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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

203.145.95.X harassment, personal attack and possible part of off site canvassing behaviours

• 203.145.95.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• City University of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• South Island line (West) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tai Po Market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• old ANI thread 1
• old ANI thread 2

Ok, i have been asked to make a shorter thread. Here is one thread for one ip range. If you like to read the previous drama: here.

The ip made groundless claim that 210.6.10.X ip range was my meatsock on 21:46, 8 November 2021 by this edit (Special:Diff/1054238016). Which the ip has received warning by User:Ohnoitsjamie

However, way before that edit, the ip already trolling me by false claim I have suggested something (offsite) somewhere by this edit (Special:Diff/1052306852) Agree Matthew. As you suggested elsewhere, which exactly the same disruptive edit as the edit of 210.6.10.X ip range (Special:Diff/1050888402, Agree with Matthew. It's all about how. I saw his message on an online forum and I agree with his reasoning.) on the same talk page. SPI clerk user:Tamzin simply called 210.6.10.X ip range as troll (mentioned in previous ANI October thread) or in blockable conduct (mentioned here). But i am not sure other admin would consider 210.6.10.X ip range and 203.145.95.X (this thread) are meatsock, or same person that ip hopping with another ISP, or else. Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings's RfC attracted a lot of unregistered ip from different HK ip ranges as apparent off site canvassing , just i fails to dig out the exact thread, only their possible point of contact in Telegram (app) (Read the above ANI thread for details). Or, may be people may not agree there is any off site canvassing, so that this thread talk about edit inside wikipedia.

The ip range also harassed other registered editor, and matching the pattern of yet another ANI thread back in January 2021, which either harassed other people's English level, or other editor not Hongkonger enough to edit wikipedia's Hong Kong content.

In specific, now the 203.145.95.X ip ranged harassed user: Citobun in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong

On a side note, Citobun does not appear to be adequately familiar with some Hong Kong topics Special:Diff/1054239450 on 21:57, 8 November 2021

So, any thought? Matthew hk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I've added a link to the range ([1]) at the top of this thread. I see that the user responded to my warning here, where they agreed to stop making accusations. Do you have any examples (with links to the diff) of harassment from that IP range since I warned them? Claiming that another user is not "adequately familiar" with a topic may be a bit uncivil, but it's not harassment or an attack. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: For the record, this is a quote from an ip ( 1.64.46.X) from the January 2021 ANI thread, but since it is from different ip range so that never able to actually verify it is controlled by same person or just coincidence or not: With such a level of proficiency in the English language, as well as reference to "To Ka Wan" (as opposed to To Kwa Wan) I would have much reservation towards his claims that he's a Hongkonger residing in Australia and that he's familiar with the Hong Kong-related matters he edits on Wikipedia.. So, would you think use today or 8 November or date that someone send a user talk message to 203.145.95.X ip range, that "from Hong Kong is not a mandatory requirement to edit Hong Kong -related topic" Able to show WP:RS to allow other people to WP:V is more important" ?

BTW Citobun did say this to the ip gang already in January 2021 thread Third party comment: If you (singular? plural?) created an account and cut down on all the snide remarks regarding English proficiency then I think it would be much easier to have a constructive discussion regarding the issues at hand Matthew hk (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• And actually 203.145.95.X ip range and the (rival?) 124.217.188.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ip range just caused the article City University of Hong Kong edit protected . Despite 124.217.188.145 seem more clear cut disruptive by add obsolete place name New Kowloon. (@Ohnoitsjamie: Guess what, 124.217 ip range, also edit Country article, that you protected)

• While seem two ips take turn to add obsolete place name to article in South Island line (West)

Special:Diff/1052070292 by 124.217.188.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/1054164236 by 203.145.95.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 1RR

203.145.95.32 did stop and not having 2RR and instead made this Special:Diff/1054230185

But the problem is, you can't add placename that was used in 100 year ago. Hong Kong place name changed from time to time (See Ma Tau Chung#Geography) so that such stuff need WP:RS to verify the modern place name of the area.

Matthew hk (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute in which all parties are participating in talk page discussions. If the dispute comes to a statemate, please follow dispute resolution procedures. I have no further interest in this, please don't ping me about it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Would this be an abuse of WP:AN/I? 219.76.24.216 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Matthew hk for opening this thread. Sorry that I am busy in real life this week and can't contribute very much to this discussion. But I would say: Hong Kong subjects have had, for a long time, problems with disruptive IP editors whom I suspect are the same person as there is a great deal of subject overlap among the IPs. I last opened a discussion about this here. Their common editing pattern can be summed up as persistently adding obscure place names (e.g. Staunton Creek, New Kowloon, etc), other obscure/incorrect names (e.g. "Harbour Crossing Tunnel"), highlighting obscure geographic trivia that usually consists of WP:OR (example here, and so on. Instead of providing WP:RS, they just start revert wars and make personal attacks. It's hard to address the problem since they are constantly changing IP addresses. Citobun (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

To be fair 124.217.188.X ip seems linked to the creator of Jeffrey Ngai Pang Chin, a globally locked user (see Afd, 124.217.188.X ip vote stacking to try to keep the article, and no other user and ip really agree it) of which probably a lock evasion, but CU will not do the check for ip and locked user linkage anyway.

124.217.188.X ip and 203.145.95.X seems different person as there is edit war between them in City U article. Just 124.217.188.X probably won't able to open an account or else it will escalated to SPI quickly, while the latter chose to personal attack and voluntarily not registered to enjoy the collateral damage of edit protection of articles (or may even worse, may mistook as the same person as 124.217.188.X ips) So that you may need to open thread for 124.217.188.X ip range as people want to read concise thread and don't want to spend time to know that really happened. Matthew hk (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, these are not harassment after they fails to provide WP:RS Special:Diff/1055348314 .....Admit your own fault and stop pretend that you are always right. Matthew hk (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Is there any reason why you would take things out of context this way? That was all about what you did, first, calling "flag station" a "slang" and second, disregarding the fact that the term appeared the HKU paper quoted. harassment after they fails [sic] to provide WP:RS? 203.145.94.111 (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• As of November 17, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. the use of the name Butterfly Beach to describe the entire surrounding area within Tuen Mun) without reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• The IP is also stalking the most recent pages I have edited. For instance, I have most recently edited Shek Kip Mei fire and Eastern Express (newspaper). Immediately thereafter, the IP edited the same pages, making changes that I have objected to on other pages in the past (e.g. adding the obscure place name "New Kowloon" and changing the spelling of "Hong Kong" to "Hongkong"). Citobun (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I still can't figure out what their agenda actually is, but I've reverted their edits on Shek Kip Mei fire, but their use of 'Hongkong' on Eastern Express (newspaper) seems to be justified as The Standard was actually named the 'Hongkong Standard' during that time period. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 03:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• What Citobun's has been doing is at best out of plain unawareness (and at the very worst, though quite unlikely, whitewashing history with recent laypeople's understanding). From what I noticed that's what happened with the former name of the Hongkong Standard. In the case of Shek Kip Mei fire, it's common sense that back in the early 1950s New Kowloon is much less developed than Kowloon to the south of the 1860-1898 border (given it's part of the 1898 leased territory rather than the ceded territory of 1860 across this border). This distinction with Kowloon isn't something which ought to be left out. The Shek Kip Mei area is also the densest compared with other squatter areas in New Kowloon for it's located right across the old border. I thought I don't need to cite that the sky is blue but here are some relevant information for reference if anyone found them necessary: [2][3][4]. It was not until the 1950s that with the influx of refugees and the Shek Kip Mei fire that the government decided to develop the leased territory as much as Kowloon, especially New Kowloon and slightly later Tsuen Wan (inclusive of Kwai Chung), for their proximity to Kowloon. 219.76.15.133 (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued personal attacks and irrelevant history lesson. I assure you I know Hong Kong history and place names. The simple fact of the matter is that you are pushing obscure, seldom-used place names and refuse to work collaboratively. Citobun (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

My two cents is that you should stay cool, make good use of the {{citation needed}} and the {{better source needed}} tags, bring issues to talk pages, rather than getting antagonistic and exasperating and beginning edit wars. Do not undo helpful edits, as you did in, e.g., Shek Kip Mei fire. 219.76.15.143 (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Padgriffin: You may want to take a look at what I just posted at WPHK talk. 116.92.226.246 (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Matthew hk's personal attacks

(Continued from /IncidentArchive1084.)

@Johnuniq: Here you are: "Also, it is a genuine suggestion on seek medical advice.", "Zh-wiki do have infested so that no one has CU right, but it is delusional so bad that...", "Just seek medical advice if you (the ip hopper(s)) have persecutory delusion...", "You guy delusional really bad,". 219.76.18.80 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There are four links above but two duplicates (that is, there are two different diffs, each pointing to Matthew hk making a comment at ANI on November 4 and 7). In the ANI archive, I asked for evidence of "an actual problem". What I meant was something substantive to do with article content, not squabbling at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes four quotes from two edits.

(If you aren't going to deal with PAs in AN/I, then an actual problem I had learnt from talk pages and observed in diffs is that Matthew hk has refused to proofread (whereas for Citobun it's been with his wholesale reverts and provocative editing style; and for Atsme and Valereee their unawareness or unfamiliarity in the subject matters and unwillingness to hold back their wrong edits).) 219.76.18.74 (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Matt hk has been editing wikipedia for years, so forgive me, but I am confused and can't see what personal attack you're on about. Admin's are more likely to lean towards the experience editor than a jumping IP complaints. :/ (storm in a tea-cup again?) Govvy (talk) 12:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That'd be systemic bias isn't it? But then fyi this bloke has been like this for a long time. Possibly all along. The personal attacks in the diff links above happened here at AN/I but that happened on and off too. 219.76.18.78 (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

On HandThatFeeds' merger of two "related" sections: [5] [6] [7] I was not aware of the other section about 203.145.95.x and I still don't think the two sections are related. What I reported deals specifically with the PAs by Matthew hk (and possibly others). 219.76.18.75 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: As of 25 November 2021, the IP is still pushing obscure place names (e.g. at Shek Kip Mei fire). This has been going on for years and isn't going to stop. The IP is the one all along making personal attacks, not User:Matthew hk. Their accusation is a weak attempt at confusing the discussion. Citobun (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Aaaaand the IP is continuing to add place names that have been challenged for lack of any citation despite being asked numerous times to provide a reliable source. Citobun (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP (most recently 203.145.94.139) is continuing to stalk my recent edits. This is harassment. Citobun (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone protect Tuen Mun South extension? The IP has added their made-up place name, still without a source, numerous times today. Citobun (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I protected the page for 2 weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Citobun (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Help? Anyone?

