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

User CejeroC disruptively editing

CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [1]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [2]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [3]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits continue. [4]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A complaint about Fram

This user is going to each and every one of my articles and either moving to draftspace or tagging them with a speedy deletion for reasons like 'unreliable sources' or 'this needs to be rewritten' instead of tagging my articles with a template. For example, on Draft:Bromley, Victoria, I reworded 60% of the source, with the exception of a quote and a population table, which is enough recreation to not warrant copyright infringement, and yet he still tags it with a speedy deletion, saying that 'even the uncopied information is hardly understandable'. He is trying to deliberately delete all of my pages, and he's the only one complaining about them. He even went as far as outright saying 'this article is bad, really?' on one of my articles. You have to stop him — Preceding unsigned comment added by TableSalt342 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I was just writing the below as a new section, so here goes

Can we please get a restriction for User:TableSalt342 forcing him to only create articles through WP:AFC? I have moved many of his creations to draft space, and tagged a few others for copyvio violations. I've tried explaining the issues, but nothing seems to register.

Recent creations (in the mainspace originally) include things like

• Draft:Källeryd (everything is a problem, from the first sentence to the ridiculous section on "Other names", or the fact that none of the 10 sources should ever be used as a reference on enwiki)
• Draft:Mubarak Al-Abdullah (with the sentence "According to Airbnb, amenities in Mubarak Al-Abdullah include kitchens, Wi-Fi, pools, free parking and air conditioning" as icing on the cake)
• Draft:Nugunek (intro: "Nugunek is a town in Turkmenistan without earthquakes")
• Draft:Cotrilla which is just a farm apparently
• Draft:Ruanaich, which not only informs us that it has three minerals, but also that "The BNB in Ruanaich, Ruanaich Bed and Breakfast, was rated 7 of the islands' 12 inns and BNBs, averaging top reviews in location, cleanliness, service and value, with the hotel style being described as 'quaint' and 'charming'.", or that "Shops in Ruanaich include 4 model shops, 1 craft store, 1 coffee shop and 1 other shop.", sourced to a site[5] which not only isn't reliable (just like most sources they use), but also that none of these shops are in Ruanaich actually.

Nearly all their creations are displaying the same qualities, and aren't fit for the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• After reviewing the examples given, I have to agree with Fram on this one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• The "main settlement" on Mull is Baile Mòr (where the Abbey is), and this is "also known locally as "The Village"." The island certainly has no towns and, as far I can see, Ruanaich is just a farm. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Describing the location of towns and such right down to the tectonic place on which they reside ("Ruanaich is a town on the center of Isle of Iona, a small island in the Hebrides of Scotland, United Kingdom, British Isles, Europe, Eurasian Plate") is, well, interesting. Seems like a very eager but also very misguided stab at editing, but the writing style is just not up to the quality an article needs. ValarianB (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Further discussion in this manner is unlikely to be productive. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hmm. Is Draft:Källeryd being lined up for DYK April Fool’s? (The opening line reminds me of a 6 year old me writing my postal address for the first time). DeCausa (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Earth, Sol system, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe Prime. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Omission of Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex — unforgivable. El_C 15:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Now we'll all have to send out change-of-address cards. *sigh* Cabayi (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC) This is exactly what I wrote as my address when I was in third grade. Brilliant.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Apparently at the moment there’s no rental accommodation available in Draft:Cane, Western Australia. But it is an English-speaking human settlement with four streets. DeCausa (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Population: 12. I am not making this up. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @DeCausa: if you are seriously looking for rental properties, you need to check out Draft:Bromley, Victoria, where "There are 19 properties for sale in Bromley according to domain.com."--- Possibly (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC) yes, but what are the 12 burghers of Cane doing? They’re missing a trick. They’re gonna feel foolish when their new Wikipedia article results in a horde of incomers? DeCausa (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Forget about the metropolis of Cane. If you ever stay at Ruanaich you can visit the "nearby city" of Londonderry, which is only about 100 miles away (but unfortunately across the Malin Sea). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @Martinevans123: Personally I prefer Lianqun, Shanghai, where "Four of Shanghai's buses pass the local bus stop" and "the average house prices in Lianqun are ¥3000", which I find very hard to believe.---Possibly (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Arrrgghh. I have only now seen how prolific this editor has been.... "You wait all year for a dodgy article and then three quite a lot all come at once". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I can’t get past Cane. How do 12 people live in four streets? what, do they have a mansion each? And they won’t rent out anything? Who do these Cane-ites think they are? DeCausa (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC) If one traveled west of Camas Prairie towards Mullan, Idaho, they would end up in the Pacific Time Zone of Idaho. Ha, imagine adding this kind of information to every single article on every location. And why stop at west?  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Draft:Nugunek does not include good sources, and there is no town in Turmenistan with such name (probably a small village, needs to be researched, but certainly not anything one can call a town).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• But wherever it is, it doesn't have earthquakes. Booking my flight now. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Not for me. It doesn't have the minerals. nagualdesign 22:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Look y'all, I enjoy making light of strange editorial decisions as much as the next smartass admin, but can we tone it down? At this point you're going through the editor's creations and it's getting uncomfortably close to making fun of the editor. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect Cane, Western Australia is not even big enough to throw a boomerang. But I'm sure the editor has contributed in perfectly good faith and should be encouraged to improve their article-building skills. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, quite right SubjectiveNotability. Apologies to TableSalt342. WP:AGF - almost certainly not a hoax account. DeCausa (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GeneralNotability, for saying that. I also think the thread on location precision is probably not as funny to the newer participant to the project who is the subject of this ANI discussion, as it is to more experienced editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Or to people who live in Iona. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@TableSalt342:, the places that you are attempting to write about seem to be extremely, extremely obscure, and span the globe. Would you care to share how you came to know about the existence of these? Some trip advisor or travel destination website? They are proving to be a bit difficult to research. ValarianB (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

This is rather odd: an article created with “Carlisle” spelled wrongly, but with a piped link to the correct spelling. Brunton (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I guess Fram was right. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

---

• Oppose - TableSalt342's request that we "stop Fram". - wolf 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Fram's request that TableSalt342 be required to create pages only via AfC. (they seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Wikitravel). - wolf 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• they seem to be confusing Wikipedia with Wikitravel -- that would be Wikivoyage -- but please don't point this guy to Wikivoyage! I've already posted on our local noticeboard to keep an eye out for if he joins. Vaticidalprophet 15:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Fram's suggestion for a restriction to only AfC creations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram’s proposal. Joking aside, I really don’t know whether or not it’s a hoax account. DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Having seen the back and forth between the editor and Fram today, it’s obviously not a hoax. Just very very misguided and stubborn. DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support Fram's suggestion for a restriction to only AfC creations as reasonable. The AfC team can help mentor TableSalt342 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram's AfC proposal - Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• So much for "collaboration" — Sigh... RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• I don't have the faintest desire to work on an article about it, but as a Western Australian, I can explain Cane. It's a bounded locality that indeed had a population of 13 in 2016, living in an area of 3,460.3 km² (1,336.0 sq mi) (see the zip file). I imagine this area doesn't contain any towns but it might well contain roadhouses for passing traffic (it's near the Nanutarra roadhouse) and/or stations for farming. Such isolation isn't at all unusual for areas in this part of the world. Cane is mentioned at North West Coastal Highway. Articles like this are certainly not a new phenomenon; see the first revision of Oombulgurri Community, Western Australia, an article I rescued back in the day. Cane is undoubtedly much less interesting than Oombulgurri ... and I can attest from experience that most people going to or even living in the Cane area probably couldn't care less which bounded locality they're in. There might be people who would want to work on an article about this place, but the current draft would be singularly unhelpful to them. Graham87 09:18, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Fram's suggestion that AFC be used. However, this personal attack might indicate other problems.--- Possibly (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support requiring TableSalt342 to use AFC, after reading their comments on User talk:Fram; perhaps with a clause that after they have had 20 articles accepted via AFC, they can request to have the restriction removed. Schazjmd (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Just had to move another one of the articles to draftspace. Noah ^💬 18:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support AFC restriction/creation ban: There is absolutely no reason why TableSalt should not be creating drafts first, and no reason for them to get upset when their obviously problematic articles get moved to draft space. The occasional personal attack doesn't help. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support TableSalt342 needs to do more thorough research before publishing articles. I think an AFC restriction would be helpful for the time being. I would only support ending their restriction if a mentor deems their draftspace content to be problem-free. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support The weakness is solely because AFC is overloaded. The backlog is growing faster than new reviewers become effective and esablished reviewers are finding it hard to cope. I guess this became a good idea with frequent article creators who had almost as many misses as hits, but that set a precedent for "Let's delegate this to the dedicated reviewers at AFC and solve it that way." And so AFC reviews get delayed for what appears to be the valid reason of mentoring an editor, when, really WP:CIR is important. For that reasn I will add cautious support to Fram's proposal below, a proposal which I hope will overtake this one on the noticeboard participants' thoughts Fiddle Faddle 09:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support My worry with an AfC restriction is that the user may move on to expanding existing articles in a disruptive manner causing more work for other editors. I am inclined to give support to Frams proposal below. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 09:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Time for a WP:CIR ban instead?

Instead of a ban on creation in article space, I wonder if we shouldn't just skip the hassle and go straight to a WP:CIR ban. Their latest creation, during the above discussion, is Silas, Texas. It looked like this when they were finished with it. User:Fences and windows did some necessary cleaning and removed a few major errors already[6], and then I tagged all(?) remaining errors[7] and explained all issues on the article talk page[8].

Tablesalt then undid my tags[9], and reverted again[10] after User:Star Mississippi reinstated the tags. The tagged version was then again reinstated by User:Moriori, after which TableSalt started a section on the user talk page of all three of us[11][12][13], instead of taking it to the article talk page.

I invite people to read the article and talk page, and to check the replies by TableSalt. They seem to be unable to accurately read texts, and make basic errors against English to boot (well, so do I probably, but still), using "primarily sectered" and "secondarily sectered" to describe the primary sector and Secondary sector of the economy (and defending this use in their user talk page messages). I fear that, even when we force them to use AfC, they will be a massive drain on the time of other editors, and/or they will simply switch from creating articles to expanding existing ones. Fram (talk) 08:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Conditional support I would not wish to see an indefinite block. I have no idea if competence can be learned by this editor, but I think we must try. And I feel that short acting blocks and a formal mentoring scheme should be used until competence is acquired. Despite the many issues, I feel we should look at this editor's contributions with the same gaze that AFC does. If they have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process then that is all we should be asking for.

I accept completely that this editor lacks some skills at present. I accept that they may be incapable of taking, or be unwilling to take, those skills on board. I wonder whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention might be well placed to provide the firm assitance this editor appears to require during and between short acting CIR blocks

I would very much like my weak support in the section above to be seen as what it is, a heartfelt sigh that AFC is not the place for extra work and should not be a dumpimg ground. Fiddle Faddle 09:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment There is, of course, a time when the block will naturally become indefinite, based on the judgement of the enforcing admins, assuming zero improvement. Fiddle Faddle 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support It’s not just about competence. They’re also resistant to learning/changing despite multiple editors giving them the same message. Two days ago they told Fram that they would go through AFC but then ignored it, generated a poor article and edit warred on it. DeCausa (talk) 09:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - at the very least, it's a CIR issue. Deb (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support I am not fully versed in this user's issues but based on what I saw on Silas and the response on my User Talk, TableSalt does not understand what the issues are and therefore will not be able to edit according to Wikipedia policies. I don't think AfC will solve these issues if they're just going to edit war to restore their version because they don't understand why it's problematic. StarM 13:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delving further into the issues IDed in the section above this and because of my own concerns on the sources used, I have draftified Silas, Texas. Leaving a further note there. StarM 20:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support There is just something odd going on with all of this. Compare this user's stab at Silas, Texas (revision linked above) to this Texas State Historical Association entry for Silas, Tx. It is like this user is finding these sparse entries on these tiny, tiny communities or in some cases patches of uninhabited land, and dumbing down the wording even more. Bad writing, questionable subject matter, hyper-fixation on the minutiae of the subject matter. This isn't teachable, and is only gong to be a time-sink. ValarianB (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment TS' response to me: but I proved them wrong? is not confidence inspiring and unserscores Fram's point above that this editor does not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. StarM 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support a review of their editing confirms the CIR concerns for me. Just to take one example, the line in Silas, "In 1899, the demographics of Silas' children across 2 schools were mainly 66% white and 33% black," [14] is cited to a source that says, "In 1899 it had two schools, one with ninety White children and another with fifty-four Black children." I could understand that a reader might not pick up on the fact that there were two schools, one was a white school with 90 white kids, and the other school was a black school with 54 Black kids (which makes sense given that in 1899 schools here were still segregated). To change that into "2 schools were mainly 66% white and 33% black" makes it sounds like they were integrated schools. Also, the percentages are wrong, it's 62% white and 37% Black, but even aside from that quibble, the presentation of the source is... well, misleading, even if unintentionally so. But that's why I think CIR. After this discrepancy was pointed out, TableSalt342 wrote [15] "Adding to the previous edit, the edit makes the page look messy. Just read the sources. For example, the original source states a number of white and black students, because we can’t copy from the source, we had to reword it into percentages. This was a foolish edit". That edit summary ("we had to reword it into percentages") is what clinches the CIR concerns for me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support – clearly a net negative to the encyclopedia, per comments above. Graham87 06:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. If this behaviour continues after the block then a longer block can be made, possibly indefinite. Only ban if there is any evasion of a block or restriction. Peter James (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per ValarianB. Also, shows no interest in learning how to do better and is blocked for personal attacks. Writing is on the wall here. Not a person who will be a net positive to the community. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I was hesitant to support this, given the requirement to use AfC, but after doing some more digging into their article creations, I think that allowing them to continue to create new articles -- which is all they appear to be interested in doing -- would simply put an unnecessary burden on AfC, since the majority of their creations seem likely to be rejected in any case. So, reluctantly, I agree that a CIR-based site ban is appropriate. I also suggest that their articles, which have all been moved to draftspace, be considered for mass-deletion after being culled for any which may be of value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support- I don't want to overload AFC with this person's articles, and it seems that they are unable to create suitable content for the encyclopedia, which necessitates a CIR ban.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Have they said they will continue to do the same when the current block expires? Peter James (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  Peter James, they were blocked for personal attacks, not for article creation. Their repeat comments on my Talk as well as others shows they don't believe they did anything wrong, so I would imagine so. StarM 21:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's unlikely they will continue to believe that now that they have been blocked; if they do then the next block will be longer, or more likely indefinite. Peter James (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that? If you examine their history there’s a significant CIR problem. Their responses to what’s happened to them before the block just don’t make any sort of sense. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing in Malassezia

MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)

Malassezia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I formally request to look at Talk:Malassezia#WIP discussion. WP:CANVASS in broad daylight in an questionable attempt to enforce WP:MEDRS. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• Evidence1: 1013864045 - Parties which called are already involved in discussion with me on the opposite side of the dispute. The article and matters are separate from this one.
• Evidence2: 1013478970 - The same.

They brought it to the attention of editors that commented on the same issue elsewhere. WP:CANVASS does not prohibit all canvassing, just inappropriate canvassing. And you had already brought attention to the topic here. Natureium (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Natureium: And you had already brought I only pointed out at reverts, not discussion as evidence of poor application of WP:MEDRS. People called by MrOllie don't overlap with those in MEDRS talk. Don't forget to take dates and times into account as well.

@Natureium: They brought it to the attention of editors that commented MrOllie canvassed those who confronted me at here (Pancreatic cancer). The matters discussed here (Malassezia) and here (Pancreatic cancer) are related only indirectly as reverts concern different sub families of fungus (Malassezia restricta vs Malassezia globosa) and different diseases (Crohn's Disease vs Pancreas cancer). The matters concern only relationship in either exacerbating immune response or cancer. Both contributions were sourced differently. Parties which were called by MrOllie are biased and may not participate in the indirectly-related discussion and pinging them out intentionally is a sign of ill intent.

Moreover, considering that MrOllie took less than a 3 minutes to make a revert, failed to deliver any clues on problem with sources, failed to point in clear direction of WP:MEDRES provisions, didn't contribute to the original article and yet somehow figured I was participated in here (Pancreatic cancer) I summarily consider this as reliable evidence of violation of WP:CANVASS. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• As a side note: My recent contributions are WIP in at least 2 places and this is well known to all parties involved in the Pancreas discussion. Bluntly reverting anything is always a disservice to wikipedia, let alone, direct guideline violation (assuming WP:MEDRS is applicable): WP:BMI#What_to_do_if_you_want_a_more_appropriate_source.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

• If there had been commenters on both sides of the issue, and MrOllie had notified everyone, pro and con, that would not be canvassing, right? And if he had only notified those that agreed with him, that would be canvassing. But the fact that everyone in the discussion disagreed with you doesn't somehow mean MrOllie can no longer notify everyone of a similar discussion. The note at Talk:Malassezia#WIP seems fine. The note at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Pathology_and_Cancerogenic_fungus seems a little non-neutrally worded, but not significantly, and not enough to worry about. I don't think there is a canvassing issue here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, User:Alexander Davronov in the future, please note the big orange banner at the top of the page. You're supposed to notify people you report here. I've done that for you this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Let's do it: MrOllie --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: ... If there had been commenters on both sides of the issue ... I'm not sure which "issues" are you talking about as MrOllie didn't clarify any in details. His bulk edits (one,two) touch a lot of text, both old and recent. He made it clear he was aware of Pancreas cancer discussion in his revert summary:Revision as of 21:20, March 23, 2021, MrOllie so it's a conclusively dishonest bold-faced attempt to influence discussion by having "right" people (WP:VOTESTACK?). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Seems pretty courageous of the OP to complain here when they are attempting to edit-war[16][17][18] poorly-sourced medical content into the article – and they know it's poorly-sourced as elswhere they're trying to gets MEDRS changed to lower its sourcing standards: see WT:MEDRS#Primary sources usage. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: ...when they are attempting to edit-war
I immediately took matters into Talk:Malassezia (March 23, 2021) WIP discussion, so this is simply false. In response to that MrOllie has failed to provide details on his revert (as I requested here) at the same time calling others (seemingly involved) parties instead (Evidence1/Evidence2).

Making 2 reverts in bulk in consequence (one,two) content of which includes a whole range of information (see details above) overlaps with Pancreas cancer discussion only in part. Nobody so far has elaborated on the rest of "issues". The time that took MrOllie to revert changes was so short after my last edits so it's apparent that he didn't assess anything. He seems to have ignored that the said discussion he is fully aware of is still going on.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 12:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring. The diffs show you did that. Alexbrn (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You are amongst those called in by MrOllie in Revision as of 21:45, March 23, 2021.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:TPO Violation

User talk:MrOllie (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

MrOllie removed ANI notice (related to this case) left by me without having my permission. It wasn't page clean up. I'm aware that Floquenbeam already notified him. I took no action. Revisions timeline:

• 13:32, March 24, 2021 - I left notice as per WP:ANI
• 14:00, March 24, 2021 - I replaced it with {{ANI-notice}} template.
• 14:45, March 24, 2021) - WP:TPO violation

Additional cases of possible WP:TPO-breach worth to look at on User talk:MrOllie:

• 17:54, March 22, 2021 (Reverted 1 edit by Ice-eleven (talk): Rv duplicate message, again) - NO duplication.
• 17:47, March 22, 2021 (Restored revision 1013625252 by MrOllie (talk): Rv duplicate message) - NO duplication.
  --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• You're going to need to buy a clue, and stop accusing MrOllie of all kinds of unrelated "violations" in order to get him in trouble. Editors are allowed to manage their own talk like this. No one needs your permission to remove a post from their talk page. If anything, you were in the wrong for spamming a repeated warning to his talk page when i already told you I had notified him. This is veering rather quickly into a battleground attitude. You risk sanctions if you continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Users can remove basically whatever they want from their own talk pages, see the third bullet point exception in WP:TPO and WP:OWNTALK - "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". There's nothing actionable here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@86.23.109.101: WP:OWNTALK is a subject to the same WP:TPO (WP:TPG policy) which lists clean up not as exception, but as «... examples of appropriately editing others' comments», which doesn't automatically gives a right to clean up whatever they think is "unnecessary" once they are objected. I object such actions here and of course asking admins to take this as an evidence of anti-collaborative behavior (and as the fact of awareness of the notice). The rest of revisions listed above shows such tendency pretty clearly. This misbehavior is clearly actionable. It's not the major issue here though and should be only considered in conjunction with canvassing. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, yes they can remove those comments and notifications. The only things you are not allowed to remove from your talk page are declined unblock requests while the block is active, deletion tags on the page (as in the boxes stating that the talk page is being considered for deletion, not notifications of deletion discussions) and shared IP notices. Users can delete anything else they want from their own talk page - see WP:BLANKING. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

AXONOV, you need to drop this. The IP is right. There’s nothing wrong with removing an ANI notice (or pretty much anything else) from your own talk page. it’s done all the time. As Floquenbeam has already suggested, you coming across as completely lacking clue pursuing this. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa,86.23.109.101: I'll let admins handle & close this section. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang?

In this thread, so far, the OP has made clear that they don't understand WP:CANVASS, WP:TPO, and most importantly WP:MEDRS. At what point is it time to talk about a WP:BOOMERANG on WP:CIR grounds? - MrOllie (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

He clearly did not understand WP:CANVASS and WP:CIR is also problematic, as he needed 3 edits to add an unsigned request for help here: User talk:The Banner#WP:MEDRS. The Banner talk 13:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• In view of the original complaint about canvassing, it seems pretty rum that the OP has now selectively contacted what they presumably view as fellow malcontents who have faced "misapplication" of the WP:PAGs in an apparent recruiting effort to change WP:MEDRS.[19][20][21][22][23] This canvassing thus looks rather pointy. I am beginning to suspect there may be a WP:NOTHERE problem. Alexbrn (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Guy Macon goading banned users into a violation - What is the policy?

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

---

I am topic banned from one topic and my talk page is being riddled with provoking discussions from Guy Macon, trying to prompt me to violate my ban. Is there any entrapment policy here? --Frobozz1 (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

[24], [25] - Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, here – written after the ban was imposed – you quite clearly imply he has misbehaved, so it's unsurprising that Guy Macon feels the need to reply to defend himself. Filing an ANI claiming an editor is provoking you and gravedancing, whilst you appear to be provoking him, is probably not a great look? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You can ask Guy Macon to stop posting to your talk page and this should be respected. But if you're going to do that, you need to shut up about Guy Macon. Don't refer to them directly or indirectly. I suspect if you do that Guy Macon will also stop posting to your talk page without asking. If you ask Guy Macon to stay away from your talk page but then keep talking about them there, I'd fully support an indefinite block of you. BTW I'm sure you've been told this before, but stop posting random requests for help on ANI. Use the WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk or frankly just ask on your talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Why was I not notified of this ANI report? Clearly Frobozz1 knows about notifications, because they notified me the last time they had a go at me [26], refering to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#I feel personally attacked for good faith edits - MfD my user page, Incident threats, BRD disruption - still learning, am I wrong? )

I would suggest a one-way interaction ban to get Frobozz1 to leave me alone. I of course would voluntarily avoid interactions with Frobozz1 (I am already doing that) and would expect an interaction ban or a block if I continued to talk about or to Frobozz1 when they could not reply. That's just basic politeness. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that Frobozz1 has contracted the ANI Flu but I would still like a close to this. I am taking a lot of heat by various quacks over my essay at WP:YWAB, and this is the sort of thing they love to weaponize. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Help talk:Getting started deleted

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T278350
Resolved

Hi Admins, your urgent attention is requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (Talk moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Help_a_move_showing_database_error) to put out a dumpster fire caused by a user moving the Help talk:Getting started to user space. Thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I tried to move it back, and I got a database error. Something in Wikipedia tried to perform the move, and it quit after 3 seconds and said "database error". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, I guess an admin with "renaming" rights may be able to help us. Otherwise, copy-paste, histmerge, and move-protect. Let's see where it goes. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  @TheAafi: Has anyone asked you, yet, why you were moving it in the first place?! ——Serial 14:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, you were undoing User:Saisagione's move of the page into "his" new userspace. Bizarre! ——Serial 14:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, here's the result. Swapping turned unhelpful as well. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've requested system admin help on the meta. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 15:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've cleaned up the redirects that you left behind, as requested. So the problem is just putting User talk:TheAafi/Help talk and Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk back at Help talk:Getting started it appears. Uncle G (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks. For information, a Phabricator ticket has been filed. Polyamorph (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, Polyamorph, Worth noticing is that Help talk:Getting started is not accepting the move, but what is now at User talk:TheAafi/Help talk can be moved easily to some other destination. HJ Mitchell is trying something. Seems so. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The stack trace implies that this is a database problem that is unlikely to be fixable by administrators with just administrator tools. Uncle G (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
      • The suspicion at Special:Diff/1013985028 has been reported as correct. The (earlier) page move is still being completed, all these hours later. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
        • 5a5ha seven just moved it to Help talk:Getting Started without discussion - this is the WRONG page. Why could they not just wait, the sysadmins are on it. Polyamorph (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          Polyamorph, this should be reverted quickly to prevent further disruption and Move-Protected as well so that an admin/sysadmin may perform the action only imo ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          Not able to revert the move. It gives database error. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 20:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

          TheAafi, I think you should stop moving the page yourself. There was no need for you to move it to your own userspace in the first place, after several pagemovers had already highlighted the problem. Just leave it to the experts now, please. Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• If all of this isn't enough, I think this may be a block-evading sockpuppet that's caused this mess. Pahunkat (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Polyamorph, please update the phabricator bug report to note that the original page history is now split between Help talk:Getting Started and Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk, because of attempts to revert this, and that that needs repair by whichever sysadmin takes this on. Everyone else, please note that it is a distinct possibility that repeatedly moving this page around will create further watchlist updates and exacerbate the problem. Please leave this to sysadmins to fix until/unless they hand it back to us. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G, I will update the ticket. Polyamorph (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• This could potentially be a new attack vector if left unpatched- a user could easily nuke a heavily-watched page by simply moving it. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Polyamorph (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G and HJ Mitchell: on the phabricator JCrespo (WMF) states there have been no long running processes since 2021-03-24 22:48:23 UTC. No indication when/if they are planning to move the page back though. I don't know if it would be appropriate for an admin to attempt the move and fix the history split? Polyamorph (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Polyamorph, still no joy: [7a5f5030-ba4e-4df4-84da-d0acf4182fee] 2021-03-26 08:13:02: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBTransactionSizeError". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  OK, I've updated the ticket to reflect this latest attempt. Polyamorph (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  JCrespo (WMF) has now elevated the priority of this task. Polyamorph (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  HJ Mitchell, Help talk:Getting started is back. Move-Protection is required to avoid such disruption in future ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Uncle G and HJ Mitchell: a sysadmin has completed the task, could you (or any other admin) check that the split history at Special:Undelete/User talk:TheAafi/Help talk is now resolved? I will request page protection. Polyamorph (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) PP requested here Polyamorph (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  The history of Help talk:Getting started/Archive 1 shows that material was being added to Help talk:Getting started in 2020, but those edits are currently missing from the history. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  You're right. @HJ Mitchell: anything to do with your attempt to split off the history in an attempt to move only part of it? Polyamorph (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Polyamorph, possibly. I'll have a look when I'm at a proper computer but that won't be til about 1800 UTC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I'm deferring to HJ Mitchell here. Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User gaming the system

Not sure if this is exactly the right place to put this, but here goes. User:KNOTTARRY's edits make it seem like they are WP:NOTHERE, specifically it looks like they are trying to WP:PGAME. They have no edits to mainspace, but over 400 edits to their sandbox, with over 300 in the past hour at the time of writing. All edits made by them to the sandbox are just rapidly reverting between 2 versions (see page history), so to me this definitely doesn't look like anything constructive. Thanks in advance for any advice. ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Izno. 🍻 Chlod (say hi!) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems that he is trying to get extended confirmed for an unknown reason--85.99.17.51 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

My finger slipped... Izno (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Izno: Ah, I see... ;). Thanks for the quick response, recent changes was full of sandbox edits :). ANM🐁^{(Talk/Contribs)} 17:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

For the record, sock and master CU-blocked by Ponyo. JavaHurricane 03:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cboi Sandlin

Cboi Sandlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user welcoming an obvious vandal with "Also, COVID is a scam made by our government trying to control us via fear". Possibly NOTHERE based on their edit history, or just massively incompetent. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NOTHERE We do not need more disinformation spreaders or conspiracy theorists disrupting the encyclopedia. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• I'm already a hair away from indeffing this user for their disparaging comments about other religions ([27], [28]) and this COVID conspiracy BS. I was giving them WP:ROPE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I was only trying to converse with this user by showing him that there was no reason to fear about the virus, as it is obvious that the COVID pandemic is greatly exagretaed by the media. I apologize if I offended anyone. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Also those religious things were what i beleived to be vandalsim (like somebody saying that Judaism was a mental disorder XD). I was merely trying to stop vandalism. I am sorry that i caused anyone offense. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand you were not endorsing the antisemitic vandalism, but calling Judaism wrong and telling people to come to Jesus is not remotely appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)It's not so much causing offense, as pushing COVID-denialism (evidence you are not smart enough to edit here) and proselytizing (evidence you can't be trusted to be neutral). I'm concerned that even if you agree to stop lying about COVID and pushing your religion, you'll just find something else to screw up. How can you assure us that isn't the case? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now look, I was not denying COVID, i was meaning to say that it was exagerated, which it was, there is much evidence that it has been greatly exagerated. I mean think about it, why would anyone think that it is logical to completely ruin our economy because of virus with a 99.4% survival rate. You saying that i am stupid because I have a dont buy into the popular opinion about the pandemic is very rude. I do understand that my wording could have been improved, as when i said "scam", that would imply that i think that COVID-19 does not exist, which is not what i meant. And, moving on, I was telling that person about Jesus because, as you know, us christians like to tell people about Jesus. Just because i am religious does not mean that i am biased. Still, i now can see how those remarks would possibly be considered by some to be disruptive, so i apologize. I will try to be more careful about contreversial topics in the future and only speak about subjects that are directly about the topic of the article or user i am speaking about. Cboi Sandlin (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cboi Sandlin, the fact that you still made an attempt to justify both actions shows you still do not grasp the magnitude of your errors. Floquenbeam wasn’t being rude, they were factual, anyone buying into any conspiracy theories denying the existence of covid or downplaying it, is simply too naive to edit here. How about studying policy and guidelines before returning to mainspace editing? Celestina007 (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban from Covid-19 for sure, as we've already had far too many dangerous denialists here (and denying its severity contrary to the overwhelming medical evidence is still denialism). I'd also consider a topic ban from religion if we see any more proselytising or denigration of other people's beliefs, but I prefer a second chance on that one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

  Having read your user page, Cboi Sandlin, I realise now that you are still at high school. That means you certainly don't have any university degrees, no medical qualifications, no expertise in virology or epidemiology, and no medical experience. A school kid basing their claims on ignorance and "I mean think about it, why would anyone..." is *not* qualified to give advice about Covid-19 - and that would be the case even if your advice wasn't so stunningly stupid uninformed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Cboi Sandlin: RE:was no reason to fear about the virus, as it is obvious that the COVID pandemic is greatly exagretaed by the media. Speaking as a nurse, that is 100% bullshit. You have no business spreading such disinformation here. People I've known have died or become seriously ill, or wound up in ICU. If anything, the media have underplayed this disease. So stop trying to justify or defend your actions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Just indef block him and have done. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have done this. El_C 20:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, I've no strong objection to an unblock request that properly addresses these acute problems, but I think a strong message is needed here. El_C 20:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Deepfried, at this time, the comments made by this user could be very dangerous. I support a site ban, maybe not an indef, but a few months to let the user reflect on what is and is not acceptable. Allowing them to stay with no consequences teaches nothing and will most likely result in a repeat offence. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Folks, this is just a young person who screwed up a bit. I've left some advice on their talk page, and they've made an unblock request that I support. It's not perfect, but I think we should give a kid a second chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• With a COVID-19 TBAN. No point throwing out baby with bath water. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple WP:BLP violations

In addition to blocking Aac hunter (talk · contribs), it may be necessary to rev/delete all their edits. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Account and IP blocked and revisions deleted. Thanks for the heads up. Acroterion (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Acroterion. Some of their edits at a few bios are still visible. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was interrupted by a call. All should be deleted now. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course. Happens here all the time, though often the interruptions involve care and feeding of multiple dogs. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng ridiculing a BLP who may use neopronouns

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

---

I tried several times to deescalate the situation at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale, but EEng has persisted in making posts that denigrate Lonsdale for asking to use neopronouns. EEng is of the opinion that Lonsdale was joking when using the pronoun "tree", which may or may not be the case—no reliable sources have suggested it is, but I suppose it's a possibility. The article currently uses no pronouns to refer to Lonsdale, which is an approach editors have taken elsewhere (for example at SOPHIE), and EEng has agreed twice now that this is acceptable to them. For clarity: I think this is the best solution at the moment, and have not suggested the article should be changed to use the neopronouns.

EEng is continuing to post on the talk page and now on other pages to make fun of Lonsdale's pronoun, and neopronouns in general:

• 17:39 22 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "let's get real: tree is now a pronoun? WTF? Are there no limits to this nonsense?"
• 21:55 22 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "All this gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair is just unbelievable. What -- his own PR firm is misgendering him (or, you might say, mistergendering him)?"
• 04:35, 23 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "If he really wanted to be called tree they'd be calling him that, but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope."
• 00:57, 25 March 2021‎ at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously. I may want to be referenced by the pronoun Lordthygod but if people don't do that it's not transphobia or any other kind of phobia. I keep returning to the idea that this may be a grand hoax along the lines of the Sokal affair, designed to test how credulous Wikipedia editors can be."
• 01:01, 25 March 2021 at a completely unrelated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style: "Maybe you'd like to be called tree [29]"

The 00:57 25 March comment to me seemed particularly over-the-top, and so I removed it and left a note on EEng's talk page (User talk:EEng#Please stop): "Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns. I understand that you don't like the pronoun, nor believe it is a genuine preference, but this is becoming cruel." EEng replied by insulting me as "an otherwise very sensible and respected admin and former arb" and claiming that they're "not denigrating anyone. I am trying to give a short, sharp shock to editors somehow unable to see through the fey pretension of [30]". They restored the comment.

