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:VNHRISHIKESH

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

---

User:VNHRISHIKESH already has a rather problematic editing history, with in a month one so far successful article creation, and 10 or so failed ones (mostly deleted, some draftified). This includes things like moving Paracelsus to Philips Paracelsus, a name not used anywhere else. They received warnings for the use of their user page for promotion, copyright violations, and general disruption.

On 13 July, they asked for protection of their user page and talk page[1] to preserve it from vandalism. Neither page had ever been vandalized, and the request was swiftly rejected[2].

Today, an IP appears[3], makes two vandal edits to All, and then makes the most gentle of vandal edits ever to VNHRISHIKESH's user talk page[4][5]. The IP then stops editing, and 3 minutes later our editor reappears and again asks for protection[6] (the last edited three minutes before the very short-lived vandal IP appeared). To put the icing on the cake, both the editor and the IP turn out to be from south Kerala.

Vandalizing Wikipedia to get your user page and talk page protected must be among the more stupid things I have seen here, but coupled with the waste of time this editor has turned out to be otherwise for most of their edits, I don't think they should stay around for much longer. (Oh, as an aside, with IP masking in place this would have been a lot harder to check of course). Fram (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Though I generally agree that this user may not be ready yet to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, from their personal website they link to at their user page it appears that they are a young editor, and I don't feel that the tone of the report above reflects that very well. Thanks for taking this into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can we please block VNHRISHIKESH until they have some more competence and maturity? Since the above, they have given a rather confusing reply[7] with some clarification afterwards[8]: so apparently they claim that they got logged out, vandalized All[9] and again after being reverted[10], then immediately vandalized and undid this at their own talk page[11]: and then not only did they again log in 3 minutes later, but they saw those last two edits and didn't realise they had made those edits and called for protection[12].

And then they started moving their poor articles, which were draftified by a range of editors (including me), back to the mainspace, creating stuff like Factors affecting Temperature distribution (again draftified by me now). You can look at this article at the time of redrafticiation[13] for yourself, note how this article on temperature distribution on Earth starts with a graph of the average body temperature of humans throughout the day, as if that graph has anything to do with the subject.

An editor who one the one hand vandalizes articles to get their user page protected, and on the other hand produces such rubbish articles, is an editor we can do without. If age is a factor, then they can come back once they have matured a lot. Fram (talk) 08:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Once more, I agree that VNHRISHIKESH has a serious competence issue (they're already extended confirmed and I'm not sure if they even made one edit that is genuinely helpful), but from all that I can see it is in extremely good faith, and it should be dealt with accordingly. I'm not sure if mentorship really is a thing here (I know that I don't have the time for that), but if no mentor is willing to step up we may indeed need an indefinite block. I just wish we had some kind of procedure to kindly tell off young users who if they would come back in five or ten years time would very likely make great editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, everyone Here is VNHRISHIKESH. I understood that you're going to block me from editing. I think you did't notice my whole edits in this encyclopaedia. I think that my edits were perfect and I can say that I have a competitive mind and maturity. So please don't block me from editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by VNHRISHIKESH (talk • contribs) 03:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Indef. The combination of "I think that my edits were perfect" with a clear state of imperfection does not show any possible scope for improvement.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Block Indefinitely - Whilst it appears highly likely that this user is fairly young, and we have all suffered from the foolishness of youth at some point in our lives, that does not alter the fact that an increasing amount of time and effort has been spent in tidying up after them; especially so when they are (almost certainly) deliberately wasting people's time by vandalising their own talkpage in order to get it protected for some reason. To be frank, competence is required; block until they can return and contribute positively (which is likely to be in several years time...). --Jack Frost (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This user created a stub called "Pigments in Leaves", which was quickly draftified. They expanded it (with homework-assignment-like prose), and it was declined, twice. They then unilaterally moved it into mainspace without modifications. Oh, and Factors affecting Temperature distribution is somehow live in mainspace again. I lack the inclination to sort out the edit history there. XOR'easter (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• And then today, they created this, which was soon after draftified of course. It now looks like this. Fram (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case it wasn't clear from my comments above, we need an indefinite block for this editor (though not a community ban!); we just need someone or somehow to do it gently. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Block, regretfully. This seems like a textbook case of Competence is required. They're obviously trying to edit in good faith, but the complete lack of understanding of core policies like notability and verifiability, combined with issues relating to content forking, unencyclopaedic writing and being unwilling to listen to advice from much more experienced editors means that their contributions are simply becoming a massive time sink. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support block per WP:CIR; too much ongoing work in cleaning up their messes and handling frivolous requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block Obviously lacks the competence and maturity to constructively contribute long-term. I mean look at Draft:Famous scientists, just created today.--🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Block Their article creations are poorly sourced and often have spelling, grammar, or tone issues. For example, their latest creation Draft:Encounter Marine Park has lots of puffery and mis-conjugated verbs, and no secondary sources. Not to mention that their very first talk page message concerned Atom:some basic facts, a duplicate of the super-basic Atom article. It is apparent from their article creations and lack of response that they have poor command of English. It reminds me of Risean 12345 (talk · contribs), another user I encountered recently who was indeffed for similar reasons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have filed a WP:CR request for this thread. They are now editing rapid-fire at Draft:List of famous scientists, a draft they created that is redundant to the various Lists of scientists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't block It appears from [latest reply at the talk page] that they are actually learning. They appear to have taken up advice against their Draft:List of famous scientists, owing to its subjective and redundant scope. Thus, I retrach my previous !vote. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I think that what you seem to be referring to, i.e., this (I realised it. I found your notification. Then I wasted my time......) and this (Thanks for your valuable advice.....), shows once again that they are here in incredibly good faith, but not necessarily that they are competent enough to do more work than they create. If there is no one willing to mentor them (David notMD, Haploidavey?), it may take a long time before they become a net positive. Clearly, it's a difficult call though. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban a textbook case of WP:CIR.Ratnahastin ^tålk 02:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment; he's undoubtedly well-intentioned but seems completely in a world of his own, and when it comes down to it, way too pleased with himself to receive advice or criticism and learn from both (QED time and again). Like others here, I think that's at least partly to do with age, and therefore he might grow out of it but I'm not at all sure this is the place to do it. I'm not sure that his litany of apologies means anything much, or that the User has determination to overcome (or even recognise) basic competence issues, or that I've the patience to help someone who's so determined to go their own way. I mean, you've seen the sheer length of his talk-page? And barely an acceptable edit elsewhere. A net negative. That said, if he was open to mentoring, I might be up for it. But it needs to be at his initiative, and I'd be pretty merciless. Haploidavey (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support block If errors were in one area, mentoring might be plausible, but it is creating and abandoning drafts, reverting draftifications, inadequate referencing, grammar problems, and no evidence of being on the steep part of any learning curve. At > 100 edits a week, a massive time sink. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support siteban Per WP:CIR. I-Bin-A-Bibi (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef, unfortunately. WP:CIR. DoubleCross (‡) 09:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Can whoever delivers the bad news PLEASE draft it while keeping in mind that this editor appears to be a young person? EEng 04:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Fodbold-fan

Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A very good user (at times), but with a sizeable block log and a history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, which based on this discussion from June is seemingly due to laziness/forgetfulness. And yet, he persists. I therefore propose a topic ban, broadly construed, from any edits related to BLPs. GiantSnowman 18:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Topic ban: Regretfully, likely necessary. A quick review turned up another such edit [14] which I reverted for lack of sourcing. I attempted to verify the claims in the diff, but despite looking at the websites of the respective clubs I could not find any information which confirmed what Fodbold-fan was saying. There are a lot...and I do mean a lot...of editors who routinely change information on football and football-bio articles without any care in the world for accuracy. Sadly, Fodbold-fan seems to be one of them. User talk response such as [15] and [16] do not inspire confidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban This editor's dismissive attitude toward Verifiability and BLP policy is simply not acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Hammersoft and Cullen328: given my comment below, and the way in which the rest of the discussion has gone (which you might not have noticed since originally commenting), I don't think we can say this editor has no desire for accuracy or that edits are unverifiable as such. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Switching to oppose for now. Although I haven't waited for Fodbold-fan to respond to Valereee's direct question, I will go out on a limb here. Support for an indefinite duration. The blocks were of an escalating duration a couple of years ago, and now we are back with the same issue. In the absence of demonstrating consistent compliance with core policies when editing Wikipedia articles, this topic ban is unfortunately necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC) There are a number of reasons (which have been brought to my attention since my original comment) as to why I think we can provide Fodbold-fan with another chance. Firstly, Fodbold-fan has promised below on 29 and 30 July 2021 to include a citation for every edit and I think we should offer that user a chance to fulfil that promise. Secondly, I think we should formally review each of the blocks shown in the block log, as a matter of fairness. Thirdly, the edit which led to this proposal was correct, even though it was unsourced, as Fram has outlined below on 30 July 2021. Lastly, Fodbold-fan seems to be make valuable contributions and has in my view demonstrated he is capable of improving his style of editing. Although we know that that not all edits need to be sourced per se, and reversion is a great remedy, I think it is fair to expect Fodbold-fan to fulfil the promise made in any case. Since 2015, multiple users provided Fodbold-fan with feedback on their content not being reliably sourced, content being incorrect, content being improperly sourced, (lack of) use of edit summaries and use of the preview functions. I anticipate concerns will persist unless Fodbold-fan makes more of a consistent effort (which I believe the user is capable of, but as a result of habit, chooses not to). Rather than evaluating every single previous concern, it would be more productive if he proactively takes more care with his edits. This will resolve the risk of contentions arising. I would also reinforce Otr500's comment below dated 30 July 2021, as well as Robby.is.on's comment of the same date. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay please last chance, from now on I will add source to every little edit I do. I promise. You will see. Please Fodbold-fan (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How many last chances have you had? GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I promise this time will be the last. You will see. Fodbold-fan (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The two edits given as justification for the topic ban were unsourced but correct. The edit that Hammersoft couldn't verify was easily verified from e.g. here or here. We should thank them for their edits, not topic ban them. Football project editors mostly do a wonderful job, but have had similar issues in the past with a very heavy-handed approach towards editors who add correct information but don't source it to their liking. While it of course is better if editors add good sources while dding information, it still is better that they improve articles and add correct but unsourced information, than that they don't improve these articles at all. Fram (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Fodbold-fan is a very productive editor and has been for a long time. I would find it sad for them to be topic-banned. That said, they need to adhere to Wikipedia's sourcing requirements and their dismissive statements towards sourcing were very disappointing. I'd be willing to give them one "last chance". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

If people want to block people for adding unsourced but correct information to BLPs, then perhaps they first need to change the policy? There is no requirement to only add sourced material to BLPs, unsourced additions or changes are welcome if they are uncontroversial (and correct of course). If they are regularly incorrect in what they add, then we should have a discussion about that: but topic banning an editor (and worse, blocking them 3 times already) over what is perfectly acceptable policy-wise is the wrong approach. Instead, GiantSnowman (and others) should stop blocking people for making correct and policy-acceptable edits. Fram (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no excuse to ever add unsourced material to any article, and certainly no such thing as policy-acceptable unsourced edits so long as Verifiability remains a policy. Unsourced edits are worse than vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you are confusing policy-encouraged and policy-acceptable. Unsourced edits are perfectly acceptable. That's why it is verifiability, not verified. Obviously it is much better to add the source directly, instead of waiting for it to be challenged and only then to add one, but that's just best practice, not some absolute requirement which is blockable or which is somewhere policy. And your addition "unsourced edits are worse than vandalism" is just silly. Fram (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced edits are unacceptable. We tolerate vandalism, but it is easily corrected. Unsourced edits often require expert attention. Usually, unless we can identify the original source, they have to be removed, because without the source we cannot verify that they are not a copyvio. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Support per "Comments on change of !vote below": Per Fram and GiantSnowman's "A very good user (at times)". Words of wisdom or consideration: This editor is apparently a subject SPA (certainly not a bad thing), with what seems to be 255 articles created (only a few deleted) and also what seems to be working on 64,000 edits. While I am 100% for sourcing BLP content, if the content was in fact (not seemingly argued against) sourced, then this should count as a warning that getting too close to the last chance line could be dangerous. @Fodbold-fan: You seem to indicate you are through playing with fire. I notice you revert but apparently, add content on some edits ( here). I haven't looked at how it is customarily done but I consider a reversion to be just that. I would think adding content and reference(s) should be noted as such in the edit summary for clarity. In the scheme of Wikipedia creating articles is normally considered a great thing and in that regard, you seem to be doing "great things", however, and especially concerning BLP's, it is dangerous to add content without sourcing when you have been warned. At present, you stand a chance of being topic-banned. Unless you have some alternative area I would think you would want to protect this. I cannot give a good defending argument concerning your block log. I can just add that this "slip up" was the first in over two years and maybe that will be considered. Maybe because there was a source in this instance there could be some saving grace but I hope you do realize the gravity of the situation. Being a prolific editor does not give a pass for disregarding policies and guidelines. Good luck, -- Otr500 (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding change of !vote made by Otr500 (talk · contribs)) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because there is no rule requiring edits to be sourced. I would support such a rule, but it very pointedly doesn't exist. That's why there's a BLP rule requiring it for controversial edits; because other kinds of edits don't have to be sourced. No sanctions without evidence of actually violating policy. Also, the one diff in the OP was not unsourced; almost all of that edit was sourced by Soccerway, which was already in the article; the only part that wasn't was the "the deal was never made official" language. I actually agree with requiring edits to be sourced but the remedy is reversion not sanctions. If we want to sanction editors for persistently adding unsourced material we first need to add the requirement to policy. Levivich 12:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich and Fram: WP:BLP requires All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. It does not matter if the edits are "controversial". If the material Fodbold-fan is adding is regularly being challenged then it is unacceptable for them to simply supply sources once it is challenged. They need to be adding the sources when they are adding the material since clearly whatever they are adding is "likely to be challenged". BLP further requires that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" but that doesn't seem to be the issue here since the problem is Fodbold-fan violating BLP by failing to add sources for material likely to be challenged rather than contentious material. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I don't think "likely to be challenged" means "we have a project where a few of the most active editors will challenge any BLP material if unsourced", but "if the unsourced material you add is unlikely, or negative, or otherwise likely to be challenged for any reason apart from simply being unsourced, then you should source it. Otherwise it is circular reasoning / self-fulfilling prophecy. For me, the issue is not (or less) with someone adding correct but unsourced material (and the editors wanting the topic ban have not indicated that this is about incorrect material at all), but with editors routinely challenging this (and blocking editors!) to uphold their standards which are higher than what enwiki policy requires. Policy should not be misused in this way, the lines you quote are not intended to be a catch-all which can be used to wikilawyer. Otherwise we could better replace them with "all BLP material must be sourced and will be removed if not, and editors failing to do this will be blocked". Fram (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • These edits are not likely to be challenged and I'm not sure why you think otherwise. No one has challenged the accuracy of the two edits diffed here. I am hard pressed to think of an edit that is less likely to be contentious or challenged than what team a pro athlete or coach plays for. This is very easy to verify, "vanilla" stuff. It'd be a whole different story if these were controversial or inaccurate edits. ("Controversial" is shorthand for "contentious or challenged or likely to be challenged.") Levivich 14:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• • • Our rule is that all material is likely to be challenged. Sports web sites have short half lives. After a short time material becomes unverifiable. Adding a reference may help preserve it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

      • "Rules" made up by a local project (or by one member of the project?) are not a reason to sanction or block editors, and the above "infractions" to that ignorable rule are not from such typical sports websites but can be found in news sites as well. Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram and Levivich. Unsourced material is only bad if 1) it is unsourceable and not merely for being unsourced. Which is to say, if it can be easily shown that a source exists and could be added, that is not a violation of BLP or any other policy. And 2) it is contentious or likely to be challenged. The lack of a source itself is not sufficient grounds for challenging. It must also, in some other way, have a problem, such as being unlikely to be true, harmful or negative in someway, etc. etc. Wikipedia policies are not couched in mandatory "if this, then that" statements, they require nuance and prudence when applying them, and to ban and/or block the OP for this seems heavy handed. I would encourage them to source their edits better (as they should have learned, it makes some people get unnecessarily confrontational when they don't), but unless such information is legitimately contentious, we shouldn't sanction them for not doing so. --Jayron32 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're forgetting copyvio. Without the source, we can't verify that it was not copied. I've had to remove or rewrite whole articles because they were unsourced. And I'm not forgetting how Fram challenged material that was both properly sourced and that they knew to be true. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Copyvio is a complete red herring here. And if you for some reason would like to use this discussion to attack me, then at least have the decency to include some diffs of what you mean. Otherwise please remove the statement per WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Fram: @Levivich: Rather than just focusing on whether policy permits unsourced edits per se, we probably should also consider the background of issues raised with this editor in particular. My understanding of the history here is that part of the reason this editor was blocked was due to the content being inaccurate and/or (as Jayron32 puts it) unsourceable. While it is clear to me that Fram is saying the diff example at the top of the thread is not one of those occasions (that the content was merely unsourced), and therefore all of you are saying it was permitted under policy, it is unclear to me whether you are all saying this of the previous edits and blocks which you are calling heavy-handed. I mean, there is little point in us saying we shouldn't have sanctioned an editor like this for unsourced content unless we have examined the background of those previous sanctions and the extent of the feedback that the user was provided, as we are not ones for discouraging best practice either. If it turns out that the block log is prejudicial, we can then at least reach a consensus on that and why. If it isn't, then perhaps something else needs to be said for completeness, along the lines of what Otr500 has said. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Ncmvocalist GS's blocks of Fodbold-fan were among the blocks discussed at GS's arbcom case, in which both Fram and I participated. Levivich 19:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Fodbold-fan, can you explain why after nearly 64K edits, you're still adding unsourced info to Wikipedia? I find that a bit astonishing. Why in the world don't you just source your edits? You clearly must know how. —valereee (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Procedural close of some kind See comments on on change of !vote. I do not see a blockable offense here. I did not look into the past block record just that it exists. An arbcom case was mentioned but no links were provided. I do not know if any blocks were appealed which is an editor's right. I opposed this because sources were found which means in this case there was NOT "unsourcable" content involved. What I do know is there were three blocks for adding "Persistent addition of unsourced content" (by the same Admin) and now this one. I hope this does not evolve into the questioning of these blocks. If ONE was because of adding content that could not be sourced this is potential harm. Future edits can be considered "contentious or challenged" as they have been. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy. Part of that policy is WP:CHALLENGE: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. and Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

In this case, with this editor, it does not seem to be a stretch for any to acknowledge that any unsourced contributions are "likely to be challenged" and need to be sourced especially on a BLP. I believe the editor is aware of this. This means that failure to do so could be inching towards possible claims of tendentious editing. This is evidenced by the This page in a nutshell and the lead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

Considering these things it is not unreasonable to require that sources be provided by this editor without trying to knit-pick if this may be applicable to all editors. This editor has agreed to this. If this editor", Fodbold-fan (pinging for notification), wishes to contest any of this (is there any undue duress?) I will support such contesting. However, none of us are "court-appointed" so I would like to suggest this be closed as resolved with the editor agreeing to provide sourcing for material, specifically in this topic area. I would like to add a note of caution moving forward with regards to concerns of "heavy-handed" (editor versus editor/Admin involvement) in this area. If "anyone" has deeper concerns that can be addressed separately -- Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500: Just on your comment about the block log, the relevant arbcom case finding is here, where the administrator was found to have wrongly blocked other editors for "persistent addition of unsourced content" (in the same period as his last couple of blocks of Fodbod-fan). The evidence in the case included reference to the blocks of Fodbod-fan but the finding did not explicitly name this editor, instead naming two other editors.

To the extent that I have referred to reviewing blocks, they wouldn't be about administrator, as the case already finalised remedies which were relevant to incorrectly blocking editors; rather, the block review would be for the limited purpose of deciding how it would affect our views on editing restrictions for Fodbod-fan specifically (because unlike other discussions, I think it would be wrong for us to take the block log at face value in light of that case).

In the meantime, I agree that this thread can be closed on the basis of the agreement provided by Fodbod-fan. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unsure why editors are justifying the repeated addition of unsourced content to BLPs and the (and being generous here) frankly blasé attitude to sourcing requirements, just because I am involved and have blocked the editor in the past (the last time being 3 years ago), despite other editors also raising concerns about edits and other editors having blocked the editor as well over a period of the last 6 years (although admittedly clean for 2). Do you really think so little of me? Cool. GiantSnowman 09:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• GiantSnowman, I certainly do not "think so little of you". In fact, I think it commendable that you "aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people". Two years is a long time. The benefit of the doubt suggests that a warning should be sufficient and this was acknowledged. I believe there is a long-standing consensus that BLP content needs to be sourced. Some may choose to argue, but unless since somehow nullified, a 2010 Arbitration Committee motion passed that included: That unsourced biographies of living people may contain seemingly innocuous statements which are actually damaging, but there is no way to determine whether they do without providing sources. WP:BLPREMOVE (#1) includes "unsourced or poorly sourced" and gives latitude for an involved Admin to block: Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved. This is for "clear cases" and includes provisions for "less clear cases". I think the evidence suggests that if the subject does violate the BLP content sourcing policy requirement again that more than a topic ban be considered. What can be considered tendentious editing? "Expecting others to find sources for your own statements" and "This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals". -- Otr500 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I would add that it appears that Fodbod-fan is complying with the promise made in this thread, but if issues persist, any proposal for editing restrictions can promptly be revisited at that point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Otr500 and Ncmvocalist: except of course edits like this yesterday - no source provided for the changes, no edit summary to explain the changes, no indication as to why the changes are correct etc. GiantSnowman 10:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments on change of !vote: I reverted the content as unsupported and left talk page comments. I am flabbergasted, to say the least. Part of my defense of this editor, as well as some others commenting above, is the two-year lapse and the promises. That was rendered null and void with the addition of unsupported content while this ANI was ongoing. My assumption of good faith has been tainted. The editor in question may have set fire to the "rope" offered. This seems to cross flagrant disregard in leaps and bounds. The editor has commented "Dude, please stop your harassment. I don't have time to put sources in every single article, but if you look it up, you see that my edits is legit. You know me by now too. Otherwise, I will quit editing." This is clearly a stance of "I will not add sources" (even though I promised) because it is other people's job to verify my added content.

There may be two camps on a necessity to add sources because some feel it is alright if the source is out there somewhere. I do believe there is evidence that expecting sourcing, backed by policy, can be required. The above assumption of good faith would be that the content was verifiable. This goes deeper towards tendentious editing by disruption: "Examples of disruptive editing" #1, #2 (fails to cite sources), #4, and #5, along with "Point-illustrating" and Failure or refusal to "get the point".

I now Support (rationale per above !vote) a "topic ban" but also suggest this be considered Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. If the editor does not quit as indicated that editor can simply bring these editing habits elsewhere. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your revert. I don't know why you (and GS) think this edit was unsourced. It's sourced to Soccerway, which is already cited in the article. Levivich 13:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why did FF not simply add an edit summary saying 'as per Soccerway' in that case? wP:CIR. GiantSnowman 14:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Or look at this edit, which uses this website as a source (in the edit summary only, not the article, but whatever). The changes to the article are to update the Waitakere United stats, add playing for Forrest Hill Milford United (no stats), and add playing for Northern Rovers (with stats added). The only thing the 'reference' supports is this player playing one game in May 2021 for Northern Rovers, and that's it - nothing about Waitakere United stats, nothing about Forrest Hill Milford United, and nothing about Northern Rovers stats. Is that acceptable? GiantSnowman 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As to your first question, I could have sworn we had this conversation two years ago and it went like this: yes, edit summaries are useful; no, we don't revert or sanction editors for lack of edit summaries; plus it's bloody obvious that the edit was updating stats that were already referenced to Soccerway, plus plus you in particular of all people know this. Your view that lack of edit summaries = CIR does not have consensus. Or to put it another way, while ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries, if I have to choose between the two, I'd rather have an editor update articles (accurately, per sources already cited) without an edit summary than not have the editor update the article at all. You really have to accept that this is the consensus, even if you disagree with it. I would support a rule requiring edit summaries, but first we get consensus for that requirement, before we sanction anyone for violating it.

As to your second question/edit, everything in this edit was sourced to a source already cited in the article, National Football Teams. The only thing that wasn't sourced by NFT (Northern Rovers) is sourced to the Northern Rovers website source. So it's all sourced as far as I can tell (and accurate). Levivich 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman, this is indeed the root cause of the Arbcom case of two years ago revisited: you (and a few others) owning football articles way too aggressively, and imposing your rules on other editors (but, apparently, both then and now, a lot less strictly on yourself). Would it have been better if Fotbold-fan had used the edit summary "quick clean" to make their edits? Or is this fundamentally the same as what you are trying to get then topic banned for, now that you are no longer allowed to block them over it (but still use those bad blocks as justification of the topic ban now)? Or this? Fram (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Again - a huge difference between content sourced to an in-line reference and an editor using one of many external links and asking us to try and work out which one. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Firstly, you might want to consider how the use of the word "us" in your sentence sounds in the context of Wikipedia's policy on ownership of content, which Fram referenced immediately before your comment. Secondly, higher doses of assuming good faith can be helpful in understanding that the content change is more constructive than not. If the content was actually inaccurate or actually unverifiable, then that is when you have something to be concerned about. Just my 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Man, GS, Fram's comment prompted me to take a look at your recent contribs. Look at these reverts, each of which you wrote in the edit summary "no source," but each of which was sourced by a source already in the article, Soccerway: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] (all of these have since been reinstated). The worst part is, these are all the winners of major championships. You know this is sourced to Soccerway! You're just being WP:POINTy by reverting this as "unsourced" when you damn well know that they are in fact sourced. You know because this is one of the things that was brought up at the arbcom case. You've got to stop doing this.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "stats per Soccerway": [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. These are exactly the same as the edit you complain about, except that you use an edit summary "stats per Soccerway." Well, the omission of that edit summary doesn't make it "unsourced" and isn't grounds for reverting an edit. That why I say you know that these stats-updates are sourced by Soccerway and that Soccerway is already in these articles, because you do the same type of work, updating statistics.

  Here are some edits you made with the edit summary "clean up": [31] [32] [33]. These, again, are the same types of edits as what you're complaining about: they are sourced to a source already in the article, but you don't say that in your edit summary. There is no functional difference between an edit summary "clean up" and a blank edit summary. You have zero grounds for complaint here.

  What really drives me nuts about this, from one content editor to another, is that you're totally losing sight of the point of what we're doing here: building an encyclopedia. I mean I'm a bit besides myself that you took out correct, relevant, up-to-date, sourced information (that an athlete won a championship) because you've had this years-long fued with some editors over edit summaries. Talk about putting your own needs above the needs of our readers! Come on, man. See the light here. Don't corrupt our articles because you're mad an editor for not using edit summaries. Levivich 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Funny that you use one Jonathan Lewis diff, but not the one where I managed to find a source for the content. Funny that you say "these edits have been reinstated", but not "they have been reinstated after sources were found and added".

For the avoidance of doubt, I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from. Contrary to what you say there is a huge difference between that and not using any edit summary and it's a pity you can't see that.

You clearly haven't been reviewing my contribs properly, because in this one I clearlyy add a reference, and in the other clean up ones I am merely updating/cleaning the article that has already been sourced in-line - not using an EL and making other editors guess where the info is from.

Oh there's no feud or anything like this, please don't ABF. Just a desire from me to improve Wikipedia - including sourcing content about BLPs!!! It's s shame that yours and Fram's hatred views towards me colour your vision. Would you be as defensive if any other editor had raised concerns about unsourced content being added to to BLPs? Absolutely not. GiantSnowman 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It was never unsourced. It was always sourced to Soccerway or National Football Teams, two of the standard sourced used in footy articles for stats. You keep saying "unsourced" but that's just not true. You say "I would have no issue if the edit summary made it clear exactly where the information was coming from," but above I linked to several diffs where you, yourself, updated stats with the edit summary "clean up," which does not indicate exactly where the information was coming from. I don't hate you but I am concerned about how you've been treating some editors, like Fobold Fan, for years. I'm also concerned that you refuse to grapple with certain truths, like: the sources for the edits were in the article when the edits were made; you were previously sanctioned by arbcom in part for this; you made articles worse (removing that an athlete won a championship) over this. To me, these are serious issues and I'd like you to pay attention to them. Like, agree to WP:Drop the stick. Levivich 17:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Last thing on this because I have better things to do with my time (like, I don't know, improve and add references to BLPs!!!) than argue with Fram and Levivich. But - it is possible, and it wouldn't kill you - to say both "hey, GS, why not AGF a bit more" and "hey, FF, why not use edit summaries or try to make it clearer why you are making changes and where your information has come from". The two are not mutually exclusive. See ya. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I said edit summaries are useful and ideally all edits would have descriptive edit summaries and I would support a rule requiring edit summaries. Of course I think FF and everyone else should use edit summaries. But that wasn't what this thread was about when you opened it: you only mentioned unsourced info in BLPs. Would it kill you to admit the info was in fact sourced? Would it kill you to admit you do the same thing (update stats without saying what the source is in an edit summary)? It doesn't matter to me if you admit it or not, but it does matter to me that you stop reverting people for adding information without a source when the source is already in the article. Levivich 18:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it, where is the evidence that the transfer was present in the external link (Soccerway etc.) at the time FF's edit was made? i.e. where is the evidence that the external link had already updated to reflect the transfer and that therefore is the source used? Sometimes they take a day or two. Interesting. That is all. GiantSnowman 18:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Concur with GiantSnowman. It's clear there's no consensus here, and there's reason not to enact a topic ban. But, neither should we simply declare there is no problem and move on. A clear message needs to be given to FF that their behavior is not what we expect. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• @GiantSnowman: Ok, let's put your differences aside and consider this in a different light. We now know this is an instance of content arising from an existing source; the bizarre fact that it was cited under "external links" prior to Fodbold-fan editing the article doesn't mean the article was better prior to Fodbold-fan's edit. Sometimes articles will have a handful (or more) of sources cited in the entire article - with all of those sources seemingly attributed to one particular line in an article, when in fact they form the basis of other information in an article. That doesn't mean an update should be reverted automatically or is somehow less beneficial.
• From experience, we all know for a fact that many unregistered accounts (fans of football or otherwise) will take the liberty of updating information without providing an in-line citation, whether within the text or in an edit summary. However, if the information is accurate, verifiable, compliant with NPOV etc, it is implicitly accepted that update is undoubtedly an improvement to the project even if policy might allow a revert. While we might like the content to be further updated so that external links are specifically listed under references, or for each update to be attributed to a separate in-line text citation, that is not always necessary at that point by the editor who made an update (noting the article was originally sitting like that for who knows how long). Given that it is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the standard you are expecting seems to be higher than what the project requires sometimes. That higher standard you would like in articles can be a good thing if it is used constructively, but forcing it on others can be offensive, disruptive or harmful.
• Another way to think about it is that not all editors are good at (or enjoy) copyediting, referencing and so forth. Fodbold-fan is an editor who clearly enjoys updating the accuracy of Wikipedia articles on football(ers) based on verifiable information; that is the earlier step of improvement specifically. The next level of improvement might be increasing in-line citations to the source or moving the sources to a references section or copyediting or building more content just as Fodbold-fan did. That next level of improvement can be boldly completed by you or any other editor too.
• If you are saying Fodbold-fan is not abiding by an agreement and the content is inaccurate and/or unverifiable (or something along those lines), restrictions might need to be considered. But the idea of sanctioning an editor for not completing the next level of improvement doesn't sit right with me; does it really sit right with you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Coming back just because I have been pinged - FF has admitted they messed up, asked for a final chance, and made a concerted effort to improve (even if it is still, in my eyes, not good enough). However, based on everything, a topic ban is probably not suitable at this time. But, as Hammersoft says, other editors pretending there is nothing at all amiss with FF's edits is extremely damaging. GiantSnowman 18:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Or alternatively, a good editor (who could improve some of their editing habits) was threatened with a topic ban by the admin who already blocked them incorrectly three times, panicked (understandably) and promised whatever was wanted to avoid the fate that surely seemed to await them. They perhaps have since learned that the demands made by that admin were unreasonable and not supported by everyone, and that said admin already got into trouble for similar actions in the past (including with this very editor), and finally that said admin shows a "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in this regard. And no, this is not "hatred" for Giantsnowman, but serious disappointment that an otherwise good admin and editor has such a large blind spot when it comes to this, and that the Arbcom case, while being followed to the letter, has not changed anything in their view on the underlying issues, which are not seen as sanctionable by many editors (nor by policy). They believe that the football project has some (presumably unwritten) rules beyond policy ("everything is likely to be challenged", "young players are kept even when they have no GNG notability, just in case they later become notable") which overrule general Wikipedia-wide consensus, and that mistaken belief needs to be discarded. Fram (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman prefering style over content?

Having just seen an edit by GiantSnowman on my watchlist, I get really concerned about their preference of style over content. Here they cite the MOS as a reason to remove the birth and death place from the first line of the article. Fine, I suppose (I haven't checked the MOS), but the result is that the information is completely removed from the article. How this improves the article or enwiki is not clear. Similarly and also today, at a soccer article, they reverted[34] correct, more recent information because the older version had their preferred style. And when they are not reverting to impose style over content, they are reverting because their searching skills fail: this from today ("nothing listed at https://www.ascolicalcio1898.it/index.php/news or on Google?") is baffling, the news is all over GNews[35] and was posted at the club website a few days ago: [36] (search for Botteghin, or directly at [37]). I don't know what the reason is for all these errors, but as all these are from today only, it is becoming a real problem. Protecting the integrity and correctness of enwiki is one thing, actively making it worse again and again is quite another. Fram (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sigh. right, here we go.
• This was using MOS - in cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove.
• this I acknowledge that the stats update was valid (I have now restored) and I did intend to correct that, but simply forgot, and hold my hands up; the rest is all stylistic.
• Regarding Bottenghin - as per my edit summary, I searched the club's official news page (no entry listed) and on Google (no entry listed), and so reverted the information about a BLP on the basis that I could not verify the information. In situations where I can verify the unsourced information added by other users, I do - see this also from today, which Fram conveniently overlooks.
• Overall, I am unsure what sanction Fram wants or what they hope to achieve by posting this/following me around? If an editor I respect thinks I've done anything wrong, or could do anything better, I am all ears, otherwise I'm going away again. GiantSnowman 11:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

"In cases where the POB is clearly referenced I re-locate, if not I remove." No, you don't. There was a reference directly after the birth-date brackets (not even at the end of the sentence), to an RS[38], which clearly states "Born Tilburg 1755-05-19" and "Deceased Amsterdam 1820-11-30". I have no idea what more you could possibly want. So you somehow "missed" that reference, even though it was clearly there? Just like you "forgot" in the second case, and found "no entry" in the third case, even though they are trivially easy to find? As for "following you around", I noticed this because you out of the blue edited Adriaan de Lelie, an article I created and where the latest edit before yours was also by me. I don't really care that you don't respect me, though it is hardly civil to state so (if we all would start posting our opinions of others, things would deteriorate quite rapidly): but what I hope to achieve is that you rethink your approach to editing and to reverting, and that you get your priorities right and realise that MOS and style are less important than content, and the your own rules or the football project rules are a far second to general policies and guidelines. Fram (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't see the info in the ref on Adriaan de Lelie, but I see it's there so re-added. Perhaps if the article was properly written and referenced in the first place it wouldn't be an issue? I fully accept I'm not perfect (I'm probably one of the few editors who is well aware of that) and I'm always looking to improve my editing, so thank you for raising it. It's a shame you could not do so on my talk page and instead came straight to ANI. GiantSnowman 12:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, the problem is the article, that's why you couldn't find the info when it was raised here, and that's probably why you claim that the Botteghin info was not available on the club website and on Google even when I gave the direct link to it here. I brought it here instead of on your talk page because it is a continuation of what started this very thread, your insistence on imposing some rules without caring for the more important issue of whether the facts were actually right and up-to-date. Heck, one of the three articles I gave above was one where you previously "improved" the article by reverting Fotbold-fan[39], thereby removing the country of birth from the infobox, and changing the correct "2019" for the U-19 team to the incorrect "2019-", even though as a 21-year old he obviously no longer qualifies for the U19 team. The more I look at your edits, the more cases I see where you make the article worse. You probably have excuses for all of them, but we already had an ArbCom case for your heavy-handed and incorrect "rule" over football articles (and others), and the same issues were raised in this discussion already, so the "you should have first come to my talk page" rings hollow. Fram (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, 21 year olds are eligible for the under-19 team. I am not sure of the exact regulations, but I know for under-21 level players born after 1 January 1998 are eligible for the 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship (so players up to age 23). See all the 21+ at 2021 UEFA European Under-21 Championship squads. GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

PS either take me back to ArbCom or leave me alone, thanks. GiantSnowman 13:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

So, you are trying to prove that 21 year olds can play for the U19 teamby pointing at the U23 rules? Perhaps you could just have checked the 2021 UEFA European Under-19 Championship instead? "players born on or after 1 January 2002 eligible to participate." For the new competitions, see [40], where the year has been changed to 2003. So no, he wasn't eligible recently, and won't be eligible in the future. As for your PS: ArbCom is started when the community can't resolve an issue, and isn't intended as some "I don't respond to anything beneath that level" get-out-of-jail card. You know full well that an Arb case would be speedy declined as other attempts at dispute resolution haven't been exhausted. Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What's the excuse for [41]? The club website[42] just happened to change between your edit and my revert[43] 32 minutes later? Do we really need to check every edit you make now? Fram (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my God, the website was updated in between me checking it and you then stalking my edits (which you claim you are not doing, though you clearly are). The last Wayback entry from February 2021 confirms #13. Do you want me to email the club to ask them to confirm?! Can somebody please tell Fram to leave me alone and start AGF? GiantSnowman 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This from '1 hour ago' confirms the new squad numbers. It is therefore clear that somebody at the club has been updating the web profiles this afternoon, and Benda's happened to be updated in between my review of his profile and yours. Or are you going to still claim that I, for some unknown reason, am lying? GiantSnowman 13:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What Fram is proving is that you make just as many mistakes as anyone else, yet you hold others to a different standard. Levivich 13:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't stalking your edits, you made an article I created worse. I am now, during an ANI discussion about your edits, actually checking your edits. It is the onl way to find patterns of problematic aditing and to see whether things improve or not (hint: they don't). Your latest defense seems to be "the website was changed when the IP edited, was changed back when I reverted, and was changed again when Fram reverted". Which looks comparable to your defenses for the other three problems from today I listed, i.e. "not clearly sourced" (er, it was), "I forgot", and "not on Google or the team website" (again, er, it was, very clearly). Fram (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

No, my explanation is that the IP has read (somewhere) the squad number had changed (likely on Twitter); I checked the profile and it had not been updated; you then checked the profile slightly later and it had. No more or no less than that. AGF

And no, there is no problematic editing. The issue at the heart of the matter here is, actually, "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content added by other editors, and not always getting it quite right". Fine. Like I've said, I'm always looking to improve editing, and tbh would have received concerns much better if they had been raised at my talk page rather than you running straight to ANI. You saying "oh well this was at ArbCom a few years ago so that's why I didn't bother talking to you directly" is pathetic; the real reason you are posting at ANI is in the hope that I get in bother again.

PS I'm not going to reply here again, if anybody else has concerns then feel free to raise them with me on my talk page. Funny that (to date at least) nobody else has. GiantSnowman 13:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

None of the 5 issues mentioned in this section was about "GS is trying to reference the unsourced content": apart from perhaps the last case, the other four were perfectly sourced bits of content that you removed (directly or as a revert) because you fucked up. Trying to still frame this as "trying to reference" stuff and at the same time asking that people AGF with you doesn't work. That you would have reacted better when contacted at your talk page seems dubious as well, as you made these poor edits after the problems with your editing were again highlighted in the above discussion, and you have declared that you don't respect me anyway. Neither the location nor the identity of who reports issues should make any difference in how truthful you respond (it may change how patiently and civil you reply, but those are wholly separate from the facts). Again and again here, you have tried and failed to put the responsability for your errors elsewhere ("not on Google", "not sourced", "but the U23 regulations say"...). I hope that, when you can sleep and reflect on this, you will actually change your approach (both towards editing/reverting, and towards replying to concerns). Fram (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

On the lines of civility and errors, I raised these polite concerns with this user only a few days ago, to be met with these terse replies. Basically creating a biography of recently deceased people, and citing their year of birth directly from another language WP. Probably been going on for quite some time before I raised it. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh hello Lugnuts, I wondered when you would pop by. To clarify - I didn't say they were referenced to other Wikipedias, I said they were referenced at other WPs - big difference. Sources present (usually, but not always - some was my own Google searches) on the other WPs that I simply forgot to include on the one-line stubs here. Was the information correct? Absolutely - the only issue was that there was no source present to verify the correct information, which according to Fram et al is actually acceptable anyway??? (I disagree, and now make sure that all relevant sources are present in the stubs). Regarding civility, you're the one who used edit summaries like this, entirely inappropriate. Regarding errors, here you say that the issue has "probably been going on for quite some time" (my emphasis); but here you say it is a certainty? Which is it? Either way has the issue arisen again since you raised it with me nearly 2 weeks ago? Anyway, kudos, you dangled and I bit and responded, so I'm going away again. PS still waiting for editors I haven't had run-ins with to raise valid concerns... GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a valid concern. "I simply forgot to include" the sources? Really? I guess it's all OK, if you know the info to be correct, without anything to WP:V it. Very poor all round from you with sourcing and civility. And by "run-ins" you mean someone raising a valid concern on your talkpage which you took offense too? Oh dear. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, when I (IIRC) supported sanctions against you when you were recently at ANI? Remember, when you were creating hundreds/thousands of poorly sourced, non-notable stubs? Therefore brave of you to have a pop at me in relation to sourcing... GiantSnowman 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, rather than bickering - you raised an issue, I reflected and changed my editing. Any such issues since you raised it? No. Grand. Move on. GiantSnowman 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Off the back of one conversation into another about some disagreement. Really, this is a storm in a tiny little tea-cup. Seems pointless to say anything else. Feels like a complete over-reaction to me. Govvy (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I share Fram's concerns about GS favoring the MOS over content. With this edit he used the summary "birth/death place not in opening brackets - MOS:BIRTHPLACE" but instead of moving the information to the correct place he deleted it altogether. Presumably he would say it was unsourced, but the birthplace of Veliko Tărnovo Province, Bulgaria was sourced in the article [44]. The village of Dzhulyunitsa wasn't, but that specific detail could have been removed instead of throwing it all out. I only noticed this because it was on my watchlist; given GS's edit count I'm sure there will be more examples. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, where is the direct reference saying he was born in Dzhulyunitsa/Veliko Tarnovo? The source you have provided is not cited next to (or even near) the birth place, it's cited only to the 'career record'. Are you saying that I, or any other editor, needs to check every single source on an article before challenging/removing any otherwise seemingly unsourced content about a BLP? And if you had concerns about that edit 2 weeks ago, why not raise it with me at the time? GiantSnowman 22:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If by direct reference you mean inline citation, there was not one, but I feel to see how this material was contentious. If you feel it necessary to completely remove the fact that a Bulgarian sumo wrestler was born in Bulgaria, then cite BLP, not MOS:BIRTHPLACE - that was a misleading edit summary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Noted, thank you - and I will make more of an effort to re-locate the content (if sourced) rather than just removing. GiantSnowman 09:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to own up here - I did not check the 35 references or 2 external links before making this edit, I trust I will be informed why I have done wrong. GiantSnowman 22:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

GS, can I make a frank suggestion? Why not just stop patrolling for a while? Let's face facts: you don't enjoy it and you're not good at it. You're not good at interacting with a bunch of different users you don't know, especially new users. You get frustrated, everyone else gets frustrated, and it's been like this for years. You're not suddenly going to become this super patient and diplomatic person who is great at teaching new users how to edit better. You've repeatedly gotten into trouble for how you patrol, even since the arbcom case. And how many times have you taken a user to ANI and hit a brick wall? Your judgments in this area just don't match up with the community's judgments. You think things are disruptive that others don't think are disruptive. Why not just do something else in the topic area besides patrolling other people's edits? There's a lot of other things to do. There's no need to watchlist and monitor ten thousand pages and deal with that much frustration. Let others with more patience do the patrolling. It'll be better for everyone that way. Levivich 13:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Next time don't pull any punches, Levivich. EEng 04:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't patrol per se; the majority of the articles in question are either on the front page (which I do review on a daily basis) or on my watchlist. I'm not going to change that, thanks. I will, as I have already said, make a more concerted effort to take on board many of the concerns raised. Perhaps (and I genuinely mean this in the nicest possible way) if you/Fram/Lugnuts stopped trying to give me "advice" I wouldn't get so frustrated here? It's not coming across as helpful in the slightest, it's feeling like harassment, a pile-on, etc. GiantSnowman 13:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you followed some of the advice, you probably wouldn't end up here to be frustrated so much? At some point, you have to realize if everyone is telling you the problem is you, the problem JUST MIGHT BE YOU. Get with the flow man.50.201.228.202 (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, IP making their first edit in 3 days! GiantSnowman 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The sub heading caught my attention here and I wanted to say a few things. Firstly, there's no denying that Mr Snowman is a workhorse and his relentless editing on a daily basis (and on volume alone) should be acknowledged. I have no "history" with Mr Snowman, nor have I had any big "run-ins" with him, although I feel like that is largely down to how I have conducted myself as opposed to him. And by this, I mean having to ignore quite disparaging comments on countless occasions in recent years. Recently, I've seen a few things that I don't like at all about his behaviour towards other editors and this has prompted me to get involved on this noticeboard for the first time. Some of these behaviours should absolutely not be displayed by anyone on Wikpedia, let alone an administrator. Whether this be from an attitude standpoint, an interaction standpoint or from an ownership standpoint (such as editing an MOS without consensus and then forcing editors to consult said MOS to back up his point).

My interactions with Mr Snowman have been few and far between over the years and I have no bad feeling towards him, but I have had to ignore being called a "WP:Dick" (twice), have been told to "stay away" from pages and have been told that my edits are "generally poor". The only negative messages I've received from anyone in 12 years of editing have come from him. Does it sit well with me that editors are being discouraged to edit certain pages, being told to "go away", to "get over it", being called a dick, being forced to apologise to him or face sanctions, having their edits constantly reverted using a blanket approach? This is all coming from an administrator on Wikipedia. His behaviour is actively contradicting certain core values of Wikipedia. An administrator should not be unfriendly towards editors, they should not expect editors to know everything, they should not be impatient towards editors, they should not call editors names, they should not have a "them vs. us" mentality (I really don't like the "please, just listen to us" messages he sends new editors), they should not show endless frustration towards new editors. Looking at Wikipedia's expectations of adminship I would say it is quite conclusive that Mr Snowman breaches basic policies on a regular basis. Not through his application in his editing, but through his conduct towards other editors.