The lack of action here is really shocking. Here is a simple rundown of what is happening:

• Hong Kong editors are grapping with an anonymous user who changes IPs constantly throughout the day, pushing obscure and uncited geographic place names on various Hong Kong articles (e.g. Tuen Mun South extension)
• This person has been asked numerous times to provide WP:RS
• They don't provide any WP:RS, just constantly revert (or contribute sources that do not actually support the content)
• They make personal attacks (e.g. unceasing snide remarks toward Matthew hk's English (they have been doing this for a very long time), snide remarks toward my supposed ignorance of Hong Kong geography, etc)
• They are WP:WIKIHOUNDING me, stalking my edit history and editing the same articles (adding obscure place names), and at the same time pinging me with taunts

In summary: this person doesn't respect the WP:RS policy nor Wikipedia:Civility. They are extremely nasty to interact with and clearly aren't here to build an encyclopedia, but stubbornly wage a campaign to promote obscure Hong Kong place names. As a start, please, protect the problematic pages. Then block any IP that continues to add uncited, obscure place names and other WP:OR trivia to Hong Kong articles. Citobun (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

IMHO This guy definitely isn't going to stop- their history shows that they'll happily wait out semis to re-add their stuff and it's likely that these IPs are operated by a single person rather than a Meatfarm. All attempts at engaging them to create some sort of dispute resolution has led absolutely nowhere, and something needs to be done at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 04:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth making an edit filter here for this. The effective of such all depends on how consistent the person behind this range is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

SPA with edit warring and neutrality issues at Cher Scarlett

Some additional eyes at Cher Scarlett would be appreciated. A SPA, User:Igotthistoo, seems to hold the opinion that Scarlett has been given an undue role in the various workers rights movements that have been ongoing in the tech industry lately, and has been attempting to turn the biographical article into a bit of a coatrack for other activists they feel have not been given due attention (see Talk:Cher Scarlett#Comment from Igotthistoo). They have edit warred to try to describe Scarlett as a "participant" in the movements that RS pretty universally describe her as a leader of, and have now begun adding unsourced commentary about Scarlett's tenure at various companies. There aren't many watchers on this article, and with both I and User:SquareInARoundHole attempting to abide by WP:3RR (and Igotthistoo apparently ignoring it, though I've warned them), the page needs attention from outside editors. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Secondary request for help managing Cher Scarlett

As GorillaWarfare said above, User:Igotthistoo seems unusually invested in diminishing the work of Scarlett: adding in unsourced context that swings neutrality negative, unrelated individuals that are WP:NN to detract focus from the subject, and removing important context from WP:RS to further alter the neutrality to a negative outcome. User:Igotthistoo also added information that is easily corrected with the existing source material. I've restored the page to a previous version settled by GorillaWarfare and avoiding WP:3RR, but I imagine User:Igotthistoo will return to make similar or worse edits in the future, and this WP:BLP needs additional watchers to protect it. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for a week to give a chance of the talk page discussion to progress.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Third request for help managing Cher Scarlett

Cher Scarlett's wikipedia entry takes credit away from the work of many other women activists and exaggerates her contributions and leadership roles on multiple occasions. There are also false and misleading statements which support this throughout, and entries that are purely promotion with no verified data. My intent is not to diminish her work, but to simply see that the entry is made accurate in part so that the work of other women isn't diminished. I also hope that others will take a closer look at her entry and edit accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 16:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you believe anything has been misstated, please discuss it (with sources to support your changes, or an explanation of how the current sources do not support the statements) on the article talk page rather than warring your changes in. As for the idea that "Cher Scarlett's wikipedia entry takes credit away from the work of many other women activists"—this is not a zero-sum game where we must diminish the contributions of one woman to recognize the work of others. If there is adequate sourcing to establish notability, you could create articles about these other women, or add information about their contributions to the broader articles (Apple worker organizations, Google worker organization, or other company-specific articles; Unionization in the tech sector; etc.) GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, my intent is not do diminish Cher's work, it's to make what's represented about her in article accurate. I don't think proposing edits is a form or "warring" changes and I made comments explaining most if not all of my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igotthistoo (talk • contribs) 16:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You weren't proposing edits, though, you were directly editing them back into the page after they had been challenged by myself or another editor. See WP:EW for more detail on what constitutes edit warring. As for your summaries, you did not explain many of your changes, including your repeated changes from "leader" to "participant". Regardless of whether or not it was your intent to diminish her work compared to how it is represented in reliable sources, that was the impact. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Please see my comments below about this Verge article that mentions Cher as as being "involved" in the founding of the #Appletoo along with 15 other current and former Apple employees. Referring to Cher as a participant is not inaccurate. Igotthistoo (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

You also made changes that were incorrect per source material already present in the entry. If your intention is to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of an article, please verify your contributions are reflected in cited sources. I suspect you are also IPUser 73.202.58.200 (talk), and based on the whole picture of your contributions, it looks like you may have an undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and/or those you have attempted to add to this WP:BLP, affecting the WP:NPOV and leading to WP:EW. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Indenting & Signing your posts

Please read up on WP:INDENT & WP:SIGNATURE. Also, start showing interests in other articles, less you get blocked as an WP:SPA. PS - And start responding to posts & requests left at your talkpage. Lack of communicating there, ain't appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

We do not block SPA just for being SPA. There are plenty of accounts which are only interested in one topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• We don't block SPA just for being SPA, true. But we do block them for pushing a one-sided agenda. I've just taken a look at the edits User:Igotthistoo are pushing (disclosure: I never even heard of the subject before 15 minutes ago) and they're uniformly subtle attempts to discredit the subject: putting unrelated people into the mix [8], alleging facts from unreliable sources [9], stripping out statements from high quality reliable sources [10], and suggesting as often as possible that the subject's tenure/experiences were brief or ephemeral. The SPA claims that he's not seeking to diminish the subject's work. His edits are nothing but diminishing. Ravenswing 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My edits do not reflect a one-sided agenda, they are edits of the facts. For example, this Verge article mentions Cher as as being "involved" in the founding of the #Appletoo along with 15 other current and former Apple employees. And this article mention how most of the founding organizers remained anonymous for fear of retaliation. Cher's Wikipedia article neglects to mention any of these details inferring and projecting her as being the primary leader of the #Appletoo when in reality it was a collective effort of many. Igotthistoo (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for finally at least explaining why you are making the edits you've made. This is probably a discussion better suited for the article talk page, but I'll reply here, and no objections to people moving my comments there if this portion of the discussion is moved.

Regarding your concerns about the article showing it was a collective effort, the article is careful to write that Scarlett is a leader of the Apple organizing. Not the leader. It is quite clear from reading the article that she is not the sole leader of Apple worker organization.

Regarding the wording in the article from The Verge that you have linked: You are correct that it describes her in that way. However, you never actually added this source in your edits. You need to cite any sources you are referring to. Secondly, focusing on one source that says what you are trying to convey, when the majority of sources here describe her otherwise, is WP:CHERRYPICKING. To quickly outline all of the other sources currently used in the article that describe Scarlett's involvement with #AppleToo (omitting ones that discuss her organizing at Apple but don't mention AppleToo specifically, for brevity's sake):

• Washington Post: "[Scarlett is] leading a worker uprising at Apple", "Scarlett has become the face of the #AppleToo movement"
• Vox Recode: "Cher Scarlett, an engineer at Apple who joined the company during the pandemic and has become a leader in, among other issues, organizing her colleagues on pushing for more remote work", "Scarlett and several other corporate employee activists started a Discord subgroup and website called #AppleToo to discuss their grievances and coalesce workers."
• Gizmodo: "Cher Scarlett, a principal software engineer at Apple who co-organized [#AppleToo] on Slack and Discord"
• CNET: "Scarlett has become a public face of AppleToo"
• New York Times: "Cher Scarlett and Janneke Parrish, two Apple employees who help lead the [#AppleToo] group."
• Slate: "Scarlett, who worked at Apple for a year and a half, is perhaps best known for her work with #AppleToo... Scarlett was the last publicly known leader of the months-old movement still at Apple"
• Washington Post: "Among the Apple employees raising concerns is Cher Scarlett, who organized an employee wage survey to shine a light on alleged pay discrepancies affecting underrepresented groups."
• The Verge: "Scarlett withdrawing her complaint won’t necessarily leave Apple in the clear — the company faces a number of other complaints, including ones alleging wrongful termination from other employees Scarlett worked with to organize the #AppleToo movement."

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Igotthistoo:, I stand by my characterization of your edits. As GorillaWarfare correctly states, the article never claimed that the subject was the leader of the movement, only a leader; you can "infer" all you want, but that doesn't turn your inferences into fact. And good grief: if other "leaders" never came forward because they feared retaliation, not only do we have no knowledge of that (and come to that, how is it you claim to know better?), then they weren't really "leading" anything at all, were they? Ravenswing 21:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it is known and can be sourced that there were other leaders who remained anonymous (at least outside of the company, not sure if they were known within it or how that works). But that is, rightfully, detailed at AppleToo, not in Scarlett's article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not people agree with the characterization of my edits is beside the point. Many of my edits were factual and added additional context making Cher Scarlett's entry less misleading and more detailed. This includes things like referencing Cher was among a group of many women in her role in the #Appletoo movement. While I do understand why some of my edits were blocked, it's alarming and questionable that most of my edits were reversed. I suspect there's an arrangement between SquareInARoundHole and GorillaWarfare in managing the entry and gatekeeping edits. Igotthistoo (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Igotthistoo: All edits must be factual, not just "many". In addition to being factual, they must be neutral, which on Wikipedia means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" (and not cherrypicking the one source that portrays an individual in a way that reflects your personal opinions of her, when it is different than the bulk of other sources). It concerns me that you don't yet seem to see the issue here.

Regarding your accusations that "there's an arrangement between SquareInARoundHole and GorillaWarfare in managing the entry and gatekeeping edits", that's absurd. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. I see you have not yet addressed SquareInARoundHole's concerns about whether you have a WP:COI (either with respect to Scarlett or the others you have tried to shoehorn into her biography)—do you intend to? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Igotthistoo:, what's my excuse? Even if crying collusion wasn't the standard response of biased edit warriors who find consensus going against them, I can hardly be tagged with that smear: yet I agree with SquareInARoundHole's and GorillaWarfare's characterization of your edits. I advise you to learn more about how consensus works on Wikipedia, and that the relevant policies and guidelines governing neutral edits, biographies of living persons, and undue weight apply whether or not you agree with them or approve of them. Ravenswing 23:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Igotthistoo:If there are other people involved in AppleToo that can be verified by WP:RS, please contribute that to the proper article. A WP:BLP is not the space to work on an agenda. Furthermore, I ask you to disclose your WP:COI, if you have one. You continue to refer to unsourced information, or engage in WP:CHERRYPICKING that cannot be reconciled by the volume of source material available, and/or negatively affects the WP:NPOV. We are not "gatekeeping" your edits. Your edits introduced information to Wikipedia that was false and illustrated an agenda with the sole purpose of diminishing the subject of the article. This is an unacceptable use of the platform. We are willing to consider any of your good faith edits with a RFC in Scarlett's talk page, provided you have proper reliable sources cited, and a clear, neutral reasoning behind the edits. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Sock?

User:Thistechworkertoo has just turned up at Ifeoma Ozoma and begun edit warring and introducing similarly minimizing wording changes. The username is a bit similar. Is this a sock? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Time for the community to show the sock-master & his socks, the door. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems likely. 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA US) showed special interest in only diminishing the biographies of Ozoma and Scarlett, so likely this particular user is trying to evade scrutiny with socks. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser says Yes. No comment on the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: (or another admin) Should a block be placed? I'm WP:INVOLVED here so certainly won't do it myself, but this seems like an attempt to avoid scrutiny even if the editing period doesn't overlap. Let me know if I should take this to a separate SPI report too. Happy to do it, just didn't want to fragment the discussion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

YMMV. My usual policy in these circumstances (ie first offence, no policy reminders, and no aggravated deception) is to block the sock, and gamble on an autoblock for the master. I've done this. A block for the main account shall be up to another admin, though I obviously note that I haven't done that (for the sock puppetry). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, anyway. I've page-blocked Igotthistoo indefinitely from Cher Scarlett. Bishonen | tålk 12:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

  In that case perhaps Ymblanter's full protection of the article is no longer necessary? Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  I unprotected though semi-protection might be still necessary if the IP continues disruption.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Trying to understand why the edits made by 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA US) are being questioned by (SquareInARoundHole).
  • On 27 Nov between 19:17-19:31, (73.202.58.200) made their only edits to Cher Scarlett's page.
  • Then GorillaWarfare posted on (73.202.58.200)'s talk page at 22:47-
    • Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Cher Scarlett. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia.
  • It sounded like GorillaWarfare fully approved of the edits made. Looking at the page history, those approved edits to Cher Scarlett's page included:
    • Removing mentions of Ifeoma and Silenced No More since this is separate legislation & Ifeoma is not involved;
    • Quote from a senator about general legislation is not appropriate for a personal profile;
    • This is not important enough to call out. This is a standard request of victims during NDA negotiations;
    • Adding context from Reuters article about inspiration for the new Washington bill and that outreach from both Scarlett and Glasson were cited as inspiration; fixed citations.
  • It appears (73.202.58.200)'s 27 Nov changes to Ifeoma Ozoma's page were also accepted and not reverted. The changes made by this user appear to be factual corrections to remove mentions of Scarlett from Ozoma's page where they were not accurate, and removal of Silenced No More and Ozoma from Scarlett's page where it was also not accurate. All of these changes appear to be accepted.
  • It's unclear why (SquareInARoundHole) would accuse 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA US) who is apparently making "constructive edits" of impropriety and "diminishing Scarlett". Has (SquareInARoundHole) been checked for WP:COI? Based on the quantity, depth, and insider knowledge required for (SquareInARoundHole) comments and edits about Cher Scarlett, it seems possible that user could be Scarlett herself or someone close to her.
    • Can the user also please be checked for WP:COI? (SquareInARoundHole)'s talk page already has a Managing a conflict of interest warning posted by (Blablubbs). User's account has only existed since 17 Nov and roughly half their edits are to Scarlett's page or about Scarlett on Ozoma's page.
  • (SquareInARoundHole) has made detailed and un-cited updates to Scarlett's page which later had to be reverted due no citations or irrelevance, including:
    • 07:34, 17 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +1,272‎ Missing categories, reorganization of some personal details from career and expansion.
    • 01:17, 18 November 2021‎ GorillaWarfare −678‎ questionably reliable sources
    • 22:40, 19 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole −4‎ →‎Apple: The previous wording made it seem like she withdrew the NLRB charge separately from the settlement/resignation
    • 04:14, 20 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +13‎ clarify the details of the settlement were confidential, according to her lawyer in the source
    • 03:58, 20 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +480‎ →‎Apple: adding news of memo
    • 03:54, 20 November 2021‎ SquareInARoundHole +1,237‎ Adding information about teaching and open-source software to her career
    • 18:30, 21 November 2021‎ GorillaWarfare −426‎ no secondary source
  • --Anonymous 04:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC), Anonymous 04:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@98.51.101.124: Please read WP:CUSTOMSIG/P. You should not sign your comments with "Anonymous". Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 10:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Alghazi981

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

---

Alghazi981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

• changes "Persian" to "Arabian" [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] or just adds "Arabian" [19] [20], or removes "Persian" [21] without any source, and given the pattern clearly in a tendentious way.