In my opinion this is not an acceptable way to speak about a BLP subject, and furthermore it is cruel to those who use various neopronouns. It is altogether too reminiscent of the 2019 Signpost "humor" article which has remained embarrassing proof that Wikipedia is not a welcoming place for trans people, and given that EEng is involving a specific BLP as a target of their jokes I think it requires intervention here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

EEng is unblockable. Nothing is going to come out of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

One way to ensure an "unblockable" remains that way is to shut down any ANI discussion of their behavior with the suggestion it will be pointless... GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with GorillaWarfare. Even if this were a hoax it would be insensitive to others who use neopronouns to mock like this. Hopefully they'll revert their comments. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so we're currently at that point where we await EEng's fun band of enablers who make light of everything until the point that someone else can close the discussion as unproductive? Well, before we get to enjoy that, certainly insinuating that the subject of one of our articles could be an 'affected dope' if they disagree with EEng is about as clear a blp violation as one can get. Doubtless, they will claim that they were not insulting the subject, just the abstract notion; but since the two are so intertwined, it is impossible to one without the other. And such a claim would hold more water if they then didn't double down on it by restoring their comment rather than taking it under advisement. In any case, and this is non-negotiable, it is not EEng's job here to be giving anyone a 'short sharp shock' with regard to anything or anyone here. ——Serial 14:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah, my brigading contract is currently in re-negotiation, so I won't be jumping in to defend him. Seriously, though: you know better, EEng. This was not okay. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. Asking them to tone it down was reasonable and proportionate. Restoring the comment after that reasonable request is trolling and a block is necessary to prevent further disruption. And since I couldn't find one in their talk history, I've given them a BLP DS alert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, HJ Mitchell. I've added a gender DS alert as well. Should the re-added comment be removed again? GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed it. It had already attracted a reply, which (while in much the same vein as this thread) is precisely what we want to avoid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Good block. This kind of conduct is entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 14:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Proportionate and necessary. This instills confidence that no one is exempt from conduct issues, even longtime contributors. Shushugah (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh well, while I was typing, I see EEng was blocked. I spent all this time typing, so I'll post it anyway. The problem with the signpost essay was that it was mocking people who want to use actual neopronouns like xe/xem/xyr (etc, etc, etc, there are a lot). People can have different opinions on that, and the whole pronoun thing is in flux, but making fun of someone's good faith desire to have pronouns of their own was deeply uncool. Regardless of whether you think xe/xem/xyr is a good idea or a bad idea, mocking those who do not fit comfortably into a rigid he/she dichotomy, and do not want to be called he or she, sucks.
  However, if anything, treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark.
  IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block. I assume this makes me part of the fun band of enablers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, the train has already departed. At this point, if you want to join the fun band, you need to unblock EEng with the comment "block shortened to time served" or similar.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be a good idea. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Me neither, but if you look at their block log, they have been blocked 14 times, not counting a one second block, and unblocked, up to date, 8 times.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Floquenbeam: For what it's worth, I have not suggested anywhere that we should use "tree" in the article–only that we should avoid using pronouns that differ from the ones Lonsdale has specified.

  As for your latest* suggestion that I am "overreacting" to an issue by bringing it to ANI, I tried in several ways to end this issue: first by attempting to end the talk page discussion by reestablishing that EEng had agreed to the decision to avoid pronouns in the article, then by quietly removing EEng's BLP-violating talk page comment, and then by politely asking them to stop on their talk page. They responded by restoring the talk page comment (explicitly saying in the summary that I needed to go to a noticeboard if I think it should be removed) and then insulting both me and Lonsdale in a user talk page reply. It was clear that the behavior was continuing despite my several attempts to put a stop to it without broader community involvement. I'm not sure what else I could have done, aside from turning a blind eye toward EEng's abuse of a BLP. Is that what you would have preferred me to do? Am I to stop posting to ANI entirely, lest you suggest for a third time I am overreacting to problematic behavior? Floquenbeam, I very much respect and often agree with you, but this refrain that I am overreacting in coming to ANI is confusing to me–particularly given that in both this instance and the previous there was general agreement that there was a legitimate issue.

  * For context, the previous time I am referencing was at the February thread "WGFinley reversing protection without consent of protecting admin". I can't link the diff because it was hidden, but ctrl-f "G: Please don't bring minor issues to ANI". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd forgotten about the WGFinley thing. I don't think, and don't mean to imply, that you habitually over-react. I often get involved in ANI threads by blind luck; when I happen to check my watchlist, there happens to be a new ANI thread with an intriguing thread title at the top of my watchlist, and sometimes i happen to have the time to get involved. Of all the times I do that, twice in the last 2 months they've happened to have been threads you started. And those two times, I happened to think (and still think) that you were over-reacting. But I assume you start a lot of ANI threads I never read, and I assume I wouldn't think you were over-reacting if I read those. If you go back and look at comments I make in ANI threads that don't involve you, you'll probably notice a pattern of me thinking people are over-reacting in those threads too. I think a lot of people on WP over-react a lot of the time. Obviously a lot of people disagree, or things would change. But I don't think it means I need to change my basic opinion that we should let some stuff slide more often; "letting the small stuff go" is the lubrication that allows a large, unwieldly, disorganized machine like ours to keep working. Escalating every "violation of policy", however minor, is like sand in the gears.
  For the avoidance of doubt, and to directly answer your question: although this is much less clear-cut than the WGFinley issue, yes, personally I think you should have just let this go. If there was a hint of an undercurrent of homophobia or transphobia, I wouldn' think that, but I don't think there is. EEng thinks respecting the pronoun "tree" is dumb, and I agree. He says it too forcefully and didn't deescalate either. Apparently almost everyone else here disagrees with me. Including you. That's OK, as long as you don't think it's evidence I don't respect you because of that difference, and as long as I'm allowed to keep thinking people over-react here far too often, without it being discounted as a "refrain" or that I'm singling you out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I see. I think perhaps that is the source of my confusion. I actually don't start very many ANI threads (or at least I don't think I do, I suppose each individual's bar for "many" probably varies), and I also participate in them similarly rarely to you and so haven't seen that you express this belief often. When you showed up at two of the three ANI discussions I've created in the past two months and expressed that you thought I was overreacting I took it to mean you were seeing a pattern. Thank you for explaining. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Points taken. However, I remember Fæ going on at great lengths in some thread on meta about this sort of behavior from EEng. At the time, I thought Fæ was off-base. It saddens me that EEng has proven that point. A little more consideration for the impact of one's words would make Wikipedia less toxic to those with gender related issues. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• As much as I like EEng, I think he needs to re-equilibriate. He's been like a run-away locomotive. Picking up speed and crashing through crossings. Need to put on the brakes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

^{Just an aside I once met someone who did a lot of work on rail/road crossings ...they were intersex ... i just called them by their name which was gender neutral. ~ BOD ~ TALK 15:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)}

• Yeah, can't disagree. But I have to say, we mention the neopronoun thing in the article, which is based on one comment made by Lonsdale on social media three years ago, and is illustrated with a long quotation which doesn't exactly make anyone reading it think the subject is the brightest ("I want people to call me "tree", because we all come from trees, so it doesn't matter if you're a he or a she or a they or a them. At the end of the day, everyone's a tree.") ... or alternatively, of course, it was a joke, or even a barbed comment about identity. And we have no reliable sources dating from then that actually use the neopronoun, anyway. So do we even need to mention it ourselves? Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps a better conversation for the article talk page, but have no terribly strong opinion on the inclusion (or exclusion) of the quote. I mostly added it as a way to explain to readers why the article was avoiding pronouns, but it could be shortened or removed entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to see the block reduced. And since anyone supporting such a sentiment has already been preemptively painted with the brush of being one of his "enablers", I feel compelled to say that that's not me. Paul August ☎ 15:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• On the topic of "EEng's fun band of enablers", we've now got Roxy the dog continuing the behavior that EEng was just blocked for at User talk:EEng#Blocked... "I've seen silly blocks, but taking the piss out of a bloke who wants to be called "tree" seems spot on. Well done, I lolled a lot." ([31]) and "But yes. Taking the piss out of somebody that wants to be called tree is fine. Good grief. He's a bloke." ([32]) GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, we should be careful to not label all resistance to the usage of neopronouns as denigrating. It's easy to see the logistical nightmare of allowing any single person to create a new pronoun in a language that already has established non-gendered pronouns (they/them). Nihlus 15:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  There's a difference between 'resistance' and outright mockery. Sam Walton (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Correct. The difference was demonstrated by the two individuals in question. Nihlus 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Nihlus: Nowhere in here have I labeled all resistance to the usage of neopronouns as denigrating. I don't agree with those who object to neopronouns, but it is a valid opinion so long as you are not ridiculing those who use them or questioning their identities. "Good grief. He's a bloke." is doing the latter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  This has been taken to a level that could have been avoided. For instance, Lonsdale has said this: "The more I'd been building confidence as an out black man..." regarding homophobia, "They’ve got to watch me as a Black man play a superhero, and then they compare it with the fact that I’m an out queer Black man who plays a superhero" about other work of his. He has a sponsored post on his social media that states: "Yo it’s ya boy, holding ya guy @keiynanlonsdale, who’s the new @oldspice man, man". He even has an album called Rainbow Boy. I struggle to see how calling him a bloke is offensive. Nihlus 16:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I didn't know that Lonsdale self-identified as a man. For a little bit of background, I only became involved in this issue when I was clearing RfPP one day, and so don't actually know all that much about Lonsdale besides what I've gleaned through cleaning up the page. I did go searching for more statements on the pronouns Lonsdale uses since the 2018 source, but didn't come across much mentioning gender identity. I do think continuing to suggest that we should be "taking the piss" out of BLP subjects is questionable, but perhaps they have gotten that out of their system. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is best to err on the side of caution when it comes to these issues as BLP is involved, but I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere when it comes to the reasonableness of the request. It doesn't help that some of these pronoun requests are made in jest while to some it is pretty serious. That being said, we should use the English language as is and stick to he/she/they until a time comes where other pronouns become standard; we should be following the language rather than being ones to guide it ourselves as an encyclopedia. But that's probably best to discuss elsewhere at this point. Nihlus 17:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I said that on E's talk page, yes, after the block had been issued, and now I'm involved? -Roxy the sycamore. wooF 15:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• We can't legitimately add "tree" as a pronoun choice to like the infobox (a passage discussing their "treeness" in the article is fine of course, if deemed notable), but this went way past articulating that simple point, IMO. Would support unblock if the transgression is genuinely acknowledged and a commitment to avoid future disruption on this point is made. ValarianB (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block, this kind of conduct is unwarranted and hurtful, and the thing is, EEng already knows this. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block, highly experienced editors should know its unacceptable to mock BLP subjects. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 16:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have a number of thoughts. I think GorillaWarfare was doing the right thing by trying to de-escalate the situation and use language that didn't invite controversy. I recall a similar discussion on Genesis P. Orridge some time back (which seems to have settled on singular "they" as I look at the article now). Now, having said that, irrespective of everything else (don't want to play the "one of my best friends is transgender" card, but she is), if you use the name for a large plant from which wood is produced as a pronoun, many many people will not be able to understand you. That's not intending to insult, degenerate or belittle anybody - it's a plain old fact of life. In that respect, it's like using Wikipedia policy on a newbie without context, they don't know what you're talking about. I assume this was the point that EEng was trying to get at. That said, edit-warring comments after multiple editors have told you to stop doing putting them back in is just asking for trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Point of Order - Some of us are indeed trees (my pronouns are fim/fir or tree/trer). And before anyone drags me, I am non-binary/genderqueer. We can make fun of ourselves occasionally. </sarcasm></humor> An unfortunate but good block for the restoration of the edit and the repeated edit summaries. EEng should know better, even if the subject was using "tree" in jest. A simple "this was not a serious statement, see talk page" would have sufficed. I don't expect neopronoun ridicule to occur again, but should it I think a t-ban under WP:AC/DS's reviewed Gamergate case would be in order. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Brigand reporting for duty! Though EEng did sit through my 2019 block (without an unblock) — all 24 hours of it. Like Paul, I am in favour of reducing the block duration, but do not in principle object to it having been imposed as such. El_C 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Given that EEng seems to regard WP:TPO as some sort of holy writ and has been known to edit war his joke images back into closed ANI threads, I'm not surprised he reverted GW's removal of his post to Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale. I think calling the pronoun "lunancy" and a possible hoax was a bad idea on a BLP, as was restoring the comment.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• While we're on the topic of Keiynan Lonsdale, could someone help with User:Jiveviced and also perhaps the RfPP request? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• I ECP'd to stop the disruption, unless my part in this discussion makes me involved. However, User:Jiveviced was not edit confirmed, and SP might srve. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I requested ECP simply because the last time it was semiprotected (five days ago) it needed to be bumped up to ECP due to involvement by confirmed accounts. That said the Twitter thread about Lonsdale has probably died down some so it's possible ECP is not needed, though it's not a hugely edited article either way and I doubt ECP will stop many editors trying to make productive edits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• I looked at the quote where the BLP subject discusses "tree", and the subject goes on to express the hope that everyone will call everyone else "tree", which I think takes it out of the realm of a request to use one's preferred pronouns for oneself, into the realm of what Floq quite aptly compared to an "imagine there's no heaven" type of statement. I'm not personally interested in whether or not that makes me some sort of enabler, but I do think there's something to be said for trying to read quotes from sources in context. As I see it, GW came to this from a position of wanting to do the right thing and made a good-faith effort to resolve it without escalation, and EEng was correct to raise the issue of it maybe being something to not take seriously, and was incorrect not to drop the stick. Somewhere in there, there's a joke to be made about a tree and a stick, but I'm too disheartened to make it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, making a joke about it would require you to go out on a limb. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that's right, it wood. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• We do not exclude stuff because it looks foolish or silly. We exclude stuff because it is not supported by WP:RS. If RS say that someone claims to be Napoleon Bonaparte or the Queen of Sheba, or both, that can be included as an asserted fact. We can leave the hoots of derision to RationalWiki. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• EEng has requested here that the following comment of his be copied from his talk page to this discussion:

---

Except taking the piss out of the real, living subject of a Wikipedia article, on the talk page of the article is not what I was doing, and your comment shows you didn't actually read the discussion on the article's talk page and the earlier ones linked from it. What I was doing was taking the piss out of the people who actually believe Lonsdale wants to be called tree, when (as is perfectly obvious) he has no such desire; I point out for the millionth time that Lonsdale's own PR firm continues to refer to him as he [33]. Floquenbeam has it spot on:

treating a request for everyone to use the pronoun "tree" the same as we treat a request to use xe/xem/xyr or similar makes it easier for people to think the mocking attitude of the essay was reasonable. Thinking that using "tree" as a pronoun is dumb is not in the same category as the attitude expressed in the essay. I read the subject's "tree" quote as a kind of philosophical "imagine there's no heaven" kind of statement, not as a genuine request that this pronoun be used. It's fine if people want to interpret it as an actual request, and reword the article to avoid pronouns altogether, as long as we don't actually use "tree" in the article. But I don't think criticizing that is nearly in the same ballpark. IMHO, there was no need for EEng continuing to beat that objection to death, and there was no need for GW to keep it alive, so to speak, by over-reacting to it, and there was no need for a block.

There's definitely a place (though not on WP) for discussion about whether there's liberation value in a thoughtful campaign to get people to understand and use xe/xem/xyr – very much like the movement to bring Ms. into common use 50 years ago. Such a consciousness-raising campaign around a considered addition to the language is completely different from random individuals picking random words to be their "pronouns". If people want to do that, that's not my business. If other people want to invest their mental energy in referring to their friends by tree or bunny pronouns [34], that's also not my business. But when people show up at Wikipedia insisting that articles refer to people that way, that is my business, and I'm going to say something about it.

I wasn't denigrating Lonsdale for any choice of pronouns, because it's patently obvious that he made no such choice; my disdain is for those who keep insisting that we actually refer to Lonsdale as tree in his article when (as linked at the start of this post) Lonsdale himself doesn't do that. But we have editors so focused on falling all over themselves in the RIGHTGREATWRONGS department that they can't see the forest for the, um, trees.

EEng 16:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

---

--Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(Random break for the scroll-weary)

Doubtless, they will claim that they were not insulting the subject, just the abstract notion [35]. And so it goes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've read and re-read what happened multiple times now, and I think a case can be made that EEng wasn't insulting Lonsdale, but was insulting editors who wanted to use the term "tree" in Wikipedia's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

This case could only be made if you assume that Lonsdale does not genuinely use the pronoun, which is not a given. "but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope" and "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism." are both BLPvios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that calling people lunatics, stupid, cretins, is clearly offensive, and clearly not what I want to see on Wikipedia, no matter who is being called that. It sounds to me (and I haven't examined the source material as carefully as I would have if I were actually editing the article content) like there's some basis for concluding that Lonsdale intends "tree" to be understood lightheartedly, but not enough basis to conclude that Londsdale definitely feels that way, so it's appropriate to err on the side of deference. That said, I think EEng really is trying to say that editors who reject the premise that Londsdale was being facetious are those insulting things. This may have been a block for BLP violation that should have been a block for NPA violation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but this is where I come down as well. I suspect EEng was substantively right, but as a BLP, we really need to err on the side of caution, and though I don't think it was intended as such, it was not unreasonable to see EEng's behaviour as belittling all users/advocates of neopronouns. I look forward to slightly more measured irreverence upon EEng's return. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess if Lonsdale is really keen to want to be referred to as "tree", despite the best intentions of his PR company or his ash's Wikipedia article writers, and if enough people oblige him oak, then "tree" will indeed become a pronoun. Not sure it's happened just yet, though. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: and why have you now used the incorrect pronouns? Laziness or ignorance? GiantSnowman 21:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to dial down the intensity here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Trypto, you're just barking up the wrong pronoun again. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: not when there's edits like this taking the piss?! GiantSnowman 21:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Above, I said it was wrong to call other editors lunatics, stupid, or cretins. To that list, I'll add lazy or ignorant. I think it's generally better to try to de-escalate conflicts, than to escalate them. I also think it's good to try to respect the pronoun preferences of BLP subjects, to the degree that we can find out those preferences from reliable sources. I also think that we can do that without trying to virtue-signal one's woke credentials. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You think I'm ridiculing all non-gendered people here, or just Lonsdale? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Both. GiantSnowman 21:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I was ridiculing non-standard English usage. But I guess you could block me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. but thanks for pointing out that I'm either lazy OR ignorant.

This is ANI, so there's no joking here, but if we were somewhere else, I'd say that you are both. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that Lonsdale has ever used "tree" as a pronoun outside of a single Instagram video from 2.5 years ago? On the contrary, there is evidence that Lonsdale does not in fact use the pronoun. Here, LGBT site PinkNews refers to "His welcomed casting announcement in Step Up". MTV also uses "his", etc. As noted above, so does Lonsdale's PR firm. Lonsdale also refers to self with male terms as noted above by Nihlus. The MOS' direction is meant to avoid misgendering and to show respect for people's gender, but we use common sense and what sources say when applying it. I don't think a possibly-nonserious social media post from years ago that reliable sources don't take as a serious pronoun preference means that we need to write the article as "Lonsdale...Lonsdale...Lonsdale..." According to policies, we are supposed to follow reliable sources, not act like we know better. Twitter people policing others' actions don't set our standard. EEng should have said some things differently, sure, but we need to keep this matter in perspective. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I think thst I shall never see
A poem as lovely as a tree DFO

Lonsdale has used the terms "man" and "boy" but has afaik not used either tree or any other pronouns (which is unsurprising given most people don't often talk about themselves in the third person). But we can't assume that because someone refers to themselves as a man, they use he/him pronouns (or vice versa). As I've explained on the talk page, I do not think avoiding the slightly awkward wording caused by not using pronouns is worth potentially using the wrong pronouns. Regardless, this is probably a conversation better had at the article talk page, since my post here is about EEng's BLPvios or personal attacks or whatever they were decided to be, not about their opinions on if the article ought to use pronouns, or which. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Food for thought: if EEng's comments were about some other BLP or situation where gender and neopronouns had nothing to do with it, would it have been a week-long block? I've seen ANIs dismissed as a mere content dispute for worse behavior than this. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Lonsdale in 2020: I felt like I had finally returned home to myself, the version of me that wasn’t here before. I tried to work so hard to change him, which we all can do in some ways. [36] gnu57 21:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And there it is. Proof positive. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• After reading EEng's statement above I read the entire talk page thread so I could see the offending statements in context. I think it's a reasonable interpretation that EEng was indeed ridiculing the Wikipedia editors who would try to use "tree" as a pronoun in a Wikipedia biography, and not the subject of that biography. In that light I think this is a bad block. ~Awilley (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree that it can reasonably be interpreted that way, but even so, are we not to avoid calling other editors lunatics, "affected dopes", etc.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  Where did he say that about any Wikipedia editor? After reading the reverted comment, he seemed to be speaking in a hypothetical sense. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I am referring to Awilley's comment. I don't think EEng was referring to Wikipedia editors at all (generally or specifically), as I've said I think they were referring to Lonsdale. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I can't possibly read it that way either. Lonsdale doesn't use tree as a pronoun, anyway, as we've now established. And this level of sensitivity about speech about a BLP is truly unprecedented. I see far worse about other BLPs all the time. Some BLPs get rallied around more than others, I gotta say. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I've done the same and I tend to agree. But I don't think "cretinism" and "dopes" were good word choices. A bit too non-standard perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Awilley. While the words still shouldn’t have been used against the editors, the block is about the sensitivity around a subject’s supposed use of neopronouns (per crossroads earlier comment). In its true context it wouldn’t normally have resulted in a block. DeCausa (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Support unblock DeCausa (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock per above - this is nothing but misunderstandings upon misunderstandings and there is no doubt in my mind that the volatile nature of the topic played a role in the reactions. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• From a review of the thread and EEng's history, he appears to enjoy sailing as close to the line as he possibly get and has a pattern of going over it, getting blocked, then backtracking and saying he didn't really mean it or the silly admin took his remarks out of context or a brigade of humourless editors is determined to rob him of his fun. He knew, or should reasonably have known, that his conduct wasn't appropriate; if he wasn't aware, GW very politely informed him and asked him not to repeat his edit; he belittled GW then reinstated the comment he'd been told was disruptive and a BLP violation. That got him a week off. A newish editor with a clean block log would have got 24–48 hours. EEng is neither new nor clueless, nor does he have an unblemished record; given the usual practice of escalating blocks, he gets a week. I strongly oppose any early unblock (to the point that I would have made the block a discretionary sanction if it weren't for the techinicality of alerts), and will seriously consider filing a request for arbitration against any admin who does so without a very clear consensus. Have your fun, by all means, but don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and don't have your fun on the talk pages of BLPs, whether directly at the subject's expense or not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  I realize you're dancing as fast as you can, but that's nothing but handwaving until you answer the challenge -- issued to you twice now [37][38], and twice ignored by you even as you were posting the above exercise in alternative reality -- to provide actual, specific diffs for my alleged BLP violation. Or maybe Gorilla Warfare can help you out with that? EEng 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) (Posted on EEng's behalf by nagualdesign)

  I linked them in the first ANI post. 04:35, 23 March 2021 and 00:57, 25 March 2021 are the two I would consider the actual violations, most of the other stuff was just rude. I can't speak for HJ, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Dear oh dear, what a shambolic waste of time! But since we're all here I'll throw in my two cents, and if anyone wishes to call me an enabler for doing so I'm fine with that. I read through Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale last night after seeing User talk:EEng#Please stop, then rolled my eyes and went to bed. It's disappointing to see that this nonsense has escalated to ANI. A few points:

1. Tree asked politely to be referred to by the pronoun "Tree" - That simply isn't true. To quote; I don't want to go by "he" anymore, I just want to go by "tree". [...] So, I think, like now, when people ask me what my preferred pronoun is, I'm going to say "tree". That is a statement, not a request and, as has since become evident, wasn't even entirely serious.
2. Please stop denigrating Lonsdale and those who use neopronouns - At no point did EEng denigrate those who use neopronouns. He clarified this multiple times on the Lonsdale talk page. It seems rather disingenuous to ignore those clarifications. What he did do, arguably a little too vociferously, was point out that "tree" is not a pronoun, and anyone who takes Lonsdale's flippant remark at face value is being rather credulous.
3. EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses may use neopronouns - This is specific to the accusation of BLP violation; at no point did EEng actually ridicule Lonsdale. He reasoned that Lonsdale was joking on the grounds that "of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope." In other words, EEng is saying that Lonsdale is not a dope. ...Please note that the section header has now been altered by GW "per Awilley's concern" (EEng's 'Scenario 4' has been proven), but it really ought to say, "..doesn't actually use neopronouns".
4. EEng is unblockable. Nothing is going to come out of this thread. - Ymblanter throws mud into the mix and 30 minutes later EEng is blocked. Am I the only one who finds this rather reactionary? Do we accept that EEng has actually been the victim of bad blocks in the past, or are we seriously just going to tott up the total and assume that that should add weight to the current procedings?
5. Ah, so we're currently at that point where we await EEng's fun band of enablers who make light of everything until the point that someone else can close the discussion as unproductive? - That particular tar brush is no more or less eggregious than EEng's alleged NPA violation(s). But ultimately, that sort of comment should be like water off a duck's back, much like EEng's colourful choice of words.
6. The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. - Bingo! It is not an English pronoun. If Wikipedia was to proceed as if it was we'd leave a lot of readers scratching their head, or worse, pissing themselves laughing that WP editors would be so credulous. We need people like EEng who are willing to put their neck on the line to stop that sort of nonsense in its tracks, since we appear to have enough editors who are all-to-quick to entertain it.

TL;DR - Support unblock. nagualdesign 23:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock - At the risk of being labeled part of "EEng's fun band of enablers" I can see where they are coming from and their statement supports that. Time to move on. PackMecEng (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Non-admin here, I don't think this block is helpful any longer. EEng should've posted their full explanation on the article talk instead of having to come around to it here, but I think it's obvious they were making a simple, legitimate point about commonsense use of pronouns within the context of standard English. But I'm glad to see the preview of the UCOC implementation is going smoothly ;). -Indy beetle (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock - I am disconcerted that HJM didn't accept EE's very reasonable explanation, and I see no way in which the block is in any respect "preventative" any longer. If EE is unblocked and picks up again -- which I highly doubt he would do, in my estimation -- than it's simple enough to block him again for a longer period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate". I tend to think EEng is more often the second kind, and that this case is more of the second kind. I don't know; maybe that makes me an enabler. But the WP:AGF explanation that EEng thought, maybe accurately, "surely this request for a pronoun was always intended as a joke and therefore it's ok to treat it as a joke" seems to have been repeatedly missed. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Well, the last episode (or was it the one before the last?) at ANI was with EEng saying to another user that what the user said was idiotic, and they avoided a block because their defenders said it is not a personal attack (a personal attack would be calling the opponent an idiot). They are obviously very skilled in insulting people without facing any consequences for this. Once they must be shown that if they continue behaving like this blocks are inevitable, and no defenders would help them. This is why I oppose unblock. They must sit it out and then move from the edge (or face the next block). Btw if we had a mandatory reconfirmation of administrators, just this remark would add me about twenty opposes, even though it has nothing to do with my use of admin tools.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  You are continuing to bear out what I said immediately above about repeatedly missing the AGF interpretation. We can finish the thought, in multiple different ways: "what the user said was idiotic, if intended seriously, so it must have been a joke", versus "what the user said was idiotic, so the person who said it must have been an idiot". The second of those two is a BLP violation, but was not said by EEng. The first of the two continuations is a valid explanation for why he treated it as a joke, and is not a BLP violation. If we were treating you the way EEng has been treated here, the next step would be to block you for your AGF violations after the issue of AGF has already been directly brought up, and demand that you apologize before being unblocked. But instead I think it might better to point out politely that this might all just be a misunderstanding that you are continuing to misunderstand. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I am sorry, I do not feel safe continuing this debate. I stop now.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Where, prior to HJMitchell calling it one in this thread, was EEng's comment ever called a BLP violation? GW called it unnecessarily insulting and it may be, but to editors and not the subject of the article. And after it was removed it was restored with slightly less severe unnecessary insults. I dont see how that merits a block. If GW had called it a BLP violation to begin with, explicitly, then sure, per WP:BLPRESTORE EEng should not have restored it. But she didnt. I dont think the slightly less insulting version merits a NPA block, and at least it has never been restored after being called a BLP vio, so unblock. We can argue over whether or not it is a BLP violation if EEng really wants to restore it after it was removed as one, but that hasnt happened yet so I dont really see the need to do so here. nableezy - 05:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – It is, in my view, appropriate that in the Keiynan Lonsdale article he is (currently) referred to as "Lonsdale" rather than "tree". There would be significant logistical problems using "tree" and what would happen if each week Lonsdale said that he/tree wanted to be known by a different neopronoun? Would the article have to be changed each week? Criticising the general notion of using "tree" as a pronoun on Wikipedia, without being insulting to Lonsdale, is a legitimate point for a Wikipedia editor to make. The logisitical problems of using "tree" as a pronoun on Wikipedia is an issue and I disagree with GorillaWarfare's suggestion that this is similar to a matter in 2019 which GorillaWarfare said is "proof that Wikipedia is not a welcoming place for trans people". Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock - I don't see why Ymblanter can !vote but I can't. Everyone can call us "Brigadier Levivich" and "Antibrigadier Ymblanter". Respecting people's preferred pronouns is important. The BLP subject's statement that everyone should use tree as a pronoun is not an expression of gender identity in my view, and it doesn't turn "tree" from a noun into a pronoun, in the same way as someone asking to use he/she/they (which should be respected). Singular they is an acceptable gender neutral pronoun, per dictionaries. I don't think it's a blockable offense to express these views. We are the encyclopedia anyone can edit; the dictionary anyone can edit is down the hall to the left. Edit warring and rudeness are not to be condoned, and I see plenty to roll my eyes about in this fiasco, but not enough to justify a week long full block. And I agree that E is the second type of editor in David's comment above. Over and out, Brigadier Levivich ^harass/_hound 06:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock I can't see where anyone has shown EEng "insulting a BLP subject after being asked to stop" (that's the block reason). I see the OP of this section and I read quite a lot of Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale but that only shows EEng insulting the idea that tree is a pronoun and should be used as such in the article. MOS:GENDERID is good but it's a guideline that gives no hint that an article must use tree due to a single Instagram post (reported here) with no real-world examples of anyone, including the subject's PR firm, using tree. Of course EEng overdoes it but this is the wrong incident to make that point. Johnuniq (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock I agree with others that this is not a BLP issue. Perhaps a tone it down issue but not a BLP issue. This feels somewhat like a topic where the moment someone cries -ism we aren't allowed to question and must punish. I guess that means I'm enabling the questioning of -isms. Springee (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Unblock EEng per nagualdesign's very clear, and accurate, analysis of the situation. Who is surprised that Wikipedia's court jester has been unfairly sanctioned for pointing out the obvious? EEng was not insulting Lonsdale, but was criticizing Wikipedia colleagues who didn't understand Lonsdale's statements. Decision to block EEng was rash and should probably face its own repercussions: a longstanding a highly valuable editor who's not engaged in obvious vandalism shouldn't be blocked without careful deliberation by the community. It's probably worthwhile noting that there's going to be a generational divide in how Wikipedia editors view these kinds of situations — something we'll all need to keep in mind for future incidents. -Darouet (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Good block; commute to time-limited page ban partial block - someone find me one source on "tree" pronouns, just one, published in a reliable source (not a celebrity gossip blog) after October 2018 or any reliable source from any time which seriously discusses the use of "tree" as a pronoun without being about Lonsdale, and I'll reconsider this comment: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and Lonsdale's proposed use of "tree" as a pronoun is literally made up. Lonsdale has not refined this choice beyond saying "I just want to go by 'tree'", nobody else has even attempted to define the use of "tree" as a pronoun, and Wikipedia does not invent things. If this was any other editor I would not have commented here at all, I would just be pushing the unblock button. EEng, though, has a very long and obviously intractible pattern of escalating and personalizing these disputes, which are sensitive enough in their nature without the pointless aggression. Their comments on this dispute are indistinguishable from trolling, and the more I see EEng instigating these disputes the more I to think that the trolling is the point. It's a good block, and admins shouldn't hesitate to block EEng for longer when (not if) this happens again. He's already said he doesn't mind. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Partially struck because I literally forgot that partial blocks are a thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Good block, do not unblock: the point is not that any single edit by EEng is egregious, but that they are consistently below the tone expected per BLP, as they have been since at least this discussion on the same subject at the end of January. I don't understand why EEng thinks this is worth their valuable time, rather than dropping the stick and moving onto something that improves the encyclopedia. A week's block with threat of further escalation from there sends the message that it will certainly not be worthwhile for EEng to continue. A day's block sends the message that continuing unchanged will not have meaningful consequences. — Bilorv (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Keep blocked Comments like "I care little about being blocked, as most people know, since it's one of the hazards of the job.”[39] suggest that the subject of the block does not understand that blocks are serious and believes that they can be disregarded, shortening their block would seem to only reinforce this understanding. Their behavior during these proceedings also raised civility and battleground issues, I don’t understand why they insist on insulting and belittling people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  If Lonsdale himself now uses the pronoun he, how do we know that he doesn't himself think the tree idea is (or was) "idiotic"? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I think you meant to place this response in another section, I never even mentioned any of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I meant it here thanks, in response to your comment about "insulting and belittling people." But maybe I've misundestood who you think EEng was insulting and belittling. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You have correctly diagnosed the misunderstand, I meant insulting and belittling wikipedia editors and groups at large after the serious discussion began not the original BLP issue. Examples:

"fey pretension” "your comment shows you didn't actually read the discussion on the article's talk page” "If other people want to invest their mental energy in referring to their friends by tree or bunny pronouns [156], that's also not my business.” "my disdain is for those” "we have editors so focused on falling all over themselves in the RIGHTGREATWRONGS department that they can't see the forest for the, um, trees.” "I care little about being blocked, as most people know, since it's one of the hazards of the job.” "I'm getting pretty fucking sick and tired of your continuing to say that my, er, criticism was directed at the subject of the article.” "dancing as fast as you can” “nothing but handwaving” "and twice ignored by you even as you were posting the above exercise in alternative reality”

Either thats not ok or the line most of us think we’re toeing isn’t even close to the real line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifyng. I don't have a problem with most of that "banter". But then I wasn't the target and perhaps I'm too thick-skinned. But at least two of those comments go a bit too far for me. Whether they justify a week's block, I'm just not sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Right block, wrong reason. EEng did not in any genuine way violate BLP. But he absolutely violated NPA. I think that the place to start from, when thinking about this dispute, is that gendering and misgendering is a very significant and serious issue for LGBTQ+ people, and comes from some very real suffering, and that obligates Wikipedia to treat it respectfully. EEng argued at the article talk page to use the non-gendered "they", but not to use "tree" in Wikipedia's voice. He never said, nor ever really implied, that Lonsdale commented about "tree" out of any kind of bad reason, such as stupidity or the like. EEng argued that Lonsdale should be treated by editors as intelligent and self-aware, and therefore, editors should not take Lonsdale's statement about "tree" as a serious reason to use the word "tree" in Wikipedia's voice. This is an argument that, understandably, can push other editors' buttons: but what if "tree" really, seriously, is the preferred pronoun? It's false to construe EEng's comments as meaning that EEng thinks that Lonsdale was stupid because of seriously wanting to be called "tree".