A lot of the concerns raised in this thread by others absolutely ring true in terms of what I've seen and experienced in my years of editing Wikipedia (the lack of edit summaries = CIR is my favourite one as it simply does not compute to him that the two do not correlate). The reason I have chosen to say something now is that Mr Snowman's responses in this thread do not suggest he has taken anything on board regarding his conduct towards others or how he is coming across to editors. To clarify, I am not calling for any sort of de-adminship here — Mr Snowman knows Wikipedia like the back of his hand, performs a lot of unnoticed work and is full of very good suggestions, some are absolutely spot on. It's how he delivers them that needs working on. He told me I included way too much information in my edits. I did not interact with the message as he delivered it in an aggressive manner, but he was absolutely correct and have spent the last few months thinning down articles off the back of this. I have no doubt that he's a good egg in real life and will eventually realise that how he interacts with editors is an area of improvement for him, just as he likes to point out areas of improvement for others. SBFCEdit (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Debresser

I changed the short description in COVID-19 pandemic in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) so that it does not repeat the title of the article. User Debresser (talk · contribs · block user) started reverting me over and over again, demanding that I first establish a consensus, which is ridiculous because the change I made is minor and non-controversial. Also, with his latest edits there, he reverted not only me but another editor as well, without explanation: link. I asked for help at WT:SHORTDESC and the feedback there basically confirmed my point. It is unacceptable to allow this user to waste so much of other peoples' time and effort to make edits as obvious as mine was. He is banned in the Palestine–Israel topic-area, and is constantly being blocked for his edit-warring. Debresser is polluting other users' editing with his lack of judgement and WP:OWN, and should be blocked for good. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If your edit is reverted, the WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for inclusion. Did you start a talk page discussion?I don’t see any relevance in this complaint to the IP topic. You’ve reverted it at least 4 times now. You should start a discussion before you get blocked for edit warring. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

It's an abuse of guidelines to require discussion before every edit. There were no good reason to revert it or demand consensus, and that's why his history of sanctions is relevant – he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The reason to revert it, it would seem to me, was that the version was stable before you arrived. If your edit is so obviously superior, then gaining consensus should be a breeze. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

he shouldn't be the one to dictate whether a consensus exists or not If only two editors have weighed in, and they disagree...then there is no consensus for the change, and the existing text is understood to represent consensus. Why haven't you followed WP:ONUS and WP:BRD by initiating a talkpage discussion to gain consensus for your disputed edit? It is not an abuse of guidelines to follow guidelines. Bringing this to ANI when you are the one edit warring in your preferred change, primarily complaining about unrelated events in the other editor's past, is a bad idea. Grandpallama (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Triggerhippie4, this page falls under WP:COVIDDS. Please exercise greater caution and do not edit war. Further, I take a dim view of you trying to browbeat Debresser with their sanctions history to win over a content dispute — and, as it happens, I'm actually the admin who sanctioned Debresser, for whatever that's worth (something, I'd reckon). El_C 05:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  And he even blocked me once, for whatever that's worth. :P EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, blocking EEng is a right of passage for admins... El_C 06:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Gah, Right of passage →Rite of passage, I can't spell. Though EEng probably self-identifies as a ship now (no Poop deck jokes, please!). El_C 14:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I gotta say something else. Triggerhippie4, I'm a bit shocked that an editor of your experience would revert a contending version over a longstanding one with an edit summary that reads: There is no consensus for your revision. It's your version that's new, Debresser's version already enjoyed consensus, at the very least loosely, via WP:SILENCE. You can't tell him that his version has no consensus when yours has even less! El_C 05:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

And I gotta say something else too. This is an ANI thread over a short desc? REALY??? EEng 06:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

While it would've been better for Triggerhippie4 to open a talk discussion, I agree that such minor non controversial changes don't always require for editors to talk. Moreover, they already asked about the change in the shortdesc, and the responders pretty much agreed with them. With that being said Triggerhippie4, if you get reverted multiple times, at that point it's probably better to open a discussion as clearly the user disagrees with you and they'll be right to point out WP:ONUS (even if you think it wastes everyones time and the change is minor). Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Triggerhippie4, browbeating Debresser over their sanctions history to win a content dispute is WP:BLACKSHEEP. We have seen this kind of thing before. Please don’t. Tinybubi (talk) 08:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, not interesting. El_C 11:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Is my reply at all necessary here? I agree with everything that has been said, but will happily repeat those points, and would like to add a few things:

1. Triggerhippie4 does not understand or refuses to accept that he is the one who has to gain consensus for his edits (as I pointed out to him multiple times), and this has been so for as long as I have known him here;
2. it takes two to edit war, and since Triggerhippie4's first reaction to a revert is, and has always been, to simply repeat his edit, he will regularly be in conflict with other editors;
3. trying to make another editor look bad is not nice (but please rest assured that I hold a very dim view of Triggerhippie4 as well, based on precisely the things that are being held against him here);
4. this is not really the kind of subject to take to WP:ANI;
5. there is a discussion on the talkpage, which seems to be going his way, and I have not reverted since, so opening this thread at that stage was being vindictive and I do not appreciate it at all;

Debresser (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Debresser, that is not an ideal reply – it seems to focus entirely on the actions of another editor without any recognition of your own distinctly sub-optimal behaviour. What exactly do we have to do at this point to stop you edit-warring, once and for all? You've been warned, you've been blocked, but you just . won't . stop. Do you not understand that edit-warring is a waste of everybody's time, and actively harms the encyclopaedia by eroding editor goodwill? Edit-warring over such trivial detail as this is particularly pointless and toxic.

Here's a proposal: you agree to a one-revert-per-month restriction on any page anywhere in the project (with the usual exceptions for pure vandalism, serious WP:BLP violations, blatant copyright violation etc); if after – say – a year you have not broken that restriction it can be lightened to, say, one revert per week. Could you do that, do you think? The only alternative I can think of is to seek consensus here for a community-imposed 0RR restriction. El_C, other editors: could this work, if Debresser agrees?

Triggerhippie4, you've taken a good deal of flak above, and I'm not going to add to that. But please read my comments about edit-warring, they apply to you too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers Not going to happen. I am allowed to revert to a consensus version. I am allowed to behave sub-optimal. I broke no rules. I hold the higher moral ground here, as the one protecting the page from aggressive non-consensus edits, and I don't believe you are seriously proposing to punish me for that. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser: First rationale you reverted me with was "Why would we do this?", despite that I explained why in my initial edit. Then, you reverted saying your version is "Not redundant" (just false) and "Keep in line with other country articles" although your version is not the rule (see COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom). It's not "higher moral ground", but disruptive editing. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you truying to keep this discussion from being automatically deleted by replying after almost precisely a week of no comments?

Your first edit summary was "changed description to be different from the title", and that is really a non-explanation. Which is precisely why I asked "Why would we do this?", meaning: why would we want the short description to be different from the title if the title is descriptive in precisely the right measure?

Also, in view of your claim of "disruptive editing" and the underlying bad faith assumption and obvious misjudgment of my motives, I will now change my opinion below that you indeed should be blocked, as an editor who has demonstrated not to be able to positively participate in community editing. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser: When facing an edit you don't understand, the proper way is to get yourself familiar with the rules on the subject, or to ask about it on the talk page, not to revert. Even after I provided you with the link to the policies (WP:SDNOTDEF, which answered your question), you continued reverting me. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You confuse "not understand" with "disagree". A usual problem of tendentious editors. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Debresser take it from someone who has acted sub-optimally in the past, I strongly advise not acting sub-optimally. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying it is good. Or that I do so every time. But punishing an editor for it is wrong. There is always the question, who was the most wrong here. And IMHO it is very clear that the editor making a change is the one who must show consensus. Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Boomerang indeff Triggerhippie4

Since Triggerhippie4 suggested a permanent block for Debresser for purposes of browbeating, he should face his own proposed sanctions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.151.38 (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that he needs a stern warning that automatically undoing reverts of his edits is not going to be tolerated any longer. This was by far not the first time. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this should be compared to calling the police with a fraudulent report. There are serious consequences for trying to falsely accuse someone of a crime, besides for wasting the police's time. I believe this is a similar situation in which Triggerhippie4 fraudulently reported Debresser on ANI, as noted by many users above, therefore this should have serious consequences besides letting him go with just a warning which is effectively a slap on the wrist.155.246.151.38 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that today Triggerhippie4, even after all that has been said above about the inappropriateness of this post, still continues calling my reverts "disruptive", thereby proving an underlying bad faith assumption and, worse, an incapability to understand his fellow editors. Since this is not the first case where Triggerhippie4 has entered a bitter edit war, which he simply doesn't know how to stop (short of breaking 3RR), I think it is time we cut our losses, and indef block this editor. I am referring to Template:Jews and Judaism, where the same thing happened in November 2020, that after edit warring about his changes, he took me to WP:ANI over what after all is really a content issue (because of his inferior and unexplained edits). This editor does not seem to understand that things need no necessarily go his way, and that the community (as in WP:ANI) is not here to help him get his way. Debresser (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Debresser: How can you hold a dispute from the last year against me (which ended with no sanctions), when you were blocked three times this year? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

ANI is for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." The above behavior is just more evidence of the behavioral issues that Triggerhippie4 is displaying. Triggerhippie has not displayed any remorse or reflection over his behavior which numerous Wikipedians have explained is problematic. Remember Law of holes. It may do some good.155.246.151.38 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1069#User:Triggerhippie4,_user:Gidonb,_user:SoaringLL. This is not a one time issue for Triggerhippie4. This user seems to have a history of trying to browbeat others in an attempt to win editing disputes.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at Triggerhippie4 past ANI encounters and found another incident where he made spurious accusations against Debresser and was rebuked by the community:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Debresser. This is a chronic behavioral problem stretching over a year.155.246.151.38 (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, IP editor, for doing what I should have done, weren't I so disappointed with Wikipedia "justice" (read sarcasm and dripping blood). Debresser (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RogueShanghai

Hello,

This editor has a history of disruptive and clearly bias edits pertaining to the Nicki Minaj article, available for all to see from the user's talk page. This editor somehow is convinced that copying an article word for word from a different online encyclopedia (Britannica) is a reliable source. Persistently disputing and edit warring with several users on various subjects of the article, and refusing to accept the fact (in this instance) that actress is not notable to the career fame of the article subject enough to lead.

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]

ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

How did I copy the article word for word? I said that the Britannica encyclopedia stated that she was an actress, and we as another online encyclopedia should do the same. You seem to make no coherent sense of anything whatsoever. Blessings and peace. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 11:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Also at AN3, I guess: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:RogueShanghai_reported_by_User:ChicagoWikiEditor_(Result:_). ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 11:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: If what I wrote does not make coherent sense to you, then there is clearly a problem with your reading comprehension because it is there in plain grammatically correct English to be understood. You are proposing a 1:1 of another encyclopedias lead and called that a "source", even attempting to include "television personality" (before you were shut down) because "thats what it says on Britannica". This is all clearly viewable in the edit summaries above. Maybe you should get some sleep? It appears you've been up several hours, maybe even a full day edit warring this page. Quite a way to spend your Saturday. If Nicki Minaj the rapper is an actor then so is Shaquille o'neal, Eminem, and Dr Dre, right? They've had far more significant careers in film yet there is a consensus among editors that these are not article leading titles. Same applies for Nicki Minaj ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPA. And actually, also, yes. If they've had careers in film I see no issue with Eminem and Shaq being labeled with careers in acting. Minaj went to a straight up acting high school and said that she originally intended to be an actress instead of a rapper, so for you to completely discredit that on the basis of what you think, that is not encyclopedic. Your edit summaries prove this:

> "Not an actress" [48]

> "There isn’t a source in the world that will justify labeling Nicky Minaj the rapper as an actress" [49]

> "She is not notable for being an actress" [50]

And also, the way I spend my damn weekends is none of your business. I don't see why you needed to bring that up. Minaj is notable for acting, she was straight up in a supporting role in The Other Woman, she went to acting school in high school, etc. You're completely misrepresenting her on the basis of YOUR opinion. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 19:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@RogueShanghai: You ought to take the time to learn how and use the reply feature. And I didn't ask you about your weekends, I just noticed they sucked, and that's related to your activity on here, not a genuine concern for your weekend. Moreover the question about Shaq, Em, and Dr Dre was rhetorical. Did you read the whole thing? Her acting in high school and prior ambitions are irrelevant to her career fame, so that is pointless to mention. If I opened an Rfc on talk page it would likely be almost unanimous. ChicagoWikiEditor (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Just a note for any reviewing admins: I don't know anything about this particular case. However, very recently, ChicagoWikiEditor told FMSky in this talk page section that "Clearly being a child is your problem" and "Relax, little boy... Gold star for trying though. Now run along unless you're going to be constructive." He went to tell me in this edit summary: "You clearly have no idea what you are talking about" directed at me. In this talk page section, he said "For benefit of simpletons like yourself", also directed at me, and then threatened with this: "If you or anyone else feels like you can continue to revert the article then that's on you. I'll see you at the admins board afterwards." I was the one trying to discuss, and being civil, but in the face of those attacks I simply started an RfC because I didn't feel like trying to talk to him anymore would be productive. I think all of that is relevant when reading this current issue. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. I would've been fine discussing this on the talk page if it weren't for his openly hostile and rude nature, and continuing to assert that Minaj is not an actress seemingly only because he thinks so despite two linked sources saying she is an actress. "Pop pills now we Shanghai!"^{(talk to me!~)} 03:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment the user RogueShanghai has a clear problem of ownership with the mentioned article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment RogueShanghai is clearly a big fan of Minaj and is very clearly trying to peacock the article whilst displaying severe WP:OWN issues; especially given the response above I would suggest a partial block from the article. Black Kite (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment RogueShanghai seems to enjoy calling out personal attacks as much as they do making them. Examples include:
  • What does my personal life and the fanbases that I am in have to do with any of my editing work? WP:NPA.[51]
  • He's also seemed to personally attack me [...] when there's no place for personal attacks here, going as far as to misgender me, whether intentionally or unintentionally.[52]
  • Hopefully you'll stop [...] acting quite immature and petty for someone who's supposed to be in their 20s.[53]
  • I don't think someone who is a fan of someone who seems to use multiple cowriters for her bars can speak on Doja Cat.[54]
  • You're being so weird, there is literally no reason to [...] keep reverting the image. Maybe a spambot?[55] KyleJoan^talk 09:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Both ChicagoWikiEditor and RogueShanghai are clearly way over the line in their day-to-day communication styles. Sanctions or restrictions are needed because it seems both of them are well aware of NPA/ANI/3RR but see behavioural policies and guidelines only as a way to threaten others rather than as a series of steps we all need to take to make sure that everybody who volunteers their time and effort here feels comfortable. Unless our behavioural PAGs are actually enforced, then these editors are correct that they exist only as weapons to be rude to others with. — Bilorv (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • After this past discussion, will this finally have a solution? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bilorv: sorry to bother, is there any way an admin can follow-up on this? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Cornerstonepicker: I'm not an admin and it doesn't appear to me that this discussion gathered consensus to impose restrictions, so I don't think there's anything that will come of this. ANI is a very toxic place and outcomes of discussions are often useless, with admins uninterested in enforcing our civility policies and guidelines. I understand that this answer will be frustrating. — Bilorv (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Cold Season - topic ban proposal

Since last year's ANI thread concerning User:Cold Season's behaviour, Cold Season has continued to display strong ownership behaviour, casting aspersions, and POV pushing through deliberate misrepresentation of sources. When confronted, Cold Season dismissed other editors' concerns with an WP:IDHT attitude and continued reverting. The problematic behaviour has been discussed at Talk:Death of Chow Tsz-lok and Talk:Death of Luo Changqing and I don't think I need to repeat the discussion here. I believe this behaviour has become intractable and I propose an indefinite topic ban on Cold Season from editing articles about Hong Kong politics since 1997. @Ohconfucius, Citobun, OceanHok, Horse Eye Jack, Zanhe, and Underbar dk: Pinging editors involved with related disputes. Deryck C. 21:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Horse Eye Jack is now editing as User:Horse Eye's Back. Citobun (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support – On Hong Kong topics, Cold Season is narrowly focused on pushing a pro-government POV. As mentioned by Deryck Chan, the two above-mentioned pages are the main evidence of this. At Talk:Death of Luo Changqing (created by Cold Season), I detailed my concerns with that article, which simply regurgitated the news frenzy manufactured by Chinese state media. I echo the sentiments regarding Cold Season's editing behaviour. I have generally avoided this user and "their" articles for the past year due to the ownership attitude and reverting behaviour, which I find completely toxic. Citobun (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't really interacted with Cold Season this year since I haven't edited Hong Kong stuff for some time already, so my opinion may not be completely valid. However, this discussion from June last year is the one that came to my mind when I was pinged. He/she certainly has ownership issues, does not show a tendency to engage in discussions, and is rather uncooperative. OceanHok (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping Citobun! I wish they had stopped with the problematic behavior but it doesn’t look like they have, kind of impressive that they’re now up to 588 edits on Death of Chow Tsz-lok (second most prolific editor has 138, third has 17) and 222 edits at Death of Luo Changqing (second most prolific editor has 17, third has 6). I would expand the proposed ban to China related broadly construed, I don’t think that politics in HK post 97 really addresses the scope of disruption, for instance Ming treasure voyages seems to have the same ownership issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm unsure what how far Cold Season's ownership and POV pushing issue extend beyond articles regarding events in Hong Kong from the last few years (it's not good to WP:WIKISTALK) and have proposed "Hong Kong politics since 1997" as a way of drawing a boundary around the issues I have seen. If you know other topic areas where this editor, feel free to invite other editors who have engaged with him into this discussion. Deryck C. 16:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• To user Horse Eye's Back, I have zero disputes at the wiki article Ming treasure voyages, so that is simply an untrue statement to see what sticks, falsely based from only that I am the main contributor there. You probably only found it by looking at my recent contribution history as I'm engaged in a GA review there, nothing else. Nor is it against wiki policy to make a lot of edits in an article. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from post-1997 Hong Kong politics, per nom; or at least from events and topics related to the 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests, which includes all the other articles mentioned above. I don't see any ownership issues evident at Ming treasure voyages — they are involved in a GA nomination at that article — so I wouldn't support a universal China topic ban. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support TBAN from Hong Kong topics. Wikipedia has millions of articles on topics having nothing to do with Hong Kong, and an editor with problems stemming from this one topic area might find themselves more useful in any of these other areas. BD2412 T 03:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. You will find that all my edits have references, mostly western or HK sources, using similar wording as those sources. If there is any doubt of me misrepresenting something (I have not), then I wish for an uninvolved editor/admin to check the wording with the references provided.

- For the Chow Tsz-lok article, use this stable article [56] (see also the talk page Talk:Death_of_Chow_Tsz-lok#Reverts), since it has been changed a lot from what I wrote.

- For the Luo Changqing article, use this stable article [57].

(because user Deryck Chan — who casts aspirations himself like at [58] ironically using a statement by me defending myself from someone else casting aspersions, like a tag team — has opposed to words as used in sources as simple as "ruling out" [59] about a legal verdict)

The POV pushing claim is circular, as it is clear that my content does not contradict the sources when checked, but is disliked because it is not slanted to anti-government views. Providing content in full (rather than just anti-government, which is in vogue, which I also keep in the articles) is not pro-government. --Cold Season (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants incivility

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

---

Would an uninvolved admin please let MjolnirPants/MPants at work that CIVIL is not optional. Per WP:UNCIVIL, "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. " I have had very little interaction with MPants but I regret to say what little I've had has been almost universally hostile and looking at their interactions with others I'm not the only one to experience their BATTLEGROUND behavior. I'm not sure we had any significant interactions prior to a few recent and very acrid interactions. MPants returned from an OversightBlock Indef in April. This appears to be related to disruptions in Feb 2019 including "severe personal attacks". In the past they have shown battleground behavior but it appears this was typically to new editors in contentious topic areas. MPants has shown clear UNCIVIL issues directed at myself and other editors on various topics.

Talk:Andy_Ngo#provoking_violence_revert: This discussion was opened with accusations directed at (presumably) myself and Korny O'Near

• [[60]]: I'd submit that anyone who can't see [MPant's view] doesn't belong on this project. This starts the discussion with a needles, rude accusation directed at anyone who didn't agree with MPant's view.
• [[61]]: ...your denial of that fact is (assuming good faith, here) sheer incompetence. Because if it isn't incompetence, it's POV pushing and a deliberately dishonest edit summary.
• [[62]]: So you're just lying through your teeth at this point. Got it. POV pushing it is.
• [[63]]: Jesus christ, there should be a rule requiring people to read the thread before commenting in it. In reply to Korny O'Near [64]
• [[65]]: You absolutely are lying, and doing so to WP:GAME the 1rr restriction here. That's not a lack of an argument: I've already proven my case. Your blatant dishonesty doesn't change that fact.

On an admin talk page

• [[66]]: DON'T LIE THROUGH YOUR FUCKING TEETH TO ENGAGE IN POV PUSHING. On an admit talk page responding to my concern regarding MPant's civility.

A BLPN discussion:

• [[67]]: I don't much care what you think about it in any case, as you've already shot way past the point of WP:PACT as far as I'm concerned. This is in reply to comments of mine that echoed Masem's.
• [[68]]: So you don't know how to count to two? That's just... Wow.

MPant's battlegound behavior was noted by Snow Rise here [[69]], in reply to, "What the fuck is this shit? You made two TP comments, tried to edit war and are now jumping to an RfC" directed at Volteer1.

Other examples

• [[70]]: Also, if you don't care to be directed to conservapedia, then perhaps you should stop arguing as if you better belong there.
• [[71]]: Also, your statement is false. Like, breathtakingly false. I agree with the sentiment but the snark does not make for a better editing environment.
• [[72]]: Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page.

Granting that MPants may be correct in some/all of these cases (including the content disputes I'm involved with), UNCIVIL makes no exception for editors who are otherwise "correct". Such behavior needlessly inflames what should be content based disagreements. Springee (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm just going to respond by pointing out that I stand behind everything I said in those diffs, because Springee started by falsely claiming that a source doesn't support some content because it phrased it slightly differently (see WP:PARAPHRASE), then argued that two sources which explicitly use the same wording as was used in the article don't actually support the exact claims those sources made.

Springee told bald-faced lies for the purpose of gaming the 1RR restriction at that article. Maybe I should have been more circumspect in how I phrased things, but I absolutely do not appreciate being lied to by someone who damn well knows I can see right through those lies, and no editor on this project has any business whatsoever engaging in dishonesty on that level. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Springee has been forum shopping this for a few days now. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The way to address the content dispute is to provide the quotes. You did. I showed they don't support your claim. You could have easily brought this up to WP:V rather than accuse other editors of lying etc. Do you think accusing editors of lying is OK per CIVIL? Springee (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but: MPants, CIVIL is not optional. OK? Now, I've gone through every one of the diffs here, and the only one that goes significantly over the line of CIVIL is the one in bold font. (The "count to two" comment comes in second, but in context is pointing out a 2-point list immediately above it.) And a lot of them are not civility violations at all, in any real sense, but rather just "telling it like it is". Is it really incivil to say: "Stop what? Pointing out that your own behavior has been substantially subpar throughout this? Sorry, that's a feature of ANI. If you don't like it, maybe you should stay away from this page."?

Let's be clear what really led to this filing: [73]. The post by MPants on his own talk page of a link to Springee reverting some comments, piped to "Who says Civil POV Pushers can't be a source of comedy?" Followed immediately below by the notice to see here. MPants, you didn't really need to poke that particular beehive, and you should make a little more effort to avoid sounding pissed-off during discussions. Remember what led into the block you had before, and make an extra effort not to get into that place again. Beyond that, there's not much else to see here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Tryp: I didn't post that link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, that was my mistake. It was an IP, and it was unsigned. But, unsigned, it was easy to mistake it for something you posted, yourself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You mean you saw something which purported to be funny but was just generic shit-stirring, and still assumed it was me? I'm hurt, man. I'm real hurt.

I'm gonna go cry in the shower, now.

In all seriousness, I had forgotten about the IP's comment and hadn't followed the link until you mentioned it, but I've reverted it since because there's nothing funny or useful about that. I might have linked the discussion that was removed in that diff if I'd been filing an ANI or AE about Springee, but as far as I'm concerned, the complete loss of my ability to AGF with Springee is where the issue ended. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MjolnirPants, do you really still stand by the [comment] about me belonging at Conservapedia, as well as the edit before that, in which you said that This arguing about what the sources say is 100% pure pedantry [...] No-one here is stupid or confused enough to actually believe that, and none of us were born yesterday. If it offends you that Wikipedia should state such a simple, verifiable fact in plain, direct tones, then you should go edit conservapedia, instead. ? I'm still waiting for that apology I asked for, especially given that you still haven't come up with the source I was asking for there, but primarily as a matter of principle. Needless to say, I also object to Tryptofish's glossing over this as if it were not a civility violation at all, or "telling it like it is" (though of course I can forgive them for not reading through that whole acrid talk page discussion in the context of which MjolnirPant's remarks were made). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. And you can wait for an apology all you like. I wouldn't recommend holding your breath, though.

As to the source you claim I haven't provided: Sources were provided that met any reasonable criteria long before I got involved in the discussion. Not my fault that you didn't read the discussion before joining it, yourself. And for the record: I object to your refusal to accept that the null hypothesis is part and parcel of how we report on science and pseudoscience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Apaugasma, you raise valid points. I will say in my own defense that I said "a lot of them" were not incivil, as opposed to all. At the same time, you described MPants as having a "tantrum" in your apology-request diff, so it goes in both directions. Bottom line: there's a general need in these linked discussions for editors to take it down a notch. That doesn't apply exclusively to MPants, but it does apply to MPants. Please, seriously, take it down a notch or two. This isn't sanction-worthy territory, but it does require some introspection. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: you're right that I shouldn't have used the word "tantrum" in my reaction to MjolnirPants comments. However, that doesn't mean there's any parity here between mine and his behavior, as this may seem to suggest. @MjolnirPants: Neither you nor I have brought up the null hypothesis in that discussion, and I'm not really sure if it's relevant. But that doesn't matter at all here. It's perfectly OK for you to believe I'm missing something or to point out why I'm taking the wrong approach, but it's not OK for you to suggest that I belong at Conservapedia just because I don't agree with you on something. There definitely is a pattern with you in that type of reaction. A few months ago in another disagreement between us, you wrote the following: "anti-religionist bias" Why am I not surprised to see this brought up? I swear to the god I stopped believing in decades ago; you people are all reading from the same script. There is no "anti-religionist bias," and even if you found enough religion-hostile atheists to argue the case for it, you'd lose dramatically because Wikipedia has an incredibly pronounced pro-Christian bias [...] that the majority of atheists on this site (including myself) are completely accepting of because, contrary to what you folks seem to believe, we're Atheists, not Antitheists. [...] You've undermined your own position by descending to these pre-packaged, easily-debunked, canned arguments that one can find on any creationist website, complete with detailed instructions on their use. Neither of you were able to make your case with sources and sound logic, your continued attempts to make it through emotional rhetoric is bordering on disruption, at this point. [74] Given the fact that I'm both an atheist and a skeptic (wrt pseudoscience), these kinds of insinuations are particularly bruising. I wish for that to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Previous complaints about this user's incivility: [75] [76] [77]

Note that these are all recent (last few months) and are all filed by different users, so we can't really argue that it's just a group of people working together to get an editor sanctioned (as was asserted the last time this issue was raised).

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 22:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

What this appears to be to me is a veteran editor (MPants) getting exasperated dealing with other editors who appear to not be acting in good faith. For example, the diffs provided show several instances of Springee WP:SEALIONing quotations and not addressing them [78] [79] [80], or ignoring the way that WP:V means that something must be verif-iable, not verif-ied to remain on wikipedia. Springee says The sentence in the article must be supported by the sources that it obviously references (hence WP:V) whereas WP:V actually says: "Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified." There is also the issue of WP:SYNTHNOT, particularly NOTSUMMARY and NOTPRESUMED.

What is clear is that MPants has made one or two mistakes in these diffs, as described by other editors above. civillity mistakes. No one can deny that sometimes MPants plays fast and loose with sarcasm, but he rarely actually crosses the line. For instance, in your first diff, he is theorizing about conduct, he does not directly address any editor. I don't see any other comments here that are explicit enough to be WP:NPA, though I would agree some are just on the wrong side of uncivil. Generally I am willing to forgive one or two civillity mistakes when the editor being so frustrating is so clearly WP:CPUSHing a POV, and exemplifying WP:IDHT. It's very difficult to keep your cool when not everyone is playing by the same rules and actually using PAGs correctly. What MPants needs here is a warning. What Springee needs is a WP:BOOMERANG block for POV-pushing and WP:FORUM shopping.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The editor was Indef'ed. The editor has a long history of blocks due to incivility. Additionally, the claims regarding the original content dispute at Andy Ngo is flat out wrong. It's telling that no editors have supported MPants claims. There has been no POV pushing, no forum shopping. Since you are claiming both please provide the evidence. Springee (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants appealed the indef – successfully. It's telling that Shibbolethink did in fact provide diffs, and yet Springee responded by asking for diffs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink. MPants is a seasoned editor, and while their attitude and style may not exemplify a "welcome wagon" for the less experienced they still understand not only the rules, but the spirit of the rules, better than most. This knowledge and understanding tends to get in the way of agendas that have little to do with creating better articles or a better community.DN (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Darknipples: not all of those whom MjolnirPants opposes have such agendas. Please consider what I've asked of Shibbolethink below. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants was indef'ed to being with. Shibbolethink provided a diffs but failed to note that I did address the quotes in question. Here [[81]], where I make it clear the VOX quote is something VOX is attributing to activists and the LA times is saying the right wing groups Ngo was with provoked the violence. That is not sufficient sourcing to say that Ngo himself deliberately provoked violence. Shibbolethink claimed CPUSH but if that were the case why did MPants start with a comment that failed CIVIL? Shouldn't that have only occurred after a failed, good faith attempt to address the issue? Why is any of that an excuse for uncivil behavior? Note that Volteer1 also addressed MPant's quotes here [[82]]. Finally, look at how I was able to easily work with FormalDude to find common ground and propose new text to address the problem (look towards the end of the section [[83]]). Disagreement is fine, incivility is not. Springee (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Would this have still been a problem though if you had simply ignored MPants tone and focused on his arguments? Likewise, if MPants hadn't assumed bad faith and raised his tone, would this even be a problem? (And please don't respond with he started it, all editors have a responsibility to exemplify WP:CIVIL at all times.) I think everyone just needs to work on keeping their cool a little more. It's fair to say we can all let disagreements get the better of us from time to time. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: you speak of what I pointed out above as a civility mistake (fair enough), but then go on to to say that you're willing to forgive one or two civility mistakes when the editors involved are engaging in civil POV pushing and being disruptive by refusing to 'get the point'. That seems to imply that you are accusing me of said conduct, which does not seem appropriate if you are not going to prove your point about that. Again, I get that looking into the relevant discussions is a highly unpleasant and time-consuming task, but it would be nice if you made less presumptions about the behavior of other editors. Please understand that if you do not, you are reinforcing the original insults, which I'm sure is not at all your intention. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, actually I haven't looked closely enough at your angle of the dispute to know for sure. Hence why I never used your name in any way in my comment. Please don't assume I'm talking about you when I haven't actually referenced anything about you in any way. I currently have no opinion on your conduct. And don't assume everyone who is supporting MPants in one angle of this discussion automatically disagrees with you, to my eyes it's an example of WP:USTHEM which is a very destructive attitude to have.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: I did not and do not assume that you would automatically disagree with me, quite the opposite. I'm just trying to make you aware of the implications it might have to say that MPant's civility mistakes are forgivable because directed at disruptive editors or editors who appear not be acting in good faith. I appreciate that this is your general experience. But there are specific diffs here, and your reaction implies either that you're willing to pass over the insult against me in silence or that I'm a disruptive editor. I'm sure that if you would try to put yourself in my position, you'd see why that feels sour. I do not at all doubt your good intentions in this. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, Why don't you give me some time to review your end of this dispute? The implications you've described are not ones I intended, and I believe that is all I should have to say.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed! :-) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know, MPants has always had kind of a whiney and shit attitude. The sealion claims are a little weak as well, I am fairly certain he is an adult that is or should be in control of his own actions. That kind of defense always reminds me of the "if she didn't want to get hit she shouldn't of made me angry" defense. Anyhow all you have to do it look through the archives on any drama board to see his name brought up over and over. This is a long term problem, not an isolated incident. How many warnings and final warns are required exactly? PackMecEng (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  The irony in the above post is almost deafening. Valeince (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• The defense of the comments bother me more than the comments themselves. No, the quoted diffs are not all right. It's not how we should be talking to one another. Levivich 23:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, I think you may be reading into things when you use the word "defending." I, for one, never said MP's comments were "all right." --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This statement is defending (and excusing, and accusing other editors of not acting in good faith... like PME said, suggesting that this is a veteran editor exasperated by bad-faith editors is akin to "he wouldn't hit her if she didn't make him so angry"). Levivich 23:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

      Levivich, uhhhhh, it's actually a lot closer to "Person 1 wouldn't get angry and yell if person 2 didn't completely ignore everything person 1 said repeatedly."

      A) making it into a gender thing is unnecessary and wrong on a few different levels.

      B) Both of these people were using their words.

      C) "making MPants angry" is not the same as "repeatedly ignoring policy."

      As I said, MPants' conduct is also plainly problematic in one or two instances, for which he should apologize. I'm not really sure how warning-block escalation works in these circumstances, especially given that the prior block was successfully appealed. But as I said, MPants conduct is problematic, I just don't think it raises to the level of problematic that Springee is displaying here.

      Perhaps most importantly, Springee is breaking the rules in a way that disrupts the process of building a verifiable wikipedia, whereas MPants is hurting some people's feelings in a way that hasn't deterred anyone's participation on the wiki as far as I can tell. Ultimately, that is the community's job, to make sure the project benefits from our actions here at ANI. Not to be "fair." Usually these things coincide, but not always.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I will say that it has slightly (but only slightly!) contributed to my decision to stay away from pseudo-science-related topics in the future. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have broken no rules here. Which rules do you claim I've broken? Forum shopping? No, I did ask an admin and was told to take it here. CPUSH? On what grounds? WP:V is not something we ignore. If you feel I've violated something please make a case. Springee (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Dlthewave is not an admin [84] [85]. That's WP:CANVAS. As I described above (with diffs and PAG quotes), you directly misapplied WP:V to fit your POV, after continually doubting direct quotes which contradicted your position. That's WP:CPUSH.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You are correct, they aren't an admin and they have no ability to directly address the issue which means that wasn't forum shopping. The other person I asked for help is an admin. If you want to dispute the content claims then we can do it on the article talk page. It's notable that I wasn't the only editor who disagreed with MPants. The quotes in the linked articles (note the original edit didn't have those citations) don't support the article level claims. WP:V does apply. If you really want to discuss the content question again, article talk page or WP:NORN where we can decide if the sources support the claim in wiki voice. This was handled civilly by other editors even after MPants made it about editors "lying" Springee (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: MPants is hurting some people's feelings in a way that hasn't deterred anyone's participation on the wiki as far as I can tell – MPants's extreme rudeness towards me in another instance this year, along with the community's disinterest in addressing it, has been the single most deterring thing I've experienced in my three-quarters of a decade here, narrowly beating out one other extremely unpleasant incident that nearly caused me to retire. Whether you intend to or not, the outcome of your comments is that attention is deflected away from a situation that needs addressing and that does cause editor retention problems. I feel Springee is being extremely restrained in their comments about MPants in this thread, whether or not they have acted wrong procedurally/content-wise (not really relevant). (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd note that my "extreme rudeness" in that situation consisted of... [checks notes] me pointing out Bilorv's dishonesty and WP:GAMING. Hmmm, there seems to be a pattern here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's always going to stir the pot when you accuse another editor of Wikipedia:Lying, but, as far as I'm aware, there's no policy against doing so. Obviously WP:UNCIVIL exists, and there were certainly comments that could have been worded nicer, but there was nothing flagrant (I don't see any WP:PA). I completely agree with Shibbolethink. Sometimes MPants plays fast and loose with sarcasm, but he rarely (if ever, in my opinion) actually crosses the line. I'm curious what remedy Springee would find ideal, as I certainly don't think anyone deserves a block in this situation. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A clear warning that such behavior is not acceptable. FOC, not the editors would be fine. So long as the problem stops nothing more is needed. Springee (talk) 00:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I second this: if the problem would stop, nothing more would need to be done. I do think though that this would necessitate some kind of recognition that there is in fact a problem. I was more irked by the I stand behind everything I said in those diffs above than anything else. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This user has been given many warnings and even several blocks and their behaviour, so far as I can tell, has never changed. Maybe no clear warnings, though, as there is always significant whataboutism. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If we warn Mpants about WP:CIVIL we should probably also warn you about WP:GAMING the WP:1RR. Personally I wouldn't bring any issues to AN/i where my own behavior in the matter was not overtly superb. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Where did I game 1RR? Springee (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, since I was pinged, in regards to the BLPN debate, prior to Springee's involvement, I would say that between MPants and myself, this has been mostly a civil, if not heated, debate, and felt no hostility from Mpants myself. I expect from above there may be a history between MPants and Springee that may be affecting how both interact with each other. Arguably, both may be poking at each other, unintentionally or not, but I know the hesitation against an interaction ban. --Masem (t) 00:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall any direct interactions with MPants prior to either the BLPN discussion you are involved with or the specific Andy Ngo discussion topic. Prior to a few days back I only recognized their distinctive signature. I think that was part of why I was so taken aback by their accusations of lying and the like. Most editors are good about trying to understand the other side first and, even in disagreement, not assuming bad faith so quickly. Springee (talk) 00:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Staff incompetence strikes again. Springee's blatantly dishonest behaviour is one of the most disruptive I've ever seen on Wikipedia. This was yet another effort on Springee's part to weaponise ANI to censor critics, YET ANOTHER in which several people note Springee's pattern of bad faith, only for another editor to be sanctioned for pointing out a user's disruptive actions. El_C should be ashamed. Mjolnirpant's "incivility" is owing completely to the bad faith actions of Springee, whose actions are blatantly more toxic than telling the SEALION to shove off. 69.156.107.94 (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am duly shamed, seemingly random IP. El_C 01:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants warned, CR re-added to Andy Ngo

Holy smokes, MPants, you gotta tone it down, pronto. Because you are fast heading for another indef, which would be a sad conclusion to this. Beyond this, I'm re-adding Consensus required to Andy Ngo (will log), added by ST47 along with 1RR in July 7 2019, but supplanted removed by them in Jan 2021 July 9 2019 with EBRD due to "advise" —Awilley, I'm looking at thee!— because I doubt it's helping matters much (also, not reflected on the talk page notice). ST47, please do feel free to undo this AE revert on my part if you feel it to be in error. El_C 01:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Argh, naked 1RR, not EBRD. Apologies, Awilley, for my bad faith hallucinations. El_C 01:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Also fucked up the timeline. Looks like ST47 removed CR two days after having added it, so it was never actually on for this page. I can't read. El_C 01:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit strange just to warn someone who has already been blocked for this exact reason, no? Is having already been blocked not enough of a warning to not do it again? And his comments in this thread suggest that he sees nothing wrong with his behavior and will probably continue to do it. Mlb96 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I am duly shamed, now from all possible angles! El_C 05:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

:^/ Mlb96 (talk) 06:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm failing to see in what way MPants has been warned, unless you just mean "this message is a warning...", and I don't understand what effect you expect a warning to have when MPants has been warned about the same behaviour many times before, including recently, and has made no change. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As long as we are on warnings, Springee should probably have a warning for sealioning, and PackMecEng definitely one for personal attacks on this board ("MPants has always had kind of a whiney and shit attitude"). I see warning PME as especially needful since she was page blocked from our sister board AN for a week a couple of months back (discussion here). I have warned her. Bishonen | tålk 09:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC).

Bish, ah, I missed that PackMecEng usual in the walls of textsts. That's an approve from me. It almost seems as if she will only defend those on the right while attacking those on the left — can you believe such a thing?! On the project, me feigning shock? As for Springee sealioning, I'll leave that in your capable hands and wish you safe travels with that uncharted journey... As for me [cue spam] ♫ I'm sailing away from my heartache, on a Riverboat fantasy... ♫ El_C 11:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait was the personal attack calling him whiney or the shitty attitude? PackMecEng (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

[NPA mode transform!] Mirror, mirror on the wall... El_C 12:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just looking for your view on it. If you think its a problem El_C I can strike and re-word. PackMecEng (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is another example of a small group of right-wing editors weaponising process in order to reduce opposition to their political advocacy and attempts to whitewash wikipedia. In much the same way when we talk about palestinian response to Israeli aggression, the western world focuses on the *response* not the cause. Here you focus on MPants response to blatant and calculated provocation and not the cause. And the cause is editors sealioning, POV-pushing, misrepresenting sources, and yes, outright falsehoods. And again you focus on the response. Not the editors who when called out for lying, misrepresentation and general badgering, start running to ANI to get the obstacle to their whitewashing removed. We have had to deal with this over a range of topics with Trump supporters, gun nuts, anti-vaxxers, anti-abortionists, pseudoscience loons etc, and its amazing how similar the editors are over the years. And yet we still focus on the response to the relentless wave after wave of POV-editing and deliberate provocation rather than addressing the actual issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• In much the same way when we talk about palestinian response to Israeli aggression, the western world focuses on the *response* not the cause. Was gonna say something dumb about how we need Capt. Pronin to fight against the West again, but my spam quota has probably been filled for today (and for the next few decades). Anyway, not sure there's an actual solution to the perennial problem of civil pov pushing, save for using WP:DR, with a wing and a prayer. El_C 12:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• If this thread doesn't end with some sanction preventing Springee from further gaming and POV pushing, then I'll consider it complete failure of all involved to support WP's goals over the feel-good practice of scolding regular editors for not following proper etiquette.

This situation started with Springee pissing on my leg and telling me it was raining. The lies they told were blatant and obvious, and my response could have been phrased better, but was categorically accurate.

Of those who supported Springee here: we have Bilorv, who had earlier complained that I was uncivil due to my response to their own WP:GAMING and dishonesty. For anyone who needs a refresher on that: Bilorv made two comments on the talk page of an article about a type of joke, ignored the responses to them (except to complain that the joking tone which anyone could reasonably expect on that page was some sort of personal affront and arrogantly boast about their own credentials) then immediately started an RfC whose question was one all involved had already agreed on the answer to. When Bilorv got the same exact answer they'd already gotten before starting the RfC, Bilorv then used that answer to attempt to justify edit warring over a different (if related) issue. That issue itself only got as far as it did due to Bilorv's wild and unjustified (either by evidence or a rational argument) bare assertion that a notable entertainer's blog was actually run by an imposter. Note that this was in contrast to several lines of evidence I'd provided pertaining to the ownership of the blog.

PackMecEng recently had a run in with me at Talk:Fascism#AFD contents, where she got incredibly upset over her failure to understand what I meant by "the content is not verifiable in the source", and made repeated personal attacks and juvenile retorts over it as I tried to explain. The icing on that particular cake was her crowing about how "most people have no idea what [I am] ranting about", which was made as I was having a discussion with someone who very clearly knew damn well what I was saying (considering they said the same thing to Pack, in the form of accusing her of POV pushing, a very reasonable and well-evidenced accusation), about the actual contents of the sources.

Apuagasma's argument above is the funniest so far. Apua is upset because I said "if stating simple verifiable facts plainly offends anyone, they should be editing Conservapedia instead," and they took that as a personal affront and demanded an apology. That really serves more to illustrate Apua's POV than as a condemnation of me, because I doubt many editors disagree with the sentiment I expressed there. Their second comment accuses me of incivility because I responded by explaining clearly that (and why) me and tgeorgescu were not engaged in anti-theistic POV pushing, after Apua accused us of doing so. There's some incivility there, but it ain't mine.

As for The Owner of All: well, see my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_MjolnirPants.

There's a common thread here. FUD. Users making wildly untrue claims without evidence or logic behind them, then using those claims as a bludgeon to argue that WP should not report easily verifiable facts. In Bilorv's case, I have no doubt this had nothing to do with POV pushing, and was more of a knee-jerk hostile reaction to two editors not taking them as seriously as they hoped, but for Pack, Springee and TOA; their POV (which is at odds with reality and WP's documentation on countless subjects) is very clear, and their efforts very clearly made to advance that POV.

So if you want to warn me about toning it down: Gotcha. I understand, I don't even disagree. I could have handled it better. But if you think that's the end of the matter: You're dead wrong. We have a serious problem here in the form of editors who are deliberately attempting to undermine WP's mission to provide an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia, and turn it into a right-wing propaganda tool. If nobody's willing to look into that and do something about that, then I'm not sure what business you have being admins, as you're clearly not looking out for the best interests of this project.

And El C; Now you've been shamed from all possible angles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No boobs, no credits! El_C 12:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

So basically WP:NOTTHEM? PackMecEng (talk) 13:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Oof, PME, the point that seems to be lost on you is that you do much the same thing (albeit much more tersely). [Self-awareness mode engage!] El_C 13:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Go go gadget introspection!

Honestly, though, this is just par for the course for Pack and Springee and other right-wing POV pushers: they literally ignore the things that don't fit their narrative (I spoke about myself in my first and last paragraphs, and provided evidence of their malfeasant editing, here at ANI where they damn well know their own behavior is fair game) and focus on twisting what's left to suit their narrative even better.

This is a much worse problem than incivility, and even if it weren't, there's plenty of incivility to go around. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants incivility this started with you opening a talk page discussion that attacked any editors (not specifically me) who disagreed with you ([86], "...anyone who can't see [this] doesn't belong on this project"). You didn't start by asking why editors might disagree, and only getting frustrated after a failed good faith discussion. No, you assigned a cynical motive and reason and which allowed you to justify your admittedly uncivil behavior. You poisoned the discussion and are now complaining that it wasn't "good faith". You did the same to me in the BLPN Wakefield discussion where my arguments largely echo Masem's. Again, you decided uncivil, dismissive comments were appropriate. And here you are continuing the incivility with comments like, "The lies they told..." Where does CIVIL make these exceptions? Springee (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what? I don't really think I need to justify myself to someone who lies repeatedly to facilitate POV pushing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants, negative. If you can't help cutting off your nose to spite your face, best to say nothing. Final warning. El_C 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MPants, I was an editor at the center of the Gamergate situation, one fighting there for a more neutral approach on a nuanced subject, and was routinely being lumped into the numerous body of IP, new accounts, or recently revived accounts that were clearly meatpuppeting "gamergate supporters"; this lumping-in was simply because I did not want to take an absolute "gamergate is bad" approach but try to find a way to write per NPOV (hence why I debate strongly on such points at the current BLPN thread), and thus completely trying to treat my input in bad faith, which it was not. GG predicted the situation round many many right-wing-leaning figures today, in terms of meatpuppetry and constant IP/new editors demanding a neutrality that can never be achieved, but that doesn't mean those articles are in an untouchable state to be questioned for neutrality ourselves.