• removes maintenance templates and changes numbers without a source [22].

• Puffs up info with regard to the Arabian Anazzah tribe [23] [24] [25] [26] [27].

• Apparently doesn't like Iraq [28], Kuwait [29], and Shi'ism [30] [31].

Apart from some efforts to bring WP articles in accord with Islamic conventions (in itself innocent enough) [32] [33] [34] and some more generic content removal, these are more or less all of their edits. They received a number of warnings [35], which as a mobile editor they perhaps did not see, but I think there's enough to conclude that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think you have been charitable. About 98% of this editor's contributions have been reverted. If they don't somehow show a willingness to learn, then unfortunately they will need to be blocked. Let's wait a bit and see if they respond to this report. If they continue making troublesome edits, then the next admin can block them. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Sock/Meat puppets? IP-hopping troll/vandal? I don't know...

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

---

• 180.251.148.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.246.48.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.249.50.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

I first reported this related-vandal behavior at WP:AIV earlier today and was advised to report it here so here goes:

• 180.246.48.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – apparent vandalism-only account. This IP address is part of a group of serial vandals/trolls/meat or sock puppets that all geolocate to closely-related IP addresses in the Philippines Indonesia. They/he/she/it incrementally change dates or institute other small changes on various articles including Alex Van Halen, Fleetwood Mac, Brian May, etc. On November 1st & 2nd the progenitor IP address - 180.251.148.214 - did a massive amount of edits - ALL of which were reverted.

  The three connected IP addresses are as follows:

  • 180.251.148.214
  • 180.246.48.17...see filter log
  • 180.249.50.248

  This type of creeping vandalism is annoying and frustrating and wearing for other editors to have to deal with on an ongoing basis, like a type of Wikipedia death by a 1000 paper cuts. I don't know what can be done, if anything, about it but I wanted there to be a record somewhere around here. I am sure they/he/she/it will be back again and again. Shearonink (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

---

1. The total amount of edits of all three accounts is about 40, or less.
2. Only the 180.246.48.17 has edited within the last week, and it has half a dozen edits, all reverted.
3. I see in total maybe two edit filter entries.
4. The IPs locate to Indonesia, not the Philippines. Maybe this information will remind an observer of prior activity that might be relevant.
5. I'm leaving this open for a while in case the activity resumes, or somebody provides a useful clue.
6. Otherwise, there's not much more to be done. If they concentrated on a small number of articles we could semi-protect them, but I'm not seeing any such pattern. Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

My mistake on the geolocation, I struck through my error. They/he/she were just doing the same types of things to the same articles, I noticed the edits, and thought "Hmmm...WP:DUCK? Hmmm." Yeah, they haven't come back, might just have been a momentary trolling blip. Thanks Jehochman. Shearonink (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Addition of unsourced material by User:101.179.0.74

This IP editor appears to be editing in good faith, but a large proportion of their edits are significant additions of unsourced material. Since being warned on 28 November their edits have continued unabated. I have reverted quite a few, and other editors have reverted or undone others. I suspect that the editor has not seen any of the warnings, and that this editing pattern will continue without a short preventative block. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has made roughly 100 edits over the course of one week since their first edit (1). Their edits usually go towards Chirstmas and world culture-related articles, but other topic edits, such as walk-in closet and sponge cake, have been made. While some of their additions are minor grammar fixes and word rephrasing (which has the lowest revert rate of their additions), the bulk of their edits come from new content addition, sometimes creating new sections entirely, and none of them were backed with sources. They've been warned 9 times on their talk page, 4 times on the 28th and 5 today, and 8 of them are from MichaelMaggs and 1 from Melecie. And yes, I looked into all of this before saying that, so trust that I'm right. I had all the diffs ready and proceeded to accidentaly close the tab and I didn't want to do it again. Panini!^🥪 13:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The edits are continuing. The very next edit after this report was this one. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• It looks like now this user has been doing only grammar fixes and genuine other additions since this thread, including these to Visa requirements for Australian citizens (though slight problems with unsourcing still exist). I think they may have gotten the message; I would keep this open for a little while in case other problems arise. Panini!^🥪 15:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • An unsourced edit by them which not only contravenes our English dialect policies but also contradicts the invention of writing section. There's also this edit. I've blocked them. Graham87 01:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I've encountered this editor before as 121.212.200.1. Graham87 02:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Zeke5044 adding non-notable information about schools

Zeke5044 has been adding lots of non-notable information about Boston University Academy to the page and edit warring there (there’s more stuff, that’s why I didn’t go to AN3RR). He also added articles about Bowman Elementary School (a clearly not notable elementary school) and a random landscaping business in Eastern Massachusetts. Both of which were quickly A7’ed. I don’t think this falls under blatant vandalism or spam.

Thanks! Noah ^💬 12:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is apparently student attempting to expand coverage to the university they attend, which would constitute a WP:COI. It'd also be fair to note that they also made some relatively okay additions to other Massa...Massassa...Mattachssas...Massachusetts-related articles (12). While they probably simply don't know about WP:INDISCRIMINATE when repeatedly adding this to the BUA college article, they been given numerous warnings, some even personally written. C.Fred (pinged here), an admin who had some run-ins with this user, I would like to hear your thoughts about how to conclude this situation. Panini!^🥪 13:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think the COI issue is particularly relevant and we should try to protect minors who might expose their personal information on Wikipedia. Can we wait to see if they respond here, or if they continue making troublesome edits? Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting that immediate COI actions should be taken, that was misclassification on my part. WP:EXTERNALREL, the relation between an attended and a school isn't too drastic. Their editing pattern has also died down as well; no edits today and only a handful in the days prior. The user might just be checking back onto the article, seeing that their edits are gone, and reverting them and leaving again, without much interest in diving into Wikipedia further or interacting with others while they're at it. I'd support waiting for further issues Panini!^🥪 14:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please note that the ANI Notice template failed on his talk page, and I'm typing one out as we speak. Please extend the grace period for him to respond. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Zeke5044 has edited the page (again) and its been reverted (again) since the posting of the notice to their page. Theres multiple editors "discussing" it so I've slapped page protection on it to stop another week of back and forth reverts and hopefully encourage engagement and discussion about the change. Amortias (T)(C) 21:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• He's continuing his antics, creating a standalone article for this that's gone to AfD. Ravenswing 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Chicdat continues his disruptive editing

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

---

Chicdat continues his unsourced reverting at List of the oldest people by country by falsely asserting that personal interpretations of editors are sufficient to outweigh WP:RS. We've had a talk page discussion [36] on this matter lasting for over a month, where no one shared his view. I had provided an unambiguous reliable source [37], but Chicdat left a message on my talk page arguing "Wikipedia editors [i. e. first and formost Chicdat himself] have interpreted "night of 21 October" as "in the early hours of 22 October"" (My source doesn't state "night of 21 October", but simply 21 October, that's why I chose it!). I don't have to reach a personal "consensus" with him and we already had a discussion at his talk page where he accused me of a personal attack for disagreeing with him. Hence, I have decided to take this dispute to the ANI. He is also lying in the edit summary [38] that it will be his " first, last, and only revert", whereas in reality he made this edit just four days ago [39]. Renewal6 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, first time in a while any longevity disputes have made it here. I'll never understand why this subject, of all things, raises people's blood pressure so much. Since Gerneth himself only had alcohol at celebrations (yes, that was in the article), would it be too much to ask everyone here just have a cup of tea? I think Chicdat was referring to this being the only revert after you added the source, the first one was before you added the source supporting October 21. Since I see no discussion since November 5th I don't mind keeping an eye on any further discussion, and if you need outside input I'll just drop a followup note to yours at WT:WikiProject Longevity. (And no, "you're wrong" was not a personal attack, maybe a little gruff but nothing sanctionable) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I provided a source that unambiguously states 21 Oct. If Chicdat wants to revert my edits, he'll be obliged to provide a source that unambiguously states 22 Oct. Reverting my edits by referring to a personal interpretation of an ambiguous (let‘s assume that) source, is plain disruption. His comment at my talk page (see above) totally misses the point and fails WP:NOR: On Wikipedia, we should go by the reliable sources, not by dubious interpretations of "longevity editors" contradicting them. Renewal6 (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: you should take a second look. This edit looks to me like it misrepresents the source [40], which says "Wenige Tage nach seinem Geburtstag verstarb er am 21. Oktober 2019.", machine-translation "A few days after his birthday, he died on October 21, 2019." I don't see how you're getting Oct 22 from that. Levivich 18:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I will note for context that the OP and Chichdat have an extensive history of edit-warring with each other on a number of pages, which I have previously warned them both for ([41][42]). --Blablubbs (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Yes, but in the meantime I took the dispute to the relevant talk pages as you had advised ([43], [44], [45]), so this fact does not delegitimise my arguments put forward above. Renewal6 (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want help with content, I'm happy to point you the right direction. Dispute resolution is so overly complicated even the historic citizens of Byzantium would weep just trying to figure it out, but it's your best bet for working out a content dispute; I'm happy to help with that, I know it's frustrating to have something drag on for a month but it sometimes takes a few tries to get everything sorted out. (And despite the name, WikiProject Longevity is actually a product of resisting the legacy of the "longevity editors"; trust me when I say there's no love lost, I personally have been the topic of plenty of tirades on The 110 Club and similar, so the people who see your messages there won't be the drooling fanboys who treat longevity as some sort of quasi-reality-show contest to stave off death the longest) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't want help with content, I want help with Chicdat's disruptive editing. Contentwise everything has been said and the source I added to the article is unambiguous (see Levivich's comment above). I would support a no action closure of this thread, if Chicdat promised not to revert my edits again without providing a reliable source. Renewal6 (talk) 11:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree, when the source says "21" and Wikipedia says "22", that's a black-and-white WP:V error. If there were multiple sources and some said "21" and others said "22", that would be a content dispute. But I searched yesterday and could not find a single source that said "22". "Editors decided" can't be a counter argument to WP:V, per WP:NOR. In my view this is basic, basic stuff. Levivich 14:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

So I guess the simple question is: @Chicdat: can you show where in the source it says 22, or what you mean by Longevity editors tend to interpret the source's wording as 22 October? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As Chicdat is currently topic banned from editing in "Wikipedia:"-space, I would like to clarify if he is allowed to respond here under WP:BANEX point 2, "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I, after extensive searches yesterday, was able to find Gustav Gerneth's official death certificate (FEW's comment, third down from top), which unambiguously states * 15 Oktober 1905 † 21 Oktober 2019 Therefore I would like to sincerely apologi[s/z]e for all reverts I made, and will not ever change Gerneth's death date to 22 October again. @Renewal6: I'm sorry especially for reverting you about 25 times on seven different pages. I hope this discussion can be closed without action, and I would like to finally say: (sorry for the all caps) THIS FALLS UNDER WP:BANEX (LEGITIMATE AND NECESSARY DISPUTE RESOLUTION). 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on that and on the above, the dispute has been successfully resolved by this thread, so I agree with Chicdat that no further action is required. Renewal6 (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:ZX2006XZ and Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (again)

• ZX2006XZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This editor has repeatedly resubmitted this draft and been advised to wait until the film is released. It was declined on 7 September, 11 September, 16 September, 21 September, and 11 November. Maybe the editor thinks that if they submit it enough times, the community will get tired of the requests and will accept it instead. The reviewers have gotten tired of the requests. I reported the submitter to WP:ANI on 12 November after yet another resubmission and requested a partial block: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084#User:ZX2006XZ_and_Buck_Wild

An IP address, probably ZX2006XZ logged out or their little brother, resubmitted it again while the ANI thread was in progress. I Rejected the draft. That WP:ANI thread was archived with no final action.

