping spray on everything! We couldn't sleep in the house for two months and stayed in our travel trailer. I have also encountered porcupines in the High Sierras not far from Mount Whitney and stepped on a sea urchin at Brindisi. I now stay away from skunks, porcupines, and sea urchins. My point? When I encounter an editor who is so unpleasant and aggressive that I sense they are too emotionally inflamed to be worth approaching, at least not until later, I tend to back off and cease engagement. I wanted to apologize for misunderstandings about the BRD issue, a point I obliquely conceded ("It appears that the point is moot now, as the unreliable source has been deleted again."), but I could see that any attempt would just be rebuffed with more personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, so I stayed silent.

That's where we are right now. It's unfortunate, but c'est la vie. I can survive without engaging with Buffs anymore. I can place them easily within the top ten most unpleasant editors I have met here since 2003 when I started here. Talk pages are for communication, preferably collaborative and explanatory discussion, but that quickly became impossible because of Buff's insistence on portraying me, and what they allowed to be seen on the talk page, in the worst possible light. That form of dishonesty and uncollegiality I can do without. -- Valjean (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Valjean, You can't tell me that you telling them they should not only not use the source they were using but also that they shouldn't read the source they were using wasn't going to be viewed as ill intended. That doesn't foster collaboration. If you want to say that the source isn't reliable then that's fine. That's based on policy. It's the extra stuff that is unnecessary and seems unkind. --ARoseWolf 20:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Like calling me a skunk? Analogous also to porcupines and sea urchins? Will someone at least put a warning on his talk page? (note that I'm NOT advocating for a block) I'd happily do that, but I don't want to be accused of any more ill-tempered acts. Buffs (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It doesn't work like this; these are unacceptable personal attacks. I've blocked Valjean for 12 hours; when writing the block notification, I stumbled upon their editnotice, which currently includes the text "This talk page is my territory and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more accurately." I'm not sure if there's anything left to be said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't endorse this block of Valjean. I'm not here to go tit-for-tat. I think a warning is sufficient. As stated below, I'm not going to engage with Valjean, but I also think a warning is warranted prior to a block (unless he's been warned prior and I missed it) and what's good for the goose... Buffs (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Warned prior... blocked prior, that is. I understand that this action doesn't make you happy either, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The block has been resolved amicably; to avoid further fuel on the fire, I have recommended Valjean to sleep a night over the whole situation before addressing it in hindsight. This is explicitly not enforced in any way, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Point of clarity I'm not going to engage with Valjean from this point forward. I ask that Valjean do the same by mutual agreement. A block from my own talk page serves no purpose at this time. Buffs (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Buffs says they're going to change their way of dealing with things they don't like on their talk page, and isn't going to engage with Valjean anymore, so I suppose there's some benefit to lifting the block before it expires, even if they aren't letting go of the "I was gaslighted" approach. I admit to admiration of the sheer out-of-normal-process-ness of the block, and note it does have support here, but it seems to have worked to some extent, Buffs seems to have learned what the community thinks of the behavior that led to the block, and seems to be getting increasingly annoyed that it is still in place. I doubt any further epiphanies are going to happen in the next 6 hours. Since most admins are scared of Bishzilla, I suppose I'll be the brave one and undo Bishonen's block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Bishzilla? Isn't that a PA? Platonk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, FYI: Floq was talking about the terror that is Bishzilla. El_C 23:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm late to this party, but I put a post (below yours). This spat about Buffs' user talk page is only the tip of the iceberg on what has gone on in the last 24-48 hours. It all started when I was editing articles to remove dailywire.com citations (GUNREL), and Buffs took offense to some of them. Valjean noticed the edits (how or why, I don't know) and Buffs started to attack Valjean. He tried to attack me and I just doubled-down on documenting why I removed the dailywire edits. Other editors also discovered and reverted Buffs edits. Buffs escalated his aggressions and I wanted to write something up (to where or whom, I didn't yet know) when I discovered this ANI. So there you have it. Can of worms opened. See all the shenanigans. And stop focusing on just a tiny spat about a single user talk page. Platonk (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Oops, forgot to ping Floquenbeam. Platonk (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Platonk: For some reason the ping didn't work, but I saw this anyway. I'm "focusing on just a tiny spat about a single user talk page" because that's what was presented in this thread. I can't consider stuff you've posted after I've unblocked. If this has calmed down - it sort of seems it has - then I don't know if further ANI action is useful. If it flares back up, then make a separate report. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block and recommend BOOMERANG for repeated disruptive editing, edit warring, personal attacks, and deliberately and defiantly ignoring reliable source guidelines. For the last 24-48 hours, Buffs has been engaged in edit warring on these articles: Killing of Ma'Khia Bryant, David Horowitz, Scooter Libby, and Trump administration family separation policy. He has fought with Valjean on V's and Buffs' user talk pages, as well as on my user talk page. Despite several editors (including me) reverting his edits and pointing out to him the guidelines about unreliable sources, he has continued to remove reliable sources and replaced them with unreliable and marginal ones on the WP:RSP list. In addition to the fighting on user talk pages, he has been aggressive through edit summaries such as:
  • "accurate article does not need to be removed" (referring to a Daily Wire citation Buffs reinserted after I removed it)
  • "If someone publishes a statement using an "unreliable source" it is still viable as a source to corroborate that statement" (as Buffs reverted my edit where I had removed a GUNREL Daily Wire citation, and content that had already been covered elsewhere in the article)
  • "You don't get to suppress conservative views" (as Buffs reinserted 3 dailywire and 1 NY Post citation I had removed)
  • "Undid ... (suppression) by Valjean ... you showed your intent is suppression ... Repression of Joy Behar's insanely ignorant remarks are particularly galling/widely panned as idiocy/advocating random lethal violence." (as Buffs re-reinserted the same content Valjean had removed, while adding 10 more citations, OVERCITE)
  • "it's important to include how detached from reality her opinions are." (as Buffs changes my well-chosen citation-replacements and re-re-replaces his CITEBOMB)

Several other editors also discovered Buffs' reverts to be off-policy, and reverted them. I'm pleased Bishonen discovered some of Buffs' shenanigans. I would definitely vote for a BOOMERANG on Buffs. Platonk (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• If it had just been sources that were removed, you'd have a point. However, it was also content that was removed. My intent on dropping so many sources was to simple give a list to pick from; clearly it was taken as something hostile or stubborn... not my intent and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been. In hindsight and with corrections since then, we have an article with the same text and better/more rounded sourcing (sourcing from ALL sides). If this result is to your satisfaction, then we're good. Buffs (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

No, "we" are not good. The place to discuss 'options' on citations is the article's talk page, not repeatedly reverting good faith edits and slamming in 10 citations into an article "so I could pick". See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. And the point of NPOV is not to offer the reader 10 citations à la "primary source, left source, right source, and primary occupation source", but for the Wikipedia editors to present a NPOV wiki article based on what coverage is out there, appropriately balanced/weighted. Your alleged correction of the article is still wrong; I just haven't gotten around to documenting it on the article's talk page. You have already wasted a horrendous amount of my time over what seems to be your POV-pushing. Platonk (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, please take it down a notch. I think everyone is pretty spent with all the animosity. Throwing more petrol on the embers isn't the way to go. Rather, what's called for is de-escalation. El_C 23:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Don't patronize me! So let's see if I got this straight. Buffs goes on a two day edit war rant, repeatedly reverts a bunch of edits, refuses to follow wiki guidelines, posts "fighting words" over and over and over again, provokes Valjean and me and others, until Bishonen sees something and gives Buffs a slap on the wrist. Then Buffs escalates his tirade into this ridiculous ANI, tells his own side of the story, all of you others participate in an "lively discussion" where in the end Valjean is again provoked and revictimized, and at no point was the underlying issue discovered or mentioned... until I found this ANI... but because you're spent you want me to... to... what? I can't believe you wrote that dismissive utterance. Comments like that are why efforts to stamp out wikibullying never make any headway. Platonk (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Platonk, the intent wasn't to patronize you, that is your reading of it, which is in error. What I tried to do was to gently caution you exactly against continuing in this way. Everyone else seem to be disengaging, so why not you? I'll be more blunt, then: I, myself, am not spent, but my sense is that many here are. And, if you keep going like this, I will temporarily revoke your access to this page. Clear enough? El_C 00:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is it necessary for the community to endorse a block that's going to expire that would have expired in a few hours anyway? Mlb96 (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Which block? One was reversed hours ago on one editor while another was imposed on another editor. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Buffs's block would have expired a few hours after this section was created, it seems kind of pointless. Mlb96 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Both editors are now unblocked. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Mlb96, if the community refuses to endorse a block it's a sign for the blocking admin that they should handle similar situations in the future differently. In really bad cases (which this wasn't), it could be grounds for a desysop procedure. For those things it doesn't really matter if the block will expire soon or even if it has already expired. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Late to the drama as they are already unblocked, but the block seemed excessive, a stern warning would have sufficed, kind of like the one above - if you keep going like this, I will temporarily revoke your access to this page. Clear enough?. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Considering the number of early ECs, if nothing else, I guess writing an ‘enticing’ section title like “Rogue Admin” is a good way to get participation at ANI, regardless of merits. So that’s good to know, I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's fifteen minutes I'll never get back—thanks for writing that rogue admin was the title—I kept scrolling back, but not that far, and not finding 'rogue admin. Guess there are a million ways to make ANI a time sink. Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 18:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• • It's the Wikipedia version of clickbait. Mlb96 (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

IP with nothing better to do

Hi administrators, I would like to request your to block this four IP (211.198.20.71, 211.198.20.145, 220.121.35.62, and 220.121.35.39). All four points to Incheon, South Korea when checked with GeoLocate feature. These four IP has been going around articles such as My Little Old Boy (majority) and List of My Little Old Boy episodes (partially), and other articles such as Start-Up (South Korean TV series) and changing wikilink linking to correct article to disambiguation page or to the wrong article. These has been happening for months, in which 211.198.20.71, 211.198.20.145, 220.121.35.62 has been blocked before for the same thing. Below are a partial list of diff I have compiled.

211.198.20.71[42][43][44][45][46][47]

220.121.35.39 [48][49][50][51][52][53]

211.198.20.145[54][55][56][57]

220.121.35.62[58][59][60][61]

If possible please help to block the whole range, as they already spawn 4 IP, hence it is highly possible, the same person behind these 4 IP will keep coming back. Thanks and regards — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 01:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Non admin Comment Comment 2 separate range blocks would have to be imposed because 220.121.35.0/32 and 211.198.20.0/32 aren't part of the same range. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 01:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Blaze The Wolf Yup need to block two seperate range. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I blocked 220.121.35.39. The other IPs have not edited recently. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Thanks you for the block. If the same person return back with new IPs or using back the old IPs, what is next course of action I should do? Do I re-open this report or create another report referencing this report? — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Paper9oll: On the talk page of the article most affected, put a brief and neutral statement (don't abuse the IP) explaining what recent edits are problematic and briefly why. Ping me and I'll have a look. If I don't respond in a day or two, post on my talk. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Ok understood, will do post on the most affected article talk page (most likely would be Talk:My Little Old Boy) if the same issues arising again. Thanks you for the help. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz block

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

---

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Blocking admin. Sandstein

It appears that user Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was blocked by Sandstein for WP:PA and/or incivility. Multiple editors have posted reservations about the block: Aquegg, Bungle, 331dot, Wugapodes, and Stalwart111 all appear to have concerns about the block [62]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has posted an unblock request. Those involved can provide the details. Perhaps this is something the community can resolve. I will notify Sandstein and HW now. — Ched (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

As blocking administrator, I remain of the view that the block is appropriate. As I wrote on the user's talk page:

On 22 February 2021, Wugapodes blocked Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for six months "per consensus at ANI, violation of civility-related editing restriction". This block and the ANI closure that led to it was uncontested, which establishes that the civility restriction (contested by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz) was and is in fact in force, as described in the ANI closure.

About a month after that block expired, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz notably made the following personal attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette: they accused the AfD nominator of "institutional misogyny", of "careless, destructive editing that shames Wikipedia yet somehow never seems to embarrass the editors who commit it" ([63]), and of "sloth" ([64]). These are severe and unacceptable personal attacks. It is quite possible to express disagreement with an AfD nomination without resorting to such slurs.

In light of the existing civility restriction and the previous six-month block, another block of at least similar length was required and appropriate. I oppose unblocking Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at this time because their unblock request reflects that they still do not understand and will not abide by Wikipedia's civility policy, which makes the block an appropriate preventative measure against such misconduct.

In my view, personal attacks do not need to cause visible drama to be sanctionable. It is enough that they create an uncollegial, confrontative atmosphere that dissuades others from contributing to Wikipedia. I've been closing a lot of AfDs and I see a trend of people increasingly viciously personally attacking AfD nominators for supposed faults with the nomination. This disrupts an important Wikipedia process and stifles discussion, and I will continue to take appropriate action if I witness such misconduct as AfD closer. Sandstein 14:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock statement:

First, I did not make a personal attack on the AFD at issue (which Sandstein did not have the courtesy to identify in the block notice). I I specified and criticized the AFD nomination; the sharpest comment was that the nominator "didn't perform the most perfunctory WP:BEFORE search". That is a comment on nomination practices, not a personal attack, and similar comments are made in XFD discussions regularly.

Second, a six-month block for what was, at worst, a borderline comment that is routinely deemed acceptable is plainly abusive.

Third, while Sandstein did not mention it in the block notice, his block log entry indicates that the block is based on a purported community "civility restriction" that was never imposed (or even properly proposed). No such restriction exists. Sandstein is apparently referring to this 5-year-old interaction ban, which was logged only as an interaction ban, after being proposed only as an interaction ban ("I propose that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be banned from interacting with SimonTrew"). All other logged community editing restrictions which incorporate such a civility-related editing restriction are logged as a "type" including an editing restriction. The supposed "civility restriction" was not imposed by the community, but was merely a unilateral comment by the admin who closed the 2016 ANI discussion. The closer had no authority to add his own preference to the community decision. For five years, no one treated the "civility restriction" as anything but a single admin's opinion -- because it was only a statement of opinion, not an enforceable sanction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC) (copied from talk by — Ched (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC))