So why did so many good-faith editors find it unthinkable that EEng was doing anything other than disparaging Lonsdale? Exactly because the issue of misgendering is such a sensitive one. Editors on both "sides" of the content dispute felt deeply and emotionally invested in the dispute. And EEng took it a step too far, by very blatantly calling the belief that "tree" should be used in Wikipedia's voice some very insulting things. And when GW reverted him, he restored the insulting comments, with obviously insincere strike-throughs. Those were personal attacks against other editors, but not attacks against Lonsdale. It wasn't a BLP violation. It was an NPA violation that got twisted into WP:CRYBLP.

But the block should stand, and run its course. A block can be flawed without being so flawed as to require unblocking. EEng has long had a problem getting the message that, just because he realizes (usually correctly!) that other editors are doing something wrong, that does not entitle him to ridicule those editors. He really does need to get that message. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this analysis is pretty close to the mark. I think that EEng will not get the right message if he is unblocked early, as has happened so often in the past. If the block is serving a purpose, it should stay, even if NPA should have been given in the block log instead of BLP.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock per others (especially nagualdesign) above. Also I'm actually amazed at the fact there are people who are unironically arguing we should indeed use the "tree" pronoun in the article (it is lunacy). The fact that there are no pronouns at all makes the article a bad read, but I can at least compromise and accept that. — Czello 17:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• comment Tryptofish has put it well. I like EEng. I used to think him funny. But the humor in his posts has been replaced by meanness/cruelty. It is no longer (if it ever was) overly sensitive, butt-hurt users complaining because he took the piss out of them. The hurtfulness has reached an unacceptable level of non collegial behavior. And whatever positive effects his mockery might have had in driving home a point has been lost in the meanness. It has become counter productive as a rhetorical tool and has (seemingly) become meanness for its own sake. Unblocked or not, he needs to reflect on this. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I feel the need to clarify that, in my opinion, the cruelty isn't as bad as how you describe it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  EEng commented somewhere on his talk page that he intended to give a "short, sharp shock" ([40]) to the editors who wanted to respect Lonsdale's stated gender expression, misguided though they may have been (as it seems Lonsdale himself has retracted that statement). "Shock", of course, implying that EEng intended to provoke an emotional reaction over users' closely-held beliefs over a very sensitive issue (you described this much better than I can). Cruelty is precisely the word to use for this, whether that was EEng's intent or not.

I've said a variation of this comment before: I truly believe that EEng is a smart person, is capable of grasping how this incident was a misstep, and is capable of taking on these comments and addressing this situation more respectfully in the future. However, what EEng has repeatedly demonstrated he does not understand (or that he doesn't care) is that his many followers are not so capable, and will follow his cruel example. Several have commented that they thought it was funny. There are only two solutions to this: the much preferable one is that EEng finally takes some shred of accountability for this and sets a better example. The other involves a lot of pushing of the block button. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I consider myself a close wiki-friend of EEng, but in that regard, let me suggest to his fellow "followers" that you take a look at WP:USTHEM. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And by the way, that's part of why I'm not seeing a genuine consensus here to unblock (also notavote, etc.). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he is a smart person. Trouble is, now and then, he's a bit too smart. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it was for the wrong reason. If you are ridiculing and mocking an idea that can be attributed to a living person (in this case Lonsdale), where that idea originated from, then yes, you are ridiculing and mocking that person as well. If an editor believes that content is not suitable for inclusion in an article, then make your point without resorting to ridicule and mockery of an idea that is obviously associated with a living person. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• We're talking about a user who was first blocked in 2014, and has managed to get blocked at least once a year, every year since then. And it seems tht each time there is an element that wants it reduced to "time served". I have never bought that as an argument. A block isn't a prison sentence, and without assurances that this disruption won't be annually visited upon the community in perpetuity I see no cause to reduce the block length from the rather modest one week, which is pretty lenient for someone's fourteenth block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock. Be it for BLP or NPA reasons, EEng's block was correctly imposed (although I tend to follow the BLP school of thought). I hope that after the block expires, EEng will take to heart what their close colleagues like Okra are saying. I would also add that I completely agree with Beeblebrox's reasoning. "Time served" is a strange concept, and I don't think I've seen it used with such a great frequency. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• From the Department of Hasn't He Suffered Enough: Right wing news media in the US are taking up this en-wiki dispute as a supposed example of cancel culture, or something like that (linked to elsewhere on-site, I won't link to it here). Anyone who knows about EEng's political views should see this as truly hilarious! EEng is being heralded as a champion of Trump-world. And that's a far worse punishment for EEng than anything anyone can do here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Unfortunately that particular publication has decided to give a platform to a banned user with a grudge list, and I am one of the editors on that list. I am always sorry to see when other editors are named in pieces that that author uses to further his own personal axe grinding; it is extremely unpleasant to be targeted by that particular "news" publication and its readerbase. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Please let me make it very, very clear that I share your view that such publications are despicable. I agree entirely that the kind of stuff that has been directed at you is deplorable, and I have nothing but sympathy and well-wishes for your experiences. My seeing humor in those publications reflects my seeing a total lack of self-awareness in them. And just maybe, we have identified something where you, I, and EEng, find ourselves agreeing in our disapproval of that part of the media universe. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Unblock - for all the reasons stated above. Atsme 💬 📧 23:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Leaving aside, for the moment, the other bad things EEng may have done, the block reason is given as BLP violations, in particular "insulting" an LP, so I would like us to focus on that here. And as the following question, asked elsewhere of the blocking admin, has so far gone unanswered I would like to repeat it here:

@HJ Mitchell: Since one important issue here seems to be whether EEng's criticism was directed at the subject of the article, and so possibly a BLP violation, something EEng specifically denies above, are there diffs that, in your view, show that he did?

Above GorillaWarfare has said that the two diffs, which in GorillaWarfare's view are BLP violations are these:

• 04:35, 23 March 2021 at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "If he really wanted to be called tree they'd be calling him that, but of course he doesn't want that because it would make him sound like an affected dope."
• 00:57, 25 March 2021‎ at Talk:Keiynan Lonsdale "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously. I may want to be referenced by the pronoun Lordthygod but if people don't do that it's not transphobia or any other kind of phobia. I keep returning to the idea that this may be a grand hoax along the lines of the Sokal affair, designed to test how credulous Wikipedia editors can be."

In my view, neither of these are insults directed at Lonsdale. The first seems to express, in fact, a somewhat positive view of Lonsdale, that in EEng's opinion Lonsdale is the kind of person who would not want to sound like an "affected dope". In the second—since it is obvious that EEng does not think that Lonsdale seriously wants to be called "tree", that in fact the whole thing is, in EEng's opinion, a "grand hoax"—none of the words "lunacy", "stupid", "Cretinism" or "Idiotic" can refer to Lonsdale. So I think it is obvious that there is no BLP violation here. So unless there are other more damning statement made by EEng, EEng should be unblocked. Paul August ☎ 12:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - on the BLP issue, the sources that covered Lonsdale's Instagram live Q&A, [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], didn't take the approach of describing Lonsdale or his comments as: a "whimsical ha-ha", or "talking out of his ass" or that his comments would "make him sound like an affected dope", nor do they say, "The idea that tree is a pronoun is, bluntly, idiocy". And since it was Lonsdale's idea that tree is a pronoun he wanted to go by, it's obvious that EEng is making a dig at Lonsdale and his idea as being, bluntly, idiocy, and also making a dig at Lonsdale's opinion on neopronouns, by saying it would make him sound like an affected dope. These comments by EEng were not related to making content choices, or he would have kept his argument confined to policies and guidelines, instead he chose to make digs in relation to Lonsdale's ideas and opinions. And it doesn't make any difference if it's patently obvious that he made no such choice; Lonsdale is still entitled to express his opinions and ideas about neopronouns without editors offering a running commentary that is offensive and insulting. Good lord, if EEng is so easily frustrated by "that idea", and his disdain is for those who keep insisting that we actually refer to Lonsdale as tree in his article, the correct course of action would have been to walk away and let someone else handle the matter, he didn't do that and doesn't seem to acknowledge that he should have done exactly that. And quite frankly what is really insulting, is the idea that some editors have expressed here in this thread, and EEng on the talk page, is that Lonsdale's article would have actually used tree as a pronoun to describe him, just because a few rogue editors showed up and changed the pronouns due to an obscure and non-notable tweet. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• This comes across as just playing word games. Fundamentally, if you state that a person's idea is "lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism. No words can properly capture how idiotic the idea is, not to mention how idiotic it is to take the concept seriously" then the reality is that you are attacking the person. Sure, it is worded as being attack on an idea, but most readers will (rightly) read that as also an attack on the person who came up wth the idea. Let's not lawyer this to death. - Bilby (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But, it seems to be that EEng's opinion was that it wasn't Lonsdale's idea that is "lunacy", rather it is the idea of some Wikipedia editors that Lonsdale was being serious which was "lunacy", so I still don't see this is attacking Lonsdale. Paul August ☎ 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd accept that, but the wording quoted above was "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism.". That was an idea proposed by the subject. I understand the wish to defend a respected editor, but fundamentally if you say to someone that their idea is lunacy (or worse, cretinism) then aren't you saying something about them as well, as they are the originator of the idea? I just feel that the "they said the idea was stupid, not the person who proposed it" has merit, but not when it went this far. If that was written about an idea I'd proposed, I'd feel affronted. I suspect that many others would feel the same. - Bilby (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Is it an insult to Jonathan Swift that I think eating children is a dumb idea? Because he had that idea. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Mr Swift was a satirist. He didn't go around calling himself a tree? ("I shall be like that tree", he once said, "I shall die at the top.") Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If EEng wanted to die in a tree, he should have waited until next weekend. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Paul August. I can’t see the “playing with words” point. He was clearly ridiculing the IP who wanted to to use tree not Lonsdale. (I don’t buy that he was ridiculing just the concept, it was clearly directed at the IP - for being a “credulous Wikipedia editor” - as well as the concept.) The whole tone and force of it, as well as the literal words on the page, are crying out (in terms): “It’s obvious Lonsdale wasn’t serious and anyone who thinks he was is an idiot”. But it’s HJ Mitchell that needs to comment. DeCausa (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) While I don't agree that "EEng wasn't calling Lonsdale an idiot/dope/lunatic/stupid/cretin, they were calling Wikipedians that", even if it is true that is still unacceptable behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Well yes, calling Wikipedians that is (of course) not good. But that is not the stated block reason. And as I asked above, can we please focus in this section on BLP issues? Paul August ☎ 13:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

GW, the identity of that IP editor remains unknown (of course). What is your view on the possibility of a Sokal affair situation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the identity of the IP editor is relevant; IPs are Wikipedians too.

You mean the possibility that Lonsdale made the statement about pronouns solely to see if RS and/or Wikipedia would begin using those pronouns? That seems very unlikely to me. Lonsdale is a part of the LGBTQ community, and trying to convince publications to use neopronouns that you don't genuinely use would be seen by many in the LGBTQ community to be transphobic. While being a part of the LGBTQ community doesn't eliminate the possibility that he's trolling (certainly there are LGBT people who engage in trolling, and there are transphobic members of the LGBTQ community), he doesn't appear to have exhibited other behavior that would suggest he is prone to either of those things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the IP's other four Wikipedia edits seem to have been good ones, so we have to give them the benefit of the doubt, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC) p.s. did somone ask the IP if they were offended by EEng's language?

@GorillaWarfare: Could you clarify your original reply to me? Are you saying even if I were right, EEng should still have been blocked i.e. even if it wasn’t ridiculing a BLP because of the supposed neopronoun? That’s really puzzling if that’s what you’re saying. It’s obviously not good behaviour, but a week’s block? If it’s not, I don’t understand the relevance. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Right: Either they were ridiculing a BLP (as I believe), or they were making personal attacks against other editors (as you and others have suggested). Both are blockworthy, particularly from an experienced editor. Whether the latter would've (or should've) landed them a week-long block, I don't know and it's not my place to say, but the suggestion that "they shouldn't have been blocked because they did [X blockworthy thing], because they really did [Y blockworthy thing]" seems odd to me. If you simply meant that the block should've been shorter if they were making personal attacks rather than attacking a BLP, I suppose that's at least an understandable argument, although, again, not one I agree with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Got it. I think most would say that in context (and without the BLP/neopronouns) what EEng said might earn a reprimand but not a block, but thanks for answering. DeCausa (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• I said yesterday that this edit was ill-advised and reminded me of a non-apology apology, that might have been worth a short block if it disrupted conversation. However, I think he's served enough time now and, unless he's got any grudges to bear, we should unblock. Although, EEng has quite happily said he'll sit the block out. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) "The idea that tree is a pronoun is lunacy. It's stupid. Cretinism" could be taken as an attack on both the originator of the idea, Lonsdale, and the Wikipedia IP editor who wants to include it. As Serial Number 54129 said right at the beginning of this thread, the two are intertwined. Once the comment was removed and a request to stop made on his talk page, EEng should not have restored it. A block for that behaviour was within administrator discretion.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• There seems to be suggestion that the first removal should have been accompanied by a clear warning that it was a BLP violation. But then, elsewhere in this thread, there seem to be a few instances where folks have said "EEng oughta know this". There seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Proposal: It seems to me that there is a considerable majority of opinion that there was no BLP violation (rough consensus even?). So, since the stated block reason is BLP violations, I'm inclined to unblock. If another admin chooses to block again with some other reason that's up to them. (In my opinion EEng has been guilty of extreme rudeness, but I don't know whether a further block is warranted or useful. I generally think there are more effective ways to persuade editors to be nice to each other.) Are there serious objections to my unblocking? Is there a consensus to support this? Paul August ☎ 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: I suggest ("seriously") that you leave the weighing of such a delicate consensus to an experienced administrator. Might be for the best all round. Cheers, ——Serial 16:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: As for experience, I've been an admin for 16 years. I was an arb, and I've been a functionary (or the equivalent) for 14 years. Is that not experienced enough? Paul August ☎ 16:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, perhaps an admin who has done all or some of those things (and what is the "equivalent" of a functionary?) in the last decade would be a Brucie Bonus. Cheers, ——Serial 17:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: My "or equivalent" refers being an arb or ex arb during the period before functionary was technically a thing (c. 2009), in any case I've been a functionary as long as there have been any. The rest of your comment seems to be some sort of denegration of me, ironically (given the setting) something which most of us here in this thread (but not you?) agree is not helpful. Please don't do that. Paul August ☎ 17:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I think you are letting your opinion dictate the result, and that, as you probably know, results in a supervote. V poor! If wishes were horses, beggars could ride, you know? ——Serial 17:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I oppose unblocking with no further consequences, per my comment above. There's more to this than what was probably not a BLP violation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

When you say "Their comments on this dispute are indistinguishable from trolling", do you mean the comments EEng has asked other editors to be added to this thread, or something else? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm referring to the five comments linked with diffs in the original post. Did you mean to put your reply after that comment above rather than after this one? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ivanvector:, given that you think EEng probably did not commit a BLP violation, are you not concerned that, his block log says he did? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul August (talk • contribs) 17:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: pinging doesn't work unless you sign your edit. No, I'm not concerned about the precise terminology in the block log whatsoever, I'm concerned with stopping the bad behaviour. More on this below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah thanks. No I meant here, after you said "There's more to this than what was probably not a BLP violation." I can see why those comments might look like trolling. EEng often seems to be "on the up-escalator" when most others in a debate are already going down. And if someone tries, however politely, to ask him to "be quiet", he can over-react a little. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the question is whether we would tolerate someone who consistently over-reacted like that to polite and civil advice if they weren’t a senior editor. EEng seems to be able to get away with a lot, personally I like the guy and he hasn’t ever wronged me personally but I think the chorus of voices saying we have a double standard issue here is probably more right than they are wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, we have a chorus of voices saying he should be unblocked. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In no way does that answer the question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

In response to the "more to this" question from a few lines up, I mean pretty much what Tryptofish said in their comment in the main section. EEng entered a dispute over a sensitive topic on an article that happens to be a BLP, and whatever was the origin of the dispute, it came here because of EEng's uncivil behaviour and comments directed towards other users, as well as generally insensitive comments about the broader subject which is already a recurring issue for EEng. The block being marked as for BLP violations (which I agree was incorrect) is a side point and a deflection: the problem is that EEng made the comments at all. I don't give a fig what it says in the block log nor how long EEng stays blocked for; I care about putting an end once and for all to EEng and several editors like him responding to genuine discussions about gender and LGBTQ+ issues with trolling and personal attacks, and then whining about being blocked since their insensitive comments weren't directed at specific persons. I'm increasingly thinking, since EEng has stated they see these blocks as a "hazard of the job", that they should be blocked indefinitely until they make a commitment to avoid this happening again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the other instances of "trolling and personal attacks" at gender and LGBTQ+ topics. I guess that would be a separate admin action/ discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As am I. Diffs please, Ivanvector. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you agree with me in part, I want to disagree with your idea of a condition-based indef block. This sorry situation needs to deescalate, not look for ways to up the ante. I still think that letting the block remain and run its course is the best option. In particular, it never does any good to demand a commitment with a (metaphorically) pointed gun. EEng will either say OK in order to get unblocked or commit suicide-by-administrator, neither of which is a good outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well then we agree to disagree, I suppose. If by "this sorry situation" you mean the BLP's talk page, I concede it would be much better if users could just treat everyone with respect (you know, this old thing) but if they just won't, then removing them is a much less preferable but perfectly plausible solution. I'll do you one better though: I suggested above that this block should be converted to a page ban (I meant a partial block but apparently I've been away too long) for the original duration. But it also looks like EEng is doing everything he can to not learn anything from this, so IMO indef is on the table. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

By "sorry situation", I meant the dispute over what to do with the block, as discussed here at ANI. I don't think anyone would really have a problem with a block from just the one page, but if you see this as a systemic conduct problem, there is no reason to think that it won't move to another page, so there's probably no point. EEng is smarter than I think you are giving him credit for, and he's more likely to actually learn and do better if you don't push him up against the wall. I am sure that he is getting the message, if his wiki-friends are not bringing about an early end to the week-long block. And in any case, if we have multiple admins arguing that there may be a consensus to unblock now, you will find yourself in an uphill battle to argue for an indef. I'd rather not have a shouting match an argument between "unblock!" and "indef!" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a long thread so it's not necessarily safe to assume you've seen the comment from the blocking admin above. For what it's worth I do oppose unblocking, though I'm obviously not an uninvolved admin here, so weigh that how you will. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Let an uninvolved admin judge the consensus. It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest another admin could immediately re-block for a different reason, as that would effectively be wheel-warring and is not going to happen.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Surely the technical wheel-war issue can be got around? I'm saying that I won't consider another admin choosing to block for a different reason other than BLP violation to be "Reinstating a reverted action" of mine, so not wheel-warring by definition. Or if we can gain a consensus for a new block with different stated reasons. Then I would be willing to make that block, which would also seem to avoid a WW. Paul August ☎ 18:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Any kind of admin-vs-admin action here will just escalate the situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Gott im Hiimmell. Paul August, you've been here long enough to know not to suggest such a thing. That's why the strictures are so strict and the aversion to even reversing an admin action so strong. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an extraordinarily bad idea, no matter what one thinks of the block. Brainstorming ways to end-run the wheel warring policy right on ANI... that is special. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Indeed. Well said! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: @Deepfriedokra: No, you've both misunderstood me. I'm saying we can do what I've proposed without WWing. My unblock would not be WWing. And a new block could be done also without WWing (via discussion and consensus). So no "end-run" here. Paul August ☎ 11:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Evaluating consensus to unblock EEng

I dispute, in the strongest possible terms, the idea that there must be a "very clear consensus" here before an unblock, or else HJ Mitchell will bring the unblocking admin to ArbCom. HJ Mitchell has made it clear that this is not a DS block (although he wished he could have done one, which is fine). It is not OK to demand the same higher level of consensus required to overturn DS sanctions when it is not a DS sanction. And there is an extreme chilling effect on an admin reviewing this, finding that there is a "normal" consensus to unblock, but not doing so because of the threat of being dragged to ArbCom because it isn't at that heightened level of consensus. This is not a moot point, because I think there is a "normal" consensus to unblock (or reduce to time served, I haven't looked at this in depth to see which). I consider this issue a much bigger deal that EEng being a jerk on a talk page, and if there is a consensus to unblock, it is not fair to EEng to keep them blocked in order to not "escalate the situation". If an admin sees a consensus to unblock here, they should unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"extreme chilling effect ". You bet your sweet Aunt Bippy. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about whether it's "very clear" or just "clear", and I agree that HJ does not have the power to declare unilaterally that the policy for unblocking is different here than it is otherwise. But I'm not seeing a community consensus, one way or the other. Clear, cloudy, hazy, or whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that asssessment. Personally, I think EEng should be unblocked, because I didn't read the quoted diffs as BLP violations, since I, too, think the suggestion to use 'tree' as a pronoun was meant lightheartedly, not necessarily mockingly, but not really dead-seriously either. I don't think, however, that I can change the minds of those who support this block. Maybe I can persuade EEng to concede that it's not always about being right, and that being right isn't a license to go on and on in a quarrelsome fashion when faced with resistance to the argument by other estabished editors. A couple of months ago there was a long exchange between EEng and another argumentative editor, and it was a basically a contest about who's the smartest person in the room, and it was unproductive. Anyway, no need to concede to that, but maybe acknowledge the subtext (as well as explicit text) of this discussion. Maybe that will allow for a sooner unblock. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't had much to do with EEng, so so I don't know if this is part of a wider pattern. But this is the second issue I've seen with EEng's editing this week - the first was when EEng dropped a video that seemed to be making fun of people for their sexual preferences in a discussion with on ANI [48]. EEng did explain that this was a mistake, and it was intended for a different discussion - and I fully believe that was the case. However, my concern was EEng's response - reinstating the video but striking it out (was it necessary to keep it in?) and attacking those who took offence: [49] even after they tried to politely de-escalate the issue [50]. There was a similar response here - when faced with concerns from other editors, Eeng seemed to dig in rather than finding a way to de-escalate. I'm not worried about whether there is consensus to unblock or not, but we've all seen the path that Eeng's actions take editors down, and it would be nice if Eeng found a way to get off that path before we get there. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't delete a page because there wasn't a "very clear consensus" to keep it. We leave the page alone in its natural (undeleted) state. We don't move a page because a move discussion didn't have a strong consensus against moving it. We keep the status quo. If somebody jumps the gun by deleting or moving the page before the discussion is complete, we don't leave their action in place if the discussion lacks a clear consensus. We restore the status quo ante. The natural state of an editor is to be unblocked. If a quorum of administrators can't muster a consensus that a single admin's block is necessary, the blocked editor should be restored to their status quo (unblocked) state. (Note however that if a consensus of administrators finds that an editor should be blocked, it does require a clear consensus to later overturn that new status quo.) The exception to this is Discretionary Sanctions, but that's the exception, and this was not a DS block. ~Awilley (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• The consensus to unblock is obvious. I have unblocked. Bishonen | tålk 03:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC).

• Brigand Likes. El_C 04:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• If you didn't, I would have. The consensus to unblock was clear, but even if it was debatable, a blocking admin does not get to issue preemptive threats that their blocks are not to be overturned by a community consensus, as read by an uninvolved admin, unless the consensus meets their own standard for being "clear" enough. Hell no. Shocking, chilling, authoritarian, borderline abusive conduct coming from HJ, who we all know knows better. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Atsme 💬 📧 00:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• moving forward, how about adding a warning to the user page that they should never be blocked. ~ cygnis insignis 05:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that would be appropriate, but see my post just below. EEng 12:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Post-game analysis

• I've just undone Ivanvector's close since I don't think the close comment is an accurate description of the discussion. Can we please have a Non-POV closure? Paul August ☎ 12:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  A good close might combine David Eppstein's observation above...

  In some cases "unblockable" has meant "behaves inappropriately but has too many supporters to keep blocked". But in some cases it may mean "repeatedly triggers others to behave with inappropriate authoritarianism and is unblocked when it becomes apparent that the authoritarianism was inappropriate".

  ... with one made by Iridescent elsewhere [51]:

  EEng in particular [has] been repeat victims of a known flaw in Wikipedia's dispute-resolution mechanism, owing to there being no easy way to flag "not actionable"; a hundred admins can see a comment and deem it non-problematic, but if one admin deems the comment problematic they can block on the spot. The platonic ideal of such an incident—complete with the obligatory admin wagon-circling—is probably the block documented here.)

  And finally, it's a little disconcerting to see the number of admins commenting above who don't know how to read a block log. I've been blocked 15 times now. The first was six years ago, by an admin pissed off at my criticism of him (seen here), and the second was by the same admin, still butthurt that that his beloved bot wasn't allowed to keep breaking an article [52]. Then there's one joke block and nine overturned blocks. That leaves three blocks that I probably deserved, in thirteen years of editing. I'm not ashamed.

  EEng 12:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, what do you think of Choess' observation further up the second discussion, regarding gadflies and errors in judgment? Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  EEng: Perhaps your lack of shame is part of the problem. That you've behaved in a way that has engendered "nine overturned blocks" does not speak well of you. Paul August ☎ 14:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Nine overturned blocks is a sign of someone who pisses off admins but not the larger community. I'm not sure what to make of that, though I think it speaks worse of the nine admins than of E. But of course I would say that. Over and out, Brigadier Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Considering that @Bishonen: was the one who unblocked and decided that consensus to unblock is obvious, they should have closed the discussion and provided a rationale for their unblock. Of course I guess anyone is free to close the discussion. Personally, I liked Ivanvector's close, made perfect sense, even if it was a POV close. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I would have liked to hear a little more than "I've unblocked." And judging by EEng's responses so far, there is unlikely to be any self-reflection and we'll all be here again in a few months. P-K3 (talk) 14:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and not that it makes any difference now, since he is unblocked, but after re-reading this entire thread, and all of the comments and genuine concerns expressed, it doesn't appear that the consensus was obvious, at least to me. It looks more like no consensus. I do hope the eventual closer will address the issues raised here in this thread though, just so the community can have clarity. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As misconceived as it was, I bet I wasn’t the only one that was disappointed to see the non-admin closure reverted. But this carcass needs a funeral director/mortician (depending on your ENGVAR). DeCausa (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

One of these, perhaps? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The closing comment by Usedtobecool seemed appropriate and NPOV. (For those who missed it: [53]) Are non-admin closures forbidden at ANI? Is that what you mean by "As misconceived as it was"? nagualdesign 20:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose there was nothing necessarily wrong with it but I think non-admin closures of drama-sinks are generally thought unwise (e.g. WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC, an essay). DeCausa (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. Cheers. nagualdesign 21:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The opinions were roughly 2:1 in favor of an unblock by my count, that's a pretty clear and obvious consensus in my opinion. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• So the guy who thought he'd preempt community discussion by imposing a unilateral block, then threatened to sic Arbcom on his fellow admins in a desperate attempt to avoid being overturned, somehow decides he's the right guy to close the discussion. Now that's chutzpah! But given the circumstances the impulse to avert further scrutiny is certainly understandable.
  EEng 03:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. There were a number of thoughtful points made (in this thread and elsewhere) – by friends, foes, and those in between – that have gone unanswered because of other pressures (and, of course, having both hands tied behind my back for most of the discussion didn't help). I hope to get to them in the fullness of time. All are welcome on my talk page for further collegial reflection and fearless self-examination.
  P.P.S. Somewhere along the way someone changed this thread's title from "EEng ridiculing a BLP who uses neopronouns" to the more tentative "EEng ridiculing a BLP who may use neopronouns". In light of Talk:Keiynan_Lonsdale#Lonsdale_uses_"him", let me suggest someone now change it to "EEng ridiculing the idea of insisting on calling someone tree who doesn't want to be called tree".
• @Swarm: - And by the way, that's part of why I'm not seeing a genuine consensus here to unblock: The opinions were roughly 17 good block/oppose unblock to 14 support unblock. That's not a pretty clear and obvious consensus in my opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Nobody is entirely happy". Quelle surprise. But getting a horse into a coffin is a neat trick. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: Just to be clear, when you wrote The opinions were roughly 17 good block/oppose unblock to 14 support unblock. I think you got those numbers the wrong way around. After careful re-reading, by my count it was 14 opposing unblock versus at least 18 supporting unblock (3 others appear to have supported unblocking without explicitly stating it), which is roughly 2:1 in favor of an unblock, as Swarm stated (Edit: Sorry, no, that's roughly 3:2. My bad). I realize that consensus isn't necessarily about totting up !votes, and perhaps non-admins such as myself don't count (?), but you meant to write "The opinions were roughly 14 good block/oppose unblock to 17 support unblock", right? Sorry to keep bludgeoning the carcass! nagualdesign 17:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't get those numbers the wrong way around. You said - 3 others appear to have supported unblocking without explicitly stating it; There were also comments that appeared to oppose unblocking without explicitly stating it (5 by my count). And I didn't even include GorillaWarfare (the filer) or HJ Mitchell (blocking admin) as being opposed to unblocking, I just assumed their actions would speak for themselves. I'd also note that I did not count Atsme's !vote because it was made after Bishonen had already unblocked. However you slice and dice the numbers and comments and/or opinions expressed, I still stand by my point that there was not a pretty clear and obvious consensus to unblock. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, somebody should have closed this, but... An irony that really needs to be pointed out, because it reflects in a very serious way upon how blocks should be issued, is that one of the justifications for the block, given at the time, is that what EEng did could bring disrepute to Wikipedia. And yet... what actually happened is that the block is what attracted attention from the outside world. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• This was closed properly by an uninvolved editor, but that close was undone. Perhaps this is a good time to remind everyone that WP:BADNAC is an essay that doesn't have global consensus, while there has been global consensus, for over eight years now, that a NAC shouldn't be reversed simply because it was made by a non-admin. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This is perhaps a good time to remind people that a close on an admin board must be more than uninvolved, it must reflect consensus. It did not, so it was a bad close. Anyone who can't see that needs their brains tested. ——Serial 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I must admit I was expecting an uninvolved admin close that included the phrase "EEng is strongly reminded... " or similar. Perhaps HJ Mitchell felt too compromised to do this, as he was 100% involved? But folks do get fed up after days of argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal Threats by user:Jledsham

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

I reverted Jledsham's edits on The Secret (treasure hunt) due to him not providing a reliable source. He then posted this message, threatening to take legal action if I revert his edits. Eridian314 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I see DFO has left a warning on their page. I know a lot of people like to block on sight, but let's give the warning a chance to sink in first. Eridian314, hopefully this doesn't count as "chilling discussion" because you know how pointless and silly the vague rumbling about "slander" was. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I gave them an NLT warning and some other education. We will see if/how they respond. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think we should have an educational page telling people the difference between slander and libel. Happens so often, and nothing on Wikipedia can be slander by the definition. Canterbury Tail talk 18:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I prefer the jurisdictions that just lump them together into "defamation", myself. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See the misleading case of Chicken v. Ham, in which the question of whether a gramophone recording was slander or libel made its tortuous way up to the House of Lords; where, unfortunately, the fifth of Their Lordships on the panel expired just as he was about to pronounce judgment; so leaving the question undecided. The distinction between slander and libel, which originated in a dispute in England between the church and the common law courts, is irrelevant in all modern jurisdictions. Narky Blert (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't forget, however, that in Silvertop v. Stepney Guardians, a man who trained his parrot to say three times after meals "Councillor Wart has not washed today" was found guilty of libel. RolandR (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing deletion template

• Asif Altaf Khan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Faisalceaser90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 103.97.161.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has been repeatedly removing the CSD template from Draft:Raju Ahmed using various IPs and account, despite multiple warnings. The article was initially created in mainspace by Afif Bashar which i had to WP:A7 tag as there is no indication of importance. Faisalceaser90 removed the deletion tag moving it into draftspace. I instead of reverting their edits (which would reinstate the deletion tag and move article back to mainspace) tagged the draft for deletion as it sounds promotional and appears to have been created by the subject himself or someone close to him. Which they keep removing from IPs and sock account.[54][55][56]--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Umakant Bhalerao: You need to notify them on their talk page about this ANI discussion. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Have notified them.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Faisalceaser90 recreated the draft this morning and Asif Altaf Khan created Raju Ahmed in mainspace and Faisalceaser90 has repeatedly removed the deletion tag, despite reverts from a variety of users including myself and warnings. Spiderone even opened a sock investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asif Altaf Khan.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• The user has been given final warning against removing the deletion tag. Yet they persist in removing it. Deepfriedokra, Oshwah could you please have a look at it and take appropriate action. Thank you.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Raju Ahmed has been deleted again and salted. Asif Altaf Khan blocked as promotional spam only account. If people think blocks need to be moved around for sockpuppetry etc, feel free no need to consult, tidy as you see fit. Canterbury Tail talk 13:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I indeffed Faisalceaser90 as well. Blatantly not here. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Frank6292010

Persistent disruptive editing; falsely accusing me of unconstructive edits. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC) @Mvcg66b3r: Difs please. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: These two (look at the edit summaries): [57] [58] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your accusing me that the problem! Frank6292010 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Now he's attacking me on my talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I've warned them, and you need to back away too. Neither of you "own" anything on WIkipedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

IP talk page disruption

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

---

New IP user 92.0.241.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) making personal attacks [59] and advocating genocide ("If a population of a country is largely white, then the white portion must be purged"). [60] Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a week per NOTHERE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Unexplained & disruptively edit

Belevalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can someone warn this user? Even though dozens of editors warn this user User:Belevalo. He/She continues to unexplained & disruptively editing on infoboxes even without source. Not to mention personal insults..Cengizsogutlu (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cengizsogutlu: You need to notify them of this ANI discussion on their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User warned. Their talk page has numerous warnings on disrupive mass removal of content, and there is a previous ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Behavior_by_User:Belevalo, but please provide diffs that show the accusations in question. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hold on... I found evidence of personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey (last diff by user, on February 8). The linked discussion, as well as a previous one specifically naming Sabbatino (talk · contribs) like it's an ANI fork, involves Belevalo accusing Sabbatino of [d]eleting usefull [sic] information they added on National Hockey League articles, despite others pointing out that the content they added is already adequately summarized and linked to further information. Then, at Aljamain Sterling between March 7–9, they restored a redundant clause more than once (1, 2, 3). And their user talk links directly to this diff on March 10, whose edit summary contains a personal attack and, yup, is another edit war. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Admin whitewashing, attacking RSes, and violating BRD (KHive)