Now ZX2006XZ has asked at the AFC Help Desk if someone will re-review again because "it's been quite a long time since the last submission. Care to review?" They have edited the draft, primarily to enter a blurb from Disney, but are basically beating the same dead dinosaur.

This may be a breaching experiment. No action was taken three weeks ago, and so now they are trying again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not doing any breaching experiment, with all due respect. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I haven't been resubmitting it constantly since it got declined on November 16, 2021. ZX2006XZ (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

ZX2006XZ, no, that is a very short time, not a long one. Just wait until this film has been released and has gathered some independent reliable coverage, such as reviews, showing notability and the article about it can then be accepted. If you cannot wait until then then it's very likely that you will be blocked from editing it again and/or the article will be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger, I understand. It's just that I didn't submit it. The person who did was Naraht. ZX2006XZ (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Phil Bridger. I didn't submit it, I expressed the opinion that it might be notable an asked someone from WP:FILM to chime in. I also haven't resubmitted it for AFC. I've been an editor for about 15 years and don't do much over in Films. (My area of focus is Fraternities and Sororities)Naraht (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like now we have an investigation on our hands; which would be who submitted it for AfC. I’m asking out of curiosity, can’t the admins just check who did so? I mean if they can’t, I wouldn’t really know why not. You would think that they could be able to check who did, but if not, I think we should take a better look into this, seeing as one user has blamed another in-which the accused has denied doing so. I’m not sure if admins will need to intervene here, but that’ll definitely be the case if this de-escalates any further. Bombastic Brody (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick look at the draft's history declares that Naraht has never submitted this draft for review, and only edited the article once to leave a comment noting to check in with WT:FILM. This editor might've just been under the false impression that this comment meant they were submitting it to WP:FILM to review themselves, and that WP:FILM was something that would review it. Was that what you meant by Naraht submitting it, ZX2006XZ? Panini!^🥪 13:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course. That was what I meant. ZX2006XZ (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

ZX2006XZ, WP:FILM (as you might know now) is Wikiproject Film. Here is their talk page; Naraht was referring to leaving a message at the Wikiprojects talk page to see what other contributors of film projects thought of it. They declared that it passes some criteria of film notability guidelines, but it has yet to satisfy the general notability guidelines (GNG) of Wikipedia as a whole. The future films section states that animated films need sources that confirm they are out of the pre-production process, and that might be what WP:FILM is referring to as passing their film notability guidelines. The film simply needs more before posting, and reviews when the film releases will satisfy that. I suggest leaving the draft be until then, and take their advice and wait things out. It might also be safe to mention that when the film releases, make sure the reviews are included in the draft before submitting again. Panini!^🥪 17:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: No one has actually submitted the draft since 16 November, when I rejected it after User:ZX2006XZ resubmitted it while the previous report was pending here. User:Naraht inquired about it. That was the only involvement Naraht had with it. ZX2006XZ then asked if it could be re-reviewed because it had been a "long time". It is ZX2006XZ who is being tendentious about it, and appears to be trying to blame another editor, maybe because they have run out of little brothers. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am not trying to blame anyone. ZX2006XZ (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you are not trying to blame anyone else. You, User:ZX2006XZ, are wasting the time of the community. I am aware that some editors think that every upcoming animated film deserves an article. That isn't consistent with any of the current or proposed versions of film notability. If you aren't trying to confuse the community, you could leave this film alone until it is released to the theaters rather than bothering someone every few weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

User:TE(æ)A,ea. and WP:IDHT

• TE(æ)A,ea. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The diffs are as follows, the date and time is in IST.

• 08:14, 1 December 2021 The edit restores a blacklisted url by bypassing it through Internet Archive. They are aware of the need for whitelisting. On 07:22, 1 December 2021, they had requested a different blacklisted url to be whitelisted for the same talk page which was declined.
• 19:49, 1 December 2021 Restoration of the same bypassed blacklisted url, this time in specific.
• Special:Diff/1058114237, I ask them, "can you explain why you are repeatedly bypassing a blacklist by using internet archive?" They respond in Special:Diff/1058131042 by stating that "I have not done anything "repeatedly."
• In reponse in (Special:Diff/1058134550), I point out the two diffs to them, link them the place where the consensus is (WP:OPINDIA) and ask them to self revert. They respond in Special:Diff/1058135346, by again asking me where the consensus is and saying that I am to blame for their reverts. Beyond this specific incident, through the entire discussion, they kept ignoring my comments and asked me the same question even after I have answered those questions in increasingly elaborated terms.

This also doesn't appear to be the first time something like this is happening, considering that they were previously explained in detail how to ping people and not to copy other people's signs (see User talk:TE(æ)A,ea. § Replying to someone) but they don't seem to care about it as can be seen in Special:Diff/1058044906. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The top of this page states, "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." That is not the conduct represented here, even taking this user's assumptions as true. The above report misrepresents most of the events at hand. During the recently concluded deletion discussion regarding "Mass killings under communist regimes," a number of news outlets reported on the discussion. One of those was OpIndia. Upon seeing this coverage, I added the OpIndia article to the Press template on the discussion's talk page. I attempted to add the URL, but was unable to do so; the IA URL was added later, by a different user. Now, to the current dispute. The accusing user removed most (10/13) articles from the Press listing; I reverted this, as it came after no discussion. (This is the first revert in question.) After this revert, the user started a discussion regarding press coverage, in which I engaged. During this discussion, this user again removed most press coverage; this was reverted by a different user. Later, while the discussion was still ongoing, this user removed for a third time part of the Press listing. (This is the second revert in question.) In neither of these reverts did I consider myself engaged in devious, rule-violating behavior; I was merely maintaining the status quo while a discussion on such material's inclusion was ongoing. Regarding the word "repeatedly," I did not restore the OpIndia reference repeatedly; I restored it once, and multiple references were restored twice (once by myself, and once by another user, as I mentioned). The consensus regarding OpIndia refers to discussions regarding OpIndia's reliability as a source in articles; I did not use it in the "Mass killings under communist regimes" article, nor did I intend to. I asked this user, on two occasions, for the consensus regarding a different matter: whether source reliability is relevant to inclusion in Press template listings. This consensus was claimed, but not provided. As my relation shows, this user is to blame for my reverts, as it was his action that caused the reverts. You have repeatedly refused to articulate a rationale for not including the sources in question; you have not "elaborated" on them in any sense. I kept asking you the same question because you kept refusing to answer it. The incident mentioned on my talk page is not relevant, and I will not respond to the comment made so off-hand; but if requested I will respond. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Why do we need more Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) drama here? Can we just look the other way and move on? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't really pertain to the AfD itself but is about bypassing a blacklist on a url. I'd rather not have someone's IDHT/CIR issues or whatever this is, heighten the risk for editors that OpIndia has already doxxed or might try to dox in the future. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is not an article, and it's not even an article talk page. It is the talk page for an AfD which closed several days ago. It is hard to understand why this an issue of such great concern. Overall, there seems to be a lot of reverting and not a lot of discussion about the reverting on that page. Perhaps it would be a good idea for everyone to talk about their proposed changes to the page, and try to reach consensus prior to making these changes, including @Tayi Arajakate: and @TE(æ)A,ea.:. jp×g 02:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  JPxG, I can't keep repeating myself. What part of "links must be whitelisted before they can be used", do you not understand? Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: I'm referring to these diffs, from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination). jp×g 02:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, carefully read their edit summary. I guess, I'll repeat myself. What part of "links must be whitelisted before they can be used" and "do not use this template to highlight poor quality sources that would not normally be sufficient to support article content", do you and TE(æ)A,ea. not understand? As you say its the talk page of an AfD that's over so it's unlikely to receive further input. At this point, this is just status quo stonewalling for something that violates community consensus. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what you are talking about, as I do not have a particularly strong opinion about the dispute in question (both you and TE(æ) seem to be engaged in edit-warring). I am referring to the diffs I linked in the comment above (this one and this one). jp×g 02:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, I am referring to the fact that the press coverage includes an url to a blacklist website that has doxxed editors. Their personal information is still visible on their website. The url was not whitelist but instead inserted by bypassing it through Internet Archive. In addition, much of it violates both the general practice and the explicit documentation of the template. This is very clearly explained in the edit summaries there and I did try my best to explain that in the discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: I do not understand what this has to do with the issue at hand. The URL you're referring to is 135 bytes long, whereas both diffs show you removing 3,995 bytes from the template (containing some eleven sources). jp×g 03:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

JPxG, alright, just remove the url then and I wouldn't be bothered to continue this. That's the only thing I have a strong opinion of, here. I did try it once but that was reverted (alongside with signpost since that is mentioned twice in the header). Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The first comment is a technical requirement, not a policy concern. The second comment is, as I have already stated, irrelevant. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note: both users have now reverted each other four times over the press links on this AfD talk page (albeit not within a 24-hour period). jp×g 02:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I have some recent history with the named user, whose comment to the poster "The blame in those two reverts lies with you, not with me" [TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)] is a familiar enough approach. The unreliable sources they are stridently arguing has special emphasis on OpIndia, whose call to arms tags on the injustices against their organisation, and was amongst the most offensive to read. That said, it also should be obvious I am declaring coi due to having skin in the game. ~ cygnis insignis 03:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The OpIndia article was brought to the forefront of this argument by the accusing user, not by myself; I consider it of relatively equal importance to the other sources at hand (although slightly more valuable as an early, well-known source). In addition, I did not add the hyper-link originally. Also, I think you misunderstood me here; I don't have the capability of extracting images, and I would like you to do so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    Your first comment in the discussion was this one where you emphasise that OpIndia in particular must be included. This was before I had raised the concern regarding it in paritcular. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    Considering accusations of off-site canvassing especially, the other articles should be kept, OpIndia in particular 03:28 & However, none of the other Web-sites should be removed, especially OpIndia, as that article came at an important time during canvassing &c. 03:49 & I have already stated why OpIndia should be included; your only counter-argument was that "we certainly don't need to link" OpIndia. 17:19,

    is what they said. ~ cygnis insignis 04:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    Also note that their comment (22:49, 1 December 2021 (IST) or 17:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC);...I have already stated why OpIndia should be included; your only counter-argument was that "we certainly don't need to link" OpIndia...) comes after I had made this comment (10:20, 1 December 2021 (IST) or 4:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC);...There is also a fairly clear consensus through general practise that we don't include any of these in our press coverage. OpIndia, in particular has canvassed on multiple pages such as its own article OpIndia, 2020 Delhi riots, Love Jihad, etc etc, none of which mentions them in press coverage. They have also doxxed Wikipedia editors and one of the reasons for its blacklisting was to avoid furthering their doxxing effort, i.e leading more people to be able to access their attack pages. That justification still stands here.) What does one call this other than IDHT? I don't know how one is supposed to proceed after they respond like that, to me it looks like a plain attempt to frustrate in order to stonewall the discussion. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 04:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    • The above is an objection to the use of OpIndia as a source for articles, which I have already allowed as true; what it is not is an objection to the reference of OpIndia in this case, relating to the deletion discussion. The cases are differentiable, and I asked for your objections to this OpIndia article used here. On the topic of not getting the point, you refused to answer this question, and repeatedly removed the content while a discussion was ongoing regarding the content. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