My goodness. Can we please get'em to shorten his signature? GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess "filth" would be longer than "dirt". But, as for Hong Kong, that ship has already sailed, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good block - those were clear personal attacks from an editor who has a history of being blocked for personal attacks. Others should stop excusing the behavior. Levivich 14:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Decline unblock Does not address the reason for the block. And this is unfortunate, as I had hoped to unblock. We are all under a civility restriction. I'm afraid appellant needs a clearer understanding of WP:NPA. One can disagree with another editor without proposing character flaws as the reason another has done something one disagrees with. Appellant might wish to review the WP:GAB. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn Reading the AFD comments in light of it being an AFD (and in light of the 2016 incident that led to the restriction), I'm having a hard time seeing the comments by HW as being directed towards the person of the nominator rather than the intentions/behavior/contribution of the nominator, which is something that can be discussed and dissected in that manner. HW's concern is not about the editor themselves, but the broader factors of how WP policy impacts articles related to women (which is fully valid). That said, in terms of HW's comment above, I don't think its right to dismiss the 2016 civility warning as "never imposed". It is logged on that page, part of the closer's statement and is supported in a few of the !supports in the original discussion stressing the need for civility. --Masem (t) 15:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Since when is it acceptable to comment in an AFD on the intentions/behavior/contribution of the nominator? Levivich 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    I've seen cases when it's appropriate to say: "malicious nomination", "revenge", etc. (Please don't read it as support for unblock!) — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    If it were the case that the nominator was a user HW had a previous known and ongoing tussle with, I would agree that these specific comments in the indicated AFD (like "institutional misogyny") could be read as personal attacks. I just don't see clear evidence that there was any interaction issues that had existed previously to make that judgement call. It's definitely borderline in how it could be read, but I'm finding it really hard to find that the intent of HW's comments were meant directly at the specific editor and more a general frustration at AFD and sloppy nominations. --Masem (t) 16:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    The fact a restriction exists should make it clear and obvious to HW that coming remotely close to any civility line is likely going to get him blocked. "It's borderline" isn't a good enough defense in such a case. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good block Per Levivich's comments and the apparent history of HW. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Could yas get'em to shorten his signature signing? We're talking WP:SEAOFBLUE, folks. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  He was brought here a LONG time ago for that reason, ended up being closed with either no consensus, or, consensus that he did not need to change it.I think. If someone else wants to find the report that would be nice. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  But it was without the Hong Kong part then! — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  It breaks no rules? Can't actually yet be seen from space? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• I want to reinforce something that came up here. It's been argued that there was no "stir" after the alleged personal attacks, and nobody complained, thus there was no need for action. I want to strongly reject that idea. It doesn't take working with many new users to find one that stops editing a page, is scared off of editing it to begin with, or quits Wikipedia because of tolerated open hostility/aggression (from someone who is so aggrieved that they wear their anger in their signature, in this case). I say "new users" because it's relatively common in my experience, but I also know seasoned contributors who would feel extremely uneasy when confronted with that level of hostility. No, we should not require people to stand up to people acting inappropriately in order to identify inappropriate behavior. That said, we have a policy against personal attacks, not hostility and aggression...
  Bringing accusations of misogyny into the argument was a bit much (it wouldn't be an issue IMO to make a point about systemic bias and even institutionalized misogyny on Wikipedia, but it was directly aimed at the nominator/nomination), and it's there that I think some sanction may be within admin discretion. But most of that style of !vote, which goes after the nominator in this way, is not unusual. We have an entire project whose members do this routinely, with little or no sanctions over the course of years.
  So I find myself torn. It was a bit over the top, but one could be forgiven for thinking we typically allow nominator-focused comments at AfD. Perhaps a reduction (without calling it a bad block). What I'd like to see from Sandstein, who I think as a rule exhibits excellent judgment at AfD, is a clear statement that this approach won't be tolerated anymore, perhaps even at WT:AFD, so we can avoid this ... confusion? in the future? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Because I partly contributed to that argument you reject, I think it's worth clarifying my intent. I agree that in general we don't need to look to how a comment is received in order to evaluate whether it crosses the line. I brought it up because it struck me as strange that it sat for two weeks collecting dust with no one saying anything about it. That just doesn't feel like the situation where blocking on-sight is the ideal solution. I'm not saying we need to stick our heads in the sand and pretend HW is any random AfD contributor who gets a little overzealous, but given the lag between comment and admin action it's worth looking at the statement in context, and (lack of) response is part of that context. Like any part of context, it's hard to generalize, and in plenty of cases it may well be useless for various reasons. Ultimately, I think we reach the same conclusion by different means, and I strongly agree with your last paragraph. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block I agree with Levivich. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment- The distinction between "the nominator is sexist" and "the nomination is sexist" is pedantic, a distinction without a difference, particularly since there's nothing in the nomination to suggest there actually was any sexism. I agree with Sandstein: I'm seeing more and more attacks against the character and motivations of the nominator- the goal isn't to discuss the merits of the article but to make people feel bad and guilty for even thinking of nominating at AfD. And I respectfully disagree with part of Rhododendrites's conclusion: just because the community has historically permitted insults and smears provided they're prefaced by the word "keep" doesn't mean we're required to keep doing so. This would be a good opportunity to draw a big red line through this odious practice and say that there'll be no more of it. Reyk _YO! 16:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. If this was a one-time thing, maybe we could cut him some slack. But HW has a tendency to dance around the line between civil and uncivil comments at AFD somewhat regularly by commenting on the nominator, not the content, in contravention of WP:NPA. [65] [66] [67] [68] -- Calidum 16:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I am with Sandstein and Deepfriedokra that this appears to be a good block and to decline the unblock. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block, and I was tempted to raise the fact that HW almost immediately violated his civility restriction when he returned from the most recent block here, where I found his behavior egregiously in violation of it and WP:NPA in general. Grandpallama (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The more I learn about this, the more I move towards the idea that the block was correct. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose the block. I was one of editors heavily bullied by HW a few years ago and wholeheartedly supported his 2016 ban. (Do I remember the year correctly?) It is still obvious that HW sometimes struggles to behave politely and avoid showing his contempt to fellow editors. But the incident in question was of such a negligible gravity – this type of comments are a standard (an unfortunate one, but still) at AfD forums – that I have hard time finding any rational justification for such a heavy-handed sanction. Even further: I fully agree with Stalwart111 (talk · contribs) [69] who reminded that HW's words, even if not overly polite, were directed at an editor causing significant disruption to Wikipedia. Overall, thus, I view the block as unjustified. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. As a non-admin I am not sure if I can vote here, but I too oppose this block under these circumstances. The comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary Lee's Corvette were precipitated by Boleyn making rapid nominations of many articles at AFD without enough time in between nominations to indicate any sort of WP:BEFORE could have been done. The accusations made at the AFD were largely justified in my opinion; although they could have been expressed more calmly and kindly. Further, these sort of comments are routinely ignored and accepted AFD, so singling out Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for behavior we normally tolerate in others (no warnings, etc.) seems to be hypocritical on the part of the community.4meter4 (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Were they only nominating articles on woman? Unless that is so the accusation of misogyny is undefendable? Aircorn (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I am somewhat sharing the sentiments expressed by 4meter4 above as I did on HW's talk page. While I can see why Sandstein took issue with the comments, I don't know if a 6 month block so soon after the last is proportionate. Some of the phrases and tone is inappropriate, or at best, ill-conceived and it's perhaps touching the line of incivility rather than incontrovertibly crossing it. I don't think a 6 month block is going to achieve much, frankly and it feels more like dusting something under the carpet to deal with later than actually considering a resolution. I am not an advocate of HW and I do not really feel strongly enough to forcibly oppose the disproportionate sanction, but I do wonder whether the considerations should be based around a long-term resolution even if, when factoring in wider concerns beyond this AfD, that leads to something indefinite, but not irreversible. If just expressing a view on the comments in the AfD alone, then I couldn't express support for the sanction imposed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I don't want to throw in a bolded opinion here but it's worth noting for those who feel that the comments were perhaps mild or not enough to warrant action, this comes after editing restrictions have already been put in place and subsequently breached prior to this. Surely once bitten, twice shy—or, several time bitten, even more times shy—should really be the approach for an editor who's already been sanctioned for this before without us needing to debate where the line is every time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 17:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think the block was clearly within administrator discretion given the previous restriction. --Izno (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Question: Are editing restrictions only imposed by ArbCom or community consensus? Because I'm not seeing a community consensus for the original editing restriction; out of the 14 editors who gave support for sanctions in the original 2016 ANI discussion, I only see two editors suggesting such a thing. I'm struggling to see how nobody protesting the close comment equates to community consensus in favour of it. – ².O.^Boxing 18:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse due to the accusation/personal attack made in the AfD. Number 57 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block. A block made SIXTEEN DAYS after the comment was made? Nope, sorry, regardless of any edit restriction. Purely punitive after that amount of time. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Even if one concludes that the comments were not a personal attack on the nominator they go against the pillar of civility we are all expected to edit under. Civility covers much more than comments obviously considered direct personal attacks. The fact is that one could get their point across without resorting to saying the things that were said. The comments were unkind and divisive. They weren't meant to be instructional or helpful. They were meant to ridicule and tear the nominator down. I am a woman. I believe women are misrepresented. I see it. I believe women do face body shaming and are judged based on appearances and appeal in some cases. I've experienced it. But tearing into a fellow human being on this encyclopedia isn't going to change that. The fact is that the comments directed at this nominator of this AfD did no woman any favor anywhere in the world. It only created an unkind, uncivil and toxic situation that was extremely unfortunate and does not represent the type of collaboration I believe we want as a community. --ARoseWolf 19:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not thrilled with the previous 6 month block and this one is also questionable IMO. But yes, for sure HW has serious civility problems and seems unable to keep them under control. A claim of misogyny had damn well better be clearly documented otherwise it's going to be purely a personal attack. Given the prior 6 month block, I can't really claim the duration is crazy. Still, I think one week or one month might be more appropriate. I don't know that it will result in change, but it's easy enough to block again. As I note, I rather like HW and largely agree with them on nearly every issue. So maybe that colors my view. Hobit (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I also don't think the basis for the block, a community consensus for an editing restriction, is really in existence per SCB. Wrt Black Kite, I think this is more a pattern of problems and this AfD was just one. I would normally agree that 16 days is far too long, but I've seen similar problems from HW in the last month, so I'm more open to the latency than I normally would be. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hobit, can you really look at this discussion (and the previous ANI discussion) and assert that it would be "easy" to block this particular user again? If blocking them generates this amount of drama, better we have it every six months instead of every six days. Sandstein 20:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I get it. But part of the uproar is that 6 months is a long time. Overall they have a very light block log (much shorter than I'd have expected honestly). Last block was at least a community discussion (though I don't agree with how it was closed). This one seems out of proportion for the offense. Better to have another community discussion than a single admin blocking for 6 months. Hobit (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block - if the lad hasn't been vandalising articles, edit-warring or socking. As for WP:CIVIL, NPA, etc? I'm not one who supports enforcing them. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Oppose block - whether it's a personal attack or not is questionable, but two weeks and change after the fact? How is this not punitive? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Jauerback, it is not punitive because it does prevent further personal attacks in AfDs for six months. These would otherwise be very likely, given the lack of recognition of the problem in the unblock request, and similar recent comments by the same user, e.g. "you're not contributing intelligently to the AFD process and should stay away (...) sloth is not the secret sixth pillar of Wikipedia" ([70]). What would be punitive would be to block or to keep the user blocked after they recognized their error and promised not to repeat it. That is still an option open to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, but the fact that they have not chosen to take it confirms that the block remains a preventive necessity even at this time.

  As an aside, there's also this: "The AFD process would be greatly improved if any NOMINATOR who cited NOTINHERITED without understanding it was topic banned for a month, length doubling with each subsequent offense." ([71]) So, given that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is of the view that AfD comments to which they object are bannable offenses, and that sanctions should double in length each time, I should maybe have blocked for 12 months instead of 6... Sandstein 20:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, but that's incredibly disingenuous under the circumstances. I think you know full well what HW meant there and the overly clever sarcasm is unbecoming. Everyone should object to disruptive AFD nominations that intentionally misinterpret or misrepresent policy and guidelines. And editors who do so repeatedly (and to make a point) should absolutely be blocked. Calling that bahaviour out should be the stuff of barnstars, not blocks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block if you want to change someone's behaviour, modeling the desired behaviour is more effective than sanctions. Sanctions at this point just prove that aggression will be met with retaliation. Is that the behaviour that we want people to learn from observing how other editors behave? Of course not. Vexations (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • if you want to change someone's behaviour... I don't want to change HB's behavior, I want to protect everyone else from it, which the block accomplishes. Sanctions aren't about reforming the offender (WP:NOTTHERAPY), they're about stopping the offender's disruption. In this case, the disruption was personal attacks. Levivich 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse and their response is also an endorsement. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Given my comment on the unblock request, it's worth noting that my thinking has changed somewhat since Sandstein's reply to me. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I endorse the block, I certainly view it as within the realm of admin discretion. I agree with Rhododendrites above that reducing the duration might be worthwhile, but I do not believe this was a "bad block" per se. I also don't buy into the wikilawyering about "community sanction"; WP:CIVIL applies to everyone and we shouldn't need to hold someone's hand through that. As practical matter, every editor is under a "civility restriction", we just list it as an editing restriction because some people seem to forget that the policy applies to them. So even if we removed the line, it's not some technicality that allows HW to evade consequences. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block - A block made SIXTEEN DAYS after the comment was made, purely punative, as per Black Kite. Bit sorry to comment really as there are users that have said that they would vote against anything I supported but this block is excessive. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I don't want to seem like I'm singling your response out but it's just the latest of a few to mention the time frame. The block was clearly issued by an admin who saw the comment when they were closing an AFD two days ago, there seems to be no sense of deliberately waiting to act. We seem swift to lose sight of AGF in that regard yet are happy to assume it in spades for an editor who has clearly already been made well aware that they need to watch their civility and are not even close to their first infraction related to it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks, I accept your point but it is also true that no one had complained about the comment for sixteen days. Govindaharihari (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  I suspect people don't complain about personal attacks at AfD because, although "user:suchandsuch is motivated by misogyny" would be considered a personal attack, experience has shown that commentary like "keep- nominator is motivated by misogyny" is exempt from WP:NPA. When I've raised objections to ad hominems at AfD I've been ignored by the closing administrator probably 90% of the time. So I wonder if complaining about such comments would do any good or whether I should even bother. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block while the comments were a bit aggressive they were also a bit misplaced as I don't think he realised he was accusing a female editor of mysogyny and he probably meant tabloid coverage should not be needed for female artists which is a valid point. Perhaps a warning to avoid adhom comments which if broken could be followed by a topic ban from AfDs is a way forward, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block per my comments on HW's talk page. I made my comments there (partly) in the hope that the blocking admin would reconsider, resolve the issue there, and that would be the end of it. C'est la vie. I said, there, that the more I looked the stranger it seemed. We're talking about a block two weeks after the infraction, with no suggestion of the sort of disruption this block is supposed to prevent in the intervening period. The comments themselves were (in part or in whole, including by me) endorsed by other editors within the AFD itself. I actually went back to check if that disruptive nomination had been closed and instead found struck comments and notes about HW having been blocked. To be clear, the "institutional misogyny" was apparent to me too, regardless of the gender of the nominator. We're talking about an easily notable band with a female lead singer, but the article was described as being "promotional" despite clearly not being so. The reality is that the nominator in question has an absolutely terrible track record of drive-by nominations, zero regard for WP:BEFORE, and incredibly lazy nominations that rarely accurately reference policy (in fact, a full 30% of their deletion nominations are closed as Keep). But nobody seems interested in addressing that. I commented in another AFD that every one of their nominations should be met with a wall of copy-pasted "Keep per WP:BEFORE" until they finally got the message or were blocked. Instead, those who call out and openly oppose their disruption are blocked. That's some pretty misdirected mopping. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• oppose block purely because it came too long after the offending comments - if it had been done sooner then I would fully support. Given HW's history, I suggest we make it clear that any further personal attacks, whenever they are made, will result in indef. Also get them to shorten the signature before we unblock. GiantSnowman 10:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block. This is a user who has skirted the line (and crossed it) many times after having many restrictions placed, explained, enforced... Two weeks is not that long in my opinion, given that, per Grapple_X, the block was applied at the closing of the AfD, when all comments were read. Maybe it would have been out of order if it had been weeks after the AfD closed, but this is just a ban applied to a PA made when the discussion had ceased. The added context of the discussion close likely helped determine the merits (or lack thereof) of the block, and thus it was imo entirely appropriate to block when closing. If the admin had blocked prior to the close, others may have seen it as a retaliatory stifling action, preventing HW from participating in an ongoing discussion, and attempting to influence the result! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)@Shibbolethink: Whether it affects your !vote is something I have no way of knowing, but the AfD seems to have been closed at least a day after the block was issued (at least that's what the time stamps indicate to me). It also appears that additional comments specifically referring to the block were made in the AfD, which is something that wouldn't seem possible if the block happened after the close. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