I know in the case of Springee they have been far more bold with how they edit than I have, but based on my experience from the GG situation, the fact that these comments place them and others mentioned into this class of "editors who are deliberately attempting to undermine WP's mission to provide an accurate and verifiable encyclopedia" is assuming bad faith on their part, compared to the typical body of IP and new editors that come to bitch about certain topics with no understanding of how our policies work. All these discussions are related to nuances of our core content policies, covering situations that, in my opinion, were not anticipated by the current state of social conflict in the world and the media. To that end, we are going to have disagreements, but this is expected, normal, and part of consensus building, so it should be expected editors are working in good faith here. Once you presume bad faith, that's where things break down, and only looking at the diffs given and convos around it, that's part of the issue is that you presume these editors are working bad faith.

That is not to say that Springee is not at fault here, I think they're operating a bit too bolding and fighting certain battles that have been settled already, that's towards a more WP:TE problem, and can contribute towards the appearance of working in bad faith, and they need work at steps to stop beating dead horse among other factors. But I see their general concern is the same issues related to neutrality (broadly) in how we cover contemporary people/groups on that side of the middle, which is a fair concern to be raising, and thus assuming they are purposely working against the purpose of the encyclopedia is not a helpful stance to start with. This is all meant as advice and nothing actionable yet from any admin standpoint. --Masem (t) 14:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, paragraph breaks = friend. El_C 14:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

added a few --Masem (t) 14:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, follow the diffs I provided at the top of this thread.

Springee claimed that two sources don't support content that had the same meaning and even used the same words as the sources themselves, for the purpose of avoiding an obviously-appropriate self-revert. I was assuming good faith right up until that point, past which, WP:PACT became the applicable essay. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Without getting too much into the content issue there, I think there's some validity to Springee's concern there as the sources use those words but not in that order nor in the same sentence, but I also think there's a middle ground for what that sentence should say given the sources. This is a similar concern at our discussion at BLPN, related to calling out people "conspiracy theorist" when the sourcing is not as readily there. But this is well beyond the ANI issue. Simply that automatically defaulting to bad faith may be blinding you to actual valid points that are raised - not that Springee's solutions are the correct ones either. --Masem (t) 16:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To that end, several editors, myself included, have been working to find that middle ground [87] <- Single brackets to avoid El_C's bracket block Springee (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Masem, if you have some commentary on how one could reasonably assume that the Vox piece was (or the BFN, or the LA Times pieces were) asserting that Ngo provokes anything other than violence from Antifa (curious what that might be... Sick dance moves? Strongly-worded emails?), feel free to chime in at my talk page.

Who knows, maybe you can convince me that I was right from the get go, and this is less a case of Springee being deliberately dishonest (even though I'm very clearly not the only one who thinks so), and more a case of them being just completely clueless as I first suspected.

P.S. How different is that "middle ground" from what was originally in the article? The original claim was that "It has been contended that Ngo seeks to provoke left-wing violence." Compare that to the last substantive comment by Springee where he supports a wording because "It also makes it clear that he is directly provoking the left-wing activists to violence".

When there's one editor disagreeing, whether or not Ngo is provoking violence is "not supported" by the sources claiming that he's provoking violence. But now that Springee knows that there are eyes on their editing, it's important to "make clear that [Ngo] is directly provoking ... violence."

That doesn't evince an inability to understand the sources, or even a legitimate disagreement about the implications of what the sources say. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Look, everyone, I hate to beat a dead ass, but disputes involving the major AE food groups (AP2, EE/BALKANS, ARBPIA, ARBIPA) have a much greater chance of resolving something (anything) at WP:AE. I used to sort of except AP2 from the mix, since there's tons of American editors so at least the subject matter will tend to be somewhat digestible to the average ANI reviewer. But probably not, either. The free-flowing, word-limitless threaded discussion at ANI just becomes too difficult to follow at some point. I suppose there's a not statistically-insignificant chance that someone may be driven by the heated nature of the conversation to do or say something truly egregious, but I wouldn't count on it. BTW, Springee, your OPs both at ANI and AE seem to always be way too lengthy. Please work on condensing, in general. El_C 13:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

El C If you're suggesting that expressing my well-evidenced view that Springee has engaged in blatant dishonesty for the sake of POV pushing is a personal attack, then we're going to be at odds here. As far as I'm concerned, that's a verifiable fact, and not one person has done so much as denied it, let alone made any case that it's not true. It's also not a view that's exclusive to me, as Bishonen, Only in death and Shibolethink have made clear.

If you're suggesting I change something about how I express that view, then I'm listening, but you'll need to be more specific. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

MPants, I am telling you (not suggesting) to stop referring to "lying" and "dishonesty" on the part of editors in good standing. If you're trying to push me to sanction you so that you could fall on your sword, I'm un-happy to oblige, I guess. Otherwise, it's fine to express (and substantiate) that their reasoning is faulty. An article talk page is not the place to make a case for WP:TE. Hope that clears things up. El_C 14:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

El C, message received, but as best I can tell, we're not at article talk. Note that Springee's behavior in this very thread is more of the same: Shibolethink made a comment supporting my claims and accusing them of sealioning with plenty of diffs for evidence ([88]), to which Springee responded by (drum roll...) claiming no-one has supported my claims and demanding diffs ([89]). To be clear: I am explicitly asking for a boomerang here for POV pushing and blatant dishonesty. Also you can apparently add Dlthewave to the list of editors who agree with my claims here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not the sword, you say, MPants, while unsheathing your sword. That is special, I'll grant you that. But I do take your point that Springee's "It's telling that no editors have supported MPants claims" is also quite high on the bizarro scale... El_C 15:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Am I to interpret the limits of your response to mean you don't take issue with Springee demanding diffs in response to being shown diffs? Or their backfiring attempt to WP:CANVASS another editor? Or their demonstrably and obviously false statements about the sources to which I provided diffs earlier? Or the WP:STONEWALLing that Dlthewave brought up on another issue?

I mean, I'm still waiting for someone to even disagree with any of my claims about Springee, here, or elsewhere. Some editors here have very clearly agreed with them, but nobody's disputing them.

You've got multiple editors, including a fellow admin telling you that Springee's behavior is a serious problem, and you've got diffs to evince that. How is acting on that of lesser import than continuing to repeat a warning I've already acknowledged multiple times while threatening me with worse?

I'll tell you plainly: you're not accomplishing anything worthwhile by repeating yourself to me. I've already acknowledged that I should have been more circumspect, and said I would endeavor to do so in the future. All you're accomplishing by continuing to harp on this while ignoring what 5-6 other editors have said about Springee here is convincing me that you care more about my tone that this project's core principles. I'd rather not believe that about an admin, but when my beliefs are based on what I'm seeing from you, it's hard to deny them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll tell you plainly, too, MPants: I'm trying to reason with both of you. If it's not working, it's not working. If you wish to disparage me, I suppose that is an approach, as well. But I do contend that my record speaks for itself. And with that, I'll leave all of you to your own devices, for now. El_C 15:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disparaging you, I'm describing my own reaction to what you're saying here. As for trying to reason with "both of [us]", would you care to point me to where you've tried to reason with Springee? I seem to have missed it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No. El_C 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is literally the exact same behaviour you were reprimanded for by Girth Summit in the ANI discussion I opened in June, for instance in this diff: I thought I'd made my opinion clear that MPants' accusations of lying were unfair, unnecessary, and needed to stop. I gather Barkeep49 also thought such comments were uncivil. While I apologised in that discussion for the actions I took which were wrong, you never did so, instead continuing to accuse me of lying, and being inhumanly stupid or manipulative up until your last comment (which you've repeated above), and making thinly-veiled snipes about me even after I had fully disengaged. So I really don't understand what El_C thinks a warning does, or how someone can be "fast heading for an indef" when they've evidently done the same thing for months and had no consequences for it. (No-one should ping me to this discussion as I am aware of it.) — Bilorv (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, I made multiple efforts to smooth things over with you there, despite your own incredibly poor behavior. I'm really not interested in continuing to argue about it with you, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's entirely possible if I had the time to read through this thread I would be sanctioning MPants. I see El C has given a clear warning about behavior not to do, which echoes the concerns I had and warning I gave at the thread Bilorv mentions. That said I agree with MPants that they did try to smooth things over in the end and that effort was not accepted. I am glad to see that there is no desire to continue arguing about it here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

*Arb mic drop!* El_C 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know how I can be any clearer, Barkeep49, that I don't want to be pinged to this thread. I am watching and replying. You don't need to read through the thread. Reading the OP's initial set of diffs, such as [90], would suffice. — Bilorv (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I apologize as I missed the small parenthetical remark prior to composing my original reply. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Making accusations isn't uncivil, in fact lying is the uncivil behavior we should be looking into here. That said, MPants really needs to tone it down a notch and consider using more informative language (It's inaccurate to say X because ...) if they want to have a productive discussion.

We need to look at the entirety of the issue though. There's a long-running pattern of whitewashing at the Andy Ngo article, with several editors (including Springee) challenging any negative or critical content no matter how reliably sourced it may be. For example, here we have an extremely long discussion over whether we should use "widely accused" or "frequently accused", with the objecting editors making no apparent effort to suggest an alternative. This really reads like a filibuster to keep WP:DUE content out by preventing the discussion from reaching consensus. I'm worried that the current discussion may be headed the same direction. If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering. –dlthewave ☎ 14:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ooh, nuanced incivility, touché. Though probably undermined by the bold-is-hurting-my-eyes, the-goggles-do-nothing at the end. Guess whose patience has been strained? I am, of course, referring to Mlb96! El_C 14:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oh dear, you must've gotten a bad pair of anti-bold goggles. Is this easier on the eyes?

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

If we're going to have a Consensus Required restriction on this article, we need to have an admin who is willing to keep an eye on it and make sure Springee isn't abusing that restriction by filibustering.

–dlthewave ☎ 15:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Man, woke up with a killer headache this morning. It is not abating. El_C 16:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Huh? Why am I being referenced here? Did I do something wrong? Mlb96 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I guess the joke didn't land. El_C 23:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the statement that my POV "is at odds with reality", please stop the false statements. The Non-Aggression Principle is definitely not at odds with reality. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 15:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• A short time back I commented at an RfC at Talk:Andy Ngo and it ended up on my watchlist. I checked back when I saw this discussion. I was absolutely shocked to see MPants' conduct there. And I am shocked again to see a few editors defending it here. Above an editor states, MPants is a seasoned editor,...they still understand not only the rules, but the spirit of the rules, better than most. That's all the more damning. I agree that they know enough to know WP:NPA#WHATIS: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views...Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden....Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Above they admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing edit: I do not see commitment to avoiding this specific behavior, saying things like, Yeah, I do. And you can wait for an apology all you like. Are people claiming MPants hasn't engaged in personal attacks? Or that they have but the other person deserved it? What policy permits that? Why should they be let off the hook yet again for this behavior? Quoting the NPA policy again: A pattern of hostility...can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks...may face serious consequences through arbitration, and of course non-arbitration consequences exist. There is absolutely a "pattern of hostility" from this editor against those they perceive as right wing. (Presumably they and their defenders perceive themselves as unaffected by political bias.) Such toxic behavior keeps people from engaging in the topic area, including ones on their own side. A useful thought experiment would be to imagine a random newish editor or one perceived as right-leaning acting this way. Would we each feel the same way? If all they get is a warning, I want to see a commitment from MPants not to make any reference to the supposed political views of other editors and not to disparage any other editors as lacking in intelligence or in any other way. This is frankly the bare minimum behavioral standard on Wikipedia and does not restrict meaningful debate, and there needs to be some progress on this issue so we don't keep ending up back here over and over. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: Regarding changes above, see below. I have more accurately conveyed my feelings while correcting an overstatement. Fair is fair. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem in this situation, and situations like these, is that--a few vocal defenders aside--everybody else is basically thinking the same thing: this won't stop unless we totally ban MPants from the site. Everyone (almost) will agree it's bad, but bad enough to boot him from the site altogether? Most admins will be understandably reluctant to take such a step unilaterally against a veteran editor absent something truly egregious (and let's all recall that the last time, a comment along the lines of go f yourself with an object covered in hot sauce and sandpaper, was not universally considered egregious enough for a site ban, so there's our frame of reference for "egregious"). Most editors will understandably be reluctant to vote for a site ban for the same reasons (myself included). It's the pickle we're always in. Springee knows this, it comes across in the defeatist tone of his posts. MPants knows this too and is openly gambling on it (despite that the last time he gambled, he lost). What's to be done? I don't know, outsource it to the WMF via UCOC seems to be the best idea anyone has come up with so far, and that's kinda sad but true. Levivich 17:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Levivich, I really think you're drawing a consensus where one does not exist...taking tea leaves and making Monet's Water Lilies. a few vocal defenders aside--everybody else is basically thinking the same thing: this won't stop unless we totally ban MPants from the site. It certainly appears that you think that. But it does not appear that the patrolling admins or many other commenting editors here think that.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    Hey crossroads, you were saying something about editors who are universally hostile to those with opposing political views? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

    No idea what this means. Is this an attack on Levivich, accusing me of hypocrisy, or what? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

    I'd like to think that the OG and largest Wikipedia is in fact not such a dumpster fire that we need the WMF to handle our internal affairs. Ultimately the bad behavior has to stop, that's my baseline. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Above they admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing,

  There is absolutely a "pattern of hostility" from this editor against those they perceive as right wing.

  Both of those are demonstrably, trivially false claims.

  and there needs to be some progress on this issue so we don't keep ending up back here over and over. I love how some people love to point out that I've been frequently reported here, but they always decline to look into the results of those reports, or ask themselves any difficult questions about the editors who've reported me here.

  There's a whole lot of "indefinitely blocked per..." notes on the talk pages of editors who've reported me. And there's a whole lot of "nothing sanctionable here" in the results of the threads bearing my name, but god forbid you acknowledge that basic fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  If that "Above [you] admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing" is a "demonstrably, trivially false claim", then it is trivial for you to show me where you did so. I'll strike it if you find it. And as for your past reports? The results of past reports do not absolve subsequent behavior. And they haven't all been dismissed, as your block log testifies. Whether getting off the hook over and over again is an endorsement of your behavior or an indictment of Wikipedia's accountability systems is also debatable.

  Above I said, "I want to see a commitment from MPants not to make any reference to the supposed political views of other editors and not to disparage any other editors as lacking in intelligence or in any other way." You ignored this. Are you willing to commit to this? If not, why not? And if you can't, how is this not a claim that WP:NPA does not apply to you? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  If that "Above [you] admit no wrongdoing and no intention of changing" is a "demonstrably, trivially false claim", Here's four times in this thread I did what you falsely claimed I've "refused" to do ([91], [92], [93], [94]).

  Also, Atsme and Masem are two right-wing editors whom I'm extremely fond of, and there are countless others with whom I take no issue at all, including Mr. Ernie and Power~enwiki. Politics doesn't bother me and never really has: I have quite a few conservative and libertarian beliefs myself. But you know what bothers me? POV pushing. Dishonesty. Gaming the system. Undermining this project's core principles.

  As for a further "commitment": No. I've already said what I had to say in that regards. I'm not kowtowing to demands that I beg forgiveness in a situation in which an editor who made an obvious attempt to undermine this project's goals is walking away without so much as a warning. That's complete bullshit.

  I responded poorly to some obvious POV pushing, and the result is a bunch of editors whining about my tone and pretending that there's nothing more to worry about here, meanwhile me and several others keep pointing to the giant elephant in the room, screaming "pachyderm!" while you and the rest of that ilk plug your ears.

  Fuck that nonsense. I care more about this project than I do about my block log, and I've already proven that I'll happily take a block if it means I can do something to remove a bad faith actor from our roster of editors. If me continuing to argue for sanctions against Springee here bothers you, then I'd suggest you reflect on what's really more important; our ability to accurately document the subjects of our articles, or your personal feelings about etiquette? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  Add me to the list of users who agree that at least a "warning" boomerang would justified here. After finding this discussion, I have just spent hours catching up on the last six months of the Andy Ngo Talk page, and the POV pushing pattern is obvious. It's "assume good faith", AGF, and not "assume good faith and keep the assumption up even long after it has been refuted", AGDAKTAUELAIHBR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Moved by me from section below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Just edit conflicted with Tryptofish Gosh - this is a long thread. Don't have time to read it all in detail, responding to the ping above. I will say this though: MPants at work, if you come to the conclusion that someone is filibustering, stonewalling, being intentionally obtuse, flat-out lying, generally editing tendentious, there are things that you can do about that, whether that's getting more opinions on the content matter, or reporting the other editor at an appropriate noticeboard. What you shouldn't do is accuse them of lying on an article talk page - we tell newbs that all the time, they are for discussing content, not contributors or their behaviour.

I can't think of a situation where calling someone a liar is going to be productive in any way. They're very unlikely to say 'ah, shit, you got me, have it your way'. If you're wrong, and they are not lying, they will justly be upset and get angry, and productive discussion will become impossible. If you are right, and they are lying, they will be only too delighted that you have handed them a stick to beat you with. I think it would be helpful if you were to accept that calling someone a liar on an article talk page isn't appropriate even if you know for a fact that they are lying, and commit not to doing that again. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit, you have once again managed to phrase something in the most reasonable way I've seen, in a thoroughly unreasonable situation. If you look at my response to Crossroads above, you'll see where I highlighted four instances in which I've already acknowledged that I went too far, and I'm not distancing myself from that now.

But what I'm continuing to do here is to argue for a boomerang. I've provided diffs that show very clearly that Springee was engaged in bad-faith behavior, and so far, Bishonen is the only admin to acknowledge that, despite several other users agreeing with me. If it'll help, I'll re-post the diffs (and provide others that evince a long-term problem with POV pushing). I just want an admin to do something that improves this project because frankly, I knew before this thread had started that I needed to tone down my response to Springee. If all that comes of this is a focus entirely upon my behavior, then this thread has been a giant waste of time. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Not warranted. Making talk page arguments that some disagree with isn't sanctionable, even if it is thought that these align with a certain POV. I've seen this stuff before. POV pushing as an offense requires actual misbehavior, and I haven't seen that above or in the past. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

You've seen editors claim that a source that says X doesn't support the claim X in order to whitewash a disreputable figure, and you don't take any issue with that, or consider it POV pushing? Wow. That's a shockingly naïve position to take, but you're entitled to your views. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Even single words can be very important, per MOS:WTW. There can also be good faith disagreements over what a source is actually saying. Perhaps a source attributes a claim rather than saying it in their own voice. So must we, then. The claim that is allegedly supported could be too strongly worded. Or the sources used for it can be less reliable for the subject (like, why are people trying to cite music and pop culture magazines on political topics). I see no reason to impute bad faith and I'm not letting myself get sidetracked here further. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• If you think that someone is intentionally misrepresenting the sources or otherwise arguing tendentiously, and you can prove that, take it to WP:AE and lay out a careful, measured case there - as El_C pointed out above, the entire AP2 topic area is under DS. I don't think anything further constructive is going to come out of this mess of an ANI discussion at this point (and FWIW at least one of the other editors involved has been warned, so it's already boomeranged.) Nobody is going to read or be able to follow this massive discussion at this point unless they're already involved. --Aquillion (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Amid this wall of text, I'd like to quote some portions of MPants' comments in this section:

• "I've already acknowledged that I should have been more circumspect, and said I would endeavor to do so in the future."
• "Bilorv, I made multiple efforts to smooth things over with you there..."
• "I responded poorly to some obvious POV pushing..."
• "...frankly, I knew before this thread had started that I needed to tone down my response to Springee."

I fully acknowledge that I am WP:Cherrypicking those quotes, and they each appear within their own contexts. No question. But, whether or not MPants has it in him to point it out, I think these are things that should not be ignored. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Enough

At this point, this has become one of those ANI walls of text that are visible from outer space. I thank El C for attempting to wrap this up, and regret that it didn't work.

It's time for both MPants and his accusers to stop trying to get the WP:LASTWORD.

There's an awful lot of if an ANI thread stays open long enough, every editor with a grudge will show up going on here. What we have, in brief, are a lot of people (note: not everyone) who have acted suboptimally. So there are too many accusations here (note: not all of them) that are made with unclean hands.

But, that said, MPants, you really need to dial it down. El C "warned" you in plain English, and was right to do so. If you don't want to listen to him, then please listen to me. You are not helping your case by trying to refute every single thing directed at you. You are responsible for some of this, even if some others are even more so. WP:2WRONGS applies here. I know you have personal reasons that can make it harder for you to judge the emotional content of comments, but please hear me when I say that you are accumulating a history that has the potential to lead to another indef – even though we are not there now. If you find yourself editing in topics where the conflicts make you angry, or stressed, or fed up with other editors, then it's time to edit in more peaceful areas – that's something I've been learning about myself from my own personal experience.

MPants, please just acknowledge that you can, and should, and will, do better going forward. You don't have to claim that you have always been right. Acknowledge that there are concerns, and let us all move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish's sentiment about the overlong subsection above, but I feel that we're not yet done here. Here's why: MPants has said to me things like that you should go edit conservapedia [95] and (after a quite reasonable reply to this [96]) that if you don't care to be directed to conservapedia, then perhaps you should stop arguing as if you better belong there [...] I've seen more than one long-term, experienced editors indeffed over their inability to neutrally interpret sources. [97] On an earlier occasion, he also said things like that You've undermined your own position by descending to these pre-packaged, easily-debunked, canned arguments that one can find on any creationist website, complete with detailed instructions on their use and that your continued attempts to make it through emotional rhetoric is bordering on disruption [98].

This is not "playing fast and loose with sarcasm" (as some have suggested above), but plain personal attacks, and I have expressed my wish for this to stop at this ANI thread.

MPants response [99]: Apuagasma's argument above is the funniest so far and There's some incivility there, but it ain't mine. His rationale for this response is that my indignation serves more to illustrate Apua's POV than as a condemnation of me, because I doubt many editors disagree with the sentiment I expressed there.

Indeed, many in the long thread above have claimed that MPants only lashes out against POV-pushers, Trump supporters, pseudoscience loons, etc. I cannot help but feel that letting him claim that he can say to me what he said because I am pushing pseudoscience or creationist nonsense, amounts to a confirmation by the community that this is indeed likely to be the case. I mean, of course those who are familiar with my edits will know better (and I invite everyone to examine the context in which MPants said those things, and/or ask me about it at my talk), but it still feels like a personal smear that should not be allowed to pass.

If he just thinks it's funny and that it's all just due to my POV then there is no guarantee at all that this will stop, rather the opposite. I think that if his attitude about this does not change right here on this ANI thread, some kind of more forceful action must be taken. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that he should not have called what you said "funny", and I don't think that he should have personalized it at all. But at the same time, I did note just above the section break that he has been acknowledging more than what some of his critics are saying he has. Like you, I wish he would acknowledge this more definitively, but I also think that you may be too determined to get him to specifically acknowledge you. I think that if everyone keeps trying to get the WP:LASTWORD, all that will happen is that uninvolved editors will stop paying any attention to this thread. But yes, I'd like to see MPants make it clearer that he hears what people are telling him here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've been reluctant to say anything for exactly that WP:LASTWORD reason (it's a temptation that I know I'm weak to), but I think MPants' last response to Apuagasma in one of the threads linked above was fairly mature and conciliatory: In fact, I would even go so far as to suggest that the battleground mentality that has resulted in literally every single imposition of discretionary sanctions on a topic originated with two editors calling each other biased. [...] Now that that's said, I'd like to apologize for the tone I took the first time I addressed this. I should have been more decorous in responding, explaining myself more fully and explaining that I'm still willing to discuss any other topic. I most likely gave off a much more heated impression than was true, owing to my brevity and emphatic delivery, and that's not the case. [100]. That seems about as good a conclusion to a heated spat as I've seen in these parts. Other than that, I think Tryptofish's latest comment expresses my thoughts as well as I could. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I also spent some time looking at the Shiatsu talk page discussion, and while I don't want to get bogged down in the content aspects here, it does look to me like there were multiple editors on both "sides" speaking heatedly at one another. I think Apuagasma was consistently polite, but there were multiple editors strongly criticizing some of Apuagasma's points, so it's really not like MPants was the only one doing that. It's just that MPants is the only one named as the target of this ANI. I do think the quote found by XOR'easter is very significant here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: thanks for looking into that. Yes, it was a difficult discussion, and actually I have said some things there (to other editors) that I now regret, but no one there posted anything even approaching MPants' tone. There's a difference between somewhat heated and outright personal attack, and only MPants crossed that line (or rather, made a run and took a big leap over it).

@XOR'easter: true, but there was also another editor in that discussion to whom MPants had said that undermining the widely accepted dating- absolutely reeks of fundamentalist bias, and is a textbook example of the wedge strategy, popularized in a different topic that fundamentalists also get up in arms about [101], who responded to the conciliatory post you just quoted with I didn't appreciate the references to fundamentalist bias, but apology accepted. [102] Guess what MPants' response to this editor was? I wasn't apologizing to, or even speaking to you. [103]. Crossroads already quoted the relevant portions from what constitutes a WP:PA: using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing and accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. These clearly apply to all the diffs I've given. Since he apologized at least to me, I've been at (very) good terms with him during the past months. But just here in this thread he said that for his latest lash-out I can wait for an apology all I want. I appreciate that this refusal is largely because of the context here, but I'm really quite sure that you as well as Tryptofish would not be saying what you are if you were in my position, or in the position of those to whom MPants is likely to lash out again in the future if something is not done. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC) Please note that my user name is spelled Apaugasma (though Apau is fine too).

If it will be of any benefit (I am not sure), I want to endorse Tryptofish's advice to MjolnirPants at the beginning of this subsectuon. MPants, if you are actually correct about what is best for this encyclopedia, then you will be most effective by advocating your points calmly, clearly and referring back constantly to policies, guidelines and what high quality reliable sources say about these issues. Sarcasm, hostility, bitterness and a confrontational tone are counterproductive. That tone hurts your case. It does not help it at all. How can you advocate for your view of what is best for the encyclopedia if you are again indefinitely blocked? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Apaugasma, you have made your points. Repeating them over and over does not make them more persuasive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't feel Apaugasma's points were repetitive. The points, quotes, and diffs in this section were new and directly in response to others' comments above. Levivich 02:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what, I think you're both right! Cullen's point is well-taken, and Levivich's support much appreciated :-) ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the letter-transposition; I think I was looking at a misspelled instance, and my fingers just copied it. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 01:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No, seriously, enough

On second thought, let’s not go to ANI. ‘Tis a silly place. jps (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Like. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony! El_C 08:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is, indeed, no basis for a system of government. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic? No need to insult fishes here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Help, I'm being oppressed..." - jc37 23:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Nor the lake ladies who sleep with them, verily. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

IP 212.85.174.201

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

Hi. Please can someone assist with this IP's edits? They keep removing sourced content regarding dates of death across three articles relating to Yugoslav sportspeople (one, two, three). Per their talkpage, they state they are correct and are using the Slovenian versions of the pages as a source. Although, checking those pages, only one of them has a date of death, which is also unsourced. Now they are stating that if they are blocked, that "I will demand Arbcom". Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello. It is great that the issue has been brough up here. I deal with yugoslav sports history in my professional life and I was surprised too see that the three local well known pre-war cyclists had wrong basic information about them in the English Wikipedia. I tried to correct it but then this user came with his uncooperative and rude remarks and removed all the correct content and added back the wrong info from some unexisting "sports reference" webpage. I would like to have a normal peacful discussion to correct the information as I believe it is in the best interest of everyone that Wikiepdia has the correct information available to the public. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor: you do appear to be edit warring to force unsourced information onto the page. Where are you getting your information from? Slovenian Wikipedia is not a reliable source (neither is English Wikipedia - they're both user-generated, and I'm afraid that your personal knowledge and expertise is also not sufficient - we need a reliable, published source. It's OK for it to be in Slovenian (English-language sources are preferred, but not mandatory). Please provide sources for the information, or remove it until you can do so. Thanks Girth Summit _(blether) 17:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked 212.85.174.201 from article space until they provide some sources and not another Wiki. If they come up with some please unblock. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. I don't speak Slovenian, but I'm happy to help incorporate any WP:RS to any of these articles, if they surface. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have no sources in English, but there are sources in Slovenian. I am putting them here because I was blocked and cannot edit the articles. Please put them into the articles:

• Josip Šolar:

Obituary and an article: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-ANI7Q5EW/ Tombstone: https://grobovi.zale.si/sl/Home/GetGravePicture?uId=8cff2826-c246-4b31-ae1a-88f8d5b43efd

• Franc Gartner:

article: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-G7D8KRG4 more articles when he died: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-L9QWYMRK/ dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-HSPTRI7L/

• Ivan Valant:

article and picture in Jesenice museum: http://www.gmj.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/kviz-2019-iii-srednja-ola-konna-verzija.pdf obituary: http://dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-AW59IIJ3/ also mentioned: dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-6QJ7I2OW/ (his bike company still exists, now run by his grandson, you can contact him if you do not believe me info@valy-ing.si) All information is 100% correct. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts - just making sure you've seen the links from the IP editor above. I had a look at the first one, it's a newspaper dated 1957, which does indeed carry an obituary for Josip Solar on page 8. I ran the first sentence, which read "Se v zreli dobi je po hudi bolezni umri eden najboljsin slovenskih kolesarjev – Joca Solar" through Google translate, which gave me "One of the best Slovenian cyclists, Joca Solar, dies in adulthood after a serious illness." Seems legit, the database website might have this wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The pages have still not changed. Less than two minutes were needed to revert my changes and then to block me, but now when I again presented proofs nothing happens. It makes me sad as I get the feeling that there is no genuine will to partiticipate and provide proper encyclopedic information about this topic. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You were blocked from editing those pages because you were edit warring, and because you were repeatedly making changes without providing sources. You are not blocked from editing the articles' talk pages: you could go there now, and make an edit request, citing these sources and indicating what changes should be made based on them. (It would help the other editors if you were able to provide a bit of detail on where to find the information in those sources - the first link above is 8 pages long, and I couldn't find a way to search the text: it took me quite a while to find Solar's obituary, and to put the first sentence through Google translate.) Girth Summit _(blether) 09:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Noone excpet the other user in question watches those pages anyway and he already saw the sources heere. So just correct the information, this the oly thing that I am interested in. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Girthy. I'll work with the IP on their talkpage to find the exact page in each newspaper source they've provided, and update all three pages during the day. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

They provided sources so I've unblocked them. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Weren't you a little quick to block them? They had the sources, just they were not particularly experienced. Did anyone discuss this issue? I wonder if it could have been resolved more amicably. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter's blocks of Volunteer Marek and GCB

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

---

Please see here and here. Ymblanter has blocked Marek and GCB for edit warring, despite the editor in question not being eligible to edit on the topic in question as they are way below the 500/30 threshold. Which is *specifically* exempt from edit warring. If they arnt unblocked with either an apology (I dont care who apologises, I doubt Ymblanter will proffer one themself) the next step will be ARBCOM to request Ymblanter's tools are removed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I got enough baid faith towards myself today, and, in addition, OID was very clear for many years that they want my tools removed does not matter what, but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I want your tools removed. You lack sufficient knowledge to use them properly and it results in abuse. The restrictions (and where edit warring doesnt apply) around 500/30 editing requirements are very very clear and an admin should be well aware of when they do and do not apply. You clearly do not. I am willing to let it go once again if you apologise to both Marek and GCB and lift the blocks. Or another admin does, but this blatant incompetence when it comes to basic knowledge of how a topic restriction works should not continue. 'Bad faith' in this context by the way would be assuming that you made a bad block, realised it when someone pointed out the 500/30 requirement, and decided to cover it up by blocking the editor who complained. That would be assuming bad faith. I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I support an unblock. PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblock sooner than later please. but I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts. Any admin who can't be bothered to read WP:3RRNO has got problems. MarnetteD|Talk 20:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The 500/30 requirement is not listed at WP:3RRNO. PackMecEng (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: True, although BANEX is which would seem to cover this as well - but you're right the part should be copied over from WP:GS [104]. As I stated on my talk page, I intend to file a request for clarification with ArbCom on the wording of the restriction. Volunteer Marek 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah looks like it could use an update. I would probably support that! PackMecEng (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

This should go straight to ARBCOM for a de-sysop, period.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. The arbcom was very clear by writing "articles" rather than "pages", and had a good reason for this, since otherwise revert of discussions from talk pages, for example, would be exempt from 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I am too old for this. I completely disagree with the unblock, but I do not want to get to a hospital again. I will unblock. Next time, anybody starts talking about lack of admin, lack of gut, inability to look into difficult cases, remember this case, please. If I am still alive, I will be around to remind you.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end, Did you discuss extensively with Ymblanter before bringing this here? ANI's are literally the last option if the plethora of trying to use other venues to settle differences and queries amicably are exhausted. Furthermore I see the mention of ARBCOM?? Come on! Now that’s rather uncalled for and don’t you think that’s rather harsh and comes off as “threatening” ? Celestina007 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

No, as Ymblanter is never open to reasoned discussion when they make an obviously wrong action, and their histrionics directly above should give you a decent idea of what their concept of appropriate behaviour is. They already had sufficient discussion on the talkpages of both Marek and GCD and had declined to unblock on the request of another admin. So yes, the appropriate place is ANI for an ongoing incident that needs a quick resolution. And yes, the consequences of their actions being unresolved would be Arbcom, because said earlier discussion had already failed to get them to see reason. There are almost zero actions an ordinary editor can take. Laying out the consequences of your actions may come across as threatening, but then when you treat people like shit, do not expect to get the kid gloves in return. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Only in death does duty end, so in summary do you believe you both can’t resolve this amicably? I’m pained when genuine and hardworking very productive editors like yourself and Ymblanter have disputes, honestly it is very much saddening. Celestina007 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 Just a note that while it is usually best practice to discuss things before taking them here, whatever - if any - issues OID and YMB have, an unjust block should be dealt with ASAP since the real victims here is an editor (editors) who got unjustly blocked. It would be totally unfair for them to wait days for action (if any) while this was limited to a talk page discussion which could be simply ignored for days or stalled or whatever (no bad faith assumed, simply noting admins can block someone and then be afk for some time, for example). As a review of an admin's action that requires possibly urgent action (unblock) it was totally right for OID to bring this here, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, Yes, I understand that part, the part that has me worried is Only in death does duty end saying he wants Ymblanter to lose their admin bits (note that this are both very productive editors) and the mention of ARBCOM also is upsetting (to me) It’s saddening when productive editors are at loggerheads. Furthermore I don’t think the mention of ARBCOM was necessary, more often than not I think we both can predict accurately what the verdict would be if a case was to be accepted. @Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties and to OID especially. We regular editors all make mistakes, and sysops do too as we are all human in the end. Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 I think that (referring to "Ymblanter, if you can, please just apologize to the relevant parties") would be the best solution. There is no need for any community actions or sanctions if one acknowledges their mistake and apologizes, to be human is to err. What does worries me, however, is that the comments I've seen from Ymblanter suggests that they don't view their actions as wrong. Not being able to admit one has made a mistake and apologize for it is worrisome in any editor, and doubly so in admin, who has the power to block and delete. With power comes responsibility and the need to be responsible. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that Only in death's behavior has been nothing short of appalling itself. They have taken every opportunity to insult Ymblanter and be as uncivil as humanly possible, with their kindest contribution to this report being, "I am granting you the more likely explanation that you acted out of ignorance rather than maliciousness". Ymblanter's blocks were poorly conducted, yet that is no excuse for an editor to be personally vindictive. BOTTO _(T•C) 17:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Botto, I haven't had time to review OID's behavior, although there is undeniably a tension between those editors, to say the least. Nonetheless, "two wrongs don't make a right"; if you feel OID's behavior merits review, I'd suggest a new section or thread; here we are talking about Ymblanter's blocking of two editors and aftermath. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to get to a hospital again and If I am still alive are extremely alarming. I encourage a break - participating in Wikipedia should never provoke such fearful comments. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, we got most of the way there, but the unblock rationale was really unacceptable ("I want to stay alive"). Does anyone mind if I block each of them for 1 second, making clear they were unblocked because the block was against policy, not because Ymblanter wanted to "stay alive"? Especially, @Volunteer Marek: and @GizzyCatBella:, would you prefer such a notice in your block log? It's trading off clarifying you shouldn't have been blocked for an incrementally longer block log. I won't put such a note in your block logs if you don't want it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I'm fine with it. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - I’m also fine with it. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Since you're unblocked, there's no need to immediately provide this note, so I'll wait until tomorrow if that's OK. That will give Ymblanter a chance to do it themselves, or if not, will provide a more complete ANI discussion for me to link to, or will provide a chance for someone to point out I've completely misunderstood the situation and it wouldn't be appropriate. And it gives me time to grill some steaks (and then eat them), which I've been looking forward to all day. Not trying to weasel out of anything; I'm just postponing until tomorrow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That's fine too. Bon apetit. Volunteer Marek 22:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam I concur that the unblock rationale is unacceptable; in fact I suggest it should be WP:OVERSIGHTed since it can even create a mistaken impression death threats were involved or such. While I honestly haven't interacted with or reviewed other actions by the blocking admin, anyone who makes a bad block and then an unblock with such an edit summary is certainly ripe for having their admin status scrutinized (with a nod to the de-sysop comments above). Anyway, I also support your idea of a re-un-block which a good rationale (ideally a link to this discussion when it is archived, but that may require waiting for this to be closed and archived? It probably would be most informative). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked and unblocked VM and GCB adding a proper rationale.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, can we have a diff for the edit(s) that resulted in the block(s) please? GiantSnowman 20:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Apparently it is here. CGB was blocked after their only revert, VM was blocked after 4 reverts of a sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow. No warnings to either party at all before 3RR was breached? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Has the account been blocked as a sock? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I cant see the point tbh. Its clearly either one of the banned users in relation to Poland/WW2/Jews (which isnt a long list), or a clueless IP who just doesnt know they cant edit on the topic. Marek made it clear in the edit summaries that the editor was prohibited, and given the content, its almost certainly one of the Jewish anti-Polish editors. They will be back somewhere else soon enough. Regardless, the editor fails 500/30 for editing in a restricted area and so can be reverted on sight exempt from edit-warring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so warnings are not even appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think a warning was required to at least signal that an administrator felt that the 500/30 exemption didn't apply because it is Wikipedia-space rather than article-space in which the reverts were being made. That would provide an opportunity for one of the editors to cease reverting, seek clarification if required and/or justify the basis of the block. The clear absence of that was what made this review open and shut. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is the relevant language from Wikipedia:General sanctions that Volunteer Marek was relying on Under the 30/500 rule, all IP editors, and accounts with fewer than 500 edits and with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing content within a given area of conflict. It can be enforced through the use of extended confirmed protection (ECP) or other methods, including page protection, reverts, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 30/500 rule are not considered edit warring. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted above. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc. If this information page is accurate, then Ymblanter is incorrect when they wrote The exemption is for the articles, this is not an article. As I read the language, the only place where an editor who does not meet the 30/500 threshold can edit about topics such as this is on article talk pages, and nowhere else on the project. Accordingly, Volunteer Marek was correct to revert these edits which were adding Warsaw concentration camp to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia since that editor is not permitted to do so according to the information page about General sanctions. If the information page is in error, it should be corrected promptly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A summary of this language should probably be added to WP:3RRNO, which currently makes no mention of an exception for the 30/500 rule. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• The 500/30 restriction stems from an arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#500/30_restriction, added as a result of this motion. The context behind the ARCA was sockpuppetry, and the reverted account is said to be a sock (above), apparently. The commenting arbs also said "articles" specifically. I think this should be kicked to the Committee at WP:ARCA, to ask whether the remedy only apply to articles or if it applies to all namespaces. ArbCom rulings are one place where language and precision matters, and this one genuinely seems unclear. (Of course, this point is separate from whether the editors should've been blocked for it, and due to the very small distinction, and given that the editors gave their rationale in the edit summary, I think the admin should've realised there was an ambiguity here and ideally decided to get it cleared up, or at worst went the warning route rather than the block route.) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • More: I took a peek to check what the precedent from other arb cases is. The only other arbitration case to authorise 500/30 is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4, which used an entirely different structure to its general sanctions remedies than the usual case. That one indeed applies in all namespaces, but it explicitly says so (edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think a clarification from ArbCom would be useful here. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I have asked for clarification at ARCA. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some may be wondering what Ymblanter was talking about when he mentioned tag-teaming by GCB and VM. Running Editor Interaction Analyser (Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella) lists the following pages that both VM and GCB edited on the same day (collapsed due to length):

I make no comment about whether or not 30/500 applies to that page/that content, but I will say generally that while I think Ymblanter's concerns are well-founded (per the above), a warning first would have been better than straight to a block. (And I hope he feels better soon.) Levivich 02:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Dude. As you very very very well know, both GCB and myself have been targeted with some very odious harassment (including violent threats against my family etc) by THE VERY SAME EDITOR. And then by his socks. Since you defended that editor over the course of the ArbCom case which led to his topic ban, and then participated extensively in the aftermath of that ArbCom case which led to his global ban, you are FULLY AWARE of the background here and cannot plead ignorance. Which means that YOU KNOW there's a very good reason why I would look at GCB's edits and talk page and why she would most likely do the same. It's the SAME SOCKS showing up on articles we both edits. Yet here you are pretending as if there's something nefarious going on BY THE EDITORS WHO HAVE BEEN TARGETS OF ABUSE. Way to enable abusers and blame the victims Levivich. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And if you're gonna try to play that game, then here you go [105]. Wanna explain that one? Volunteer Marek 06:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

So GCB was blocked over one revert, but Kowkaw, the editor who made three reverts while edit-warring with VM, wasn't even warned? One side of this edit war was punished harshly while the side that arguably wasn't supposed to touch the page in the first place was completely ignored. And are we supposed to believe that someone who made a dozen edits almost a year ago just randomly reappeared, happened to notice this behind-the-scenes dispute, and jumped in with nothing but the purest of intentions? Why on earth was Ymblanter apparently fine with all of that? This situation was handled poorly, and the blocking admin's responses here do little to bolster confidence in their decision-making. I'm particularly annoyed with this remark: I do not see why some users should be exempt from blocks for four reverts. The OP was not suggesting that some users should be generally exempt from blocks; he was arguing that any user who did what VM did in this particular situation should have been exempt from a block. Ymblanter's reply there is a strawman at best and gaslighting at worst. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Lepricavark Good point. I would very much like to hear Ymblanter's explanation on why they have taken no action whatsoever towards Kowkaw? That new account is obviously very suspicious (per WP:DUCK given the extensive socking in this TA that led to 30/500 and like). Blocking established editors while ignoring a likely sock raises further question's about once competency as an admin, to say it bluntly. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to make this call. I am not a CU, and I will now stay clear from any DUCK blocks probably for years ahead.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I am not saying you should have blocked Kowkaw; it's perfectly excusable not to be knowledgeable about the socks and likely masters in this TA. What I don't understand is, however, why you felt that VM and GCB deserve blocks and Kowkaw does not? Weren't they "edit waring" equally? Why block just the established editors and let the newbie scoff-free, without even a warning? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole story started with VM and GCB reverting users in good standing, not Kowkaw. I actually warned VM to stop edit-warring before Kowkaw even showed up, but they went on to four reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Your timeline doesn't work. VM was not edit-warring (if that's even an applicable term here) before Kowkaw showed up. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I checked the timeline, you are right, I warned them after their second revert (the first their revert of Kowkaw). Actually, even after the second revert by Kowkaw, but I probably have not seen that one yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Can you provide the diffs for that edit warring? And I also can't seem to find the warning? Maybe I am looking at the wrong page(s), but I can only see a single revert by GCB at that hoax list, and I can't see any warnings you issued to them before the block? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I am lost now. Are we discussing VM or GCB? These are two different stories as far as I am concerned. All edit warring I know of is on one page, and you have by now also participated there.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so difficult in answering my question. Please tell me - and the community - on which page or pages each of the two editors you blocked violated 3RR (or 1RR if applicable), and please link diffs to the warnings you claimed above to have given them. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Let us to postpone this until after the Arbcom at least has decided whether they are going to have the full case or not.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would a simple clarification require a full case? Volunteer Marek 17:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I do not know, but you are on that page as well, and there are people if not arguing for then at least seriously discussing the full case.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Arbs aren’t - they seem to be sticking to the issue at hand. All you got there is one or two editors (one of them posting in violation of their IBAN) who are trying to hijack a simple clarification request to agitate for a new case because they think a new case will “rehabilitate” Icewhiz (there is no world in which that would happen. It’s not like the ArbCom will be all like “oh you made death threats against multiple editors and threatened to hurt their families but you still have a couple friends on Wikipedia so we’ll forgive you and let you back”) Volunteer Marek 18:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

We will see. This is not my call anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, why does this need to be postponed? Just answer the question. And while you're at it, please come up with a better explanation for why you never said anything to the other half of the edit-war. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It has to be postponed because if the full case is open (which indeed looks unlikely at the moment) it will be part of my defense, and I have to be very careful about what I am saying. Especially since I still have serious convcentration problems. ANI is not a good place to deal with these issues, but if the ARCA does not result in a full case I will provide the timeline here with the diffs. Concerning your second question - VM made four reverts, their opponent made three at the time of the block, and we have WP:3RR. Note that the two users reverting VM and GCB are not blocked (to be exact, were not blocked last time I checked), though we have a bunch of admins in this very thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

You blocked GCB after 1 revert, but you didn't even give Kowkaw a warning after 3. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that's my reading of this case as well. An established editor is blocked for edit warring after a single revert, a suspicious new account is not blocked for reverting three times. No apology or admission of any mistake from the blocking admin after 2-3 days of asking for clarification. What gives? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter I see no reason why such a simple yet crucial question cannot be answered NOW. You blocked them for REASONS which should have been grounded in POLICY, in this case, 3RR. Please tell us those REASONS, explicitly, while referencing the policies mentioned. It is hardly rocket science. Please list the 3RR violating diffs and the warnings you said you given them. We don't need to wait for any ArbCom clarification for such a simple list of diffs to be given. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Thank you for taking the time to provide the detailed analysis of the events from your side below. I'll leave it to more experienced and neutral parties to comment first; through per my comments above I think the best solution to end this dramu quickly would be for you to apologize for being too hasty in your blocks (particularly of GCB who did only a single revert). In general, warnings and page protections are better than quick blocks, also there is the 3RR procedure with reports and which gives people at least some window to reply/explain or self-revert. Blocks should be the last resort, not first. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed the point I wanted to address but forgot. I assume that [106] this diff] together with [107] settle the situation. If I were GCB, I would not want anybody to show up on my page to continue discussing this. (As myself, I do not expect anybody who was active in this ANI thread, to show up on my talk page to apologize, and I absolutely do not want user A repeatedly asking user B to apologize to me). If GCB wants apologies, I think they want to make it in some way clear to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter - I don't demand any apologies. You take care of yourself, okay? I really hope this episode ends soon, folks. (please!) - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Hopefully some of us have learned somethink from the episode.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of blocks

• Ok, fine. I will do it now. The timeline was:
• approximately 2013 I add the page on my watchlist;
• 4 October 2019 Levivich adds the camp piece
• 2 August 2021 20:29 VM removes the text. Their first edit at this page since at least 2012, possibly ever
• 3 august 09:21 Revert by Gildir
• 09:35 Revert by GCB. Their first edit at this page since at least 2012, possibly ever
• I block GCB. The revert is a clear edit-warring. WP:Edit warring allows for blocks for less than three reverts. Reverts are clearly correlated - not necessarily in the sense they have discussed them off-wiki )probably not) but that situatively, they in any case have chosen to collectively revert established users. No socks are in the picture. Now, I know that GCB is just coming from the topic ban on this topic (which I have some recollection I was the administrator who rescinded it, but I did not check, and this is immaterial, this dees not make me involved anyway). They are an experienced user and must know that this revert is unacceptable. Their talk page is full of warnings. I choose the block for disruptive editing (not for 3RR, as claimed above, should have chosen edit-warring) and the duration of 72h, equal to the duration of the previous block.
• On a second thought, this was a poor decision. I mean, it was according to the policies, and if the thing goes to the full ArbCom case, I will be able to defend it, but I should solved the situation in a better way. If I had to do it again I would have left a strongly worder talk page message (similar to what I left as the block notice) but would not block. If it would not helped I would probably have blocked then.
• 10:07 GCB reacts in an appropriate way which I appreciate.
• 13:44 Kowkaw'd forst revert
• 15:10 VM's second revert
• 15:20 VM starts the talk page discussion (which I believe I have not seen before the block).
• VM shows up at the GCB's talk page, They are at this point mostly interested in who ordered me to block GCB and do not seem to believe that it was my own decision.
• 15:23 VM's third revert
• 15:24 At some point in the middle of the discussion, I warn them.
• 15:25 Kowkaw's second revert
• 15:28 VM's fouth revert
• 15:38 I block VM; the time is chosen again 72 h which is the same as GCB but also the same as the VM's last block.