Hello all,

CorbieVreccan, an admin, has acted in what I feel is a very unprofessional and unbecoming manner at the page KHive and associated Talk page. They have removed all direct references to allegations of harassment by KHive members, not once but twice, in violation of BRD [61] [62]. (I voluntarily am refraining from engaging in an edit war in this regard, but I have no doubt this user would cross 3RR if prompted. I have performed exactly one partial revert, including words such as "alleged" and "who?" templates that the user added, which was reverted by this user [63].) This material is cited to HuffPost, which has been determined by the community to be a reliable source source with no consensus on reliability re politics. Regardless, the user called the report "libelous" and wrongly stated that one of the named individuals, Bianca Delarosa, did not have a chance to respond [64]. They later said various "intel reports," which had not been cited and which I could not find through some genuine research of my own, had contradicted the report, and that HuffPost is not reliable on issues of race [65] – that's only tangentially related to this specific issue, and is not the belief of the community at large per WP:HUFFPOST or, to my knowledge, anywhere else. To be clear, I have no issue with some of the edits made to better balance the article, including noting that examples of harassment are "alleged", noting that the alleged targets were primarily Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren supporters, and including the response via Twitter from Bianca Delarosa. I have, in fact, noted my willingness to better balance the article on the Talk page [66]. However, mass removal of sourced content with accusations of libel, belligerence both in reverting and on the Talk page, and unfounded statements saying that the report has been debunked are, suffice it to say, not a level of professionalism that I would expect from an admin. I have started a discussion here from the advice given in WP:ADMINABUSE. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute. WP:BRD is not policy, just good practice. However, I don't see how the removed comment violates BLP (no individuals are named, and the comment appears to be centred around events on the site rather than around alleged perpetrators [who are not named in the source neither]). Neither the sentence nor the source are saying that Delarosa themselves wrote that content, as far as I can tell? Content does not appear to be libel. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Although, HuffPost appears to be NC for reliability for political topics, per WP:RSP. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's highly unacceptable to call a reliable source libelous on Wikipedia. Without evidence, that's pure POV-pushing. Libel is a written false statement, calling a reputable journalist "libelous" on Wikipedia is entering dangerous territory. All the more unacceptable coming form an admin. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  It actually isn't a reliable source in this context, afaict. The piece is explicitly political, and the community found no consensus on the reliability of HuffPost for political matters, and found it to be explicitly biased. Corbie probably could've chose a better word than "libel", but they're probably right in that the source is probably unsuitable to be used in that context. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Except the argument was not that there was no consensus for the Huffposts's reliability on political topics (which is a fair argument), it was that the article was "libelous" and "vile". CV alleged that a reporter was publishing objectively false claims with the intent of damaging the reputation of persons who were not even named. That is not only spurious, but dangerous for this project. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

As the OP, I want to follow up on this. I did not initially notice the division on HuffPost reliability between political and non-political subjects. However, I still think it is fairly obvious that, as Swarm says, accusations as major as libel should not be so freely flung on edit summaries and on the Talk page of an article; rather, that should be taken up higher (to a place like RS/N). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The threats and harassment described in the article, attributed to people who can not be confirmed to be members of the online group (KHive), are what I described as "vile". This comment was made on talk, not in article space. I think the piece in the HuffPo is potentially libelous, not solid journalism, and the person attacked in it has commented publicly that she is considering suing for libel. That's where the discussion of libel came in. The author of the HuffPo piece accused an entire online group of, yes, vile actions, based on some tweets by people that can't be proven to be part of the group. It's enough to say that the accusations, on both sides were made; the awful threats themselves do not need to be quoted and detailed, which is what Allegedly Human was insisting on doing, and reverting to preserve. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 17:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You have not once provided a reference to Delarosa's comments calling the article "libelous", nor insinuated before this point that anyone other than yourself was making those claims. To be clear, your comment was "It's libelous and shouldn't be on here." [67] Furthermore, even if the story is in fact libelous (which is an outrageous premise to accept with no evidence), we the editors could not know that or decide on that ourselves until a court does. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You really should respond in order, as these inserted comments confuse readers. The sources in the article link to Delarosa's response: "Since I doubt a retraction is forthcoming unless I involve lawyers,"and "Still considering involving lawyers," if it is not clear to you that her lawyers would be suing Vagianos and HuffPo for libel (and possibly damages, etc) I'm not sure how to explain it to you. It looks to me that you are not reading the sources. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse you yourself calling the article libelous, and even if she says it's libelous, it doesn't mean it is, especially given that she hasn't gone forward with a lawsuit and a court hasn't ruled on it. Here's that comment in full (from a tweet thread that another editor has now removed as OR): "Since I doubt a retraction is forthcoming unless I involve lawyers, as publications now appear to be entities set up to attack and abuse private citizens, I'll simply post all of the harassment and abuse I've received from that crew on medium, and let you be the Judge and Jury." If Delarosa is leaving this up to the court of public opinion, that's fine for her, but it's not enough for us to consider removing the claims made in the article because of it. But this has progressed past a content dispute or an argument over RSes; this is systematic political editing, WP:CENSORSHIP, and WP:OWNERSHIP, as I have noted later down in this thread. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I was going to come to ANI myself to ask for some additional, calmer eyes on Khive, as we now have another new user who is not only trying to add back in the inflammatory language about rape, gas chambers, and nazis, but is now trying to add non-RS, irrelevant content about Marianne Williamsons tweets comparing her political opponents to the Proud Boys.[68] *sigh* - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not responsible for the quoted content. We can have a calm discussion without resorting to these unwarranted personal attacks and meta-discussion of demeanor. I think that comments by candidates on other candidates' supporters are relevant, and there isn't any more to it than that. If you are willing, we can compromise by removing the example you mentioned while leaving the two others. Typeprint (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Williamson is no longer a candidate, for anything. Your edit inserted inflammatory language from a questionable source. There is no reason to have that language - which isn't proven to be associated with the group described in the article - in the WP article. It is more than sufficient that we link to the piece, as in the current version. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I intentionally avoided making such an assertion earlier, but given new developments I think it's become clear: this editor is obviously engaging with a motive aimed at shielding VP Harris and the KHive. These comments in edit summaries and on the talk page – outrage at how dare someone say such a thing – not only speaks to that but is utterly vapid otherwise of any discussion of policy, reasons for reverting, or generally why they think the content shouldn't be on the page [69] [70]. This new comment made above at ANI demonstrates that they think it is their duty as an editor to remove "inflammatory language," even ostensibly keeping in mind WP:CENSOR and the fact that a discussion is ongoing, and Talk page consensus has not been reached. They say they are aiming for WP:BALANCE [71], but so far are not willing to make any concessions when now two editors have expressed their concern about the article following their whitewashing. I was not viewing the page at that moment, and yet, theoretically, I again am prone to agree with the reversion – the new addition re Marianne Williamson is gossipy and has no evidence of larger significance, in my view. However, the reasoning provided behind it is not only rude (to a new editor, FWIW) and unclear, it is fundamentally incompatible with the goals of the project, as are the baseless accusations of libel and this edit summary, which despite a written, sourced, and documented report by a journalist, says "There is absolutely no evidence that the people who did these things, if they even happened, were part of this group; none." [72] AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• It is not reasonable to decorate an article to say a supporter of Sanders claimed someone from the Harris campaign said the supporter should be raped in a gas chamber. It's tarring-by-association (Harris has evil supporters so Harris is evil). Even if the source were solid-gold reliable, the anecdotes are untestable fluff. On the other hand, the current article says "there have been incidents of what some consider cyber-harassment"—that underlined text is rubbish. If the incidents are substantiated, it obviously is cyber-harassment, and if they're just claims it should read as "claims of incidents of cyber-harassment". I don't see where CorbieVreccan has used adminship so this really is a content dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Tweaked working accordingly. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The testability of the anecdotes is immaterial to the notability and relevance of the material to the topic at hand. It isn't always possible for reporters to go out and personally verify the identity on the end of every account, especially when the posts under scrutiny are often deleted when exposed to the disinfectant of sunlight, but people note the phenomenon and it becomes notable, so we get these articles. If a group of supporters is notable enough to have an article, then every aspect of their behavior is notable as well, not just the positive aspects, so the quotes should stay. Never before has a meta-discussion beyond the reliability of the source itself come into play for articles on supporters of other politicians, and it shouldn't now, unless we set up a guideline to address all such articles at once. Typeprint (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

So say there was cyber-harassment. However, it is not satisfactory to list unverified claims that an opponent's supporter said something evil with the wink to the reader that Harris is surrounded by evil people. By the way, you are what's known as a single purpose account. Johnuniq (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

A SPA who is ignoring our advice and is now back to revert-warring to insert the anecdotes:[73],[74]. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 18:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I should have copied the source code, edited the private copy, and posted the the edited source code on the talk page, and I'm sorry. I suggest we keep the extended Vagianos quotation in the second edit. If you look over on Bernie Bros, you'll see unverified claims about harassment, cyber- or not, similar to the removed anecodes, from sources also marked as no-consensus reliable but biased, and yet those were allowed to stand without any BLP concerns. All this talk of "SPA" is an ad-hominem attack based around pulling rank. No, I don't have many edits on non-Harris related content, aside from the few on the Reagan article. There are accounts with just as many Harris-related edits, but a much greater abundance of edits on politicians and media figures in general. I personally don't have time for anything else, either, because I'm busy with schoolwork and only got involved in response to the whitewashing back in Summer 2020. I'll let up now, and I'm sorry for taking up more of your time. Typeprint (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to degrade an article and violate BLP policy to attack people. If another article has violations, go clean it up; don't use it as an excuse to further degrade the 'pedia. I suggest you accept the advice here, stop WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:DROPTHESTICK. All of us have limited time. ETA: Thank you for agreeing to move on and stop wasting all of our time (If I read correctly that this is what you've now agreed to). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Typeprint, I agree that you are not helping the discussion here. I did not start this ANI discussion to solve the content dispute; that is what the Talk page is for. I started this because I had and have genuine concerns about the "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" of a Wikipedia admin. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about bias in the Erin Brockovich article

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

---

Before I start, I’m going to report my own alleged bias, first. I am the founder of what unintentionally became the only rival environmental .org in the country of Erin’s efforts. Allegedly, we were supposed to be on the same team but when I got big and wouldn’t agree with her, I became the enemy. Please feel free to ask me for very disturbing evidence if you want your comfortable world view shattered.

That being said, I’m noticing a lot of bias for Erin in her article; none of her very, very well documented scandals are listed, her failed work in Beverly Hills; her employee Bob bullying Larry Cahoon out of his own public meeting about Gen X, Erin running water scam in Stockton and ditching the community; Erin continually taking credit for the Flint Water Crisis when she wasn’t actually there.

Anyone who attempts to add these incidents is being dominated and having their edits reverted, people who are clearly her fans.

I believe her article is not portraying her accurately. I believe that I’m also not the person to correct the article, since there is a long personal relationship between myself and Erin, and I’d like to start adding the news articles about these scandals. However, I’ve noted that even when these are added, they are quickly removed from the page.

UPDATE: I see some of the Beverly Hills info is there but a separate controversy section should be added because there’s A LOT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2Famous2UseMyName (talk • contribs) 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The proper place to post your concerns is here: Talk:Erin Brockovich. If you do so please include reliable sources which support your allegations. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I fully disagree. Posting on talk has resulted in domination of anyone who speaks out. That’s why I’m asking for intervention. Erin is a cult of personality figure and I can see her cult followers readily ignoring reality.2Famous2UseMyName (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Describing Wikipedia editors as being "cult followers" without significant evidence is a personal attack and may lead to being blocked. Do you have diffs which substantiate your allegations? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And there has been no substantive discussion on the article talk page in years. If you have specific, actionable changes you wish to request, and reliable sources to support those changes, start a new discussion on the talk page. Throwing around personal attacks and unsupported innuendo here on AN/I will lead nowhere but a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

2Famous -- even if the situation is as you describe, it sounds like you have an issue at the level of reliable sources. Wikipedia follows the sources; if they have a bias, it will be reflected here. So, by all means, support your claims, but this is not the place for a wider crusade against the way someone is (or isn't) portrayed. Best of luck. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The OP has made BLP-violating personal attacks against the article subject and Wikipedians on the article talk page. If they don't desist immediately, they should be blocked from editing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah if you have an admitted POV against a subject, and you're declaring the reception from those who disagree to be a "cult", you're probably not going to get far. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Leo Dottavio, edit warring over a redirect to rescue a fanzine article

See edit history for Rondavanmeter (talk · contribs), including these since being unblocked [75]; [76]; [77]; [78]; [79]; [80]. This explanation was ignored [81]. But it stands to reason, given the edit history preceding the block [82]; [83]; [84]. I don't care about the scandal business, but this is clearly an account here for one purpose--promoting and preserving Mr. Dottavio's rep. I've requested a user block at AIV, and the page needs to be protected. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've left Rondavanmeter a warning for edit warring. If this user continues, this disruption will be considered blockable. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added by far the most thoroughly sourced content, that pertaining to harassment incidents. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You are adding content that has no source. The claim of “cease and desist” had no foundation. The information added is inflammatory & not factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondavanmeter (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC) I don’t understand how someone is allowed to just delete his page altogether multiple times, yet you are slowing information to be posted that has no factual background. I’m not trying to get blocked, I just need an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondavanmeter (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to follow guidelines about what warrants an article or not (WP:GNG), about the requirements for information to be found in reliable sources (WP:V); and additionally, and much more importantly, you need to follow WP:BRD - if your edits have been reverted by multiple other editors, it's time to stop reverting and time to start discussing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• There is really no point in dragging this out: the editor is not here to improve our project. Their promotional edits on the Dottavio article, and specifically the removal of reliably sourced but negative BLP information, and the edit warring over it while seeming completely ignorant of our guidelines about BLPs and sourcing, are enough proof. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2603:8080:4740:9F:0:0:0:0/64

I notice multiple issues with this IP range, primarily the WP:BLANKING of Evaline Nakano's Talk page. I do not see an end in sight to this range's edit war. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for disruptive editing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Vapourmile has repeatedly removed my comments from Talk:Motorola 68000

Vapourmile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly removed many of my comments on Talk:Motorola 68000 (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) claiming that they are "not illuminating nor is it relevant in this context". See, for example, the first such edit, this later edit, and subsequent edits. This does not seem to meet the criteria given on WP:TALKO. Guy Harris (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed it on grounds of relevance, and Guy continues to revert it, despite the fact it isn't relevant. The Wikipedia page is about the Motorola 68000 CPU from 1979 and most of Guy's additions to that talk section are about the "instruction set architecture" of the IBM 360, dating from the 1960s. It isn't the same item. That entire section has no relevance to that Wikipedia page. The removal of that section is validated by the "stay on topic" guidelines. WP:TALK#TOPIC. Vapourmile (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no comment on the content of the talk page thread, but Vapourmile has removed an extensive chunk of the talk page five times now, including 4 times in the last 24 hours [85] [86] [87] [88], thus breaking WP:3RR. The content removed includes comments by at least three editors (I have not bothered to read it all to see if there are more) and dates back to August 2020, I believe.

Vapourmile posted to one of my talk pages claiming that Guy Harris was vandalizing the page User_talk:Meters/unprotected#I am not vandalizing the 68000 page, Guy Harris is. Undoing an inappropriate blanking of a talk page thread is not vandalism. Meters (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: Thread dates to August 2020, and was then dead for six weeks until October, when Vapourmile concluded it with ... I'm bored to death of explaining why over and over again. I'm also bored of your totally irrelevant wish to talk incessantly about an obsolete mainframe. ... [89] No other edits to this thread until Vapourmile started trying to delete it. Meters (talk) 05:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I did write those words. As you can see from the discussion on the 68000 talk page much of Guy's addition to it constitutes a very lengthy text about the IBM 360 which violates the "plainly irrelevant" guideline. The query I raised is over the classification of the 68000 microarchitecture. To which guy responded by writing at great length about the IBM 360 "instruction set architecture". The IBM 360 is a mainframe dating back to the 1960s and has its own Wikipedia entry: IBM System/360. Guy's comments so clearly violate the "plainly irrelevant" guideline that this discussion needs better arbitration than Meters can provide. Vapourmile (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But it's a thread from seven months ago with multiple posts, by three editors. It's to late to claim now that it is off topic. If it's not serving any useful purpose now then it can be collapsed or archived, but do not simply delete it. As I pointed out above, the other users have not contributed to the thread since August. You appear to be the only one keeping this alive. If you are bored to death with it then leave it alone. Meters (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If somebody is gong to arbitrate on this debate I want it to be somebody else. I don't see what purpose there is trying to "prove" 57,000 characters about the IBM 360 from 1964 has no place in the Wikipedia entry for the 1979 Motorola 68000. The elapsed seven months haven't made it any more relevant and its relevance was disputed multiple times then, it didn't add anything to that talk section then and nor does it now. You also add you have nothing to say about that talk section's content, well, that's exactly what the dispute is about. I recommend you return to that talk section and start reading from "The IBM System/360 instruction set architecture is defined by the IBM System/360 Principles of Operation manual. As that manual says on page 5:". How is cutting and pasting from the IBM 360 manual to the Wikipedia Motorola 68000 page relevant? It wasn't relevant then and it still isn't seven months later. Be honest with yourself. I don't know what the Wikipedia guidelines are on vandalism but where does adding masses of irrelevant text to talk pages fit with the guidelines? It didn't help then and it doesn't now. The relevance was dismissed in the discussion all those months ago and now just sits there wasting space in a talk section where it does not belong. Guy is the person to whom you should be writing notes about vandalism, on the basis of adding lengthy and irrelevant text to that talk page. You clearly don't intend to be much help on this issue. How can I report Guy to somebody who will escalate the complaint against him? Vapourmile (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the discussion of the S/360 was to show it as an example of an instruction set, with a given bit width, with implementations of varying bit widths, some smaller than the bit width of the instruction set. Similarly, the Motorola 68000/68010/68012/68008 are implementations of a mostly 32-bit instruction set (it lacks full 32-bit multiply and divide instructions) with implementations of various internal and external bit widths. As such, it is not clear that there is a single bit width that can be considered "the" bit width for those 68k processors; for example, Sun Microsystems' Sun-2 systems were built on the 68010, and the software running on it was 32-bit software, not 16-bit software or even 16/32-bit software. From the point of view of the programmer, it was a 32-bit system, even if its performance was reduced by narrower internal and external buses. I do not see why Varpourmile's personal belief that it's not relevant should govern here. Guy Harris (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Vapourmile. I'm not attempting to "arbitrate" this thread. I have not proposed any particular remedy. I simply made a comment on the behavior that was raised. Items raised here can be commented on by anyone. I made it clear that I am not commenting on the content of the thread itself because I'm not knowledgeable about the topic, I don't care about the topic, the issue is dead, and the thread content is irrelevant to the behavior under discussion. You broke 3RR blanking a seven-month-old talk page thread, and I believe the other editor was justified in restoring the thread (as I did). As I said, if the thread is of no use now then it can be collapsed or archived. I suggest that you stop arguing this. Meters (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• I agree Vapourmile's actions are silly here. If the thread is 7 months old, even if it's forumish why not just archive it rather than getting into an edit war over removing it? I assume there are no BLP issues or anything given the subject matter. If there are copyvio issues the content will need to be revdeleted so you'll need to identify only those parts and delete them then ask for an admin to rev delete them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Actually, it is a 15-year old discussion, from 2006, that Vapourmile revived in Special:Diff/971077257. But it's worth noting that this is a bone of contention that amateur computer people have been arguing about for about forty years, now.

  The problem here is twofold. Firstly: almost no-one, not Vapourmile, not Guy Harris, not the various other contributors over the past 15 years, is doing it the way that it should be done at Wikipedia, with reference to authorities on the subject. One person actually tried to, at Special:Diff/975161974, and deserves praise for that. Xe got 5KiB of dismissal of such appeals to experts and authority at Special:Diff/976615052 for xyr trouble.

  Secondly: Vapourmile is escalating in entirely the wrong way, removing good faith, even if not correctly done for Wikipedia, discussion; adding contentious section headers at Special:Diff/1011858530; and now making accusations of "vandalism" here.

  Vapourmile, stop calling good faith discussions, by good faith editors, "vandalism". That is an unacceptable way to treat other editors who are just responding to a discussion that you resurrected. Stop blanking talk such page sections. Stop mucking around with slanted and dismissive section headers. Read Wikipedia:Vandalism and some of the related essays, and proceed no further along this path.

  Everyone, please apply our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research content policies. There are vast tracts of the article dealing with this that are not linked to any authoritative good sources at all. I am sure that in the forty years of this being discussed, there are plenty to be found. You all should be looking for them, not arguing the points directly on the article talk page.

  Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Vapourmile's actions have been inappropriate and in violation of the talk page guideline. Specifically, WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE says that discussions should be archived, not blanked. Further, WP:TALKOFFTOPIC discusses the matter of potentially off-topic threads and says that they should be either collapsed or archived. It also notes that Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution. WP:TALKOFFTOPIC further says that even collapsing should not be used over objections of other editors. There are some exceptions such as purely disruptive talk page posts, BLP violations, etc, that occasionally get blanked but that wasn't the case here. All the posts in question were clearly good faith posts, some involving multiple editors. Blanking those posts on the grounds of them being off-topic was entirely inappropriate as was labelling as vandalism the attempts to restore those posts. Clearly in this case a large portion of the talk page just begs to be archived. The talk page still has threads going back to September 2003, for goodness sake. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• I warned the user at User talk:Vapourmile#March 2021. Please let me know if problems persist. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What is badly needed here is a lot less "here is my reasoning" and a lot more "here is what reliable sources say". For example, compare Talk:Motorola 68000#The Motorola 68000 is internally and externally 16bit, you say? with much of what is on that talk page. Any administrative encouragement in the direction of following the sources would be a big help in addressing the behavioral problems we are seeing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

Behavioral discussion can continue above. However, that Talk page is insanely long, so I'm going to archive the old discussions, which should hopefully have the pleasant side effect of cutting off the topic in question. This may take some time however, because apparently one of the links in an old discussion is on the spam blacklist, so I'll have to find it and redact it when creating the Talk archive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple insults and personal attacks

User Goddard2000 allows himself continuously to insult. A new reply I've just noticed.

• Newly noticed, [diff] So be a man and stop acting like a baby, you are embarrassing yourself.
• Reported before, [diff], do you not realize how idiotic this sounds, Your hypocrisy shows.--IrelandCork (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, it seems, user aggressive with most opponents:

Here a threat to edit Ingush article in revenge [diff] But if you want i can edit in more and be more objective there?, here delivery of the revenge [diff].

Provoking and threatening others [diff] cmon be sensible, [diff], So stop vandalizing the page before you are reported.--IrelandCork (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fork of WP:AN#WP:Ethics again. Cabayi (talk) 12:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, El_C This guy is really trying to get me banned just because he doesn't want to come to a consensus on the Uchar-Hadji page. This is the 3-4th report he's made against me and has been looking trough my history for things to use against me, even though we both agreed in the previous report that we wouldn't talk to each other. As for the accusations i only want to address the "Ingush" one since the others we have already talked about. It happened quite a while ago when all of my edits were removed by that same person in the Chechen page and replaced with anti-Chechen texts. So i talked to him (Akylas) in the talk page and he refused to come to a consensus stating that "It's respectable sources just because you dont like it doesn't mean u can delete it" so to prove my point that any "respectable source" could be added into any post i added that one on the Ingush page. I deleted it 1-2 hours later when that person understood that his tactics could be used by anyone. We later came into an understanding and i eventually apologized for posting that. However this character assassination that Irelandcork is trying to is very desperate, he's trying to get me banned so only his version of the Uchar-Hadji article stays. --Goddard2000 (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You were asked to stop producing those spiteful comments, but you couldn't help yourself, thus my report. I'm already sure admins fancy you and your bully behaviour style, but it's my duty to report it.--IrelandCork (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork, that discussion was brought to a close (so we all hoped) with your comment "let's leave it there" at 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC). The most recent of the comments you're complaining about was left on 19 March. It's clear that Goddard2000 has stopped, and that you have not. Cabayi (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi The newly found comment wasn't noticed and presented then, now it is, and you may all turn a blind eye to his attacks, and hope their foulness will end, or not.--IrelandCork (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You do realize that all of these edits you reported were BEFORE anyone told me to stop? it was only yesterday when u and me agreed to not communicate with each other, i held up my bargain and only responded to the Admin on Uchar-Hadzhi talk page. Meanwhile what did you do? you looked trough ever single edit i made and found 1 bad edit i made months ago when i wasn't properly informed about the wikipedia rules, an edit which i apologized for and deleted right away. Honestly at this point i suspect you are trying to do this so Elijahandskip option of 1-month ban rule is put on both of us so i can't make my case in the talk page of Uchar-Hadzhi and that will only leave Krackduck (who agrees with you) in the talk page. --Goddard2000 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork, the timing of your complaint at WP:AN was entirely in your hands. You weren't working to a deadline. The completeness or otherwise of that report was entirely in your hands. You don't get to re-open it or re-file it at a different forum just because you overlooked some other edits to add to your indignation. Drop the stick. You can consider this as your {{uw-npa4}} level 4 warning if it helps concentrate your mind. Cabayi (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was flooded, couldn't deal with it at the time. Now, to lower possibilities of such behavior in the future, presented the whole picture and a new fact, with no expectations that admins would take any action about WP:Civil, don't worry. So, the stick was dropped. Thanks--IrelandCork (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

IrelandCork I also recommend you drop the stick here. --Calthinus (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks--IrelandCork (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I might have jumped in prematurely before understanding this issue because I just warned the Goddard2000 at User talk:Goddard2000#Procedures. I now see people saying that IrelandCork needs to behave differently and that Goddard2000's comments are from before they reformed. Sorry that I did not fully investigate. If anyone sees an ongoing problem in regard to this matter, please let me know and I will take action. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Always amazed how a new user finds AN after only 3 Talk pages edits and opens an SPI by their 10th edit. Fast learner, I guess.... Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent spamming by SPAs in their userspace

While patrolling userspace pages of Special:NewPages, I have observed in the past 24 hours many new single purpose accounts spamming their userspace with very similar content. They all create their userpage or user sandbox with Multiple choice questions about computer network related topics. They have not edited any other pages. In many cases the pages were recreated with same content after they were deleted as CSD U5. These are the accounts I have observed, please see their deleted contribs -

• Nihxxr.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jishnu.kumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Muhammed hafil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Anveed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• MhdNaji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Mdnaji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Mdnaji/sandbox
• Aakhil13454 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Aakhil13454/sandbox
• Mohammedshawaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Mohammedshawaf/sandbox
• Muhammed sahal vk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muhammed sahal vk/sandbox
• Muhammed Anas X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muhammed Anas X/sandbox
• HanoonAbbas123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:HanoonAbbas123/sandbox
• Hadhi2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Hadhi2005/sandbox
• Shamnas007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Shamnas007/sandbox
• Macksood007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Macksood007/sandbox
• Muneer007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muneer007/sandbox
• Muhammadc009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - User:Muhammadc009/sandbox

There are sure to be more accounts that I have missed. I identified a few pages as full copyvios of electronicspost.com and auditnca.com, whereas most seemed to be mix of content from different websites. Editing pattern indicates a coordinated group of accounts. Considering that so many accounts have been creating similar pages, some even after getting deleted, it seems clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia. It is still ongoing with Nibras ahammed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) being the latest. Please take any approprriate action to stop this. Thank you. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A coordinated group of accounts? I would guess that it's just a class. They're not spamming or anything like that, are they? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they are probably a class doing some misguided Wikipedia assignment to something similar. They are not spamming links but the stream of WP:NOTWEBHOST pages had cluttered the New pages list. That's why I opened this thread as pages were still being created. I will note that more page creations has stopped since I created this report. So unless more pages are created over the next day, it is probably safe to end this matter. Thank you. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:‎Vikhyat Dubey Virat Brothers

This user, Vikhyat Dubey Virat Brothers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been making disruptive edits for days on the page Videocon Group and before that was editing through an IP, user has admitted he will continue to make disruptive edits on the article talk page, I have reported the user and requested page protection as I feel once the user is blocked there could be an issue of sockpuppetry to follow. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 13:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Partial block (originally applied by way of RfPP), now also including the article talk page. Not sure preemptive protection is called for at this time, though. Maybe wait and see...? El_C 14:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cheers El_C! Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts creating poorly sourced cricket stubs

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

---

There have been a lot of cricket AfDs recently. Many of them are for players where very little sourcing exists apart from statistics databases and upon searching fail GNG but they technically pass the cricket SNG, which isn't properly calibrated to the GNG, unlike most other sports SNGs. There's been a recent ANI thread and recent discussions about WP:NCRIC here: [90] [91]. By my count, 92 cricket articles have been closed at AfD this month - only 22 have been kept, and some probably should not have been.

I recently discovered the proliferation of many of these stubs has been due to Lugnuts. Lugnuts has been creating cricket stubs sourced only to ESPN CricInfo, and they've been creating a lot of them. By their count, over 3,000 in 2020 alone, and what appears to be in the hundreds this year: User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2021.

The problem here isn't the creation, but the fact that absolutely no work is put in to whether these stubs actually meet WP:GNG, leading to massive cleanup issues. Compounding this problem is that the WP:NCRIC guideline is so poor that WP:GNG-qualifying coverage is not always easily found. I asked yesterday for Lugnuts to stop sourcing these only to CricInfo. They did not respond. After I asked, they created four new articles sourced only to CricInfo:

• Vimukthi Kulatunga, who may not fail WP:GNG after a before search, but the articles I found may have WP:YOUNGATH issues
• Harshajith Rushan, who has similar issues to Kulatunga
• Romesh Nallaperuma, who has a bit more match report coverage than the first two, but similar issues to Kulatunga (and match reports typically get discounted for determining notability in other sports)
• Suchira Paranathala, who fails WP:GNG

You could create reasonable delete arguments at an AfD for these four articles. I would not have accepted any of them at AfC. They are poorly sourced BLPs. A review of many of the other stubs Lugnuts created shows they are also sourced only to CricInfo, or the similar site Cricket Archive.

Cleaning up and determining notablity for these stubs is a huge and contentious undertaking, as demonstrated by the current number of cricket articles currently being deleted at AfD. Lugnuts appears to have no interest in actually demonstrating that these players have been recognised by secondary sources that aren't statistics databases.

I'm asking for a sanction to stop the creation of these poorly sourced articles directly into mainspace as they are proliferating faster than we can assess them, probably the removal of their autopatrolled status and/or a requirement that cricket articles created by Lugnuts go through the AfC process. SportingFlyer T·C 14:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment All the articles I create meet the notability requirements of the project, in this case WP:NSPORT or WP:NCRIC. The former starts with the text "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Everything I create/add is sourced, so your claim of them being "poorly sourced" is wrong. There is no minimum requirement for article size or number of sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• They're extremely poorly sourced. A single link to a statistics database does not demonstrate even half an ounce of notability. We're also deleting article after article which technically passes WP:NCRIC because WP:NCRIC doesn't predict whether an article satisfies the WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No they're not. Everything in the article is sourced. And they don't "technically pass" N:CRIC, they pass it. And N:SPORT. What about all the other non-cricket articles I create? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Turkey village articles all seem to be based on a single non-RS like this one (for e.g. Yukarısöğütlü, Köprüköy and hundreds of others this week alone, and in total probably thousands by now), so I don't know if drawing attention to your other mass created articles is a smart move. Fram (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• These aren't just 'cricket stubs', these are BLPs. WP:BLP is policy, and demands that editors are very firm about the use of high-quality sources. So what makes cricinfo a high-quality (note: not just reliable) source? ——Serial 15:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well it's used in countless GA, FA and FL and it's reliablity and/or quality has (to my knowledge) not been in question. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Cricinfo is the seminal online cricket resource, run by ESPN now, and owns online Wisden too. I think calling into question its quality is misguided here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Once again, we're at the confusing intersection of GNG and SNGs. Here are some interesting sentences picked out of NSPORT:

• Per Lugnuts, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
• The sentence immediately before that one: This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia
• A couple paragraphs down in the lead: Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline[...])
• First section past the lead: the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.