    I would call it "peri-close" in the same sense that we refer to "peri-operative medicine" AKA "at the time in and or around the closing action." Clearly someone was reading the discussion in anticipation of closing it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Shibbolethink: I don't think that is accurate either. The admin in question relisted the discussion. Then, a few minutes later posted a block notice on HW's talk page, then a few minutes later returned to the AFD to strike HW's comments. Two days, and four additional keep !votes later (including one from an admin reiterating that WP:BEFORE had been ignored by the nominator), it was closed by someone else. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  Based on this very accurate reading of the events (thank you, I had not gone back in detail, only skimmed the AfD and the struck comments), I would just say that the block was applied after discussion had largely ceased or slowed. So I don't think the block had any substantial effect on the discussion itself, which is the important point imo. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Shibbolethink: I said on HW's talk page that it looked very strange and I wasn't kidding; I think the block fundamentally changed the balance of the discussion. It was 4 keep !votes to 2 delete, with agreement among the keep !votes that the nomination itself was deficient. The admin relisted the discussion and then struck one of the keep votes (along with substantive criticism of the nomination, effectively re-validating the nomination). So the admin relisted a 4-2 discussion that probably should have been closed, and then made it 3-3. But whatever the intention, they closed the same discussion just 2 days after relisting, now at 7-1, citing support for sources that were in the discussion when it was relisted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• support block his first interaction with me was a belittling, cliquish remark about “wasting our time” here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderlands 5 and he has a history of political soapboxing and generally being extremely abrasive and loudmouthed without showing remorse. I don’t think he should continue to just get away with behavior like this. Dronebogus (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)@Dronebogus: The post HW made in that AFD was this which seemed to have been supported in principle by the others !voting in that AfD. It might have also been a reflection of some of your other AfD nominations you made around the same time like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian James Freeman. Whenever you AfD articles, you're going to often be expected to demonstrate you done a reasonable amount of WP:BEFORE; this is particularly the case when you're AfD multiple articles from the same genre around the same time. So, going through all of the steps in WP:GDBN is a good idea because "WP:BEFORE" comments (even "waste our time" ones which are fairly mild as such comments go in my opinion) happen a lot and usually it's because of WP:NEXIST types of reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block To block for six months for comments made two weeks previously it would have to be an unequivocal personal attack, and I do not believe HW's criticism of the AfD nomination cross the line, as Masem says above. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: I'm not sure I agree with the length of the block, but I also don't think the blocking admin necessarily acted in a punitive manner just because of the timing of the block. The blocking admin doesn't seem to have been WP:INVOLVED in the AfD and it appears that he just came across it in the normal process of closing discussions. The blocking admin did strike through the AfD comments that he felt were NPAs as part of the block; so, it's clear he felt something beyond a warning needed to be done. Perhaps the thing to do here would be to shorten the block with one last clear and final warning than any repeat will not be tolerated. I get that some might feel that enough WP:ROPE has already been given out, but I also get that some editors get really ticked off when they believe articles are ending up at AfD for the wrong reasons. I do think such concerns, however, need to be expressed in a more WP:CIVIL manner and after some point an editor shouldn't need to keep being told this. So, maybe a shorter block (two-week perhaps) and one final community warning might be in order which clearly states that either the inappropriate behavior will need to be modified once and for all (even if it's only done begrudgingly) or WP:OFFER will effectively be the next outcome. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I feel this is a reasonable block and length given the previous history. There's a strain of institutional misogyny underlying this nomination is a pretty clear attack on the nominator. It is those kind of comments that create chilling effects at AFD and that get ignored far too often. That it wasn't reported earlier or that there was a delay in enacting the block doesn't really seem to be much of an issue as it appears clear the blocking admin blocked soon after they came across the comment. The fact that it wasn't reported early and the defending of these comments above to me highlights the major issue we have with civility here. Aircorn (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support Block - Coming From the tp of HW, I believe Sandstein expressly noted the block is due to incivility / WP:PA. I think the block is only logical. I I believe this isn’t necessarily about a comment made in an AFD. Rather, due to an aggregate of repeated offenses. I’m not particularly good at diff finding so I’d just reference this particular ANI discussion which involved Onel5969 filling a case of Wikihounding (I believe that was even the name of that entry) In that ANI thread, One1 makes a proposal which HW refers to as “nonsensical” I warmly tell HW that calling Onel's proposal “nonsensical” isn’t polite and quite uncivil, what did they do? They replied me with calling my comment (analogy) “silly”. For an editor who has edited here for 15 years that is rather alarming and worrisome. Having read entries made here, it seems as though their incivility at that ANI thread isn’t an isolated behavior, rather, I observe a pattern of incivility which is indicative of an editor who is incompatible with a collaborative project. In-fact in that ANI I observed their custom signature was somewhat passive aggressive. I believe this is a good block, I’m also echoing Drmies Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Decline unblock. That HW was correct about the underlying issue--that the band's notability was easily established--in my view bolsters the case for a block. Low-information AfDs are a regular occurrence. To the extent that they're a problem, you deal with them by educating the nominator about WP:BEFORE, and addressing the problems with the article. If the nominator doesn't get a clue, then you might restrict them from deletion discussions. Accusing them of misogyny creates a distraction and does not help the encyclopedia. You could argue that Sandstein acting on the comment created the distraction, but I would suggest two points: (1) we don't know how many editors silently refused to take the bait, or walked away, and (2) if HW keeps making such remarks, eventually someone will publicly register their offense, and then we're back here again. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: "Take the bait" of the nomination? We want nominations like that to be speedy closed and snow closed so that they don't waste the community's time. We want editors to walk away and refuse to participate in nominations like that. What we don't want is reinforcement of the idea that when you make a disruptive nomination (or hundreds of them) you'll be protected by admins from those who call out your disruptive behaviour. St★lwart¹¹¹

@Stalwart111: I apologize for the lack of clarity. I was referring to editors responding to perceived inflammatory remarks. You can't assume that no harm was done just because no one publicly responded. Mackensen (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Sure, except plenty of people publicly responded... and several endorsed them. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Block - Having just returned from being blocked for incivility, you would think that one might be more careful about their tone. Which does not appear to be the case with HW. Incivility does not only mean personal attacks. I don't think the timing of the block in terms of when the comment was made is relevant. Incivility doesn't have a statute of limitations. If a comment was an attack and/or uncivil two weeks ago, then it remains uncivil today. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment While I don't have a particular view either way if the block was right or not, I do think that six months is too long. FWIW, I'd support reducing it to one month. Maybe this should be on the table if Wolfo makes another attempt at requesting an unblock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The block length can be reduced to zero, all HB has to do is tell us he'll comply with civil and npa policies. Given that after a six-month block for incivility he was repeatedly uncivil again within a month of the block expiring, this block should have been indef. Wikipedia sanctions aren't an internet justice system where we mete out block lengths in proportion to the severity of the offense; the point--the only point--is to stop the disruption. If six months didn't stop it last time, there is literally no reason to believe that one month (or another six months) will stop it this time, especially in light of HB's response to this block and the last one (that's also why 16 days isn't a long time in context). Unless HB can edit in compliance with WP:CIVIL, they should not be editing at all. Levivich 19:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good block regardless of whether that particular AfD !vote was uncivil, this editor, coming off a six month block is incivil John Pack Lambert is engaged in a personal jihad on Wikipedia, thinks a nom should be topic banned for making an argument s/he didn't make: The AFD process would be greatly improved if any NOMINATOR who cited NOTINHERITED without understanding it was topic banned for a month, length doubling with each subsequent offense and believes AFD has become a cesspool of internal politics. This is not an editor whose conduct is conducive to collaborative editing. Star Mississippi 01:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry to quibble, Star, but HW's account of JPL's off-wiki activities was accurate and "struggle" pretty accurately describes JPL's stated motivations for some of his recent conduct (see "Mormon" drama), that nominator absolutely did make that argument (and got zero support for their misinterpretation), and holding a view of the way a particular part of Wikipedia is currently operating (and not an inaccurate view, really) isn't uncivil. In fact, it's rather ironic that HW was blocked here for calling out conduct that kinda proved his point. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good block AfDs are not the proper place to litigate or resolve wider systemic social problems. The lack of representation of women, gender non-conforming people, Cambodians, or any other group that is under represented on this platform will never be solved by people name dropping said groups in AfD discussions. In the meantime, calling out nominators about it does nothing except create a toxic, hostile work environment. Anyone who contributes to either should be blocked for doing so. Especially if they are as unwilling to tell the community they will comply with the civility and NPA policies in the meantime as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been. I'm willing to support a shorter block period or no block if Hullaballoo Wolfowitz takes responsibility for their actions though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Good Block - their unblock request basically mimics their sig, administrators treat me like dirt, so how can I be at fault? HW is a long term user and knows that WP:CIVIL is policy. If they want to be unblocked, submit another unblock request, acknowledge the communities concerns, and give a commitment to change, or in the alternative, sit out the six month block. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

History of Iran

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

---

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

History of Iran kept on using he/his pronouns 1 after I openly stated 2, in a discussion involving History of Iran, that I prefer they/them pronouns after History of Iran had already used he/his pronouns addressing somebody they don't even know several times, including on this page.3. After said discussion, I also put it as a preference on my talk page. Further, although they once 4 corrected themselves later on, History of Iran has remained aggressive with me, even after a heated discussion took place and administrators were involved. If they don't want to say sorry, I would like if they were at least less aggressive, stayed civil *and of course called me the way I asked to be called.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is getting tiring now. @El C:, sorry for bothering you again, but you seem to know this user, could you look into all this? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

HistoryofIran in Wikipedia there seems to be a pursuit of justice, and it is not a bar were you call your friends to help you against someone. The fact you "know" El C or are more experienced than me doesn't give you more rights, either. I think you have to understand that not everybody can always agree with you, and that not all who disagree are "vandals" or "against democracy".--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. No diffs or anything of the behavior being complained about? Just one instance of HistoryofIran correcting themself and the ANI thread they started earlier as evidence of aggression? This looks like wp:BATTLEGROUND to me and probably deserves a WP:BOOMERANG.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I did provide diffs. Or you can call males females and females males in Wikipedia? I mean, is that etiquette?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You provided only one diff of HistoryofIran misgendering you, and also added an ANI thread where it has already been discussed. The only other diff is HistoryofIran correcting themselves. You have now claimed History of Iran has remained aggressive with me despite providing no evidence of this. One diff of being misgendered is not enough to bring a case to ANI, and evinces a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, especially when considering you are already under a topic ban for personalizing disputes in another area.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally link #3 above is for an edit that happened before you stated a preference on pronouns. I agree that no one should assume anyone's gender, and that's something a lot of editors are trying to learn so I cannot apologise for them,. That being said most editors would likely assume a user with the name of Haldir is male, since it's a male name. However using a link from the day before you indicated a preference doesn't support anything. Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @HistoryofIran: Don't use he/him as a default. It used to be acceptable in English, but it has stopped being okay in recent times (for good reason).
  @Haldir Marchwarden: Don't assume bad faith. Some users make genuine mistakes, and it is better to talk it out with them before opening an AN/I thread about the matter. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Re to Ermenrich: I forgot to provide the most recent diff (showing the misconduct) in my first post [1], so I don't get you. I added the link to the thread to show that a)they used he/his pronouns and b) I asked them not to do so. The diff that I had forgotten show they did it again, after I asked them not to. There is no WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I'm seemingly not able to get History of Iran to be less aggressive and cooperate, and the lest time I tried to talk with them they reported me here (I guess that was reasonable?), so I came here.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Editors have no gender. Humans behind the wiki-accounts do have gender. If it really bothers somebody about having a certain pronoun used on them? Then merely request that you be 'always' addressed by your user-name. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail well, technically. But yes, I get it. Okay User:MJL, got it. Thanks for the intervention and sorry to have disturbed you all for this.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

To all: this, again, is the forgotten diff [1] User:GoodDay that'd be just fine, the fact is I asked to be (always) addressed a certain way and also published my preference to be (always) addressed as such on my account and it was ignored. I shouldn't have given up on discussing it with them and shouldn't have come here this quick.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Man (man?), I'm glad I missed this one. It almost certainly would have been unpleasant (again). El_C 10:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hahahhah, El C... Not even mass-murder Che was that biased tho. What has become of Wikipedia? Incredible, discussion was closed. You "missed" this one, yes. I used the sentence "No man," which is what we call a "frase fatta" in Italian. Or maybe I don't understand English that well? Because I heard several times women say "hello guys" and "No, man" to other women and to men in English. Regardless, I asked History of Iran, and all others, to use specific pronouns, and they failed to do so.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. El_C 11:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's all fun to you, always joking even in edit summaries. But (I don't know how, when, who) you are an administrator, and it should be no fun. It's something very important.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. Anything else? El_C 11:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes: why you wish to discuss so much? For example, this matter was closed, and you could've intervened earlier, just as you could intervene in the above incident involving same users. But you "missed" all this. I don't see the point of coming when it's all done and reopening discussion when it was closed.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was not closed. Closed = {{atop}}/{{abot}}. And you, as the OP, are pretty much excepted from determining such closure, in any event. El_C 11:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? Cool, also elsewhere? If so, please tell Iran as well. If the discussion wasn't closed, then you shouldn't have made "fun" and ambiguously throw a stone (criticism/provocation) and walk away. You should've taken a formal position, and explained it.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather tell you something, Haldir Marchwarden: don't go out of your way to be unpleasant to folks and there'll probably be less ANI threads which feature you in some way or another (though my sense is that there's probably still WP:TE conduct accompanying this, never a good mix). El_C 11:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) El_C, I already told you, I think, that I look forward be advised by most admins, but I do not care for your advice. How is my editing tendentious? And what it has to do with History of Iran using wrong pronouns after being asked not to do that? Am I in the wrong section?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk)

I look forward be advised by most admins, but I do not care for your advice + Am I in the wrong section? Wait, are you or are you not asking for my advise? I'm getting conflicting signals. El_C 11:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Haldir is legit reverting me for the sake of reverting me now. Is anyone watching this? [72] [73] [74] --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, pretty much textbook WP:HOUNDING, even if singular (?). El_C 11:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not for the "sake of reverting". Please, do keep good faith. I disagree with your POV and your additions. You reverted me as well at the same article and I immediately used the talk page. Why you can't just do the same? Also, this has nothing to do with this section.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not. I wish that you steered away from me. But if you are to get involved with me and intervene in matters like this, when your friends call you up, no less, thus apparently hurting yourself as well (we sharing the same feelings) at least do it properly. You had avoided to get involved so far. Then you came for a dig after other editors/admins had their say and the thing was pretty much settled.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I'm exposed. And it also looks like this in response to "I do not care for your advice" indent above. In any case, for a user whose response to me suggesting they acquaint themselves with "the basics" was: I am not able to study them now and in the future, you sure have a lot of advise for others. And are edit warring. And WP:HOUNDING your content opponents, and otherwise trying to get them in trouble (this thread). Your propensity to escalate for naught may not have been picked up by some participants above, I suspect, though. El_C 12:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING? I'm watching that page, there is a discuss going on, user edits after their POV, I disagree, and I am WP:HOUNDING? But Iran was right in following me to Avicenna from Sogdia and disagreeing [1], right? You are using two weights and two measures. And why you are making this personal against me? "No user is innocent" and whatnot, but you have not once addressed the matter at hand. What is it you want to do here?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

More projection from the individual who responded to me above with Not even mass-murder Che was that biased tho. What can I say? It sort of speaks for itself. El_C 12:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now blocked, didn't see that when writing the above. Anyway, while Che obviously isn't a pronoun, on 11:50, 7 September 2021, I told Haldir Marchwarden that: the C in El_C does not stand for Che (indeed, easy mistake to make, kind of like the name "Haldir"). They acknowledge this on 11:57, 7 September 2021, writing: sorry for the misunderstanding, then. But then, on 20:15, 8 September 2021, they write: I just hope Wikipedia is in good hands. Or at least not in Cheguevara's and Ahmed's hands. Again, it rather speaks for itself. El_C 12:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have strong assumptions about their political (reactionary) views if they are not hesitating to bring those views into this discussion. Whatever your beliefs are regarding Che or anything else related to politics, this isn't the place to express them @Haldir Marchwarden. maybe you should focus on the ANI case instead. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, Haldir Marchwarden has been blocked, so they are unable to respond here. El_C 13:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