We have a heated discussion again, starting again from BF assumptions (I blocked them because they contested the GCB block), which after some time converges into discussion of whether reverting a banned user is an exemption of 3RR, and I provide the argument that this page is not an article, and the argument is called wikilawyering, at which point I advise them to file an unblock request to have an opinion of an uninvolved administrator. The discussion is still there, this is the diff of my last edit on VM's page which also shows the previous discussion.

• The rest is here. My interpretation of the policy is currently on its way to be validated by ArbCom. There are no relevant diffs outside of the hoax page and the two talk pages, GCB and VM, I know of.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, concerning the VM block, I believe it was a valid block. There were four reverts (one of them of an established user); I gave a warning, though WP:3RR does not even say a warning is required; the edit-warring was collectively performed by two users (ald later other users, including Piotrus, joined - I am amazed that the page has not been protected, though the edit-warring was seen by dozens of admins. Probably everybody understands that none of the sides would let it go, and it will be a lot of shit anyway, whether the admin actions are correct or not). The question whether reverting a sock on a page which is not an article has been brought before ArbCom which seems to be fully supporting my interpretation. Getting a edit-warring warning and continuing to revert, seeing as another edit-warrior has been blocked, is rarely a good idea. Well, I could have just walked away after my warning and pretend I have not seen anything - is this actually what admins are here for? Having said this, the situation would probably not develop if I have not blocked GCB - which, as I said above, was a poor block. May be instead of trying to reply to all BF accusations I should have ignored them and say clearly that the reverts are blockable. I do not know. The whole situation is the topic area seems to unhealthy, and Icewhiz is not the only reason for this, as evidenced by multiple users at ARCA. I have no involvement in the area and this is not something that interests me, but I am not looking forward to the topic area becoming healthy.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the two new accounts taking part in the edit-warring, Kowkaw and אברהסה בו , indeed I checked they have low edit-count (I have a gadget installed showing edit-count) but I was not immediately convinced they are socks (may be they are, may be they are not, again, none of them is currently blocked). However, I had a strong suspicion they were NOTTHERE accounts. None of them made more than three reverts (otherwise I would have blocked), and I did not see any urgency in dealing with them. Ususlly we do not warn socks for edit-warring, we block them. When I had more time (probably evening of the same day, I would have looked at them, and likely block per NOTHERE. However, after the ANI thread started, there was no way for me to do it, and I am not going to look at these accounts. Again, there are plenty of other administrators around. If they want to deal with the situation - may be there is a goodr reason for this?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now, I have by now given a full account of my motivation and actions in this episode, providing all the diffs, citing the policies, and explaining why my actions were compatible with the policies. This is what I am expected to do according to WP:ADMINACCT. I have done more than that, I have made the introspection of my actions and made conclusions that in some aspects I have acted poorly. Now, WP:ADMINACCT requires that I give a full account of my actions, but it does not require that I answer every single question of any user who want to ask anything. As I already mentioned several times, for me this ANI thread resulted in a medical emergency on Tuesday night, and even today I am not fully recovered, I am not feeling well and have difficulties to concentrate - you may notice that in almost all of my replies an any noticeboards I have to come back and make corrections, and that they have a horrible amount of typos I am unable to catch. This also has impact on my job. Whatever happens, I am not sure I am going to physically survive another thread like this. Since I have to prioritize my health and my job over my hobby, I will absolutely stop taking any decisions which can be even remottely interpreted as controversial. My congratulations, you have lost an active admin.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Therefore I will restrict my further participation here to an absolute necessary minimum, ideally I will not reply anymore. I apologize for this, but, again, I have provided sufficient information. The case is already before ArcCom, whoever thinks that my actions in this episode were not compatible with me being an administrator should just go there and argue the case. This of course absolutely should not stop the community from discussing the situation, but I would appreciate of this discussion occurs without continuously questioning me. May I please also remind everybody that we have the Terms of Use, which say something (I am not going to look for the actual text now) the discussions in the project must occur in the athmosphere of mutual respect and assuming good faith. This is not exactly what is happening in this thread. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, you said you wanted to drop this because you were worried about your health and high blood pressure. You even put something like "I want to live" in the unblock - which itself is highly problematic! Yet here you insist on pursuing the matter.

So:

• You skip the very first step. Which is that this was first added by User:Icewhiz on Sept 4. This was literally DAYS before Icewhiz was topic banned from this area. Subsequently, Icewhiz was banned from En-wiki altogether for harassing and doxing multiple users off-wiki. Soon after that he was globally-banned by the WMF because some of the harassment was so fucking vile. I don't know, this seems like quite pertinent info ... so why are you skipping like the most important part?
• Then this was removed by User:Piotrus on Sept 10 (Icewhiz still NOT topic banned by this point) but then *reinstated*, NOT added, by User:Levivich on October 4th as you note (by this point Icewhiz topic banned so he couldn't do it himself). There WAS discussion about it at the time [108]. Levivich DID NOT participate in it (although a couple Icewhiz socks did).
• Let's skip ahead to the part where GCB removed it again and you blocked them. You claim above: "I block GCB. The revert is a clear edit-warring.". THIS. WAS. ONE. REVERT. You blocked someone for 78 hours for one revert. You didn't block the other person who reverted before GCB either. You blocked GCB. For one revert. You claim above: "They are an experienced user and must know that this revert is unacceptable.". NO. There is nothing "unacceptable" about a single revert. You claim above: "Their talk page is full of warnings." NO. This is a falsehood. I don't see A SINGLE warning on GCB's talk page. More importantly YOU in particular DID NOT issue any warnings. Just blocked someone out of the blue for three whole days for making a single revert (you did not block the person who reverted before them).
• You skip another part. Which is that I complained about the egreious block of GCB on their talk page. When I challanged your block you claimed, again, completely falsely, that this was because "it is part of edit-warring after multiple warnings in a contentious area". NO. There were no "multiple warnings". There was not even a single warnings. It is also utterly false that there was any OTHER edit warring by GCB. I looked through their last 1000+ edits going back to May. GCB has NOT made any other reverts (except for reverting some IPs and users with less than 500edits/30days, per the 500/30 restriction, who, btw, are pretty obvious or even confirmed sock puppets.). It's just not true, this is just your post-hoc spurious and false rationalization of a bad block.

When I pointed this out you accused me of "playing games" and "pretending that (I) don't know what you're talking about". This was, again, a deflaction. Someone points out that you're wrong and instead of either a) admitting your error or b) showing that person is wrong, you restor to this rhetorical device of "you're playing games"

• You then claim, quote: "VM shows up at the GCB's talk page, They are at this point mostly interested in who ordered me to block GCB and do not seem to believe that it was my own decision." This is also completely false [109]. NOWHERE in the discussion on GCB's talk page did I ask you or was "interested in" "who ordered you to block GCB". It's simply not there! You are completely misportraying the nature of that conversation! I, as pointed out above, criticized you for blocking someone for a single revert (and only one party) and for falsely claiming that there was some "other", unspecificed, edit warring GCB was guilty of. That's it. There's nothing there about me "not believing it was your decision". Why are you even saying this? Anyone can read that discussion and see it's just not true.
• You blocked me soon after I pointed out that your claims regarding GCB were simply false. I'm sorry to say, and I didn't want to bring this up before, but that looks straight up like a revenge "respect mah authoritah" block. As in - you dare complain about my admin actions? IBLOCKYOUTOO! It very much looks like you got annoyed that your actions were questioned and reacted emotionally by pressing that block button. Your subsequent statements, and the strange unblock-summary, suggest the same thing.
• You claim you "warned me". You said, on GCB's talk page, not mine, at 15:24 "That you continued reverting is not good either". I didn't see it. At 15:28 I reverted the likely sock puppet/account with very few edits again. At 15:29 I saw your comment and explained to you that "I reverted an editor who is an obvious sock per 500/30 restriction as above." You blocked me at 15:38, AFTER you read my response so YOU KNEW that there was a good reason for my revert. You also skip mentioning the part where I repeatedly, in my edit summaries and on the talk page also mentioned the 500/30 restriction. You didn't address that AT ALL. You did not claim that the restriction didn't apply to the page at the time - you only came up with that later.

Likewise, in your above statement you claim that "ArbCom (...) seems to be fully supporting my interpretation". I have no idea where you're getting that. None of the Arbs comments actually address the nature of your block - probably because that's NOT what the request for clarification is about. You reluctantly - after consensus here at ANI - unblocked and that was that. ArbCom is deciding whether the scope of the restriction is limited to articles or is broader. NONE of the Arb comments actually address your particular actions.

I'm sorry Ymblanter. As I said, I was content to let this go after you unblocked me (and GCB) and fixed your unblock-summary (since the initial one - "I want to live" - was so strange, and seemed to have implied that you had been threatened or something). I have no idea why you wish to keep pursuing this matter. But since you did see it fit to provide your "version" of events, I have to reply simply because it is so extremely misleading.

Still happy to drop it if you stop trying to restart it though. Volunteer Marek 07:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to restart anything, but Piotrus above demanded that I provide the diffs and give my motivation. I had to do it according to WP:ADMINACCT. You may be sure that was no fun for me.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

His question (and other editors too) was why you didn't block the other editor, Kowkaw, the one with 12 edits who reverted three times (vs. GCB's one revert). Or why you didn't even warn them. None of what you posted above answers that question. Volunteer Marek 07:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What Piotrus said, was, literally, You blocked them for REASONS which should have been grounded in POLICY, in this case, 3RR. Please tell us those REASONS, explicitly, while referencing the policies mentioned. It is hardly rocket science. Please list the 3RR violating diffs and the warnings you said you given them. This is what I have done. Concerning Kowkaw, I specifically addressed them in my response. I understand that many people would disagree, but this was my motivation when I took the decision. Without this disaster, I would have looked at them more carefully.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Admins usually do the absolute minimum when asked for WP:ADMINACCT. Kudos for going to this level of detail. François Robere (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere Err, Francois, considering you are topic banned from interacting with GCB are you sure it is a good idea for you to comment in a discussion about a block that involves him (and not you)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I'm not opining about Ymblanter's actions, I'm just saying him taking the time to compile a thorough answer to your WP:ADMINACCT request is commendable (gosh knows I asked for ADMINACCT more than once and I never got anything even remotely close). If you suspect that's a violation then I'll strike it. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar: APL missing from DS/Alert documentation?

I was going to help clean up the mess left behind by this dispute, reverting a further 500/30 violation ( although per ProcrastinatingReader's response which I only just saw, perhaps it shouldn't be considered 500/30 resricted?) and leaving DS notices when I noticed that there is no mention of the Antisemitism in Poland case in the list of codes authorized for use. I'm guessing this is just oversight and should be corrected, but given how complicated the template code relating to it is I figured this was better raised for discussion before I go about adding the code. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

As a further sidebar to the sidebar, I'm impressed that we resisted the temptation of naming the case ARBAIP, to finish the trifecta of ARBIPA and ARBPIA _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

APL does not authorise a separate DS. Since I believe APL falls entirely within the WP:ARBEE topic area, so I think the DS for that is used. The only special GS (that's still active) authorised by WP:APL is the 500/30. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, thank you. I guess since it's a GS we don't need to notify people (although it seems like a surefire recipe for flummoxing any new editors that want to edit the topic). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It's primarily an issue when only part of an article falls under the scope of extended-confirmed restrictions. You can always write a personal note if you come across an editor for whom such an alert seems useful. (The limitation doesn't authorize blocking without warning, so the note would serve to save the editor's time.) isaacl (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Levivich

I really thought we were done here, with the situation more or less resolved. Ymblanter unblocked, then changed the block rationale, then the clarification request was filed. All good. But then for some reason User:Levivich decided to show up and in a space of less than an hour managed to:

• Restart the edit war by reverting two editors on that page: [110] [111] with the second revert including false WP:ASPERSIONS of tag-teaming based on an arbcom case from... 12 years ago.
• Falsely accused me of "perpetuating a hoax" here and here (his rationale being that I made ONE (as in "1", uno, single", ein) minor edit something like ... 12 years ago to that article (it was a minor copy edit of a badly written sentence). This is one edit in space of 12 years. It is one edit out of thousand+ edits to the article. It is one edit out of tens of thousands of edits I made. I didn't perpetuate any freakin' hoax and this is a very serious accusation. Levivich has refused to strike it (he did strike a part of it) [112] (here is the edit in question. it's 100% obvious that it's just a basic copy edit of a bad sentence [113])
• Accused me and another editor of tag teaming because we edit the same topic area and because ... we have been both been harassed by the same user. That user's edits, btw, correlate with Levivich himself just as much if not more than mine and GCB's [114]
• Accused another editor of tag teaming and refused to apologize when asked [115]
• Started ANOTHER edit war on a related article [116] [117]

It's like he came here, saw the drama, and thought "oh this fire is going on, what it needs is a couple gallons of gasoline!". Can someone please tell him to step back (an apology for the false insinuations and attacks would also be appreciated) and leave this topic alone? I think it's pretty clear that his past support for User:Icewhiz is getting in the way of neutral and level headed editing. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I am the one who asked Levivich to apologize for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: User_talk:Levivich#Apology_requested_for_your_unfounded_accusation_of_tag_teaming. I honestly thought this was a one-off mistake, and that Levivich will quickly apologize and this will be closed. I am disappointed by him not having done so in his initial reply, but I am holding hope this will be resolved quickly and amiccaby. As for his other edits diffed above, I concur he should now better, they don't appear to be very constructive (since they are de facto restoring edits by indef-banned Icewhiz, and at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#warsaw VM makes a compelling argument that Icewhiz edits were not just wrong (that was my reason for removing them) but were related to his campaign of harassment which led to his indef block. WP:BRV is a cherry on top; really, Levivich, edit warring restoring arguably very problematic edits by indef banned editors and "casting aspersions"; not your best wikiday. I suggest dropping that particular stick quickly before things escalate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Describing Levivich's reverts as "edit warring restoring arguably very problematic edits by indef banned editors" is misleading. As the page history shows, Levivich was reverting to restore the long-standing status quo text, which had been uncontested since Levivich took ownership of the banned user's addition by restoring it in October 2019 with an extra source; the recent edit war started with Marek's removal of that text. Yes, a likely sock got involved in the edit war to restore it, but the removal was clearly contested (just as it was back in late '19 when Levivich objected to its original removal) and the first restoration in the recent revival was, as far as I can tell, by an uninvolved, regular editor of that page. The text is sourced, has been in the long-standing version, and recent attempts to remove it have been contested. If editors want to remove it, they should work to build a talk page consensus. Jr8825 • Talk 17:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, if it was "very problematic", why did the editors who objected to it back in 2019 not continue to pursue the issue in the talk page thread where it was raised at the time, or bring it up at any point between then and now? Returning to the issue several years later and going straight to content removal and not re-opening the discussion that editors were aware of (because they'd previously participated in it) until the sock turned up to fight them ain't cool. Jr8825 • Talk 17:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No it’s not and the information isn't sourced. The "source" is a globally banned user's interview given to Hareetz and then reprinted by a few newspapers. The above-mentioned banned user is also the author of that listing that editors are trying to correct. Please fully familiarize yourself with the issue. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825 What GCB said, but I suggest this discussion is best to be held at Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#warsaw - it is not an ANI's issue, IMHO. Well, aside from restoring edits by indef banned editor, which edits were part of his harassment campaign which led to his indef and global ban. This is of some relevance, I guess. But my main concern with with Wikipedia:Casting aspersions (the unfounded accusations of tag teaming), for which no apology has been forthcoming. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As I told VM shortly before he filed this, I won't be around much today (UTC), but I also don't have much to add beyond what I've already said about this on my talk page, the hoax list talk page, and in my edit summaries. I think everything relevant is in my recent contribs but let me know if there's anything else anyone wants me to address. Levivich 13:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• One thing I'll add is the way to resolve the content dispute about whether a particular entry should be listed is to come to consensus about an inclusion criteria for the list (with an RfC if necessary) and then see if the entries meet the criteria. The criteria I'm operating under is "described by RS as a hoax," which this entry meets (links and quotes on the talk page), but of course consensus might be for a different criteria. Levivich 19:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue isn’t that we disagree on the merits here. The issue is that you 1) restarted an edit war right as the drama was winding down and more importantly 2) you made an egregious and false accusation that I “perpetuated a hoax” based on… nothing. The latter is a very serious accusation and a personal attack which you refused to apologize for or strike. Volunteer Marek 21:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I said one of your edits in a small way helped to perpetuate the hoax, and I did strike it, which you know, because we discussed that on my talk page. I didn't strike the "minimize the controversy" part but I struck the "perpetuated a hoax" part (diffs and discussion on my talk). Levivich 21:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Um, ok, I guess that’s a slight … improvement. And sure, I’ll drop it, I just don’t ever want to see you accuse other editors of “casting aspersions” or such. Falsely accusing someone of “perpetuating a hoax” is a serious and blockable offense. Volunteer Marek 23:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• To be honest, I think we might want to consider sending Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia to MFD. Its negatives to the project plainly outweigh its extremely limited positives; regardless of warnings, memorializing hoaxes risks encouraging people to create more of them, and by necessity listing anything there requires ascribing intent to editors, which leads to bad blood and WP:ASPERSIONS. And, of course, it has now created massive edit-wars that have spilled out into ANI, which is not worth it for an internal page of such dubious value (and which doesn't clearly fall into any of the acceptable categories in WP:PAGES, for that matter - some leeway is fine if a page has theoretical value and isn't a net negative to the project, but it feels like this page tipped into net negative long ago.) If such a list has actual encyclopedic value, and if appropriate sources exist, we could perhaps have such a list in article-space rather than Wikipedia space, but as far as Wikipedia space goes I'm skeptical that the page's stated purpose of helping us research hoaxes is actually useful today given Wikipedia's scale. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem is the editors not the page. Levivich 14:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, the problem editors who wish to preserve that joke of an entry at the hoax page as some kind of “shrine to Icewhiz” and who appear to think that a new ArbCom case can “rehabilitate” him. It won’t. The guy was banned globally for EXTREMELY good reasons, and there’s no way WMF is ever unbanning him. At some point it’s time to accept reality. Volunteer Marek 16:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • WP is, at least in theory, all about openness and critical thinking. Exposing, recording and learning from our mistakes is part of it. How some community members handle such record is secondary to its immense value to the reader. François Robere (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who notices that while VM takes me to ANI for essentially ABFing, he is ABFing much worse about me? I struck the hoax comments, but he won't strike anything. Is it just me? Levivich 18:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Most of this thread is a BF exercise.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    Worse than falsely accusing someone of “perpetuating” or “minimizing” a hoax? Volunteer Marek 18:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    For example, the way you keep misquoting me, half a dozen times now. Levivich 18:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

    You're being "hysterical" and "divisive", it was six strikes, tops. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:SinglePorpoiseAccount

Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

• "I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"

No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"

This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

• "This is not how you're supposed to handle feedback you asked for."

My using of evidence to make a point is in fact a good way to handle feedback, and there's nothing wrong with calling out perceived WP:DNTL.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"

I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.
• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.
• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.
• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"

This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results".

Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (SinglePorpoiseAccount)

IMHO, you're dealing with an SPA and a Sock-master. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If I had to guess, SinglePorpoiseAccount is probably one of the IPs who was labeled with the SPA template on the talk page, as he created the account in the middle of that conversation and seems to have picked up the conversation where the IPs left off. If I'm correct, this wouldn't qualify as socking. As for the "accusations of misconduct" and the other problematic behavior, I don't see anything actionable there, at least not yet. The "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source" statement sounds a lot like stonewalling, but I wouldn't say sanctions are justified quite yet. Mlb96 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right that does not qualify as socking, but this user seems far too experienced to have just been an IP editor, and I still suspect they are a sockpuppet. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I gather this concerns 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit and its talk. I'll watch that for a short period. Let me know if I miss any ongoing problems such as undue commentary as that can be resolved with a topic ban as they have been alerted to the discretionary sanctions. You would need to spell out what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: It appears likely that things on this page are going to get worse before they get better. BD2412 T 04:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• On the Maricopa County presidential ballot audit talk page - editors at the beginning of this thread noted how Wikipedia does not engage with hot news items per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, and Wikipedia has no DEADLINE. [118]

Then this wall of text, consisting of Hot news items was posted at 15:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC) by SinglePorpoiseAccount [119].

At 21:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC), I commented about this wall of text [120].

Essentially this is disruptive behavior after other editors in good standing pointed out what Wikipedia covers. Also, it could be an end around to post this information somewhere on Wikipedia. I just wanted to point this out. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I want User:SinglePorpoiseAccount to retract their new defamatory statements here about my honesty, experience, and general effectiveness as an editor. I see this as an egregiously unevidenced personal attack.

They are implying that am I the one who sets their reputation on Wikipedia, saying that I lied by calling out their disruptive behavior and that I am now to blame for other editors noticing their disruptive behavior. It's completely backwards thinking, no logic, no responsibility for their own actions.

• Your lies have had a very real effect on my reputation, nobody is taking my edits seriously anymore and I'm getting attacked with references back to this RS/N.
• "You clearly had no intention of representing the actual issue at hand in an honest way. You've deceived all these Wikipedians with your framing and wasted everyones time. This is not how an experienced Wikipedian should handle source selection"
• don't you dare pretend this settles the dispute we had in the thread.

I never said or even implied that the dispute was settled. More WP:BATTLE behavior.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 02:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Apologies in advance for the formatting, I couldn't get it to cooperate tonight.) So apparently I've missed a whole discussion here, and some nice little defamatory statements right in the beginning of this. Lets take it from the top:

Accusations of misconduct made without evidence

• I can assure you that I will not let myself get bullied into going along with whatever sources you pick"
  

  No bullying occurred, only heated debate, if that.

This was my response to have been repeatedly called a liar, in an attempt to make me drop the matter in favor of FormalDude. This was before I knew Wikipedia has its own definition of bullying with an associated page, which I understand to be this one [[121]].

• "Do you seriously think you can get away with lies like that?"
  

  This is gaslighting. My statements were clearly evidenced, and have been backed up at WP:RS/N.

This was my response to receiving a 3-part list of supposed "lies", but FormalDude did not actually prove they were lies in his response. In fact he did the opposite and proved himself wrong by quoting the statements he said didn't exist. Also note that the RS/N was created by FormalDude. More on this later.

• "You've made it clear that you do not agree with me, but stay civil (WP:IUC) and objective"
  

  I have been abundantly civil and objective, certainly more than SinglePorpoiseAccount has.

This is a laughable mischaracterization of both our behavior. I'll admit things got a little heated, but FormalDude was not being civil. Let me give you an example from the edit before that one:

And there's no Wikipedia policy against accusing editors of lying when they are being deceitful.

Doesn't seem that civil to me, wouldn't you agree? My comment about being civil was there in an attempt to deescalate, which is obvious when you look at how the debate progressed.

Evidence of sock puppetry

• This user has very few edits, the majority if not all of them to 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, hence their name.

Wow, who would've thought a new serious account wouldn't immediately go looking to edit lots of pages. The accusation about my name is blatantly meant as a degrading ad hominem.

• Account is not even two weeks old, but knew right off the bat how to use talk pages, indent comments, and use templates like an old pro.

Well I guess I should take "like a pro" as a compliment, but I really have been just an IPA for about one and a half decade now. Back in the day IPAs were just as good as regular accounts as long as you were just editing technical articles and fixing broken links, so I never bothered. But when it got to the Maricopa audit article I found it was annoying to have a changing IP among others who had a single IP, it wasn't immediately obvious who was me and who was someone else. In one instance there was actually someone who got the same IP as me, obviously connected to the same VPN network and behind their NAT. That was the final drop since if things got heated that would be a dangerous situation.

• They have listed policies and guidelines that take a significant amount of time to master, and have gone off on in-depth discussions regarding them.

Again I think I should take that as a compliment, but my previous statement about being an IPA still applies here.

• Policies they've mentioned: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:THISORTHAT, WP:EW, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:IUC, WP:DRR/3, WP:RSP and more.

I don't remember mentioning "WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS", but I might have just forgotten about it. It's been a busy couple of weeks.

Other problematic behavior

• "There is no way I'm going to let that article stay as a source if you try to use it anyway without unanimous consensus from Wikipedians, me included"
  

  This is blatant misunderstanding of consensus and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

That's odd, someone who hasn't been in a consensus situation on Wikipedia for years, if ever, misunderstanding formal consensus? Well, I'd never...

• Falsely claiming AP News has a "conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results"
  

  Fringe, conspiracy-theorist thinking.

This is not what I said. What I said what this:

AP reporting that the audit is pro-Trump doesn't constitute proof; AP is the officially selected partner for verifying election results. Since the audit is investigating the same election results, AP has a demonstrable conflict of interest in reporting errors in election results, after they have previously stated the results are verified.

See how the context matters? Note the qualifier at the end; "after they have previously stated the results are verified". Reporting errors in your own reporting, when you have a reputation for getting your reporting right because of your stringent pre-publishing quality control, is obviously a conflict of interest. Now, if that's enough to actually stop them from reporting those errors is a different matter, but that's not what we're discussing here.

• Framing a fringe point of view from an article as substantial evidence.

I'm actually a little confused by this one, FormalDude linked to their own edit. I can only assume it refers to a statement I quoted from the AZ Central FormalDude linked, to disprove FormalDude's hypothesis that [AZ Central] reported how professional auditors say It’s not an "audit. It doesn’t meet the formal criteria." is an unchallenged statement. Fairly swiftly disproven, if I do say so myself.

Clearly FormalDude is out to get me for not getting is way in a dispute where he wanted to replace the link to Phoenix New Times about the banning of 9 Twitter accounts, initially offered by an IPA, with a link he had offered from BuzzFeed News. In his request to replace it he asked for comments, and I provided mine outlining I thought it had several grave quality issues making it unsuitable for the Wikipedia article in question. As one might imagine, FormalDude was not happy with that. The key bit of context here is that the Maricopa audit page is often questioned in bias byt IPAs, and with me being a recent former IPA I'm inclined to listen to such feedback. Now, BFN has a bit of a history on run-ins with Republicans, so using a BFN article as what would appear to he the dominant source to a claim on that page, wouldn't look too good on Wikipedia's part. Conspiracy theorists will undoubtedly abuse our use of BFN to feed into their conspiracy theories, so it would be harmful to the reputation of Wikipedia. Therefore I would rather we use the more neutrally worded article from PNT as a source. FormalDude then took the issue to the RS/N, where he triumphantly tried to make me look like I was trying to discredit BFN as a whole.[122] It took me until today to figure out that was what he had done, while I was under the impression that it was a formal process to resolve the source selection dispute. In effect, I was framed due to my unfamiliarity with formal processes (IPAs tend to see very few of them and experience none). That incident has already caused real damage to my reputation.[123]

Anyway, this isn't the proper forum to discuss that, I just provided this as context as to why the dispute began in the first place.

FormalDude can choose to delete his statements if he wants, I don't care. I'd rather have a permanent notice about the incident on his talk page, so that I can point to it when Wikipedians try to use this incident against me. Speaking of which I also note FormalDude has a very relevant previous comment on his talk page about lying.[124] I'd also take this opportunity to remind FormalDude about WP:BITE. If this is the sort of response we are to expect from FormalDude when he suspects (wrongly I might add) a newly registered account is a sockpuppet, he is bound to scare off actual new Wikipedians rather quickly and permanently. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I want to point out that SinglePorpoiseAccount had no trouble formatting this edit among many others.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 05:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• We all know that SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk · contribs) is a returned user and their amusing user name is a promise that they will continue pushing their barrow. However, apart from long-and-windy commentary, I don't see any wikicrimes that would justify sanctioning SPA at this stage. I will say that an indefinite WP:ARBAP2 topic ban does not require a high standard of proof of malfeasance—bombarding discussions might be sufficient. Some suggestions for all participants: (1) You don't need to have the last word. A good way to bring a discussion to a close is to stop commenting. (2) A clear consensus overrules a clear minority so if there is such a consensus, just revert conflicting edits with a polite pointer to the discussion showing the lack of consensus. (3) If the consensus is not crystal clear, an RfC should be held to settle the issue. If invited, I would help guide the drafting and running of such an RfC. (4) There is no deadline and don't fret about replying to every edit or comment right now. (5) I will sanction SinglePorpoiseAccount if anything like this edit is repeated (that is the addition of the 8,614-byte comment above). Such walls-of-text are not helpful and will not be tolerated in an area under discretionary sanctions. If you can't make your point succinctly, don't try to make it at all. That advice applies to all participants. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the advice and thank you for finding the account name amusing. I considered some other pun based names but this is the one that stuck, probably because I was being called a SPA as an IPA which I found a bit amusing in itself.[125] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for the advice, Johnuniq, it was well put. I just want to make sure I understand correctly: you are saying that SPA's statements here are not personal attacks, right?  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Of course it's bad but I'm not very useful for CIVIL enforcement (I would quickly indef someone who really breached CIVIL but a bit of venting is to be expected). I would ignore it but keep the diff for use if needed later. Focusing on article content is always best. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• After observing SPA's editing behavior during the short time they have had their account, it seems to me they are not here. This includes the longest running incident of IDHT I have seen, occurring at the RSN [126], [127]. I'll try and post more diffs that are more to the point about that later. I any case, I am guessing they will be NOTHERE going forward. Happy days if they prove me wrong. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I can assure you one of my core intentions with this account is to maintain the reputation of neutrality on Wikipedia. Had I not cared about it then I wouldn't even have brought up the PNT vs BFN issue. The incident over at RS/N was most unfortunate but I genuinely believed FormalDude had opened a question about our sourcing issue and sort of lost it a little when I realized that wasn't what he had done. Regardless I felt it necessary to apologize for the noise on RS/N after requesting it to be closed.[128] SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• with this account Please list your previous accounts - David Gerard (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well it's only been IP accounts, so I have no idea what most of the would be. I'm fairly sure I've had 85.24.253.53, 155.4.14.25 and 85.24.253.29, the first two sometime in 2018 and the latter in January of 2019. Looking at the history of the IPAs I can tell I'm sharing the IPs with other Wikipedians. My edits from those IPs are regarding the Contributor Covenant, more specifically discussing the adoption in the Linux kernel with GorillaWarfare. There was also a small run-in with Jorm, but I eventually decided it wasn't worth my time to convince them and left, which is why I still remember those edits. My other edits were too small for me to remember where they were and I have barely participated on talk pages. I'll post here again if I can think of anything else I can use to identify my old IPs. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I did of course forget to mention 185.5.46.3, 185.5.46.1 and 185.5.46.6, which are the IPs I had just before I registered. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @David Gerard, User:Ryk72 has been the only one defending them at WP:RS/N. see interactions Ryk72 was also indef blocked a while back for being WP:NOTHERE and a sock.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  That account isn't me, you're embarking on a witch hunt. Which I also just learned there's actually a dedicated article about WP:WITCHHUNT. You've been at it for days trying to attack me over a petty sourcing issue, stop it already. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Ryk72: Just thought I'd let you know you're now involved in this suckpuppet witchhunt. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, this[129] seems remarkably churlish. It's more than a little misrepresentative, and casts doubt on the other statements made here. It would be better struck. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They may be "just observations"[130], but observations made with no or flimsy evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. None of the comments I have made at RSN are defending any editor. None of the comments so much as discuss any editor. And either diffs should be provided or that observation struck. My comments at RSN align with the community consensus on the general reliability of the discussed source publication. They are, however, among the few comments in that section to discuss the reliability of the specific source article in the context of proposed WP content - which is the ostensible purpose of RSN. It is my standard practice, when posting a new section at a community noticeboard (as I had done in the days immediately preceding), to then make comment in one or two other sections - to "pay it forward". I have no particular interest in the topic discussed, and no history of editing the discussed article. The "editor interaction" evidences nothing other than that two people happened to comment at a community noticeboard. Raising a block from 2013, which was overturned by a then (and current) Arb as an out of process arb enforcement block, blocking admin has since resigned, and which was a significant factor in that admin not being resysopped, is poor - and, in the context of an ANI discussion of another editor, is a clear association fallacy. As an observation, while facilely true, it lacks any relevance. - Ryk72 ^talk 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Their stupendous and querulous timewasting and conspiracy-theorising at WP:RSN strongly suggests that not only are they NOTHERE, they're not competent - David Gerard (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree you your characterization with the exception of competence. My competence is with smaller edits, like adding previously missing explanations or reading the Wikipedia documentation to fix formatting, not with participating in formal conflict resolution on Wikipedia and certainly not consensus discussions. I was mislead by FormalDude into thinking RS/N was the correct place to resolve the source selection dispute we were having, and if you read the key points I posted over there it should be obvious that it was indeed what I thought was happening.. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:FormalDude is now falsely accusing me of using IPAs after I registered my account.[131] This WP:WITCHHUNT needs to stop, or I'll be leaving Wikipedia by my own volition. I don't know how their behavior can possibly be considered acceptable for an experienced Wikipedian. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Denying it isn't going to help. There's enough evidence to open a WP:Sockpuppet investigation.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  How do you even arrive at that conclusion in the first place? Does everyone who doesn't agree with you have to be a sockpuppet account? If so I have genuine concern for any previous accounts you have gotten banned for sockpuppetry. This is ridiculous, stop wasting the time of admins and let them make up their own mind instead of doubling down every time you don't get your way. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice of name change: My rename request went through and I (formerly known as SinglePorpoiseAccount) am now known as MrPorpoise. MrPorpoise (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to ban SinglePorpoiseAccount

For sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, timewasting and either bad faith, incompetence or both, per the above - David Gerard (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Well I don't know what to say other than you're being duped by FormalDude. I don't think my inexperience with the formal processes of Wikipedia should be a cause for a ban, but if you're comfortable with having that decision on your conscience then there probably isn't anything I can do besides accept that after about 15 years I'm no longer welcome at Wikipedia. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Due to SPA doubling down on their disruptive edits and attempts at manipulating the narrative of the dispute (both here and at WP:RS/N), I unfortunately do not see any acceptable outcome that is not a ban for SPA.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 20:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH. This user has spent walls of text trying to convince us that the AP is not a reliable source, citing their own amateur analysis of an article which they claim evinces bias. This continued after having the facts that this is not how we do things here explained to them multiple times, in detail.

I can understand if a user doesn't grasp how we identify RSes, but a user to whom that process has been explained multiple times, who insists on pursuing their own inept methods, and who does so to support a WP:FRINGE view at such a controversial topic as this doesn't strike me as capable of contributing meaningfully to this project.

Furthermore, while I agree with several others that none of the examples of incivility are actionable on their own or even taken as a whole, they do go a long way towards evincing a WP:BATTLEground mentality.

And that's ignoring the obvious quacking going on here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment our SPA friend is clearly wrong at the WP:RSN thread (and consensus there is clearly against their view), but that isn't cause for a block. I don't see any other cause for a block presented, the diffs at the start of this thread are just needless dramatics over a disagreement. If there aren't better diffs (and Mr. Porpoise doesn't talk themselves into a block) I will be voting in opposition to this proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  They are persistent on spreading falsehoods and purposefully misinterpreting clear Wikipedia policies, as well evidenced by how many editors have had to make repeated explanations about basic guidelines to this user. And there are very valid reasons to suspect sockpuppetry. See:

  1. Their WP:FALSECON attempt here and my response here.
  2. Examples of them doubling down after being polity informed about policy here and here
  3. SPA not disclosing IPs that they used to support their argument (see above). In fact, they actually implied they were not the owner of those IPs to another user (BD2412), saying here that Wikipedia was "ignoring random IP accounts".

  Really I recommend you just look at SPA's authorship of WP:RS/N and Talk:2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit, and you should see why a block is necessary. I would not have come to this conclusion if SPA had once admitted or taken responsibility for any of their serious actions, but they haven't–and that indicates to me that they will resume their disruptive behavior as soon as this AN/i is closed.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 22:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Is this really the place to double down? I thought the bullet points under this heading were purely for leaving final votes, not discussion? SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Discussion that leads to a vote is permitted. Also, procedural arguments are not going to get you anywhere. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Alright, sorry about that then. I just didn't see any discussion under any other vote bullet points, even in other cases, so I didn't want to unintentionally break any more rules. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  How is "I have no issue accepting most Wikipedians think so" possibly problematic? If SinglePorpoiseAccount continues to argue the same points in direct opposition to site policy and their previous statements, they will surely be blocked. If they say they will not do that, that is good. Regarding "IP socking", I really could not care less. If it is necessary the talk pages can be semi-protected. Otherwise, I don't care even if the editor is using multiple IPs (though I assume not). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I can assure you I never had any intention to break any rules, and I am very sorry for any I may have broken. Even though I have experience with common templates and some Wikipedia policy, I am still inexperienced with the formal processes of Wikipedia. If there are any rules in particular you think I should read up on then I welcome any pointers. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  @力: I think you should care that a user was purposefully deceitful about using IP accounts in order to make it seem like more people supported their point of view.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 23:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  Nobody has proved the user was "deceitful" or using IP accounts in violation of policy. And as I said previously, I don't care even if you could prove it; most everybody discounts the opinions of IP editors already, and as noted there is a clear consensus against them at RSN. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support site ban. The username "SinglePorpoiseAccount" alone implies an intent to cause disruption, and also heavily implies the user has edited here before and is familiar with what an SPA is. I've been reading into this incident for the past couple of days; personally, I'd suspect sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion. Patient Zero^talk 00:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  FIY, I have already put in a rename request to have it changed to MrPorpoise. At the time I registered I thought the pun would be found funny, but now I see how that's not how it has been viewed at all. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I find it plausible but inconclusive as to whether this editor has previously edited under another name. I think their issues with accepting the reliability of sources stem from a poor choice of a starting point to edit Wikipedia. Articles on politically charged topics with substantial bodies of misinformation circulating in conspiratorial sources are rarely a good place to learn the ropes of Wikipedia. I would suggest a general U.S. politics topic ban for a minimum of six months, subject thereafter to review of the editor's contributions to determine whether they have demonstrated productive participation and understanding of the rules. I expect that if they are in fact only interested in pressing a viewpoint in a contentious area, then they will be uninterested in editing substantially and for an extended period of time in other parts of the encyclopedia. However, I would not specifically oppose a site ban, deferring to the consensus of editors that there is a problem here requiring some action for resolution. BD2412 T 00:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would support this more targeted proposal first I also share the impression that the evidence is suggestive of socking, but far too short of the threshold of anything substantial enough to ban on such a presumption. It does happen from time to time that an editor contributes extensively enough as an IP to be more than passingly versed on our ecosystem of policy touchstones to be able to site them more or less intelligibly. That behaviour, standing alone, cannot be used as a basis to presume a block evasion or other forbidden use of multiple accounts. I will grant that the claim of 15 years of residency here as an IP, combined some some of the more particular behaviours begins to strain AGF considerably, but, in that respect, if there is a feeling that WP:DUCK has been met here, the appropriate forum to request a checkuser is WP:SPI rather than just a ban on the basis of presumption.

On the other hand, there are some non-trivial concerns with WP:CIR and possibly WP:NOTHERE at work in this case. I do see an editor in Porpoise who is at least nominally making efforts at good faith discussion (assuming we are not being gamed by a sock, which, again, we should pursue the standard sock busting methodologies as that is concerned). I also think their confusion about the mandate of RSN and how that little aspect of the dispute played out looks genuine to me, and lends credence to the possibility that they really are just some sort of advanced amateur here who took their time in doing a deep dive on consensus building process but have been very slowly accumulating knowledge on general bits of policy over a long slow engagement with Wikipedia. I'm not saying that I am 100% convinced this couldn't be a very subtle snowjob regarding their past experience here, but I have enough doubt that I'm inclined to treat this editor with the default level of WP:ROPE I'd advise extending to any other editor who landed here because of strident positions in a contentious area. Therefor I am more amenable to this intermediary sanction to pull them out of the area where their conduct has raised concerns. Mind you, I actually wouldn't even support the TBAN on the present evidence, but Porpoise is asking us to take a lot on faith when there are some real questions as to the possibility of abuse of multiple accounts, and since the alternative would seem to be a full ban, this intermediary approach seems to be a better outcome for them. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would obviously prefer a temporary TBAN over a permanent SBAN, and U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at WP:BAN I came up with an alternate proposal; an ABAN for the Maricopa audit article, time limited for however long consensus determines, and a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude. Let's not forget the core of the issue, as I see it, is still a personal conflict between me and FormalDude and an IBAN would help me keep him at a distance. I admit I still have a lot to learn but I don't think I would make progress as quickly in useful areas for regular editing if I keep having to deal with this conflict. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I almost forgot to mention; I would urge someone to please review the sockpuppet cases where FormalDude has been involved, in a manner which is completely separate from this and regardless of the outcome here. If there have been real new Wikipedians wrongfully banned they need to be found and let back on the site with an apology. SinglePorpoiseAccount (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's all of the sockpuppet investigations I've ever been involved with (grand told of four) so that everyone can see I've only ever been involved in overtly obvious sock puppetry, much like I think is the case here. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons power spells out above. I think the username is funny and should be kept, first of all. SPA is being accused of both having such a good knowledge of policy that they must be a sock, and also "blatantly misunderstanding" consensus. Which is it? SPI is that-a-way, I'm not seeing any actual evidence of socking. The evidence of accusations of misbehavior does not contain accusations of misbehavior except for the "lies" comment (which was bad and should not be repeated but is not sanctionable by itself). Arguing WP:COISOURCE is not pushing a fringe theory or conspiracy theory, and I actually think the fringe/conspiracy/sock accusations against SPA are more problematic than anything SPA has written on the linked threads (including RSN). Fundamentally, we don't ban people for disagreeing with us or holding an unpopular or even bad opinion. SPA should endeavor to avoid writing long walls of text and accusing people of lying; everyone calling for SPA to be sanctioned should be more tolerant of differing opinions. This thread should be closed with no action. Levivich 16:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Levivich - I find their name funny and certainly agree it shouldn't be changed. (If you're offended by their name wait till you find out we have someone named Darknipples here!), SPA has stated they've used IPs prior to creating an account so it would be obvious they have knowledge of various guidelines here, If you're concerned about socking create an SPI, otherwise quit the socking accusations. Lastly as someone who hates walls of text for some weird reason I don't mind theirs... maybe because it's entertaining and worth reading dunno. ... Either way I don't believe we've reached the blocking or banning stage just yet. SPA should stop accusing people of lying etc etc but other than that I see no reason to block/ban. –Davey2010^Talk 20:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I might agree that their username could be a good pun if they weren't an actual single purpose account who has only edited 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Give it a rest with banging the same drum. It's becoming rather boring. I'm well aware of their editing area and you didn't need to point it out for the fourth time. –Davey2010^Talk 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Formal, I agree with Davey on this. The username is a mildly amusing pun, made a bit more poignant by the fact that the pun seems to be accurate at this point.

  Don't get me wrong, I believe it represents an issue, but I wouldn't consider it an issue in and of itself.