So which is it? Is NSPORT an alternative to GNG, and something meeting NSPORT is automatically notable even if GNG is not met? That's what the first and third quotes suggest. Is NSPORT a rebuttable presumption that a subject meets GNG? That's what the second and fourth suggest. (And, since we're on the topic of GNG and NSPORT, I present the GeneralNotability Guideline, which I've been sitting on for like half a year now wating for the right opportunity to deploy at ANI) ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NSPORT gives the presumption GNG is met, but at the end of the day, sports bios ultimately have to meet GNG. This is both in practice at AfD and confirmed in this 2017 RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 15:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No single person can convince me there is any sense of consensus in that discussion. Most of the people saying "I find this unsatisfactory", were unwilling to suggest anything to make it satisfactory to their requirements. Most of the arguments on the "Agree" side of that conversation were based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with no justification as to what action(s) to take otherwise. Most of the people who say "The brightline guidelines of the cricket project (and every other project come to that) upset me" were able to find a workable solution. The only one I could find was to include every player who has played in "a complete season". Define please. All 14 games of the County Championship season? How many baseball players have played a "complete season" of all 162 games? Bobo. 08:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• SportingFlyer, I agree, but I've been part of at least one AfD where that was ignored and a significant part of the !keep votes were "meets NOLY" (and speak of the devil...I didn't even realize that was a Lugnuts article until I went searching for that AfD). ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  (and now that I'm re-reading that AfD, I'm seeing a lot of familiar faces...and you, and you, and you, and you were there!) ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, General Notability's Guideline to the General Notability Guideline. Excellent. And yes, that should be incorporated into all these SNG walled-gardens. However, BLP should still be our over-arching tenet, as all bar Lugnuts would agree  :) ——Serial 15:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• These sports statistics websites license their statistics data, meaning they sell it for a fee. I've never understood how an editor can scrape those statistics websites and copy their statistics onto our website, by the tens of thousands, and that's not a copyright violation. If we were combining two sources, then at least we could claim it was a derivative or compilation, but running a script that just copies data from Website A to Website B, when Website A is selling that data and Website B purports to then license it CC-BY-SA, doesn't seem right to me. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Levivich: In short, statistics aren't copyrightable. A database containing statistics might be, and statistics presented in specific ways might be, but that's not really the issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 15:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I think it is the issue here, or one of them. We aren't talking about copying a statistic, we're talking about wholesale automated copying of an entire statistics database. When we copy every statistic for every player on every team in every league for all time, and then present all of that data organized by player, team, year, etc., and on top of that relicense it for free, for any purpose, including commercial re-sale... we empower someone to get around the sports statistics license by simply downloading the data from us, which they can then re-sell, at a lower price than the original statistic's website licensing fee. We are creating a copy of the entire sports statistic website and giving it out for free, and allowing people to re-sell it. I wonder what the owners of the sports statistics websites would think if they knew about this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you're talking about might be an access issue, especially under broad statutes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the U.S. Veering away from copyright here is probably best for all involved. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, FWIW, Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co. is the current presiding US case law for compilations, and this Copyright Office report has good examples to understand why there's a different between the underlying data in a database (not copyrightable) and the presentation and structure of that data (copyrightable). WP has always relied on raw data, otherwise not from any creative process, to be uncopyrightable. --Masem (t) 15:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The US distinction between "copyrightable" and "uncopyrightable" strikes this retired UK IP lawyer as bizarre. Either something is copyright or it isn't (under the Berne Convention of 1886, which the US finally signed up to in 1989 (NIH syndrome)). There's no "-able" about it; it's a question of fact. Narky Blert (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

To paraphrase an aphorism, they are two common law systems divided by a common language! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the early key case in common law jurisdictions on presentation of information is Baker v. Selden (USSC 1879). Narky Blert (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would support a restriction. The nature of how much effort it takes to clean up content versus create it means mass creation of problematic content is inherently disruptive. If Lugnuts cannot commit to adding more contextual sources than Cricinfo, they should be restricted from making those biographies. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, are you suggesting that BLPs sourced only by evidence of GNG via Cricinfo are verboten? Or that just Lugnuts is forbidden from creating them? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'm saying that if these pages don't contain enough context and evidence of notability, then they need more than Cricinfo. Lugnuts is as far as I'm aware the only one creating these in a mass fashion with minimal discretion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  It's strange because as Lugnuts themselves say, the Cricinfo sourcing does provide sufficient evidence of notability. I'm not sure the policy mandates "context", where is that? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't correct - CricInfo provides evidence of verification (that a player played in a match), but does not provide evidence of notability (that a player has been subject to significant coverage allowing a standalone article to be created.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  yes, that verifiable evidence passes NCRIC. So no problem. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Why should the mass creation of stubs based on a single source, or based just on data rather than SIGCOV, be treated any differently than other mass edits that require consensus beforehand? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. IMO CricInfo is not WP:RS. I once emailed them because according to their records, an ODI had been umpired by someone who was long dead. I got no reply. Narky Blert (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think because you didn't get an email, it renders ESPN's Cricinfo unreliable. Honestly. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  The fact that they did nothing about it calls their reliability into question. Narky Blert (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Thank you for your interest in our project. While we enjoy reading your emails, we cannot promise to respond to every single one." Anyone fancy singing along to "Left Bank 2" by the Noveltones? Bobo. 06:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've emailed Cricinfo several times over the years, and never got a reply (just the automated one). Mainly on things similar to NB's comment. The last one I recall was a debut for someone in a match this year, but they had linked to a guy with the same who was born in the 1920s. It was fixed, either due to my careful eye, or someone else's. In the past, I've contacted the BBC about factual errors in various news articles. No reply, but in the main, facts were corrected. Does that make the BBC a unreilable source? Out of interest, do you recall the ODI match/umpire in question? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Didn't we have a problem years ago with the mass creation (via automated tools) over >10,000 football (soccer) or cricket athletes before from some editor, again based on pulling one or two lines from accessible databases? While I support the general idea of NSPORTS' allowance for standalone articles on the basis of documenting someone that had played in top-tier league, I fully expect that to be a hand-crafted article and show more than just a stubby end result. --Masem (t) 16:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I remember discussing these concerns with Lugnuts a year or two ago in the context of footballer stubs. As I recall, Lug pointed out to me that what they're doing doesn't violate any PAGs. I believe Lug is correct about that (there is no rule that a new article requires any source, much less a GNG-satisfying source; there is no consensus that passing NSPORTS, without passing GNG, doesn't satisfy N). I strongly disagree with the practice, and I disagree that our PAGs allow it, but so long as it's allowed by our PAGs, I don't feel like it's fair to single out one editor (Lug is by far not the only editor who creates stubs like these, or at a high rate). Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Pag?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines, my friend. Bobo. 06:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - our guidelines on sports biographies allow and encourage creation of very short, poorly sourced stubs on any and every person who has ever appeared in just one professional game in any sport, sometimes also semi-professional and amateur competition depending on the sport. The SNGs are meant to be a set of criteria which, if met, are evidence that reliable source coverage is likely to exist, and if (as is the case with sports SNGs) it's being repeatedly shown that subjects meeting the SNG criteria where reliable sources don't exist, the guideline is junk and needs to be revised. It's not fair to punish Lugnuts for following a poorly-conceived guideline, and if we stop Lugnuts from mass-creating these stubs, someone else will do it; these have been a problem for Wikipedia's entire existence. If we want to solve this problem, audit and revise the guidelines. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• This discussion happened a couple months ago for cricket and went nowhere. It's been clear for months now this particular SNG is junk, making it even more important to ensure that these BLP stubs pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I thought I remembered that, but wasn't sure it was about cricket (I thought association football, which has a equally junk SNG). If nobody's going to take ownership of these guidelines then they should be deleted or marked historical. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We had a baseball player featured on the mainpage recently even though "his first name, date of birth, date of death, and batting and pitching stances were unknown as of March 2021". It is for such reasons that notability and the WP:GNG is not a policy and never has been. In other words, inclusion of such topics is mainly a matter of personal opinion and value judgements. So, to single out cricket topics and editors for special punishment would be systemic bias contrary to WP:NPOV. Lugnuts has been editing in good faith in accordance with long-established guidelines. And it doesn't appear that there's actually a real problem here. If such stubs bother you then don't read them. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  That article met GNG. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. Get real Levivich, that article was padded beyond belief. Most of the article didn't talk about Lewis and was irrelevant to him, just today loads has been removed. So let's get this straight. Lugnuts can't create an article on John Bob Smith, date of birth and death known, batting and/or bowling styles know, ect., but we can have Lewis as a FA. Which reaches GNG more? Not Mr. Baseball, that's for sure. StickyWicket (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Levivich, that TFA should never have been promoted: it wjholly failed WP:WIAFA criterion #1b, and the fact that it got waved through on prose, etc., at its FAC was frankly a disgrace. We did start discussing this at errors, but the discussion was closed on the grounds that process is more important than the quality of our main page. (Unsurprisingly, I guess.) ——Serial 17:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh it's nothing less than an indictment of FA. I almost AFD'd it. I sat there for a good fifteen minutes the other day thinking over the prospect of AFDing the current TFA and how much backlash I'd get. Would it just be snow-closed right away, or would I be taken to ANI as well? But in the final analysis, the way GNG is interpreted by !voters and closers (and DRV participants), contemporaneous game reports are considered SIGCOV for athletes, and Lewis (last name unknown) received enough coverage in contemporaneous game reports that, in my estimation, the outcome at AFD would be that there are at least WP:THREE GNG sources (even though I think that contemporaneous game reports are primary and should not count towards N). I've been through this several hundred times with footballer BLPs, I recognize the type in a baseballer BLP. This baseballer BLP would be a keep-meets-GNG outcome at AFD. The cricketer BLPs would be keep-meets-NCRIC outcomes.

FWIW, back in the days when I was trying to reform NSPORTS, it was suggested to me that I stop looking at AFDs and start analyzing article creations instead. So I did that, and that's when I discovered that there are editors creating thousands of stubs sourced to sports statistics websites (in all sports). Lug's isn't the only one; some of them are admins; it's a practice that has been going on for a long time. Also with towns, and roads, and schools, and TV shows, and comic book characters, and many other topics. Large volume stub creation is just a fact on Wikipedia, it's how we got to 6 million articles. And the community, writ large, is, at best, split on whether this is a good thing or not, at least as far as I can tell.

That realization, plus the realization that all of these athlete stubs make up like 1% of the encyclopedia, is what led to me more or less giving up on caring about AFDs or how many pages are created. That ship has totally sailed. Ping me when someone proposes a "every article must be cited to two RSes or be deleted on sight" rule, I'll !vote support. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose' per Ivan and Andrew. Clearly some people "don't like" such stubs and other people find enormous value in creating such stubs. Trying to call Cricinfo into doubt as an RS is absurd, trying to suggest Lugnuts is somehow "creating work" is absurd (that's down to the trigger-happy AFDing that's happening actually). And all this in the face of a featured article no less about a baseball player who played once but all we really know is his surname? Come on people, find something productive to do around here. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that was our main page's finest hour, not. A FAC that failed 1b? Brilliant. Shame no-one at errors caught it... ——Serial 16:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, commenting on TFA is a highly dangerous pursuit. Even though no-one really seems to know what the purpose of TFA is, complaining about anything that's running there is too late as it's been in a queue somewhere "for weeks". Plus we all know baseball players are more notable than cricketers, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, quite. As long as they don't claim to be more notable than boat racers, we can still sleep easy  :) ——Serial 17:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• An off-topic comment. I once read a Wisden obit of a cricketer which ran something like this - "He was selected for Gloucestershire against Warwickshire in 1935; but it rained for three days, and he was never called upon again." I'd love to get him into WP, but WP:1E deters me. Narky Blert (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• This isn't a cricket issue, this is a BLP issue. Take Timothy Eneas. The article passes NOLY as written. However, it is only sourced to a sports database. A Google search will reveal that Mr. Eneas is now [92] a lawyer at McKinney Bancroft and Hughes. Should that information be in the article? Is he notable as a lawyer? I can't say definitively, but ideally the article creator would have considered that when the article was created. Lugnuts obviously did not, as he created Salvador Jiménez two minutes before and Marcos Prono two minutes after. There is a pattern of casual mass creation without consensus, on topics that are near the notability guidelines. I think Lugnuts must be prevented from mass-creating BLPs. There's an argument that it's simpler and better to prevent him from any mass creations; recent place creations such as Aşağıyayla, Narman are not well-sourced either, but at least those have a Turkish wiki entry already and are not likely hoaxes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose there are many people that create sports stub articles based mostly on database statistics, this seems ridiculous that one editor is being singled out for doing so.

Cricinfo is a reliable source, and if anyone wants to debate that, then WP:RSN is the correct place for that debate. Singling out one editor for using a source is ridiculous. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I rate CricInfo only a little higher than e.g. IMDb and Transfermarkt. I agree that any such discussion should take place at WP:RSN. Narky Blert (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Andrew, Ivan and Joseph2302's comments. Cricinfo is certainly a reliable source, it's probably the most widely used statistical site for cricket now that CricketArchie, another reliable source, has gone behind a paywall. It's certainly a better statistical site than is used in football and I wish there was such a good one for rugby. Yes Lugnuts' article could be a little better, perhaps with another source, but they are good start points. Lots of his stubs are picked up by other editors and will have information added to them to be improved. There's nothing wrong with stubs, and his cricket stubs are certainly not WP:KITTENS. For some reason at the moment cricket is being picked on for these stubs, maybe next month it'll be another sport or subject, so as Joseph2302 says it's strange that just one editor is being singled out for this if it is such a problem. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  "Cricinfo is certainly a reliable source". I am not aware of any WP:CONSENSUS on that opinion at WP:RSPS or elesewhere. Narky Blert (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure anyone but yourself has said CricInfo isn't a reliable source. It's owned and operated by ESPN, so is everything ESPN not a reliable source? Just because they didn't respond to an email you sent them to fix something immediately doesn't mean they're not reliable. If you don't believe to to be reliable then start a discussion on it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
    • It's often just easier to say "it's not reliable" and walk away than to actively do something about it. Getting bent out of shape because they didn't respond to an email is a little OTT really... (the BBC failed to respond when I emailed them about an error, but I don't think the BBC is on a par with IMDB) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) People here, many of them unfamiliar with cricket as a sport and therefore naturally unfamiliar with what constitutes an RS in that topic area, seem to be conflating Cricinfo as a whole with its statistics database specifically. Let's take, just for example, Adil Rashid (since I love to pick on him). Just from a quick search, I can find these articles on him:

• Adil Rashid signs one-year, white-ball contract extension with Yorkshire
• Adil Rashid's new-ball reincarnation opens up tactical flexibility for England
• Adil Rashid rules himself out of England's Test series in Sri Lanka

It would be completely wrong for editors to say, therefore, that Adil doesn't pass the GNG, even though he does happen to have, like any other player at some official level, a profile with statistics there. If the issue with Lugnuts' contributions is that he's relying on statistics alone, then comment on that, but kindly don't pretend the issue is Cricinfo as a source, and if you folks can't be bothered to actually research what's being commenting on before doing so, it may be best to stay away altogether. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No thank you, M Imtiaz, although I fully understand your wish to maintain the walled garden. The point here is that cricinfo is being used for a purpose it is not being put to: viz, demonstrating the notability of a BLP. Since only the stats are being used, that is all Cricinfo can fully testify to. It cannot be a high-quality BLP source because as the article creator has used it, it does not testify to BLP, only to stats. It's rather simple really. ——Serial 17:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If these are living people the stats are information about living persons, therefore BLP stats. If it's a high quality source for its purpose it's a high quality BLP source for its purpose. And obviously it can demonstrate notability to editors who are not deletionists. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lugnuts does extremely good work in expanding cricket content. Considering we just had a baseball player for which nothing is known as FA, I can't understand the logic in this constant attack of the cricket project. Why doesn't the aggrieved party head over there and AfD that, because at least with Lugnuts creations we know their name and date of birth. Cricinfo is considered an authoritative cricket source, though not as good as Cricket Archive, which is sadly hiding behind a paywall. There's no harm in creating stubs for others to pick up on to expand. Given whats gone on with the cricket project over the last few months, and articles of 10+ domestic appearances still being nominated, I'm struggling to assume good faith with this ANI. StickyWicket (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral The real problem is WP:NCRIC being treated as the Word of God. No, having played one, or even a dozen matches, for a first class side does not make you automatically notable (this holds even more true the further back in time we go...) in the sense intended by GNG. But that's a discussion for another place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  By the way, Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_39#RfC_on_NCRIC was never closed; and although I'm having ideas about starting a narrower one, that one being closed formally would be a better thing first. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cricinfo is undoubtedly a reliable source, but that isn't the issue here, beause it's not being used to directly define notability. It's being used to confirm that here is a cricketer who has played professional cricket, and the SNG (NCRIC) is being used to suggest that such professional appearances imply notability. So the issue here isn't Cricinfo, it's NCRIC. Black Kite (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is an issue with NCRIC, then there's an issue also with many of the other NSPORTS, including those that allow front page articles of the Lewis kind. And there's probably an issue also with GNG, which really hasn't got to grips with the sports issues, nor with the subject expertise that projects bring to individual topics. I've been a member of the Cricket Project here for more than 15 years (though I'm not around much at all these days), and Lugnuts' way of working, creating substubs for others to flesh out, has been used pretty much throughout that time by many of our editors. What Lugnuts is doing now is to fill in many of the gaps in the project, principally on Indian sub-continent cricketers (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) where we've had poor coverage and also limited success in recruiting local editors. In this, to my mind, Lugnuts is deserving of praise rather than censure: tackling a systemic weakness of our project. Far more disruptive than the creation of a load of stubs for us to fill out over a long period is the AfD campaign against cricket articles, which has been relentless and which has short deadlines that people like me simply cannot meet because of RL commitments. It's been very demoralising to see what appears to be a concerted effort to dismantle work that has taken 15+ years to assemble, with just a week to react. Many cricket project people have now given up, while others are busying themselves in arcane areas, hoping to keep their heads down until the storm subsides. Two other short points: Wikipedia is, I've always believed, a work-in-progress and adding to it is an integral part of what it's about. Also, WP is not paper, and there's no limit to how much we should be aiming to write, nor to how many articles we could usefully host. Johnlp (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC) P.S. I rather enjoyed the Lewis article as something different on the front page: a reminder that there are still things unknown, and maybe unknowable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlp (talk • contribs) 7:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  I agree, like NOLYMPIC meaning like Mohamed Rasheed (swimmer) (and no offence to that gentleman) is guaranteed an article, despite finishing 72nd in the heats.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I am 1000% on board with limiting mass creation of poorly-sourced BLP stubs that overwhelmingly fail at AfD (...shouldn't everyone be?). I get that articles don't need to demonstrate notability when they're first moved to mainspace, and that meeting a guideline that presumes GNG is technically fine, but come on -- if an experienced editor continues a behavior that they know is burdening the community and is genuinely considered disruptive by many, shouldn't that warrant some kind of warning? Or at least the editor's agreement to compromise or even acknowledge the problem? And I think it's just a little hypocritical to support equivalent sanctions on JPL (where there isn't even a BLP issue) using essentially identical arguments to the ones here (e.g., dozens of low-effort boilerplate contributions in a short amount of time, poor AfD track record, etc.). While I'd be disinclined to support sanctions in this case (for the same reasons people opposed them for JPL), perhaps it's worth considering something along the lines of the voluntary concessions JPL made in those most recent threads. Please also ping me whenever someone makes the proposal Levivich suggested. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. (Personal attack removed) StickyWicket (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions wouldn't be needed to be made if we were all working towards the same goal. The fact that we are not working to the same goal is saddening. Bobo. 14:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

AA, please. Those of us who are trying to add constructively to the project are doing so for the same reasons. One single person is not to blame. No "person" is to blame. The problem is the voluntary deletion of facts in today's toxic environment and those who are so keen to do so. Bobo. 14:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support restriction It is eminently clear that NCRIC (as well as those for other sports) is overly permissive, and mere appearances is not a good predictor of the presence of significant coverage. Moreover, the articles created are blatant failures of WP:SPORTCRIT, "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Lugnuts' articles are already against the guidelines, and further creation without substantive sources beyond databases is wholly inappropriate. This disregard for WP:SPORTCRIT is already enormously disruptive. Reywas92^Talk 05:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia is about fostering article creation and collaboration. What is going on in the cricket project is absolutely turning away those who wish to create articles, and those who have been doing so for the last 17 years. Look at the list of Test cricketer articles that were created over 15 years ago. There are some with zero visible bodyspace edits since. Is that harmful? And there are many with zero sources, let alone references to Cricket Archive or Cricinfo. We have people right now saying, "this is clearly not notable" (or words to that effect). How do people who know nothing about cricket know that Test cricketers whose articles have zero references, which measure no better than "sub-stubs" are any more "notable" than anyone else? What I think is going on at the moment with deletion is saying, "What we have right now is unmanageable". We've been managing it fine for the last 17 years. What makes what is going on right now "unmanageable"? Is it deletionists saying, "we refuse to manage it"? Because until now we've been doing fine. Is it deletionists saying, "We are incapable of managing it"? This thread appears to be stuck into a question which sounds more like another AfD than a question about restrictions. And that is dishonest. Those of us who have been working hard to achieve our aims are being discouraged from doing so. There is zero impetus in engaging in the project anymore. Bobo. 05:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I have half an idea. Will post on the WP:CRIC talk page. Bobo. 07:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- I'm neither supporting nor opposing sanctions here. I just want to point out how funny it is that creating masses of substubs at a rate of one every few minutes is apparently fine, yet nominating more than a few a day seems to be a very great felony. Why should arguing that an article is unfit for mainspace require an order of magnitude more work than creating the article in the first place? Reyk _YO! 07:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't be turning against each other in what is basically a collaborative project. Why are people more willing to send articles to deletion than work on them? Have they nothing to offer? When you look past the AfD debates and all the created articles (all by AA, as it happens), there is very little work being done to expand articles. Creation of articles isn't the problem. Articles themselves are barely being edited in any case. If the problem is that no articles are being expanded beyond where they should be, we should be knocking on the door(s) of those who are refusing to do so. Not of those who are sending out an invitation for people to do so. Bobo. 07:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm sorry but I feel like this is targeting one person when their are other people out there especilly in the WP:FOOTBALL community who do the exact same thing and yet they are not being talked about here. As the saying goes, if you target one, you have to target the others. HawkAussie (talk) 08:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Myself, AA, Lugnuts, and 02blythed have/(were) all been creating articles for the last heaven knows how long. 02blythed was driven away by some truly nasty comments, and us other three have entirely lost interest in the project because of the attitudes of others who appear to have no interest in helping out. This isn't just an issue with Lugnuts, this is an issue for the cricket project in general. And we have all been questioned to varying degree(s), and we all feel we are being targeted in some way or other. While those questioning appear to have no interest in helping out. Who is to blame? I wonder. Bobo. 09:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• @HawkAussie: If you can identify users who are mass-creating football stubs with this lack of sourcing, that would be good to know. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @SportingFlyer: Davidlofgren1996 is very similar to how Lugnuts does his article but for Japanese football. Yeah it might not be as frequent but when you have an 83% rate of your pages as a stub then it's a little bit of a problem. HawkAussie (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I have yet to see any objective or policy-driven reasoning as to why creating verifiable stubs is a "problem". How many "becomes" a problem? If I created 6 new articles today but 5 were stubs, would I expect to see myself at ANI for "problematic" stub creation? Are stubs a problem? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Only to those who know they would be unable to add to them. That's what this is all about. Those who know they have nothing to add to the project, trying to delete that which has already been created. Bobo. 13:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• @HawkAussie: I did not realise my editing was "a problem". I've had my fair share of AfDs, as do many other Wiki editors with a high page creation count, but most of those were fair, and were a result of me not being aware of certain Wiki policies when editing. My Japanese player articles are stubs, yes, but almost all would be expandable with Japanese sources. The problem is, this is the English Wiki, and most people here don't read Japanese. Are these players noteworthy in Japan? Most of them, yes. Is there any point adding a ton of solely Japanese sources to these articles? I don't think so, personally. Look at Reo Hatate for example. He's an established first team player at Kawasaki Frontale this year, but there are hardly any English articles about him. When I created the article, he did not meet WP:NFOOTY, so I found a number of Japanese sources to fill the article with to meet WP:GNG. He meets GNG in Japanese, but not in English. Is he therefore not eligible for a page on the English Wiki?

Regardless, the articles all pass WP:NFOOTY, stub or not. I don't see a problem with this, otherwise Wiki wouldn't allow stub articles to exist. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Davidlofgren1996: I took a look at your Japanese players page and quickly found a living players sourced only to Soccerway. You're auto-patrolled, but if I had come across either of these articles at NPP, I may have draftified them due to BLP concerns, and I definitely would have tagged them with notability and referencing concerns. For instance, looking at the Japanese wikipedia page, based on the sources in the article, Kaito Hirata may not pass WP:GNG. Keigo Hashimoto looks like they would fail an AfD as it stands. Itsuki Kurata has had a decent amount of coverage in a WP:BEFORE search from his time in Moldova. It should only take a couple extra minutes to add additional sources to an article. I don't think a new article necessarily has to pass WP:GNG when it's created, but when notability is marginal or unclear and sources are available, it can make a huge difference. SportingFlyer T·C 15:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We do not restrict users from editing within guidelines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't agree with restricting a user simply for creating a high number of stubs, as someone who has created their fair few. Creating stub articles appears to be common practice for sportsmen and sportswomen, and I've not seen other users being flagged up for it before. If stubs weren't allowed, Wikipedia wouldn't allow them. So long as the user is within the guidelines set out, I don't see a problem here. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The underlying problems are the sports SNG and the contradictory wording in N and NSPORTS. However, it has been evident for several years, reinforced by the 2017 RFC and many other discussions, that the sports SNGs are secondary to GNG, even if that is not made crystal clear in either guideline. It has also been apparent from successive discussions that NCRIC is considered especially weak, and made weaker by creative interpretation of the basic premise ("highest international or domestic level") being used to include all international and all status-accorded cricket; this then includes matches for which significant coverage of the players is extremely rare. In addition, the volume of cricket biography articles (including many of Lugnuts creations) being deleted or redirected at AFD shows that such directory entry-like article shells are unwanted by the community, especially when there will never be RS coverage beyond an entry in a statistical database attesting to very few appearances. Irrespective of the technicality of meeting the criteria of a sub-SNG, it is unsurprising that many view activity that knowingly and deliberately opposes the consensus as disruptive. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. The problems are with those who know they cannot add to the project, wishing to destroy the project for this very reason. The only reason they are "unwanted" is because serial delete-voters know they are unable to add to them. Until serial delete-voters came along, we were happy getting along with our business and co-operating with each other. Why can they not help co-operate? Because they know they have nothing to add? Instead of trying to delete every stub for the sake of it, try adding to a stub instead. Can't do it? Don't complain about those who create them in the first place to foster expansion of the project. If you're not here to foster expansion of the project, what are your motives? Step back a minute and focus on theoretically "more notable" cricketers instead. Add to Test cricketer stubs or whatever. Can't do it? Then don't complain. Bobo. 13:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If those who screamed "but we're all volunteers! You can't tell us what to add or delete in our own spare time!" were able to foster article creation in some way, they would do that instead. Please don't tell us that there is a serial problem with article creators if you cannot see there is also a problem with serial delete voters. How do serial delete voters think they are trying to help the project? By deleting facts? If you had anything to add, you would do so. Bobo. 14:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure many editors would expand stubs if sources existed, but (other than scorecard databases and trivial mentions) sources very often do not exist, and those creating these articles know it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As shown by the more and more bizarre justifications for AfD discussions, I think we can both agree this is not the case. Bobo. 14:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure many editors would expand stubs if sources existed there's no evidence to support this sweeping generalisation. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We've always had our core group of members who have been willing to help develop articles. But we cannot develop every article every day. The fact that any of us can still be bothered given what is going on right now is a sign of our dedication to the project that even when it is being destroyed we are still here. If there were too many (cricket) articles on Wikipedia, or our project was somehow "unmanageable", we would be struggling to keep up with editing them as we found out what each of them had for breakfast. Until now, the core group of members who have been working to achieve our goal have been doing so. What we are now struggling to cope with is people protesting against the work we have put in. The only people who appear to be finding the scope of the project "unmanageable" are those who have popped up after 17 years and said there is a problem. Why was there no problem until they came along? I wonder. Bobo. 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be a distinct lack of good faith here from several of the nay-sayers. Creating stubs, however it's done, is fine. If a guideline or policy is problematic in allowing it to be done, focus on that, not the editor doing the work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Good faith doesn't need to exist when someone has neither the knowledge, ability, or will to maintain articles. The level of which, according to some, is "unmanageable". But not to those of us who have been doing so for all this time... Bobo. 16:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It happens to be true in this case, and the task is not made easier by the Wikiproject's disdain of (and opposition to) any material beyond statistics- deriding article content as 'bumf'. Reyk _YO! 16:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There never used to be "disdain" for this when we were all co-operating. I wonder what went wrong..? Bobo. 16:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment- needless to say, writing some python scripts to scour stats databases and then outsourcing the work of actually writing proper articles to people who are skeptical of the whole profusion of microstubs phenomenon, is ridiculous. Reyk _YO! 16:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Good one, making up a new class of article in an attempt to ridicule the efforts of a good faith editor. Deary me, this is doing no end of harm all this divisive "discourse". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If only I thought of getting my pet python to write articles instead. Bet he'd be throwing a hissy fit right now. (Roffles). Oh wait. Pythons don't have fingers. I forgot. Bobo. 16:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't "make up" the concept of a microstub; the term has been in common use for years. Go back and read through this ANI. We really are being told, "If you don't like these bad articles we wrote on non-notable people, you have to fix all the bad articles on notable test cricketers we wrote before you can object to it." Reyk _YO! 16:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can't improve something yourself, don't complain something isn't being improved, when we have exactly the same access to exactly the same material should we wish to access it. Bobo. 16:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• You re-read it. What you're being told is there's no consensus that there's any violation of policy here, so there's nothing more to be done at ANI. The ensuing witch hunt has been divisive and destructive, and a lot of people need to take a long hard look at themselves. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If people who were protesting against article creation were able to do something about it themselves, there would be no need for a "witch hunt". We'd all be quietly getting on with our own business as we have been since the outset of our project. Bobo. 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't called for sanctions against any particular editor. Go back and read my first comment on this ANI if you don't believe me. I've been commenting on the editing culture that allows for the rapid-fire semiautomated creation of statistical entries as articles at a rate of one every few minutes, while also criminalising AfD nominations that are an order of magnitude slower. I've also objected to the Wikiproject's habit of calling on the "nay-sayers" to do all the actual work, while opposing the sort of content people would usually expect to find in an article and while making completely unfair and inaccurate aspersions about their editing ability. Reyk _YO! 16:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We have been "editing" cricket articles for over 16 years. If this constitutes an "editing culture", I'm proud of it. If others are proud of forming a deletionist culture, then that's disturbing. What is this? 1984? Bobo. 16:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• There's no comment on anyone's editing abilities, that's a complete non-sequitur. ANI is not the place for what you appear to be trying to do. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oh really? Good faith doesn't need to exist when someone has neither the knowledge, ability, or will to maintain articles. That's a mendacious attack on other editors' abilities and motivations. Reyk _YO! 16:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really. it's a reflection on the nature of our project. A project that is sitting there unedited is "unmaintainable"? Bobo. 17:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• You think that's a "personal attack"? Honestly. This has run its shoddy course. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  You got pretty hot under the collar when I implied someone was using computer scripts to generate articles, which is quite a bit milder than saying people can only be objecting to those articles because they can't and won't edit properly themselves. Reyk _YO! 17:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Not really. I called out an attempt to shame a single editor whose actions have not contravened any policy or guideline. This is not a good look I'm afraid, the sooner this thread is closed, the better for the project as a whole, one fewer venue for unjustifiably singling out good faith editors. There's only a couple of people going round here making things personal. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what a python script is, let alone how to write one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, "good faith" and all that! What a diabolical thread this has become. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I expect nothing less from this user. After all their stub-bashing, they still hold a grudge after I once pointed out they created this masterpiece. Still, they've come a long way since then. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Continuing stub creation

• After the posting of this ANI thread, Lugnuts has created four more new cricket articles sourced only to the statistics database part of CricInfo: Hubert Pagden, Arthur Pattison, Thokozani Peter, and Andre Peters. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  ...and all of these players have more than a dozen top-class appearances in domestic cricket. Johnlp (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

  And that is all completely and entirely meaningless if there's no coverage about them besides statistical databases. WP:NOTSTATS - if the only things we can say about these cricketers is something mundane and run-of-the-mill, they don't deserve an article. But again, better to argue the uselessness of NCRIC elsewhere but ANI, right? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, most people's lives are "mundane". Get up, do stuff, go back to sleep. Do the same stuff tomorrow. Bobo. 06:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

So the first one I click on happens to be Andre Peters with 51 first-class appearances. 51. Not one or two, but 51. If anything has confirmed to me that this ANI is not done in good faith, it's that. If you're so concerned by stubs, why don't you help to expand them, instead of causing your own disruption? StickyWicket (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated one of the reasons why mass stub database creation's so problematic. It's possible Peters is notable. There's not heaps of information online, there are mentions in a couple books, he might not meet GNG at the end of the day but there's a good chance he does, but it creates BLP issues. Looking at Pagden, there's not an ounce of information I can find online that's not a CricInfo or Cricket Archive database directory, it's a clear GNG failure. This would be less of an issue if every player being created clearly passed GNG and it wouldn't be an issue at all if these articles were properly sourced from the get-go, even if they were stubs. SportingFlyer T·C 15:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not possible that Peters is notable, he is notable. 51 first-class appearances isn't a borderline notability call. StickyWicket (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In which case, I would see Test cricketers' articles as being more of a pressing issue than anything else. How do we know any of those who have zero sources "pass GNG"? Maybe because people pull these "guidelines" from out of nowhere with no will to expand articles. Bobo. 15:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Part of the issue for me is that the discussion on GNG being more prevalent than SNGs whenever it took place, hasn't been implemented well enough into the guidelines. Reading WP:SNG it basically states that if a subject passes an SNG it is presumed notable still, even if it doesn't pass GNG (although it does say it may be deleted later if it doesn't pass GNG). There is nothing in this passage to say that any of the articles Lugnuts have created aren't notable as they all pass the cricket SNG. Obviously many don't like the cricket SNG because they feel it too inclusive and there's a discussion still ongoing on it at the project, although I personally feel that GNG doesn't deduce notability in sports people very well anyway. In simple terms, the discussion on GNG overruling SNGs hasn't been implemented well enough to stop mass article creation like this, not that I really have a problem with it anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• Why is this header "Continuing disruption" when there's absolutely no consensus in the preceding section that there is any kind of "disruption" occurring? This is disingenuous. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
• What TRM said. Looks to me as if Lugnuts is editing according to guidelines. That's not disruption. If one dislikes this editing, one should gain consensus to change the guidelines. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Deepfriedokra: It appears the remedy here will instead be to continue the massive push at AfD to identify all of the articles created that don't pass WP:GNG, especially the BLPs. My understanding is and has always been that's not "within guidelines." SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Which "guidelines" are you referring to? It would be useful to see them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't it seem prudent to require that anyone who wishes to create lots of articles based just on a database get consensus to do so beforehand, like any other mass creation? That feels like the sort of proposal that might find support more easily than a change to NSPORTS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus? The principles we've been working towards have existed for 17 or more years. If we were all willing to work together instead of in direct combat with each other, we wouldn't need "consensus" for mass article creation. We would just get on with it. And that's what we were doing until recent deletionist tendencies came to the fore. We were happily working towards "consensus" that we were all here for the same reason until recently. If the people complaining about guidelines had been around 17 years ago, we might be taking them more seriously... ironically, it's those of us who have been involved in "mass article creation" who wouldn't be complaining if they were to help out with this very issue! Bobo. 14:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it seem prudent to discuss with a user if you have problems with them, rather than raising an ANI thread where no previous user conduct discussion has been raised? Also, I doubt anyone has done a proper WP:BEFORE check to make sure that these people are actually not notable. Someone with 51 appearances from a time before the internet from a country where there isn't great historical newspaper coverage may well be notable in offline sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I did reach out to them on their talk page and took the additional creation of these single-source stubs as proof my request had been completely ignored without engaging in discussion. Thokozani Peter and Andre Peters might pass GNG. There's very little available online about Hubert Pagden and Arthur Pattison beyond the statistical databases, at least from - probably a slightly more thorough BEFORE search than I'd normally do. The fact that some players may well be notable really isn't the issue - it's that many are not, these articles are being created at a good clip, and no effort is being put in apart from their mass creation. Further the fact there's an auto-patrol on means that none of these articles get tagged for notability - they just sit there. I don't have any problem with the mass creation of stubs which clearly pass GNG and are not problems. SportingFlyer T·C 15:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This isn't actually a response to what I said, though. Mass creation of articles based on a database, whether through a controversial notability guideline or even one which is entirely uncontroversial, should require consensus to carry out. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