El C I didn't notice the block, my bad. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no reason to have assumptions about their political beliefs: Haldir has user boxes against communism and "all Marxist thought". While it's good they've been blocked for edit warring, the kind of tendentious, wp:UNCIVIL behavior we've seen here leads me to believe this is not the last we'll see of this individual on ANI and that some further sanction will be needed.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It all comes back to the direction Wikipedia is going in, concerning gender-pronouns, userboxes, trans, binary etc etc. Be it editors themselves or articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You aren't being helpful here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I've said it once before and I will say so again; no one on Wikipedia gets topic banned for no reason. User:Haldir Marchwarden received a topic ban less than two weeks ago.[75] What does that tell us? It tells that said user's recent editorial pattern is marked by WP:TENDENTIOUS edits. It becomes apparant that they haven't quit the tendentious way when one takes a proper look at said users recent spree of edits at the Sogdia, Talk:Sogdia, Avicenna, Talk:Avicenna pages, and the general way of speaking to other users (including admins).[76] Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears said user tries to force other users into kow-tow in order to shove WP:UNDUE weight into articles; RfC's,[77] the undo button, and responding with tl;dr or out-of-context responses every single time someone writes a sentence. That's the general modus operandi. Now, evidently, when Haldir Marchwarden realized that the RfC at the Avicenna page was heading towards an undesirable outcome (i.e. the majority listing sound "oppose" arguments), they started to revert more edits that expanded on the long-standing sourced revision.[78] Looking once again at the compelling evidence, I fail to see how making structural violations of WP:BATTLE, WP:CRUSH, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, etc. is a net worth to this project. Take a look at the dozens of similar users who have been indeffed throughout the years due to their disruptive behaviour and please tell me otherwise. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• The personal attacks and hounding which is very easy to see in this discussion has been compounded by the socking which continued that on other articles. When I issues the month-long block for socking is was just for that reason knowing that there is an ongoing discussion here. Haldir Marchwarden appears to be only here to disrupt and harass other editors (WP:NOTHERE) and so an indefinite block would be appropriate. If there's no disagreement in a little while, I'll block the account indef unless another admin beats me to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Callanecc, sorta fair enough, I guess. But you didn't announce your block here, in this ANI complaint, until my objections at the SPI report. To sum up my thoughts there, both your recent blocks of this user seemed like a total disconnect. As if the user is some sort of a tablua rasa: first, a 24-hour edit warring block in isolation of everything, then a one month socking block also in isolation of everything (including the previously mentioned 24-hour edit warring block that was still in effect at that time). Do you need me to elaborate further? El_C 11:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: Point taken absolutely! I've looked up to you as one of the admins who I feel does the job well, evenhandedly and with the right emphasis so I've absolutely taken your comments to heart. Other admins who've commented in this thread are and have been, of course, free to to take any action they see fit, the block log shows pretty clearly the two (limited) reasons I blocked them (EW & socking). It's not wheel warring, or in bad taste, to close this discussion at any time with an indef or to ask me about it for clarification, which you did and so I commented here with more detail. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Callanecc, flattery will get you... everywhere. Thanks, I appreciate your kind words very much and am otherwise impressed with your ability for introspection. El_C 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Awwww, I love it when I see two admins getting along in the wild and sometimes tumultuous environment that is Wikipedia. Watching all the flattery is just an extra bonus. ;-) Good show and thank you both for all that you do. I mean it, thank you. --ARoseWolf 17:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just don't look at the subsection directly below, then, ARoseWolf. For the record, I actually didn't want a communication breakdown, but more often than not it's better than responding in un/kind. El_C 17:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Eyes averted! I see nothing! lol You both are intelligent, kind and respectful people. Sometimes the best thing to do is walk away from the conversation. It's also one of the hardest things to do. --ARoseWolf 18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sock?

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

---

• This new user, 44gattiinfilax6 who joined and immediately posted on Haldir's talkpage to give him moral support and support his talk of "mass murderer Che" [79], [80], and then voted his way in the RfC at talk:Avicenna, [81], and has also made one more Sogdian related edit [82] looks like a sock of Haldir.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: The new user voted the opposite of Haldir. Also, you must notify the user of this thread.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Bbb23, sorry, I was unaware that that applied for ducks. I also didn't realize they voted the opposite of Haldir - however I'm still fairly certain they're Haldir's sock. They've also voting against calling Avicenna "Persian", which is the very point of Haldir's edits, even if they've also voting against calling him Sogdian. They are therefore only superficially voting against Haldir. Also: why would a "brand new user" show up to give Haldir advice and defend them in exactly the time period that Haldir was blocked?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• The oppose vote at the RFC, can easily be an attempt to throw off suspicion. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  From previous experience with a potential sock, I noticed that sometimes socks wouldn't sign their comments, and later edit explicitly stating in their description “signed my comment” or "signed comment". Hmmm, new innovative ways I guess to throw off suspicions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Ermenrich: You might have missed this, but Haldir explicitly stated their pronoun preference at the start of the main thread. Please stop misgendering them. --bonadea contributions talk 14:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• IF this turns out to be a sock of Haldir's? The they/them pronoun would take on a new meaning. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ermenrich I was gonna say that lol. I had Haldir Marchwarden's talk page watchlisted, and I saw that reply from 44gattiinfilax6 (talk · contribs · count). I was confused, thinking who was that and whether to reply or not (they didn't even ping me). But upon checking the contributions and age of the account, it's most likely Haldir's sock. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Best get an SPI done. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Usually ANI is faster though.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Bbb23, I don't understand why you've shut down the discussion here, without an explanation save a link to the SPI report. What was the purpose and how did it help, if you don't mind explaining. El_C 10:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually puzzled you should ask, but I can see above and at the SPI that you've gotten what you wanted, and if undoing my close is yet another thing you want, I think it's silly but have no objection.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. El_C 13:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Followup and proposal

I was not sure where to add my thoughts, so I just created a subsection. Given this SPI investigation confirming Haldir Marchwarden of sockpuppetry and all the previous issues, I believe an indef block is warranted.

• Support as proposer - per my comments above, Haldir's personal attacks and subsequently no recognition of wrong doing (some might even say defense) [83], the SPI confirming them as a sock [84], and @LouisAragon's comment above. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The incivility displayed in their interactions with El C, History of Iran, and others, as well as the use of multiple sock puppets means that an indef is warranted.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support for the persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, including incivility and socking. Levivich 14:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Don't want to pile on per se, but this user took a series of wrong turns, from POV-pushing, to incivility, to sockpuppetry. I think all of these three should be met with indefs much quicker and cleaner on this project (just my general view, not criticizing any particular admin's actions here: I realize these are hard decisions to make, and that following up on a blocked user is hard and unpleasant work), but given the combination of them, the only appropriate action now is a full CBAN. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE (which includes the recent show @ SPI). - LouisAragon (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I'm forgiving of many things on the 'pedia. Sockpuppeting, isn't one of them. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support this is a nail in the coffin of Haldir Marchwarden's activity on WP. It looks like pure trolling. Wario-Man ^talk 03:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Potential topic ban violation

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

---

I recently have come across Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine, which Light show created and has been the primary contributor of. The user received a topic ban from biography articles in 2017 (which never got lifted) and was warned last February that continuing to violate it could lead to an indefinite block after already getting multiple blocks for doing so. Does this creation count as a violation of that ban? If so, then perhaps it would be appropriate to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrities who have received the COVID-19 vaccine with a speedy deletion of the list. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Light Show's tban was reiterated to them on this noticeboard not even two weeks ago, let alone February. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a year. They can't stay away from bios. Feel free to reduce or lengthen as desired. And I deleted the page and closed the AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the block and closure. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

IP 137.27.65.235 - Behaviour issue

I need to report this IP editor, as I think their behaviour has not improved since I last reported them. I just discovered that they have put up a list of faults that they have with some edits I made on the article for America's Got Talent (season 16), stating they intend to put them forward into a future ANI against me, adding I never discussed with them or another editor about a matter in the article's Talk Page. The thing is, we had a lengthy discussion, which went off topic with the subject we discussed, but during it they produced a rather unacceptable behaviour that, even for someone saying they were innocent, was not acceptable for a civil discussion; they even went so far as to try to argue against my opinions with unrelated matters (related to me, unrelated to subject). They never returned to making any further input with either the article or talk page since the end of July, until recently today, and what I read was wholly unacceptable.

I feel upset and angry, because I feel like they are mentioning it there, hoping to catch my attention and say "This is what I will do if you don't revert your edits right now!", which is wholly unacceptable. They never chose to discuss the matter with me further, nor did I know of the other editor's input until today. I would have thought someone like them would also have noted the first thing listed in their five sort of "Wiki commandments" on their talk page about disruptions to prove a point...

I don't know what can be done, but I would really like an admin to have a few words with them. It's disheartening to have someone act like that over an issue that I would say is pretty small, but which they wish to make "mountains out of molehills" of. GUtt01 (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Second time this user has reported me because they interpret my dispute as "bad behavior" or "uncivil" as if they do not want to bend at all with an IP. Please see first ANI. GUtt01 is ignoring the consensus to 1. include Nightbirde in the article and 2. stop reverting anyone changing it to Nightbirde which is how she is notable as. Therefore i had to include GUtt01's prior edits showing they ignored other editor's input. This user is ignoring that Nightbirde's article was not changed to her birth name. They are "not listening" to others input to mention her. GUtt01 left it for awhile then slowly removed her via "amendments" which is code for revert. As you can see on GUtt01's talk page, they are guilty of edit-warring on a regular basis. Then i list GUtt01's history in an effort to avoid ANI and this editor reports me because they seem to be unable to handle any criticism at all or anyone else (especially an IP) contributing to an article they apparently want control of. I also pointed out the paragraph-long sentences they write and keep undoing when someone else changes/fixes them. Even after another editor cleaned it up, GUtt01 went back to undo it with "amendments" so that it's his/her way. After awhile, how can you not be irritated with this? Then i state i would go to ANI in an effort to help resolve the issue and i'm accused of making a threat? This person is disruptive with reverting/removing other editor's contributions then quickly accuses me of doing the wrong thing by going to the talk page? I feel bullied. Unlike GUtt01, i take days/weeks before responding and i consider everyone's input. GUtt01 has already been reported for being problematic. You can see everything listed on the AGT Season 16 edit history and talk page i conveniently included that he/she tried to delete/hide. I only wanted to make it official after the season ended so i came back to be sure she was properly mentioned per sources i provided. And GUtt01 replied on the talk page since User:Ssilvers comments and edits (August 26th) yet claims to not see it till today after i made a contribution?

Thank you for your time and i apologize in advance that this had to come here because GUtt01 seems to not want to have a conversation. I regret GUtt01 is uncomfortable once again. I'm taking another break today for the record. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was not about including this person into the article; it was about which name to use!! The IP is continuing to blow this out of proportions. Hardly anyone is discussing the name or saying it should be changed back, other than this IP editor. They then list my history of relevant edits on the talk page as if to make me a pariah on Wikipedia, saying I'm acting like a bully, when I have not done anything of the sort here. If they wanted to discuss this, I would have thought they would have the decency, after such a long absence from the article, to talk to me or ping me to the talk page for further discussion, rather than just try to act in this manner. Also, how would they think an ANI would help exactly? This just inflamed the situation further - I was accused of accusing them of failing to heed WP:NOTBROKEN, when another editor was the one saying that - even one of the edits they put up was related to that editor, someone they could have easily accused of causing them trouble. This IP editor hasn't perhaps done much editing, contrary to their edit history (since the IP may be being used by someone else than who originally used it), but they are trying to act out all innocent when they continued to act in a manner that doesn't appear civil. They also think the name is important to mention in an article, where there is a question of justifying this - the person's BIO article is already questioned over notability at present, per WP:MUSICBIO. This IP editor clearly has not done anything to engage me in discussing and talking about this - to actually say they would enter an ANI about this, without even talking to me, is ridiculous. I feel like an Admin needs to have a few words with this person, because I clearly feel hurt by this, especially as I haven't done anything wrong or warranted this action and response when civil discussion could have resolved this. GUtt01 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

You took this to ANI (first) not me. Based on our past experience, i did not discuss it personally with you since it was your way or no way last time. I'm not the only one who has changed her legal name to Nightbirde on AGT 16 and the AGT template articles. You know that. And the prior editor telling you to mention her in the article is why i changed it back since you deleted it and ignored the consensus on both articles. So you accusing me of acting a certain way is your perception. You're projecting. I'm doing what Wiki requests. Take it to the talk page. Don't edit war. Don't revert. Go to ANI if there is a dispute that can't be resolved. You accused me of having a bad attitude again yet it's you being hostile and aggressive to me just because i disagree and do not like that you revert people's comments/edits/contributions. I listed your history to show that you keep deleting her name and ignore she is Nighbirde by overwhelming sources including the show itself. I think you don't want to be wrong about this and so you're saying i'm the problem. Regardless, do not assume things you don't have evidence of about me &/or my contributions/IP, etc. Your previous comments here are not factual. I'm not trying to cause trouble. You just seem to think anyone who disagrees needs to be disciplined. Your recidivism of edit-warring and disruptive vandalism i've observed is why we are here. I'll again take a long break because i'm not wanting it my way. I just want it right. This is why i avoided even making changes until now. P.s. I was civil but you're upset that i called you out on you slowly removing her name from the article per your edit history on the talk page... 137.27.65.235 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A few things I disagree with:

• "Based on our past experience, i did not discuss it personally with you since it was your way or no way last time" - that's no excuse for not trying to discuss this with me first, rather than threaten to take it to ANI.
• "And the prior editor telling you to mention her in the article is why i changed it back since you deleted it and ignored the consensus on both articles" - the discussion was on the name, not her inclusion in the article, which is what you are trying to force into the issue. Her inclusion, if needed discussing, should have been a separate matter from that, something you should have tried to do.
• "I listed your history to show that you keep deleting her name and ignore she is Nighbirde by overwhelming sources including the show itself" - Why am I ignoring this? I am not disputing her name for the moment.
• "I think you don't want to be wrong about this and so you're saying i'm the problem" - The situation was begun by you trying to push your point in this matter, without being calm and civil and trying to discuss this normally. We could have settled this matter better, but you insisted in acting in a manner that was very upsetting to me.
• "You just seem to think anyone who disagrees needs to be disciplined" - No, I would prefer to discuss, because some people have made me see things differently when I originally disagreed to something in an article.
• "I'm doing what Wiki requests. Go to ANI if there is a dispute that can't be resolved." - Wikipedia would recommend only doing ANI when there is evidence of a dispute. A dispute over something trivial would first require that you conducted a discussion on it with the relevant party involved; you didn't. I had no discussion with you, because you didn't bother to engage me at all - just went in, say you're going to call me out on ANI, and not bother with doing any discussions.