  Also, if I saw some reason to suspect that the notions they have regarding sourcing and bias were amenable to change, I'd not support a ban at all. But the vast (vast) majority of editors who have expressed similar notions have been entirely unwilling to adapt to our norms here. I doubt SPA will, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't believe that unless a new user edits a bunch of different topic areas incompetently without any knowledge of our policies or how to work wikitext, they're obviously a sock or an SPA. Levivich 20:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  And I think it's worth remembering that even if they were an SPA, that is not in itself a cause for sanction. Being an SPA has a negative connotation here because it often overlaps with dogmatic attachment to one particular view on that single topic and/or a WP:NOTHERE motivation. But it's far from a per se relationship: an immense amount of work gets done on this project each and every day by editors who, if we look at their current or historical activities, would seem to qualify as what any veteran editor would classify as an SPA. What matters is not the expansiveness of their interests, but whether they apply policy/community consensus appropriately and neutrally to the content and engage in good faith when their fellow editors have concerns. That's precisely why WP:SPA is an WP:ESSAY, not WP:POLICY, a fact that people seem to forget a lot when using the term as an indictment (and I don't doubt that I've been guilty of it a time or two). SPA has taken on a pejorative tonality here because of a cultural presumption that editors who work across a variety of areas are demonstrating that they are here to build the project at large and not advance "the great truth" of one particular topic or protect any sacred cows. But it's important for us all to remember that the relationship is not a straight forward linear one: many exceptional community members have a very narrow focus to their work and many problem editors contribute disruptively and with extreme POV over a variety of topics. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per the arguments made above and my own observations, this had crossed my mind while reading through the earlier discussion here but I held off because I didn’t have any long term knowledge of this contributor or a deep understanding of the context of the dispute. I’m glad that someone with more standing has opened this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose sockpuppetry may be reported at WP:SPI where the claims will be diligently investigated by experienced clerks and CUs, so I will not consider them in this comment. The rest of the comments do not merit sanctions. The worst comment was saying another editor is lying, which may well be uncivil, but neither Wikipedia policy nor ANI enforces parliamentary language upon editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - If there is enough evidence to confirm they are a sock of an active user this is not the proper venue. As mentioned that would be SPI. The user name is not to my taste but if we are going to allow possibly sexist or more offensive names than this, their name is not an issue comparatively. The bad faith accusations by them to others is not great and should be corrected but, past that I am not seeing near enough justification to ban them yet. PackMecEng (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support 6 month TBAN from US Politics per WP:CIR and WP:CRUSH, and would be okay with a temp site ban (1 month?) as a distant second, pending user consensus in this thread. I think an indef site ban is probably overkill at this point. WP:DONTBITE applies...--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose They are a two week old account who foolishly jumped into a contentious political article. Mistakes were predictable and inevitable. What is more surprising to me is that they stuck around and decided to get involved in this ANI report and I think they are handling the criticism better than some of our experienced editors would be if they were the subject of a noticeboard complaint. It just happened to me and it is most unpleasant. Most new editors would have stopped editing and left at this point. If you think they are a sockpuppet, report them at SPI. Otherwise, hopefully they learn from their mistakes like we all did and start working in articles that are less of a flashpoint for discord. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to warn SinglePorpoiseAccount

They have certainly used up a lot of editor time on a non-starter issue. That said, I join those who think sockpuppetry issues should be handled at SPI. Without that lens, this looks like a real scrap between two editors that spilled out into RSN. If SPA had thrown in the towel earlier we wouldn't be here. It seems they have picked up on that message, and are responding to feedback. Can we warn them to avoid WP:BLUDGEON and leave it at that for now? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I have opined above that part of the problem is that the editor dove into the wrong end of the pool, with contentious issues of U.S. politics. They have stated in response: "U.S. politics is hardly my main interest anyway. It just happened to be where I was when I registered and my edits are usually months in between and much more minor than even a talk page discussion. However, when I looked up the banning policy at WP:BAN I came up with an alternate proposal; an ABAN for the Maricopa audit article, time limited for however long consensus determines, and a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude". I think this is a reasonable compromise, though I'd caution that contemporary U.S. politics generally is best to avoid if you're running into steep consensus against your views on what constitutes reliable sources in that area. BD2412 T 05:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@BD2412: If you think this merits a sanction or even a consensus for a warning it would help (me, at least, and maybe also others reading this) if you wrote up a report with the evidence. As the report is worded above it seems largely non-actionable, but I'll admit I'm not really willing to closely read the walls of text on talks myself to dig something out. Judging by some awfully dubious comments, such as this, perhaps there are enough issues for an article ban to be justified, if someone can make a decent report. But this section is not a decent report. (at the same time, it could also just be a series of misunderstandings) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: This statement, also noted earlier in the discussion, is also quite problematic coming from an editor with only a few weeks of history, and in the context of a politically charged topic with a strong fringe view. BD2412 T 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to maintain context, that was in reply to this statement. I'll admit I went too far both in demanding unanimous consensus and in the escalating tone, but I feel like it's important to keep in mind the accusations of lying went both ways.

That said I have since learned the importance of WP:DISENGAGE when a discussion starts heating up and I have no intention of escalating again, the above really is just to maintain context for my quoted statement. I have learnt my lesson and I feel like I have demonstrated at least a basic level of restraint here since I started getting pointers from voting Wikipedians. In addition, while I stand by my opinions of the BFN article, I realize those aren't shared by the consensus of other Wikipedians (as made overwhelmingly evident in the RS/N) and I can't use those as basis to justify which sources to use. My apologies to everyone who has participated in this matter, including FormalDude. I would however stil want a mutual IBAN between me and FormalDude, it seems we inevitably provoke each other and that's no good, neither for ourselves nor other Wikipedians. MrPorpoise (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Darknipples

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

---

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

---

Just going to drop this here for other comment: Special:Diff/1037004023 —valereee (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Really lovely stuff. —valereee (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Better and better. —valereee (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

And another accusation at my user talk. —valereee (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not a good look from Darknipples. Unless you're into that kinda thing I guess . (Sorry had to make the joke.) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 00:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, I get it. Dark nipples are something 14-yo boys fantasize about. Not a thing wrong with that. :D But maybe here on WP, we leave that at home. —valereee (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's inexcusable. I've given them a couple weeks to grow up. If anyone feels I'm too harsh or not harsh enough, feel free to modify. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

This is sad. Way back in 2014, this editor was willing to discuss what they described as "my silly user name. What can I say? I have a relatively sophomoric sense of humor" and I expressed some concerns at that time and so did other people, but I felt at the time (and still feel) that it is not an overt violation of the username policy. This editor has been productive on and off ever since, and was a major contributor to a Good article about an important topic. This editor is not a troll. 78.26 wrote on their talk page, "Valereee was acting in an administrative capacity with concerns regarding your user name." I have problems with this claim. Valereee (who I usually respect) was quite confrontational about their seven year old username, did not say that it is a username violation, and did not offer advice about changing it. I find Valereee's tone quite troubling in this interaction, and not the tone expected of an administrator. This is a real mess, and nobody involved looks good. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I didn't say I was acting in an administrative capacity. I was acting in the capacity of another editor who was offended by this username because it sexualizes women. It's offensive, and I brought it up to that user because I thought maybe, after 7 years, they might be ready to say, "Oh. I guess what looked like snicker-snicker was hilarious when I was 14 now looks -- at 22 or whatever -- like I'm a jerk." —valereee (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I attributed the "administrative capacity" to 78.26, who has apologized below. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328, I did not say I was acting in an administrative capacity. I was acting in the capacity of any other editor. I did not approach that user as an administrator in any way. How is I see you've been queried about your user name before. What I can say is that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care. I'm sure it just probably seemed like a hoot 8 years ago, maybe when you were less mature. Now it's just kind of ugly. problematic? It's completely oriented on how the user name makes me, a female editor on Wikipedia, feel. It approaches women sexually. I am not easily offended, and I'm quite comfortable with sex and sexuality. The user name Darknipples is uncool, and I said that. As a colleague. —valereee (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Those two responses were somehow reverted/restored somewhere in the process and ended up duplicating each other.)

Oh, and by the way? They refactored that into: "I'm ugly. —valereee (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)"

—valereee (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec)Ugh, why was a user name with "nipples" in it ever allowed? Overt or not, it a fricking encyclopedia where women actually edit. </soapbox> Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Men have nipples as well. It could well be completely self-referential in which case who are we to argue? Nipple is a perfectly legitimate word. However I have no idea if it's intended that way, or if there is indeed another intent behind it. Canterbury Tail talk 01:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The user-in-question's name is (IMHO) an intentional provocation. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

((ec x 3) Welp, If I've judged the situation incorrectly, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. The user name is... certainly questionable. The personal attack is troubling. What gets me is that Darknipples made the personal attack, and then made turned it around that accusation against Valereee, making it seem that their own personal attack was the other party's [132]. I was flat-out wrong about the "administrative capacity" comment, for which I apologize to all. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I find the diffs provided by Valeree very concerning. As a non-admin, I would expect a short term block against DN. If this behavior had been levied against me, I would be demanding it. BTW, was this revert appropriate? @Acroterion:, I feel that Valeree should be able to express her opinion of her role in this scenario, even if she is incorrect and she has a duty to comport herself with utmost civility even in non-admin interactions. (I believe Jimbo has said something like this in the past) I still think her right to defend her intended tone is more important.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah I was a bit confused by that rollback. PackMecEng (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I bet an hour of fixing typos it was a misclick. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Darn, missed my chance. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah looks like, I've done it myself many times. PackMecEng (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  That was a misclick. Feel free to restore. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'll hold you to that promise. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  No worries, I figured it was a misclick, just recreated. Now we've got two of them lol. —valereee (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is getting out of hand. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Let's just leave it be before we edit-conflict ourselves to more confusion. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Valereee, by saying that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me you're imputing intentions, and by saying that it's just kind of ugly you are being disparaging. Is there any kind of previous context here? If not, is there something about "dark nipples" that I'm missing? Is it specifically used for women in some cultural context that I'm unaware of (and that could well be, since I'm not a native speaker)? Otherwise, it seems to me that they could just as well refer to a man's nipples? I mean, if the term is indeed used in contexts that sexualize women, it is indeed offensive, and I would entirely understand your reaction in that case. Of course, that the way Darknipples reacted crosses the line in at least two ways (PA, and then turning it around, per 78.26 above) does not need any discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  There's a fetishization of dark nipples among certain cultures. Darknipples has been told multiple times that this is an issue. The fact they continue to use that name, even recognizing it's "sophomoric"...well, it's really hard not to think they simply don't care that it's a problem. —valereee (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Just a note, "sophomoric" seems to be their reason for keeping the username, as they implied they enjoy that type of humor. Seems like a good point of debate might be whether or not that type of humor is allowed for usernames. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  The "sophomoric" comment was made seven years ago, in the context of some self-reflection about the username. Repeating that as if it is something current seems a bit unfair. As I said back then, I think the username is "risque" but not an overt violation of the username policy. I was not an administrator back then, but now, if I saw such a username, I would take a look at the user's contributions to see if they are a troll fixated on breasts and cleavage and bralessness and the like. This is not the case with this editor. I had a number of conversations with them years ago, and came away with the impression that they are a caring person who wants to improve the encyclopedia, who made the "mistake", as it were, of selecting a username that drew negative attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, as well as sexualizing user names. Sexualization of women is an extremely serious real-world problem, and so sexualizing user names are bound to make some people uncomfortable, regardless of the intentions of the user who chose it. Still, I think that less focus on those intentions would have been helpful here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I completely agree, but I would point out that most all people have nipples regardless of their gender. Obviously that's not your point though as males experience much less (if any) sexualization of their nipples. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, I should have said "and so sexualizing user names are bound to be understood by some people as targeted at women, thus needlessly making some people uncomfortable, regardless of the intentions of the user who chose them". In an ideal (or in a future) world, sexualizing user names would be no problem, but in the current one there are just too many bad associations that we could really do without here. By the way, the sexualization of women negatively affects all of us, and it are not only women who may take offense. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 03:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well said, I agree. IMO the username is pretty blatantly sexist. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  I can assure you that men's nipples are indeed sexualized. Mlb96 (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, and people who are affected by that may also unnecessarily be made to feel uncomfortable. But we also need to take account of the fact that it happens more to women, which is relevant because we have a gender gap to fight here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I support the block issued here by 78.26–I don't think it's excessive. This type of blatant refactoring of others' comments (from an editor who's been around as long as DN has) is unacceptable. Talk pages are not Tumblr circa 2012. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 02:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Valereee's comment was "I see you've been queried about your user name before. What I can say is that it tells me I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care. I'm sure it just probably seemed like a hoot 8 years ago, maybe when you were less mature. Now it's just kind of ugly." (diff). That comment is out of line when addressed to an account created seven years ago and a two-week block for a single outburst in reply is ridiculous, particularly given that it is the first block for this user. I would prefer a simpler user name policy backed by a low-overhead way to have the community say whether a user should change their name. Until that happens, it should come as no surprise that an established editor reacts badly to being told that they don't care, and that it seemed like a hoot, and they were less mature, and that it's ugly. We don't know why people choose their usernames but a motivation for some is a desire to normalize certain terminology so that others don't freak out about it in other circumstances. That may or may not apply, and it may or may not be helpful, but it is not necessary to assume bad faith. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Are there any editors who identify as female and think this username is acceptable? Levivich 04:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• Totally inappropriate diffs, appropriate block. DN has accepted the block on their talk page. The only business left over is the username issue. If there's consideration of the username early in someone's wikicareer and it's deemed acceptable at the time, it seems a bit unfair to require them to change it several years later, after they're made thousands of edits attached to that name. That said, I'll add myself to the list of people who do find it inappropriate, and I think that DN should change it even if I'm not quite behind requiring that change at this stage. For maximum consistency from the old name, may I suggest Desknickels, Dukenoodles, Darkneedles, or Dunknobles? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  User:Darknoodles seems usurpable. Levivich 04:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Knipple is Yiddish for a stash of money. [133]; dar is obviously a dialectal form of a German definite article. Dar knipples. The obvious choice. EEng 04:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, several older women I knew as a younger man called that a "foxy pocket". I guess Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, is it? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Foxy Pocket, eh? I really screwed the pooch choosing my username. Huge missed opportunity there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Cullen328, how is it that you knew these older women as a younger man? Were they in transvestite disguise? EEng 15:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Good block. Calling someone's username ugly is not a personal attack, it is a criticism of a username. A valid one in my opinion. Calling someone ugly is a personal attack. Changing someone's post so it looks like they called themselves ugly in their own voice goes well beyond the line into actionable territory. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I also find the username distasteful, but it needs to be reiterated that it is inappropriate for an admin to post such a needlessly confrontational message. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• DP has been unblocked by Bishonen as "time served". I am assuming they spoke to the blocking administrator off-wiki because I don't see it on wiki. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bishonen's comment includes a diff showing that the blocking admin said (above): "If anyone feels I'm too harsh or not harsh enough, feel free to modify." Further consultation would not be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• When searching for “darknipples” (on bing.com), the first link is “Images of Dark Nipples”, with the comment “these images contain adult content”. One click later, you get a quiz: which image should be chosen by this supposedly childish user to illustrate the personal page of User: Darknipples? Pldx1 (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• There is nothing out of line about confronting someone whose username is frankly sexualized in a way that makes me uncomfortable. Imagine if you were in a professional workplace and you stood watching as a man introduced himself to a mixed group as “Hi, I’m Darknipples.” That is almost literally what this is, and I’m actually kind of shocked that anyone could think this is acceptable or that it’s inappropriate for one of the woman present to approach him later and tell him his chosen nickname was offensive and explain why. Or maybe I shouldn’t be shocked. I’ve had the experience of standing up to leave a meeting full of men and had one of them say with a smile, “We hate to see you leave but we love to watch you go,” and realized the rest of those men had all looked at my face to see if I’d react and now were going to watch me turn around and walk to the door. I have no opinion on the block or the unblock. All I wanted was for this user to give a think to their username, and instead they refactored my post in a juvenile way. —valereee (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, if in the first situation you describe it were one man introducing himself as Darknipples in a room where there were as many or more women as there were men, without any structural difference in rang or power between the men and women, I wouldn't necessarily see that as more inappropriate than most other nicknames around here. It would be different in a situation similar to the second one that you describe, with a room full of men who are obviously gleeful about approaching one woman in a sexualizing way. I understand that Wikipedia may sometimes feel that way, and that it generally more resembles the second than the first situation, and that is why I do think that the nickname is ultimately inappropriate here. However, User:Darknipples hasn't done or said the things that you've experienced, and they probably don't deserve to be treated as if they did. Basically, a boatload more of AGF was in order here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I do think it is a bit much that an editor complains that a name offends her only to be met with being told she is ugly, then when she sought out a defense for this she was called various things from aggressive to puritanical. If this was a work environment it would be a hostile one. There is a lot of victim blaming in this thread and a lot of making light of something that should have been taken more seriously. All I have to say on this matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The offending editor was almost immediately blocked and more than a few editors quickly expressed their agreement with valeree's concerns with the username. This thread was taken quite seriously from the get-go, and it is not 'making light' of it to suggest that the OP should have communicated their concerns in a less adversarial manner. Being offended doesn't give one carte blanche to be rude. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

      @Lepricavark, I'm open to the idea that I could have approached it with a milder "Hey, your username is pretty offensive, would you consider changing it?" But that approach had been tried, multiple times, by multiple users, so I decided I'd explain.

      I probably could have made the explanation itself milder, but really, why does the person in the room who is the target of the joke have to be the one who objects to the joke, and do it calmly and in the most measured-possible tone when she's actually quite exasperated to have discovered that this has been going on for seven years? If someone in the room who wasn't the target of the joke had been the one to object, they probably could have gone in without even being annoyed.

      I didn't actually intend to be confrontational. I was trying to explain as best I could why the username was a problem for me and likely other women who might not feel they could speak up. I questioned myself about that, actually...how could this username have been used for seven years? Was it really that offensive? It's just nipples, for gosh sakes...but, no. It's a user name, which every editor they interact with has to deal with, and it's a sexual joke they have to experience every time. —valereee (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The problem with your analogy is that you initiated the interaction with DN. He didn't come looking for you so that he could offend you. Instead, you approached him with a series of bad faith assumptions. While there's obviously no excuse for his wildly inappropriate response (and nobody is making excuses, btw), I genuinely don't understand how you could have expected your first message to be well-received. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    This is a collaborative space where you literally leave your name wherever you go. There need not be formal introductions for one to see darknipple's name on their watchlist, or on a talk page.

    With regards to the name, maybe this juvenile humor was acceptable when it first showed up, but clearly it isn't anymore. The user's reaction was extremely inappropriate, specially for an experienced editor. It was a good block. Isabelle ^🔔 12:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think I agree most with HighInBC's comment directly above. Other than that, it doesn't help that WP:DISRUPTNAME is awfully broad/ambiguous for a policy. Can't WP:RFC/NAME be used for this purpose? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• If you ever again find yourself so hopelessly bored that you begin to think that pestering established contributors about their somewhat questionable usernames (or signatures, that's another one that we get to see here on the regular) would be a good idea, consider instead heading to Wikipedia:Maintenance#Maintenance_and_collaboration_resources. There's plenty of actually productive stuff to do around here. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There's no call for that either. I realize that logical argumentation is probably wasted on a logged-out/banned user looking to stir the pot for kicks, but there's nothing that says Valeree can't express her legitimate objections to a questionable username. I take issue with how she did it, but not with the fact that she did it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
• I see the username as immature and distasteful, and one that I'd expect to see created by a vandal or troll. However, my personal thoughts regarding the username are irrelevant. In the end, I do not see it as a blatant violation of Wikipedia's username policy where administrative action is justified because of the username alone. Could it be seen as borderline? Debatable? Yes, but not blatant.

Valereee, I don't see the act of talking to a user or confronting a user about their username being distasteful and asking them to change it as inappropriate. However, I would've used much different words when doing so. The statement, "I am dealing with a user who doesn't care what I think or feel or how that user name affects me, and doesn't care whether I know they don't care" will certainly be translated as casting aspersions on one's character and will likely result in a negative or heated resposne. It wasn't necessary or productive.

What Darknipples did in response was absolutely out of line, and violated Wikipedia's policies on civility and the use of personal attacks. I'll also add that it was quite an immature thing for Darknipples to do. Simply ignoring the message and not responding to it would've been better than what he/she did. I also think that the block in return was appropriate given the situation, though I wouldn't have made it for two weeks. I find that setting a block of only a few hours (24 hours maximum) will usually get the point across sufficiently in these situations.

In conclusion, the username isn't what I consider productive in relation to building an encyclopedia, but it isn't blatant enough for administrative action to be justified. Valereee's act of talking to Darknipples about his/her username was appropriate, but I believe that the words she chose to use were not. Darknipples responded to the message in an unacceptable manner, and I believe that the block, with time served, is enough. I think it's time that we move on now. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Didn't ArbCom oppose the use of microblocks (eg here), due to WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE issues? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah, then will you please talk to them about it in a way that won't offend them and will encourage them to make a change? Because really when a woman tells you that something is making her and possibly other women uncomfortable in the workplace, you should listen to her. Even if you think she's being shrill. :D —valereee (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

My take? Refactoring the comments of others is wrong, but so was Valeree's comment. There is nothing inherently sexual, or female, about nipples. Most of us have approximately two of them, and they come in a wide variety of colours and shades, like eyes, ears, and legs. DuncanHill (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone really believe this user created this name innocently and wasn't A) trying to get attention and B) trying to skirt the rules? I am not saying they intentionally wanted to offend valeree directly because they didn't seek her out. They joined seven or eight years ago at the age of 14 with a user name that definitely implies something sexual based on a simple google search. Did they do this with intent? Does that really matter? I don't think so. What matters is what image Wikipedia wants to present. Would this name be allowed in a professional setting? Regardless of whether they intended the name to be offensive when they joined they have been here for years now which means they have aged and they should know there will continue to be objections to this user name. We can discuss valeree's assumptions in her initial contact with the user but, ultimately, their response to her comments only leads one to believe valeree's assumptions are correct and this user lacks empathy for their fellow editors and how their actions can affect them. I am not agreeing that making said assumptions was the path that should have been taken but until you have been through sexual harassment, being objectified or worse, assaulted, you really can't understand the position that women face on a daily basis. As editors here, we are expected to act with a certain level of professionalism. It's not always required and sometimes we see examples of where we don't always follow that plan but it is still expected. This user name is immature at best and, at worst, under the right circumstances could be seen as sexual harrassment and I can absolutely understand why valeree acted the way she did. Should he be forced to change his name? No. Should he change his name? If he wants to be taken serious I would recommend it. --ARoseWolf 13:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf: Don't you bloody dare assume that people commenting here in a way you don't agree with haven't been sexually harassed or assaulted. You want offensive? You just did it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

• So just for the record, every single editor who thinks this username is OK is male, do I have that right? And all the women who opined think it's offensive. Am I wrong? Did I miss anyone? If I'm right, do my fellow dude-colleagues maybe want to rethink things a bit hmm? Like maybe defer to female editors on this one, hmm? Wikipedia is known as a toxic environment totally unfriendly to women, why might that be? 🤔 Here's an idea, men: next time this comes up, don't share your opinion at all. Nobody really cares if a man thinks something is or is not misogynistic. Levivich 13:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm surprised to see this comment after a female admin (me) unblocked Darknipples. I didn't comment in the thread, admittedly, but feel free to defer to me anyway, Levivich. As for the username, I've been aware of it for some time, and disliked it, but it never occurred to me to bother the editor about it, and I did not think it deserved Valereee's wording out of the blue after seven years of constructive editing. Bishonen | tålk 14:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC).

• (non-admin comment) It's the sort of username which I, as a male editor, consider both in bad taste and a timewaster; even if it doesn't violate WP:USERNAME. Such names encourage me to check their recent contributions, in case I've just found someone who lives under a bridge and milks billygoats. Narky Blert (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm male & I don't think the username is OK & as I mentioned (above), it's likely intentionally provocative. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom}}

• a female admin (me) unblocked Darknipples. Therefore, everyone can be proud of themselves: Dark is proud of his nipple fixation, Bishonen is proud of her unblocking, while Valereee can be proud of trying to enforce some inclusiveness. And so all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Pldx1 (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

• And thank goodness for the male editors who can decide when this conversation has run its course. "Sometimes in order for there to be space for oppressed people to claim, someone else has to step back." But on Wikipedia, we go a different route. Levivich 15:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The overarching issues here can (and indeed, certainly should) be discussed in other spaces on this project at which it is appropriate to raise questions regarding community culture and priorities in broad strokes. However, this space is expressly reserved for discussing particular and live issues with the behaviour of specific users where said conduct does not conform to existing policies/community consensus. The block (which I for one think was a perfectly reasonable administrative action on 78.26's part, as a WP:2WRONGS matter and given the nature of the PA, regardless of valereee's undiplomatic approach) has been resolved and there seems to be a fairly clear consensus amongst the responding admins that DN's user name does not constitute a brightline violation of the username policy (which, I have to say, putting aside my own opinion on the name, seems to be the only possible outcome if one reviews the current wording of the enumerated criteria of WP:DISRUPTNAME). Valereee has even apologized for her part in the kerfuffle getting a little personal---for which she should be celebrated, since this was definitely not a situation where I think the community was going to be looking to force such a mea culpa from her. As such, there are no live behavioural issues (in the sense of editors not conforming to the expectations of community consensus as codified in present policies) to justify keeping this thread open in this space.

Mind you, I would rather the thread had been closed by someone who wasn't going to do so in such a slapdash manner; this variety of flyby/psuedo-dismissive close is one of the primary reasons I have becomes increasingly convinced that we are overdue to remove NACs as an option here at the administrative noticeboards. Nevertheless, the action of closing the discussion itself strikes me as appropriate in the circumstances. Again, this should not be the end of our community discussion on the underlying issues, any more than this dispute was the start of said issues. But this is simply not the venue for such a longform discussion about the need for prospective change of policies or the broader implications of current guidelines. I suggest the talk pages of the naming policy and WP:DISRUPT, as well as WP:VPP as the logical places to host such proactive discussions. Please feel free to ping me if you do initiate such a conversation, as I do have some concerns myself in this area. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think ... that User:WaltCip should retract her (generic pronoun) closure. Indeed, the letter-soup says that a closure should be rooted in policy, and not in the personal opinion of the closer. But this closure is nothing but "me and myself, the closer, I think ... this and that". There is a reason why the letter soup says that an obviously controversial discussion requires an admin closure. Moreover, I think ... that policy implies that inclusiveness is "academic 1." i.e. "educational, instructional, pedagogical, scholarly, clever, erudite, learned, educated, cultured", but not "academic 2." i.e. "unpragmatic, hypothetical, speculative, conjectural, indefinite, abstract, vague, general, impractical, unrealistic, ivory-tower, irrelevant, useless". A more clever and educated closure is needed. Pldx1 (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

William Selig

@Cwmhiraeth: and @Berrely: trashed all of my William Selig work-in-progress with a admin delete citing WP:OVERQUOTING (redlink)
I want to get a copy of my last revision for User:0mtwb9gd5wx/William Selig 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@0mtwb9gd5wx, thanks for noting the redlink, I meant to link WP:COPYQUOTE, but I forgot the shortcut :). I really don't think ANI was the appropriate place for this. I removed some of the content (not all) you added to the William Selig article because it copied from a copyrighted source that wasn't released under a free license (see Wikipedia:Copying from other websites). I then requested a revision deletion of the copyrighted content, which was performed by Cwmhiraeth. While I appreciate this may have been frustrating, please note ANI is a last resort. You should've at least started a discussion on the article talk or my talk asking why the content was removed. As for getting back the content before the revision deletion, you can maybe ask Cwmhiraeth to email you it, however the copyrighted material cannot be put back onwiki. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what you two deleted, quotes are fair use 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I removed everything you copied from https://www.victorian-cinema.net/selig, which you mostly added in the diff with the edit summary <ref name="victorian-cinema-Selig"/> == Multiscope and Film Company == Magic (illusion) — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the text was copied and pasted from this page; you can plainly see the copyright declaration at the foot of the source page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't the place to say this but... that article has some strange stuff going on. Why are there like twenty-plus citations supporting a single sentence? Why are there a bunch of external links to some PDF copies of patents? Girth Summit _(blether) 13:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment) Those patents (now no longer in the article) look like what are in known the trade as improvement patents - incremental advances over recent developments. They can be useful ammunition if there's a patent war going on (see Motion Picture Patents Company), when every side files every patent application they can think of, in the hope of protecting what they're doing (or might do) - or that something sticks and puts a crimp in their opponents' activities. Been there, done that. (It's too late to investigate now, but I'd wager dollars to doughnuts (1910s money) that at least some of those inventions were made by Selig's employees, not him.)

Notwithstanding that paragraph of WP:OR, lists of granted patents can be appropriate in articles - in their own section. Who would have heard of Hedy Lamarr otherwise?

That'll be $250 please (reduced rate for an introductory consultation). Narky Blert (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Persistent copyright violation by a WP:COI account at Ikea and Talk:IKEA

Coming here because I'm at a loss as to how else to approach this. Ignoring notices, warnings and policy, TomElliott113 (talk · contribs) keeps adding content copied from the organization at which he's employed. Doesn't appear to appreciate WP:COI or WP:COPYRIGHT--the impetus is only to publish his findings here. Requesting rev/deletion of several postings to the article talk page, and possible limited sanctions on the user. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin, uninvolved): I've had a look, and the user claims to have approval from the copyright owner for the text copied to the talk page. Given that the user identifies as an employee of the quoted organisation and asked for a conflict of interest check, I find this claim to be at the very least credible. Revdel might be warranted since no proof of copyright was provided, but I don't see this requiring any sanctions. The user now seems to be trying to go through the proper channels, after being told that this was the procedure, and seems to be trying to be cooperative. Despite the copyright violations, which need to be treated correctly, I think a reminder to assume good faith, and to not bite the newcomers is warranted in this case. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

One is markedly less inclined to assume good faith when the new user is a WP:SPA whose evident purpose is to publish the findings of the company at which they're employed. So much so, they've copied and pasted the same content to Wikipedia three times, suggesting that they're willing to be cooperative to a very narrow point, that point being that we publish their content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies about uploading the same copy multiple times - I can see how that can come across as insistent but I thought it was relevant as a starting point for the conversation and I was hoping we could collaborate on improving it so it reaches Wikipedia's standards. Truth be told I'm not overly confident in my written English abilities, and there are a number of specific technical terms I didn't want to mangle - which have been my main motivations to lean on the language as published and reviewed by our libel lawyers.

As for publishing our findings - well yes, I suppose that is my intention - but as a legitimate addition to the page and certainly not as a means of promoting ourselves. To the extent that I've made reference to ourselves, well, we are the source and while other independent news outlets have reported our findings, the 20-page fully referenced report is our work and hosted on our site - so it seemed to me we are the ones to credit.

The initial copy I posted was a genuine effort to use impartially describe our findings in my own words, but with the more technical bits lifted from the report. I didn't realise how seriously this breached Wikipedia's copyright rules, I thought it was fair use being flagged in case - not a warning. I have had another attempt at rewriting the copy but will be the first to admit I've just shifted the sentences around so it's not verbatim the same as on our site. Please treat this copy as a continuation of a conversation and not as a demand for publication - ideally if one of you gifted wikipedia elves could pick it up and make the changes to carry it across the line that would be perfect, but otherwise feedback is appreciated and I'm willing to have another go. Sorry again for any trouble or offence TomElliott113 (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Multiple issues remain, including whether your organization can be used as a WP:RELIABLE source; of course, WP:COI is of concern, as well. Then, there's the continued attempt to include off-topic content about a Ukrainian oligarch. Your claim not to be proficient with the language is belied by the above. But the most immediate issue is again, copyright. The content you've added--now for the fourth time overall--to the article talk page may be reconfigured, but still appears to lift sentences verbatim from your website. At the very least, it's WP:PARAPHRASE, and I'll request that it be rev/deleted. Again. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• My take is that WP:UNDUE is also an issue. The way to go here may be to add a few sentences to the article, using journalistic sources you provided at the article talk page, TomElliott113. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Gonzafer001 bizarre behavior

Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs) may be a case of WP:CIR. Today he tagged an article I created for speedy deletion [134], without a valid rationale from the criteria. That doesn't seem like a huge problem by itself, but then I looked at his talk page, which is littered with PROD and XfD notices for articles he created on non-notable subjects, as well as notices about managing a COI and a sockpuppetry notice. They've also been repeatedly warned about vandalism and copyright violations. He also has repeatedly recreated an article about the Bellingham Metro News, of which he openly says on his userpage he is the founder and editor in chief. This all goes back to 2016. Their other edits today include stuff like this [135] and [136] as well as spamming a bunch of articles with the "sources" tag when it's not appropriate. In 2019 Doug Weller warned him for incorrectly tagging things for speedy deletion. [137] This editor clearly doesn't understand how sourcing works here, nor has any clue about what should be tagged for speedy deletion or how to correctly do it and it's wasting time and effort of people who know how to do this stuff. ♟♙ (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• As per above, doing NPP today, I have come across a number of erratic tags placed on new articles. My sense is that this editor has insufficient background / understanding of policy to be tagging articles like so. A stop needs to be put to this activity, making unnecessary work for other editors. --Whiteguru (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• I made a judgement call on your article. The older conversations on my talk page are irrelevant, feel free to remove the notice and I will move on, dispute the articles for deletion, I’ve been tagging pages that need more sources. Dispute it.. --Gonzafer001 (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Your judgement is consistently wrong and it's making a lot of extra work for people who have to clean up after your mess. You don't know when or how to correctly use speedy deletion tags and your pattern of past and current misbehavior and competence issues are not irrelevant. This needs to end, because you are causing damage to the project, either through an enforced ban from you using deletion tags or an indefinite block. ♟♙ (talk) 02:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• So me nominating your page for deletion encouraged you to retaliate against me buy surfing through my past contributions and also nominating them for deletion. Isn’t that considered a (WP:COI). Engaging in something with someone whom you have filled a reports against?^{(User_talk:Gonzafer001)} I think we are both in the wrong here and we can use this moment in time to learn instead of censor each other, don’t you agree: instead of trying to censor me, could you reach me to become a better Wikipedian?User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gonzafer001: That is not a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Although other editors have introduced you to the COI guideline in the past you do not seem to have actually read it. As there seems to be a long-term competence issue it's appropriate to discuss it here. Citobun (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

*sorry User: Citobun. I will try to work on improving as an editor.. you gotta start somewhere though. You don’t start off as an expert, it takes time. Some people on here have been here for 17 years.. this is my 5th year. User:Gonzafer001 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you posting from the future? (Check the timestamps.) Narky Blert (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Gonzafer001 was asked to comply with WP:PAID in July 2019 by User:SounderBruce and still hasn't complied. He and his sock have repeatedly been promoting him. They've been referred to WP:NOTABILITY several times yet continue to create articles lacking evidence of notability. And today's tagging was clearly faulty, I have no idea why he thought it was appropriate. He says he wants to become a better Wikipedian but he doesn't seem to have looked at the links he's been given which would have helped him achieve that goal. Maybe a ban from tagging and direct article creation might force them into learning our policies and guidelines, plus of course if they don't declare their paid status they will have to be blocked, but hopefully that won't happen. The ban should also apply to anything associated to them directly, eg the Bellingham Metro News. Doug Weller talk

• Gonzafer001, after five years you're no longer considered "new". After one or possibly two years you may be able to successfully make this excuse, but not after five and certainly not after people have repeatedly pointed you to the appropriate guidelines and policies. Which, as Doug and Citobun say you've shown no evidence of having read and understood. Or you just don't want to follow them. I submitted the draft you created about your company (after it was repeatedly deleted and for which you were warned about WP:COI) because at this point it's spam. You can't write articles here about your own company. From your responses above, I can't tell if you have competence issues or are simply refusing to hear. Either explanation is very disruptive. EDIT: Even after this discussion you are begging another editor to help you get the article about your non-notable local newspaper from draft to article [138] - ♟♙ (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was very much tempted to indef per NOT HERE/CIR especially with EnPassant's link above, but I have left a final warning and will not hesitate to block Gonzafer001 myself. Star Mississippi 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Gonzafer001 is indefinitely banned from 1) New Page Patrol, 2) Tagging ANY content on Wikipedia for speedy deletion and 3) Creating new articles on any subject with which he is connected.

• Support - As proposer. ♟♙ (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Editor is wasting everyone's time, at best, with this behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support While I have not analyzed this in depth, this appears to be a moderate remedy for a clear-cut problem. Clarity should be provided that they can appeal it and when. Even better if the ban could auto expire in two years, appealable in 1 year.North8000 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose something must be done, but this franken-proposal isn't it. Gonzafer doesn't have New Page Patrol permissions, so there's no reason for a ban on that. I strongly encourage Gonzafer to install Twinkle for any future speedy-deletion (on account of it saving time and making it easier for others to review edits), but that's not the type of thing ANI is in the habit of requiring. (also I'm not sure if Twinkle works when doing mobile editing - perhaps the WMF can work on fixing that.) Regarding COI creations - there may be a need for this editor to use AFC. I'm not opposed to requiring Gonzafer to use AFC for article creations where a COI is involved. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  力, I use Twinkle on my smartphone (using Chrome in desktop mode). Aside from naturally being a bit fiddly due to the size of the screen, it works fine. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  力, I'm a little confused by your response... this is someone who has shown over the course of several years that he doesn't understand the very basics of how processes here work, seemingly refuses to read and attempt to understand them, and you want to give him additional tools to apply speedy deletion tags??? Editors are expected to understand how things work before using automated or semi-automated tools and those who misuse them routinely have them removed (including Twinkle). I think your proposal would inflame this situation rather than resolve it. As for NPP, he's doing it somehow, regardless of his permissions, because he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day. Bans are on behavior and don't necessarily need to involve removal of tools. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I see a new editor with a history of COI issues, but otherwise trying to improve the encyclopedia. If Gonzafer insists that the clear feedback here is not an opportunity to improve but instead complains (more) that people are "trying to censor" him, this may end with a full site block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  He's been here since April 2016, to me that is no longer a new editor. Just saying... ♟♙ (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment agree that this isn't the perfect solution, but now he's broken his sig so that you can't reach his talk and claiming he didn't, doesn't inspire good faith. He's a time sink, who hasn't proven to be a net positive to the encyclopedia Star Mississippi 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, once I saw that I no longer knew if he truly doesn't understand the basics, or is just trolling. ♟♙ (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - This Editor is wasting everyone's time. He is playing Admin in comment, trolling editors and acting daft. Agreed, he mass-tagged a number of newer articles the other day causing a lot of work which will have to be undone, eventually. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

BLP issues at Fer Niño

Mass attack that merits page protection, including personal attacks amid the editing carnage. Perhaps some rev/deletion is in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've been personally dealing with those vandalisms. Requested temporary protection at WP:RPP, as attacker(s) used multiple IP addresses and accounts. I think it should be enough. I've not spotted revisions which would qualify to be WP:REVDEL-ed. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for trying to keep things in line. I hate to post specific links to such edits, but one such example [139] is close to our line, if not over it. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • And everything added by this brilliant account [140]. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• So many revdel's, so little sport. I think like 50 of em. Eep! El_C 02:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• El_C, thank you. I think the quality of discourse has gotten so coarse that many of us grow numb to this kind of relentless defamation. I don't. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Anytime. It's, indeed, disconcerting that in the span of less than 24 hours, there were over 50 edits that had to be revdel'd. Where are the cyber police when you need em? Oh wait! El_C 03:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I gather the gentleman did something very unsporting, and was paying the price the Wikipedia way. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Ref, where are you? Oh, right, got run over by Cow Man. That's about par for the course... El_C 03:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Requesting block on IP due to promotion

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

---

User:2409:4064:B14:F38F:0:0:2794:A0A5. This IP continues to advertise or promote (after 4th warning).----Rdp060707|talk 05:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Persistion addition of unsourced contents by an IP

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

---

This IP address kept adding unsourced contents to many BLPs. This IP was warned for 4 times in this month, especially for adding unsourced edits. Also according to their talk page, they also’ve added biased contents into articles. In addition to that, they’ve disrupted Wikipedia for 4 years since 2017. They were warned by other editors but they still continued to disregard editors’ warning and continued disrupting the encyclopedia. And the final thing you’ll notice if you look at this IP’s talk page, they used to be block from editing twice because of their disruption on Wikipedia. Definitelyduke255 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Their editing history this month suggests an out-and-out troll. Any diff would do, but the three edits to Sigmund Freud are typical. Narky Blert (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive Editing (Multiple Unsourced Alteration of Financial Data) by User:SimpleIndian

I believe I'm seeing violations of the WP:Disruptive editing policy by User:Simpleindian (Special:Contributions/Simpleindian). Since I'm unfamiliar with the reporting procedure, I'll be brief and let an expert look into it. Almost daily, the user has been posting unsourced alterations of financial numbers such as profit margins and market capitalizations for such major players as Tata, Jio, Apple, Nike, and the Bombay Stock Exchange. Given the tendency for such activity to interfere with financial markets, I thought it best to report this at once. Thank you for looking into this. 67.0.25.87 (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Self-promotion by User:Nidmjaynagar

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

---

User:Nidmjaynagar is doing self-promotion on his userpage. Peter Ormond 💬 09:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Immed block on 190.122.185.170 please

Can we get an immediate block on 190.122.185.170 (talk · contribs) based on this transphobic edit summary, not to mention their two other edits. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Already revdel'd; good; they should probably be blocked as well. Mathglot (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Tried to block, says already blocked. Don't see a block. I think this happens when there is a global block> HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If there was a global lock, or range lock, it should show up in a little red bar on the top of contribs, it does not.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain, it's an auto-block. Ran into a similar case recently, where I was able to unblock and the re-block the IP. Not being able to explicitly block an auto-blocked IP may be a recently introduced "feature". Favonian (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I was indeed able to unblock and subsequently to reblock for 48h.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• That requires an e-mail to WP:EMERGENCY by my reading - I'll do so now. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The same person has been running around doing the same thing on Favonian's and Bonadea's talkpages. They apparently think we all sit in one place and conspire. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • ... and here we are. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Favonian, Acroterion, it's probably that Indian editor who's been harassing Bonadea for years. Keep forgetting their name. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

        @Drmies:, Prob.ly Rajeshbm (talk · contribs · logs · block log)? Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) Oh, I see; and a whole sock army... Mathglot (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

        @Drmies: you are thinking of Nsmutte (talk · contribs · logs · block log) – no, I'm sure it isn't him. He has made some rather vile attacks over the years, but his writing style is... unique, shall we say? Idiosyncratic, anyway, and this one doesn't write like Nsmutte at all. Rajeshbm is another user from India, but the issue with that sockmaster was more to do with UPE and promotion of various celebrities, if I remember correctly. --bonadea contributions talk 22:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just fyi and for the archival record, this is almost certainly the same user as Correct grammar is important (talk · contribs · logs · block log), responsible for this transphobic attack with violent threats; already indef'ed by Drmies. Mathglot (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding these aliases for the record:

• Trapkemp (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Bedsidle (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Dozesorval (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Mathglot (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Is 103.94.121.206 the same person? Range blocked as an open proxy, but still able to use their user talk page – could their edit there be revdeled? --bonadea contributions talk 09:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Grawp, btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

God, they're still around? Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and honestly it's hilarious to see that even after a decade and a few topic-area hops his MO has evolved less than a Torkoal holding an Everstone. This is just sad that he's utterly incapable of learning anything meaningful. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 07:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

87.55.132.96

First, you have the user making unexplained disruptive edits [141][142]. Next, they abuse another IP to evade scrutiny. [143]. Could anyone do something about this? Thanks. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, I'm confused - those three diffs were all the same IP, have you got the right ones? Can you also explain what is disruptive there? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit Fixed the third diff. It looks like there's a bug with "cur."  Self-trout They're removing lots of content without explaining, that's what's wrong. --Firestar464 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firestar464, so, from a quick skim, it looks like they are removing the 'untitled project' sections in that table, alongside making a bunch of other changes, is that correct? Maybe just revert any changes you disagree with and leave a talk page message, not sure there's any admin intervention needed yet. Looks like the article gets a lot of attention from a bunch of different IPs, it's not clear that there's any attempt to evade scrutiny. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, IDK what I was thinking.  Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough Firestar464 (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP 172.101.221.42

172.101.221.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Purely disruptive since May 2020 - seems to be a static IP almost all edits over the last 15 months are consistently of similar themes: either an obvious POV [144], [145], [146], [147], or random BLP attacks [148], [149]. Lots of warnings on talk page. Can they be indeffed as it’s static? DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, I agree that this looks static. Indef blocks for IPs aren't really a thing, but since they've been doing this intermittently for so long, I've blocked for a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Outlander07 Nair vandal + ip gaming at 2409:4073:188:816:BC56:BC50:3785:213B series

Outlander07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Outlander07 has been blocked in Wikimedia commons for ip vandalism and harassment[150].

Every sock reported here is closed without investigation (and even alleged the reporters as vandals !) as he is able to misunderstand admins and check users as he is a neutral editor. if you check his edits he behaves to be neutral but is a Nair vandal who attacks thiyya,ezhava and Christians, maybe at sometimes he do a Nair vandal revert to maintain as a neutral in front of admins. He is vandalizing many articles, from these ip series, from maybe from another device.[151][152]

see his loggedout vandalisms : [153] [154] [155] [156] [157]

See also his initial all edits, all on Nair caste [[158]]

clearly Shows here he is a Nair ethnic vandal who is here to promote and protect Nair pages [159]. He said there : Who the hell are you?You are trying to defame the same Nair community by providing false statements even though you are from some other community than kshatriya,Nair,Ambalavasi.I know this is your cheap ajenda.Keep it in mind that the history cannot be disrupted by some idiot like you.

I request a thorough investigation on this without any prejudice or privilege given to the user Outlander07, and block this Nair caste vandal who is disrupting Wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.194.252 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This IP has been making repeated and unsupported claims that Outlander07 is a sockpuppet for days, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 for reference. --Jack Frost (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked. I probably could make this an ARBIPA block if I felt like it, but the message here alone is blockworthy on its own. The lack of self-awareness in the rant above is depressingly typical for India POV warriors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Passerby note as the clerk who processed these cases: This is an exact copy-paste of the edit request the IP made at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Outlander07 (not sure why they made it an edit request since the page isn't even semi'd yet, though it probably should be). The IPs comments are also near-identical to those made by a registered user on commons. Not sure where this vendetta is coming from, but it's one that has been ongoing for a while, and the recent reports are all unconvincing. --Blablubbs (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've left a notice on Outlander07's Commons talkpage, as is predictable the admins over there are completely missing the forest for the trees. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Transphobic/homophobic_personal_attacks. Daniel (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

IP Block Evasion (again)

The IP User:1.46.19.111 is by single-purpose editing behavior a block evasion, again, of rangeblock User:2001:FB1:10:0:0:0:0:0 ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment) Also I look at their edit history and I’ve seen that they disrupted Wikipedia for a while by editing unnecessarily. I think block should be anonymous only and block length should be around 6 months. Definitelyduke255 (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Topic-ban violation by user 'BunnyyHop'?

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

---

In March 2021, the user 'BunnyyHop'[160] was given a 6-month topic-ban for "Marxism/Leninism, broadly construed". Earlier today (five months or so after the ban onset), the editor made these edits to the page for Cuba[161][162]. The edits are made in an article for a country with a Marxist-Lenist regime and ideology, and the specific content that the editor is removing is explicitly about the Marxist-Leninist regime of Cuba (the editor is removing peer-reviewed academic descriptions of the Cuban regime). The editor explicitly mentions 'Soviet and Communist Studies' on the talk page, which shows that the editor is aware that the content in question pertains to Marxism-Leninism. Several questions:

1. This surely falls under the topic ban?
2. In fact, isn't it precisely what the user was topic-banned for in the first place: whitewashing Marxism-Leninism as an ideology and whitewashing Marxist-Leninist regimes?
3. Doesn't this (coupled with the fact that the editor has barely edited anything else during the topic ban duration) suggest that the user has not learned any lessons from the topic ban and intends to immediately resume the tendentious single-purpose editing on Marxism-Leninism when the ban expires? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this falls under the topic ban. No opinion about 2, but the topic ban must be extended (technically, made indefinite with an appeal not earlier than 6 months).--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of their topic ban. Based on their comment on their talk page, the editor seems to think that August is six months after March, instead of September. I think the topic ban should be indefinite, appealable after six months, and that the specific date should be mentioned when the topic ban is extended. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, Snooganssnoogans, there you go: if Ymblanter and Cullen328 agree it is, then that's what it is! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Why? I think we often have similar opinions. I would easily name a dozen of users I would be surprised to agree with, but certainly not Cullen328.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just because I disagreed with Ymblanter on one matter yesterday does not mean that we disagree all the time. I think Ymblanter does good work almost all the time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Y'all are reading way too much into this. I had no idea you were disagreeing on something. The point is that if two experienced admins think it's a violation, it's likely a violation. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I overlooked the amount of time the topic ban was; I thought it had ended two days ago. It wouldn't make sense for me to wait five out of six months and violate that the topic ban. Nonetheless, I think you're stretching it a little bit, but that's something the community can clarify. If I was topic banned from liberalism/conservatism, editing the page of such countries, even if it related to repression, would definitely be difficult to declare if it is under the topic ban. This only qualifies if you suppose that the more broad guiding ideology of a country is directly related to that country or the content in question. If one believes that ideology is related, it would be within the topic ban; if not, it would be outside. There's no consensus in RS about this.