But does it? If not, then why is this being discussed at ANI? This isn't a venue for talking about disliking the way things are, there are plenty of other venues to go chasing process change, ANI is not it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• On top of the four listed above, Lugnuts has created an additional ten stubs sourced only to CricInfo today, auto-patrolled. I can't BEFORE all of these. SportingFlyer T·C 15:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Knowing that the above proposal has already failed to attract any strong opposition, I would only recommend you to care less about this area. It is really not your or anyone's duty to ensure that nothing wrong happens on this website. You have already bothered enough. Just leave things as is. 106.205.215.69 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There are clearly some concerns about these stubs. Whether this was the appropriate place is another question. Anyway there's a discussion at NSPORTS and hopefully that can attract more constructive dialogue than in the context of WP:Cesspit. The above proposal for restrictions should probably be closed per SNOW; though, as it clearly won't happen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to close

There's clearly no consensus in the original thread here that Lugnuts has done anything wrong per current guidelines and policies. Continuing discussions over changing said guidelines and policies should take place at the relevant locations. This conversation is providing no light, just an opportunity for people to air their personal feelings on stubs, notability etc which is not what ANI is for. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth ($.02 I should think) I have to agree with this. I actually don't much care for Lugnuts approach here, but they have absolutely complied with a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines and policies available. This is, as has been said, a matter of policy and not user behavior. Let this close and discuss it in the proper places. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand the desire to close, but I was also definitely hoping to bring this to the attention of administrators, and most of the discussion has been from users over at the Cricket WikiProject. This also isn't a guideline or policy change. As I mentioned, sports bios require GNG to be met. Lugnuts is adding dozens a day which do not on their face, and many of them cannot even with proper editing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I get your point, and even more, I agree with it! But my point is simply that I believe Lugnuts' interpretation is a perfectly reasonable good faith way to read the guidelines (even if you and I might prefer something different). As such, whatever this is, it's not an issue of editor conduct, ergo, this is the wrong venue in which to deal with it. If you'll forgive the egregious legal analogy, I believe something like the Rule of lenity applies -- it simply won't do to be sanctioning users for good faith and reasonable interpretations of policy. That has to be dealt with in another way. Again, the foregoing is just one old man's opinion, and if consensus is against me, so be it! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

And I concur with that. This has always been about interpretation of policy/guideline and never needed administrator intervention at this place. Consensus is clear above that Lugnuts has done absolutely nothing worthy of any kind of sanction, and to that end, this is case closed. If you wish to address the matter you have noted, you'd be much better off addressing the apparent shortcomings in whatever policies and guidelines you believe are not tight enough for these verifiable stubs. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Immediate protection needed at Rosie Jones (comedian)

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

---

Immediate protection needed at Rosie Jones (comedian) after this tweet by Jones encouraging vandalism. Six cases within 10 minutes. Will ask at WP:RFPP too but if it's a slow day there, I can't spend all day removing mentions of Beef Hula Hoops... — Bilorv (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Handled at RFPP, no action needed unless the vandalism continues through semi-protection. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistent disruption at Youth culture

Sneaky vandalism described as typo fixes, by Taofeeq Abdulkareem (talk · contribs). There was a time when garden variety disruption was handled quickly at AIV. That's no longer the case, so I report here in hopes of assistance. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:7130:35DC:CC52:CA3E (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs by Taofeeq Abdulkareem (talk · contribs), those all appear to be changing a single character at most. What's the vandalism here? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

And some of them appear to be legitimate (not all, but some). Canterbury Tail talk 19:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A couple are legit. Most of the edits involved more than a single character change. They were for the most part unnecessary changes; some changed tense, some singular/plural, and some messed with hyphenation and punctuation. There was no response to multiple messages. Rather, they just continued [93]; [94]; [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]; [99]; [100]; [101]; [102]; [103]. The default edit summaries of 'fix typo' and 'added content' are misleading--this is either persistent sneaky vandalism or a WP:CIR issue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:7130:35DC:CC52:CA3E (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What I suspect is that the user is one of a group editing from a single school. It appears the students choose specific articles, then make copy edits en masse. Some help, some don't. Mostly I was hoping for assistance to slow this editor down. 2601:188:180:B8E0:7130:35DC:CC52:CA3E (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

SerVasi and slow edit war at Ivan Visin

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

I was patrolling WP:3RRN and found there a report against this user. Whereas the report itself is strange, but the matter is that, as fas as I see, the last seventeen edits on this page is an edit-war between SerVasi and a few other editors, including Sadko, who recently has been topic-banned from Eastern Europe. The users remove the info that the subject is Croatian, and SerVasi restores this information, citing the croatian Encyclopedia (which their opponents call a nationalistic source). I do not know who is right and who is wrong here (the sources originating from Croatia must be treated with great care but I have no idea about this encyclopedia), but they not a single time cared to add the reference to the article, and the article remains unsourced. The user has slightly over 1K edits. I am a bit puzzled about what to do. Presenting them at AE is probably a loss of time, at any rate it should not be a loss of my time. I would have blocked, especially since last year they have been blocked five times, escalating to over a month, on the other hand, they are not at the 3RR level. Opinions welcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Croatian Encyclopedia (enciklopedija.hr} is published by a scholarly institution, Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography (LZMK). I found nothing bad about it. It looks like the kind of source I would use without hesitation. Narky Blert (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I provided RS on a common known fact, atleast in that general geographic area. There was no counter arguments or sources, just "croatian source bad". Normally i would start a discussion on the talk page but my opposition was a couple of anonymous IPs and a dude who reported me as a neo nazi for some reason so i decided to spare my time. They are not trying to build an encyclopedia. SerVasi (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a case for WP:BOOMERANG as the reporter JamesSandy64 (talk · contribs) was recently created, and immediately started making contentious edits to some of our favorite recent WP:ARBMAC-related hotspots. Their first edit was on Višeslav of Serbia, where it seemed fine, reverting anonymous vandalism, but then they moved on to striking ancient sockpuppet text from talk page archives, then a bit later dropping a long-standing book source from an article (this was reverted by Peacemaker67), then I found more sockpuppet talk archive business, removing a WP:HRV talk page tag from an article (?!), again an edit discussing sockpuppets. This just screams long-term axe-grinding to me, but I can't recall immediately whose particular style this is to file a checkuser request at WP:SPI. Would anyone object me blocking this account for gaming the system on simple behavioral grounds? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible attempt to discredit Robert Lanza

I just updated Robert Lanza page and got a surprising reply from User:ජපස very soon. As part of increasing my experience and doing edits now to some of the more complicated areas which go through a review, I did some improvements, which I think is fine to do because they go through the review process. I like to improve pages. So, thought to improve this too. As the page was protected my edits can't be get approved directly. So, I edited the page and provided credible sources like Forbes, NYtimes, and Wired. But seems like this user is not satisfied with these sources. He is continuously harassing Robert Lanza's page. He is removing words like scientist from his page which is kind of weird. Discrediting him with false info and trying his best to manipulate neutrality. The improvements edits which I have done were approved by User:KEleison. So, there is nothing wrong with it. So, to found that out I just checked User:ජපස talks page and saw that he has engaged in many edit war before and is also being warned by admins User_talk:ජපස. I would request admins to please have a look into this matter. ToddyShake (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Robert Lanza. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Hi, Folks! Robert here, I am sorry if there are some confusions. I have been watching my page for few days and have noticed there are some IPs and a user trying to change the way my page looks. To clearly clarify I am a scientist. So, disregarding me as a scientist by User:ජපස is a kind of slap to my face. I felt bad but I thought its ok when this user removed all books which I had published. I can see many similar pages where other people's books are mentioned. I am not sure why I am particularly targeted here. Why my achievements are being suppressed? I am sorry if I have broken any Wikipedia guidelines, as far as I remember I just contacted a guy on Upwork a few months ago for a minor page upgrade. And he was insisting me for page monitoring service which I clearly denied because I didn't see any need for this. That editor was saying he is pretty experienced and has more than 17 years of experience. After taking a look at User:ජපස account it also seems the same old account. I am suspicious here that this user might be the same guy I hired on Upwork earlier. Because I am getting requests for page maintenance still now. I am not sure what to do here. Most of my notable research work is getting removed and it gives a pretty bad impression of me. After doing years of hard work and getting recognization is pretty challenging which I somehow managed to pass. I hope my page can be like other similar pages where a person's achievements can be shown. LanzaRobert (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"LanzaRobert" is a false account. Please remove the account and all comments attributed to me immediately. NOTE: I just set up this account to notify you of this fraudulent activity.RPLanza (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Robert. It's good to take an interest in your public image, and I believe you that you've done some impressive work. All that said, unfortunately, contacting a guy on Upwork is a pretty serious violation if you aren't doing it in a very careful and specific manner. There's an approved process for people with a conflict of interest -- article subjects or paid editors -- to suggest changes to pages, but editing them directly is both prohibited (de facto, and de jure 'strongly discouraged') and raises the ire of a quite passionate subset of the community. You're also not the first person to come here saying that they paid for edits and were later turned on, scammed, or abused by the paid editor, I'm afraid. Vaticidalprophet 21:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, in the context of that specific guy, he is definitely not your paid editor. Vaticidalprophet 21:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

User:LanzaRobert: No slap in the face was intended on my part. I generally assume medical researchers are a subset of scientist and, in general, Wikipedia style is to try to be specific in our identifications whenever possible. Do you think "medical researcher" might be an appropriate ID? I would definitely recommend ending any relationship you have with paid editing services at this point as you can simply request on Talk:Robert Lanza for any suggestions or edits you might think worthy according to the WP:COI policy.

Again, LanzaRobert" is a false account. Please remove the account and all comments attributed to me immediately. NOTE: I just set up this account to notify you of this fraudulent activity.RPLanza (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to be clear that while we may not see eye-to-eye regarding our opinions, I certainly am not out to have Wikipedia "discredit" you in any untoward fashion. I firmly believe that Wikipedia in situations like this should provide the clearest explanation of independent sources we have available. In the case of your ideas about biocentrism, that puts your ideas somewhere in the realm of our WP:FRINGE guideline which I encourage you to read. Note that this guideline is very broad and sometimes people get offended by the lumping as this guideline covers everything from new and untested speculation all the way to clear absurdities. To be clear: this isn't a value judgement by me or by Wikipedia about your work (or, at least, it is not intended to be that way), but my goal and, I think, the goal of most users active here is to curate the best possible article according to a roughy WP:MAINSTREAM evaluation. One more thing: as your article is a biography of a living person, there are strict sourcing guidelines that we need to adhere to. One thing I would love, for example, is a clear citation to an independent verification that you were an adjunct professor at Wake Forest.

Welcome to Wikipedia and feel free to reach out if you need help. I recognize that I might not be the first person you would want to reach out to, but the offer stands in any case.

jps (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment: I am afraid that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that User:ToddyShake may be the Upwork paid editor in question. While he has neither confirmed nor denied this, I think from his talkpage and general behavior this might be considered a possibility in any case. I will step away from further engagement with that user in case an admin wants to investigate in some way or another. jps (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost certainly. (I had noticed their edits at Dustin York yesterday -- that page has been the target of other obviously promotional editing in the past.) --JBL (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the edit under dispute[104] largely consists of two short quote-paragraphs that don't even indicate who they're quoting. (Wired magazine? I think?) More broadly, there seems to be some back and forth[105] over some very credulous quotes about Doctor Lanza's work outside the medical field. No offense to Lanza, but that work almost certainly triggers the guidelines about WP:FRINGE research, so some care should be taken about choosing quotes about it. ApLundell (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Comment First of all sorry, I didn't mean to blame you jps. You are doing great work. I am sure there is no editor from this discussion who is against my page. All you guys just want improvements to my page. I would be thankful if these few lines can be added to my page. There are proper sources provided. I have also requested on the talk page. And from now on will do the same by requesting edits from the talk page. Your help will be greatly appreciated.

“Lanza and his colleagues have published peer-reviewed scientific work supporting his ideas, including a paper in the same journal Einstein published his papers on relativity, showing that “quantum gravitational decoherence is too ineffective to guarantee the emergence of the arrow of time and the ‘quantum‐to‐classical’ transition to happen at scales of physical interest. The emergence of the arrow of time is directly related to the nature and properties of physical observer… in a sense, the “brainless” observer does not experience time and/or decoherence of any degrees of freedom.”

− − “Nathalie Cabrol, the director of the SETI Institute Carl Sagan Center, said “A biocentric ‘theory of everything’ could take life’s origins all the way back to the beginning of the universe…a paradigm shift that fundamentally changes our relationship to our planet, to our biosphere and to our universe.” LanzaRobert (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Again, "LanzaRobert" is a false account. Please remove these comments. Thank you!RPLanza (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked for spamming. MER-C 10:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

And I've blocked both LanzaRobert and RPLanza under the username policy, the former first. Definitely some funny business going on somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by IP 88.230.181.227

88.230.181.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Do note that I've not changed anything, I've simply restored sourced information. You would have thought the IP would have at least done his research before he started his barrage of attacks.

I agree. Seljuk Empire is Oghuz Turkic empire. These kinds of edits are made generally by people who have stakes in it. As you can see, it's edited by an Iranian called "HistoryofIran".

iranian user called "historyofiran" hijacking all Turkic Empire articles, he can't get over his conquered history.

Altered sourced information [106]

You know my reverts were right. Because of people like that, wiki doesn't get to be a reliable source of information. His ancestry were conquered by Turks, and iranian is trying to cope with it by editing wiki pages. If you check his edit history, guy is obsessed about Turkic Empires.

== How to protect the articles of Turkic Empires from being vandalized by iranians? == Especially this "historyofiran" guy, quite obsessed with the various Turkic empires which ruled iran from 1000ad till 1900ad, trying to turn all the articles into propaganda. He changed the Seljuk Empire into "Turko-Persian". While Turks had the full command, and iranians were basically living in the territory. How can we prevent this guy from hijacking the articles? Should we bring out the fact that iranians were highly arabized? It's like calling Turkey "Turko-European" country because we adopted latin alphabet, and European democratic values.

Wikipedia is not a place for your nationalistic propaganda.

This iranian called "historyofiran" can't get over his ancestry being conquered by Turks, trying to do propaganda on wiki. Look at his edit history. Do not allow wiki to be turned into propaganda place by these people.

--HistoryofIran (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 36h for edit-warring and general battleground behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended for 1 week, talk page access removed--Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment Could be IP address of this user; same rants but with harsher tone. Also this threat (launching cyber attacks on WP, organized POV-pushing, and harassing WP editors) proves my points: Non-stop sock farming, meatpuppetry and long-term abuse by User:Karakeçi24. As I said before, this is a long-term and organized quest. Wario-Man ^talk 04:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I'm willing to semiprotect a (reasonably-sized) list of affected pages for a while, so please feel free to compile these, prioritizing both the recent and egregious. Also, probably will indef HistoryofIran, too, due to bold spamming! Grr. El_C 14:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Please block users

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

---

Hello, Can anyone please block these users User:CommanderWaterford, User:Ashleyyoursmile, User:JTully234, User:SlimVirgin] and other who are restricting my edits. Nafeez Ahmed works for Terrorist organization and I am just adding that. I have sources to back up. https://web.archive.org/web/20061028155603/https://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/09/interrogating-911.html Everything is under wiki guidelines but still, these users are reverting my edits as spam. Please block them all ASAP. Jeet001F (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeet001F, you are obliged to inform users when you report them here. I have done so on your behalf.

You have made just TWO edits prior to making this report, yet FOUR editors are "restricting my edits". A cursory inspection of the history of Nafeez Ahmed shows the common thread in their edits to be reverting edits by Jeet001F (talk · contribs), 181.174.141.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and JeetFuel (talk · contribs). Are you using any other accounts? Cabayi (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeet001F, assumimg you are this IP as Cabayi points out, I have reverted you because this edit was unconstructive. You haven't provided any explanation of the changes in the edit summary. I haven't reverted any edits of the account that you are currently using. --Ashleyyoursmile! 07:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, those are my accounts but is that matters? Please block these users ASAP and use the nafeez.blogspot source which I provided above to add info which I am trying to add and getting reverted by these above editors. I would like quick action against these editors ASAP. Jeet001F (talk) 07:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jeet001F: Those users don't appear to have done anything wrong. You were deleting huge swathes of information with no rationale. — Czello 08:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Jeet001F, since those are indeed your accounts, you are not allowed to use multiple accounts for edit-warring . Please read WP:SOCK. --Ashleyyoursmile! 08:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Ashley! Yes, that IP and JeetFuel are both my accounts and I am using different computers with VPNs so there are no issues with it. Although, you talk very nice. I guess I am in love with you. Jeet001F (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Whew boy — Czello 08:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Blocks issued - 3 days to JeetFuel & the IP, Jeet001F blocked indefinitely. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeetFuel. Cabayi (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

• Note that the checkuser investigation concluded that these were not related accounts. It would seem that a troublemaker has managed to get another single-purpose account blocked by claiming to be its sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Alba Party article

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

---

Morning everyone. Could the article Alba Party have a collective eye kept upon it? I think it's getting a bit of to-and-fro from editors, both article space and the talk page. I would make this about one particular editor but am wary about that just yet. Might just need fire in the belly and heads in the freezer. doktorb _words^deeds 09:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

A new political party was formed in Scotland recently called the Alba Party.

Whether any of us support the Alba party or not it is clear that it's new leaders and candidates have deep roots in main stream civic life here in Scotland, and that the parties values and candidates could not be called "nationalist" in the sense that this word is often used by political detractors, as is the case in the opening paragraph of the Alba Party article.

It is acknowledged across the board in Scottish politics that use of the term "nationalist" to describe the independence movement is a cheap slur.

Becasue it implies non-existant racism.

As such if the word "nationalist" is left in place, as currently used to describe this new main stream political party in Scotland, it will reduce wikipedias' credibility.

Becasue it will present a position that is inaccurate and a slur.

Not an outcome any of us want.

More over wrongful suggestion of racism, where it is non-existant, constitutes inverted racism which is obviously vile.

There is a simple solution to this problem as follows.

Suggestion:

The opening line

"The Alba Party is a Scottish nationalist party based in Edinburgh" is clearly adversarial and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for accuracy and objectivity as I have outlined.

Rather than opening with a smear, this line can be significantly improved by removing the smear and simply being accurate by replacing it with the following line,

"The Alba Party is a Scottish independence supporting party based in Edinburgh" becasue that is exactly what the Alba Party is, whether we support the Alba Party or not.

I advise the above recommended change be made, then this part of the article locked. Kez321 (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kez321 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This noticeboard isn't the venue to get into the weeds of content disputes. Those conversations belong on the respective article talk page. El_C 13:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User Kez321

A notice has been placed on the user talk page of User:Kez321 As can be seen in the edit history of Alba Party, Kez321 is on something close to a crusade against the use of the word "nationalist", claiming it is racism, and claiming in the talk page that "moderator action" has to be taken against alleged racism.

See [107] and [108] and [109] for some evidence of his editing, and his edit summaries, which likely break our rules on conduct and behaviour. I think the talk page of his user page is already filling up with notices and warnings about his editing and conduct. I think he needs to calm down and work towards a consensus. I don't think at this point he is relaxed and calm enough to do so. doktorb _words^deeds 12:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Warned. Final warning issued. El_C 13:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your comments. Did you read what I have said above, and did you understand it, becasue it's clear to me that the suggestions that the Alba Party is "nationalst" are mostly if not all coming from people based outside Scotland, who probarly do not understand Scottish politics. I live in Scotland and have been involved in civic politics here for decades, and describing civic politics in Scotland as "nationalist" is inaccurate and slur. Kez321 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I escalate this matter so it receives full and proper contextual consideration. Kez321 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Read this: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Only just noticed this. I’ve already reported Kez321 at AN3 for being at 6RR in under 24hrs. DeCausa (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking over this user’s 260 edits since 2008, they mostly drop in to WP from time to time to do WP:BATTLE. DeCausa (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Kez321 blocked at AN3 for 72 hours for determined edit-warring and accusations of racism against other editors. Acroterion (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Removal of sourced content from Big History page

Can anyone stop this user ජපස from removing fully sourced content from science-related articles like Big History and please respect IP contributions. Despite checking his contributions, I also saw that he removed content with proper sources from Collective intelligence page too. I am not sure about this editor but the way he removes content without any proper reasoning is not acceptable at all. I would request admins and Wikipedia upper team to restrict this editor to do editing in these particular areas and let it be handled by experts only. Also, pinging other editors which I saw would be interested here including Slatersteven, Bradv, Zulrah, Springee, JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, Steelpillow, Brian Josephson, Doug Weller, Maxim.il89, Joshua Jonathan, Whiteguru, Gerald_Waldo_Luis, Gtoffoletto and more. Bigheditor (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Removing WP:FRINGE material that is poorly sourced is very much allowed. Also, you never notified ජපස of the discussion as it clearly shows in big bold letters at the top of the edit page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Removing contentious material is a normal part of the editing process. I would discourage adding it back, and instead direct you to the talk page of the article where it can be discussed by multiple editors. Regardless, this isn't not a matter for the admin boards, as it is not our remit to decide article content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

IP ignoring consensus

• 84.124.224.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2A01:E0A:4FA:7460:3999:4717:24ED:2EE7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This IP user (I believe it's the same person on both IPs) is consistently editing to their preferred version of World Football Elo Ratings, against a clear WP:CONSENSUS, established through a proper discussion at Special:Permalink/1014315664#World Football Elo Ratings. The content they're adding fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR, as they provide almost no sources for it, and the discussion at that link shows that there is clear consensus against it. This is a clear case of WP:NOTLISTENING, as they continue to revert to their preferred version, with almost no discussion (the Ipv6 sent 1 reply on that discussion). The point of discussion and consensus is to stop this WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, and they don't show any signs of stopping. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• Without prejudice, I have semiprotected the page for 3 months. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  That being said, isn't reproducing content from a creatively-produced list a copyright violation? (WP:TOP100 bullet #4, or Wikipedia:Copyright in lists) I know this list is statistics but the method used to calculate the ranked statistic is proprietary to the source, and I think that pushes this into creative presentation. Has that been discussed? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: Good point, which AFAICS nobody did bring forward so far. Another issue is that the main IP (84.124.224.222) who's been adding this has not engaged in any discussion ever. (a quick look at xtools for the current and the previous similar IPs show this). So in addition to the newest editor, the previous one also should be reminded that WP:Communication is required... (I tried doing that on their TP but hasn't worked out so far...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, formulae cannot be copyrighted, and neither can raw data. I don't know, but I'd be surprised if that were not true under US copyright law too. The presentation of that data can be copyrighted though, I believe (depending on jurisdiction), but that's not at issue here. So, no, I don't believe there is a copyright issue concerning the copying of the data itself from the sources (whether that is the raw data itself, such as tournament scores etc., or derived data from the application of mathematical formulae). Krea (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent BLP violations at Hilaria Baldwin

I don't know why this isn't properly protected; requesting rev/deletion of masses of defamatory content, and user blocks. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:B9E6:B41C:7BA4:6706 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I protected the page for a month, blocked two users indef, and revision deleted a bunch of edits. Some older edits need to be inspected by a native speaker, I can not say whether these are BLP violations or ordinary vandalism.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Ymblanter. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:B9E6:B41C:7BA4:6706 (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz's behaviour in the article Mate (drink)

Since March 15, 2021, I have been attempting to land a "citation needed" inline tag in the infobox regarding the "country of origin" [110]. I have explained the rationale on why a citation is needed (and in particular for the inclusion of Uruguay as a "country of origin") both in edit summary and later since March 23 in the talk page [111]. User User:Walter Görlitz keeps reverting my edits possibly bordering if not transgressing the WP:3RR. I have never before faced such staunch resisntance to a simple "citation needed" tag. Walter Görlitz keeps writing that either the "cn"-tag is not needed or that the content is already souced in the text, but fails to substance for such claims.

On March 23 Walter Görlitz went further to add a warning template in my talk page [112], telling me that my recent contributions to Mate "did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines."

Later on March 26 Walter Görlitz seem to have acknowledged that contentious content in the infobox needed to be based on WP:RS [113], Walter Görlitz adds a reference to Britannica and writes on the summary:

"Now that it is correctly sourced., date formats per MOS:DATEFORMAT by script!"

The Britannica reference does not say anywhere that Uruguay is more of a cultural origin than say Lebanon or Syria. Walter Görlitz is essentially distorting the source to engage in WP:OR. As Walter Görlitz has a long term and strong, precesence in the mate (drink) article and does not allow me to tag specific sentences I sense Görlitz's behaviour is a case of WP:OWN.

Dentren | ^Talk 20:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Dentren has ignored all of the sourcing that has been added. First, by an anon, and then later by me. I tried to explain that we do not add cn tags to infoboxes or leads, ideally trying to tag misinformation in the article. No recent engagement on the talk page.

The issue is simple, the tea was consumed by the indigenous Guaraní and Tupí. The first Europeans were introduced to the tea by the two groups. There are no sources to where they consumed it, or where the first peoples were found consuming it. The consensus was that the nations themselves should not be listed. @Oulipal: and @Warshy: argued that the first peoples should be made the source. That cannot be disputed. However, to give a modern reader an area, the modern day range of the two nations were provided.

The source of the ranges is what those ranges is what I sourced. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0222.xml is clear: "Caught between tradition and modernity, more than 100,000 indigenous Guaraní-speaking peoples currently reside in southern South America in what is today Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Bolivia." Britannica itself does not list Uruguay. I'm not really sure what is missing or what level of detail Dentren is trying to extract in the infobox. The drink's origin is not an issue to anyone except Dentren who has continued to edit war ignoring procedure or discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, this complain is about your behaviour, not the content per see. Dentren | ^Talk 20:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and the issue is clear, your behaviour was problematic and I was simply trying to maintain the correctness of the article. You failed to show were I added the CN tag to the section in the article that stated that the origin was with the Guaraní https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mate_(drink)&diff=1012361132&oldid=1012360910 . I even wrote there that "we tag articles not leads or infoboxes." yet you insisted on adding it to the infobox. Sorry, that's not done if it can be placed in the article. At best, you should {{citation needed lead}}, but it was stated in the article and later sourced. The problem is, you were showing OWNership of the idea of a tag of shame in the infobox. You refused to accept that a CONSENSUS had been achieved and you dieced you knew everything and the right way to approach this and edit warred to have it your way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: For reference, can you paste in the policy where {{citation-needed}} can't go in infoboxes? Thanks! WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 21:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If something is stated in the lead or an infobox, then never mentioned again in the body, I can't see where else you could place the cn tag... Black Kite (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not a policy at all, it's a practice. The purpose of an infobox and lede is to summarize the content in the article.

At the time that Dentren tagged the infobox, the claim was already made in the article and was not sufficiently cited there, so clearly the problem was that Dentren did not want to read the article to find where the claim was made and either CN or refimprove inle added there. That is why the content there should have been tagged and not the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz, Objectively speaking, I think your contributions are more disruptive than constructive. Celestina007 (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. In this specific case, I applied a general practice (and quite common in the music projects) and moved the CN template from the infobox to the content of the article. Dentren did not recognize this constructive behaviour and I engaged in discussion on the talk page. Is there some way in the actions on this article in particular that you would have done things differently? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Until Walter Görlitz seem to have reacted to my concerns on March 26 [114] Görlitz behaved as if he/she owned the article by reverting the "citation needed" tags I first tryied to add on March 15 [115]. More so, the Britannica reference Görlitz added does not give Uruguay as country of origin unless you engage in WP:OR. Summarizing, Görlitz have wrongfully hindered me in pointing out wrong (or likely wrong) information information in the article, and then engaged in an unacceptable distortion of sources. Dentren | ^Talk 00:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're linking to a place where I added a source that is not Britannica, and https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0222.xml does support that the Guaraní as being in Uruguay. Again Dentren is misleading and showing OWNership. Further to clarify, after the {{fact}} was added, I removed it and immediately placed one in the body of the article, where I believe it belonged. No OWNership at all. After that, Dentren twice added the template back to the infobox, which was unnecessary, refused to acknowledge the act of moving it to the body, refused to acknowledge that an anon added a source to support the claim, and misrepresents my addition of sources ignoring the addition of oxfordbibliographies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

So far Görlitz have failed to show that ancient Guaraní were drinking mate in Uruguay, a place that is outside the natural occurrence of Ilex paraguariensis. If Görlitz want to state such thing, Görlitz need to provide WP:RS about it, and not disrupt the inline "citation needed" tagging. (Just in case, the Oxford dictionary source provided here does not talk about yerba mate nor the mate drink, its just about the indigenous Guaraní). And —again— what I intend to discuss here is not content but Görlitz behaviour. Dentren | ^Talk 02:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If that is your concern, it can be removed. You have not stated Uruguay as your only concern prior to this discussion. The sources do state that thr drinking of the beverage is associated with the Guaraní and that their range included Uruguay, and that is all that the infobox states as well. My behaviour was above board and i engaged in clear communication. Dentren has not been so forthcoming. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Our article about Yerba mate, the herb that is the source of the beverage, says about the origins of the beverage "Its consumption was exclusive to the natives of only two regions of the territory that today is Paraguay, more specifically the departments of Amambay and Alto Paraná" and there are two references. That seems to undermine the Uruguay theory, if those sources are reliable. I don't care about the content dispute, other than to encourage the involved editors to work much harder to improve the content and the sourcing, as opposed to arguing about the location of cleanup tags. Refocus on improving the encyclopedia instead of bickering. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I never claimed it was in all of those regions, only that the the parameter required a place. It originated with the Guaraní. I have been endeavouring to improve the article, and will continue to do so, if given the opportunity. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 thank you for your feedback, yet let me remeber you that Walter Görlitz did neither allow me to tag [116][117] nor remove contentious information [118]. With such behaviour, and considering Görlitz wrongfully tagged my talk page because of my edits "not appear[ing] constructive and has been reverted." [119], I find it difficult to work in this article with Görlitz, indeed it seem a case of WP:OWN. Dentren | ^Talk 05:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Both of you should focus ten times more on cooperating with each other to improve the content and to evaluate the reliability of sources than on arguing about the location of maintenance tags. Please get back to work, and assume good faith of other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me remind you, Dentren, that I moved the citation needed tag to the body of the article. Do you acknowledge that this happened?

Once it was, there was no need to add it to the infobox. Do you agree that is the case? If not, why did you not remove the tag from the body of the article when adding to the infobox?

Also, do you agree that you made no clear statement of provenance?

Do you agree that the beverage originated with the people and not in a place?

Overall, this appears to me more of an instance of your lack of adequate communication and peculiar approach to wanting things your way, rather than cooperating on a solution?

YOU made no effort to communicate any of what you are complaining about here, other than the removal of the CN in the infobox, and you never addressed my comments in the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the best advice is really that of Cullen328. I would stop this discussion here and go back to the article talk page, so the task of "cooperating with each other to improve the content and to evaluate the reliability of sources" could be continued. Let us all leave personal grievances aside and go back to cooperating in goof faith to improve this encyclopedia. I know it is hard sometimes, but it is really the best path forward. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

DisneyMediaStuffFan

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

Apparently, the IP user who has been making problematic edits to articles such as Movies Anywhere has created their own account to try and bypass the article's protection. DisneyMediaStuffFan attempted to recreate the abandoned Disney Movies Anywhere with unreliable sources such as this. I request action be taken against this sockpuppet. DawgDeputy (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems they've decided to return to using an IP in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR

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

We’re long overdue for a centralized discussion and serious action regarding this user. For those of you who don’t know him, let me introduce you. KIENGIR basically doesn’t contribute content. I’m not sure what his raison d’être is here, but it certainly isn’t writing articles, and part of that is because he, well, can’t. His English isn’t up to par, as WP:COMPETENCE suggests it should be. Here and here are two frustrated users commenting on that issue.

By now, a lot of us are familiar with his modus operandi. What he does is to impose some unjustified change, hoping nobody notices. A lot of the time, his calculation pays off. A recent example would be here, part of his long-standing campaign to push the theory that Greater Hungary lasted until 1920, when in fact Czechoslovakia emerged in October 1918.

Unfortunately for him, other users do sometimes raise objections. At that point, KIENGIR falls back on Plan B: revert, revert, revert and talk, talk, talk, eventually wearing his opponent into submission. Examples are legion, but behold a recent one: here, here and here, he arbitrarily changes two pairs of links. When pointed out to him that the original links reflect the source, written by a prolific scholar in the topic area, he scoffs and says he knows better.

KIENGIR holds some rather esoteric opinions, and has a single-minded determination to impose them, regardless of whether the sources back him up. For example, I recently wanted to add four simple words to an infobox. Knowing the only sure way to prevail was to obtain consensus, I had to run a poll where my proposal prevailed, 5-1. The 1 objector, the subject of this complaint, wrote massive amounts of text, and it was a huge waste of time for all of us. Again, for 4 non-controversial words.

Or how about this one — a concerted push to add an absurd category to a category? Again, a wide-ranging discussion ensued, concluding that he’s wrong. Another waste of time for all involved. Lately, his ideas have been becoming ever more outlandish. Here, we’ve had walls of text about why we shouldn’t be linking Poland when writing about... Poland. Here, he wants us not to link Romania when discussing “modern Romania”. Here he tried to impose the view that the Nazi Party was not fascist. Thankfully, that’s a highly visible article, and he had to give up.

It’s fair to say KIENGIR is an inveterate revert warrior. He was warned against it back in November, but still does it with gusto: here and here are two prime fresh examples. Elsewhere, KIENGIR goes to quite great lengths to whitewash the authoritarian regime of Viktor Orbán, an action that speaks for itself.

One of KIENGIR’s time-tested tactics is to launch false accusations of personal attacks. See e.g. here and here. Meanwhile, he himself is guilty of such attacks, on numerous occasions. He was making them in January, leading to complaint by an administrator. Here, he told an editor, “You better avoid referring to policies”. And just today, when I explained a policy, he launched into a bizarre tirade.

One of his most egregious gambits has been unfolding just recently. On March 11, another editor received an email mentioning KIENGIR, and mistakenly thought said user had sent the message. The other user quickly noticed his mistake and apologized. (By the way, his initial reply is revelatory.) That should have been the end of the story. But true to form, KIENGIR wasn’t ready to let it drop. He waited 12 days before demanding to know who’d sent the email. Four days after that, he returned to the poor user’s page, insisting he be told the email’s author. After being firmly told off, he then went to an administrator’s talk page sputtering about involving ArbCom. As I said, egregious. Whatever KIENGIR’s future here is, he should understand that, within the scope of the law, we can write whatever e-mails we well please, even if they’re about him, and that his farcical inquisition can at best end in ridicule for him.

I’ve already given some hints of this, but let me just say outright that I’m far from being the only user who finds KIENGIR’s approach to be insufferable. For starters, see here. Here is another eloquent summation.