Quite frankly, those comments don't exonerate you. While I may have acted badly at times, whether misunderstandings or emotions caused the issue, I am trying to be better. And I would have discussed this with the IP editor, if they had tried to engage me in one, rather than suddenly thinking to force an ANI on the matter.... GUtt01 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

In addition, this is the last edit summary on America's Got Talent (season 16), regarding the issue: "if you continue to omit her or "amend" after multiple talk page discussions and edit summaries by others including consensus with sources confirming she performs and is addressed as Nightbirde on the show itself - then you will be reported for disruption/reverting/edit-warring not to mention you're constantly writing paragraph long sentences that are confusing so please stop changing this just to have it your way after you've been notified not to exclude her from the season". Notified? I was not notified at all about this. And I pointed out that the discussion in the talk page was about her name, not her inclusion. The IP editor didn't seem to bother to think things through on this matter - furthermore, if someone's being disruptive badly, one would be better off going to that user's talk page and sending a warning to them; it's been done by myself and others to those who acted irresponsibly, rather than in edit summaries (because that way, we notify them of their actions). GUtt01 (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

So. Lots of text that is just you two bickering back and forth. Absolutely no links to differences showing the problems. Nobody wants to spend time searching for what the problems are. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 08:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: Okay, to allow you to see the issue, here is what the IP put up in the talk page for the article. Note how they begun this though:

": This message is to Ssilvers (talk) only... Please see the following vandalism by GUtt01 before i report it to ANI (amendments = reverts):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=1044645647&oldid=1044638960

(after this talk page discussion GUTT01 included Nightbirde then removed it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036979298

(removed Nightbirde to refuse linking)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1038760618

(removed her all together even though she was mentioned and appeared in future episodes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1031615690

(her full name comes from alternate sources not the show itself)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1035809664

(ANI complaint about GUtt01)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1035656769

(wasn't blocked for similar behavior)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nightbirde

(article unchanged to legal name and inconsistent with other AGT performers)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cabayi&diff=prev&oldid=1035816046

("i really hope i can improve and do better")

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036232917

(user Magitroopa changed back to my edit)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036261756

(keeps writing long complicated sentences)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036772089

(made a decision to end discussion even though Nightbirde appeared again)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036773100

(sources/show & judges/host all called her Nightbirde)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036772726

(included Nightbirde yet doesn't link it only her legal name then later deletes it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=prev&oldid=1036979298

(clearly intentional/deliberate agenda not to have Nighbirde's name in article)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)#Jane/Nightbirde

(suppression of consensus for her notable contribution in show)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:America%27s_Got_Talent_(season_16)&diff=1040702074&oldid=1040701962

(did not acknowledge nor respond)

18:06, 17 September 2021 diff hist +21‎ America's Got Talent (season 16) ‎ Rving edits - Possible WP:DE current Tag: Undo

(has the nerve to say i'm disruptive?)"

GUtt01 (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: After some careful thought, when I took a break from my computer to eat, and then avoiding this matter to avoid fretting over it, I have come to the conclusion that I think myself and the IP editor may have acted badly in this matter. I believe the IP editor did act irresponsibly in terms of not trying to engage in discussion with myself on my talk page and possibly displaying a message on an article's talk page, rather than with on the talk page of an editor involved in the subject's discussion. I should have tried to engage with them when I saw this and tried to calm them down from being rash. I'm going to try to engage with them and advise them about their behaviour, but I do feel worried on what might happen - I really am hoping that their absence since yesterday might have given them time to cool off and rethink on this. If they still continue to act in the manner I described at the start, and nothing I try to do to engage with them works, what options do I have? GUtt01 (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm coming back here since GUtt01 dragged me back in with a message on my talk page (please only post comments for me on the Nightbirde or AGT 16 talk pages in the future if necessary). As per the AGT 16 talk page, i'm adding her back with sources. She's notable during the season even if GUtt01 doesn't think she's notable in general. I'm the one who put the tag on her article but she should still be added to AGT 16. If you remove her name or link to her article then you are again being disruptive and "not listening" nor conceding to consensus. Today you didn't include her again yet changed a link to another participant. Something you reverted when i did it for Nightbirde, which Magitroopa used "not broken" as the reason. I'm done wasting time going back-and-forth on Nightbirde's & AGT 16's talk pages just to have something simple like this ignored. Point is she was included then you removed her. You take breaks and wait for people not to pay attention to "amend" contributions which are reverts. Therefore, i was watching. If you try to have Nightbirde's article deleted, it's proof you just don't want her on the AGT 16 article for some reason and will assume a win. I'm not trying to win. I'm being consistent. If that makes me "uncivil" for standing up to your hypocrisy, so be it. That means you have the "behavior" issues. Here is what i'm adding to AGT 16:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/agt-star-nightbirde-delivers-a-health-update-after-sharing-cancer-diagnosis/ar-AAKUnay

https://www.today.com/popculture/nightbirde-shares-emotional-raw-message-about-faith-during-agt-finale-t231360

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/09/16/nightbirde-crying-after-agt-finale-cancer-fight/8369979002/

https://www.etonline.com/simon-cowell-shares-hopeful-update-on-nightbirdes-cancer-battle-after-americas-got-talent-exit

P.S. It makes no sense to mention someone withdrew and leave her name out when she was notable for her song. This is what others mentioned besides me that you just don't want to accept. It's simple, she should be in the article not removed. I'm adding what GUtt01 forgot to include from the AGT 16 talk page for the record (GUtt01/Magitroopa didn't apply the same policy/reverts to these or other participants like Tape Face):

All judges and the host called her "Nightbirde" (except Simon once said Jane) when she gave an update on her health in August and during finals in September.

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rappin'_Granny (real name not used in AGT article)

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Barnatt (Keith Apicary used in article)

SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Stone_(magician) (Klek Entos used in article)

137.27.65.235 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

137.27.65.235 (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @137.27.65.235 and GUtt01: It's my opinion that the answer to your content dispute is simple: none of this matters as the subject is not notable, and I have opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightbirde. AN/I should be used for matters of conduct and not content, so you'd be well served to stop waging this war here and instead figure out if there is actually a behavioral/AGF issue at question here. GUtt01 seems unsure. I am doubly unsure. Please do not turn the AfD page into what you've turned this section into: irrelevant bickering about the article title that has no project benefiting purpose to be taking place on AN/I. If you wish to comment on the AfD, please keep it to notability policies. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your input/advice. I added her back to the AGT 16 article. If the Nightbirde article is deleted for some reason, having it not link anymore makes sense but her participation with sources should stay in the article so i trust GUtt01 doesn't delete it again. Thank you, kindly... P.s. There are other AGT participants with articles that should also be considered for deletion per notability. 137.27.65.235 (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright... I've been a bit hesitant to join in here, but I'll try and chime in a bit (I have been keeping an eyes on this thread/replies the past few days...). First, if anyone coming here is looking for a quick recap/TL;DR of what has happened and is a bit confused with all the links:

Someone auditioned on the recently-concluded 16th season of America's Got Talent, singing and talking about their battle with cancer (their respective audition can be viewed here). This specific act uses the stage name 'Nightbirde', and their IRL name is 'Jane Marczewski'. They earned a Golden Buzzer (for those unfamiliar with the show- essentially a straight-pass to the live-shows rather than the prior round/a 'possibility' of going to the live shows) from Simon Cowell, but withdrew from the show prior the start of the live shows, saying her health, "taken a turn for the worse".

The original issue/debate was which name to use: stage name or IRL name. Respective discussions for that can be found at Talk:America's Got Talent (season 16)#Jane/Nightbirde and all throughout Talk:Nightbirde. However, now is has apparently changed into, "Should a name be mentioned at all in the article (whether stage name or IRL name)". (I've now added a subsectioning header on to the AGT S16 talk page- start of that can be viewed at Talk:America's Got Talent (season 16)#Name mentioning in article)

At this point, I think it may be entering edit-warring/WP:OWN territory... I'm sure anyone that wants to can quickly look through the full history/discussions and figure it out, but most recently:

• IP readded her name, along with three messages about readding it ([85] [86] [87])
• GUtt01 removes name/sourcing in two 'Amendments' edits ([88] [89])

All this reverting/removing+readding info by different users likely falls under edit warring, which yes, does become disruptive at some point...

I feel it is worth mentioning, I have had my own issues/debates with GUtt, some of which (I think??- haven't gone through and seen if my involvement ones are listed, lol) can be viewed in a past ANI discussion from this past July here. I honestly mean no ill-will towards GUtt, but it is likely worth mentioning at this point. Likewise...

I have no 'plans'/hopes for either the IP or GUtt to get blocked. While there does seem to be some behavioral issues (possibly coming from both sides?), what I will say is that both of them are very much the exact opposite of WP:NOTHERE. If this issue/debate is able to be resolved without any blockings required on either side, I'm all for it. Magitroopa (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Forgot part of what I had wanted to say... lol. Mainly just- I'm not sure why mentioning someone's name in an article really needs to turn into this whole big thing... If the show is at (let's just say) season 40 or something in the future where there's been dozens more participants/notable occurrences throughout seasons, someone could possibly be looking for this specific act and only be seeing, "a participant withdrew" with one source about it attached- A. This could occur more times in the future, and B. Although we editing here know to use/read through sources, not every viewer does.

Does it really hurt anyone that much if a name is simply mentioned in an article...? Magitroopa (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magitroopa: Appreciate the honest opinion about me, and also appreciate you hold nothing against me - I approve of you highlighting that past ANI concerning me, and respect that. After a back-and-forth issue on the September 17, I concluded both myself and the IP had been irresponsible in this matter, regardless of whether each of us was right. My only concern though is that when I tried to advise the IP of my concerns on both of our behaviours, they didn't seem interested in trying to engage with me at all - they even deleted a message I put out the following night, trying to extend at least an olive branch in the matter. Whatever the dispute, I think I should have tried some discussion, but I don't think the other party shows any interest in at least trying to engage a discussion with me on the matter. GUtt01 (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Request ANI closure - I feel nothing will be resolved in the matter, so as nominator, I would like to ask for closure in this discussion. I've made the decision to end my involvement on Wikipedia as an editor. Whether the IP editor will do better if I am gone, I don't know. I thank the input from those not involved, as I think it has shown to me that staying here since my first block in 2019 is not going to be good. GUtt01 (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics

I got an edit reverted with the tag removed by FobTown (talk · contribs) with no explanation or discussion. I don't feel like getting in another edit war here.

You should know this user already has been blocked once in this page. Not to mention all his previous behavior warnings.

He hasn't attempted to make any discussion in the talk page and we can see the history that he is rather insistent on putting his views in the article.

Also I question his neutrality as per this link, where he accuses others of being government shill when one of them is trying to open a discussion to get consensus.

Would be grateful to have the admins look into this.

-210.6.154.28 (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page, you are required to notify any user you start a discussion about. I've done that for you. – Rummskartoffel 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

AceUofT - refspam and copyright problems

In June, AceUofT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was cautioned about WP:SELFCITE [90], warned about copyvio's [91], warned about WP:REFSPAM [92] [93] [94], and eventually brought to ANI (thread). However, they were eventually rather blocked for sockpuppetry (SPI). Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, they were unblocked by BDD on 19 August.

Since they resumed editing on 9 September, they have been engaging in the exact same behavior that got them to ANI in June. Being an 'ace' on the UofT or the University of Toronto, all 16 of their edits since being unblocked add bits of information sourced to a work by University of Toronto professor Shafique Virani.

Like before, some of these edits are good, but many of them are also clear violations of WP:SELFCITE in that they are putting undue emphasis on Virani's work and research interests. It's not always clear if it's relevant, and taken together, they're certainly excessive (cf. some of my revert rationales [95] [96] [97]).

Moreover, they also engaged again in a blatant copyright violation.

One of the problems is that they're not communicative: the only edit they ever made to their talk page was blanking a warning message. I think we need an indefinite block, if only to get them talking. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: to be fair, if it is their own work it isn't a copyright violation (they simply need to release it via the proper channels). However, their behavior looks to be disruptive - not saying they're WP:NOTHERE as I could see why they're doing what they're doing to try to improve the encyclopedia (goodness knows we could use more actual experts) - but it seems like a block is necessary if they refuse to communicate (though I wouldn't support any permanent sanctions as long as they address the concerns raised). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Yes, I'm largely with you: they're not exactly NOTHERE, and the most important thing is that they address the concerns. Two things, however: 1. I don't think they're Shafique Virani himself (the quality of their edits just isn't up to par), but rather some kind of 'fan'. 2. Even if they were Virani, he has already handed over the copyrights to the publisher: except in open access and the like, academics generally don't hold the copyrights anymore over their own published works. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: @Elli: I apologize that you found my edits to be disruptive. If you have any issues with particular edits, I would be willing to discuss on my talk page. I also appreciate your undertanding that I have not been editing in bad faith. Overall, all edits were posted with the intention to improve the quality of the encyclopedia for its readers. As you noted, the incident of June 2021 was investigated by the arbitration commitee, who resolved to unblock my account. Thus, I do not believe that the systematic reversion of my edits is warranted. Regarding the alleged copyright violation, I do not want to create unnecessary issues over a single edit, so I have no problem with its removal. Dr. Shafique Virani is one of two living scholars whose research focuses on the Post-Alamut period of Ismaili history. The other such scholar is Dr. Nadia Jamal. Any research on this and related areas is heavily dependent on the work of these scholars. I will also be adding contributions from other authors in the near future as well. I hope you find this to resolve any concerns. Thanks. AceUofT (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello AceUofT! Thanks for commenting here. I too believe that systematic reversion of your edits is not warranted, and have in fact gone to considerable trouble to make sure that your good edits were re-reverted. But the single-minded adding of blurbs combined with a ref to Virani is problematic: not only are there other scholars who deal with post-Alamut Isma'ili history (Farhad Daftary and Daniel De Smet are just two names), most of your edits are not to pages about post-Alamut Isma'ili history, and what you are adding is often irrelevant and out of context. Also, could you please clarify whether you have any personal relationship with Shafique Virani or not?

With regard to the copyright violation, what you need to understand is that this is not just a regular editorial decision whether to remove or not: adding copyrights-violating text to Wikipedia is potentially damaging to the project, because it could lead to legal issues for the Wikimedia Foundation. It also takes considerable effort for other editors to keep Wikipedia free from such text. It is a serious violation, and we need to be clear that you will not do this again, not even once. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Apugsama. Thank you for your efforts in re-reverting some of these edits. As I mentioned previously, I intend to add information from other authors in the near future as well, including from those you refer to. Again, if you take any issue with particular edits, I am more than willing to discuss these on my talk page, or on the talk page for the relevant article.

Regarding your question about my personal relationships, Wikipedia is a public platform and there are obviously privacy and other concerns with disclosing information about any personal relationships, or lack thereof. I do not expect you or any other editor to publicly disclose any information about your personal relationships, regardless of your editing activity, and I hope you will extend the same courtesy as well. I will add that even editors of reputed academic journals do not expect contributors to disclose information about personal relationships (or lack thereof) with the individuals they cite. I appreciate the effort of many editors on Wikipedia to keep the information free of copyright issues. I do not intend to post any copyright-infringing materials on the encyclopedia. AceUofT (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

AceUofT, have you read the guidance at PAID and at COI? If not, please do so, and indicate that you have understood and will abide by it.

Contributors have a right to privacy, yes. However, they are obliged by the Terms of Use to declare if they are editing as a part of their job, or in the expectation of receiving compensation. Furthermore, if they are editing about subjects that they have a personal connection with, they are expected to declare a conflict of interest, and are encouraged to use edit requests on talk pages rather than make edits directly.

So, in other words, you are not expected to disclose information about any personal relationships unless those personal relationships overlap with the subjects you write about here, in which case, you are expected to disclose that. I maintain my privacy by refraining from editing about subjects that I have any personal connection with. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just wanted to note that the unblock from ArbCom was simply a judgment that the rationale for the previous block—namely, that the user had abused multiple accounts—was mistaken. We advised AceUofT that they could restore some of their reverted edits, but that this must be done as part of the normal editorial process. That includes being responsive to fellow editors who bring up good-faith concerns, and adhering to conflict-of-interest policies. AceUofT, I echo the good advice you've been given above. --BDD (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Sgweirdo's constant removal of contents without an edit summary

User_talk:Sgweirdo has racked up a large amounts of warnings regarding the removal of contents without an edit summary. The user has thus far refused to communicate, and is yet clearly aware of their talk page. They have previously been blocked for similar behavior.

I left a final warning on 16 September 2021, and yet the behavior persists, such as here and here in the removal of content while cleaning up pages.

While I am not requesting an outright block just yet as it's not strictly vandalism, I am hoping this report spurs them to begin to communicate with other users per WP:CIR. Seloloving (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, this guy again, I've warned him before in the past, I do find his edits irritating, he has been around awhile, but originally when he first turned up I thought it was a continuation of a banned/blocked user but didn't know who. Govvy (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Seloloving, could you give diffs for a few edits that are actually bad? I'm seeing some that are perhaps questionable, and a lot that are entirely beneficial and within policy (such as the removal of an interminable number of "Mr"s from lists of names). this edit is probably mistaken (but see WP:INDICSCRIPT), but I'm not entirely sure that it justified an only warning. And yes, the lack of an edit summary is frustrating. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, thanks for checking up on the matter. I am aware that the user was cleaning up the articles in this editing spurt and had acknowledged that in my original report. That was why I was hoping that this report would spur Sgweirdo to respond to concerns rather than incur another ban.