Nonetheless, I am astonished at how you're describing my comment here. I didn't "remove peer-reviewed academic descriptions". I reverted content to the status quo (before your addition) because I found many problems when I was checking the sources, and I pointed those problems out on the talk page, as per your diff, so we could discuss them. I'm not going to describe them, but they can be found here. If you believe that my verification of sources is "tendentious", I don't know why you say concretely where the tendentiousness is, instead of assuming that as true based on my topic ban. I made an effort to have much better collaborative behavior now that I thought my topic-ban was over, by being concise and not having any WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:WINNING behavior. I tried to create a healthy discussion by concretely pointing out problems I found in sources and what different reliable sources say, but it's a bit disheartening to think that my topic ban might influence the will of other users to try to build consensus, or that I'm on a mission to "whitewash" stuff when I simply want to abide the neutrality rules in an environment prone to systemic bias, which made in the past my approach towards editing less cooperative; something I now understand clearly and really want to avoid, because it's truly not the best way to neutrality. It's going to be grievous for me if my neglectful time counting results in a larger topic ban. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 18:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The topic ban says "broadly construed" and you are trying to construe it narrowly. Your comment at Talk: Cuba is an unambiguous violation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Because there are just so many Marxist-Leninist -leaning editors running amok, we should definitely come down extra hard here. Terrorism cancelled! El_C 18:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I'd submit that bunny-hopping is super-cheap. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but when I have my trusty TMP, no jumpity-jumpity needed. El_C 19:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• At this point, everyone just ignores my antics. I respect that. El_C 19:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. It's up to the banned user, and only the banned user, to respect the stated bounds of the topic ban, which was "all articles related to Marxism/Leninism". It's not "difficult to declare" at all: Cuba is a Marxist-Leninist country -> you edited the article about it -> you violated the ban. Someone said this better than me a long time ago, but when you're topic-banned, you don't go around testing the edges of the ban to see if anyone notices or what you can get away with, you steer well clear of the topic, such that if anyone says you violated it, we'd call them a fool. I think you made an honest mistake here with respect to the timeline of the ban, I'm an accountant and I count months wrong all the time, but from your own words you knew that this would have been a violation of your ban if it were still in effect, which in fact it was.

I suggest as resolution that the ban be made indefinite, and appealable at any time after the original duration (roughly one month from now). In other words, in order to avoid confusion, your ban will not expire, you will need to convince the community that it is no longer necessary. Does that seem reasonable? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this might work.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

When Drmies decided my sentence, he said he didn't want to make it resemble capital punishment, and gave me a second chance, in a time when disputes were long and ugly. I'm very grateful for your understanding and reasonable proposal. I'm going to use the appeal in a month because I'm ready to start anew, with the same cooperative spirit I had when I first commented on the country's talk page :) --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• My concern is that BunnyyHop made a handful of edits between 5 and 10 march immediately following their TBAN, and was then inactive until their return - on the day they believed their TBAN finished - to jump right back into editing in the area from which they were TBAN'd. They certainly haven't done much to suggest they have any interest in contributing to any other area of the encyclopedia except the area from which they were banned. They note (above) that the original TBAN included an appeal option after 3 months because it wasn't designed to function as "capital punishment" (eg. killing their contribution generally just because of topic-specific sanctions). But their own decision to take a wiki-break effectively turned a TBAN into a BLOCK. That's their choice, but a single-minded focus like that is likely to make a ban appeal very challenging and so the above solution (while well-meaning) may have unintended consequences. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is apparently an accidental TBAN violation, but it is certainly a violation. When a topic-ban is imposed, the intention is that the time away from the topic area will lead the editor to improve their skill at constructively editing the project, or to contribute in other areas. However, sometimes, what happens is simply delaying the disruption. Some editors simply stay away from the project until the ban expires, and that is not encouraged. In light of the technical violation and the evidence suggesting that BunnyyHop is both eager to return to the behavior that led to the initial topic ban and uninterested in other contributions, I think a new six-month topic ban (this time explicitly stating the end date) is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111 and 力: I only took a break from enwiki, but I continued to contribute to other parts of Wikipedia. I just didn't find anything outside of the contemporary history (or politics) topics that interested me and that was needing work here, so I decided to take a break on good terms. It just so happened that I opened that specific page, saw such a paragraph, and when I checked the sources things didn't add up. I checked the dates, thought my topic ban had ended two days earlier and decided to leave a comment with the problems I found. Why are you're saying I'm eager to return to the behavior that led to the initial topic ban? Was my comment on the talk page bad? How would I approach such a situation, then? I thought I made had made a good comment to be as collaborative and productive as possible. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 01:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The ban discussion claims you push a personal and positive viewpoint of anything related to Marxist Leninism, and your source-less opposition to article content making the fairly non-controversial claim that There are elections in Cuba but they are not democratic suggests that will continue. I may yet be talked into supporting an indef TBAN with appeal after 6 months. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@力: My opposition was not sourceless. I linked this article on a peer-reviewed paper that states otherwise. But that was later on; in the beginning, I checked both these articles, whose references are unpaged, and I couldn't find anything that verified such phrase. I stated this right at the beginning, that "I have tried my best to check where in those references their respective phrases are located". Unfortunately, Snooganssnoogans' reply did not contain any quotation or page. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• You're absolutely free to have a wiki-break, and on your own terms. My concern is about the singular focus; so singular a focus - in fact - that a fairly narrowly worded (in my view) TBAN left you with nothing of interest to edit elsewhere. Such that for you, a TBAN was effectively a BLOCK. You've acknowledged the edits on your return were in breach of your TBAN (I think) but made them because you mistakenly believed the ban had expired. Cool, that happens, and I don't care about the substance of the edits for that reason. But if you come to the community in a month and claim you've learned from your mistakes and will contribute productively elsewhere (rather than focusing on the area and editing that got your banned in the first place), no amount of good faith will make up for the fact that all evidence is to the contrary. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Thank you. But can you be more clear on what you mean at the end? --BunnyyHop (^talk) 02:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

We're done talking here, I think. You can discuss this elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

IP range 88.232.168.0/21 and 85.107.107.46/21 continued disruptive editing of football articles

I believe all edits under the two IP ranges is the same editor as they do the same disruptive edits on football related articles. The edits will either increase the size of the non-free logo in the infobox, will edit the dates on the establishment or dissolvement of the club, or just remove information about the club. You can see this has been an ongoing thing using a range of IP numbers, so was hoping there maybe a way to topic ban from football articles or some other way to discourage the IP from these edits? — NZFC^(talk)(cont) 20:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked both ranges. Looking at the contributions, all of their edits going back a few months have been reverted. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Mspaintist

Edit war at Artem Dolgopyat. User:Mspaintist (also anonymously from his two IPs 109.65.11.107 and 79.178.19.156, which make accompanying edits on the user's other contributions elsewhere) repeatedly removes information on Dolgopyat's ethnic background along with numerous supportive sources in which his parents in separate interviews clearly describe their backgrounds with citations provided in bold text (e.g. [163]). Attempts to discuss this issue with the user ([164], [165]) led nowhere, with further removals of text and sources. The situation has seemingly reached a dead end and requires administrative intervention. --Simulacrum (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Good luck with it--on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Well, as expected - no luck at all on the talk page, not even a reply. And is it OK for one user to use two accounts (User:אלקסנדר, User:Mspaintist) and 3 IPs to revert information strictly based on sources along with the sources? There's no way out of this situation. --Simulacrum (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Long-term disruption at Rachel Brookes

• Rachel Brookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• IPv4-DoB-21August1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• George Parr 21Aug1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IPv4-21August1974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plus a boatload of IPs

• Owen Parr 77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The history of both these articles dating back to August 2020 is an edit war between the two groups above. The three accounts with the date in the name are obviously the same person, and presumably they are also the IPs as well. When not making useless edits they are attempting to add a poorly referenced date of birth. On the flip side, there's Owen Parr 77 who is a SPA who seems to revert every change made to the article, even reverting edits which appeared to improve the article as well as the many bad ones. I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but this would appear to be a BLP with long-term problems in need of a solution. FDW777 (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is weird. I'm investigating further back, I see George Parr (Cricketer) which matches one of the other obvious usernames, and there's a creepy Twitter account being linked to from edit summaries. I expect I'm going to be blocking quite a few accounts in the next few minutes, give me a moment. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  OK, so from what I've seen, I believe this is an intentional campaign of harassment to get private information about the subject of the article published on the article. It has been going on for about a year, involving multiple IPs and SPAs. Owen Parr 77 is also an SPA, but they appear to have been working to counter the attempts of the person who has been doing the harassing. I note that an account was created in the name of the subject, which tried to get the article deleted - I have no way of knowing whether that aws really her, or someone acting on her behalf, but if someone was harassing her on Wikipedia (and, apparently, on Twitter), then seeking deletion would not be surprising.

  I have blocked all of the accounts that have been trying to publish the private information, and have performed a whole bunch of revisions deletions. I have also semi protected the article for a year. I would be interested in learning what Owen Parr 77's connection with the subject of the article is - it seems clear that there must be one - but since they have been doing nothing but removing obvious BLP violations (and perhaps occasionally been a little trigger happy with the reverts, which is understandable), I don't intend to apply any sanctions to them.

  As an afterthought, it is very possible that the article ought to be deleted. There are three sources in the article at present - one is a Wordpress blog, and the other two are articles by her, not about her. As a journalist on a national broadcaster, there is a clear WP:SIGNIF claim, but the current sourcing does not demonstrate a WP:BASIC pass, I'll leave that for someone else to evaluate though. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Add - also tidied up the disambiguation page, and put pending changes on that for a year - there hasn't been quite as much disruption there, but pretty much every edit over the last year has been related to this. If it persists through IPs, it should be semi-ed as well. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  One last comment - I've had some discussion with Owen Parr 77 on their talk. Based on their editing (i.e. they have made no edits at all aside from removing private information from those articles), I see no reason not to believe they are being earnest about who they are. I've notified Trust and Safety about what does indeed seem to be a harassment campaign across multiple platforms, of which we are just one. I've seen some of the creepy stuff on Twitter, apparently there is more of it elsewhere but I haven't gone looking for it. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Homophobic abuse on Wade Keller edit summaries

An admin may want to change the visibility on edit summaries left by an IP on Wade Keller.[166][167]LM2000 (talk) 10:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

nb, the content in question was originally added by Cloudbearer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indeffed as a wrestling socktroll. 51.7.144.73 (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted the edit, blocked the IP for 31h and hid three edit summaries. No opinion on content they were adding.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Now also discovered and reverted vandal edits of the same ip from 1 August--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing

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

---

Stevenmevans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I suspect the user named above is involved in paid editing without valid disclosure under the WMF Terms of Use (WP:PAID). The user was already informed/warned a few times about the necessity of making such a disclosure. The user edits articles related only to the specific author's agent (Eve White) and their behaviour looks like it is being done for promotional purposes (e.g. adding external links to articles' bodies). The person with a similar name to the user's username has recently started working for the Eve White agency - according to the news: [168]. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The singular focus on this obscure literary agent is certainly suspicious, as is the link provided and the user sandbox stating "Intern at Eve White Literary Agency".--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

For info: Discovered this after I put a speedy delete on the draft and a paid editing notice on the draft's talk page. 86.162.136.151 (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• The user has attempted to declare their COI.[169] Bishonen | tålk 13:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC).
  • Clearly one of many young people who are given a job to do in the belief that it's menial and requires no skill or previous knowledge of Wikipedia. No action necessary at present. Deb (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

    Deb, have I ever told you that you're awesome? You just cut straight through all our acronym mumbo-jumbo to the heart of the matter. Kudos. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Abdullah saeed al as-sheikh

Repeated vandalism in Bangladesh MHM School & College

Issues

1. WP:UNSOURCED, but also per 2. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

I don't have roll-back option. Please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slake000 (talk • contribs)

Reverted and watchlisted for a bit. Let me know if the article needs to be pushed back a bit further. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

All good mate, that will do, thanks. Slake000 (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Problem editing pattern by Kevin McE

I am asking for some kind of resolution here. What that resolution is, will have to be decided here at WP:ANI.

Kevin McE's approach to errors has been years in the making, the "my way, or the highway" approach. My first experience with this person was December 2018 Talk:Kalākaua coinage, section Chief Engraver of the United States Mint. What had preceded this, is that Kevin McE had decided to uncap job titles, which were official US Treasury titles. He was reverted by Wehwalt, and the scenario was repeated. After this, I forgot all about this editor.

Since 2018, I have not crossed paths with Kevin McE, and his latest behavior has nothing to do with any of my editing. I feel like DYK, its admins and other editors, are currently under attack by Kevin McE. There is now a spat initiated by this user over multiple pages, because of a main page DYK hook. Please see:

• Talk:Alica Schmidt

• 90 minutes after I notified Kevin McE about this discussion, he has inferred an editor on this Alica Schmidt talk page shows "the height of irresponsibility, inconsistency and cowardice" Diff 1 This is not right to malign the character of other editors. It is evident from that latest addition to that thread, that he was already aware he had been reported here. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• User talk:Schwede66#Alica Schmidt at DYK
• User talk:Kevin McE#August 2021
• Wikipedia talk:DYK#Alica Schmidt appearance at DYK

If I understand everything that is contained therein, the main page error occurred because of a change made by the Olympics, and no one at DYK was aware of it. Nevertheless, DYK takes responsibility for its errors. We do our best to correct errors as soon as we can confirm an error has indeed been made. But the attitude by Kevin McE is not tolerable. This seems to be his pattern of editing. It is abusive, and Wikipedia editors as a whole should not be subjected to this. — Maile (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• With regards to the items on my talk page, I did not engage with Kevin McE on the issue that he raised; I never do as a matter of principle when I'm at the receiving end of an attack. Over the course of three replies, I have tried to communicate to the user that their way of communication is unacceptable and that we will only have a discussion on the subject matter once their problematic communication style has been acknowledged. In the third post I stated that without an apology, there won't be further communication from me. Despite that, Kevin McE keeps posting on my talk page. What I learn from that is that Kevin McE lacks an insight into the abusive tone of their communication. That is indeed a problem. I'm not aware that I've come across this user before and I haven't had a look at their history, so cannot say whether there's a pattern. If this isn't a one off but happens with some regularity, a block would be in order. Running around and abusing fellow editors is not on. Schwede66 21:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• There is a similar attitude on display at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Misattribution_of_Altblurbs, where Kevin McE is insisting that no-one except the nominator should be allowed to edit the ITN nomination template, despite multiple editors telling him it is common practice for others to propose alternative blurbs there, on the grounds that it is akin to altering someone's talk page comment and linking to Wikipedia:Vandalism[170]. His attitude is that, even in an area of Wikipedia with which he is unfamiliar, he is right and everyone else is wrong. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think that Kevin McE's conduct in the threads presented has been very poor. Yes, a mistake was made that allowed incorrect information to be presented on the main page. Yes, that's a bad thing. However, when presented with a situation where an colleague has made an honest, you have lots of options. You can ignore it, and hope it won't happen again. You can point it out to them in a friendly way, and hint that a wee check next time might be a good thing. You can point it out to them in a very formal way, and ask them not to repeat the mistake. Or, you can go to their talk page, openly chastise them, and tell them that their mistake implies that they have very little understanding of what happens in sports, and an indifference to the factual accuracy of what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia. I would suggest that the latter is very much the nuclear option, which would be entirely inappropriate unless the person you were speaking to had shown a repeated disregard for factual accuracy in DYK hooks. To address an experienced and respected editor in that manner over a single mistake is unacceptable. I'm not sure whether sanctions are required, but I would support an admonishment for a rude and uncollegiate attitude, and a reminder that we're all human. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• I would support a strong warning, because the amount of places they've posted, and the content is harassment of other users. They're pinging me demanding an apology for who knows what, as well as changing the article whilst wrongly claiming what sources say. I would also like a one way topic ban against this user towards me, as they have done nothing but harass me for 2 days over edits it's unreasonable to expect me to make when I'm away. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Let's start with a weird topic ban: Kevin McE, you are not to comment on anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors whom you have chastised pertaining to that matter. That includes User:Schwede66, User:Maile66, and User:Joseph2302, and any other involved user, with or without numbers. In addition, it is clear that editors here are troubled by your tone, which (I agree) seems to betray a battleground attitude, and that may, if it continues, lead to a block. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the editor chose fit to launch another personal attack, edit-conflicting with my post on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for applying the 60-hour block. As that is only 2.5 days, is it possible to leave this thread open for a few days? It's good to have the above comments here in case this flares up after the block expires. And it's possible other editors might want to air their past experiences on the matter.— Maile (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Maile66, you have put your finger on the sore spot: a tiny topic ban and a short block for harassment, that's the easy way out. The bigger problem is behavioral and possibly persistent. I didn't close the thread, and that was on purpose--I'm hoping someone will have a better idea, possibly with the input of other editors/administrators. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Drmies, you and I share a similar experience over a disruptive editor on the Audie Murphy article. Eight blocks over a 5-year period, and they just kept doing what they were doing, until that final Indef. They were convinced they were the only one editing that article correctly, and the rest of Wikipedia was in the wrong. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• I found Kevin McE's behavior to be rather galling. I admit that I might have taken a semi-confrontational attitude towards him, namely in suggesting that equating editing the ITN template to vandalism was inappropriate. But he took it as a personal attack, which was not my intention. He was similarly rude and crass to other editors in that ITN discussion. I support a warning as well.--WaltCip-(talk) 23:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• It's unacceptable for Kevin McE to treat other editors that way. I endorse Drmies' block and support the proposed topic ban. Going forward, if this kind of behavior continues in other areas I think additional topic bans and escalating blocks would be appropriate. I hope they aren't necessary. Kevin McE has been here for a long time and should know better. Mackensen (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Having become aware of Kevin in 2019/2020 over an issue where another user was making inappropriate edits, it was Kevin that caught my eye: his response to that user was to HOUND them, stalking their contributions to reply to any and every comment in the condescending fashion noted above. This is a pattern first attested in 2006, as was throwing around "vandalism". It is possible to have disputes without being simply mean, we all do, but Kevin doesn't. I would even characterize his behavior as similar to that of a troll. For clarity, I do not think he is a troll. That would probably be better. No, he truly believes he is in the right to behave this way, and that other users showing even a shred of authority in their tone are disrespecting him. All the while he is condescending to them as a greeting, but with long tenure feels that is his earned right. This is purely an assessment, I know the type, call it baseless etc. if you want. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC) He will pick petty fights and, once he has your well-meaning attention, will proceed to throw mindless insults out instead of even pretend to stick to a point. It's frankly distressing to see it escalate to not-really-veiled verbal (textual) abuse of unsuspecting users, not counting the obvious matter that it leaves a toxic trail of pointless personal discussions across a variety of both appropriate and inappropriate talkpages. (Because with Kevin, everything is personal: he takes everything personally, and you can tell that what he writes is supposed to be felt as a personal attack.) I'm happy to see a warning and temp ban, but without sounding pessimistic, am doubtful of what its efficacy will be after expiration: He writes to other users as if they are naughty children and he the grumpy grandfather... in 1980. Language to uphold a power imbalance that is inappropriate in a collaborative environment, and that is no longer tolerated even in unequal situations, still being used suggests innateness and a need to actively try to unlearn that tendency. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks for enacting a block and one-way ban- this seems like an acceptable outcome to me. I have removed their user talkpage from my watchlist, so I don't foresee any further issues from my side. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Spam links by Xtinageorge

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

---

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

Xtinageorge has approximately 140 edits, almost all of which consist of adding books by John Maxwell Hamilton to BLPs (apparently to any name ever mentioned in one of Hamilton's books), and almost all of which have been reverted, plus a handful of edits to Hamilton's article which have been revdel'd.

Xtinageorge was warned about spam links twice by me in January 2021 (User talk: Xtinageorge#"Further reading") and about COI by DuncanHill in January 2021 (User talk: Xtinageorge#Managing a conflict of interest). Xtinageorge stopped editing for several months, then started up again today spamming the same books, and was warned by Doctormatt.

Xtinageorge has never posted on a user or article talk page. There is no indication whether this editor even knows about their talk page or seen the warnings. Could an admin block them long enough to make them engage with other editors so they can learn why their edits are inappropriate? Schazjmd (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They are doing it logged out as well. See edits of 2600:8807:305:CC00:B0F0:D5A9:4493:DF2E and 73.184.68.142. There may be more. I am still looking. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Bad behavior by Aoi and Dirkbb

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

---

Aoi has sent me a warning for no reason falsely accusing me of unconstructive edits and my edits were constructive Gun Control suppresses gun rights which is a human right in the US Constitution

Aoi has also been edit warring and reverting me for no reason leaving no reason Or edit summary at all I need a moderator to help me Dirkbb also edit warred and also neither of them sought consensus to remove my edits so thats also illegal a mod should warn or block them for edit warring, editing without consensus, and Aoi for giving me fake warn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5E81:5D00:48BC:AD35:20BA:46E3 (talk • contribs)

Do you also have pronounced feelings on boomerang rights? Dumuzid (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

What does that mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5E81:5D00:48BC:AD35:20BA:46E3 (talk • contribs)

It means that you should perhaps peruse WP:BOOMERANG. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you made edits, but have been reverted. You should now make a proposal at the article talk page. If you convince editors that your wording is an improvement, the article will be changed. If you don't, it won't. There is nothing here requiring administrative attention yet. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Aight bet but why did they revert me without consensus I demand to know because my edit was correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5E81:5D00:48BC:AD35:20BA:46E3 (talk • contribs)

They apparently thought it was not correct; that's how consensus works. Now it's on you to persuade them or enough other people to make your changes. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you IP editor, I've always wondered what it felt like to be dragged to ANI. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what you are being passive aggressive and no defense you don't even deny edit warring or reverting my edits for no reason or giving me a fake warning I started a discussion on the talk page

IP person, learning to indent would be a big help to all of us here, and you have sort of started at 90% aggression. You might want to scale that back a bit. Talk things through. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry we started on the wrong foot here I will calm down I just get angry when people don't care

I strongly suggest that any further discussion take place at the article talk page, and that it be focused on the content in question and not the contributors. There is no administrative action required at this point. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, please read about the neutral point of view. Wikipedia does not take a stance on political controversies. We are neutral and that is not going to change. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, it's not that people don't care--it's how we do things around here. There's even a name for it: WP:BRD. No one is trying to make you angry or deny what you have to say. But you do need to realize that when you want to change an article, it's on you to convince people that your change makes things better. I'll warn you right now that it's not always an easy task. Don't take it personally if you get reverted--just start putting together your argument. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You know what I am sorry and will discuss before asking a mod for help

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

User:Shoot for the Stars

Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs)

I don't want to get this editor in trouble or anything but they are making some questionable editing choices in articles. The editor is adding low quality images such as these [171] [172] [173] [174] in articles without explaining why. I have made a comment at their talk page about this issue nearly a month ago but didn't get a response. This editor also adding mugshots as well [175] [176] [177] [178], which is against the guidelines (WP:MUG).

Don't get me wrong, this editor has get several articles to GA status. However, the image issue that I can't ignore. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I see a two-way discussion between the two of you on their talk page, which is partly about images, from July. They don't appear to be uncommunicative - why not try talking to them a bit more? I'm not saying you're wrong about the images, but ANI seems premature. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Girth Summit: Another editor Deepfriedokra have pointed out the image issue while the editor was still blocked at the time. I have made a second comment regarding the low quality images at that time as well but my comment was ignored. I doubt they will respond at their talk page. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

    That puts a rather different complexion on things. With a bit more digging (which I should have done before my last comment), I see that this user has twice been CU blocked for abusive sockpuppetry, and that last time they were using their sock to upload mugshots after they ones they uploaded under their main account all got deleted. (archived SPI for reference). That's far too much disruption around images in a very short space of time for a single user - I'd be interested to hear whether they have anything to say in their defense, but it looks like some sort of editing restriction (or just an indef block) might be in order. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think an indef block to this account would be the best. I’m sick and tired of getting in trouble. It’s high time that I move on with my life and start focusing on my career. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry it ended like this, but I've blocked Shoot for the Stars indefinitely. Should they have a change of heart and request unblock, I'd suggest a TBan from images on BLPs as a minimum unblock condition; I wish them all the best with their career and moving on from this. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Girth Summit: Well that's disappointing. I like the editor but ignoring the issues that I pointed out earlier is not the way of handling things. Hope the editor will change their mind on this. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Are you kidding me. WTF. This is the user who was pleading to be unblocked early at UTRS 'cause school was about to start soon and oh my God, I just cannot wait. The user I told one month is a boon and they agreed to a TBAN on images and HighinBC declined to unblock on the 30th and the block expired on the 4th!? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. This was strike three. And it looks, based on two earlier self-requested blocks, like retirement by admin action. This is, indeed, disappointing. May they find joy and happiness in their off-wiki endeavors. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

'Endorse site ban per below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block: This user is a compulsive liar and has been lying for months on end now, whether it's lying to someone to get them to review their featured article candidates, lying to administrators about when school is starting to get unblocked early, or something else. At this point enough WP:ROPE has been extended to them and I can no longer take them at their word. They have gotten away with lenient sanctions for sockpuppetry twice and continue to cause trouble. This discussion gives a good picture of the disruption they have caused in FAC space, including incivility and personal attacks. I suggest formalizing this sanction more so that they cannot get out of it in the future without a community discussion.--NØ 09:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

For example, they told an FAC coordinator on June 2, that they will be starting a full time job and will have to leave Wikipedia in July, to get them to waive off the two-week waiting period between nominations. This changed, however, when on July 30th they were pleading to be unblocked, according to Deepfriedokra. On August 6, they were "back and ready to edit again." This user has also weaponized Pop Smoke's murder to further their interests on Wikipedia (Special:Diff/1037392582) which is just unfortunate.--NØ 10:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• endorse siteban per all above.Ratnahastin ^tålk 10:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• User said that they were leaving for school and needed early unblock at UTRS appeal #4602810:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry to say, but I add my voice to those supporting Shoot for the Stars' ban. Stars previously edited here as Beatleswillneverdie and, from memory, pretty much all their contributions were contentious – uploading bogus cover art, replacing images with unnecessary and inferior alternatives, adding other non-free cover art with little or no regard for fair-use criteria, repeatedly making these changes while apparently unable to respond to other editors' warnings/concerns or to use a talk page. If that sort of behaviour has continued under the user's new name, then it's no great loss to see them go, at this stage at least. I considered them intentionally disruptive at the time (2019-ish), but perhaps it's more about competence, given they appear to have been school-age (which I didn't realise back then). I hope things are different in years to come; I'm sure they will be. JG66 (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• I endorse this ban as well. Like JG66 said, I remember when they were under the name Beatleswillneverdie and they consistently added images both JG & I ended up reverting numerous times (most notably this one). As others here have said, they have displayed quite a few instances of being unstable and consistently changed their mind on things (i.e. FAC disruptions). On top of the fact that they have changed their username four times (which seems overly excessive, like they change it based on their current mindset) and has caused numerous issues with quite a few editors, including myself, I think it's best they stay banned. – zmbro _(talk) 19:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User: Jixby Phillips

User:Jixby Phillips has demonstrated intense WP:SPA attitudes in regards to episode order of South Park (season 1). He has posted long rants with unreliable sources to prove that his view of episode order is correct and everyone else is wrong. When warned on his talk page of his SPA behavior he responded with a threat. - SanAnMan (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The attack at User talk:Jixby Phillips against you is definitely grounds for a block, but next time please provide the diffs showing disruption. I found Talk:South_Park_(season_1)#Current_source_contradicts_airdates and Talk:South_Park_(season_1)#Volcano/Weight_Gain_4000_mix-up, but this user is difficult to track by any means except diffs since they do not sign their comments. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked Jixby Phillips for 31 hours for that unacceptable personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Rdp060707

User:Rdp060707 is a useless editor. He is reverting perfectly valid edits. 122.56.208.45 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Both of you made several dozens reverts today, with you, 122*, overstepping four reverts in a few articles. The communication between you has been so far substandard. May be you could stop and figure out whether these two categories are really needed in the articles?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And please notify Rdp060707 as required.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like User:Rdp060707 is on autopilot with semiautomated editing app. And both you and User:Rdp060707 are not actually looking at the quality of the edits. I may be an anon editor but I know my way around WP! 122.56.208.45 (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@122.56.208.45: I did not make Wikipedia more useless.----Rdp060707|talk 06:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

122.56.208.45, if your last sentence is true then you doubtless know that the thing to do if you disagree with a revert at The e!DAL Plant Phenomics and Genomics Research Data Repository is to start a discussion at Talk:The e!DAL Plant Phenomics and Genomics Research Data Repository, which I note is a red link, rather than edit-war and then come to WP:ANI, which does not deal with such content issues. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This issue is about the poor quality of their edits. An experienced edit will so that I am right and they are wrong. So there! 122.56.208.45 (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by people discussing disagreements like mature adults. If you want to edit then please join in with this, rather than simply indulging in playground name-calling. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

An experienced editor would not take kindly to an immature statement like "I am right and they are wrong. So there!" - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• The 122 editor has a serious attitude problem. That said, their edits here and here to remove an unnecessary category were correct, reverting a category change 2 or 3 times with no comment other than "unexplained content removal" is not good communication. Rdp060707 has tens of thousands of edits and should know better. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I know better. The two diffs (that mentioned by User:力) are said to be correct, but it doesn't appear to be explained. Before I reverted them, I noticed on the summary that it appears to be nothing, so it is unexplained content removal. The IP address supposed to explain, on its removal of anything that the one disagree on it, like this: Remove unneccessary category; rm-unneccessary, etc.----Rdp060707|talk 10:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahmad Hangtuah

Ahmad Hangtuah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added false infos, both on ENWIKI and IDWIKI. Flix11 (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ahmad Hangtuah has only edited twice this month, which tells me that this is not an urgent incident and should not be here. And, of course, what they do on id.wiki is not our concern. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Billy Ego wishes to return - third-party source

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

---

According to a now-removed thread on moneysavingexpert, Billy Ego (talk · contribs) wishes to return, apologized for his sockpuppetry, and wants to be a contributor to Wikipedia again.

Yes, what he did was in 2007-2008, a while ago now, but what's your view on things?

The thread was removed from public view at moneysavingexpert forums; also posted to redflagdeals as well.

What should we do about this? --Kathanis92595 (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If they want to appeal their block they need to post the request on their talkpage or via WP:UTRS. Refer them to the guide to appealing blocks. It's a checkuser block so will need CU input as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Given this other thread I am somewhat dubious. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah me too. Two decade-old blocked users both logging on to "moneyexperts" or wherever, both opining that they'd like an unblock? A surprising coincidence. But assuming good faith the above advice is what I guess we'd say to anyone: unblocks can be appealed at your talkpage, or UTRS, or Arbcom for those few who are banned even from these locations. Your chances will depend on your history and the content of the appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Of passing interest: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robeca5020 -- Euryalus (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

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

all our IPs are blocked

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

---

All our IPs are blocked from editing, the IPs we use to maintain wiki for clients! How can we unblock IPs so we can edit pages? Is important as we have many page to edit and cannot complete work. Help pls. Emptynice (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You could start by saying who "we" are and identifying which IP addresses are blocked. We would probably then need to go on to things like paid editing declarations. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

and SPAs. And also sock puppet accounts, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b10a:bf57:e4a7:59d8:47c9:7faf (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

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

82.33.72.42

82.33.72.42 (talk · contribs) is becoming tendentious with their attacks on "Western academics" over at RSN and attacks on "capitalist controlled sources" [[179]] over at Elections in Cuba‎. It's clear they are POV pushing (and edit warred over trying to exclude question the use of said sources).Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please point to a single edit I made where I removed sources? You have repeatedly accused me of removing content yet when I have asked for evidence you haven't provided. On my talk page there is a clear example of an accusation you made that I proved wrong, I asked you to apologise and you have not. My issue is that those sources are not neutral, and while they should be included they must be given proper context and sources that disagree also deserve to be included. The article lead does not reflect the content of the article, which includes sources arguing both that Cuba is and isn't a democracy, this should be reflected in the article lead but it keeps being reverted to a version containing the objective phrase "elections in Cuba are not democratic", cited only to Western sources. I am merely trying to restore balance, if you want to accuse me of removing sources you must show evidence. Any time I have noticed that I accidentally removed a source in my editing, I have always restored it (see for example [[180]]) 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

You have rejected to their use using that phraseology [[181]]. You want false parity between academic and Cuban government sources (and have drawn false parallels between western media and Cuban government sources). When told this can't be you have resorted to going on about US state terrorism and capitalist propaganda. When told you are wrong you have resorted to wp:battleground mentality.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That edit shows that while I reverted parts of the article to restore my own sources, I did not remove any of the new sources or statements introduced by Snoogans. I have always been careful to incorporate them into my own edits, Snoogans et al are the ones who indiscriminately remove sources they disagree with. Try again. Show a source or statement that I actually removed outside of "elections in Cuba are not democratic", which as I explained is not reflective of the article as a whole. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have raised this to let others decide if you are wp:nothere or are here to wp:rightgreatwrongs. I am not alone in telling you you are wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I just want it on record that you have repeatedly lied about my behaviour and when challenged have refused to back down. It is telling you cannot show any examples of what you accuse me of. 82.33.72.42 (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't see where he has lied about your behaviour. You aren't helping your case in saying so. Calm down and if there is a content issue, then discuss it. But you are becoming disruptive. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And Cuba is a western nation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Not taking sides (i have little knowledge of the electoral system of Cuba, or which sources that inform us about them are neutral or reliable), but when people talk about whether Cuba is or is not a Western nation in what context do they mean? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what they mean, one of their edit summaries was "the characterisation of this content as being by "western academics" is substantiated by checking the author affiliations, this isn't difficult. as explained, western journals are hardly neutral on this issue. the cuba solidarity campaign is likewise biased, but a biased source is not inherently non-reliable. Again, the lead must reflect the whole content of the article" As if the fact they are "western" makes a difference. That is kind of my point, as Cuba is a western nation its hard to see what this objection refers to.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They also seem to have an issue on other pages and have just had another edit war waring.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• IP, the reality is that most of the pertinent 3rd party sources are published in countries that are liberal democracies, and since the general consensus there is that a one party system isn't genuinely democratic, it is what it is. Now, proponents in Cuba might advance the political-philosophical position that their electoral system mobilizes a class-for-itself, thereby making it more democratic than liberal democracies. But, again, obviously this is a minority view in the world at present. Somewhat surprisingly (to me, also), I'm not really that familiar with the Elections in country x series of articles to tell if the blunt declaration in wiki-voice that "Elections in Cuba are not democratic" is par for the course. But it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case.

Quick note (perhaps a bit OT) about overlapping terminology of "Western," culturally and economically. Western World versus Eastern Bloc? Was communist Czechoslovakia more "western" than communist Mongolia? Well, at the very least it was to the west of it! Arguably, both were more western still than, say, Saudi Arabia. Or, culturally, are western values more prominent in socialist Cuba than in capitalist China? So precision in terminology is key. And for that, Rockwell Automation has got us covered P.S. Slatersteven, can you better differentiate what is or isn't a quote in your message? Maybe use {{tq|text}}...? You have quotes inside quotes inside quotes, it's confusingses. El_C 18:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Kuatrero's renewed attempt to move Prisioners of the Revolt

I would like to ask administrators here to move back Prisoners of the 2019–21 Chilean protests to its original title Prisoners of the Revolt. Kuatrero has, again, been moving it without a discussion or consensus. This is the second time I report Kuatero's unilateral attempts on the article. See previous incident archive here. The discussion that emerged back then did not end in consensus (details here). I further propose to give the page some protection against Kuatrero's unilateral moves as he, despite being an experienced user, appears to insist on giving the article a name of his choise wihtout doing a move proposal. It's quiite a waste of time to deal with this behaviour. Dentren | ^Talk 12:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dentren: With all due respect, this can be solved just by discussing on the article talk page. There is no 'incident' here. I suggest you stop bringing any matter up to the ANI just because you disagree with someone else. Additionally, your previous report was not even taken up by an admin. I reiterate that, if you disagree with the page move, go and discuss it in the talk page and/or bring it up to WP:RM. Kind regards. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

On the day this WP:SPINOFF was created (July 5) by Dentren, Kuatrero boldly redirected it [182], which was reverted by Dentren [183]. Then, Kuatrero nominated it for deletion [184]. While the AFD was running, Kuatrero boldly moved the page [185], which Dentren reverted [186]. Kuatrero moved it a second time [187]. Dentren raised the issue at ANI [188] and Jerm moved it back to the original title [189] (this is all within four days of creation). The AFD closed on July 29 as no consensus, and today Kuatrero again moved the page [190]. I have moved it back to the original title. Meanwhile, today is the first time anyone has posted anything to the talk page. Kuatrero, I am not an admin and have no authority to sanction anyone, but if you do this again, I think you are likely to be sanctioned. Follow WP:BRD: if a bold edit, including a bold move, gets reverted, don't re-instate it; instead, discuss on the talk page. Specifically, follow the procedure spelled out at WP:RM if you still think the page should be moved. Levivich 15:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Sure. I have no problem with that. However, I don't think it should have been brought up here (which I find it harsh) without Dentren discussing it with me. At least, I've had the intention to do so. Kind regards. --Kuatrero (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Kuatrero, you knew there was no consensus, and you are not new to Wikipedia. Anyhow, the article needed to be reverted to its original name before a propper discussion on move could begin. Please restrain yourself from unilateral non-consensus moves in the future, it will make both of us waste less time. Dentren | ^Talk 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I see there was a clear opinion against its current name in the deletion request, although it was not the point of discussion (it was the article's deletion or merging). There was no consensus to delete or merge the article. Do not misrepresent facts. Kind regards. Kuatrero (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Highly disruptive editor is WP:NOTHERE

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours

Roje Vala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has had 10! final warnings, was previously reported here (though was obviously not blocked) and continues to make highly disruptive edits to BLP articles as can be seen here. It's clearly a case of NOTHERE so can an admin just please put a stop to this once and for all. Thank you. Robvanvee 14:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours, since no one has blocked them yet. Let's see what effect this has. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Daniel! Robvanvee 10:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Impersonation account

Magitroopa 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Have already reported user at AIV. User is clearly impersonating me (through their username), and they are very much not me whatsoever. I honestly wondered how long it would take something like this to happen to me- and well, here we are.

Feel free to user whatever tools necessary, even checkuser. This account is the only one I have, I do not operate under any IPs or other user accounts. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User now blocked, but leaving this up for future reference... Magitroopa (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Magitroopa, if it even happens again, WP:UAA would deal with this swiftly. There's no need for anyone to prove an account isn't theirs - we'd block it by default unless they assert that it is theirs. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Transphobic/homophobic personal attacks

Can somone help with Special:Contributions/202.146.244.238. A quick block and some revdel would be great. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why are some people so full of hate? I just don't get the mindset. And I would remind this editor that in English the singular "they" is even older than the singular "you". Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, thou hast offended me with thine new-fangled grammar. Get thee hence! Girth Summit _(blether) 16:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've RevDel'ed the edits and edit summaries from the history. GiantSnowman 16:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Aaaand, this is what I appreciate about the administrative culture here. I have spent a goodly chunk of time today and yesterday trying to get anyone over at commons to respond to blatant homophobia and doxxing on a public noticeboard, but it took 48 hours and conversations with 4 admins to get someone to do a revdel, and the account that did the doxxing still isn't blocked. I'm feeling quite depressed about the whole experience. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

For Commons, @Girth Summit:, next time ping me directly. If I am around (which is seen from my contribution log here) I should be able to help.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I must admit though that this case is way much simpler than the one on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thanks for that offer. I know what you mean about it being a bit more complex, but for me it's pretty straightforward : if you put another user's real life name, their sexuality, and where they live and work on a noticeboard, you get blocked and the revisions get deleted and oversighted. Apparently not, on commons. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, as we all know, on Commons you can block a checkuser because you are unhappy with the CU results and then insist that whoever unblocks the checkuser should be desysopped. So block is indeed slightly difficult to institute sometimes, but revdel should have been done quickly. Anyway, now I have given them the last warning and was very specific what they are not supposed to do ever again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thank you. It sounds like the wild west over there. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons is a project which really suffers from an extremely high ratio between the amount of work needed to be done and the number of people capable of and willing to do the job. Therefore even reasonable users have tendency to get overworked and become unreasonable, or to walk away, and bad-faith and agenda users stay for years under the radar, and sometimes there are coalitions of agenda users with whom nobody can do anything. I am personally doing the necessary maintenance minimum but otherwise just upload my photographs which I seem to shoot much faster than I am able to upload. Probably at some point it will be declared failed and taken under direct governance of the WMF, but I doubt they can make it better.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

[reindent] That Commons thread is so incredibly dysfunctional on many, many levels. I thought 'do I just whinge here about it, or do I try and do something about it', and decided on the latter, so I brought it to the attention of the head of T&S: m:User_talk:JEissfeldt_(WMF)#Wikimedia_Commons_thread_of_interest. I just cannot get over how absurdly handled that was, from an anti-harassment, anti-doxxing perspective. Daniel (talk) 06:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, I'm glad others feel the way I do. I'm still really troubled by that encounter. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not the only one who knows what a fucking horror show Commons is. As I said elsewhere, they not only refuse to get their shit together but actively smear it around and blame us for it because... well, they never really get around to explaining why, but apparently something. It's a shame, because they do serve a quite useful purpose, but in real life I've handled colostomy bags that weren't as full of shit as the admins I've generally encountered there; why they have a raging hate-on for this project escapes me, since we pay their bills much more so than the other way around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial claming BLP protection for edit warring

• Newimpartial (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Utada Hikaru

Newimpartial has been warring over women and female categories at the Utada Hikaru biography, claiming protection from 3RR because of BLP violations.

The external situation is this: Japanese pop singer Utada Hikaru stated on Instagram that they preferred they/them pronouns.

"I'm sick of being asked if I'm 'Miss or Missus' or choosing between 'Miss/Mrs/Ms' for everyday things. It makes me uncomfortable to be identified so markedly by my marital status or sex, and I don't relate to any of those prefixes... Every time, I feel like I'm forced to misrepresent myself. I long for an alternative option, one that anybody of any gender or social standing could use."

Utada Hikaru has not denied being female or a woman. Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual. The only thing going on here is that Utada Hikaru does not like, and is actively protesting, the social norms of gender roles.

Newimpartial is jumping to conclusions by extending the non-binary pronoun preference to also deny being a woman and a female. The edit warring has been going on for two days. Binksternet (talk) 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

They have also been edit warring at articles like Disorders of sex development.

[1]

[2]

They claimed that certain things I removed there was unexplained even tho I briefly explained myself. I also said that the overview section was repetitive and the information in that section was already mentioned in a later section and they reverted that.CycoMa (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Quinn (soccer) Sai ¿?✍ 18:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial - in the article Utada Hikaru, we have an independent, reliable source reporting not just they/them pronouns, but nonbinary gender identity. Per MOS:GENDERID, WP articles must defer to the most recent, reliably sourced gender self-identification of a biographical subject for all those whose gender may be in question. In this case the subject is nonbinary. That this person identifies as nonbinary and female at the same time is an EXTRAORDINARY claim for which extraordinary evidence would be required, and Binkstirnet has offered none; the claim that Utada is only protesting, the social norms of gender roles is contradicted by the available sources. Furthermore, Binkstirnet's argument that Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual as if that had anything to do with their gender identity or the application of MOS:GENDERID is purest ignorance, to A the most possible GF.

As far as the pile-on editors are concerned, I know how ANI works, but these are both IDONTLIKEIT complaints about pages where WP:3RR was never at issue. I have also provided complete and cogent Talk page explanations as well as edit summaries, in each case. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Utada Hikaru is a mother, having borne a child five years ago. Utada Hikaru has been married twice to men. Utada Hikaru has not dated women, and has not expressed any sexual preference other than heterosexual." Gender identity and sexual orientation are two different things. I think this is they key problem here, not understanding the basic concepts of both. If Udata explicitly says they don't want to be referred to as "Ms." but as "Mx.", then Udata is expressing their gender identity and MOS:NB applies. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Our guideline WP:GENDERID does not cover this unique situation, because the sex of Utada Hikaru is not in question. WP:GENDERID covers gender identity, not sex. Utada Hikaru is a woman who has thrown her social leverage into the ring of gender identity, to protest against social norms and to support non-binary people. This is not a situation where a vulnerable person needs protection. Rather, it's a case where a powerful person is making a socio-political statement.