      It is an objection against using it in press coverage. As for the specific article "used here", this is the first time you have asked this and I assume taking cue from Elli's comment below. I had explained why you should not link to the website, that should have enough, but instead you pretended that I had not. I doubt this is going to receive further attention from sysops and all the revisions with the url has been revdelled anyways, but for the record since I'm sure you'll be brought back for something else, this kind of continued reality denial is typical of tendentious editors. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 00:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

      • This is false. Any inquiry about the use of an article is necessarily fact-specific, relating to that article. After I noticed that you were objecting to OpIndia in general, I asked for your clarification regarding the particular article at hand. I cannot provide diffs, as they have been overwrited; and the page itself is locked. I believe this discussion is now irrelevant, as the source at hand has been unilaterally removed. Again, your objection to linking the article was actually an objection to linking to OpIndia, not to the specific OpIndia article in question; and the article in question had no relation to your objection. I have tried to engage in civil discussion, which was easy enough during the deletion discussion, but your general assumptions of bad faith are the cause of the silly and unnecessary proceeding. "I'm sure you'll be brought back for something else"? "[T]his... is typical of tendentious editors"? These are clearly personal attacks, with no basis in the reality you accuse me of denying. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

        Please do not use this language: "source ... unilaterally removed", "links oversighted", "page locked". I "unilaterally" removed the link which you added because it was a link t a blacklisted attack site, there is a long-term consensus that the site must not be cited on Wikipedia, and you disregarded this consensus and evaded the blacklisting by adding an arxiv reference. Another admin, after evaluating the situation, revision-deleted the links, and the third one locked the page. You must consider yourself happy that your account has not yet been blocked, and that you still have an opportunity ranting in this thread and insisting that what you have done is correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

        • I did not add the link; and it is not an arxiv link, but an IA (Wayback Machine) link. I did not imply, (at least, I certainly did not mean to imply,) that one person had committed all three actions. I can see your objection to "unilaterally," although that is a proper use of the term, but why do you object to the other phrases? The "links" were "oversighted," and the "page" was "locked." I did not add the link to OpIndia, because I was prevented from doing so because the site is blacklisted. Why would my account be blocked? For participating in discussions about the link in question, or defending myself here? I do not understand the hostility of your comment ("[y]ou must consider yourself happy that your account has not yet been blocked" (emphasis added)). Do you mean to say that I will be blocked for my actions on the discussion talk page in the future? I do wish to be blocked, and I do not mean to rant; I merely wish in this discussion to explain my actions and the former situation of the other discussion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

          The whole ANI topic, in which we are both responding, is about you and your actions. If at this point you still do not see what is wrong (and why pretty much everybody who commented here things that your actions were, at best, not optimal), I am afraid I can not help.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, how about this: we just remove the URL to the OpIndia article from the talk page. TE doesn't seem to care a whole lot about it, Tayi doesn't seem to care a whole lot about the other sources, and a discussion about the rest of the stuff can proceed (either at the talk page or at Template talk:Press). Is this acceptable to everyone? @Tayi Arajakate: and @TE(æ)A,ea.: jp×g 03:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Elli: Your opinion (per this edit)? I understand the objection to OpIndia, but not to the link itself. Is your only objection on the grounds of the link being to OpIndia? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @TE(æ)A,ea.: I added the link because I thought it'd be kinda silly to mention the article but not link it -- that particular article does not dox or even name any Wikipedia editors, so while it shouldn't be used as a source, I didn't think it'd be problematic to link. Especially given that /pol/ is linked without any apparent controversy a few lines down. I don't care that much if the entry to OpIndia stays or not, but if it does, I think it makes sense to link it. If it did dox editors, it wouldn't be appropriate to mention, but since it doesn't, I don't see why linking it is particularly harmful, as that is the reason the site was blacklisted. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 03:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Take that up on the talk page please. ~ cygnis insignis 04:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can an admin please lock the talkpage to that AFD?

Never mind the fact that AFDs don't usually have talkpages; the AFD has been closed (by a group of four admins) for nearly two days now, and that now-pointless talkpage is nearing 190,000 bytes. Any further discussion belongs on the article's talkpage, not there. The whole quibble, therefore, between the OP and the reported editor is pointless, and thus this ANI thread should be closed as well. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the talkpage of that AfD should be deleted, as the AfD is closed. IF they want to argue? do it on the actual article's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you had bothered to even take a superficial glance at the "quibble", you would realise that it has nothing to do with the contents of the article itself and would not belong on its talk page. I personally have no interest in the article itself, however I do have an interest in not platforming a blacklisted website that has doxxed users (and continues to host their personal information) in the topic area that I do edit in. I would definitely not mind if the talk page of the AfD is deleted though since that would solve the issue. That said there is also some serious issues with the reported user's conduct regardless of the specifics here which should be looked into, by my estimation at least. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 05:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I had already read this entire thread more than once before I posted the request I did. If you can't see that the quibble and edit war between you and the reported editor on the talkpage of a closed AFD is pointless (certainly not an ANI issue), then that's on you. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The closed AfD still has high visibility so no, it's not pointless to prevent the url from being linked there. If you do not understand how that jeopordises the safety of editors the website has targeted and by extension the third pillar, then no it's not on me. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender, after this edit (Special:Diff/1058402220), I'd think your conduct needs to be examined as well. Why exactly are you reverting my clearly marked redaction of my own comment? Ymblanter has raised no objection to it. I removed my comment in order to not provide directions to the blacklisted link. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tayi Arajakate: Was my next edit [46] a satisfactory solution. ~ cygnis insignis 09:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really unless someone went and redacted it, since a specific bit of information would have remained visible. That's the only purpose of it, I'm quite amazed that even this has encountered resistance. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It is a different discussion, a separate proposal, that may deflect from any other concern raised. I'm very involved, so that is merely a view of the wounded. ~ cygnis insignis 07:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've put up the standard deletion archive banners. AfDs are meant to exist in a point in time and not be a continuing discussion. If there's a problem with the close, there's Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Late to this discussion, but... I think this is a bit of an overreaction. It's unusual for AfDs to have talk pages, but it's not unheard of, and for the most part this one is being used as a projectspace talk page ought to be: to discuss the project page it's attached to. – Joe (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• My suggestion to protect the talk page was opposed by two users, with one of them suggesting it would be abuse of my administrative privilege. Whereas I obviously disagree, I am not anymore willing to protect the page. I have more interesting things on Wikipedia than to argue that my routine administrative actions are compatible with my administrator status.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Joe Roe: I'm not going to pursue this but, respectfully, that's what DRV is for. I suppose if it builds up evidence for use in an eventual dispute resolution and keeps that bad energy away from the article itself then there's something to be said for it. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill Williams bludgeoning and WP:IDHT

• Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bill Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

---

• Talk:The Wall Street Journal §§ Should editorial opinions be posted in the lede summary., WSJ's Reputation, and Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body

As of 16:36, 1 December 2021, the amount of comments by each user in the discussions is as follows (excluding users with less than 10 comments):

User	Comments
Bill Williams	52
Soibangla	23
XOR'easter	20
Stallion55347	18
Hob Gadling	18
Snooganssnoogans	13
Kleinpecan	11

The fact that Bill Williams has written more comments than the next two editors combined, I think, speaks for itself.

His arguments can be divided into two types. Those were repeatedly rejected by other editors, yet he continues to repeat them (WP:IDHT). Note how he repeatedly uses phrases like once again and its synonyms:

Long list of diffs

Whataboutism about other articles: 04:56, 22 November 04:19, 23 November 15:34—here he falsely claims that no reliable sources discuss WSJ's promotion of fringe science 17:50 ("And again, 'a documented pattern ...'") 23:14 ("... so again according to the logic in this article ...") 02:22, 24 November ("And once again ...", "I have repeatedly asked this basic question ...")) 02:52 ("Again, what differentiates the WSJ ...") 17:29, 26 November 00:30, 1 December The text is supposedly outdated and The Wall Street Journal has changed its position since then (he did not provide any evidence that it did): 05:00 05:31 05:41 03:35, 23 November and 03:39—here he falsely claims that "literally no reliable sources" are talking about it 04:17 04:19 04:24 15:30 ("Again, you clearly cannot comprehend the basics of Wikipedia policy") 16:42 16:53 ("And I am still asking ...") 00:41, 24 November 00:58 01:07 01:37 ("Again, that is ...") 01:50 ("Once again ...") 19:30 20:23 17:26, 26 November

There is also this personal attack:

• 19:28, 24 November: "Maybe learn how to read as well next time"

I am not the first person to notice Bill Williams's bludgeoning:

• Maybe you could also have a look at WP:IDHT. After you have grasped all that, then you should read the reasoning responding to your "decade-old" fluff and ponder on whether it is wise to repeat your already-refuted "decade-old" fluff.
  — User:Hob Gadling 08:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• You continue to badger and bludgeon.
  — User:Soibangla 23:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please stop bludgeoning this RfC with straight-up lies. Your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS.
  — User:Snooganssnoogans 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a pattern: in the previous RfC (Talk:The Wall Street Journal/Archive 5 § RfC on Editorial Board Scientific Claims in the Lead), for example, he has written 27 comments—more than Hob Gadling (17) and Springee (7) combined. The same is true for Talk:Paul Gosar: 36 comments by Bill Williams, 22 by Soibangla, 6 by Sarysa, 4 by WakandaQT and 4 by Pokelova. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: Bill Williams has been shown WP:IDHT a couple of times on the Wall Street talk page. Panini!^🥪 21:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am the IP editor who posted several suggested changes on that page, and interacted with Bill Williams a few times. I do have to point out that Bill Williams has acted in a way that suggests a desire to follow rules and improve the page, having directed me to participate in the RfC instead of trying to change it while the RfC was ongoing, even though my proposed changes didn't pertain specifically to the topic of the RfC. See: [old talk page]. There is definitely "bludgeoning" behavior on that page by editors who think a consensus means a majority vote, Bill Williams definitely seems to be a prolific commenter there, and does seem to have "bludgeoned", but it seems to have inspired an uncivil backlash. As someone who seems to have made a suggestion that was seriously entertained by editors with varying views, I'd like to plead for civility and humility on that page. I don't think anyone there is downright malicious, but the recent devolvement into incivility eliminates the chance of turning what I thought was a myopic discussion into a productive one--it's antiproductive. "Consensus by runaway toxicity" may be a thing, but there is no way the end result is a quality encyclopedia. Having an agenda on here beyond making knowledge accessible as a sort of community service is a joke. People who change the world don't edit Wikipedia; have some perspective. 2600:1012:B00B:759D:6C35:8E78:A042:D766 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe if you guys actually gave me a single answer to my question, AKA one recent reliable source that backs up your claims that the editorial board promotes pseudoscience on asbestos, pesticides, second hand smoke, ozone, or acid rain instead of decades old random op-eds that nobody else cares about besides you, I wouldn't have to repeat myself every time. Also consider how more editors have agreed with my position than yours, and then come back to me about "bludgeoning." The editors you mention have repeatedly personally attacked me, with just a few examples below of them attempting to scream through the screen at me, saying I am a lair, and that I am just on Wikipedia to spread propaganda:

Aggressive or otherwise rude behavior

The fact that you recently tried to insert a hurrah section lauding the alleged excellence of WSJ (with highly dubious sources) while at the same time obstinately trying obstinately try to keep the pointer to its unreliability in questions of environmental science (with an excellent scientific source) out of the lede, repeating long refuted arguments again and again and persistently not listening to those refutations in spite of having been shown to WP:IDHT by several users, as well as removing well-sourced criticism from the body, suggests that you are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to turn this into a PR article for the WSJ. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC) And here it is yet again: WP:IDHT CURRENTLY DOESN'T MATTER! hear it now? soibangla (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Please stop bludgeoning this RfC with straight-up lies. Your behavior is WP:TENDENTIOUS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

They did this on multiple other occasions even though they simply personally disagreed, and I misread what one person said, while another misread what I said, and yet that is how they responded to me. The IDHT link states "Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive" which is false when over half the editors agree with me and use actual logic instead of putting undue claims in the lead of an important article. "Those were repeatedly rejected by other editors" lacks context when over half the editors in the RfC agreed with my logic and the only people who rejected it were those who also repeated the exact same things that they already believed. Bill Williams 00:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe if you guys actually gave me a single answer to my question ..."—see WP:BADGER.