As for WP:INDICSCRIPT, I was not aware of the policy but had issued it in good faith following the escalation of warnings by other editors, especially since many country pages do feature the official names, though perhaps in Romanised form instead of native script.

These are yet more examples of unexplained removal of content, which 1, 2, 3, 4. My original report had two same links, this was meant to be the second. 5 Seloloving (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The "only warning" is not due to a single diff, it is entirely appropriate escalation following months of persistent non-communication. There have been numerous other notifications and warnings. Edit summaries are one thing, this editor has not made a single edit to a talkpage, ever. This is despite having been blocked once before. Collaboration is required. CMD (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

(User talk:Sgweirdo) 13:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey everyone! I would like to apologise for all the mess that I have did even though I thought my edits will be beneficial and helpful. Is it just my lack of edit summary bothering all of you or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgweird (talk • contribs) 05:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sgweirdo, I noticed that you have begun to use edit summaries (Special:Contributions/Sgweirdo) and that's great. The main concern I had, and probably from other editors here, is your substantial changes/removal of content without an edit summary. Edit summaries help to allow other editors to better discern your reasons for your edits, especially when removing contents.

If you can begin to respond and communicate with other users who place warnings/advice on your talkpage, I see no reason to prolong this ANI any further and sincerely thank you for replying. Seloloving (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User:81.177.3.8

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

---

Is this IP a continuation of a banned/blocked user? I noticed on IP talk page log, [98] the other IP of User:49.228.168.149 running the same edit back and forth between the two IPs which for some reason made me think it's the same person for some reason. (Made me think of a user editing from a phone IP and home-wifi IP at the same time!) It's first edit was back in July too WP:AN in contrib, talking like an experienced user! Then coming back in September on the contrib, does it not feel fishy (WP:DUCK) to anyone else? Govvy (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: apparently you did not read the big red editnotice that says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page, maybe try to follow the clearly spelled out instructions. Anyway I'm not new and I was reverting 49.228.168.14 an ipsock of an lta. In fact I reported them to AIV see 1 2 maybe check a few diffs before wasting everyone's time with an ani next time. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you are editing logged out, and if true, your edits to project space, are unacceptable. An IP doing a non-admin closure of an MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sai aravind/Prasad V.Potluri Siddhartha Institute of Technology)? At the same time, I don't think you're the 49. IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23: well of course I'm editing logged-out, if I were editing logged-in my edits wouldn't be recorded under an IP would they?

I take it you meant to assert that I'm simultaneously editing with an account and an IP in violation of WP:ILLEGIT? Well I'm not, but I accept that I have no way to prove that (well aside from the fact that I would've been cu-blocked a New York minute after someone reported me here if that were obviously the case). If you don't find that convincing you're welcome to file an WP:SPI, but I don't really see any value in arguing back and forth over it here, what evidence of innocence or guilt would you even accept?

I can't imagine anyone taking issue with a housekeeping close, especially as WP:NACD explicitly allows anyone to close under such circumstances (not to mention WP:NOTBURO).

I'm glad we agree I'm not 49 81.177.3.8 (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Most of what you say is nonsense, despite all the emoticons. And NACD does not allow IPs to close discussions: "non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs) may close discussions", but nice try.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

As it so happens you are incorrect so I'll quote from WP:NACD If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) but neglected to close the discussion, anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale (emphasis mine). Discussing whether what I say is or is not nonsense is going to quickly lead us down an unproductive semantic rabbit hole, but I would aver that it isn't under the normal english definition of the term, it's certainly not G1 eligible. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of (albeit inaccurate) policy references from a nearly brand new IP editor. And whose first two edits were to ANI: [99] [100]. And whose third edit used the edit summary: "actually less ranty than my usual, time pressure is a wonderful thing" [101]

Have you edit with other IPs? Your other edits seem to suggest as much.

Re: "I would've been cu-blocked a New York minute after someone reported me here if that were obviously the case" Not necessarily. CU doesn't happen that quickly in my experience. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Meh, I haven't posted on ANI in quite some time (those edits you reference were to AN, yes I know, details details), but more substantively, I can't speak to what the usual cu block response time is these days, I doubt it's that extensive, but I could be wrong. If there is an error in my policy references then kindly point it out, I'm not immune to error. But simple assertions of no your wrong are not that convincing (there's a handy refutation triangle about this to link to somewhere, but I can't remember it off the top of my head). Obviously this is not my first ever IP (never claimed it was), hell that was so long ago it ended in Xs (I can't prove that either but who cares). Anyway I'm still not quite sure what you want out of me, Potentially I could find some earlier IPs that were me, but unless for some reason you really want to dive through hundreds of boring diffs I don't exactly see the point. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Still smells like trout around here! Govvy (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I would say the NOTBURO claim was in error, or a non sequitur. I'm simply pointing out that you have edited under other IPs/accounts. Your explanation is perfectly in order and I don't see much of anything to do about it. I'm sorry if it seemed as though my intention was to accuse you of multiple accounts, I was simply pointing out what I saw in your diffs. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

That's fine, written communication is tricky, and I'm certainly guilty of worse myself. Fact is my WP:DGAF level has been quite high for a long time now. On your other point, the principle underlying WP:NOTBURO is that a procedural error is not itself reason to revert an edit or action so long as it's fundamentally correct on the merits (i.e. improves the encyclopaedia). My point being that even if there's some new obscure layer on top of the guidelines that I'm unfamiliar with that says a different procedure should have been followed the ultimate outcome was still clearly correct so getting bent out of shape over it is silly, just leave a note my talk page explaining what the correct procedure is now, and I'll do my best to adhere to it in the future. Frankly that's the main way I keep up with the change in nuance of policy and procedure over time now anyway. Maybe that makes me lazy, but way I see it, I have the tao of Wikipedia down enough that I'm not likely to do something egregiously wrong, and since this is a wiki no action is truly irreversible, hence no need to review all the PAGs anew every time I come off wikibreak. Hope this hasn't taken up too much of your time. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to know quite a lot about wikipedia while sailing around in the Barents Sea... :/ So you don't want to tell us your real account you're logging out of? Govvy (talk) 17:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A lot and not nearly enough. I don't have an account, I can't prove that, I can't imagine why anyone would log out to do what I do anyway, but there are some fairly crazy people on the internet so who knows, I've never hidden the fact that when there are mobile range blocks (not directed at me) that I need to bypass I will select an app to do so, which does make the geolocate a bit off. Not sure what else I'm supposed to say at this point. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but your IP bounced off of one of the sea-vsats rt.comm.ru IPs :/ Just thought that was interesting. Govvy (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually that is kind of interesting. I'm not that technically inclined, so long as the app works and is fast I don't usually worry about the details. I mean I like static IPs when I find them, but that's more or less just a trial and error thing. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Per WP:NOP and the equivalent global policy, I have hardblocked 81.177.3.0/24. This shouldn't be interpreted as a sanction against any individual user or a comment on this discussion, just as a regular webhost block. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive SPA back at Peter McNally article

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Editor adding "inside information"

At the Paddy McNally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article there has been a long history of single purpose accounts claiming he was born in December 1937 in Gravesend, Kent, yet not being able to provide a single reference. Sockpuppetry case on the latest three (two accounts and an IP) filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toadforthe7, but SPI is backlogged and they've been up to their usual disruption for several days now. FDW777 (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Very likely a sock account of the previous disrupter of this article. I've indef blocked. -- Longhair\^talk 10:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. As detailed in the most recent SPI (linked above), the claim of a December 1937 birthdate in Kent has been a hobbyhorse of numerous accounts over the last couple of years. There was also Alfredf1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making the same argument on my talk page, since that message occurred shortly after my revert of 2A01:4C8:F8:101B:5408:82A6:9B8B:4A6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) they would appear to be one and the same, and quite probably also the same person as Peter.mcnally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). FDW777 (talk) 10:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: The SPI will hopefully weed them out once the backlog catches up to your request. I'll add the article to my watchlist to keep an eye out for their return. -- Longhair\^talk 10:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

IP editing at Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy

• History of the race and intelligence controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Would someone familiar with LTA Mikemikev please take a look at recent IP editing on Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy and do whatever might be appropriate? Long term target Talk:Race and intelligence is 500/30 protected now, so it seems to me that spillover to other articles is happening. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm familiar with the LTA and related sockpuppetry (Maunus and Doug Weller are experts). You're right that HR&IC has not seen radical changes to the lede, so the additional paragraph is a recent departure. Many experienced editors, including Generalrelative and you, have noted that it breaks consensus and carefully explained why. Stylistically this Milan IP seems unlikely to be the usual suspect: the postings have been too rambling and persistent; and spelling "news papers" as two words is odd. On the other hand, given the IP's edit-warring, doesn't this just look like a case of WP:NOTHERE? Mathsci (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree that this IP seems to be WP:NOTHERE, especially considering their single-purpose account use of that talk page and article to push a POV. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I admit to having a challenging time parsing the contested content in question, but on Sept 15, EdJohnston fully protected (albeit for a day) as Edit warring / content dispute, so wouldn't the party behind the contending version (93.149.193.190, whose changes were retained in the full protection) be expected to address the dispute on the article talk page, like, in a technical sense? Though, I do note that everyone else are supporting the longstanding version. El_C 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually I imposed a year of semiprotection on the article, and blocked the IP 48 hours. (Though I didn't mention the semiprotection in the AN3 closure which would be more clear). Since race and intelligence is such a well-known trouble spot, it might be worth semiprotecting Talk:History of the race and intelligence controversy for a moderate time such as a month. The talk page of that article shows fairly civilized discourse down to about 15 September when the IP joins in. In the last week there has been a flurry of activity with respect to Mikemikev, but see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive for how that ended up. The main article Race and intelligence has had both article and talk page placed under ECP at various times; this was logged in WP:DSLOG. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I can't read. Sorry about that. El_C 18:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User Pirhayati

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

---

Please nominate User:Pirhayati for deletion for violating Wikipedia rules. The 3 pages he has recently created (Tofan Pirani, Hamid Reza Hejazi and Keyvan Dehnad), based on WP:PAID. Also in Persian Wikipedia, Tofan Pirani deleted 4 times by WP:N and Keyvan Dehnad just nominated for deletion by a admin. According by WP:DP He can not remove deletion tag as he did twice times. Sincerely. MMA Kid (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

MMA Kid has made an identical post at WP:COIN. --- Possibly ☎ 17:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

And he was blocked as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Highjacking of The Magic School Bus (TV series) and other disruptive editing

An editor at the IP range 2603:8080:600:148F:2DB2:893A:66BB:4846/48 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) has been consistently editing in a very specific pattern of first adding incorrect or unsourced information to the article lords and ladies, and then jumps to the article of kids shows and then changes the countries they are from (see, for example, this set of contributions, or this one). As of August, they've taken a like to The Magic School Bus (TV series) and have been trying to change its content to be that of a different show (see this and this one). The range appears to be static enough, and their actions have been disruptive for almost a year now, so I'd recommend at least a few months long block, to see if they stop. Isabelle ^🔔 19:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. by Blabubbs. Semi 3 months by me. Feel free to undo. I'm just leery of hijackers. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tagging ettiquete

I added the POV tag to the header of the Nicholas Wade article and the FV tag to a sentence in the lead, which were removed, first with the accusation of "edit warring" [102], and a second time with the reason being that there is "no consensus" to reinstate it [103]. Yet there has been no discussion with consensus on if/how the sentence is due in the lead, and also how it is not supported by newer better sources. What is the relevant policy on how tags should be added and removed from articles? I have added many CN tags to articles over the years and editors usually just fix the problem instead of removing them. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there's been discussion on the talk page, were you are in the one-against-many situation. Re-introducing tags at this point (and then running off to the dramaboard) seems like a WP:POINTY way to go about things. FWIW, this editor was warned about the DS in the topic area under their previous IP; diff. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

One against many? Thriley shares my concern. There are many earlier discussions on the page with similar concerns, some of which were successfully resolved. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thriley doesn't have quite the same concerns as you (and for one, they haven't been edit-warring to disruptively tag the article because they don't like it). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I have similar concerns. I believe the article needs significant overhaul and oversight by more editors other than the core group who have largely determined the content and tone over the last year. Thriley (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Then you're free to follow the advice given by WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (the kind of sources listed at WP:NOLABLEAK) instead of supporting the disruptive addition of tags to prove a point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, this is not the right noticeboard for sourcing policy. The main topic of discussion here is tagging policy/etiquette. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that Thriley. I would like a senior editor or administrator to answer my question here about tagging etiquette. I always thought that the tags were supposed to notify readers of issues while editors sorted things out. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Tags are to notify editors that there is a genuine problem with the article. One or two persons disagreeing with a larger majority (and no, you can't ignore the larger policy issue surrounding the topic) are not good reason to put what are effectively "badge of shame" tags on an article; especially when it's an issue which happens to have been discussed multiple times in the past. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This is not just two editors by my count. I see many editors with concerns about the neutrality of this article. Feel free to tag the last twenty or thirty editors of the article here or there. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Think of a maintenance tag as a "wet paint" sign. If the paint is dry, if most editors agree that the paint is dry, and the overwhelming majority of third-party literature explains exactly why the paint is dry, the sign is not needed and you shouldn't keep putting it up. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There have been a few editors guarding this article who in my opinion have a specific opinion about Wade that has tarnished the encyclopedic value of the article. The paint is not dry. Thriley (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

If you can't support your assertions by showing how the editors you are accusing of being biased are indeed so (for example, by showing good sources which were missed, or showing that some important elements from existing sources are not accurately represented), then your comments are not particularly helpful to fixing the perceived bias. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

There is very little detailing Wade’s actual writing/reporting. Much of the article is just rebuttal or criticism. For this article to be encyclopedic, much more work has to be done detailing what Wade actually said. You can tell me to go do that, and I may, but you and others have shown little to no interest in doing so. Thriley (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Thriley: Here's my suggestion: go find some indisputably reliable secondary independent sources describing Wade's reporting, paraphrase them, and then show how that content is WP:DUE for inclusion. (see also WP:RSUW).

The way we write articles on wikipedia is based on what independent sources say about a subject, in due proportion to the mention of that content in those sources. We don't just write articles based on what we feel in our hearts to be true. The Wade article is based on what RSes say about the subject. You may not like it, but it is what RSes say.

If you have a problem, you can find other perspectives, show how they are due in good RSes, and then add them. Even if you think other editors of the article have a POV, they very likely would not remove well-sourced content that is NPOV.

Don't be surprised if others disagree with you about those sources being reliable, though. That's why I say "indisputable." 99% of the time, the reason why content isn't added when someone wants it to be added and everyone else disagrees, it's because the source is unreliable.

@79.70.173.174 This board is not for content disputes. Don't bring content disputes here. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, I think you misunderstand. I am not saying I do not like what the sources say. I am saying I dislike that the editors who have added the critique and criticism have not bothered to detail any of the claims made by Wade. If the intent is to shine light into the subject, the best way would be to detail the claims as much as possible and then in a second paragraph, go through those claims one by one with specific responses by experts. Wade’s publication had a massive effect on COVID-19 coverage in the media in the United States and globally. It would make sense to flesh it out more. I think eventually a stand-alone article about the subject will probably develop as the years go on. Thriley (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I dislike that the editors [..] have not bothered to detail any of the claims So, you want specific material added. Fine. Then, to repeat what Shibbolethink wrote above, give us secondary sources which can be used for adding that material. If you cannot find them, tough. Wade's ideas are WP:FRINGE, and there is no compulsion to explain them in much detail, so there is nothing relevant missing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@79.70.173.174: The answer to your question is pretty simple. Consider the following facts: many articles concern controversial topics; tags are purposefully ugly; tags indicate someone's discontent with what an article says; editors will probably never unanimously agree about what a controversial article should say. Thinking about that shows that tags are useful when a passing editor notices a precise problem that they are unable to solve on an article that is not being actively maintained (if it has active editors, just put a note on the talk page). Tags are not a weapon that allow passers-by to permanently mark their discontent. If others don't agree with you, see WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq thank you for providing the requested guidance. I just found WP:TAGGING which seems to diverge from your advice, saying you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Since this page seems to be the consensus on this matter, please can you provide further guidance on this issue, as I think this article suffers from a problem. 79.70.173.174 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

User Yashamaga WP:NOTHERE

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

---

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

User is only be here to criticize Wikipedia's supposed bias on various talk pages. A few of their gems: [104][105][106].