Newimpartial claims that gender identity automatically extends to sex classification. Certainly it is helpful for that extension to occur automatically when we are protecting the vulnerable, but in this novel case there is nothing in the media about Utada Hikaru changing lifestyle, or denying womanhood, or denying the basic female sex. Our guideline does not offer the automatic mechanism that Newimpartial is relying on for protection from 3RR. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not a new or unique situation, we have plenty of articles on Wikipedia about subjects who identity as non-binary. There doesn't appear to me to be any discussion of 'sex classification' on that article or in Newimpartial's edits, only you in your comments here. If you don't think calling a nonbinary person a "woman" rubs up against MOS:GENDERID, I would advise you to read WP:GENDERID, specifically the section titled "Really a man" which addresses your POV. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Binksternet: to be clear MOS:GENDERID says (emphasis mine)

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources

and has since the re-write at the end of March this year [191]. It doesn't explicitly mention categories, but as WP:BLPCAT says, categories are if anything more sensitive since they have no disclaimer or modifier (or further explanation). If you still think that this doesn't apply to male/female you can ask on the talk page whether we need to clarify it, but as multiple people have told you, it does. Likewise if you think that non-binary means we should chose a gendered word even in cases like categories where we don't have to you can ask whether we need to clarify the wording but as others have said, we don't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Utada Hikaru (just added by Newimpartial) Sai ¿?✍

• Comment: With regards to Utada Hikaru, it might be wise to lock the article on a stable version (either no pronouns or using gender neutral pronouns they/them) until the discussion achieves a consensus or an RFC is done and reaches a conclusion to how the subject should be addressed. Aside from that, I'd like to echo Newimpartial and Tbhotch that "marrying a man" or "having children" does not infer anything about the person's gender identity. Isabelle ^🔔 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  You are right, it's not about gender. The edit warring is about sex: woman and female categories removed. There is no edit warring over gender identity. Binksternet (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  From looking at the discussion and the page history, it appears that there are two things being discussed: what it means for someone to deny female pronouns, and if that means they should be addressed with the singular they or no pronouns at all, and whether Hikaru is non-binary or not, since there appear to only be a single source for that. You are correct, though, that this specific discussion on ANI seems to be about the removal of those categories you mention. My opinion on this issue is similar, in that we should wait for the current discussion in the talk page to achieve consensus on whether Hikaru is non-binary or not. I can understand why Newimpartial removed the categories while the issue is not resolved. Isabelle ^🔔 19:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Binksternet, MOS:GENDERID does not recognize sex categories. The categories using woman and female for BLPs are all subject to MOS:GENDEERID and are all gender categories. If you think we have sex-based categories for living people that are exempt from MOS:GENDERID, we have much more serious issues to discuss at this ANI than the scope of WP:3RRNO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  You have put your finger on the basic problem: that you are reading more into MOS:GENDERID than can be found there. The majority of the guideline tells us that transsexual person's birth names should not be used (deadnaming) unless the person was famous under the birth name. That part doesn't apply to Utada Hikaru. The rest of the guideline is about pronouns he/she/they etc. That's the only part applicable to Utada Hikaru, and I was not questioning their preference for they/them. Nowhere in the guideline does it say anything about categories. Nowhere in the guideline does it describe how we must automatically extend the pronoun and deadname protection to cover the classification of people based on their chromosomes and reproductive organs. You are stretching the guideline out of shape to advance your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Where on WP do you believe you see any classification of people based on their chromosomes and reproductive organs, at all? This is starting to look to me like a WP:CIR issue. Newimpartial (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm also a bit confused here. Generally I'd expect a category to define terms the same way that the relevant articles do. Woman does not define the term as meaning "person with XX chromosomes", "person with a uterus", etc.; in fact its second and fourth paragraphs both reject those criteria as necessary or sufficient. If Binksternet disagrees with that, it seems that Talk:Woman would be the right venue to propose a change, rather than fighting over categories. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• To me, trying to use that quote to justify anything else beyond the use of the preference "they/them" as pronouns is original research (particularly since the quote refers to both gender and society issues and doesn't directly speak to gender identity, and thus the edits to remove the categories is not covered by the BLP exemption of 3RRNO. --Masem (t) 19:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • But I wasn't using that quote to justify anything. The article sites an independent, reliable source which declares, Singer Hikaru Utada announced on Instagram on Friday that they are nonbinary. Having no reliable sources to the contrary, we do have a RS declaration of gender identity, and therefore the categories represent misgendering and a BLP vio. Newimpartial (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That's pointing to the same instagram post, and in terms of BLP, I would not consider Anime News Network the type of high quality source for a BLP to make that a conclusion in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 19:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Though I see the "I'm non-binary. Happy pride month!" quote mentiond in that article, and for that purpose, ANN would be sufficiently reliable for repeating that quote, but that probably can be easily verified from repeat viewings of the event. --Masem (t) 19:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Regardless of any nitpicking, it is reliably sourced and therefore WP:BLP provisions apply. And there is no risk of misgendering by removing "female" categories now; if Utada announces something different tomorrow, and RS report it, we just put the categories back. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
        • As a BLPN regular, I'm with Newimpartial on the last point. I haven't looked into Anime News Network, but if someone was using it to add a statement to the article I would be fairly concerned and ask if they have a better source. If it's simply relaying information from a primary source or someone's statement somewhere, that would be better but I'd still have concerns. But the absence of female categories doesn't mean the subject isn't female. Therefore despite my concerns over ANN, I would fully support removing the categories if it raises sufficient doubt particularly with a direct quote. And I share Newimpartial's concerns that Binksternet's comments above suggest that they do not understand MOSGENDERID. Given this, I'd say they probably shouldn't touch anything related to gender or sex until they do. (I'm including sex because part of the problem seems to be that Binksternet doesn't understand when each applies on Wikipedia.) If they are unwilling, we can discuss a topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • There are, btw, plenty of other sources reporting on Hikaru's statements:[192][193][194][195] I'm really having a lot trouble seeing why removing categories calling a nonbinary person a "woman" constitutes original research, and that it's appropriate to instead leave them up even in light of MOS:GENDERID. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
        • For all purposes, as they are quoting the Instagram post and live feed, they are all effectively based on the same piece of evidence. But, I will stress as I did below: the direct quote that says "I'm non-bianry" should be sufficient from any of these sources to take the approach. I think the problem was that the longer quote is absent the specific statement of being non-binary or not specifically identifying with any gender, and if the sources were going off that quote, that seems very iffy (particularly with the sourcing quality here), but given there's a different quote that say it directly, then yes, we should be treating their page as a non-binary person. I'm still a bit iffy if this rises to the level of "clear cut BLP violations" of 3RRNO where leaving the woman categories in place is an issue - this is definitely a content issue that should be confirmed via consensus to make sure everyone agrees that the sourcing is good to use that quote to assert the non-binary factor. --Masem (t) 22:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

          • @Masem: As I understand it, the comment was made in a live stream. For that reason, relying on BLPSELFPUB is difficult, so ensuring a reliable source which we can trust to accurately report on the statement was important.

            But putting the sourcing issue aside, maybe you replied before reading my comment but the problem as I see it is you are still missing that there is a big different between asserting in the article someone is non-binary, and removing an assertion they are female or a woman. While for good reason we don't require explicit self identification for gender categories like we do with some other categories, per MOS:GENDERID and the basic idea of BLP, we still need to take sufficient care with categories.

            The basic tenets of WP:BLPCAT still apply i.e. that categories have no disclaimers or modifiers, and support for any categories needs to be well established in the article. As BLP says

            We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]

            The information i.e. the assertion that she identified as female or a woman clearly became contentious once the sourcing emerged suggestion she identified as non-binary. Once it was contentious removing it was the right thing to do, and fully supported by BLP and the 3RR exemption. In case it's still unclear, this is related to but separate from saying that the subject identifies as non-binary in the article (in categories or in text). As previously mentioned, I'd be skeptical about adding it if the only source was ANN. I.E. I'm not saying that the sources were sufficient to add that or edit warring to add that under BLP was justified.

            I'm also not commenting on the pronoun issue here. While I share Newimpartial's view that using they/them is less likely to cause harm if all the information available was that the subject identified as non-binary, I'm not sure if MOS:GENDERID definitely requires that and either way a choice will likely have to be made of the two options. I mean there is the intermediate option of trying to removing all pronouns as I believed someone did but that is also complicated and can be seen as offensive. So for the pronoun issue, yeah sure it's complicated. (I think not so much anymore with recent sourcing.)

            But for the category issue? That's different. Temporarily removing the categories for a few days while discussion is ongoing is clearly the option which risks the least harm and fully supported by policy. Nothing I've seen has come close to explaining otherwise, especially since we never guarantee categories are completely and no reader should infer the absence of women or female categories is evidence the subject does not identify as female or a woman. And if they are we have major problems that go well beyond this one article. So the only real effect is that people trying to find them via the categories wouldn't be able to for a few days.

            Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

            • I don't disagree with what you're saying but gets to my point: the assertion that the 3RRNO BLP exemption applies here is very very weak; there's a lot of subtlities for how this information should be included, but none of it is for exactly what you say, the immediate removal of those categories. The "they/them" pronouns in prose, absolutely, but that's it. --Masem (t) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Is this the correct venue? It seems like a valid content dispute that could probably be resolved elsewhere, maybe WP:DRN. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 20:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that this is just a content dispute. Binksternet's above comments speculating as to Hikaru's motives for identifying as nonbinary seem like a pretty clear-cut BLP violation, more than can be excused as just "not understanding the difference between sex and gender" (which if anything I think is a bit patronizing to an editor I've always known to be intelligent). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's kind of my point. I feel Binksternet is trying to make this into something it is not. I don't think they should have brought this to AN/i. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 22:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Right but I'm saying this should be kept open for discussion of Binksternet's BLP violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  Disagree; I have explained below the need to AGF and mitigating factors. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing against site-wide consensus

In addition to Binksternet (talk · contribs), TJRC (talk · contribs) and GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) have been reverting against BLP policy and MOS:GENDERID on Utada Hikaru. Newimpartial (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Editors on this page have repeatedly asked Newimpartial to take a pause on these edits until the actual quote can be verified. The multiple citations (including ANN) are all repeated copies of subjective recollection of a livestream. If a verifiable and viewable source for the quote can be located, the correct choice for the article will be clear. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • In addition, Newimpartial has been requested to refrain from aggressive and harassing language directed at other editors regarding this issue. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • By what policy-relevant criterion would ANN not be a reliable source to document a gender-identity declaration (that can also be verified using the primary source)? And why would it be appropriate to reinsert gendered pronouns to a BLP against policy, based on an appeal to local consensus? That goes directly against MOS:GENDERID and WP:CONLEVEL.
    • Also, I don't see how any of my Talk comments or edit summaries could be construed as "Harassment", unlike the actions of certain other editors. Newimpartial (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • When contesting past edits, you have asserted that such edits were thumbing their nose at a community, or attempting to distend non-binary people. In each case, logical and procedural points were being made. Assigning personal bias to an editor's arguments is inappropriate. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • ANN's article quotes a Japanese article as its source. It's not an original article. However -- when investigating the sourced article (in Japanese), there is a fan upload of Utada's video stream which verifies her non-binary statement. I'll report this direct source to the editors of the page (I don't think this source was cited directly previously). This direct source is the only thing we've been asking for to comply with the edits you've suggested.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
        • You might want to look at Wikipedia's sourcing policy before telling me that I needed to produce Utada's video stream as a source. That isn't the way anything works. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
          • I'm aware of the policy, and also aware that freelance fan site posts that are based on secondary information often need to be examined closely. We're all aiming for the same thing: to maintain the integrity of the Wikipedia page we're editing. --GimmeChoco44 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC

• The title of this subsection is erroneous and should be removed. Newimpartial is clearly following consensus regards MOS:GENDERID. Editors Binksternet (talk · contribs), and GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) opposing Newimpartial do not seem to understand (or refuse to follow) MOS:GENDERID or Consensus. I do not think it was helpful to starting a new subsection to continue these attacks. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Bodney, I'm afraid you might have misinterpreted some of the context here (and I have probably been a bit less than clear). I added the section, to try to create space to discuss the actions of these other users (namely, "editing against site-wide consensus). Does that help at all? Newimpartial (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • ooops i did not see your signature at the start, and thought GimmeChoco44 (talk · contribs) had begun this subsection. Apologies to you both. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
      • No, I didn't start this section. That said, I've brought the discussion back to the Hikaru Utada Talk page, where I believe the matter can be put to rest both quickly and cordially.--GimmeChoco44 (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
• Close thread. The opening post seems to have been under the impression that Utada had only made statements of preference regarding certain terminology, but not of gender identity per se. By point of comparison, the article Farhad Manjoo uses "they" pronouns but also describes the subject as a cisgender man; Manjoo's article cited there explains their language-reform views, though there has also been apparently been debate on the talk page over what pronouns to use. Anyway, since then this thread has well clarified the rules of GENDERID and that Utada does identify as non-binary gender as well. There needs to be WP:AGF given to Binksternet. The discourse on gender identity is fast-evolving. It wasn't long ago that almost everyone conceptualized being transgender as meaning only to make major changes in appearance with medical treatment so as to match the opposite gender, and this is still how many think of it, if they aren't heavily involved in the topic. Cases like this are quite different from that long-time conceptualization and we need to assume good faith. I will say that I think the edit warring that occurred should not have been done; if Utada cared that much which pronouns were used for them, then surely they would have specified their pronouns by now. In any case, currently the article is full-protected without personal pronouns, which seems fine. There is nothing left to do here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It's true that some people have outdated understanding of things: You and I recently participated in an RfC where several other users (in good faith) argued that potentially having slept with men meant that someone was a woman. It's an absurd argument, but I agree that some people make it out of ignorance rather than malice, and can include Binksternet under that umbrella of AGF. But you don't need a complex understanding of queer theory to know that it's a BLP violation to assert that a living person's professed gender identity is in fact a "socio-political statement" without citing any evidence for that. "You're just doing it for attention" is a classic anti-LGBTQ insult, and is not something someone should say or imply on Wikipedia about a living person. It would not be AGFing to assume that Binksternet, an editor of 14 years' tenure, doesn't understand that this kind of speech violates BLP; rather, that would be insulting his intelligence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 10:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    • IMO at a minimum Binksternet needs to understand how our gender categories interact with MOSGENDERID. Note that while malice would suggest an immediate topic ban, the issue here and the reason I suggested it could be necessary is because even without malice an editor can cause harm which we're supposed to be avoiding when dealing with BLPs. Noting that after getting into an edit war, not only was Binksternet the one who started this complaint they continued to make problematic statements here even after been linked to the various policies etc. That's the reason why I said I really think Binksternet should commit to either improving their understanding or staying well away from the area. However I've changed my mind since at the time I forgot this is an AE area. Since it is, I'm fine just leaving things be letting AE deal with it if need be. As I said above, I'm particularly focused on the category issue since that's one where I cannot see any justification for the edits since even if someone is concerned about the sourcing or not sure it's sufficient to establish the person identified as non-binary, the right action would have been to leave the categories out while discussion was ongoing whereas it was more complicated to deal with the pronouns. It would also be nice if Binksternet would take a step back and try to understand why their other statements e.g. she married men twice etc are offensive (and also irrelevant per WP:OR). If it helps, maybe they can consider other similar scenarios like saying someone who has recently identified as gay cannot be gay because of how many people of the opposite gender they married or was known for dating etc. Still we can't require that. And Binksternet is free (within the normal bounds) to advocate for a change to MOS:GENDERID or to advocate for the introduction of sex based categories if they really want, it's just that until they have a new consensus they need to abide by the current one. Nil Einne (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I am saying to extend AGF to all that as well. The "socio-political statement" remark was in response to Tbhotch arguing that "If Udata explicitly says they don't want to be referred to as "Ms." but as "Mx.", then Udata is expressing their gender identity", but that is incorrect; such a statement alone would not necessarily be an expression of gender identity, and that's why I gave the example of Farhad Manjoo and their genderless pronouns. Utada's article currently is written in a confusing manner in this regard, making it seem (unless you look closely) they are being called non-binary because of liking the Mx. abbreviation, even though the actual reason we treat them as non-binary is because they said they are, full stop. As for the marriage comments, part of the now-outdated but decades-long conceptualization of transgender people (also given away by use of "transsexual" above) which even now has yet to be dropped by many people is that they necessarily have the sexual orientation that is most common for their gender identity. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    • (ec) I don't know, it's a tough call. On the one hand, I agree with virtually everything you say above. But I have a concern: our editors have to feel free in a BLP context to make the best call they can on what they think serves the important issues that are raised in BLP policy. You know, I sometimes have concerns that BLP is treated in an almost talismanic fashion, but I tell you, this is one area where I am really grateful for it. I think GENDERID is going to need to take on some nuance under consultation with a broad swath of the community eventually, and the fact that this has not been done yet is a part of why this problem arises. But at the end of the day, I thinker Binksternet was just doing what they thought was the most respectful thing for the subject. And yes to many of your caveats about his kind of telling lack of understanding of some of the issues here. But at the same time, let's be honest, the sourcing is kinda-sorta only just now getting to the place it needed to be? It's a kind franken-pastiche collection of sources, and I agree it works in the circumstances, but Binksternet's concerns weren't exactly absurd in that respect.

Anyway, I just can't see any sanction resulting here stronger than a warning. I mean it's already kind of embarrassing just to open an ANI and be completely refuted on the underlying issues and have action seriously considered against you. And if that's not strong enough, I'll add my own opinion that Bink probably wants to study up in this area--like more than a little. But I'm not sure what more can be said here but that. If this becomes a pattern, we can consider if this is a real problem next time. But right now I think we are looking at some overzealousness and a little lack of sophistication in understanding of the topic. Intent isn't the only factor, nor even the most important one, when it comes to this kind of situation, but it should count for a bit, unless there is strong evidence of a persistent problem. TLDR: WP:ROPE, with the understanding that this isn't the type thing that you want a reputation for making a bad call on. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As above, I agree with these points. Also, there is a history of extreme and inappropriate eagerness for sanctions on this topic at ANI. For example, not long ago, an experienced user was blocked (and later unblocked) because he was arguing against some IPs that it's ridiculous to consider "tree" as someone's pronoun. The inconsistency of that whole situation is that some people who by all evidence are cisgender have said their pronouns are something like beep/bop/boop, and they draw outrage for mocking transgender people and their pronouns - that reaction makes sense - but then someone else who is just as evidently cisgender says his ("his" per this discussion) pronouns are "tree", and he gets people on Twitter, a bunch of IPs, and even an experienced admin taking that literally and seriously, and that same admin hauling that user to ANI and another admin delivering a block over it. Why is it not only okay but "valid as f[***]" according to Twitter this time, per the tweets linked there? Why was the user not instead commended for doing the right thing by preventing what is indistinguishable from trivialization or mockery of gender transition from being treated seriously? We see this latter perspective echoed by a trans man in this New York Times article about nouns-as-neopronouns. My point is that, outside of the sort of obvious hateful trolling we get from vandal accounts, editors need to get way less trigger-happy around this topic. Those of us who have been keeping up with LGBT or left-progressive discourse need to step back a bit and think about how different things are from just a few years ago. Not being super-careful around gender was the norm until recently, as was gender pretty much always being the same as the sex they appeared to be. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, as to your curse of knowledge argument, your point is well taken. As to that final point: I suppose that depends on who you are and what you consider 'recent'. You may be correct that this is just a consequence of my formal background, but I struggle to remember a time in my adult life where I didn't understand that 'sex' and 'gender' were qualitatively different terms: and that's enough years back that we're not going to talk about the exact figures. :) And that gender and sexual preferences are on two independent continuums is also preeeeeetty basic stuff, as both an empirical knowledge and social fluency matter. That said, I will repeat this point: GENDERID is not an ideal policy in its current form. One thing that we need to acknowledge more expressly is that while we can (and barring a good reason, should) discuss a trans BLP subject's preferred pronouns, it is functionally impossible to accommodate an open class of idiosyncratic pronouns outside of he/she/they and possibly a discrete class of pronouns which may or may not get substantial currency through substantially common usage: there's just no way to create a stable policy around an unbounded number of pronouns in a way that doesn't cause extreme difficulties for our editors and our readers. Respect for self-identity is vitally important consideration, but the need to produce clear content for our readers is paramount. But thankfully there are additional options. One is just to omit pronouns altogether, utilizing only proper nouns in the noun phrase context. I was initially opposed to that notion: I was convinced it would create tortured prose. But after being RfC'd to a few discussions over the last five years or so where editors had to cobble together some neutral approach because of the complexities of the situation, it's actually turned out that it is one of the better options in some cases.

Also of immense use is the fact that resistance to singular they is finally falling away with all but the most ardent language mavens: opposition to it was always more a question of prescriptive grammar, rather than descriptive, but it's utility is so welcome right now, and the old trite historical arguments now so thoroughly debunked that most people can't help but embrace it as now one of the least divisive options--it doesn't hurt for our purposes here that a large majority of style guides and probably an even more significant number of style sheets for major publications turned over on this issue a while back. Anyway, I agree with you that this is the type of stuff that our editors need the freedom to be able to discuss without fear of sanction (I'm a little concerned about some of what you just told me about, if it's an accurate representation). But I'm not sure I can be quite as neutral on the question of whether Binksternet should be embarassed by some of the gaps in their knowledge: they should be. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A propos of GENDERID, I personally would be fine with style guidance that reserved gendered pronouns to cases that are uncontested, or where a pronoun choice has been clearly declared, and to use "they/them" in all other instances (with perhaps a possible recommendation to do without pronouns in cases where the person in question has clearly disavowed they/them, and maybe other edge cases I cannot currently imagine).

A default to "they/them" where gender is in question and pronoun choice is unknown is the way contemporary English actually works, and I look forward to a day when WP might catch up on this and stop being vulnerable to POINTey neopronoun interventions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Anshsaini0304 and caste-related editing

• Anshsaini0304 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anshsaini0304's editing on caste-related articles worries me somewhat. Most recently they began a spree of small edits to a list removing descriptions next to the names of people included in the list. Their justification is that another editor removed content they added to the Sinai article.[196][197] I can't tell if this is WP:POINT, WP:CIR, or gaming to get to extended-confirmed (a lot of the WP:GS/CASTE topic area is EC-protected, including List of Saini people). Other issues include using self-published sources for contentious biographical information,[198] using sources that don't contain the information at all,[199], similar for non-biographical information,[200] removing information that seems to be sourced,[201][202] and probably a bit of a POV issue.[203] Their original contributions to List of Saini people all had to be reverted, and the page had EC protection applied.[204] I think the editor probably needs a stronger grasp of how Wikipedia works if editing in a contentious topic.[205][206] Seemingly, warnings and advice has already been dispensed.[207][208] I don't really know what can/should be done here. They have plenty of good edits in the mix, but also plenty of disruptive ones. I do honestly think many of the dubious cases in their editing history others have concern with[209][210] stem from a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works, rather than being WP:NOTHERE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Out of 473 total, I counted 157 at Yadav (surname) and 57 at List of Gurjars (xtools). I restored the descriptions and then removed all the unsourced entries (including ones not added by Anshsaini0304), many of which were probably BLPs. The remaining entries still need to be checked that they are reliably sourced and verify the people's self-identification. I'm leaning toward WP:GAME as an explanation — List of Saini people was protected on June 13, after a series of mass removals by NitinMlk (talk · contribs) and later Sitush (talk · contribs) of unsourced or poorly sourced entries, including content added by Anshsaini0304 a week prior. Consult that page's history for more information — I see an unsourced addition on February 10 and lots of additions of refs and images between June 4–6. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – Anshsaini0304 is an WP:SPA focused on Saini-related articles. Earlier they created many WP:BLP violations by connecting people with Saini caste on the basis of WP:UGC. Note that the mention of caste requires self-identification in the case of BLPs – see here for details. In fact, after multiple explanations at my and their talk pages, they returned more than one month later to create the same BLP violation: [211].

At Talk:Saini#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_19_July_2021, when things didn't go their way yesterday, they made a lot of unhelpful edits at Yadav (surname) to get the extended confirmed status. And from this comment, it seems they wanted to get that status for directly editing Saini article. They are also making unhelpful comments at Talk:Saini, e.g. calling a source unreliable because it was published in 1998. In short, they are here to promote Saini caste rather than to build an encyclopedia. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that, two months earlier, they were also asking another Saini editor regarding extended confirmed status: [212]. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to be a bad-faith SPA. The Saini articles attract them quite a lot (and socks, IIRC). - Sitush (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

One option is a topic ban of User:Anshsaini0304 under WP:GS/CASTE. But it appears that this editor is not just misguided but actively unhelpful. An indefinite block seems logical. The apparent gaming of EC, via the 175 edits at Yadav (surname) is especially bad. Regular editors have a lot of work trying to keep these caste-related lists up to Wikipedia standards. Based on the above evidence it seems that Anshaini0304 is going to keep on undoing their work. As recently as August 2 Anshsaini0304 was continuing to make caste assignments with bad sources, even after reminders. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please wait and have a time to read and understand me.

The user : NitinMlk is trying to depict that I want to disrupt the caste related articles, specially those belonging to Saini caste but that's not true. He is not telling anyone what I am suffering from, Please check out the last thread of Talk:Saini, As I am new here I am having some problem to show everyone what I want. I have no intentions to promote any caste, let alone Saini caste but what is incorrect will be said incorrect everytime, although it's a different thing when a few specific editors don't want to accept that. anshsaini (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with EdJohnston on this. It's one thing to be misguided and make errors but this is clear disruption here and is resulting in a waste of time and effort on the part of other editors. A block would be better than a topic ban in this case. —SpacemanSpiff 05:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @SpacemanSpiff Okay block me or ban, whatever Wikipedia community finds suitable but please allow me to have a talk on the Page Talk:List of Saini People, also read last thread of the same talk page to understanad what I am saying. anshsaini (talk) 05:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment – They are continuing their same disruption for Saini POV push, e.g. see Talk:List_of_Saini_people#Moving_of_protection_settings_from_List_of_Saini_People_to_Saini(surname) and Talk:Saini#Extended-confirmed-protected_edit_request_on_19_July_2021. I agree completely with EdJohnston and SpacemanSpiff. And they are clearly WP:NOT HERE. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Reply - Oh my god this user : NitinMlk is manipulating everyone in various ways. I just asked this to know why I am observing biasness towards some articles, as I am only willing to know the reason and nothing else. anshsaini (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• After all this disruption, they provided an irrelevant source (see these edits and my responses here). And now I have been waiting for their response for the last two hours. So I will be now logging out. - NitinMlk (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  I have responded and now definitely you will find a new excuse. anshsaini (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Anshsaini, you are not going to get your way. When multiple reliable sources say something & you cannot offer a reliable source which contests them, we show what they say without qualification. That some of those sources are over 20 years old & still seem not to be contested by other sources rather supports their validity on the point. Please see WP:VNT. I am sorry that Paine Ellsworth got your hopes up by initially doing as you and other apparent Saini editors requested ... but they were wrong then on policy grounds & remain so now. You are editing disruptively and tendentiously, & seemingly trying to game the system. Such editing consumes a vast amount of the time available to other volunteers. - Sitush (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Sitush, Paine Ellsworth has nothing to do with my hopes, even It's not a hope. What's correct is correct no such thing of hopes are involved in this! And for those discussions on sources and all, you are also welcome to Talk:List of Saini People. I am already dealing with editor like you there, who genuinely don't want to understand the point of view of others.

  Just one request to all of you, always remember editing an article if something is correct then it will not lesser down your reputation on Wikipedia. I am observing that you and NitinMlk have some personal problems with these castes, anyways I don't care why you don't want to digest the truth I will not agree with you until you will come to a genuine solution. anshsaini (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I suspect by "genuine solution" you may mean "until I get my way". It won't happen, for the reasons I have just given here and at the article talk page. But the discussion here is more about your behaviour, not the content dispute itself. You are doing yourself no favours. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sitush To make you more informative let me clear that by "genuine solution", I mean correct content of the article. To the reasons you gave on talk page of article, I replied although there were no reason just another attempt to manipulate me as you did to other editors who are unable to put what they wanted to show everytime. anshsaini (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I do understand your point of view. I have been editing caste articles here for over a decade & likely there aren't many opinions I haven't seen. But Wikipedia isn't based on the opinions of editors, which is why I pointed you to VNT. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You "think" that you are editing caste articles but you are only making them in your way and that too some specific caste related articles. Moreover I am not saying anywhere to modify the page in accordance to my views, everytime I have to provide sources check on the talk page. anshsaini (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

You seem not to have provided a single valid source, as others have explained. Please read WP:RS and, in particular, WP:OR because you are asking us to draw conclusions which are not in the sources you raise. - Sitush (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not asking you or anyone else to draw conclusions but yeah I am asking to use some common sense in understanding the difference between some words i.e. Farmers and Gardeners. I don't know why you are not able to see this that they both are different completely. Now I think indirectly you are trying to ask me to provide "scholarly sources" to differentiate these words too.

Also I think it's better to discuss these on the Talk page of the article. anshsaini (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note Anshsaini0304 is now EC. Regardless of whatever else happens here, I think at minimum EC should be pulled for the gaming, until the editor can make 500 legit edits and request at PERM. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader Sure, whatever access you want to take over from me you must go for it because I never intended to vandalise any article or to modify it in my way nor I am willing to use the EC access to that article by my own, I will always prefer a discussion at Talk page of any article because I don't want that anyone after some days just revert it as it takes lots of efforts. It's just that NitinMlk is trying again and again to prove that I want to vandalise any article. anshsaini (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Editors pushing caste issues? Must be a day that ends in y. Indeffed. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Turns out, the user also has a puppet. Seems like I need to recalibrate my AGF meter... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

For caste stuff involving new-ish accounts, ABF will usually work better as a default mindset. I remain convinced, regardless of our general ethos, that all caste-related articles should be protected in some way by default. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:VNC200 and their contributions

@VNC200:. Repeatedly violating MoS guidelines even after warnings (like addition of Indicscripts in articles against MOS:IS, here [213], [214] etc), creating alternative files of existing logos of different articles and reverting other users (and even datbot) revisions (here, [215]). Adding incorrect or poor quality logos, even when better ones exist (like [216], [217]. Behaving like a WP:OWNER.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  20:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I only see a generic warning on their talk page. Have they been told specifically not to use Indic scripts? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer. Yes, I gave a final warning here User talk:VNC200#July 2021  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  04:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding the [218], I think the user believes what their uploads are correct (or valid) in some sense. The corresponding Commons upload was nominated for deletion. The user has added a link to the source and removed the {{delete}} tag [219], which should not be done. I've posted on their Commons talk page, but the user seems determined to fix the issue by tagging a Non-free template (which of course is a wrong template and reverted.) -- DaxServer (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yup. here also [220]  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Long term disruption from a couple IP ranges

Resolved

 – Both ranges blocked for a month

• 174.250.144.0/22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
• 174.253.0.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)

Last week I stumbled across these IP ranges causing disruption going back months. Almost all their edits are reverted. Per my request on his talk page, Daniel Case blocked the ranges for a week. I just checked the ranges again today and they are back at it. I know we generally do not do long term blocks on IPs but I think these may warrant perhaps a 6 month block (or something). S0091 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked them again for a month this time. Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: It was not my intent for you handle this. Quite the opposite but I appreciate the response. S0091 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@S0091: You mentioned my name and no one else had, so I figured why not? Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE by Chitoro

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely

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

User is hellbent on using obscure websites as sources to alter the ethnic demography in Takestan County. Out of his 10 edits, he has reverted the article 7 times. Not to mention he accuses others of racism [221] [222] and threatened to sue another user [223].

Seems like WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef as DEOA. Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Jgwikid: personal attacks, disruptive reverts

Hi, could an admin take a look at this user's personal attacks, and bad faith, disruptive reverts? User:Jgwikid left a bizarre personal attack on my talk page User talk:Atiru after instantaneously reverting edits I was trying to make to the Letesenbet Gidey page.

The user wrote:

"Clean up after yourself, like you do in toilet - this is of course under a serious question mark. As I have written at my talk page:

"You left many formatting errors with your extremely low quality edits, and you made it on purpose. If there is a grammatical error, that can always happen, you can correct - if you want to contribute, not spoil things. Let's make it very clear: you are simply cheaply rude, cheeky and mischievous. Do we understand or you need some better written "rules", which, what is obvious, you need to become familiar with?"

There is no one to do it for you.

Also, add her WR's and WChamps results to the lede"

The user made (an attempt at) a personal attack in the edit summaries in their reverts. Jgwikikid seems to have a history of similar behaviour with similar messages from other users on their talk page User talk:Jgwikid. User:Journalist seems to have had similar experiences in regard to the Elaine Thompson-Herah page. Jgwikikid has made personal attacks against other users here: Talk:Beatrice Masilingi and here: Talk:Christine Mboma. The user appears to take personal offence when parts of articles in which they have an interest are edited to improve the English. Atiru (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just to provide some thoughts (and unfortunately not the administrative action you may need) here, there are definitely elements of WP:TE and issues with WP:AGF apparent, but looking at those various pages, the real concern for me is one of WP:CIR, by way of English facility. Capability with a particular language is always one of my least favourite criteria for calling another contributor out, for a number of reasons: the Wikimedia movement relies upon editors being able to make that transition and share efforts and perspective; in some contexts, small difficulties and idiosyncrasies in language often get exaggerated as a proxy for bigotry to keep able and valuable individuals out of certain spaces for trivial cause; editors vary considerably with regard to whether (and in what contexts) their incomplete capacity with a language prevents (or does not really prevent them) from contributing in a meaningful way to mainspace; and lastly, I just know from my own experience what it means to make such efforts, both on WM projects and in general: it's no easy thing to leave your language comfort zone to try to collaborate.

All of that said, it looks very much to me like this might be a situation where CIR can be legitimately invoked, because its really not just the uneven English (which it must be said, really is pretty bad in places): there's also the sense of touchiness and WP:OWN that is coming through in their comments, and a generally hostile disposition towards criticism, down to borderline WP:PAs, a pretty noticeable refusal to AGF, and just a generally WP:BATTLEGROUND-oriented mentality when it comes to discussion. Not to mention the edit warring. Those behavioural traits are exacerbating a language competence issue that is not, if I must be honest, exactly a small one here. Jgwikikid would be well-advised to slow their roll a little and not take every edit which changes the wording of their prose so personally, because if they are going to be contributing to mainspace with that level of English facility, it's simply going to happen a lot. Whether we can successfully communicate that need to them may just end up being the litmus test for whether or not their efforts can be retained on this particular project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Atiru (talk · contribs), when creating an ANI report please do not forget to notify the user in question. I have notified Jgwikid (talk · contribs) on their talk page. From me, telling another user that they are cheaply rude, cheeky and mischievous shows an issue in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIVIL. Saying that the other contributions are just "spoiling things" is also a problem in WP:AGF. Statements such as You left many formatting errors with your extremely low quality edits, and you made it on purpose. also have issues, as it is casting aspersions that the edits are made in bad faith, while it may not be. On the other hand, previous contributions and interactions made by Jgwikid is pretty good and have no problems. SunDawntalk 00:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Snow Rise (talk · contribs) and SunDawn (talk · contribs). I notified the user about the ANI report underneath their response to my comment on their talk page. I didn't create a new subsection, however, so it may not've been clearly visible; apologies. Snow Rise (talk · contribs), I think your points are spot on. The user's language competency is clearly a cause of both poor-quality edits and a personal sensitivity to improvements of their edits. After this episode, I'm obviously not the best person to try to effect a positive change in attitude with this particular user, but hopefully they'll respond better to someone else who has the time and energy to engage with them. Atiru (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear ones. Please ban me, I really have no time to contribute for free. But do not forget to check 'Made On Purpose, Disruptive Edits' by Atiru (talk · contribs). And do it carefully and wisely to know who should be banned with his poor language and bad-faith edits .
I work for free, adding competition tables, PBests tables, charts, sources, some info. All in good faith - I have never changed anything with bad intention, (just simply never changed at all) in articles written by the other. Sometimes I can make grammatical error (neurological problems) - small one in this case because just 2/3 short words needed to be added for really proper English. But he left nice tables (which say do not touch me - I am perfect) broken for a few hours and removed important info frome the lede. The woman in question is not only Olympic medallist as he changed the lead to, but also WChamps silver medallist - what he removed. He also removed from the lede top her two records - these are important Olympic distances' WR records - a WR double. Info is notabale for the lede top without any question. What is more - he also removed her junior medals info from the second intro's paragraph . As you see we have 'made on purpose, disruptive edits by Atiru'.
Anyway yes. I really have no time to contribute. Thanks. Jgwikid (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, you asked for it... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

...does this user think the rest of us are getting paid? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if I had even just one dollar per hour... -stares off into space- SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I anonymously volunteer my time for the status and glory, but that's just me. Thanks everyone for taking care of this situation. I do feel sorry for the user that it ended this way. Atiru (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Continious homophobic and person attacks from user whos following my edits

I'd hate for it to come to admin intervention, but I continuously get attacked by someone using an IP from what I think is the California region. They continuously respond on my talk page to even unrelated comments to just bring on name-calling, examples can be found on several pages:

• here July 21
• here (note the backwards spelling) August 7
• all edits from this banned account
• here
• here

The user seems to be hopping around 63.194.188.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 186.139.255.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 47.147.70.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) among others. Is there anything we can do to figure this out? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm noting for the record, since I think several of the diffs presented here will need to get revdel'd, that the edit summaries and talk page comments include a number of brightline violations of our WP:harassment policy, including outright slurs directed at sexuality which I think can be fairly described as hate speech, though it is unclear if it is also an effort at trolling. This issue is probably going to need to be handled by admins with a fair degree of technical facility regardless, so they will be able to see the full context in any event, but just in case this ends up having some broader community relevance, it's worth recording here that the tone of several of the edits is pretty ugly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• None of this is acceptable, but unless it gets to the point where real-life legal action is feasible, I'm not sure much can be done. Asking admins to watch the relevant pages and quickly revert-block-ignore the content may be all that is possible. And, fortunately, this is the place to ask admins to do so. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, blocks may very well be an option if this user is using the same handful of IPs consistently, though of course we may be looking at just a part of the disruption. Of course it's increasingly difficult these days for LTAs to abuse an infinite series of IPs via proxies (and the IPs need to be reported as potential proxy service IPs if nothing), though not impossible. Regardless, some combination of blocks or range blocks may be technically feasible and advisable here: there's a number of reasons that might not work out, but without some technical investigation here, it feels a little premature to say nothing can be done. I don't want to get too in the weeds here, given WP:BEANS, but there are potential options. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

As they're jumping /8s and using different providers (and one of them geo-locates to Argentina) I'm not optimistic. If there is a way to block them, I agree that per BEANS we shouldn't spell it out here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked a couple of IPs, and done some revdel. More can probably be removed by anyone from Talk:Eazy-Duz-It and maybe some other pages. 186.139.255.129 and 47.147.70.139 seem to be long term static IPs. Any IPs from Argentina, etc, should be handled by one of the proxy bots if their type thinks of returning. If it kicks off again then page protection is probably an option - just give an admin a shout. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:RogueShanghai, for the third time

A self-described member of the "Barbz" on Stan Twitter, RogueShanghai has a clear agenda on Wikipedia: to use it as a weapon to edit with puffery the article of their favorite artist, with heavy ownership issues, removing anything bad written in the article by any means, while throwing everything inflamatory and pushing narratives on the articles of the artists they dislike: the user's contributions speak on this. Citing random guidelines to undo edits. Writing stuff like:

• • Hopefully you'll stop [...] acting quite immature and petty for someone who's supposed to be in their 20s.[224]
  • I don't think someone who is a fan of someone who seems to use multiple cowriters for her bars can speak on Doja Cat.[225]

Even though the user has been warned multiple times about their biased, disruptive behavior on Wikipedia on their talk page, it continues. I'm the third editor to report this user since July 2021 in ANI:

• Ignoring WP:ONUS and potential COI by KyleJoan.
• This editor has a history of disruptive and clearly bias edits... by ChicagoWikiEditor.

I'm asking, please, to have a response on this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've read through both the previous threads and looked at some the edit summaries and page revision histories. I do think there are some reasonable concerns with regard to bias in the reported editor. However, I'm also concerned that Cornerstonepicker did not make clear that one of the two "previous discussions" is in fact live on this page right now, covering substantially the same issues. Cornerstone, I note that the last editor you queried about the matter wanting urgent action informed you that there seemed to be no consensus in that discussion for sanctions. So creating this additional thread, running in parallel to the previous one, does not strike me as the most appropriate and constructive response to that situation. You are already engaged in this matter above, along similar arguments. Opening a new thread at ANI under those circumstances might be taken as WP:Disruptive. Like the advice Bilorv gave you above, this should not be taken for me saying that action against RogueShanghai isn't needed: for my part, I would need to look into the matter further as it's clearly a nuanced case of fan zealousy and I'm not sure how far over the line they are at this point. But you just don't seem to have made your case (or been lucky enough to get it noticed, perhaps), so trying another bite at the apple with the other discussion not even closed isn't really likely to get you the result you want, put candidly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. I was sure the previous one was on its way to getting archived. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at this juncture I think you have only two possible courses of action here, neither of which I think is going to leave you overjoyed:

• 1) just accept that there is no community consensus to take action against RogueShanghai at this time, and return to make your best efforts at discussing issues with them (assuming that avoiding them entirely is not an option because of shared namespace interests). If the problems persist, you can file another ANI at a latter date, or seek administrative aid through another venue. However, I would recommend only doing this if some time has passed and it is absolutely necessary. Needless to say, there are some types of behaviour that are brightline violations of policy that you shouldn't be discourage from reporting under any circumstances, but short of those (and you'll just have to use your best judgement on whether a particular action qualifies), I would advise that discretion is the better part of valour here.
• 2) you can always continue to pursue this in the still on-going thread above, but I think Bilorv has the right end of the stick on that situation: it doesn't look like there is community will for action just at the moment, and so I can't say as I recommend this option. Regardless, if you do decide to keep the discussion going there initially, but other uninvolved community members start to suggest to you that it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK (or make comments even remotely in that vein) I would let the matter go immediately for the immediate future.

I'm sorry I can't give you better options than that. I will continue to look into the matter and perhaps provide some input one way or another, but it may not come immediately and even if I do comment, it will not amount to much more by way of community consensus, so my first recommendation of letting the matter drop remains my best advice. But in any event, another thread running in parallel to this one and on substantially the same topic isn't going to help make the situation less messy, but rather quite the contrary. However, if there is another down the line, please feel free to ping me at that time and I will use whatever information I have gathered at that time to provide some feedback. I can't absolutely guarantee it will be to endorse your view of things, but it will at least be one more response keeping the next thread (if there absolutely must be one) from getting lost in the mix. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Whilst the peacockery is one thing, I'm slightly more concerrned about RogueShanghai's insistence on inserting negative information about Minaj's "rivals" [226]. A few more eyes here might be useful. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

• User:RogueShanghai is topic-banned from editing BLPs in the area of music. There are too many issues here. See also the sections above this. Black Kite (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass vandalism by range 2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/34

• 2001:8004:0:0:0:0:0:0/34 (talk · contribs)

The current partial block is not sufficient, based on hundreds of recent edits. Probably a mass reversion and a deeper block are in order. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Admins have been piling up a series of six partial blocks of this range. Time to consider a sitewide block instead. A /34 looks like a big range but most of these edits are bad. In fact, the recent ones have nearly all been reverted. I suggest a three month sitewide block of the /34. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: (Non-administrator comment) You're an admin; why not do it yourself? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Kind of hoping someone--any admin--will review this further. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Ranting fundamentalist

User:83Gulf has been edit-warring at Book of Ruth, repeatedly violating WP:CENSOR, and spewing rants which are fundamentalist attacks against mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Also acting of their behalf: Special:Contributions/155.246.151.38. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Here's a diff:

And their edit summary: "Such arrogance to think that one published piece of garbage should outweigh centuries of carefully considered thought. What would you say if I'd said this thing about your holy venerated mother? Apparently nothing because you have no values and all thoughts are equally relevant in your weak mind. Wiki is quickly becoming a vast garbage dump of ramblings and murmurings. Weak utterances of thought don't deserve the time of day to reconsider." Carlstak (talk) 04:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Editing dispute. Per WP:redflag extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Which is what 83Gulf claimed in different words. If you believe I am sockpuppet, please file at SPI. It will be futile.155.246.151.38 (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEAT is good enough, it does not have to be WP:SOCK.

It's not WP:REDFLAG: Michael Coogan stated the same in God and Sex. Seems to be a pretty vanilla claim among modern Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

The ES [Many modern commentators see sexual allusions in this part of the story, with 'feet' as a euphemism for genitals.] - deleted. Intellectual graffiti from a perverted mind steeped in the weak morality of our current society. An attempt to undo thousands of years of established religion by an atheist. makes me wonder about their ability to adhere to NPOV; especially as one of the atheists in question is Gerald West, Professor of Religion and Theology at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, and another is Amy-Jill Levine, Professor of New Testament Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School.

Conservapedia is thataway → Narky Blert (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Please argue that point at talk. A claim of WP:redflag was made. Address it at talk.155.246.151.38 (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Negative, IP. No change in venue is warranted. This is the place for conduct matters. I don't even know what this is about (Narky Blert: Cow Man says, diffs = friend), but I do know that telling someone that they are of a perverted mind and are of a weak morality is a personal attack if directed at an editor, and a WP:BLP violation if directed at an otherwise living person. Neither is acceptable. Either is a cause for sanctions. El_C 06:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Diff. Narky Blert (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

See Narky Blert, this is why I'm so good at what I do. I start reading a report from the middle! Blocked indefinitely for egregious misconduct. El_C 06:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the 155 IP editor is the same as 83Gulf, and I'm not convinced of anything that should happen regarding the editing dispute at Book of Ruth (please use the talk page). However 83Gulf is very close to being sanctioned for inappropriate comments, and the 155 IP editor has had quite a lot of their edits reverted for NPOV issues. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy update

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

---

Note: I'm only posting this because this event is easily missed by anyone who isn't online 24/7, & will lead to bafflement & misunderstandings for many. I'll leave the work of providing further details to others.

It has come to my attention that Chris Sherlock, who most lately has been contributing under the username Aussie Article Writer, has been indefinitely banned. The immediate cause was that he violated an WP:IBAN. The more general cause of his ban is that, simply put, Wikipedia is not a healthy environment for him & he needs to stay away from here. (It is possible: I've taken several Wikibreaks in the past, & am about to take another.) I sincerely wish him all the best, & hope for his sake he doesn't come back. -- llywrch (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It would also be great if people could avoid the temptation to post on AAW's talk about this, which somehow three users, two of them quite experienced, have thought it was a good idea to do. There's a very real risk of directly harming AAW's mental health by doing so. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A brief essay expounding upon the above: Wikipedia:There's a reason you don't know, shortcuts WP:OPAQUE and WP:NEEDTOKNOW. Hopefully people can keep this essay in mind for future cases along these lines. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 12:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Llywrch, I believe he has been indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action, not banned. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct. I indefinitely blocked AAR for their multiple egregious violations of their community-imposed interaction ban with BHG (note for those following along that the ban was imposed on their previous account Chris.sherlock). I do, however, deeply regret any emotional turmoil this has caused him. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the gist is: we don't reject people, we reject pieces of abstract knowledge. If my piece of abstract knowledge gets rejected by the community, it is not me who got rejected, it is not my person who has been censored. Some people take it too personally, but in fact we do not judge real persons, we judge knowledge. And this should be extra clear from the requirement that we never render people's personal opinions, but only the opinions of WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. We judge edits not editors, and we judge edits against RS. Levivich 15:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Piotrus' concerns about User:BrownHairedGirl

I haven't interacted with that user much before, but in the last few days we came to be in a disagreement over one particular discussion, and her tone has become increasingly aggressive, up to a point I asked her to WP:REFACTOR and apologize for several recent comments that seem to breach WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIV and like. She responded within minutes by removing my request from her talk page with an edit summary "rv troll". I tried to de-escalate and resolve things amicably, but since BrownHairedGirl refused and called me a "troll" to my face (which, call me odd, I find rather offensive); further, I also noticed that today she managed to personally attack two other editors. I think it's time to ask the community to review the situation.