I like the way you write "over half the editors agree with me and use actual logic". Of course everyone who disagrees with you is a rambling madman, and you are the sole bearer of Truth, Logic and Rationality.

"I have not done so to them a single time"—what is Special:Diff/1056991697, then, if not a blatant personal attack? Kleinpecan (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I also see that you have removed my notification of you about this discussion with the edit summary "I'd prefer you stay personally attacking me on the WSJ article than editing my talk page". Surely you understand that baseless accusations of personal attacks are themselves a personal attack? Kleinpecan (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

My talk page, so I can remove whatever I want that is in the way of future important messages, and clearly I was personally attacked by someone who accused me of being someone who I was not, because they misread, so I told them to read better. Bill Williams 01:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat involved here, but I would just point out Bill Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked four times since 2019 and was at one time indeffed for sockpuppetry. Calidum 00:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the reason for the four blocks, but the fact that you bring up sockpuppetry, which is irrelevant to this topic, makes me think of WP:ASPERSIONS. I'd rather not bring up recent high profile criminal trials as an analogy, but since the topic at hand is the WSJ, it would be thematically appropriate to say, "past guilt does not guarantee future guilt". I'd say passions can be more productively directed elsewhere: to those who feel the lede attacks their sentimentality toward the journal, buy a subscription to show your support. To those who despise the editorial board, get a NYT subscription. And everyone, please chill out. If everyone involved in this dispute went out for beers, despite the boost of ethanol, I think everyone would quickly find each other equally awkward, petty, and insufferable--proving there is a common humanity that pervades the entire Wikipedia community, no matter how heated the discussions here appear to be at times. 2600:1012:B006:D547:F97D:6915:5154:1D15 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's ironic that an IP account with no prior edits comes here of all places to complain about another user mentioning sock puppetry. Speaking of which, the editor who initiated the RFC in question Stallion55347 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created their account in February but only began editing last month. The vast majority of their contributions since then have been to the WSJ article and its talk page. Calidum 14:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

IP editor discrimination is the final unaddressed civil rights frontier in this country, but I can't condone "bludgeoning" behavior, especially if done by means of "sockpuppetry". I posted earlier here, apologies for not disclosing, I have a dynamic IP. In hindsight, there were a lot of "red" usernames participating there, which could be indicative of tomfoolery, but it seemed disorganized. What a bummer if it turns out there was a cabal inflating the commentary there. If the WSJ editorial board is living rent free in some editors' heads, the lede of the wikipedia article sure does live rent free in a bunch of other editors' heads...heh heh. I'll wait for the dust to settle and open a new RfC with my proposed change (that involves just better summarizing per WP:LEAD). 2600:1012:B048:16A5:88F1:D553:2FCE:6875 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In Soviet Wikipedia, rights civil you! (You specifically, IP.) El_C 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bludgeoning? Questionable in regard to the RfC. Perhaps the number of responses is leaning that direction, but I don't think it's there yet. But in the other two threads? That claim is more dubious, especially regarding Scrubbing peer-reviewed studies from body in which Bill is the subject of the thread. Multiple editors there are discussing the matter with Bill, so naturally, he is going to respond more often than any single editor. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• I'm involved in the article discussion and my views with regards to the RfC are similar to BW's. I don't think BW is going to change the minds of any of the editors with whom they are arguing. In terms of uncivil or antagonistic comments, I think the other side has had more than their share and that level of hostility likely dissuades input from editors who might otherwise weigh in on the topic. I've disengaged from the discussion for exactly that reason. To me it looks a bit like BW is suffering from a pile on case. As a group those who oppose BW's POV have made a number of rude or otherwise divisive comments. Individually none of those editors has crossed any lines but the cumulative effect is hostile to those who might offer disagreement. It's worth noting the !vote consensus seems to be about evenly split so this isn't a case of a single editor off in left field. Where to from here? I would suggest BW slow down and not bother trying to convince the editors in question. I think the several of the editors on the other side should assume good faith and, more critically, civility even if they are frustrated (for example accusing editors of lying is never a good talk page plan). All should relax and this ANI should be closed. Springee (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Springee I realize that and apologize to the editors who have accused me of disruptive editing, but as you stated, the reason I responded is because slightly over half the editors in the RfC agreed with me, and I was attempting to convince those who disagreed using the same logic of those who agreed, but those who disagreed repeatedly accused me of being disruptive, propaganda spreading, and lying just to name a few, so I felt a need to respond to explain and defend myself. Going forward if I have to restate my claim like this to the point where they clearly think it is disruptive, I will refrain from continuing any further. Bill Williams 04:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Doesn't Bill Williams have a topic ban from American politics? Should he be participating in a RFC about a conservative newspaper's handing of a major US political football (global warming) at all? - MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that would be a stretch given in this case. The extensive RfC discussion hasn't touched on the political aspects of the topic. Springee (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that he was topic banned from AP. If he is, this is a topic ban violation in my view. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Does Bill Williams have a topic ban from AP? Firefangledfeathers 16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  There's a three month block in his log for violating a topic ban last year, but I can't find it in the enforcement log. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  His last block was also for "Violation of...talk page restriction (one post per day) placed by El C," which seems relevant here. I do not know, however, whether that restriction is still in place. Maybe @El C: would know? Calidum 16:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  That sanction was rescinded in Feb. El_C 17:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Gracias. Calidum 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Disclosure: I watch Bill's talk page which is how I found this discussion.
  I mean I wouldn't have recommended BW dive into such a controversial topic area, but he's not disallowed from doing so. I would like to echo 2600:1012 in saying that a calming of tensions all around would generally be appreciated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not getting involved in the discussion, but I see no topic ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log where it should have been logged. Doug Weller talk 16:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think the complaint may be poorly framed, though I am sure it is filed in good faith. Simply counting edits is not a good way to analyze a discussion. Please show diffs with three examples of bad behavior, the worst three. That's a good way to start the discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Close and remind everyone to be civil. Plenty of rudeness abounds in the threads and others could have diffs cherry-picked to show they are not acting in a collegial manner with dismissive and borderline personal attacks. Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have no enjoyment in arguing, in fact quite the opposite; all I wish to do is improve the articles I edit. I edit things I come across, and in fact I wish that I did not have to engage in these discussions, and wish to edit more demographics for example (the third largest state, 20 million people, has an article with outdated demographic information, which shows how far off many demographic sections are on Wikipedia). There are plenty of other topics I wish to edit, but I am stuck responding to editors who bring up the same arguments while I bring up the same arguments as well. Every one of my opponents did this yet none of them want to mention their own behavior. Considering they chose to single out the WSJ of all newspapers in existence, that is why I am editing the talk page. I have no interest in defending it, just representing claims as stated regularly in reliable sources, not by one or two a decade ago. I read the WSJ less than the NYTimes and WaPo and taking a basic look at their comment sections shows hundreds to thousands of comments with hundreds to thousands of "recommends" insulting any right-wing op-ed, making them always controversial. But this original research is completely undue for the lead of those articles to say something like "The NYT/WaPo editorial board has controversially promoted right-wing views", and some random sources that vaguely relate to this of the style that my opponents provided would use [47][48][49] for the NYT that I found in a minute. Bill Williams 01:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also, I find it interesting how when my opponents disputed my proposed content removal, instead of resolving it civilly, they resort to insulting me (e.g. call me a liar, disruptive, or malicious), brought up the fact that I sockpuppeted a minimal amount over two years ago, which I have already apologized for and not done since, and mentioned that I was topic banned over two years ago from something completely irrelevant to what I am editing, even though that topic ban was removed ten months ago. How does doing any of this provide a benefit to the discussion or the article? Bill Williams 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Woah, Bill needs to step away and take a break. This is clearly bludgeoning, by the shear number of comments. The content of the comment shows how involved they are personally. Even if it was brought on by uncivil comments, you cannot fight fire with fire. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi, all. Bill has been quite rude and aggressively hostile over at Talk: Assault weapon as well. Just this morning he told me, unprovoked, that my post was "the dumbest thing I've seen all day" and has been, along with the rest of his political gang, aggressively gatekeeping even minor changes to the article that don't fit his highly ideological POV. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

    rude and aggressively hostile over at Talk: Assault weapon – No irony there. EEng 03:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

References

This has absolutely nothing to do with that, but if you want to bring that up, then I'll respond. First off, your conspiracy theories of my "political gang" that you just personally attacked does not exist, considering I am an individual who simply states what I personally believe to be correct, not what my supposed cabal thinks. I addressed why your highly inaccurate claim was "the dumbest thing I've seen all day" on the talk page, and this was not "unprovoked" as you has edit warred on the article in the past and are now accusing me of being rude and aggressive over a disagreement you initiated. Bill Williams 23:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether or not I initiated the content dispute (gasp!), you've treated your fellow editors with pure rudeness and hostility and wildly undeserved arrogance. I did not make any "claims," but rather proposed a quotation be placed in the article for reasons of balance and weight and treating the opposed view to the NRA view you have endorsed on the talk page and included in the article, with quotations. Calling, without any merit, your fellow editors' proposed edits "the dumbest thing I've seen all day" and "the most nonsensical and clearly false thing I have ever heard" (especially when the proposed edit was merely a direct attributed, referenced quote from the American Association of Pediatrics on the topic of the article) simply shows what an uncollaborative, uncollegial, hostile editor you are, poisoning the well of communal discourse with bad faith arguments and attacks. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

To summarize and reiterate the above for others, Bill is an editor who patrols political talk pages in such an aggressively ideological, hyper-partisan fashion such that he, without any apparent irony, called a direct quotation from the American Association of Pediatrics (obviously a well-known purveyor of nonsense) on a public health issue "the most nonsensical and clearly false thing I ever heard" and suggested that a fellow editor's proposed edit that simply proposed said quotation on the topic of the article be included somewhere in the article was "the dumbest thing I've seen all day." 108.30.187.155 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Same IP above replying...This seems like mostly a content dispute surrounded by incivility from all sides. I personally have no idea why a medical association would involve itself in a hot-button political issue like firearm regulation. People are free to express their opinion on talk pages in the course of improving the page. If we're going to harp on him saying it's the "dumbest thing"...I'm not condoning that language, but quite a bit of that was hurled at him: "stop lying", etc. too, and there already seems to be a general reprimanding of the really petty and hostile behavior from many editors here. Y'all realize there are like, real people here? Try communicating with that in mind...write as you would say to someone's face, please. Life is short and everyone here is just doing volunteer work. 2600:1012:B012:24B9:7515:4235:8EA:CB0 (talk) 06:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously @Bill Williams, you're doubling down on your personal attack? I know things get heated, but it's not hard to see that you shouldn't speak to another editor in the manner you did here. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Stating that a claim is dumb is not attacking anyone personally, unless you think a claim is a person. I called the editor's claim dumb after seeing numerous other claims of theirs, considering they have edit warred on this article and are accusing me of being part of a cabal and other conspiracy theories that I am other editors supposedly control the article for propaganda purposes, which is a legitimate personal attack. Bill Williams 07:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill has clearly and repeatedly shown himself to be so unmoored from reality and attached to his hyper-partisan worldview that he calls a claim by a highly respected medical organization on a public health issue "the most nonsensical thing I have ever seen" and a suggestion to add a quotation for to an article for balance reasons (not an endorsement, a simple quotation stating a view by a prominent and respected organization on the topic of an article) "the dumbest thing I've seen all day." Can anyone, in good faith, possibly think that a statement by the American Association of Pediatrics is likely to be the "most nonsensical and clearly false thing I have ever seen?" Hyper-partisan ideologues like Bill have no business editing an encyclopedia. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