It may also be time to protect Talk:CNN. Most discussions from the past few years are similarly disruptive comments/requests from IPs and new accounts, many of which are now blocked, and I'm not seeing anything productive coming from non-autoconfirmed accounts. On behalf of the Wikipedia arm of the Democrat party, ––dlthewave ☎ 01:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the jab "On behalf of the Wikipedia arm of the Democrat party" is really helpful here. SQL^{Query Me!} 02:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not. Dlthewave, please refactor that out of your statement; it comes across as provocative. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've removed it. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: I've restored it struck-out so that other editors can understand the discussion above (and in particular can understand that the first two responses are inane tone-policing of an on-point joke about the edits you're rightly complaining about). --JBL (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Been here for well over a year - has never made an edit to an article - every post is complaining about supposed left-wing / anti-white bias in Wikipedia (and, indeed, real life). Per WP:NOTHERE - "Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to use editing rights only to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance". Blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Sarwagya Bhooshan and User:Sarwagyaguruji

The editor had created the page in draft space and then moved it to mainspace. As the AfC template was on the page, it appeared in the AfC submission in mainspace category. I draftified it as it was not ready for mainspace, and have left the usual template responses + a customised response highlighting the issues to be fixed before moving back to mainspace. The user moved it back to the mainspace without addressing the issues. The draft-mainspace move reverts happens again, and is now in mainspace without much of the issues addressed. A G11 tag has been placed.

Other actions taken: The editor has also been reported to WP:UAA as it is of the name of the subject with 'guruji' salutations. A request to create protect the article was submitted when the article was still in the draftspace after the second draftifying action. – robertsky (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

IP 204.174.106.14

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

IP is clearly WP:NOTHERE, as evident by his/her tendentious editing which has been ongoing for a whole year;

28 August 2020 - Removed the Georgian and Kurdish connections of the dynasty, kept the Armenian one

26 October 2020 Added 'Armenian' and replaced 'Iran' with 'Armenia'

5 December 2020 - Replaced 'Persian' with 'Armenian'

12 March 2020 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

12 March 2020 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

13 May 2021 - Removed information regarding the Parthian connection with the Armenian god Aramazd

20 June 2021 - Removed mention of other ethnic groups from the Caucasus, added Armenian

6 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

6 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

6 September 2021 - Added 'Armenian'

13 September 2021 - Replaced 'Georgian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Replaced 'Persian' with 'Armenian'

15 September 2021 - Removed mention of Persian culture

18 September 2021 - Replaced 'Iranian' with 'Armenian'

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 6 months. A history of long term disruption from this IP. El_C 12:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

CIR disruption at Adrian David Cheok

• Tianle.louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above is persisting in adding a reference to a junk paper (which doesn't even appear to have gone through basic copy-editing and makes a farcical claim of "double blind peer review") in a predatory journal from a publisher which is listed on Beall's list (as explained on their talk page). This is despite being reverted by me and other editors (@Lord Belbury and Bilby:). At this point, given their latest edit summary seems to not acknowledge this issue at all, it's either a case of CIR, or NOTHERE, or both; and someone should probably at least hand out a partial block from the relevant page (which is also a BLP). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Now coupled with a very obvious 3RR violation, [107] despite a previous warning on their talk page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Surely an undeclared COI, as it has been going on for literally years. Indefinitely page blocked from the article. Bishonen | tålk 09:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC).
  • @Bishonen: Very likely that Special:Contributions/2001:8003:A082:EC01:39A2:D98A:5714:666B is block evasion by the same person. Mind giving semi-protection to this page AND a rangeblock for that IP? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Third sock semiprotection in the span of a year or so. El_C 12:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Already semi'd by El C. I've partial-blocked the 2001:8003:a082:ec01::/64 range from Adrian David Cheok for six months. If there's more disruption from either the account or the range, they can be blocked sitewide — please let me know if you see something, RandomCanadian. Bishonen | tålk 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC).

108.249.25.71/16 persistent vandalism, POV, and BLP issues

108.249.25.71/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP range has persistent WP:VAND/WP:TEST ([108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]), WP:OR ([116]), WP:BLP ([117], [118], [119], [120]) and WP:EW ([121], [122], [123], [124]) issues. Why would we keep this IP range as a project contributor given that they are a net drain on resources? Editor and admin time are wasted here over countless reports, unattended vandalism, etc. This has gone on for several years, without any blocks applied that I can see. The IP range includes consistent edits from a white nationalist POV, removing content or vandalising in leftist articles, adding unsubstantiated BLP material, etc. Am I missing something about this range? It includes many different geolocations, companies, etc (Verizon, AT&T, Comcast). Is it a set of proxies? ProxyChecker suggests no [125]. Regardless, I recommend a block. Notifying the IPs I've referenced above.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Renewal6 and Bkatcher being disruptive and uncivil

Renewal6 disruptively closed a deletion discussion not one but two times (see history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_notable_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_II_(2nd_nomination) and Bkatcher blatantly insulted me on the former’s talk page: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Renewal6) Dronebogus (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Renewal6 has been on WP for 4 days and only made edits on that one AFD, I smell a WP:SOCK. Mztourist (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Just a reminder that you must post a warning at the users' talk page when you open a new thread about them on ANI. I've done so for you. Isabelle ^🔔 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• • I was just doing so but you beat me to it. Dronebogus (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely and humbly apologize for calling Dronebogus a jerk. Bkatcher (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

That's better, Bkatcher. Thank you. We have to be careful to address the actions of other editors without directly addressing the editor's character as a person. It's hard sometimes because we get very frustrated and angry but WP:AGF and WP:CIV are non-negotiable policies here at Wikipedia. Kindness, especially in the face of adversity, is crucial to the collaborative goals of the community. --ARoseWolf 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies @Dronebogus, I didn't mean to ping you above. I had one of those moments in life. It was corrected but I wanted to explain. --ARoseWolf 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

If you used the ping template you have to add a new signature in order for the user to be notified. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 19:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that I hadn't this time. --ARoseWolf 19:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Serial sandbox spammer

This IP editor is spamming the sandbox with an external link to a game and trying to block bots to prevent having it automatically remove. IP was reverted once by an admin but restored the link shortly after. Several IPs over the past few days have been removing the links added by this IP and others yet the spam has continued. Can someone please limit the spread of this spam? 2600:1003:B8DE:FBCA:5DBF:2823:5829:56D9 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the report IP - I have blocked and reverted them ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime: It's more than 1IP, there's been a whole range of them doing this spamming for at least a week. see also 176.59.11.52, 176.59.21.9, 176.59.55.254, 176.59.54.143, 176.59.55.228, 176.59.67.15, 176.59.83.76, 176.59.73.52 etc. 176.59.7.0/16 seems to get them all but that's quite a large range, someone with more skill with IP addresses might be able to figure out the exact range they're in. Perhaps a partial block from the sandbox would be appropriate? 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively perhaps stick the site in the spam blacklist? I don't think there's any legitimate reason to be linking to it. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Good idea... I've dropped a report at WikiProject Spam which will at least generate some automated reports on its use etc. Will follow it up shortly with a SBL listing ~TNT (she/they • talk) 19:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Could use a partial rangeblock of the /16 from the sandbox if they come back. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack (claims about extra-WP activities)

Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Skylax30 (talk · contribs) has made a personal attack against Kalogeropoulos (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of 42 policemen in Achaia (Greece, 1944) (Kalogeropoulos is an admin at el.WP, the one who closed the deletion proposal in Greek Wikipedia with deleting the article). Skylax30 wrote: "Yes, and I have to add some about the deletion of the Greek article. The user/administrator who deleted the greek article user:Kalogeropoulos just today deleted the greek translation of the article Russian political jokes few hours after I published in the Greek WP [126], arbitrarily, without any discussion. He is a known advocate (see WP:ADVOCACY) of communism by authoring articles in the communist internet site (greek) https://atexnos.gr (search for Kostas Kalogeropoulos). He is involved in a team who declares that they pursue the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the rest. Normally, and according to WP rules he should declare that, and abstain from administrative acts on articles related to communism, greek civil war etc" [127] I wouldnt call Kalogeropoulos and "advocate" of any kind of dictatorship, certainly he is not "a known advocate". A Gsearch at atexnos.gr using the term "Kalogeropoulos" yields 5 results about "Nikos Kalogeropoulos" [128]. Searching "Kostas Kalogeropoulos" yields one result [129], an article that mentions a Kostas Kalogeropoulos (apparently not the same person). Skylax30 is an experienced user and should know that WP shouldn't be a battleground. Making such kind of accusations is not constructive to say the least. Cinadon36 20:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Kalogeropoulos got frustrated when I translated from english to greek an article about ... jokes! He deleted the greek article within hours of its publication, without calling for a discussion or anything. This is the first time I see this phenomenon in my 15 years presence in WP. The fact that the jokes were a kind of resistance against the formern soviet regime, says all. Previously, he hastily deleted the greek article about the execution of 42 policemen by communist guerillas, although there was not a consensus for deletion (User Diu also criticized this).

I would call the above user to explain what makes him think that "apparently" Kostas Kalogeropoulos of the communist site is not the Kostas Kalogeropoulos of w.p. (his real name became publicly known because he participated in a public trial related to w.p. in Greece). If, however, is not the same K.K., he doesn't need any intermediates to clarify this in this discussion. Where is the "personal attack"?

As for the "extra-wp activities", yes, we have life outside wp, and wp is not a regime. Wp is actually part of modern life, wp community is part of the wider real peoples' community, we have citizen's rights to discuss whatever we like, and anybody can discuss and criticize it in the public sphere provided he/she doesn't violate any laws. To be exact, I discussed about this user with a third person only once, some years ago and that's all. Kalogeropoulos himself had give me his mobile telephone number about 10 years ago and proposed that we meet, which I declined because I didn't care to know more about him. May I also remind everybody that Kalogeropoulos was not elected as an administrator, but appointed by one user with the consent of one more.

Although this is not the issue in this discussion, I would appreciate a brief commend by any other user or administrator on the fact that an english article was translated to another language and was immediately deleted with no discussion. Could someone delete without discussion the english article Russian political jokes, too?--Skylax30 (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish to delve any more into the background, but would point out that what happens to Greek Wikipedia articles is no business of the English Wikipedia, and that this is an encyclopedia, not a place to exercise "citizen's rights". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course. This had been pointed out to certain ruf.. users in the Greek WP (not by me), but they wanted to verify it.--Skylax30 (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Making things worse, Skylax30 is utilizing a Greek insult, ruf which stands for rufianoi (rufianos-ρουφιανος in greek- means an unethical kind of informer to the authorities). He striked the the word though, I wonder why...Cinadon36 06:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

backlogged AIV, one rampant IP

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

---

Hello. The AIV is backlogged, and no admin seems to be looking at it. There is one particular IP which is vandalising continuously like this edit. Would someone please take a look at it? My button to block the IPs seems to be out of order again. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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

List of Grand Designs episodes

Can someone restore Series 21 and Series 22 to List of Grand Designs episodes? A lot of work has been lost. It was only the summaries that needed to be deleted. Khiikiat (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Khiikiat: please address this directly with the administrator who deleted the copyright violations, at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel: I have already done that, but the administrator has not responded. Can someone else deal with it? Khiikiat (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

You waited 24 hours. This isn't a super-urgent issue, please give them another 24 to respond before asking for outside assistance. Daniel (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Khiikiat and Daniel: it wasn't really necessary to wait for Justlettersandnumbers here: revisions containing copyright violations cannot be restored, period. This article had copyvios going back to July 2020. We can't selectively delete content from a revision, so it's reasonable and a normal approach to simply restore the newest revision before the copyvio occurred, which is what happened, although that does result in some lost work. I've reviewed just now and took a different approach: I've partially restored the most recent revision but removed the episode summaries which were copied from the show's website, which also includes the series 21/22 tables. I think that should get you to where you need to be. Anyone please feel free to review my work. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Khiikiat, please excuse me for not answering you promptly; I did in fact look at this, saw that it involved a good deal of editing, and delayed replying. Please thank Ivanvector for doing that work (thanks from me too, of course). Oh, and please don't bring this sort of routine matter to this board, which is for serious stuff. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"Oh, and please don't bring this sort of routine matter to this board, which is for serious stuff" - kinda exactly the point I was trying to make. Daniel (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Carmena Seoul

Carmena Seoul has repeatedly made edits capitalizing job titles contrary to MOS:JOBTITLES and has persisted even after I directed them to the guideline and explained how it applied to their edits. Wallnot (talk) 23:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but edit-warring against what's been established at/by WP:JOBTITLES won't get you anywhere, accept a block. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Edit warring “against what’s established” by JOBTITLES? When did I do that? Wallnot (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

My indenting mistake (after all my preaching), I meant Carmena Seoul. PS - Be prepared for his possible ips, socks. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Also known as User_talk:74.221.181.177 & User talk:66.18.33.12. -- GreenC 00:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, GreenC, and now CU-blocked; please also see User:Kyle Simmens and User:First Lady of The Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Perhaps User_talk:96.4.231.83 as well? Wallnot (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editor continues to add unreferenced content after multiple warnings

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

The title kind of says what the problem is. This unsourced addition followed yet another specific plea to use references on their talkpage. I have to say I don’t know if they are reading their talk page. They have never posted to user talk space as far as I can see.

The subject this editor seems to be a SPA towards is beauty pageants, under general sanctions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Alright. If Felipevmvillalobos wishes to return as an editor, they can start by responding to talk page messages, to proclaim their adherence to our guidelines for sourcing, and to acknowledge that in a collaborative project they need to ... collaborate. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable to me. I might be coming back ... we have many editors very much like this in 2021 pageants right now – most acutely Miss Universe 2021 – and Miss Earth 2021 and a strong history of sockpuppetry. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by user:Afroditeiraq

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

1. Given a DS warning by admin El C[130]
2. Been already once reported at ANI.[131]
3. Given separate warnings by me, Loafiewa, Semsûrî, HistoryofIran and Shadow4dark[132]-[133]
4. Added "Iraq" to the Achomi language page. No source, edit summary or explanation.[134]
5. Changed "Saudi" into "Afro-Saudi" on the Mustafa al-Darwish page. No source was added.[135]
6. Added unsourced material to the Anti-Arabism page. No edit summary/explanation.[136]
7. Changed "Iranian" into "Iranic" at the Kurds page without WP:CON, sources or whatsoever. Also added unsourced figures.[137]
8. Moved "Kurds in Iraq" to "Southern Kurds" without using WP:RM, etc. Edit summary: "Because Iraq is our home and Kurds in Iraq makes us sound foreign"[138]
9. Accuses veteran editors of "edit warring with him" when they are reverted for adding unsourced figures and changing sourced content.[139]
10. Added "Alcohol in Iraq" to the Alcohol in Iran page. No edit summary/explanation.[140]
11. Changed "Zanj" on the Afro-Iranians page into "Persians" and "Shirazi people". No source, edit summary or explanation.[141]
12. Added "Arab-Kurd" on the Abd al-Karim Qasim page. No source, edit summary or explanation.[142]
13. Changed "Iraqi citizens of Persian background or descent" into "ethnic Persians from Iraq" without reason.[143]
14. Account created on 23 July 2021[144]

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that said editor's editorial pattern is not a net worth to this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. I guess the warning didn't take. El_C 12:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Persistent overlinking by Nadhif Altafy

Nadhif Altafy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been asked many times by several different editors (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here) to refrain from linking years, adding links in section headings or duplicate links. They have failed to reply to any of these messages (they've never edited an article talk page or a user talk page), and have chosen to continue the disruptive editing. FDW777 (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Warnings going back more than a year. I've blocked them indefinitely with a note on how to take care of that. Tiderolls 12:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sockpuppetry, or maybe sockpuppetry?