Here's a chronological list of diffs I find problematic:

• "But a bunch of partisan POV-pushers led my Piotrus are demontrating an active hostility to actually learning about the topic, and want to detablise the coverage"
• ":I am alarmed by your obstinate and aggressive rejection of those two simple points of fact, because that degree of denialism seems to me to be explicable in one of only two ways: a) that your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand that the central dividing issue of a dispute is a POV issue; b) that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. Which is it, Piotrus?"
• "Piotrus, you are back playing your old switch-and-evade game, and using your usual sleazy, gaslighting technique of bogus allegations... your demand for sources is nothing more than a transparently bad faith attrition strategy. For whatever reason, you are engaged in a bizarre form of historical denialism in which you use a succession of WP:GAMINing techniques... The only IDONTLIKEIT here is your sustained and disgustingly ill-mannered attempts to deny that reality.
• my request asking her to refactor the last three posts cited in diffs above and apologize for them
• "rv troll" edit summary in response to the above

In addition to this incident, I'll also note that at the same time, just today, BrownHairedGirl seems to have written similar AGF/NPA-violating comments directed at User:The Rambling Man ("TRM, please do try to stop trolling"). User:SQL asked her to tone this down [227]; which didn't go down so well judging by the fact that after few short exchanges SQL themselves was asking her to "retract personal attacks" made against them: [228]. BHG's posts on her talk page in response to SQL: Accues an editor (presumably TRM) of being a troll again; does so again, referring to (presumably) TRM as troll four times]; does so twice more again, and accuses SQL of "harassment and victimisation"; refuses to retract the previous accusations, repeats it and the "troll" comments, and adds a new one, accusing SQL of "being a troll-enabler"; repeats a bunch of those accusations again; and ends with repeating some of the above and "Your choice not to communicate further is a blessed relief after your terrible behaviour, so please make your non-communication permanent until you repent of being a force-multiplier for a troll.".

So within the last 2-3 days it seems that BrownHairedGirl managed to violate AGF/NPA, rather seriously, towards at least three different editors. Since she is hardly a new editor, one could expect her to uphold, rather than violate, our policies (AGF, CIV, NPA...). One may be having a bad day or few, but if a response to a request to refactor and apologize request is to call the other party a a troll, well... I don't file ANI reports often, but this toxicity is too much even for an old timer like me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• As this will inevitably draw the anti-TRM hawks out of hiding, I'll just say that the kinds of things being expressed by BrownhairedGirl felt to me like just venting and while toxic, didn't bother me at all. I've been too busy lately just creating shit-tons of featured and good material, and keeping errors off the main page, to be bothered by that kind of stuff. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• I completely reject Piotrus' claims, and am preparing my response. But there are a lot of diffs to collect, so it may take a few hours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • So you insist on calling me a troll then? PS. My "claims" are simple: I've been a victim of several nasty personal attacks from you. Diffs are above. Good luck rejecting those "claims". All I asked is a refactor and an apology. Why escalate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    Don't twist facts again, Piotrus. You escalated by bringing your complaint here after your trolling was reverted.

    The full history is below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm interested to hear both sides of this, so could we please break ANI tradition and try to work through this without the typical high-octane drama? There's a lot of signal to noise ratio issues at play, and if we can cut through that and work out what happened and why, we might just get through this without it becoming a cluster (I'll let you choose which sort). ~TNT (she/they • talk) 16:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Aye, this would be a good idea. Let's see BHG's response before we start any hyperbole. Black Kite (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• 3rded. Piotrus, can you please textify the diffs and just link normally? My eyes glaze over in blue. P.S. TNT, with your user name, I guess Cluster munition...? Fuck, I said the bad word: munition! El_C 17:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Statement by BHG. I stand by my comments about Piotrus. For example, Piotrus falsely accused me[229] of You are inventing a threat of possible future controversies to argue the existing category is controversial. That was because I had pointed out that in the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers (including Bobby Sands) the question of political status was a major political dispute at the heart of a low-level civil war. You advocate throwing NPOV out of the window, and asserting as unqualified fact the POV of one side. The nature of that dispute is uncontested: one side insisted that they were political priosners, the other than they were not. Piotrus wants to create a situation where en.wp editors will have to make a binary choice between one POV or the other, because categorisation is a binary choice.
  Piotrus's decision to accuse me of "inventing" undisputed historical facts is just one part of the WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics which he has adopted in relation to political prisoner categories, and I make no apology for calling him for his malicious slurs. I could provide a lot more details on his antics, but I hope that his attempt to smear historical facts as inveting is sufficient illustration of his tactics and why I eventually questioned his integrity when he repeatedly pushed the same point by demanding sources for that simple, core historical point, and I stand by that comment.

So Piotrus's decision to come here to complain about my responses to his antics is bizarre.

As to TRM, the situation is at core relatively simple. TRM posted at BRFA a comment which was pure snark[230]. It offered no insight or value to the decision on whether run that bot task; it was purely a personal attack, and as such it was classic trolling. After I called it out as trolling[231] and hatted it[232], TRM unhatted the off-topic comments,[233] and posted another round of trolling.[234].SQL hatted the discussion again, and I replied to TRM.[235]

Then SQL came to my talk to reproach me for posting in the hatted area. SQL's concern was not that I had been trolled or that the BRFA had been disrupted by the trolling, but I had replied to the troll. SQL's opening comment tome[236] was If you have an issue with another editor, you know where to take it up. That inverted the core fact that the whole thing was a matter of another editor taking issue with me in the wrong venue. But there was no reproach to TRM, only to me. After several rounds of this, I eventually asked SQL to stop this harassment and victimisation, and go reproach the troll who had accused the disruption. SQL took offence at that, and we both tried to disengage.

I then went off to explore the background of TRM's comment that another editor has advised him to come to BRFA. I then discovered that in fact, TRM had been goaded into action by Aussie Article Writer (talk · contribs) (formerly Chris.sherlock), a long-term highly destructive editor who has waged extraordinarily long and vicious vendettas against numerous editors,and who began his vendetta against me after I opposed his vile vendetta against @DuncanHill. As a result,Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is subject to a one-way IBAN re me and DuncanHill. That IBAN was flagrantly broken by his antics on TRM's talk (permalink to that discussion,which is busting with personal attacks on me by all three participants), and by Aussie Article Writer's trolling of my draft RFA (permalink), and by Aussie Article Writer's continued breaches of the iBAN on his talk after being blocked for the IBAN breaches (permalink).

Sadly, SQL was uninterested in any of that shoddy background when I posted about it on SQL's talk: permalink.

Now, having slept on it, I am much less annoyed at SQL and TRM. All three of us -- TRM, SQL and me -- were all played like puppets by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, whose exceptional talent for poisoning wn.wp has been developed over a decade of drama and malice. I sincerely hope that they are again banned (as they were for three years) and they are never again able to spread poison like the did to collaboration between me, TRM and SQL.

So Piotrus's post on my talk today[237] was an attempt to leverage the drama created by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock, by falsely linking it to my rejection of his smears at DRV. I promptly reverted it as trolling, and stand by that label: it was a clear attempt to make mischief by falsely portraying me as the cause of two dramas instigated by others.

Now, please can we end this drama and get back to editing?

SQL and TRM, please be wary of that menace Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock. And Piotrus ... if you making false accusations that another editor is inventing history, and double down at length with FUD tactics ... don't cry "personal attack" when your integrity is challenged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Well if it's worth anything, I wasn't aware that (a) AAW was a sock and (b) the owner had been IBANned with you. I assume good faith with editors I've never heard of coming to my page. Although I probably should have learnt a lesson from years back when a rather excited admin blocked me for apparently deliberately proxying for a banned editor. Live and (in this case not) learn. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I wholly accept that. You had no reason at all to know about the IBAN, and your AGF was taken advantage of.

As I wrote above, I think in hindsight that you and me and SQL were all played like violins by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock's latest attempt to do what he has done successfully for years: create conflict to discredit others. Chris had enough insight to see how to press our buttons, and has enough malice to try to maximise destruction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair to AAW it wasn't technically a sock account - it wasn't block evasion and there wasn't any overlap of the accounts. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, your comments regarding Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer are egregious personal attacks. I don't care whether or not they are blocked, or whether or not they have personally attacked you, those comments are unacceptable and are unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor with as much experience as you. I ask that you strike them, and I am prepared to hand out an NPA block if necessary. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability Which comments? About his vile vendetta against me? Entirely justified. About his spreading of drama and malice for many years? Entirely justified. I'm sure you noticed his attempt to blame me for his problems during his last meltdown. Stop letting him press your buttons. DuncanHill (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: as @DuncanHill notes below, my comments on Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer are entirely based on the facts of his appalling conduct over many years.

It is entirely unacceptable that Wikipedia editors have continued to be exposed for so long to the vendettas of Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer. He chose in this case to knowingly violate an IBAN to pursue a multi-venue attacks on me -- and you are criticising me for describing this? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

PS Note that Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer also violated his IBAN re @DuncanHill by posting repeatedly on Duncan's talks: see the history of Duncan's talk.

Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer is well aware that bot IBANs are in place: see this disastrously botched appeal against his IBANs, last month.

Chris.sherlock/Aussie Article Writer has been actively targeting editors for years. Why do you want the targets of his vendettas to refrain from noting that when he has another swing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, I don't think there actually was an IBAN againt AAW with regard to me. There should have been one years ago after an email he sent me, which got one of his then-blocked accounts a loss of email privileges. He regained email by reappearing as another account. DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note (in case it wasn't clear) User:Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock has been indeffed for their comment on BHG's (not yet live) RfA, despite being IBanned from commenting about her. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There's an earlier personal attack and violation of the IBAN by AAW still on their userpage. Despite the numerous admins watching the page it was allowed to stand. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I removed that just now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, Black Kite.

    Note that the blocking admin GeneralNotability also posted a followup[238] noting multiple breaches of the IBAN. This was not a one-off strike by Aussie Article Writer/Chris.sherlock; it was more of the vendetta.

nope

Also, note that the history of AAW/CS's talk shows 5 edits by AAW/CS which have been hidden or revdeled: see this history. I think it's likely that this was yet more of his vendatta malice. The history suggests that maybe Fastlily did those revdels, so maybe Fastily can explain a bit of what type of stuff was revdeled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Those revisions were suppressed, not revdel'd, so it would be best to not ask questions about what was in them. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC) OK, I'll not enquire more. But I believe it is reasonable to assume that if the edits were suppressed, they were seriously nasty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC) No, it is not reasonable to assume anything when you do not know why these edits were suppressed. Please don't enquire more, but without putting in an addendum containing an excuse. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2021 (UTC) I do know what was suppressed, and if/when AAW returns I will probably need access to defend myself. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflicted of course) I find myself reading another ANI thread where things can go one way or another - we could spend a long time quoting each other and end up with someone blocked, or we could try to look at this from an outside perspective. Wikipedia is weird, it causes otherwise lovely people to get rather annoyed about things which often wouldn't cause such a dramatic response (myself included!).

• @BrownHairedGirl: Some of your above comments have merit, others are combatative and have only escalated things. And that's what a lot of this is, on both sides - escalation for very little outcome. Your behaviour has been rude, and regardless of how anyone feels or how justified it may well be, we can do better than be rude. In an ideal world, I'd ask you to please refactor/strike things other people have found to be a personal attack - not on the basis that it may or may not have been one by the letter of some website's policy, but solely because what do you honestly lose by doing so? What we gain though, is de-escalation, and that is worthy of small concessions on a project built on collaboration. I'd also like to note that even though you have been rude, your experience of being harassed and targeted is valid and deserves investigation - everyone should be reminded that being uncivil does not preclude someone from also being the target of harassment, and we must not dismiss someone's claims solely because of the manner in which they present them. I appreciate your attempts at trying to disengage, and understand that sometimes that's easier said than done.
• @Piotrus: I hear you, and I agree that things have been said in a manner which aren't great. I understand that the resolution you would like is for BrownHairedGirl to retract/refactor their statement to you and apologise. I think that is a reasonable thing to request and would help de-escalate things.

• I've tried really hard to hear both sides of this - I don't want to see anyone blocked where the outcome could still be one we learn from. Incivility has no place here, we can do better in how we speak to each other and we can always choose not to escalate a situation. I'm not expecting people to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, but stepping away, having a mug of wine tea and working together on this is a good start. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• TNT, I'll have tea with you, but it's gotta be right fuckin' now! El_C 18:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• @TheresNoTime: thanks for your conscientious attempt to defuse the situation, and for the time and effort you must have spent doing so.

However, I an not willing to refactor my comments in relation to Piotrus unless their allegation that I invented historical fact (and their many followups in similar vein) are clearly withdrawn.

To my mind, that sort of attempt to smear another editor's reasoned objections is many orders of magnitude more destructive than possibly rude words in response. Wikipedia may survive rudeness; but malicious allegations of historical falsification destroy the substance of what we here to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl: What's the outcome you're looking for here? I understand your stance - de-escalation is almost always something that has to happen on both sides. Do we need to look at more IBANs as a way of moving everyone away from each other here? ~TNT (she/they • talk) 18:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime: Some misunderstanding, maybe? I didn't bring this to ANI, so my only desire here was to defend myself.

  I would be quite happy for his discussion to simply to be closed as "no action needed", and put an end to the timesink. But if you want something specific, then i ask that Piotrus retract all his bogus allegations that I invented an NPOV problem, and the rest of the spinoffs as the dug in deeper. If that happened,then I would of course retract/refactor some of my comments in reply.

  I don't think that any IBAN here would be constructive. This at heart a content issue, where Piotrus has been waging a campaign to discredit anyone who point to complexity and nuance and POV problems in the application of a label which he insists can be objectively determined. That cannot be resolved by constraining Piotrus's interactions with one or more individual editors who have had the temerity to challenge his simple certainties; it needs a change of approach by Piotrus, or their recusal from a topic where they are too heavily emotionally invested to assume good faith in those who say "it's not that simple". Note for example that in the DRV discussion, Piotrus has repeatedly pronounced that those who point to POV issues in the term "political prisoner" are supporting "fringe views", taking a pro-western stance, etc. I will see if I have the energy to collect more diffs, but here's one to start with; Piotrus dismissing as a straw man [239] my assertion[240] that In the case of the 1981 Irish hunger strikers or Julian Assange or Leonard Peltier, there is not a mainstream view versus a fringe: there are two radically different worldviews which have opposing concepts of what is a political prisoner. Choosing one pOV over the other is breach of WP:NPOV. That sort of counter-factual bluster is deeply corrosive battleground conduct, and there was lots of it from Piotrus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @BrownHairedGirl: Evidently action is needed, I was really hoping you'd reflect on the words you've used and come to your own conclusion on their suitability for use. They are not suitable. We're all guilty (myself, recently) of using inappropriate language to describe other editors. We must be better. I'm stepping away from this conversation now as its fairly likely to spiral into ANI-class bullshit, and at 9:30pm I'm more inclined to go put my feet up than continue this. I'm fairly sure this will result in a block, and perhaps it should. BrownHairedGirl, defeat the trend we're seeing on this project and apologise - do better than we've all done previously ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime: again, I will make no apology for eventually standing up to a sustained attempt by Piotrus to smear and misrepresent editors who accurately pointed to complexity in response to his campaign to erase other perspectives.

  If Wikipedia really is a place where the response to such POV-pushing and bullying is more problematic than the POV-pushing and denialism itself, then it will no longer be an NPOV encyclopedia. Collegial discussion requires open exchange of views and willingness to accept factually-based counter-arguments. I am very troubled by your lack of concern about that conduct, because NPOV is a core policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Should their other accounts get indefblocked as well?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Whose "other accounts" are you referring to? I'm not following. -- llywrch (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I assume the now indefinitely blocked Aussie Article Writer.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
      • That was my first thought, but this thread is about BHG, so the referent is ambiguous. -- llywrch (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think this thread on SQL's talk page shows a real lack of civility. SQL had already asked BHG to stop contacting them at this point. BHG justified the post by saying that it presented new information. Ok, sure, fine. But SQL replies reiterating clearly that they wish to be left alone and feel BHG's behaviour is approaching harrassment. Even after that BHG leaves another comment. Then SQL asks again for BHG to stop, and then BHG comments again. This is the kind of treatment that drives editors away from the project (cf. Special:Diff/1037702885). Colin M (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, I was close to being driven away from Wikipedia by SQL's stonewalling, both over their initial refusal to recognise that I had been trolled and by their later refusal to even acknowledge that the whole saga had all been stoked by a serial vendetta-monger who breached an IBAN. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• As far as BRFA/bot processes are concerned: I've never had a bad personal interaction with BHG, but I've noticed she can brush off as a bit verbose/abrasive when in a dispute. Aside from the incident linked to in the OP, there was this extended issue (along with the various spin-offs on other talk pages; and the history since a bunch was redacted by BAG members, eg here). As a result of the incident, the volume of text and the heat-to-light ratio was such that no other BAG member wanted to review the issue, and I'm surprised Primefac made the effort. I think she means well and often identifies an actual problem, but I'd just gently advise this approach is not always particularly helpful, especially when you want BAG attention on something, and it can discourage bot operators (like QEDK, who stopped running the bot and says "I'll probably let it lapse anyway since I have no intention of running a bot on this wiki again"). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: I found that episode absolutely horrible, and it severely dented my faith in BAG.

  The facts of that case were quite simple. A bot was authorised for category-related tasks, the BRFA having been notified at central talk pages. When it began work, it started populating a category which was nominated at CFD, where everyone except that bot operator opposed the bot's work. It was clear that owing to an oversight in notification, there was not actually consensus for its work, but the bot owner dug down and insisted that there was consensus, despite the overwhwelming opposition.

  BAG handled that very badly, focusing on a procedural defence of their initial good faith authorisation, rather than on the current consensus that the bot would do a lot of damage to category redirects. I was horrified by how hard I had to push the simple point that a good-faith assessment of consensus had turned out to be radically mistaken, and that the authorisation needed to be reassessed.

  I felt that QEDK was badly let down by BAG, who supported QEDK's destructive digging-in instead of simply saying "let's pause and reopen discussion". BAG guided EDK into confrontation rather consensus-building, and I am unsurprised that QEDK was disillusioned; I was disillusioned too. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think I quite agree with that reading. I don't want to run this sub-thread too long, but I'll just say that I do think it was largely how you decided to handle the problem, as well as the specific comments you made, that led to the great deal of animus discussion and the bot being retired. In addition, QEDK (unsurprisingly) basically disappeared after that month and he's now largely inactive. Obviously I can't say whether it's connected or not but I'd imagine so. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: we'll have to differ on that. I tried all the usual gentle steps at escalation, but was repeatedly dismissed and insulted by QEDK, and stonewalled by BAG. The animus arose out of BAG's collective failure to reopen the consensus-building, which required an escalation of pressure to stop the bot doing damage.

  It could all have been so vastly happier for everyone if BAG had simply re-opened consensus-building. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  It appears the bomb robot has tipped at a hill. El_C 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl, gotta say, after reading the linked threads and all the diffs above, I have to agree with PR and others that your tenor and demeanor appear to be have the opposite effect of what you intend in these discussions. Far from resolving these disputes, it is making them escalate to all-out brawls. I actually agree with you re: the CfD and deletion review discussions linked above, but I agree with others that your behavior is still problematic, regardless of what the right call is in the linked discussions. One can be right, and still be wrong about how they go about being right.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  (I reply against my better judgement...) You say "escalation of pressure" as if you moved a user talk discussion to WP:BOTN. I feel the need to emphasise to you, after jogging my memory by reading the diffs again, that the whole affair was the most... ruthless... thing I've seen in the bot space, and I don't think that's an exaggeration. It's not often you see Primefac writing in all-caps. There was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task, three BAG members reviewed (and denied) your complaints, following which your messages towards QEDK included a vile, gaslighting thug, vile, scummy conduct, you systematic mendacity and persistent gaslighting, repeatedly stonewalled, deceived, bullied and gaslighted, whether this bot-owner is competent to run a bot, and those are just excerpts from two comments. You repeated similar stuff over dozens of other comments. Do you honestly not see how this would make another editor feel? Speaking for myself, I'd say that whole affair would be enough to throw in the towel and do something else onwiki, or find a different hobby altogether. It's not how we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  RE: a vile, gaslighting thug... [etc.] — holy shit! P.S. ProcrastinatingReader, once again, Cow Man says: diffs = friend. El_C 20:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: we are back to the core problem:your assertion that this was a good bot operator trying to work on a legitimate task. I fundamentally disagree on both counts.

  QEDK repeatedly dismissed the objections of all the category regulars, often very insultingly. none of the regular category editors supported him, but he dismissed all the objections. That is not the conduct of a good bot owner.

  Similarly, this was not a "legitimate task". It was a task which had been approved in good faith without notifications treated at the most relevant editors, who objected en masse when they became aware of it. A good faith error was made in approving it, but once such widespread opposition became clear, it was no longer a legit task.

  That's the problem:the way we should figure out problems in a collaborative, volunteer environment is to reopen a decision which turns out to be unexpectedly controversial due to lack of notification. I pleaded for that opportunity to discuss it collaboratively, but was repeatedly rebuffed. When BAG block the collaborative pathway, expect anger in return

  You have quoted me without diffs, which is unfair because I cannot review the context ... but I do recall utterly vile personal attacks from QEDK, to which I was responding. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Diff for you are again behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the diff. That allows other editors to see my comment in the context of my explanation of the behaviour that I was describing.

  QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug. He was ploughing on with a task which clearly did have consensus, and had been lashing out at me in multiple venues. It would be much more productive to read the whole thread than to cherrypick the points where I snapped at the antics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  (FTR: I did give a diff in my original comment (of Primefac's removal, which contained that comment).)

  I remember reading this and the preceding/related discussions last year, such as on his user talk and though I can't remember all the details, I can remember that (on the whole) I didn't come away with the 'QEDK wasn't listening' impression. I also felt that even his most frustrated response fell short of "utterly vile personal attacks", and he kept his composure better than most of us would've. I think he was trying to listen (see how he responded to Trappist the monk's concern, on the same link), although after a while probably felt you weren't engaging in good faith. The BAG members responding also seemed to be more concerned with what you were saying (eg [241][242]). I also remember QEDK said he paused the bot's activity until BAG gave an all-clear, which removes any sense of urgency in my opinion. I'm not necessarily saying you were wrong about the content issues (I haven't reviewed them in depth, and in general you often are right), I'm just dismayed by your approach and how QEDK was treat. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  In that WT:BRFA discussion, it seems QEDK didn't really know that category redirects often have no backlinks and no members by design (even {{category redirect}}, which QEDK cited, says admins should only delete category redirects "If this category name is unlikely to be entered on new pages"!). It took me a while (and multiple re-reads) to understand that too, just now. Yes, maybe QEDK should have made sure he deeply understood category redirects before proceeding. But that's no reason to throw AGF out the window and write something like this comment, which I will quote at length: You have now made your goal crystal clear [...], and your attempt to cast that as my "narrative" or "perception" is a viciously nasty response: it's gaslighting. Please conduct yourself much better. I have seen this pattern before: -manipulation of consensus-formation (by woefully inadequate notification and lack of upfront clarity about goals) and then a belated admissson of the real goal followed by an attempt at gaslighting the objectors. There is no justification for escalating rhetoric like that. "Manipulating consensus", specifically, is a nasty and (in context) unfounded accusation. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I've looked at some (but not all) of the diffs, and one thing is clear: BHG needs to learn when to dis-engage with a discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support block (struck; the support was for a temporary block to prevent continuing personal attacks in this thread, those have now stopped User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)) even if QEDK was indeed behaving like a vile, gaslighting thug is accurate, constantly repeating these personal attacks is degrading to the conversation. Multiple editors have told BHG this. I still haven't read the initial deletion discussion that led to the DRV, but this diff about Piotrus your claim to be a social scientist are false, and that you lack the thinking skills to understand is clearly a personal attack. I don't see any option other than a block. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    For goodness sake, I repeated that comment about QEDK solely because it was dug out of the archives by someone else, and i explained why I used it at the time. My offence here was to defend myself.

    As to the DRV, please read the discussion and see that comment in context. I was being heavily goaded: accused of "inventing" historical facts, of creating a straw man pointing to one of he biggest political crises in Northern Ireland... and eventually I snapped. Your quite here omits both the context of the rest of my comment, and the wider context of the discussion which proceeded it. For the record, Piotrus made multiple claims at both DRV and at CFD to expertise as a social scientist ... yet his conduct of a FUD campaign against inconvenient facts was incompatible with the norms of that profession. So I didn't make a statement 'as quoted: I asked a question about what was was going on, with that as one possible explanation. I can't even quite the whole of what i wrote, because it seems that doing so will be treated as an offence in itself.

    This mining of decontextualized quotes is a terrible way to assess a lengthy discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    I have finished reading the CFD and DRV discussions. As this is a dispute over content that has turned into a behavior dispute, I will give my opinion on both. Both BHG and Piotrus are bludgeoning the DRV discussion. There is certainly a philosophical dispute regarding how categories should be used regarding controversial classifications. Whether or not WP:SUBJECTIVECAT applies to prohibit Category:Political prisoners is the topic of the open DRV. BHG's specific question of whether Bobby Sands would be in the category is a relevant one to that discussion, and Piotrus should not have insisted that there be an ongoing dispute on a Wikipedia talk page before it be considered. That said, Piotrus's suggestion that modern scholarship and not just contemporaneous opinions be considered is reasonable (we would certainly do so for 19th century political prisoners), and I don't see how that implies he is POV-pushing. With any amount of context, the your claim to be a social scientist are false comment is needlessly inflammatory; please do not insist that comment is appropriate. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    @力: It was a final-straw response to Piotrus's repeated claims that I was "inventing" the issue as a "straw man". I am glad that you agree that it is not. But can you understand how I was goaded by the repeated attempts to erase the issue and cast me as a liar,as well as by the wider bludgeoning?

    Of course, the views of contemporary scholars should be represented in the article, along with the views of the protagonists and contemporary observers and scholars. But to single one of those perspectives out as the "fact" summarised in a category entry or omitted from the category is a distortion of multi-polar reality.

    One of the issues here is cultural. Poland has moved far to the right, and its rejection of the communist era is complete; everything from that period is viewed by the vast majority as bad. Ireland has moved from centuries of conflict into a very different space, where everything is about creating space for two traditions to co-exist. So we are very much in a space of multi-polar narratives,and allowing all POVs to be heard, and not requiring a single official truth. It's fuzzy and complex,but least we not shooting each other no more.

    I don't expect outsiders to understand that, but I do expect that they at least try to educate themselves before denouncing it as fabrication. I remain highly alarmed that someone who claims to be a social scientist has been bludgeoning an en.wp discussion to insist that there is only one POV and no subjectivity. That pursuit of rigid certainty is the polar opposite of the critical analysis of complexity that I expect from social science, and I can't reconcile the two things I see. If I had been less goaded by the repeated malignment and by the repeated denial of a POV divide on the issue, I would probably have expressed my concern more cautiously, but that's not the situation I found myself in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

    The second quote needs a bit more context, but is not much better with it. BHG is saying that either QEDK is lying about being a social scientist and lacks thinking skills or that you intentionally engaged in a FUD campaign to misrepepresent some simple, core facts because they don't suit your POV-pushing agenda. I unfortunately recognize this sort of dichotomy from some of BHG's previous comments which were cited in the Portals arbcom case. Examples of it being applied to three different editors: one, two, three. Colin M (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support block. I think the community is often naïve about the damage that power-users with chronic civility issues do to the movement. Editors like BHG drive away others in a manner that adds up to much more lost effort than they can ever contribute on their own. Even for the rare editor who is a net-positive despite chronic civility issues (which I don't believe BHG to be), it sends a message to other users when we let them continue editing—a message that creates a chilling effect. It's really easy to not call people things like "vile". If someone can't manage that bare minimum, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, whether they have 2 edits or 2,000,000. Until BHG can show that she understands CIV and NPA, and understands that they apply even when the other person was a jerk to you, and even when you feel you are in the right, she should not be editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Uh, at what point did blocking enter this discussion?. I don't see a reason to block anyone. I do see some good reasons for certain editors to step way from interacting with each other, though. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  I must confess I started it (possibly sooner than helpful); I've simply seen enough comments where it appears BHG is defending their personal attacks by repeating them. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• It is quite unpleasant to be a participant in any conflict with BrownHairedGirl. She insists she is right, she is quick to assume bad faith and rarely backs down from that, and she is absolutely terrible at de-escalation. The fault is always with others (who "goad" her). She seems to have learned nothing from the Portals case (the discussion surrounding a block preceding that case is quite comparable to what we have today). I tend to avoid her if possible (fortunately our interests don't overlap much). BHG has gotten away with bullying and incivility for a very long time because she has many supporters, and ANI in particular has historically been spectacularly useless with respect to BHG, who has been allowed to continue and repeat her behaviour here. There is not a problem of Piotrus/BHG or one of SQL/BHG or one of QEDK/BHG (or earlier NA1k/BHG) that could be solved by mutual voluntary or involuntary interaction bans, it is a problem with BHG. She could end these conflicts by disengaging, but either chooses not to or is unable to. Both are bad for a collaborative environment. —Kusma (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who has had a somewhat heated disagreement with BHG about renaming some categories or other (something like that), I really can't say I recognise that description of her. She stands up for what she believes in, and she challenges bullies. She has never shewn any signs of bearing me a grudge for our disagreement. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• @BrownHairedGirl:: There are many examples of personal attacks by you, above (and elsewhere). It would really be helpful if you could acknowledge that, and agree to moderate your behavior. Paul August ☎
• Well said Kusma — Ched (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Kusma and others said it well. Uncivil, rude and abrasive behavior creates a toxic environment on enwiki and already drove many good editors out of this project. Sadly, BHG has a history of repeatedly assuming bad faith and being quite rude and uncivil towards others. Unless something changes in her behavior, I am in favor of adopting sanctions towards her. - Darwinek (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

• BHG can't really respond now that she has been blocked for a week. I was so stunned I had to make an uncomfortable trek back to ANI to try to find out why and how this happened. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not defending BHG's abrasive style of interacting with editors she believes are incorrect about interpreting Wikipedia policy but I have to say that when it comes to categories and understanding how they are and should be used on Wikipedia, she is never wrong. And that's my POV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose action against BHG, I can't believe I even have to say this but nothing here rises to the level of a block. Not every ANI discussion needs to break into a support/oppose discussion. Rumbling for a block because someone is a "power user" is not part of the blocking policy. Christ the things we let certain users get away with and then people try to bring the hammer down down relatively minor venting because of who they are. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Aaaand I see GeneralNotability has gone ahead and done it already. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I've got a whole load of respect for you HighInBC, but excusing behaviour (like this?) as "relatively minor venting because of who they are" is a fairly substantial understatement. I don't believe expecting base civility is really that much to ask ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I was saying her venting was minor. And I was saying they are being targeted by some for who they are, ie a "power user". I have seen truthful statements about serious harassment that has resulted in the user doing that harassment IBANned from the community and later blocked indef. And I have seen minor comments like referring to editing as trolling. Not giving anyone a free pass because of who they are, but I also think they should not be targeted for who they are. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll is not minor. Paul August ☎ 23:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It is if they are trolling. DuncanHill (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh come on. So it's ok to call someone an asshole as long as you think that's what they are? Every personal attack can be justified that way. Paul August ☎

Ever heard of a duck? DuncanHill (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Sigh... WP:NPA says: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." It doesn't add the caveat: "unless of course they deserve it." Paul August ☎ 00:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pull the other one... DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means. Are you trying to be rude? Paul August ☎ 00:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Paul August: If I were trying you would surely know. DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"Pull the other one, it's got bells on" is a traditional extension of "you're pulling my leg" in British English. Don't you have this in America? Perhaps Peppa Pig's missionary work will get round to it. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill With all due respect and to avoid confusion, since BHG has called several editors trolls here. Do you believe I was trolling? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Well you started this dismal thread, make of that what you will. What I do think is that 99% of the criticism here wouldn't have started without AAW's baiting. DuncanHill (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

DuncanHill, Duncan, I don't know AAW, I don't believe I interacted with them nor that they participated in the deletion discussion that me and BHW did. If your comment was about AAW only, so be it, but since as you say, the tread has been started by me and concerns comments directed at me, and since you didn't answer clearly above, I ask you again: do you believe I was trolling, or not: yes, or no? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I think most of the editors calling for BHG to be blocked are (presumably unknowingly) being triggered by AAW. Now, It's perfectly possible to have a legitimate discussion about "how can we help BHG respond more emolliently to those who dislike her", but this discussion ain't it. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill While you may be right about some editors not being familiar with AAW, my question to you, for the third time, is whether you agree or disagree with BHG calling me a troll. Seriously, a simple yes or no is not that hard here; and if it helps, here's the exact diff in which she called me a "troll".

As for the word dislike you use, I'd also like to note that it suggests some folks (like myself) dislike BHG. I'd kindly suggest refactoring your statement, as for one, I don't feel it's fair or correct to describe me as an editor who "dislikes" her; so may I suggest the phrase "how can we help BHG respond more emolliently to those who disagree with her" instead? Bonus points for changing emolliently into something that most spellcheckers will recognize, like "positively" or "less combatively" or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I am truly sorry you have an inadequate spell-checker. I will flagellate myself accordingly. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: I would also like to know if you think it was ok to call Piotrus a troll? Not answering Piotrus’ question seems to imply you do. If you don’t it would be helpful if you said so. Paul August ☎ 01:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? DuncanHill (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say to block her because she's a power user. I said to block her because's she's chronically incivil, and that the fact that she's a power user shouldn't make her exempt. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block or any action — FWIW, BHG is an extremely productive editor and a net positive. Some (or most) of her comments are acerbic and abrasive(I’ve run afoul of this, so I’m no saint myself) Her obnoxious comments(incivility) are what largely led to her de-sysop. I find that BHG is always more often than not the cause of their own calamity for example BHG claims she wants a reasonable outcome from this ANI(closed as action needed) but her refusal to see or claim some responsibility to what this is spiraling into is very contradictory to the aforementioned stance. @BrownHairedGirl, could you just apologize to the relevant parties even if you feel you ought not to do so? That is, if you indeed want a reasonable outcome from this ANI, I for one would never support a block and I’m not sure why, how or when that premature proposal was made. Believe me, i know first hand what it feels like to be “correct” and still need to apologize, that way you show maturity and a sincere wish for all this to be over and you return back to normal editing. Like I always say at ANI's I’m saddened when productive editors are at loggerheads with a potential block looming, whilst there are real and more serious problems affecting the encyclopedia. Furthermore can you learn to not to edit when in a sour mood? Also could you learn to use less abrasive words (which can be seen as PA's) when addressing editors like I stated earlier, there isn’t any universe in which I’d ever support a block, you an extremely productive editor, don’t let ego get in your way. Celestina007 (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose block responses to baiting initiated by AAW were remarkably restrained. DuncanHill (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sit it out While BHG is indeed a net positive editor and a main contributor to this project, I hate rude editors, so even though I would never have supported a block proposal, perhaps she should sit this one out and understand that being rude and refusing to back down from a conflict situation is not good practice on a community editing website. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• BHG is not bullying and that isn't her intent at all. When she doesn't feel listened to, she gets increasingly frank and blunt, up to and far beyond the point of rudeness, and she doesn't get when it's time to drop the stick. (Piotrus isn't so great at dropping the stick either: that DRV is, by word count, about 40% comments by him.) Piotrus is able to disagree without so much incivility and that makes him more pleasant to work with. Unlike BHG, Piotrus also has the social skills to de-escalate conflict. He hasn't chosen to use them in this matter, and I'd like to know why not.
  Although I'm confident that Creffett's block was intended as preventative, I think there's an opportunity for him to read the room and reflect on whether to reduce it to time served.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Wowsers, does WP:DRV usually create so much frustrations all around? GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. The nature of DRV is that everything it considers is contentious, and a lot of it is fraught, but that much drama is unusual.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblock

• (edit conflict) Llywrch has unblocked BrownHairedGirl entirely out of process. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Llywrch: Per this, it looks like you're fairly involved in the whole thing. Not looking good. Urge you to self-revert before someone makes a case of it. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I am involved in this only insofar as trying to prevent a long-term Wikipedian from being prematurely sanctioned. I, for one, am still trying to understand what the basis for all of this is. I respect both Piotrus & BHG; for the record, I have met Piotrus in person, but never have BHG, so if I favor any party in this it would be for the OP. When two long-term Wikipedians clash like this, we need to understand exactly what has happened. And waiting for a consensus to emerge here is hardly an unreasonable expectation. Lastly, I will abide by the decision made by whoever closes this thread. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, llywrch, but that's a pretty weird explanation. Undoing another admin's block without attempting to engage said admin 1st is not great, as far as admin conduct is concerned. El_C 00:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) BHG had requested an unblock, I responded to that request. Had there been no request, of course I would not have unblocked her. First I knew it was a firm rule to discuss a requested unblock with the blocking admin first. As I have written, all of this is moving way too fast. -- llywrch (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Blocking admin had already been objected to, and had not bothered to respond. DuncanHill (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Llywrch has unblocked on the basis Active & ongoing thread in WP:AN/I about this user. No action should be taken *until* that discussion is concluded, which is not a reason I've ever heard of to reverse another admin's actions without consensus. Llywrch, you should self-revert. This is an inappropriate circumstance to unilaterally unblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC) typo corrected 00:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've a prejudice against presenting a sentence first then verdict afterwards. If any sanction is needed to protect the Wiki, it can wait until we've come to a consensus here. -- llywrch (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• For what it is worth, I would've written something endorsing that block until it was lifted. And I agree with Tamzin says above. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 00:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Llywrch: Unblocking in this way, without first attempting to seek consensus or discussing with the blocking administrator, is highly irregular. See WP:RAAA. I strongly encourage you to self-revert until a consensus has emerged. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• I strongly agree with Kusma. I have never even interacted with BHG, but just seeing the vitriol she is allowed to direct at other editors again and again dampens my enthusiasm for the project. (And no, I don't believe it can all be explained as "fighting back against the trolls". SQL did nothing that begins to approach trolling, and was still treated very badly.) When we allow this kind of incivility, it emboldens would-be bad actors and scares away editors who want to work in a respectful, collegial environment. If she cannot even recognize that she has done anything wrong and intends to continue the same behaviour, I see no solution other than a block. Colin M (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• There is a big discussion and disagreement, I don't think any admin should be taking action until there is a consensus here to do so. Yes the rules allow admins to act unilaterally, the rules allow admins to reverse such actions. That is where it stops though. Perhaps we can finish the discussion and let the community decide, or not decide to take action. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• I don't know what the fix is but this is not a one-off issue. In addition to all the stuff above and Kusma's list, I also remember hatting a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Signatures#RfC:_usernames_in_signatures (Praxidicae/BHG); there was also this ANI (RexxS/BHG) which was largely the same stuff. There are probably many others. They occur frequently, and go back years. It's demonstrably led to editors retiring. I think the gist of it is that BHG forgets she is talking to real people when she feels passionately about a content dispute. I suppose the community has the right to decide what it will and won't tolerate. And if it's willing to tolerate calling fellow contributors "vile thugs" etc, without even assurances of a change, then so be it; that's the culture we sow and enable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Regarding the personal attacks, yes calling someone a troll is a personal attack. If we blocked users everytime they did that then there would be a LOT of blocks given out. Our NPA policy suggests warnings for such offenses. It only allows for blocks when there are egregious personal attacks or ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning.
  If you want our NPA policy to have more teeth then go to WT:NPA and propose that, I may even support it. Until then we should enforce the policy as it is written. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, Our NPA policy suggests warnings for such offenses. It only allows for blocks when there are egregious personal attacks or ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning. I think it has been suitably demonstrated above that this has been part of an egregious, ongoing issue that has not been corrected by warning. I seriously believe a warning would've done next to nothing, given the history here. I don't get your point about calling other users "trolls"; that is usually a phrase reserved for vandals/obvious not here cases, so In my eyes, calling an established user a troll is essentially comparing them to a vandal- which I would imagine some would find offensive. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 00:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: Interesting. Do you really see the issue here as a one-off incident that is correctable with a warning? The evidence here and at places like the Arbcom case suggests otherwise. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

ongoing personal attacks that are not corrected by warning. That sounds like exactly what happened here. BHG has standing unretracted PAs against what, three editors right now? Piotrus, AAW, and QEDK? Most editors would have been blocked at one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: BHG's comments about AAW are entirely justified, and anyone objecting to them is defending one of the worst trolls we have ever known.DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Many of the comments referenced in this thread were not about AAW. ST47 (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

But resulted ultimately from his triggering. DuncanHill (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

No, calling an asshole an asshole still violates WP:NPA, and does no good. And objecting to calling an asshole an asshole is not the same as defending the asshole. Paul August ☎ 00:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Four. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 00:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Colin M above: if she cannot even recognize that she has done anything wrong and intends to continue the same behaviour, then we have a serious problem. Paul August ☎ 00:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry, was napping. HighInBC, while I personally wouldn't have endorsed a block at this stage, I agree with my learned colleagues above that this is a bad unblock. P.S. I see that the diff I asked was was provided (thanks, TNT). And it is from Aug 2020. See, this is why we can't have nice things (and why Cow Man runs over refs, probably). El_C 00:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• I thought the Wild West days of Wikipedia were over. The block was at best premature, & at worst a vicious action that will drive away one more valuable, long-term volunteer from the project at a time when we need experienced contributors. When Piotrus opened this thread, there had been no discussion of anyone being blocked; then 力 announces out of the blue "Support block"; & less than 3 hours later BHG is blocked to the surprise of all. This is moving so fast, that I'm having trouble not only keeping up, but typing explanations without encountering edit conflicts. (And I touch type.) If everyone wants to block her, then make it clear that is what is being discussed. Otherwise, let's proceed on this much slower. -- llywrch (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, llywrch, GN declared their intention to block on 16:35, while 力's comment was on 17:35. But I'm not really following the logical inference between these two components, to begin with, tbh. El_C 01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The declared intention to block was for being honest about a troll, and had been objected to, and those objections had not been answered. We could add GN's failure to act on a personal attack by AAW to our understanding of this. DuncanHill (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Llywrch, Your unblock felt very much like a "Wild West" thing. You did not consult the blocking admin, and your assertion that the block was "premature" seems like a premature thing to say in itself. I get you were trying to de-escalate maybe, but I believe your actions have only caused more issues. On your point about "Driving away long-term productive editors"; I can name at least two users (Not AAW) who fall into that category who seriously considered leaving/did leave upon negative encounters with BHG. But yes the edit conflicts are annoying, this is why I hate getting into these discussions. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 01:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Why, to take just one example of a civility thread still on this page, was #MjolnirPants incivility a warning, but this was a block? I understand why those two situations should be treated the same (whether warning or sanction), but I don't understand why we treat them differently. Levivich 01:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but remember that in that thread, Cow Man was at the helm. And he's kind of a wuss, ultimately (sad but true). El_C 01:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm curious why Cow Man supports a block here but not there? I mean, sincere question, I don't perceive the difference. (For the record, I think either a block or a warning would have been a justifiable outcome in all three threads.) Levivich 01:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Self quote: while I personally wouldn't have endorsed a block at this stage, I agree with my learned colleagues above that this is a bad unblock (diff). El_C 01:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
        • D'oh, I misread that as "would have endorsed" instead of "wouldn't."  Self-trout Carry on, Cow Man! Levivich 01:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• I don't really understand why Llyrch unblocked in the middle of this discussion; there was no obvious need for an urgent unblock, and there was an ongoing discussion about the block. I agree with the original block, as BHG has made multiple personal attacks which she has not rescinded or apologized for .Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• As a reminder, I asked for a refactor and an apology, not a block. If those were to be provided, I'd see no reason to issue any block, as I dislike the punishment post-fact aspect of this for people who have reformed. Unfortunately, no apology or refactor has been forthcoming, even after the recent block-unblock (see BHG's latest comments where I see no indication of heeding any warning or reading the room here: [243], [244]). I'll stress again that I neither seek a block of BHG nor that I consider it to be the best outcome. The best outcome, IMHO, would be for BHG to acknowledge she has lost temper towards me and several other editors on several different occasions, and that she has problems adhering to WP:CIV, apologize for those occasions and promise to behave in a more civil fashion in the future. This would be the best, win-win, outcome of this situation - nobody is blocked, and WP:BATTLEGROUND-like language and behavior becomes (hopefully) a bit less common. However, if no apology/refactor/promise of improved behavior are offered by BHG, the community does have the unpleasant but sadly not first-time choice to make: are going to shrug off this behavior (saying that repeated calling editors vile, obstinate, aggressive, trolls, etc. is ok - "grow thicker skin, Piotrus, being called a troll is perfectly normal on Wikipedia") and move on closing this as no action, or are we going to enforce CIV and related with some form of a stick (which sadly does include blocks, both as a form of preventive action - as in, preventing BHG from making more personal attacks - and correctional, as in, telling her that such behavior is not tolerated). Again, however, I once again hope we can deescalate this without the need to (re)block, but the choice for this is entirely up to BHG (apologie, refactor, promise to behave better - and seriously, these are not hard things to do, are they?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• If an ANI thread with so many experienced editors and admins has no clear outcome yet, blocking is, IMO, inappropriate. The unblock can be called inappropriate as well, but righting a wrong in the wrong way does have the net effect of righting a wrong. I will add that I do think many of the comments directed at Piotrus are pretty plain personal attacks, and I'm sad that BHG chose to make them. Calling a troll a troll because they are, supposedly, a troll is just not a good thing--and it is clearly not that obvious that P. was trolling. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have blocked; the problem with blocking is that now everyone is talking about the block and unblock, which is adjacent to the actual issue. On the actual issue, this isn't a new problem: a vested contributor behaves badly and then refuses to be held accountable. Accountability can take different forms, such as acknowledging the mistake, or submitting to the judgment of the community. BHG hasn't done the first, and the problem with the second is that there are a fair number of users who--whether that's their intention or not--will frustrate that aim. If this is a one-off incident, then it's one of many. What's the plan here, folks? Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The hidden hand?

Can't help but wonder, if somewhere off Wikipedia, this Chris.sherlock/AussieArticleWriter bloke, is having a giggle. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Mausebru's disruptive edits at Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict

User:Mausebru edits at Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict started with adding SYNTH and Orginal research. After I explained to him my concerns over his edits and I recommend he read what is OR and Synth, he instead continues to believe none of his edits fell under this category. He also created a Synth article that has been recently deleted. In Afd his own arguments countering the claim of synth was disproven by what he posted under my delete vote. Another deleted article he created was described by the nominator in the Afd as a "Hoax article that portrays rumors as fact based on deprecated sources such as Anatolia Agency". Not to mention that he has created an alternative account to vote on an Afd on an article he created then nominated for deletion.

He removed sections of the article I tagged as synth and he removed them without updating or improving upon the sections. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I myself added the tags back on August 4, but today I decided to remove all the synth sections and the OR tag I placed since no improvements had been made.

Now he has nominated the article for deletion where he wants to blow the article up and start over. He is currently removing sections of the article and is doing edit summaries in all caps.

Mausebru is a new user and isn't listening to advice on how to be better at editing at Wikipedia. He might need a warning over this, but given his actions a block might have to be considered given all this disruption by one user. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok look. I just want to add as much available info and data as I can find. I just see a source and I add to this wiki. I lose control sometimes due to mental health. I just TRY to contribute when im calm. Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 01:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)