PS: And for the last time, I didn't make any "claims", Bill. I proposed the inclusion of a single quotation in the article. Proposing that we quote the position of a group that supports assault weapons bans on the assault weapons page does not entail that I have made any "claims;" it literally only means that I think the viewpoint is an example of a promninent and notable perspective on the topic of the article that deserves to be covered in the article at least one time. Bill is literally doing everything he can to insure that Wikipedia NOT EVEN mention the existence of viewpoints he disagrees with. I had not even previously interacted with Bill when he hurled that invective at me for proposing that a single sentence be added to the article for balance reasons. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are still ranting about a few sentences I wrote a single time in response to multiple paragraph rants of yours. It was a content issue that is irrelevant to this, and simply shows how you do not care about the content and only care about insulting me. A group of pediatricians is neither notable nor credible on the issue of rifles and has no relevance to the article. Bill Williams 20:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

No one needs the last word in here. At a time when hostilities should be dialed back, they're ramping up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Combative and NOTHERE editor

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

The above was recently partially blocked by BD2412 for edit warring on John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Since that happened, they have only been combative towards other users who attempted to warn them of this (including complaining/borderline harassing to admins, including BD and 331dot, who declined their appeal) and their attitude has been overall dismissive of all advice and warnings, describing them as "irrelevant", "meaningless", "BS", so on so forth. They're clearly not interested in collaborating, much less in actually building an encyclopedia (as opposed to merely shouting from the top of their soapbox), as obvious from their disinterest in actually being even remotely polite and civil, and I reckon there's not much reason to expect a radical improvement in a few day's time. Somebody uninvolved and with a spare mop would be welcome here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything RandomCanadian has said above. BrandonTRA's entire purpose here appears to be the insertion of poorly supported content into a single rather sensitive article. Their response to opposition to the addition of this material has been denigration of the multiple editors pointing out its flaws, improper templating of user talk pages with warnings, ([50], [51]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([52]). I gave them a minimal block under the circumstances – limited to one article, for one week – but they seem inclined to learn nothing from it. I've seen enough to expect that they never will. BD2412 T 21:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this the same editor as BrandonTR? The tone is certainly the same. BrandonTR has been a belligerent and unhelpful SPA on JFK assassination articles for over a decade. Here's an ANI complaint I made about him in 2013: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Long_term_incivility_from_User:BrandonTR. Gamaliel (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Certainly seems like it could be a sock situation. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I consider myself uninvolved with a spare mop, and already issued a warning to leave 331 alone yesterday, and another warning today, before this report. They have not mentioned 331 since then, just some venting and bluster on their talk page. I'm assuming they got the message. The only edit they've made since then outside their talk page is this. A 7/10 on the obnoxiousness meter, but yours might be calibrated differently, particularly if there's a long history of unprovoked stuff like that. I've got their talk page watchlisted and was planning to block indef if they kept it up, but thought I'd give a final warning a chance. If another admin wants to short-circuit that approach, don't feel like you need to get my OK. In particular, I was unaware of the existence of BrandonTR; if they've been doing this a long time, with previous warnings not on the new account's talk page, then I'm much less inclined to wait to see if the behavior changes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• As an erstwhile target of this user's harassment, I would like to say that their editing on the JFK article is combative at best, harassing at worst. I would describe their attitude as "flippant" and "dismissive of the perspectives of others as always in bad faith."
  Here are some choice diffs: [53] ([54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
  If the original BrandonTR account is the same person, then this is a decade-long pattern that has not improved in the slightest. And in my opinion merits a WP:NOTHERE indef. If these are not the same person, then I think a TBAN would probably be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  If these are not the same person, then the new editor has chosen a username almost identical to that of the old editor, in order to edit the same article in the same style, which is problematic conduct in and of itself. BD2412 T 03:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes I would personally call it astronomically unlikely. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• In my books, anyone oblivious enough to attack multiple editors and admins while he's under a block is someone who can't be trusted to make constructive and competent edits. Ravenswing 17:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose indef block

I am proposing an indefinite block per WP:NOTTHERE. ––FormalDude ^talk 05:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as this is a WP:SPA who is interested most of all in pushing their POV. And they do so in such a way that makes collaborative editing all but impossible. They are very much WP:NOTHERE. They've thumbed their nose at this thread, saying "That's nice" when notified [62]. I cannot think of a clearer case of NOTHERE. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 11:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support:  Looks like a duck to me. Rest assured, I read the whole thread. /gen Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 13:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment I'm ambivalent about a block vs. a final warning right now, and won't vote, but 2 clarifications: (1) after this thread started, they removed their most recent snark in several places, which I suppose is a step in the right direction, and (2) we shouldn't be talking "duck test" or anything sockpuppetry-related as a reason to block; the accounts didn't overlap, and the naming scheme doesn't indicate an intent to deceive. This is the kind of thing people do when they lose their passwords. I agree their long term behavior absolutely needs to change immediately and substantially, if it isn't already too late. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the "duck test" is relevant here not in terms of sockpuppetry accusations, but in this being a much more seasoned editor than their account history would indicate, and therefore someone who should know better than to engage in the conduct complained of. BD2412 T 21:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair, reasonable point. If that's what's intended, I've no objection to considering that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support as well. Ravenswing 21:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

One sided fight with Huldra

I created the article on David Collier (political activist) in good faith with the belief that the subject met notability standards. It's currently in the process of AFD with mixed results. I only learned after the fact that there's drama between him and some users.

In what might be our first interaction ever, Huldra says in the AFD I should be topic banned for creating this page.[63]

Later, I left a message on her talk page informing her that accusations she's made against the subject of this article[64] could be a BLP violation and in AFD discussions in the future to please stick to notability instead of sharing her personal thoughts about the subject. Her response was to revert my message.[65]

On another talk page, she seems like she's being intentionally combative.[66] I ask her if she's trying to start a fight. [67] She claims that by creating the page I'm the one who started the fight, and that I could end the fight by deleting it.[68] I give her a final notice to please apologize, or at least agree to stop this fight, or else I'd take it to arbitration.[69] Her response was to ask if I'd delete the page.[70]

The suggestions that I be topic banned, plus saying she's fighting me and won't stop until I concede to her demands to support deleting a page, certainly go against any spirit of assuming good faith and cooperation.

Note - In retrospect, Arbitration was 100% the wrong place for this relatively minor but annoying incident. I apologize for wasting anyone's time with that. So we're here.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you asking be done? I didn't check all your links but if the first couple are a guide I don't see anything particularly problematic. I gather that the subject of the article is "controversial" in a highly charged topic (Palestine-Israel articles) and candid commentary should be expected. I see some talk-page comments claiming that the person attempts to OUT editors on the other side and that links to their website should therefore not be added to Wikipedia. I haven't investigated that, but if there is any truth to it, anyone adding those links or hinting how they can be found should be indefinitely blocked (until they commit to never repeat the attempt). Why not let the normal processes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist) apply? Is there an ongoing problem? Anyone (apart from those who have been topic banned) is free to suggest that someone should be topic banned. The only problem would be making a fuss (e.g. by repeating the claim excessively) as it is an issue for WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are statements like this within an AFD really okay, or is it an intimidation tactic? Especially if others are saying the same thing?

"The creator of this article should be topic-banned from the IP area"

The next quote is overly combative, especially when I was talking to someone else, seem to come to an agreement and she just injects trying to stir up problems.

"Lol; and then you start an article about one of the worst doxxers out there? Do you really expect anyone to believe you? Do you take us all for morons?"

Lol, you started the fight by starting an article about a well-known doxxer; you might end the fight by asking for a deletion of the article,

These comments weren't in the AFD. She decided to harangue me on some other talk page. Certainly that's a violation of WP:GF and WP:NICE. I understand that things get heated and everyone can make a mistake once in a while. But she has indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, and apparently violating these principles, until I cave to her demand that I support deleting this page. And that's not okay.

I'm still learning these processes, but I think I'd like someone from a position of authority to give her an official reminder that she needs to play nice and obey the civility rules. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The article in question has become a fan site, as was to be expected. The subject is a blogger who is popular in some circles due to his exceptionally strident opinions. And, yes, the outing claim is true. There is nothing wrong with expressing the opinion that we are better off without the article. Best to make that argument at AfD, though. Zero^talk 07:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Zero0000 has a feud with Collier: "Collier tells lies about me". Zero0000 is wrong to edit or comment on Collier because of WP:BLPCOI policy and his feud. This probably applies to other editors that are emotional in the AfD. Free1Soul (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Collier claims that I block people for disagreeing with me. Pointing out that this attack on my integrity as an administrator is not true doesn't create a feud. Zero^talk 10:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because an unreliable source making wild claims about an editor here makes it so the editor is who has a COI. That is absurd, and the group of editors who are attempting to silence others on the basis of lies told about them on a blog should be ashamed of themselves. nableezy - 17:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zero0000: No one has objected to saying "we're better off without the article." The issue is that Huldra is acting with anger and hostility toward me, and unrepentantly violating the principles of civility toward me outside of the AFD.

Should I not be free to say "the article should stay" without being harangued for it wherever I comment? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The bounds of WP:CIVIL do get stretched a bit in this area, nature of the beast, possibly you have done the same thing yourself? And we have had several discussions about WP:DR and the best way to go about that so maybe close this and move on? Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

If I've ever crossed that line, I've apologized. I have never indicated that I'm going to keep fighting someone, and keep violating civility rules. She indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, around wikipedia, until I cave to her demand to support deleting that page.

This is what I find unacceptable, and why I think she needs an admin to step in and make it clear that these rules need to be followed, irrespective of how you feel about someone's views. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Usual practice when one feels things might be getting problematic in some respect is first to raise the matter on a user talk page, I believe I explained this to you not that long ago. I have looked at the page and I see first only a wrongly put together notice of "arbitration" and then that corrected for this board instead. You are of course entitled to raise a complaint as is anyone but there is a right way and a wrong way to do that.She indicated that she's going to keep fighting me, around wikipedia, until I cave to her demand to support deleting that page. Do you have a diff for this?Selfstudier (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment I think at such contentious area there should be higher standards for discourse and the admins should enforce the WP:NPA specifically Comment on content, not on the contributor--Shrike (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Having been the subject of countless death- and/or rape-threaths for over a decade (Here are the logs for over-sighted threats on my talk-page; virtually all editors who are not obviously pro-Israeli have logs of similar length). ---I take an extremely dim view of people who try to dox me, or any other editor in the I/P area.
• Bob drobbs starts an article about one of the most notorious doxxers (and bloggers) out there, now up for deletion;
• Bob drobbs use the fact that the article is not (yet) deleted, as an argument that said doxxer/blogger's views are notable link
• Bob drobbs, after he gets informed about his subjects doxxing, states "because if the page survives deletion, I'm sure a link to his website will be added at some point" (ie a link to a doxing site)
• Bob drobbs is offended by my words. I am offended by his actions.
• And yes; because of his actions of facilitating and enabling a doxxer; I think Bob drobbs should be topic-banned from the IP area, Huldra (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Huldra: I don't see anything in this response that show an understanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:GF. Do you understand those guidelines and are you willing and able to treat me with respect, despite our differences of opinion?