I'm bringing this here because I'm not clear if it is sockpuppetry as in active block evasion, or just plain disruptive editing. Yesterday I spotted a number of accounts that followed a naming pattern (all beginning with an Asian-sounding name and ending in a couple of numbers) and the same contribution pattern - pasting large amounts of Tamil language content from what looks like some sort of academic paper on horticulture onto their individual user pages. I discussed this with admin @Longhair on his talk page (link to discussion) and later put them to WP:AIV when @Materialscientist blocked one of the users and put a sockpuppet tag on the user's page. However none of the other users were tagged and no SPI case was created. Today another tranche of accounts has been created.

Materialscientist's possible original sockpuppeteer account registered in 2011 with no contributions to date:

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

Yesterday's accounts:

• Rupaa02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Muthuveni .M0812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rithika02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Yuvasree243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PS SOWMIYA 095 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (this is the one Materialscientist blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of a very old account, and the only one to re-create the user page after CSD)

Today's accounts:

• Yuvashree.L(118) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SANKAR C 81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SNEGAN S 94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MOHANRAJ 222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RAMIASHREE(076) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SANKARAN.C 80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VIDHYA.L(115) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elakiya.M(023) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vivin Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Srinithi.K(095) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not something I have seen before. I'm not an admin but am a reasonably experienced vandal fighter and sometimes sockpuppet spotter, but this has me beaten. Really odd. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: I just added three more to today's list --10mmsocket (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another one --10mmsocket (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another highlighed by @Extraordinary Writ --10mmsocket (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: And another one --10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

SANKAR and SNEGAN might be connected because of how similar their usernames are. However I"m not sure about the others. If their edits are similar enough then we might have a duck that's quacking quite loudly here. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 15:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The content added all looks like it is from the same paper (or website) but because it's in Tamil not English it's hard to pinpoint the exact source - it's detailed information about horticulture and science of seed propagation. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Vivin Michael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) follows the same pattern, with more userspace-based Tamil horticulture. Not sure what's going on here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

They are clearly all connected, but I think this might be a rather misguided wiki-ed like thing? --Blablubbs (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone tried talking to any of these accounts? And I don't mean posting a template, I mean actually talking. Could it be an edit-a-thon? Could it be a class? Even if it's one person, has anyone explained to this person (or any of these accounts) what the problem is? Deleting the pages and blocking the accounts might be what's causing new accounts/pages to be created: the person(s) might think their edits aren't being saved, or it's a technical problem. I'm also confused about why the pages are being deleted... not a webhost? I mean, if people want to draft an article on their userpage, that's allowed, isn't it? Is it copyvio? (I couldn't find a putative source for the text on Google, but then it's in Tamil.) I don't really see disruption here, but I see a lack of WP:AGF and some seemingly heavy-handed responses to what may just be confused new user(s). Levivich 15:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I keep monitoring new accounts as well, spotted a few more users-

• Rithiksha0718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dharaneeja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nivetha.v(60) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• D.SUGANTHRI 098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L V THANISHA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A.SUMIYA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sangamithra012345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• G.Brindha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SUNDARAPANDIAN K 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abinayarajasekaran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Manjulaarivazhagan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nithishkumar5678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Prabavathi V(064) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NOMARYS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vinotha12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lavanya.E(047) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Meera2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Preethika.R(067) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Noted them to be botany/biology articles upon translating a few. I was under the impression that it might be some kind of informal WikiEdu project that a professor might've instructed students to complete, but having it in Tamil on the English Wikipedia doesn't make sense. This is just a guess though. MT Train^Talk 15:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

These PDFs uploaded to Commons yesterday and today could be related. However, none of the users have edited the English Wikipedia. File:Anusuya tamil ass.pdf, File:Kokila sree tamil assignment.pdf, File:Sheela tamil assignment.pdf, File:Shifanaa tamil assignment.pdf, File:Urmila tamil assignment.pdf. Johnj1995 (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually concerned that the user pages may actually be copyright violations. They're clearly not typed user pages, but copy and pastes from textbooks. Is it a class teacher's notes that are being inserted, or is it copy and paste from a textbook source? Dunno. Canterbury Tail talk 23:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

204.109.64.0/19

Please revoke talk page access for 204.109.64.0/19. Please see the filter log for 204.109.64.87, which resulted in a bot report at AIV (which was immediately removed, because this range is currently blocked) and this edit. Johnj1995 (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"I am unambiguously accusing you of racial bias"

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

---

SteveCree2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

James Flynn (academic) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

With apologies for coming to the drama board, this comment by ‎SteveCree2 appears to be far over the line of what's acceptable per WP:NPA: Yes, I am unambiguously accusing you of racial bias. [145]

I'm not even sure from the context whether they're accusing me of being anti-White or anti-Black, but in either case there's nothing they've pointed to that could begin to justify this remark.

For context, they're also in the midst of an edit war, currently at 4 reverts over the past 24 hours. I could certainly have brought this to WP:EWN but didn't want to forum shop –– and the aspersion seems like the more serious offense. Perhaps just a stern warning at this time? My concern is just that they need to understand that this type of behavior is incompatible with a collaborative project like Wikipedia.

Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

For absolute clarity. @generalrelative is whitewashing the 'JamesFlynn' article, in my opinion, in both senses of the word. They are the only editor which has commented at the article who does not feel that the notions that black people make inferior parents, and inhabit an inferior sub-culture, are controversial enough to be included in the article. Their comment here implies, disingenuously, that they have come across an edit war (see "they're") in order to convey the impression that there is consensus against my edit. There were edits and discussion; all at Page Talk. SteveCree2 (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I mean, it's obviously over the top, but doesn't seem out of the blue to me. The context seems obvious to me. Generalrelative, as well, you are substantiating yourself poorly in that discussion. You say it's WP:UNDUE — why? I'm not really liking seeing WP:ONUS used as a blunt instrument to stifle normal editorial work. El_C 17:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

SteveCree2, please take it down several notches. Also, please review WP:INDENT. Your comments on that talk page do not flow well because, like here, the threaded structure of the conversation is absent/broken. Thanks. El_C 17:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't believe that Generalrelative's editing is "racially biased", but I can understand why his removing this from his article (which is a reliable source based on Flynn's own words) may be interpreted as whitewashing. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• El_C and Black Kite: Fair enough. I’ll leave off editing the page for the time being if others think SteveCree2’s addition is DUE. As to whether their remark merits a formal warning, I think my view is clear but I will respect your decision if you feel it’s unwarranted. Generalrelative (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It's 'obviously over the top'? Black people make inferior parents and are part of an inferior sub-culture? It's over the top to call that out? Fuck off. I've changed it back because that's the right thing. I really don't need fucking charity. And have a word with yourselves. SteveCree2 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Considering the preceding comment and this from the talk page, I think a block is warranted. - MrOllie (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• SteveCree2 continues to edit war on the article, repeatedly reinstating the new content he added. I think I was the third editor to revert it. Levivich 21:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked for 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Well, I'd just like to congratulate everyone involved on that one. Good work, people *rolls eyes* Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean: an account with 300-some-odd edits added controversial information to a BLP sourced only to one source, was reverted by multiple editors, edit warred, was uncivil, reported to ANI, and blocked (thanks Bbb). Pretty typical stuff for a DS area, and the disruption was handled efficiently. What am I missing? Levivich 22:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I feel bad about how this turned out. I wish I'd been more patient and tried harder to see where SteveCree2 was coming from. I still agree with Levivich that the addition was undue (and probably misrepresents Flynn's view by taking phrases out of context), but I see now that it came from a place of genuine concern. I hope that when SteveCree2 returns we can work together to address issues of anti-Black bias in the encyclopedia. Not because I think they need fucking charity but because that's something I'm also profoundly motivated to do to improve the project. Generalrelative (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with that. Although at the same time, I think you shouldn't have to put up with unambiguous accusations of racial bias because you think something is WP:UNDUE. Levivich 22:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• I believe Bill Cosby got into some kinda trouble years ago, commenting on roughly the same thing. Can't remember his exact words, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing (and seeming vandalism) by IP User:142.247.123.180 at Haplogroup E-M123

An IP (142.247.123.180) keeps deleting sourced information (sourced in the body of the article) from the infobox if Haplogroup E-M123 regarding the origin of that haplogroup, each time with no explanation for their changes. I reverted them twice explaining why but they continue to edit war. Their first deletion here: [[146]] And their second deletion (after reverting my restoration of the material and ignoring my explanation): [[147]] They then reverted me again here: [[148]] (still ingoring my explanation). I warned them that I would file a report if they continued.

I have just left a notice of this report on their personal Talk page here: [[149]].

Here is the page's edit history for reference: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_E-M123

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: I semi-protected the article for a week. If further issues arise, please put a new section on article talk with a brief explanation regarding why the article content is correct and why the changes are undesirable. Don't mention the IPs. Ping me from the talk page (if needed) and I'll have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I will. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

IP Back just making disruptive edits

I previously had reported IP Ranges 88.232.168.0/21 and 85.107.107.46/21 for disruptive editing where they will change the size of non free logos or delete/change history dates of clubs. The ban appears to be over and you can see edits under range 85.107.107.46/21 for 85.107.105.94 have all been reverted. I also found 95.10.7.234 which I'm suspicious off and seems WP:QUACK because its the same edit and what brought them to my attention to these edits before. Not sure what can be done here, can the range be banned again?— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 17:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request of Saotura

As a courtesy I have transferred the unblock request of Saotura here. I make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. In late 2020, I was site banned by the community after an argument on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The ground of my ban was that since I was trying to push a political agenda, I wasn't here for building an encyclopedia and some other things on the same path. Now, when I look back, even though I denied them at that moment, I accept most of these accusations. However, my point is not that my block was unjustified. In this period of time, I changed. I see how and why what I did was wrong. After being banned from English Wikipedia, I started editing on Turkish Wikipedia. Since that time, I have made more than 5.000 edits and created dozens of articles on many different subjects. I also promoted three good articles, with another one currently waiting at nomination. I even created some articles that were directly related to the Armenian Genocide (one of the grounds of my ban at that moment was that I tried to deny it), for example, one about its terminology. My attitudes and the way I look at Wikipedia have widely changed since the date I was blocked, and I started using it to actually build an encyclopedia. I would be more than happy to return to English Wikipedia and this time start making constructive edits with the purpose of helping the spread of information, instead of trying to build a political agenda, and I appeal to your generosity about it. Thanks.--Saotura (talk) 11:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It would be nice if a Turkish speaker could review tr:Ermeni Kırımı terminolojisi. Is it as neutrally worded as our own Terminology of the Armenian genocide? If so, I'm inclined to endorse a second chance in this case. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, for the most part it's a direct translation of the English revision, but there are two deviations that don't bode well: Saotura's Turkish version is missing the claims regarding historians' rejection of claims of anachronism (in the sub-section titled Genocide/Soykırım), and the line at the beginning of the English/İngilizce section Contemporary observers used unambiguous terminology to describe the genocide, including "the murder of a nation", "race extermination" and so forth has been translated as Dönemin gözlemcileri Ermeni Kırımı'nı tanımlamak için "bir ulusun katli" ve "ırk imhası" gibi belirsiz birçok terim kullandılar (emphasis mine). Other Turkish speakers can check me on this, but I'm fairly certain that this changes the meaning from [observers...] used unambiguous terminology to [observers...] used various ambiguous terms, inverting the meaning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll note that Saotura pinged me from their talk page to offer an explanation regarding the content I pointed out. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• link to the original community ban discussion. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Honestly it kinda reminds me of what happened with me after I was banned from Fandom. I got banned and about a year later I looked back on my ban and saw that they were right for banning me and so I requested I get another chance stating this and also that I had changed in that year. If the user has made edits that are within the rules of Turkish Wikipedia (which I suspect have some similarities to the ones on English Wikipedia) then I would definitely say they deserve another chance. The user definitely seems to have admitted that they were in the wrong (even though they denied they were in the wrong at the time of being banned) and they definitely seemed to have changed. If they do return I would definitely be willing to help them out. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 19:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Saotura supplied links to four higher quality articles in Turkish Wikipedia, and they look okay to me. With the goal of seeking to confirm an improvement in Saotura, I wanted to see some other recent edits, ones that were not chosen to prove a point. I looked at tr:Türk Kurtuluş Savaşı Batı Cephesi which is represented in English at Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922). The first addition by Saotura[150] added a massive 640,000 deaths of Turkish civilians killed by Greek regular soldiers and Greek rebels, cited at first to a GIF image of statistics hosted on Hawaii.edu, and also to a book by Justin McCarthy that says "From 1919 to 1922, about 640,000 Muslims died in the region", but doesn't specify that Greek fighters killed these people. In the English version of the article, the number is challenged by Konstantinos Travlos who says that Justin McCarthy "arbitrarily" assigned 640,000 deaths to the Greek sector of fighting, calling the figure into question. I'm concerned about an edit that was initially based on figures tallied in a GIF image, and I'm concerned that a much larger number is featured more prominently in Turkish Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @Binksternet: Our version doesn't seem to try to enumerate civilian losses in the infobox at all, instead preferring to explain the situation in prose: Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) § Atrocities and claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides. I agree that the situation is stated very differently on Turkish Wikipedia than in the sources which it cites. Given Saotura pinged Rosguill to clarify their comment here, a similar ping would be welcome for this one. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) - the attitude expressed above aligns with the idea that blocks aren't punitive, and are instead designed to prevent disruption. Not only has disruption seemingly been prevented (as intended), the editor in question has undertaken some self-assessment, reflection, and rehabilitation. The interaction with Rosguill above (one mis-translation was highlighted and the response was an apology and pledge to fix it) is encouraging. Ultimately, if its all an act and they haven't changed their ways, a diligent mop'ist can turn their editing privileges off again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock (Non-administrator comment) Judging from the way he is requesting the unblock, I am for it. If he is involved in disrupting WP once more, he can be blocked again and "fooled me once, shame on you, fool me twice, the block will end when the sun gets cold". I haven't seen his articles in Turkish WP nor I think it is hugely significant. Everyone can build an encyclopedia, the q. is if he is causing mess/wars while doing so. Cinadon36 06:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Need a block

DeepAnaI (talk · contribs)

Per this edit and username, def WP:NOTHERE. Not sure if a revdel of that edit is required or not, but I'd suggest one considering the racist overtones. Heiro 06:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed and revision deleted. In future, WP:AIV is thataway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to remember that the next time a similar situation arises. Heiro 06:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

CatCafe edit warring immediately after block

Astonishingly, within a week of egregiously violating 3RR at Amanda Stoker, CatCafe has decided to go and edit war at Grace Tame. The history is a bit complex but these look like 4 reverts (possibly it's 3): 1234. Recall that 3RR applies whether involving the same or different material and that 3RR need not be violated for something to be edit warring (as it is here, edit summaries with the gist "okay okay I'll take it to the talk page but I'm just going to do this one revert first" are evidence that CatCafe knows this is edit warring).

CatCafe alleges that the two other edit warring users are the same person, which could be true but is still immaterial as to whether edit warring is acceptable. (Accusations of sockpuppetry like this do not count as sufficient for WP:3RRNO#3.) In this case, Brodiebrock is edit warring also but if they are genuinely a new user then I've just left them a notification explaining what 3RR and edit warring is, and if they're a sock then they'll be blocked at SPI. — Bilorv (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)