This statement has gone on at some length, but I hope I’ve presented a solid case for meaningful action. I’d like to close by pinging a few involved editors: @Boynamedsue:, @Azure94:, @Rsk6400:, @Place Clichy:, @Vanjagenije:, @Super Dromaeosaurus:, @CaffeinAddict:, @Beyond My Ken:, @Aza24:, @Oliszydlowski:. — Biruitorul ^Talk 01:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Biruitorul,

I will need a bit of time to investigate fully this, but it seems you have a bad conscience, especially you had quite lot of bad faith moves recently, in violation of many things. Now you continue, very nice, however these were not the first time. Never mind, I have nothing to be afraid of, in WP diffs talk, and yes, I will investigate with Arbcom that emailing issue in collaboration with the administrators in which somebody with a slime move tried me to set up, but it failed in the end. Just because you made this "preventive step", will not change the outcome, could be a huge WP:BOOMERANG, possibly affecting more editors in case, but I retain my good faith as far as possible, contrary to you. Have a nice day, until then!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

As far as I’m concerned, you can “investigate the issue” with the International Criminal Court; the fact remains that we all are guaranteed the right to freedom of speech and secrecy of correspondence, and there’s nothing you can do about that. What you can do is to try and account for your tendentious, hostile and unproductive behavior, but I suspect that’s a more challenging task. — Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I am familiar with KIENGIR's editing in the subject area of Nazism. He single-handedly held up the description of Nazi Germany as "fascist" by bludgeoning the talk page discussion. I was forced to go to AN and advertise for a closer because he simply wouldn't agree to the obvious and overwhelming consensus on the talk page. [120]. His non-sensical and counter-factual objection was egregious enough that admin Swarm commented on ANI: "IMO KIENGIR is on the absolute border of being indeffed for this, and you can log this for the record." [121]
  KIENGIR then followed that by ignoring pleas from several editors to stop blockading an RfC discussion on the same page. [122]. KIENGIR's user talk page is full of edit-warring notices from numerous different editors.
  In the subject area I'm familiar with his editing, his contributions are mostly small ones, and they are mostly improvements, but that doesn't negate the fact that when he digs in his heels, he becomes an incredible time sink. I'm not sure exactly what kind of solution can be found for this, but I think that a solution is necessary, as I don't believe that KEINGIR will change their ways until encouraged to do so by some kind of sanction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  KIENGIR'S response to Biruitorul above is absolutely typical of the way they respond when challenged, with personalization of the issue and charges against the editor he's in dispute with. Saying that Biruitorul's evidence-full complaint is the result of their having a "ban conscience" and of makiong "bad faith moves" is just not acceptable, but it's what happens. Read the two threads I posted above, and you'll find a number of instances of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• This largely looks like a content dispute. I also don't see anything bad with the diff where he "went to an administrator’s talk page sputtering about involving ArbCom". KIENGER was just seeking guidance there. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  No, it is not a content dispute, it is most clearly and obviously a behavioral problem ranging over numerous articles in different subject areas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I hadn't read your comment above before posting my comment. It looks clearer than the original report here. I agree that his contributions "are mostly improvements, but that doesn't negate the fact that when he digs in his heels, he becomes an incredible time sink. "Let's hope KEINGER will make some assurances before there is an urgent need for sanctions, given he still has the time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I believe I was tagged because a page on my watchlist: Louis C.K. had a rather bizarre interaction about C.K.'s Mexican-Jewish heritage and an editor had asked for a semi-protected edit to add a category for people of Mexican-Jewish heritage. Our user in question here decided to remove the category, which I reverted here: [123]. He then went on some pointless tirade about C.K.'s questionable heritage of both backgrounds which is not only information that is well documented but in some of his widely publicized comedy specials. The talk page section in question is here: Talk:Louis C.K.#Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021. Sounds like there's some sort of ulterior motive here and having to do with the above comments ^ may or may not have to do with Judaism, Nazism and/or Antisemitism. Not for me to decide or to suggest, but I'm beginning to see a potential pattern here... that's my two cents. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to go on the record as saying that I don't believe that KIENGIR is antisemitic or pro-Nazi or anything like that (although I cannot speak for any biases he may have in issues connected to Hungary). After Swarm made the comment I cited above, I wrote "I've been aware of KIENGIR's editing in the subject area of Nazis and Nazism for some time, and I don't believe I've ever seen an instance in which they attempted to whitewash or downplay its attributes." [124] Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  To that point I don't have any evidence or interest in reading too much into it to suggest that, just seems particular their editing seems to follow a trend. In general it seems that the editor is more disruptive than constructive. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  You raise a valid point. While I wouldn’t necessarily ascribe malicious intent, this kind of edit does raise eyebrows — splitting hairs while trying to absolve of anti-Semitism a regime that sent over 400 thousand Jews to Auschwitz. — Biruitorul ^Talk 03:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

  That seems like the kind of ultra-pedantic behavior KIENGIR showed in his arguments concerning why Nazi Germany wasn't a fascist country. He's got some odd viewpoints about things, and is apparently incapable of getting past them when multiple editors or consensus goes against them. What the genesis of that behavior is I don't know, and is really not our problem. Our concern is that when he gets stuck in those dead-ends he holds up everyone else by his intransigence. That's when the personalization starts.

  In one of the discussions I posted above, after about a half-dozen responses in which KIENGIR waved off someone's comment by saying that they didn't properly understand the problem or KIENGIR's position (if they had, they would obviously have agreed with him), an editor had enough and specifically asked KIENGIR to respond without commenting on the lack of perception of the editor -- and, of course, that's precisely what KIENGIR did. Whether he does this kind of thing deliberately or not is very difficult to say, but it's purely a matter of fact that he does this, over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Passing by, I saw just above stuff like " it seems you have a bad conscience, especially you had quite lot of bad faith moves recently". This is not a good way to defend yourself. Some sort of CIV/NPA warning is need, at minimum. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Answer to Biruitorul, let's see what we have here:

- "KIENGIR basically doesn’t contribute content." -> phh....INCIVILIY (d), quickly may be refuted, does not even deserve more word

- "impose some unjustified change, hoping nobody notices" -> joke, WP is a transparent platform (my favorite phrase, nothing is hidden). Any of my change I take the responsibility, if I made a mistake I always acknowledge it, and ready to discuss content issues. This demonstration of yours is flawed, since it is a similar simplification, like you did in the Brașov article proposal ([125]), not listing all the subsequent Hungarian states between the period (First Hungarian Republic, Hungarian Soviet Republic, Hungarian Republic (1919–1920)), and yes, Košice was transeferred in 1920, the year when Kingdom of Hungary existed, so this is the first WP:BOOMERANG of yours

- I keep all our guidelines and policies, regarding the Bleiburg Reparations, and yes, we need to talk sometimes (even if you don't like, this is the civilized way here, per policy, anyway I am not I am the one who engage so many big talks overall), and I do correctly which anyway an Administor also support in the various articles in the current topic:([126]), BOOMERANG, if you told about Tomasevich: ([127])...

- ah now you refer to the Brașov case I just mentioned. "Esoteric" I could call your emotional approach of some factual things nevertheless, but I don't wish to sank down that level. Not with you I discussed mainly, but an other editor with mutual satisfaction about related topics, with mutual respect. Maybe you don't like that editors may collaborate, especially the discussion was useful and important, you even blanked it ([128]), you don't like if a Hungarian and Romanian editor collaborate efficiently, instead of grievances? (poetrical question, no need to answer)

- How about this one" -> this is your key failure, in which you commited huge bad faith moves, harming WP:CIVILITY. You approached another editor I was in debate with ([129]), in which you spuriously sates that I do a maddening example...of modus operandi" contrary to "consensus". First of all I did not know about that discussion, but what is more important, even these category changes were done without it, and even opened a talk case for the issue [[130]], which I had no response. How interesting later I reveal there have been an e-mail recruitment to that issue, including my name as a subject, that one user by mistake considered I sent the e-mail, to recruit feedbacks to a category discussion, but I was NOT notified, not by even a ping or anything, but the misterious perpertrator could notify a bunch of other users in a hidden way (and even the case in the talk I opened remained unanswered)....secondly,it is very interesting what made you to complain a novice user, with lack of expertise and competence in the area, but you even forgot to notify me about that discussion that YOU created ([131]).... this was a shameful, awful move from a very-experienced editor like you...you claim "consensus" in an unfinished discussion, but you don't notify me but an uninvolved user you fuel to revert me instead....you tried to set me up, an another editor had to notify me about that discussion...BOOMERANG...(of course when I pinpointed this in the user's talk page, it became so inconvenient that with bogus edit logs it was blanked, the truth may hurt sometimes, I know, further on this ([132]) ([133]))

- The Poland discussion in the Romani people in Romania is a complete BOOMERANG of yours, after I sucessfully demonstrated the point, despite your initial bad faith implication manipulation ([134]), but of course as you revelaed this, you started to come up with personal attacks parochial obsessions, etc. ([135]), bad faith ironical personalizations, but you ignored my question ([136]), as well you supported the inexperienced user's spurious evasion of answering, a good case study anyway, but still a BOOMERANG

- The "modern Romania discussion" has not any problem as well, we clarified things with a fellow editor friendly (it seems you hate if Hungarian-Romanian editors collaborating with mutual respect? Annoyed?). When you wished there peaceful Sunday ([137]), you meant both of us? (or just to me with this move?)

"he tried to impose the view that the Nazi Party was not fascist." -> Ohh Gush, it seems you did not read the discussion, I was not saying something else, more complex. Instead of attacking my English, better learn to read and interpreting correctly, everything is there. I have to assume not every editor is a Rocket Scientist or have 150 IQ at minimum, but since then I discussed a case with an admin (I did not gave it up, and again, everything is visible and transparent here, which you have to concern, not me), who understood me and assured I did not in fact nothing wrong technically, semantically, despite he would prefer other solution ([138]). So this card is not playing.

- The RSK400 case have been debunked more times, I followed all the policies, the user reported subsequently any editor to AN3 and ANI who did not agree with him, openly to solve the problem and clear the obstacle out of the way like @Krakkos:. Failed with it, despite we generously supported even in more detailed extant what he wanted as necessary. Quite unfriendly move from him, and totally ridicuolous to spot me from a widespread discussion involving many-many editors, maybe me and Krakkos had the best arguments? Oh, I am really dangerous :D - BOOMERANG

- The next to diff, in fact an other editor commited mass edit warring, adding problematic content and was quickly blocked, just one step before indef ([139]), despite out of block commited huge personal attack ([140]) and again very poor performance. I just prevented the page from vandalism. Your one of greatest nadir the you openly support disruptive editors, just because they don't like me like you...BOOMERANG

- No I did not whitewash any "authoritarian regime of Viktor Orbán", I corrected to factual, and neutral information, and as any content issue, so you either present your evidence (as per other content issues) that I am not accurate or right, or better silence and apoligize (I am the one anyway who adds far more the most accurate content in the areas I care, and in this topic I proved to over times the most experts, next to sloppy mistakes by other who does not have elemental knowleged in the subject)

- So far, regarding personals attack you better deeply silence, since you commited them, while those diffs you presented does not contain any of such, indeed I suffered more as mentioned above. I have a very good relation with Vanjagenie, an admin whom I respect and tutored me, made me learn much.

- again the e-mail issue..."sputtering" (?)...are you nervous Biruitorul? However, I went to the administrator earlier as you present the events, so at least the causation you should not harm, if you considreed to compile a frank good report....but let's assume you are not calm..., however as going forward reading your lines, I am not really surprised...

- on the first of the last diffs, thank you that you made open your epic bad faith move (detailed above), however, the most important parts, as I referred have been censored (also about the bad faith blanking above). Your last diff is very lame, since you promote a novice, just blocked editor after a huge disruption, who just copy-pasted the spurious claims of the aforementioned pages, considering he may be unblocked if he starts to attack me....Congratulations, the nadir or your carreer here to fuel and teamup editors who openly recruit and train other editors against me, spreading lies ([141]) and even teaching and questioning a veteran administrator proper conduct, each of around 1000/2500 mainspace edits lacking huge competence and misconduct of our policies, repeatedly. Beautiful!

Epilogue:

- Biruitorul once already reported to me to ANI in the early years, simply he did not really like me from the beginning, especially that I have an expertise many of the topic areas I made more neutral, factual and accurate, which he by emotional (?)/ dislike my nationality (?) reasons did not like ion some sensitive topics, but the Securitate style dossier quickly failed, as the content issues he collected not just were not demonstrative, as it had not problems, but even to attach to me a negative behavior failed, and the community quickly recognized I regard him a partner and wish to communicate and a collaborate with him, which he harshly rejected. The report failed obviously.

- a bit later he emailed an administrator to set me up, however it was not successful either they quickly recognized my motives for accurate content and willing to learn, since then around 4 administrators supervised my career, having recurrent active communication with them and tutoring me as well, without any problem, successfully

- Despite I always collaborated with Biruitorul, I saw also from his behalf to became more moderate and professional once, he even asked my help, and happily helped, he thanked

- recently something again broke in him, which resulted this (hmmm...can I borrow from you the expression maddening example?) running amock, he thinks just because recently I was involved in more debates, the perfect time became to fuel and coordinate along with other editors against me, which possibly could result to move me out of way. I suffered WIKIHOUNDING, and co-ordination and teamup against me (I could search which policies have been violated with these, there may be a few but I don't waste time for that now), how to battle and tackle me, meanwhile a new dossier was again opened/compiled to move in the moment ([142]) -> 007, James Bond? ([143]) -> MAFIA XD, B-O-O-M-E-R-A-N-G, to the power of...two at least :) (and we still do not know who performed the hidden email coordination).

What could I say...those members of the community who don't have enough time may be coined for a while, but those who investiagte thoroughly will see the truth. I gladly answer and pinpoint anything if would not be clear, and again, I am absolutely sad that instead of quality editing, some partisan editors feel the need to harass me with spurious cooperative tactics.

Biruitorul, you should be deeply ashamed, I don't even expect from you to apologize, but with this I expressed everything. I will still forgive you, = meaning I care professionally about content issues, not your nervous manifesto here.

Remember very good, it's never to good to play to too intelligent people. @Vanjagenije:, @Ymblanter:, @El C:, @EdJohnston:, or @Oshwah: are laser brains, as much of the administrators here. Only the time and depth of analysis matter in complex issues. I hope you will get mercy. (getting back to the lovely Sunday, Cheers!)

P.S. I am sorry, as meanwhile many other comments cumulated, I did not read them so far and may react later (as well sorry for those who did no wait until audi et altere pars, as well for everyone baited, we lose many precious editing time with this nonsense :( (KIENGIR (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

• I read through the rest:

Biruitorul -> "tendentious, hostile and unproductive behavior" -> not really, quite boomerangish, the quality of my edits and my service record justifies me. Biruitorul, there has been an extensive discussion in the Hungarism article, which everyone may read, do you really think with selected, spuriously communicated diffs you have chance? Every expert knows what means Hungarism, and A-Semitism, in relation with Anti-Semitism. I am sorry for you, really.

Beyond My Ken -> Nice to see you, I would have been happy if yout waited my detailed answer. Would spare you much of demonstrations, however I reacted to them without knowing in my previous answer. (Nazism/Fascism, etc.) However, you tried to be fair as far as possible, after all, I acknowledge. Though it is true, many did not understand me, but there are other's who did. All the best!

Georgethedragonslayer -> Lovely

CaffeinAddict -> amazed, you seem to create from a flea an elephant, btw. I've never met you so far, just on that page. There are no conspiration theories, just simple logical thinking.

@Piotrus: -> I just only ping you because you are Polish (also there is a Polish issue after all), Polak, Węgier, dwa bratanki...don't worry, I am just kidding, if you really think CIV/NPA is needed even without reading my response, contrary what I've got Biruitorul so far and others - even lately...objectivity means, first I review both parties claims, and the evidence, only after I should form an opinion. As a golden rule. Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

• I want to add my two cents about another case of User:KIENGIR's baffling and possibly biased editing. There were two kingdoms in the 19th century Austrian Empire, the Kingdom of Bohemia and the Kingdom of Hungary. The Austrian Emperor was crowned king of both of them. Nevertheless, KIENGIR is now erasing Bohemia from infoboxes, claiming it wasn't independent. Yet, at the same time he's inserting Hungary when he can, flip-flopping on his own criteria. In another case, KIENGIR continues to ignore MOS:SAINTS and WP:COMMONNAME. A consensus was reached a year ago about using the English name for the Catholic saint. KIENGIR was part of the debate too, yet here he is, a year later, still ignoring the consensus. KIENGIR is incredibly stubborn over the most minor changes, and his refusal to accept compromise even when he's heavily outvoted, leads to many exhausting talk page debates. Azure94 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support some form of action per WP:CIR. I don't levy CIR accusations casually, but KIENGIR's judgment is simply not trustworthy or useful, yet he clearly wants to aggressively revert and eat up time on talk pages. I have not interacted with him very much at all - mostly in boggling at his stances at the Talk:Nazi Germany discussion, so no skin off my nose either way - but it's not good. Everybody is allowed to have some idiosyncratic stances, but KIENGIR has way too many and stands by them. Arguing over whether Nazi Germany was fascist or not (per links above)? Talking in condescending tones about his high level of "expertise" that has enabled him to solve Wikipedia or something? Claiming that we should categorize politicians from X country as a subcategory of politicians from an entirely different country if there happens to be a single overlap (the equivalent of saying Mayors of New York City should be a subcategory of Italian politicians because of Fiorello la Guardia or the like?!)? The malfunctioning Wikignome is in some ways the most dangerous kind - simply doing nothing is better than doing a mix of reasonable-ish things as well as bizarre, personal ORy ones. KIENGIR is just wrong constantly, which would be fine, except he doesn't accept feedback, he just rambles on about what he Really Meant And Why It's Actually Right and doesn't engage with what's being said. This is intensely frustrating; disagreements are fine, common on Wikipedia, but you need to show you understand the other side's arguments, not just say you're right at length. Anyway, I would tentatively recommend something like a 0RR restriction as well as a talk page comments limited to one paragraph per 24 hours, with an understanding that those can go away when and if KIENGIR shows the ability to productively work with other editors rather than just waste their time. SnowFire (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would first recognise that KIENGIR makes a large number of largely positive minor edits, however, I do not feel that this makes up for the massive amount of editors' time which they consume with their intransigence as deliberate policy of WP:STONEWALLING. My experience of interaction with KIENGIR is so utterly exasperating that I have had to teach myself wiki bureacracy, something I had no interest in before. They have robbed me of hundreds of hours of effective editing by dragging an incredibly simple matter to DRN and RfC.

I would like to add some more worrying behaviour to the list documented by Biruitorul.

1. The deletion of sourced content as a bargaining chip to allow KIENGIR's POV (usually related to Hungarian nationalism or an extreme right POV) into the text, as a misapplication of the policy of reversion to the status quo for disputed text. My first experience of this was on Romani People in Hungary where I had added three paragraphs of carefully sourced text on the nature of anti-Roma racism in Hungary. KIENGIR wished to add two comments by a specific Roma politician which supported racist statements by various individuals. They claimed that without the comments of this individual all the rest of the text was POV and had no consensus so must be deleted. KIENGIR refused to identify specific examples of bias, despite many requests, and used a direct appeal to a reluctant admin to delete the text to a "status quo" version which excluded a massive amount of well-sourced text, when I had already offered them DRN or some other arbitration on the inclusion of their preferred sentences. The basis of this reversion by the admin was massive edit-warring, edit-warring which KIENGIR had initiated to force their POV into the article! This is not accidental, the same pattern of edit-warring, then reporting to an admin with which KIENGIR has a working relationship can be seen in their interaction with Azure94, linked above. Btw, this case is now at RfC, current vote tally is 5 to 1 against the inclusion of KIENGIR's text, as is generally the case when people have the stamina to face KIENGIR down.

Another example of threats of deletion for no good reason: Source uses the word "regions", KIENGIR prefers "fiefdoms", threatens to delete the whole sentence if doesn't get way. This is wikilawyering to force through a preferred edit, there can be no justification for deletion of sourced text on this basis.

2. The misuse of Hungarian language sources. Kiengir will frequently throw down Hungarian language sources without providing translation, on more than one occasion, the articles have not supported the text which he adds. 1 2

3. Communicative competence on talk pages: KIENGIR's contributions to talk pages are frequently extremely difficult or impossible to understand. This is a combination of excessive length of comment, incomplete control of English, refusal to clarify or repeat when requested, and constant deviation from content into metacommentary on the history of the ongoing debate. KIENGIR often feels that if their comment is not understood, the problem is that the listener is not trying hard enough, and denies the problem even when it is directly stated by uninvolved users (examples here and here, 17th(!) statement by moderator). At our recent DRN, I was even forced to explain KIENGIR's position to the moderator, as they were unable to express it clearly themselves. Whether this amounts to WP:STONEWALLING or is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, I am not entirely sure.

TLDR, Kiengir enters into discussion pages in a way that creates massive disruption to the ability to edit of many users. Their attitude causes thousands of hours which could be used to improve wikipedia to be wasted. I hope the admins can come up with some solution that stops this behaviour, but allows KIENGIR to continue the other more positive work they do, but I am at a loss to think how that would work. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have had several interactions with KIENGIR and I would say that most (if not all) have been friendly and we have discussed the issue civilly, so I cannot (nor do I wish) to say much on the subject. However, I agree that the user's way of acting can sometimes be improper. The best example I can think of is the categories issue mentioned by the OP above, KIENGIR simply was wrong on this case. I also consider that the attitude he had with Azure94 was not the most appropriate, as he did not focus on the content dispute but rather on the user themselves (not sure if I am making myself understood). Of course it must also be said that Azure94 did more questionable actions and claims than KIENGIR, but the reason I mention this is because Azure94 is a relatively inexperiencied user with few edits while KIENGIR has been here for a long time, and I consider the latter's way of dealing with Azure94 erroneous (as the content dispute was not really covered and this user ended blocked). This is just one case that I have noticed, as I have not seen KIENGIR's contributions extensively, so I would not say that this is always the case (and I am also not the best person to comment on someone's way of acting).

I also consider that some claims regarding his interaction with Ymblanter partially true, considering that this admin protected the page where KIENGIR had a conflict with Azure94 for edit-warring despite it was only them the ones fighting; this also happened at Zakarpattia Oblast, both protections being unneccesary in my opinion. But don't get me wrong, KIENGIR is a reasonable user with whom you can agree, at least on my case, and while perhaps a sanction may be necessary (or not, I don't want to dig much into that), it would be unwise and excessive to apply a long block or a 0RR restriction. Whatever the outcome of this report is, we should make sure it is not excessively damaging for the accused and helps them improve their attitude, which is not flawless but not negative in general from my point of view. Super Ψ Dro 10:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• To me this seems like a content dispute between Hungarian and Romanian editors. I'm unsure if ANI is the right place to straighten out such disputes. I've had my disagreements with KIENGIR throughout the years. He is certainly an assertive editor, and his English is far from ideal. In my experience, the contributions and arguments of KIENGIR frequently contributes to the creation of better article content. I have full confidence that KIENGIR is a good-faith editor with whom we can work on building an even better encyclopedia. Krakkos (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I am of ambiguous nationality and ethnicity, but whichever one of them I choose, I am neither Hungarian, Romanian nor any variety of Central/Eastern European. As far as I am aware, the only Romanian to have commented so far is Biruitorul, and I know for a fact that several users who have commented critically are not Romanian. The reason that the disagreements have largely (though not exclusively) related to Hungary and environs is that this is where KIENGIR holds strong views. Boynamedsue (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Krakkos How do the problems I've described with KIENGIR at Nazi Germany fit in with your contention that this is a "content dispute between Hungarian and Romanian editors"? Neither Hungary nor Romania figured in those incidents in any way, and the behavior I saw in those disputes is pretty much the same as the behavior described by Biruitorul.

I have no doubt that content disputes underlie the behavioral concerns expressed here -- as Biruitorul said in their opening statement, those behaviors came out when KIENGIR is challenged -- but they are nonetheless behavioral problems that are being discussed, and not content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with what User:Beyond My Ken has stated, the content disputes are not the point, it is the behaviour they occasion. I have had many content disputes, none have been like those with KIENGIR. Boynamedsue (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That’s an unfortunate interpretation, Krakkos, given that I presented evidence from a variety of topic areas, interactions with a variety of users from all over the place. Yes, somewhat naturally, my own interactions with KIENGIR focus on Romania/Hungary, but that’s hardly the whole story. On the other hand, I’ve had divergences with other users in this very area — but the determination, the stubbornness, the lack of even the slightest concession to logic, the sheer tedium and exhaustion — those are all unique to KIENGIR. So no, really not a content dispute. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on Talk:Nazi Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I expressed my concerns about this a few weeks ago [144]. I agree it's a CIR issue. The long response above is typical. Unfortunately this has been causing a lot of disruption, including real problems with what our articles say. We can't be wasting editor time debating whether Nazis are fascists and so on. Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Azure94 -> there is saying, if you'd remain silent, would be wiser. While the Kingdom of Bohemia was incorporated to the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary was not (btw. you were explained in the talk of the reasons). About MOS+COMMON, you came up with this argumentation recently, conqequently I could not even know about the consensus you refer (after I at once occasion reverted, you started massively removing Hungarian names in several articles, Norden1990 challenged you already), though given your extensively problematic recent pattern it has to be investigated what is stated exactly there. There other remark is your copy-paste from other user talk pages. Better apologize for your personal attack which you did not do so far, it's always ok to say sorry.

Snowfire -> you reiterate some issues that I had to explain more times, either you did not understand or did not want to understand, and I completely disagree my judgments would not be trustworthy (or "just wrong constantly", sorry to say but this is a ******t, excuse me being profane, after you admittedly did not investigate my contributions thoroughly), on the other hand I provided over 95%+++ the most accurate content on articles with a very minor error ratio, wich have been remedied quickly. What you still did not grasp fully, that I always showed understanding of others arguments, if there were correct of flawless. Remind mathematic or chess articles. If you say to 10 ten times that 2+2=5 in a decimal Euclidean system, I don't have to agree becasuse you repeated so many times, if it's invalid. Seems you did not review the category issue, I won't repeat myself on that.

Boynamedsue -> this is not DRN, so you don't need to mark first statement :) The saying I quoted to Azure holds also to you, shortly:

1. in this you reitarate issue you already failed and were disproved, not need to repeat may be read in the relevant talk pages, with a little experience and competence, you don't understand basic policies as issues, and tendentiously reject to understand them. Disruptive. The reluctant admin does not have much time to care with issues, but he quickly understood what you did not, as later you again tried to teach the veteran admin who have no problem to deal with multidimensional quantum spaces...the other example is your epic demonstration of you lack of competence, or basic editing principles. Yes, they were fiefdoms, sourced, as everyone knows in the topic area, even not being horribly experts or brain surgeons.

2. INCIVILIY (d) = (lying, not the first time from your behalf, I just did not byte the newcomer so far, per policy), I did not misude any source, the talk page preserved what kind of spurious reasons you tried to tackle sources you don't like. So sad you forgot in WP everything preserved, with constant denial you just blame yourself.

3. Again, yes I am not native, but sorry above 110 IQ I am understood, above 120 IQ 98%, far above immediately, even if I occasioanlly make amistake. As I told above, surely not all members of our community is a Paul Erdős, but so far sorry, you have been the one who recurrently (and not being troll) with elemental mistakes did not grasp such basics I NEVER met in this encylopedia in the near past 10 years. Bigger problem is, as much as I face with you this, you diametrically consider yourself reinforced to have right and even more intensively commit your mistakes again and more reluctantly deny the evidence for it.

TDLR: Practically you are a recurent noticeboard communicator which may attract possible lenghty discussions, opening new talk section repetitevely, as you did on the cited page, so stealing time from editors has been not really fault in that case, on the contrary. Those thousands of hours are especially present in the Poland-Holocaust related discussions, there you dare to make such remarks better.

Super Dromaeosaurus -> the category issue has been explained above, much earlier a user without consensus started to reorganize categories in a problematic way, I won't repeat that, may be read above. As well, with Azure we extensive discussed content issues in an other article (maybe you don't know about this, hence you consider by mistake I did not concentrate on the content, but I did), he just spread his problematic edits massively to other pages, were this discussion was not repeated so extensively. The protections were necessary, especially repeatedly making 4 reverts for sure (even earlier, if such pattern touches more pages). Nevertheless, I consider you the m ost talented Romanian editor for the future, with a great civility and ability to learn, just go on the right direction!

Krakkos -> Quality editor, as always

Beyond my ken -> even if try to be fair, I am disappointed you again reiterate this Nazi Germany case, as above you did with other issues (most of my edit warring notices are bogus, even explained there), you were not forced to turn to WP:AN, a openly asked you to give a time for the discussion in which after a point I've got just straw man answers, and you did serious witch-hunt against me, after all which failed, etc. For me much important, that a highly intelligent adminstrator, history teacher, heavily related (Hebrew, Israel) could understand me and justified I am not a witch (diff above, you did not read?), so you should just drop this pattern. What Krakkos wanted to refer, some Romanian editors are heavily irritated by any editor who they consider Hungarian, regardless which article they edit, they will become Nazi, Nationalist, Irredentist, Xenophobe and akin, as Azure said in his personal attack (though he seems a non-Romanian "Hungarian-lover", I would have my tip from where), just because at certain parts of history we are neutral and we know those fact and evidence which they don't like and want to hear. Also in the Romanian Wikipedia there is a death-list of Hungarian editors who should be removed from the English WP, including me (along the four other one), so we get used to this. Poor Tgeorgescu is often became a target because his expert neutrality and professionalism in those heavy issues, as I recall in his talkpage with this info I met. So, Beyond My Ken, all of us are "moving targets", but we get used to it.

Levivich-> nice to see you, your representation there was a bit bogus, with selective diffs, but explained there. I disagree on you a "waste of time", just visit those much more lenghty discussions you participate, e.g. So if I have a long response is typical...well the content matters, not the space, maybe it's inconvenient how I pinpoint some incovenient fallacies of others. Yours!

Birutorul-> yes,it is just partially a content issue, mainly, but your next bogus trial to eliminate those who you don't like (we agree on the freedom of speech, but you wish to suppress here despite editors, by the "secrecy of correspondence", did you also mean the EEML list from the deep past?). You still have the chance to apologize, the evidence is striking. However remember, such remarks like I would have lack of even the slightest concession to logic you even just make yourself more ridiculous, but just do it. As I told, is always the worst option to play/dance with too heavily intelligent people, because you will loose, if those too intelligent people review all the evidence, although they did not wished to dance, and incidentally could step on your foot, although they wanted to work with you to together and make the best accurate encyclopedia in the world. Good Luck, after all!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

I would just like to remind casual observers that the following sentences: "As I told above, surely not all members of our community is a Paul Erdős, but so far sorry, you have been the one who recurrently (and not being troll) with elemental mistakes did not grasp such basics I NEVER met in this encylopedia in the near past 10 years. Bigger problem is, as much as I face with you this, you diametrically consider yourself reinforced to have right and even more intensively commit your mistakes again and more reluctantly deny the evidence for it." are in response to a criticism in which I question KIENGIR's competence to clearly communicate their argument on talkpages. How is one supposed to even begin to debate with that? Boynamedsue (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to highlight the fact that KIENGIR just accused me of compiling a “Securitate style dossier”, and that he stands by this charge. It’s akin to calling a German editor a Gestapo agent, or saying a Russian editor is a KGB spy. Not only is the continued intransigence apparent, but I think we can add this to the WP:NPA ledger. — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to add the question of KIENGIR's racist abuse of Biruitorul on this page for discussion. KIENGIR states: "but the Securitate style dossier quickly failed". To compare a user to a member of a bloodthirsty secret police force is deeply WP:INCIVIL, but when it is used to draw attention to the user's ethnicity (Biruitorul is Romanian, as were the Securitate) it constitutes racism. I consider it to be absolutely unacceptable, would we allow users to describe a German user as having a "gestapo dossier" or a Haitian of having a "Ton-Ton Macoute dossier"? I previously pointed out this racial animus on KIENGIR's talk page, asking him to revert, here is my post and the response. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• With the recent WP:WALLSOFTEXT KIENGIR is clearly in WP:BLUDGEON territory. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Not to be too obvious about it, but KIENGIR's responses here nicely illustrate many aspects of their behavioral issues: personalization of issues; intransigence; inability to see beyond their own viewpoints; near-NPA violations (or perhaps even over the line); inability to express themselves clearly, while accusing other editors of not properly understanding the issues or their argument; walls of text; bludgeoning discussions; etc. It's pretty much all there.
  I've been thinking about SnowFire's suggested sanctions above, for an 0RR restriction -- which would stop KIENGIR's predilection for edit warring -- and a throttle on their talk page commentary, to stop them from bludgeoning discussions and blockading consensus. I agree that this the direction to go in. A topic ban wouldn't do much when their behavior spreads across a number of different subject areas, and a CIR indef block seems too harsh and unnecessary at this point. Do other editors here agree with this? Should a formal proposal be made? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• One other point: KIENGIR seems to want to have things both ways. If an editor presents voluminous evidence of their behavior, such as Biruitorul did, they're putting together a "Securitate style dossier", but if an editor only presents a few indicative diffs, as Levivich did, then their diffs are "selective", by which they presumably mean cherry-picked and unrepresentative. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe everything has already been said, but since my experience is not related either to Hungary or Romania, I add it regardless: During a prolonged discussion about the lede of Germans, I was asking them their reasons for their idea that the term Germans primarily denotes an ethnic group. They refused to give their reasons, here, here, and warned me not to repeat that they didn't give their reasons here. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would have been happy to support my original suggestion, but unfortunately KIENGIR's response above essentially is to essentially grab the WP:ROPE and announce they'd like to get banned. As long as KIENGIR thinks that they are providing "95%+++ the most accurate content on articles with a very minor error ratio" then they're not going to improve, because they think they're already correct. SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Further to that, let me note that of his last 500 mainspace edits, 72 or 14.4% were later reverted, while 93 or 18.6% were reverts by him. Yes, some of the latter group were legitimate, but when 1 out of 3 of your edits are either reverts or being reverted, and you’re not on an anti-vandal patrol, that ratio is somewhat of a red flag. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Siteban KIENGIR

• Support as proposer for CIR, bludgeoning, and NPA, all of which is in my view just overwhelmingly demonstrated by the above posts, but also by the long line of diffs and complaints raised by a number of editors in this thread and before. Normally I wouldn't jump straight to this, but I don't see how any other remedy will help here. We can't TBAN someone from all history and politics articles, it's too broad to be effective. AGFing about motives, I believe Kiengir simply lacks the competence/attitude/English fluency necessary to productively contribute here, and it's costing an incredible amount of editor time. It's just not possible to fix this problem any other way. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: I think it's understandable that you would go to this, as this may be the ultimate solution, but what do you think about SnowFire's suggestion of a 0RR restrictions and a talk page comment throttle? Is that worth trying before a CBAN? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Question is how long do we babysit before the net negative of the editor is realized?Moxy- 16:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel that there should perhaps be some way to allow him to continue, 0RR, final warning and an obligation to seek a third opinion after 3 comments in cases where only two users are debating? Like I said, not a wikilawyer, the final condition might not be possible. This should be contingent on showing understanding of why the sanctions have occurred, and apology for his racist comment. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would ordinarily support such lesser sanctions, but in this case restricting how many edits or reverts he can make in mainspace AND restricting how many comments he can make on the talk page AND doing this without any real self-reflection/take-on-board/work-with-us-here... seems like a lot of bespoke-ness, little hope of cooperation from the sanctioned user, and frankly I'm not seeing an overwhelming mountain of positive contributions that would make doing all that sanctioning work worth it. (To be clear, it wouldn't be worth the community's time to impose such sanctions on me, either. Few editors would be worth that level of effort, if any.) For me, the positive/negative scales are really tipped to one side here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see much probability of comprehension of what is occurring, but if genuine understanding of why we are where we are could be demonstrated, I would support it. As others have said, it will not likely work, but if it doesn't, the discussion here will be quick and painless. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support per Levivich and the examples KIENGIR provided in this thread of the behavior that prompted the CIR/TEND concerns in the first place. I'm convinced that KIENGIR has been enough of a drain on the community's time and goodwill. OhKayeSierra (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. I simply don’t see the value of an editor whose main contributions are small, often unnecessary “fixes” that come with a heavy baggage of revert-warring, personal attacks, draining time from productive editors, demonstrated lack of competence in the English language or in proper sourcing, and so forth. And who refuses to improve — keep in mind he’s been here since 2011, and this is hardly his first warning. Would this be an excessive first step? Maybe, which is why I don’t want to completely discount the proposal by Beyond My Ken. But I suspect that if something like a 0RR were adopted, we’d be back here fairly quickly. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support unless KIENGIR can show clear understanding of their mistakes and a desire to avoid them in future, as well as an apology for their racist remark to Biruitorul. In the case of compliance with these conditions, sanctions to be agreed by community. My suggestion: final warning, 0RR, the obligation to seek and abide by DRN third opinions after 3 posts on talkpages where only two users are present.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban. This editor is an argumentative and pedantic time waster with poor English language skills and a love for bludgeoning discussions, as amply demonstrated by their bizarre contributions here. The only good thing to come out of the time I spent researching this is that I got to read Paul Erdős. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The combination of frequently taking absurd positions and then WP:BLUDGEONing discussions on them wastes too much time and effort from other editors - eg. bludgeoning a discussion to argue that Nazi Germany was not fascist stretches either the presumption of competence or good faith to the breaking point. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support per KIENGIR's awful reply above. All KIENGIR had to do was say "sorry, I guess I messed up, but I'm confident in my contributions and think I can convince other editors of my correctness via short talk page comments, and am willing to accept that sometimes consensus will be against me." Instead KIENGIR said "Actually, I'm right and you're all wrong" but in long meandering form. Okay, fine, let us all be wrong and you can go write a 100% correct blog elsewhere, so site ban. (If KIENGIR ever does develop any mild humility and realize the bridges he's burnt, this can be reconsidered for something more like my earlier talk page throttle + 0RR suggestion, but that isn't looking likely.) SnowFire (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I've come around to supporting this not simply because of the arguments presented above for why the other suggested sanction would be too complicated and not worth the energy it would take to enforce it, but also -- and mostly -- because I re-read the entire discussion, especially KIENGIR's responses, and I see there problems that are much deeper than can be dealt with by simple mechanical means. Wikipedia can support a range of different personalities and modes of operations, but I'm not sure that KIENGIR is capable of behaving in a way that Wikipedia can easily absorb. I think that as long as he continues to edit, he's going to be at times a deep time-sink over trivial or obvious disputes that wouldn't have been disputes at all if it weren't for him. So, with some reluctance, I have to conclude that he's just not cut out for en.wiki. I don't know what the culture is like on hu.wiki, where he's a "trusted user" (not sure what that means), but perhaps he can make a go of it there and report back in the future that he's changed his m.o. I would suggest that if this siteban passes, he be restricted not to appeal it until 6 months have passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support CIR, bludgeoning, and NPA all demonstrated by their appalling posts in this thread. Made me look over their contribs: really there’s no value from them whatsoever - just a waste of everyone’s time. Clear net negative. DeCausa (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The walls of text and racist personal attacks in this very thread have convinced me of the accuracy of the multiple attestations of how much of a waste of time this editor has been. It seems clear that removal from the project would be a net benefit to helping content improvement move smoothly, and that's more important than either trying to punish or provide second chances for individual editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - Once again, KIENGIR's response below speaks for itself in demonstrating precisely the problems outlined by multiple editors above. Incapable of apologizing, worse, incapable of seeing that there's anything to apologize for, KIENGIR is in many ways his own worst enemy. He is unable to see that some of the "support" !votes above come from people who haven't necessarily had bad interactions with him in the past, but are appalled by his responses here. Being blind to this, he continues to do exactly the same thing, inviting more such !votes, showing his basic cluelessness about how his words are read by other people. Such a person, unable to adjust themselves to the needs of the community, will never entirely fit in here, no matter what their IQ is, and regardless of how many small productive edits they make. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support Per Levivich and his replies. Per Cullen. Per BMK. Per David Eppstein. I will point out that KIENGIR has been blocked three times before for these same problems. They are NOTCOMPATIBLE --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• Support - intractable CIR at best; I have previously stated my support for an indefinite block based on one incident alone, the fact that this is a pattern of behavior leaves us with no other choice. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Response from KIENGIR

I will react a few remarks, but this will possibly my last reaction:

Boynamedsue -> Of course you may not debate with my qoute, since it is unfortunately true. About your newly invented and improper accusation of racism (which you try invent when nothing left), I have to tell what I said has nothing to do that. Hungarians were also member of the Securitate, as many other ethnics, etc. It just refferred to the method, but your ardent impartiality shows that Azure's clear racism you don't voice, but ignore. Are you not ashamed about this? Sorry, I have to laugh about the remark "can show clear understanding of their mistakes", escpecially this goes to you a long time ago, the "Poland discussion" is an illustrative example of that. As well, until you consider yourself wiser than a veteran administrator, we have nothing to discuss, and again i don't have to apologize anyone, since I did not make any racist comment, on the contrary you and other's should as demonstrated above, but as I see more editors have taken your decoy

Biruitorul -> this was a reference to your old report, how I would not stand it if you behaved like that? Sorry, for your behavior I am not responsible, it's on you, it has nothing to with any personal attack, you did the report, not me. Sure, "adding to your ledger" is a perfect symbolism. Funny you claim personal attack, despite you committed them cited above..."And who refuses to improve" -> WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), I improved very much, as my service record shows, and it has been acknowledged. However, after what you did, I am not surprised of your behavior, it's crystal clear anyone who don't wish to be blind for some reasons

Beyond My Ken -> you are a little bit overcomplicating the things, meanwhile you wish to look like neutral, in fact you are not really. It too bad if for you it is not obvious that Biruitorul's diffs were also selective, as I provided after the diffs he missed, which result is a complete boomerang or even worse. Levivich's diffs I explained there, what was important he by mistake (?) tried to assert I made some edits contrary the RFC, which was entirely fake, those had no connection to it, but other summary edits, resulted in agreement with the community. "trusted user" means like "extended confirmed" confirmed user there, and I have just edited there occasionally correcting some mistakes, it's not my major interest. I don't have any "m.o.", and if you think in case I would make "any appeal after six months", you are wrong, in such time many improvements would be damaged and would be a waste of time to do something twice

Rsk400 -> you repeatedly push already refuted claims. WP:CIVILITY 2 (d)

Moxy -> net negative? Sorry, my contributions are near flawlessly accuarate, so interesting content issues nobody could challenge seriously

Cullen ->"bizarre contributions" (?) can you specify what do you mean? As an admin, Erdős would be very sad seeing what's going on nevertheless, would grasp the root of the problem not the way you did

Aquillion -> I did not bludgeon anything, on the other hand your comment is very similar to those, who either did not read or did not understand what the topic was about. Since an administrator approved I did in fact nothing wrong, I am surprized some editor still play on this card. Why some editors feel compelled to form an opinion without thouroughly investigating the subject?

Snowfire -> could you thell me what the hell you are talking about? "Awful answer"? You seem riding the horse upside down long time ago, you did not read or just ignore Biruitorul really awful conduct of the category discussion, trying to set me up? Why you are silencing about it, or you consider fair what happened? Also you consider fair of the sending of hidden e-mails of recruiting, talking about me, without me? Hmm? Where did you let your objectivity? Why do you think you should put in my mouth what to say or what to do? Especially, when I have no problem to recognize if consensus is against me? (I always did, when it really was). Such remarks like where should I go and what should I do you should have abandoned - I won't write a blog -, unfortunately your approach seems awful when you are backing hidden coordinations, instead to reveal the evidence which would led us further. Extremely disappointed with you.

DeCausa -> Heavily disagree, NPA and CIR why didn't you mentioned of other editors who participate in these discussion and evidence is provided? There is no value? What kind of analysis you made my contributions? Sorry, the opposite is true, challenge me if you can regarding any edit's accuracy, it is disappointing how some from an opinion, without a valuable investigation

David Eppstein -> As an administrator, how could take the decoy? Racist personal attacks Azure did, why don't you mention that? As well, you consider as a fair conduct off-wiki, on wiki coordination in violation of a bunch of rules an wikietiquette, did you read, check the entire report?

All in all, what is striking that so far none of the opiners pointed out or even mentioned, or comdemned the OP's incivilities set-up's in the category issues, off-wiki and on wiki coordinations, recruitment and similarly other user's misconduct (however the latter is not the major issue of this report). This is annoying, however alarming, looks like a preset trial, which reminds me the showcase trial of the 50's. What's going on? So much silence about boomerang, though the diffs are clear... It's highly suspicious that just before with one of the admins we would be just one step before the investigtation involving Arbcom, the OP suddenly performs this preemptive strike even revealed how long time ago stalking my activity (for the record, ironically), but everybody is silencing. Even initially so many user's were pinged, and some puppet user's have been recurrently hounding me, even training other disruptive editor how to confront me...., it's clear the OP would have afraid of something, given the timing...so quickly this thread gets forward, before the involved admin would even log in....hmmm...these events seem as well very coordinated...

The result of this issue will rely on a quality admin, who would take the time and appropriately investigate the evidence and any emerging background/further issue on total, since by far it is evident the OP should get a sanction per WP:BOOMERANG and the other incivilities. heavy misconducts revealed, Boynamedsue something for the repatedly harming WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), WP:HOUND, including the canvassing and training other editors to confront one. Azure a block for the clear WP:CIVILITY 1 (b) violation. Rsk400 for WP:CIVILITY 2 (d), at least a level 3 warning so far, if not more. Of course, depending what Arbcom would reveal, would make the picture full, which remains to be seen. (at least, if no other coordination happened since then, if someone would enforce to shut down this report earlier, that means some clearly wish to hide something)

That said, I won't make any further comments here (regardless what strange accusations I would get), unless I am not pinged or an administrator does not wish me to do that (nevertheless I pinged those who tutored my career here, by any means I am curious about their opinion). Nevertheless, this sinistrous issue will be an ardent showcase, regardless of the outcome what kind of dirty set-ups and manipulations may happen contrary or guidelines or good faith conduct.

I admire and thank all of those few editors, who were brave enough to remain fair, despite the heavy counter-influence pressure, they have a solid backbone. Respect!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC))

Buried in that Wall of Text is what appears to be their principal response: that their contributions are “near flawlessly accuarate” [sic]. That seems to say it all. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: I've read through this whole thread, and don't see what "Azure's clear racism" refers to. Can you please provide a diff supporting your claim, or else strike that comment? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The diff was inside the thread...but I copy here to you ([145]), I chose this because the admin told I should only bring this up in case here. Literally: "you're simply pushing your biased nationalist POV (it's not a surprise to me that you're a self-identified Hungarian)."(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC))

Edit warring at As Told by Ginger

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

---

There is an edit warring going on at As Told by Ginger. The users involved are: User:FlutterDash344 and User:Theshavia29912. The reason is due to unsourced content.

However, I'm not sure who's the one that is adding unsourced content. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

He's saying that as told by ginger ended in 2016 when it didn't you see as told by ginger had already ended in 2006 it's just that a few previously Unaired episodes were shown in 2016 but that's not when it ended nor is it when it was cancelled — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Theshavia29912 needs to get blocked or there will be more edit warring. For all I know the user could possibly be a sock of Zjholder. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If you'll make such an accusation you have to provide evidence for it. —El Millo (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No dude you're saying it ended in 2016 when it didn't you can go to any site it's gonna say as told by ginger is a seires that ran from 2000-2006 go ahead and do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is what I'm talking about and this page was made after the 2016 premieres https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/as-told-by-ginger-why-was-the-show-cancelled.html/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you open a RfC. This is a series that was cancelled and aired until 2006, then ten years later, in 2016, aired four previously unaired episodes. This is clearly an exceptional situation where there isn't a clear answer. This sounds like a content dispute and this isn't the place for content disputes. Resolve it on the article's talk page. —El Millo (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There I told you just cause there was Unaired episodes shown in 2016 doesn't meen it ended in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/as-told-by-ginger-why-was-the-show-cancelled.html/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Why would Cheatsheet even be a reliable source? FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude it's not a cheat sheet it's a site you want me link another one cause I can go all day and you can go and check sites if you want to and youl see the show ended in 2006 stop trying to come up with stupid excuses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude your really starting to get on my nerves STOP!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I will not stop until you actually stop reverting and being nice to me. FlutterDash344 (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2021

• Article fully protected, both editors warned and both are an inch away from being blocked. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Both partially blocked, further action will take place if sniping happens on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Dude! Who would have thought that an article about a cartoon aimed at preteens could have such highly-strung editors? I dread to think what state Talk:Teletubbies or Talk:In the Night Garden are in. Oh, to be young once more... nagualdesign 03:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, dude, preteens, right? Unsure of everything except what they're absolutely certain about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Admins may want to look at The Cramp Twins as well - it looks like there was edit warring there as well which may have continued after the restrictions on As Told by Ginger were imposed.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've fully-protected on the wrong version for a week. If this spills over to a third article I would support blocks for both users; we can't just keep protecting articles. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Revoke TPA for blocked IP - antisemitic vandalism

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

---

Can an admin revoke TPA for 66.30.101.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? See diff. I tried re-reporting to AIV but the bot removed it because they were already blocked. Thanks. DanCherek (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for reporting it. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Suggested edit restriction for Carlossuarez46

Moved to AN here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Persistent sockpuppet attacking cricket pages is at it again and I screwed up my SPI report

Realvk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making the exact same edits as the last several Vallabharebel socks, but I misfiled the SPI without capitalizing the 'V' - can someone move Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/vallabharebel to the right spot, and block the sock while we're at it? User contribs will tell the story - compare Realvk's to, say, those of blocked socks Special:Contributions/Bhbhhbns, Special:Contributions/Hsyukab, /Special:Contributions/Vallabhadeshn, Special:Contributions/Vallabhasesss... All of these have been blocked in the Vallabharebel investigation listed above - this month.

I have no interest in cricket, I just stumbled across this a couple of weeks ago clicking around recent changes and watchlisted it to see if it would happen again. It did. User:El_C temporarily blocked the first copy I noticed when it had acquired repeated disruptive editing warnings, another one got blocked as a sock after and that's when I learned about the entire thing, and, well, here it goes again. This seems like something that should be approached with an edit filter of some sort. Kistaro Windrider (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I feel stupid asking for the SPI "move", I guess that's just cut and paste? But there's this script thing involved that sets it up, I don't know if I'd break anything worse by trying to fix it myself... Kistaro Windrider (talk) 04:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've moved the case for you. And copied the evidence above to the SPI as it's more useful than the "quack, quack, quack". Cabayi (talk) 09:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

May need some rev/deletion of personal attacks

...once Conorcool2021 (talk · contribs) is blocked. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:B9E6:B41C:7BA4:6706 (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Urgent edit warring rangeblock needed

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

---

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:117.111.0.0/19_reported_by_User:Jasper_Deng_(Result:_). Admin attention (rangeblock preferably, as there seems to be very little collateral) is needed pronto.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328 d'you mind popping in really quickly? I see that you're active. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 06:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also placed a protection request at RPP for the targeted article, 2019 World Figure Skating Championships, several hours ago, but that request has been similarly sitting without action. Where are all the admins when we need them? Nsk92 (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

When midnight starts sweeping out over the Pacific Ocean on a Saturday night, the number of active administrators declines. I actually enjoy watching Saturday Night Live instead of my phone sometimes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, we Europeans are now waking up, a bit delayed by the summer time which started this night.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Bad Faith accusations by NeutralHomer

I made a series of edits to List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group to update the list of stations owned by Sinclair. As a source I use Sinclair's most recent 10-K filing which lists every station they own or operate. User:Neutralhomer insists without a source that they operate WDSI-TV. While Sinclair did purchase the assets of that station and transfer them to another station that they do own, they did not purchase the station itself and there is no proof that they operated it at anytime. It is is not part of their 10-K filing. NeutralHomer took the extreme step of reverting my entire series of edits and accusing me of vandalism. After I warned him that his bad faith behavior was borderline harassment, he reverted a second time and has now reported me for vandalism and demanding that I be blocked. His behavior is completely out of control and unacceptable. I made a good faith edit and accusing me of vandalism is straight-up WP:HARASSMENT. Aside from the fact that he is wrong about the disputed material, he is trying to weaponize what is a content dispute by calling my edits vandalism. There is no place for this behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, can we turn down the over-dramatics? Sinclair has a history of making "shell companies". The above user took this literally and shouldn't have. For a user who edits TV station pages, they should know this. Anyway, when I warned the user, I provided the sources needed, especially for WDSI. Their claim they had no proof, is wrong and a lie. It was provided to them before their created the above ANI post. They reverted, claiming "harrassment" (which is hysterical), and I reported them to AIV. Their revert to the WDSI page hilariously included the edit summary "you failed to provide a source", when I provided it on their talk page within the warning. Something I didn't have to do. I provided the source. They have claimed my report at AIV is "bad faith".

What we have here is a user who is wanting to operate within their own rules. 1) Do whatever they want. 2) If they get called out, complain with wild overly dramatic nonsense. Um...no? This isn't the way this works. We all follow the same set of rules. I didn't have to provide those sources (which took a two second Google search), but I did. That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:06 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Over-dramatics????? You're the one who came to my talk page and accused me of vandalism! That's one of the most offensive things you can do here! Not only that, you reverted a whole series of edits not just over the disputed material. I made a good faith edit, you are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP. Your two sources does not say what you think they say Source #1 does not even mention WDSI. If you read beyond the headline on source #2 it says Sinclair purchased the "purchased the programming and assets of WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV." They did not purchase the broadcast license and there's no mention of them operating the station. Why? Because they moved the Fox affiliate to their own station WTVC. It one thing to have a source, but you actually have to read the sources you're providing (and not just the headline). NeutralHomer is operating within his own rules. If he disagrees with someone's edit, he just accuses them of vandalism. No talk page discussion, nothing! More proof of NeutralHomer's ownership is in this other unpleasant interaction I just had with him. Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! Finally, that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing What has I been sanctioned for? The only sanction imposed on me was quickly rescinded by the community, so please don't make even more false allegations (you've made enough already). I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise, but your own block log is already a mile long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This just keeps getting worse, now NeutralHomer edited his post to include more "sources" [146]. Problem is that none of these mention WDSI nor prove his allegation that New Age Media (the owner of WDSI) is just a Sinclair "shell company". Zero proof has been provided that WDSI was ever owned or operated by Sinclair. They purchased the programming assets, moved the Fox affiliation to their own station, that's it. They do not own or operate WDSI, never have.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one of the most offensive things you can do here. = Over-dramatics. Trust me, after 16 years, that's the least offensive thing you can do here.

Now, what you got sanctioned for, no idea, I just can read your talk page. :) 1, 2, 3, and 4. I never said I was an angel. :) In fact, if asked, I would readily admit that I wasn't an angel. :) You don't get to be here for 16 years without going through a few pairs of horns. But I did something right, cause I'm still here. :)

By the way, we are verging on "content dispute" territory and "admins really aren't gonna care" and "take it to talk" territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone brings me to ANI is not a sanction. And the actual sanction that was rescinded, I have no obligation to explain that to you, so please do not talk of things that you have no knowledge about. What is important here is that you cannot edit my comments as you did here. Please do not do it again. Yes, this would have otherwise been a content dispute, but in content disputes you don't make bad faith accusations of vandalism which is exactly what you did and why this is now at ANI. And yes it is offensive to have someone like yourself come to my talk page and accuse me of vandalism on a series of edits I made in good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that that is called an edit conflict. It happens. Usually the system catches it and throws an actual edit conflict warning up, but in this case, it actually copy/pasted my edit over yours. Calm down, wasn't intentional.

Now, to once again, show you this and this proving that, yes, indeed, Sinclair owned or at least operated WDSI-TV and has since at least 2015. You've known this for at least 2 hours now, though I suspect much longer....but at least two hours. Stop acting like you have no idea about this. You've known for at least 2 hours.

The bad faith is, and continues to be, entirely yours as long as you continue to act like this is totally unknown to you. You still have not addressed any of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: A "sanction" is not someone taking you to ANI. A sanction is someone placing a punishment against you. Especially when ArbCom is involved or a TopicBan. That's not just "[being] taken to ANI", that's a punishment. You did something wrong and you got punished for it. Also in this post, the "sanction placed on you...is now removed". Now, why would someone say you had a sanction placed on you or had one removeded, if you were just "being taken to ANI". That makes no coherent sense.

In this post, an admin, warns you (they say "you should still consider this a warning") that if you continued to "[file] vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban." So, you have a history of receiving sanctions and being warned about coming damned close to getting them. Getting TopicBans and InteractionBans. Not cool, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:22 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

First of all, don't call me dude. Second, what the hell that that have to do with anything? I am not going to waste time here explaining previous sanctions that were rescinded (and for good reason). None of this concerns you, all you need to know is I'm not under any sanctions currently. Repeatedly bringing up the topic is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and you should be blocked for it. Here is Neutralhomer's block log and you have what seem to be active sanctions, proving that your record is far worse than mine, so cut the crap.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In some Class A hilarity, Rusf10 removed the source with the edit summary removing false information, source provided does not backup claim that Sinclair operates station (or ever did), they simply purchased station's assets and moved them to their own station. No mention of master service agreement either. Just wow! Nowhere in the source does it say that. They just made that up in their heads. Without showing any evidence to back it up...except one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat since Sinclair has a history of shell companies.

Sorry, dude (it's a non-gender conforming "beach" term to mean any human who's gender is unknown...otherwise I would use "Sir" or "Ma'am"), but you have taken out a reliable source (I can add another) because it doesn't confirm to your world view. Just cause you don't like it isn't a personal attack. Oh, and since you bring up my block log (nope, not under any active sanctions) and make accusations about me (yeah, you just did), I can do the same. That's not a personal attack, I have receipts, as the kids like to say.

Let's talk about my block log. The one in July 2018, I earned that, I was dick. The one later that year, that was an overzealous admin and was quickly overturned, still on my record. The one in 2020, definitely earned that one and I'm proud of it. Yes, that came with a topic ban, but a very "unethical" one in my and many other's opinions. I'll leave it up to you to find those discussions. But I'm proud of the issues we raised in that conversation and hopefully, one day, that topic ban will be lifted. If not, I'm OK with it. We did good work in raising attention to a major phobia and erasure here at Wikipedia.

So, yeah, pre-2012, I wasn't an angel....I readily admit it. Post-2018, I had blocks, but with I earned them in one way or another. Since you won't even discuss yours, consider my bringing them up a "personal attack", that says more about you than me. Says you'd rather distract from the real discussion, your actions, and spin it around on me, then actually deal with the problem. I'm not it....it's you. You haven't address multiple issues. Also notice, no admin has posted on this thread.....they don't care. They are letting us deal with this ourselves...or letting us "punch ourselves out". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:10 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained the content dispute and why you didn't actually read your source.it doesn't confirm to your world view No, this is a simple matter of fact. Either Sinclair owns and/or operates this station (even through a shell company as you allege) or they don't. one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat Let me try to educate you. The SEC filing is highly reliable since there are legal consequences for putting false or misleading information on such filings. If you actually read it Sinclair not only lists every station it owns or operates (and doesn't own), but discloses its relationships with these other companies you are talking about (and New World, owner of WDSI is not one of them).

It would be a waste of everyone's time to explain my previous sanction which the community rescinded because they found it to be inappropriate. It is also not related to the issue here and your repeated mention of it is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK. The fact that you're proud of your sanctions shows you've learned nothing and I am not going to waste my time trying to research them because quite frankly I don't care.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained to you, the fact it is not mentioned in your precious SEC filing is moot (and at this point not even worth mentioning...repeatedly), as Sinclair has shell companies. Shell companies that they operate as completely seperate entities from Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. (SBGI), making that SEC filing...pointless. They give two shits less about FCC consequences (seeing as they have been fined repeatedly), you think they care about the SEC?! Look at the sources, I provided proof on two of those fines. The fact you'd rather overlook that, speaks more to you than I. Also, the fact that an SEC reference is "highly reliable", but FCC sources aren't highly reliable is just hypocritcal...and funny. :)

As for WP:SANCTIONS and WP:BLOCKs, I think you need to read up on those. You seem to have an issue on tell which is which. Yes, I am proud of that 2020 block and TopicBan. It was "unethical", it was against the rules of Wikipedia, should never have been issued, and I will wear it like a badge of honor until it is removed and the articles that were vandalized by the same users are restored. I have a fairly large and vocal community behind me on this one, so we'll keep at it. :) Oh, and your calling everything a "personal attack" is removing all meaning of what a personal attack is. Calling you out on your hypocracy is not a personal attack, it is what it is, calling you out on publically available information. You do it to me, I'll do it to you. You did, I "returned fire". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I never said the FCC was unreliable, I just said it didn't establish notability. That's two completely different things. I don't know what your personal beef is with Sinclair (I have no feeling on the company one way or the other, I just wanted an accurate list), but making the accusation that they are falsifying an SEC filing is very serious and I suggest you retract it. 10-K filings are not only are signed off on by company executives but are also reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm (In this case Pwc). I have not personally attacked you, but you continue to do it to me. Accusing me of vandalism for a good faith edit and repeatedly bringing up unrelated (and rescinded) past sanctions are personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually your words were "They are not even close to be 'highly notable'". I have no "personal beef" and if you wanted an "accurate list" you would use the references given to you instead of using only ONE source. Multiple sources are generally expected under GNG and RS for not only an article, but any sentence. When faced with new sources, you must change the article, not ignore them. Sorry, this is Wikipedia. We include...>EVERYTHING!

As for your harping on "personal attacks" where there aren't any, I'm beginning to feel personally attacked.

As for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sinclair's Treasurer and Vice President Justin L. Bray, he used to work for them and in fact, still holds a senior management position with PwC. PwC isn't the most ethical company on the planet either (just this side of Deutsche Bank). So, they would definitely overlook Sinclair's shell companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Would an admin or three mind putting their 2 cents in and bring this to a final conclusion? It would be appreciated. I'm getting a headache from banging my head against the wall and I'm running out of sticks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I am not even a particularly knowledgeable or experienced Wikipedian. I do know, however, that you two richly deserve one another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Dear God no. I'm just trying to beat sense into an already dead horse. I'd personally rather go stand in traffic in the middle of my local interstate, but I have a strong dislike for people who just don't get it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I am terrified to even ask this, but here we go. I understand Rusf10's logic here (not that I necessarily agree), but I am having trouble following your argument. Certainly shell companies exist, but what sources are you relying on with regard to this particular edit? Apologies if I am being dense, but let me know at your convenience. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? Apart from the personal vitriol between you (which could lead to both of you being topic-banned from the area) I don't see what ANI can do here. For the purpose of resolution, I will comment on the content dispute: while I'm not sure WDSI-TV even has a website, the co-owned WFLI-TV's website http://chattanoogacw.com/ has "© 2021 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: The website would be part of the Master Service Agreement referenced here. As for further content dispute resolution, does the previous source and this one cover the New Age Media sources (like WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV) and these examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" further source the edits removed by Rusf10 on List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, DRN won't take it. Both on the technicality that this thread is open, and because it appears neither of you have commented on any article talk page on this topic. Please post the sea-of-links on a talk page; if you can't prove your point in 2 links it's too complicated for ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力:New Age Media owns both WDSI and WFLI and Sinclair operates WFLI for them, that is not in dispute. Sinclair only purchased certain assets (the Fox affiliation, the studios, etc.) of WDSI, not the station itself. Then they moved the Fox affiliation to WTVC (a station they own). They never operated or owned WDSI. NeutralHomer is now pushing a conspiracy theory where Sinclair is able to falsify their 10-K filings with the SEC by exerting control over PriceWaterhouseCooper for the purpose of hiding their ownership in WDSI.
Understand that I wouldn't bring a content dispute to ANI. That's not why this is here. This is here because NeutralHomer asserts that not only am I wrong, but I intentionally vandalized a page. He first asserted this on my talk page and then filed a false report at WP:AIV (links above). We are here because of his unacceptable behavior. I either want an apology from him for accusing me of vandalism or if he refuses, I want a block. The choice is his. --Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Aha, we do have something suitable for ANI. Content disputes are not vandalism, and Neutralhomer must refrain from claiming that they are in the future. (An apology might be nice, but I wouldn't expect one while you are arguing.) I must continue to insist that the content dispute be discussed on an article talk page, I will not respond to that part of your comment here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Extreme AIV Backlog

I know other users would appreciate this as well, but there is an extreme backlog at WP:AIV. Currently 30+ deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:16 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

thefallenpower

The fallen power has made unsourced edits on winx club I reverted the users edits cause I red the edit source and on the end date it says yes then present almost like the user is treating this like it's a fan page when you can see winx clubs final episode was on September 17, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs)

Months ago I was reverting edits from thefallenpower physically the end date whitch she kept changing to present and on the source it said yes present but another user reverted his or her edit and now I came back today and It still says present and on the edit source it says yes present almost like the user is treating this like it's a fan page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshavia29912 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Starting to think a WP:CIR block may be required until this editor matures a bit. They are screaming vandalism over content disputes (Special:Diff/1014681112), give indications that they will resume their edit war as soon as block ends (Special:Diff/1014615868), and generally disruptive (Special:Diff/1014682250). Plus user page claims editing since 2017 (and above comment references earlier edits though account is 6 days old), which would imply they should know better. Slywriter (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Also they left their comment unsigned, at the top of this page (despite the note), and failed to notify TFP of the discussion. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

TheFallenPower hasn't changed the date there since October. The most recent change [147] was by 109.160.111.223; the source did not verify it according to the comment [148] by TheFallenPower on the talk page. So there is a possibly disruptive edit by 109.160.111.223 but it was undone; it's only one edit and not bad enough for any action to be taken. The edit and comment by Theshavia29912 are similar to earlier edits [149][150][151] by Kingkobra775; the username is similar to others in the same sockpuppet category (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zjholder). Peter James (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can an Admin/CU review this without a formal SPI? I've noticed at least one linguistic similarity in the use of "dude" when referring to other editors (Special:Diff/983085708). Otherwise I'll submit one this evening. Slywriter (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Promotional username, disruptive editing

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

---

Study , Art And Fun Hub YouTube Channel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are several problems with this user:

1. Username policy violation: the username promotes a YouTube channel and does not represent a person. The user received a warning about the username policy violation and ignored it.
2. WP:MINOR violation: the user keeps marking major edits a minor, despite receiving four warnings about it ([152], [153], [154], [155]], including a final warning.
3. WP:DISRUPT (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) and WP:CIR violations: wikipedians have to be able to listen to others and cannot keep ignoring all warnings. The user also keeps creating the repeatedly deleted Abhishek Nigam article and their user page also suggests that they are here to promote Abhishek Nigam.

In addition, WP:VANDAL explicitly says that intentionally marking major edits as minor constitutes vandalism. The user does it intentionally, because they keep doing it despite four warnings and explanations.

There is no point in warning the user anymore, the user keeps ignoring everything, refusing to communicate, so the only remaining option is blocking the user from editing.—J. M. (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked indefinitely by Orangemike, so the discussion can be closed.—J. M. (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism to Rupert Read article by IP editor

Yesterday, an IP editor added a screed railing against Rupert Read to the article: see [156]. Not encyclopaedic, no citations, breaches WP:BLP. This was reverted by Oshwah, who also put a warning at User_talk:82.26.229.45. The IP editor put it back, Wysprgr2005 reverted and left another warning. The IP editor put it back, and I reverted and left another warning. A different IP address, presumably the same person, put it back. I reverted, and they put it back, and I reverted again. Just take a look at the history for Rupert Read. Could someone take action? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for 10 days. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Marveldc111

Marveldc111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user created their account on March 21, 2021. They vandalized the articles Anthony Mackie (diff) and Lil Pump (diff), changing the latter's nationality (American) for a gender (Transgender) which the subject doesn't use to identify himself. The editor later admitted to doing because he is a garbage person who wears women clothes and nails so I called him a tranny (diff), constituting a WP:BLP violation. In this same comment they told me to fuck you (diff) and referred to me and other editors as robots who do not think for yourselves (diff), constituting personal attacks. Their only mainspace edit that isn't clear vandalism is this one, the rest of their edits are either vandalism or poorly argued discussion at File talk:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier logo.png and Talk:The Falcon and the Winter Soldier. It seems clear to me that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and collaborate with others. —El Millo (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Facu-el Millo, as of about ten minutes ago, the editor has been blocked. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed. Thank you Alex 21 and Deepfriedokra for taking action. —El Millo (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've unclosed 'cause I think there are more issues than can be solved with a 31 hour block for incivility and a warning about edit warning. I'd like the community to look at this user and see if a 31 hour block and warning are enough. I think the user is not compatible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Indonesia IP range vandalism

I am moving the following report to here from AIV, since it seems more complex than what is usually handled there:

180.241.44.192/16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – long-running vandalism from this range. Perhaps the range could be be adjusted to reduce the collateral, but we really need some kind of block here (the vandalism to anime articles has been going on for months now, and looking into it, there seems to be vandalism to several other topic areas as well) — Goszei

The anime-article vandalism is the main subject of my report, and consists of removing the Japanese companies/staff and falsely adding "DreamWorks Animation", "Universal Pictures", and Western animators. This has been going on persistently since 28 November 2020. There is also a high rate of reverts associated with TV station articles, but I'm not familiar with the subject area and I don't see anything outwardly wrong with many of them (not sure if they are reverts of subtle vandalism, or just normal reverts).

There is enough vandalism here to necessitate some kind of block, but it seems tricky because the vandalism is mixed with good-faith edits from the /16. I think we need to go in with a scalpel and block several /20 or /24 blocks (I tried to do this, but couldn't get something satisfactory). — Goszei (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)