P.S. David Collier has engaged in doxing. I don't support it. But it also has zero bearing on his notability. And it seems to be a misnomer to conflate the entirety of a website that has a couple of instances with a "doxing site". There are other websites which have instances of doxing which Zero0000 said it was fine to link to. Finally, I didn't say I'd add a link to it, just that it would happen someday. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how saying somebody should be topic-banned constitute fighting. Having said the same, and having had the same said about me, Ive never considered that a personal attack. I dont see anything actionable about Huldra here, at all. nableezy - 22:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

🙄 In an AfD, saying the article's creator should be tbanned for creating the article is obviously not cool, let's everyone skip all the "I don't see anything wrong here" nonsense. Of course an AfD is not the place to be calling for sanctions against editors. How about these comments get struck and everybody moves on? Levivich 23:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich. Obviously I don't think the article meets notability standards; I said so at AfD. But Huldra needs to ratchet back the rhetoric, promptly. Wikipedia is not the anti-doxxing police, and Bob drobbs has every right to create articles on convicted war criminals, if he so chooses -- he is not "facilitating" or "enabling" anything by so doing, claiming that he is with that as evidence is highly uncivil, and calling for a topic ban on that ground alone is near to hysteria. Ravenswing 23:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing; with all due respect; you have a clean log-page (no oversightings), and no editor were ever named Ravenswing the Judeophobe toŕtured and buried alived1, or similar. So excuse my "near to hysteria", as you call it. But if you knew wp-editors who have had rape-threats against their pre-teen daughters, people contacting their place of work, old parents harrassed; all because of doxxing from the pro-Israeli crowd, you just might understand where that "near to hysteria" comes from. And Bob drobbs himself says that he expect a link to the doxing-site will appear, iff the article is kept. (And actually; I agree with him there), Huldra (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither WP:NPA nor WP:CIVIL have opt-outs for editors who've been harassed. It's regrettable that you have been, but that doesn't greenlight you to lash out at random editors -- or call for them to be sanctioned -- because they have stances you dislike. My opposition to the article hangs only on its lack of reliable sources about Collier himself; it is just as obvious that there are many reliable sources which discuss his work/opinions in considerable detail. Would you call for me to be topic-banned if reliable sources about Collier were to materialize, and my vote be changed in consequence? Ravenswing 00:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenswing and Levivich. AfDs are not referendums on the subject, and every day articles are created on manifestly non-notable subjects, frequently by the subject of the article themselves. Editors who cannot keep their feelings in check should either absent themselves from discussions or be sanctioned. The kind of behavior noted above (especially the ridiculous call for the article creator to be topic banned) is not acceptable, and creates a chilling effect on all editors seeking to create articles on controversial subjects or persons. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

NOTE: ^^^This sub-thread is on-topic. Most everything else now seems totally off-topic.^^^ -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I said he should be topic-banned for violating WP:POINT. I think that manifestly true, given this. nableezy - 23:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly true that the impetus for creating the Collier article was to enable support to his editing at a different article. Not a good look.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Bob didnt link to an outing site, User:Inf-in MD did (here). That is probably the better grounds for a topic ban/indefinite block as oppose to Bob. nableezy - 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Are there any rulings or consensus anywhere that say you cannot link to a site that has doxing on it, or the official site of someone who has engaged in doxing? I understand linking to a page that has doxing is a clear violation, but pulling basic biographical details from a primary source that has a couple of pages of doxing buried somewhere does not immediately appear to be a violation. I asked Zero0000 this and couldn't seem to get a clear answer. And if no such thing exists, maybe people should stop throwing around these implied threats of bans too? -- 23:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. nableezy - 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I had/have no idea that is an "outing site" and certainly didn't mean to out anyone here, merely to provide a WP:ABOUTSELF link to an article. The link, to a page which contains no outing information, is gone now, regardless, so stop trying to weaponize this against your opponents. I find such suggestions coming from someone who is actively involved in attempted outing of Wikipedia editors off-wiki to be bad faith, to say the least. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am unaware of any such attempt. nableezy - 00:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

sure you are. If any admin is willing to take action on this, please e-mail me and I will send the info privately. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good luck with that one. Im pretty sure I know what Im involved in though. nableezy - 00:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Admins are invited to e-mail me for the evidence. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems to me you are making a very public accusation here, without allowing a public rebuttal. If you want to mail someone, you are free to do that, aren't you? No need to ask for an admin here, is there?Selfstudier (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The public rebuttal was made, he denied it. If anyone wants the evidence they know where to go. While we're at it, do you have a comment regarding the link you've posted, to a clear cut outing site?Inf-in MD (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I feel like we have a arbitration decisions about this or something. nableezy - 01:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice try , by I won't be baited into linking to the outing site with the evidence. Admins can e-mail me. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to make public any evidence then your accusation very much is an aspersion, and you should strike it. Or have reason 12 for why you should be removed from this website. nableezy - 01:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice try. I have the evidence, and hence have good cause for the accusation, as required by the links you posted. It can't be shared publicly because of other concerns such as linking to harassment sites which would be a violation of polices, but I can make it available in private to admins who are interested. I'll strike the accusation, but invite admins who care about this site to e-mail me. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You are making matters worse. Stating that you "have the evidence" when said evidence cannot be verified is exactly what arbitration decisions is about. There is no need to ask admins to mail you, the harrasment policy explains what to do, you are simply making use of this forum to float your allegation (repeatedly).Selfstudier (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I asked you a question, above. Please respond. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

My talk page is free for editing. I suggest you start there.Selfstudier (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the direct relevance to what is being discussed here (same article dispute, same behavior I'm accused of) , I'd rather you respond here. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you would. Your question has been asked and answered.Selfstudier (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: You have two choices. (1) Immediately email your evidence to Arbcom (see User:Arbitration Committee) and state here that you have done so. Or (2), strike all your above claims. I will indefinitely block you for harassment in a topic under discretionary sanctions if one of these is not done before you continue commenting or editing. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've emailed the evidence to the Arbitration committee. Inf-in MD (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq - Those were appropriate instructions given. Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Back on topic summary

1. Huldra chose to drag this disagreement outside of the AFD with statements that unquestionably violate WP:GF: "Do you really expect anyone to believe you? Do you take us all for morons?"

2. 3 separate times, Huldra has repeated the statement that I should be topic banned for creating a page. She's done it in the AFD, in the arbitration that was rightfully cancelled, and yet again in here. Ravenswing, who I'd take as impartial has described this behavior as "highly uncivil" and bordering on "hysteria". If this should be taken to AE instead let me know.

3. In the conversation with Ravenswing, Huldra argues she should be given an exemption from rules regarding WP:CIVIL because _other_ people have harassed her. In no way should I be held accountable for what others have done.

So, I'd like it to be made clear to her, from an official point of view, that rules regarding WP:CIVIL and WP:GF apply to her, and that is she continues to violate them action may be taken.

If the admins still choose to take no action, I'll let this drop at this point, but revive it if and when there is another violation. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:BOOMERANG? Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the article in question needs to be deleted or merged, and have so indicated. I also think that the attacks on the article creator and the generally hysterical tone at the AfD are unwarranted and that sanctions need to be applied. People should feel free to create articles on subjects of interests without being subjected to calls for topic bans. That is unacceptable. Every day articles are created on subjects that are not notable. The Collier article is one of them, but not the worst by far. Coretheapple (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• There's some serious trout slapping called for, to more than one party -- both here and at that AfD -- as well as admonishing the perps to cut it the hell out. I also think this is an area in which discretionary sanctions apply, and possibly some kind admin should so alert the AfD. Other than that, everyone taking a chill pill would be a good resolution. Ravenswing 20:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism of User talk:InternetScavenger89 performed by User:97.122.95.9 reported by User:InternetScavenger89

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

---

WP:Vandalism-only account 97.122.95.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism of my user talk page --InternetScavenger89 04:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I applied a short block. Let me know if it persists after that. Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Concern about warning by admin

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

---

Hi, I have been publically and falsely defamed by an admin. What recourse do I have through Wikipedia before I go to law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley Payne (talk • contribs) 10:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

As a first step you need to decide whether to pursue this through Wikipedia or through the courts. As explained at no legal threats we do not discuss issues where there are impending legal threats. As a second step, if you decide to pursue this through Wikipedia, you need to provide evidence. At a quick look it seems that you are the one abusing others in places such as here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I see no libel, merely a reasonable warning in repose to this edit of yours. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Combining the above diffs with earlier edits from September like this and this, I feel confident saying you have a major attitude problem and I'm surprised you haven't been blocked yet. Aoi (青い) (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

They have been blocked. Indefinitely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised they were not immediately blocked for a comment like that. Now blocked, they'll have plenty of time to pursue any public defamation action. So it's a blessing for all concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I wish the editor lots of luck in pursuing the libel action in the courts. It will certainly not succeed without it. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:49.178.110.40 inserting news item

49.178.110.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps inserting a news item about a rape in Government of Assam ([71], [72], [73]) This news of a rape in not appropriate in a article on a government. Could the article be protected? Chaipau (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In the context of this article; looking at the edit history, the article in question receives little too much actual edits, and cconsists mostly of IP vandalism. Chaipau, the proper place to request for page protection is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

In the context of the IP user; they've been editing for about 4 days and has a very high revert rate. Editing-wise, they usually add new content (mainly new sections) to articles that are broad in purpose with specific events. See Walford Anglican School, Legislative violence, and Government of Assam. When these are reverted, they engage in edit warring and call the reverter disruptive. Other cases of reverts include poor additions. The IP editor has been warned today and yesterday on their talk page. Panini!^🥪 17:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Egon20

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

---

Egon20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this user at Talk:Islam insisting that Allah should be spelled with 3 L's in English. This user also has (largely based on their own interpretation) insisted that the Koran says the world is flat, added a bunch of Italian monarchist propaganda, and insisted Napoleon was Muslim. I don't think they're here to constructively build an encyclopedia. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Egon20 about this... EvergreenFir (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick browse of their recent edits finds nothing even vaguely constructive, including stuff like [74]. I would recommend blocking them as WP:NOTHERE. --JBL (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I checked their contribs, and indeed, their plan, indeed, does seem like a bad joke. Support WP:NOTHERE block.Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 20:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is one of the strangest incidents I've seen at ANI, on par with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#Talk_page_misuse?. Who on Earth seriously believes the sources this guy's cherry picking? I see, in particular, that the sources used in the linked revisions are mostly self-published sources like forum posts. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the edit JBL pointed to, this editor then put it in again, which I reverted and is when I saw their edits. They also made the same edit at misogyny. I agree that this user seems WP:NOTHERE. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

At best this user is time-wasting with their fundamental lack of understanding of sourcing requirements or Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia, and their pushing of extreme fringe views with unreliable or no sourcing is disruptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I declare myself innocent, whatever I am accused. Egon20 (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Man, what a classy way to go out. --JBL (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Bishonen | tålk 11:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC).

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

Mvcg66b3r

• Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated, unexplained reversions of valid contributions by multiple editors, mostly to TV and broadcast station articles. In many cases, another user has removed factually-wrong information and this user has re-inserted it. For instance, WBLU-LP contained a claim that "WBLU-LP as a low-power station would have been able to remain on the air with an analog signal up until July 13, 2021 at the very latest" which is nonsense because the station was on analogue U-62, which falls in the 700MHz band which was auctioned to mobile telephone companies, per Digital dividend after digital television transition#700 MHz Auction, 2008 United States wireless spectrum auction and the sources cited by those articles. This editor reverted a valid contribution to re-insert the false info. A review of this user's contributions reveals many edits like this, to different stations in both the US and Canada, which have been ongoing for months and somehow slipping just under the radar. The user's talk page history shows many complaints and many warnings from the people whose valid contributions are being reverted; the user merely brushes off the complaints and the conduct continues unabated. 66.102.87.40 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@66.102.87.40: I reinserted your info with a few tweaks. And my edits are in good faith and merely intended to correct erroneous information. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• • That was actually my bad, IP; I wrote the original statement, and I should've clarified that if they moved to a 2-51 channel between 2011 and 2021 (which most 51-69 LP stations did if they survived into the digital era), they would have been able to stay on the air through that means (and they would have had to, which is likely why Daystar didn't want to deal with that hassle and took it dark). Regardless of your dispute with the above, that was 100% on me, and I'll clear that up ASAP. Nate • (chatter) 03:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A possible misuse of the RfC procedure.

A few days ago the Mass killings under communist regimes AfD had been closed, and the admins panel noted serious disagreement about the article's neutrality. Almost immediately after that, one user started an RfC where a complete removal of the POV tag from the article was named as one option (an option A). Taking into account that no significant steps have been taken after the AfD closure to resolve POV problems, there is absolutely no reason to expect that the article's neutrality problems have been fixed in these few days. In connection to that, can this RfC be considered legitimate, or that is an attempt to use a vote procedure as a substitute for a normal discussion? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Great, more Mass killings under communist regimes drama. The RFC is fine, maybe people just disagree with you that the article has a neutrality problem. The RFC will, after even more drama, probably not resolve this. High fives all around. I eagerly anticipate the panel close to the RFC and the RFC closure review at WP:AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Sarcasm? ~ cygnis insignis 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I am the user that started the RfC. The framing of this as some dubious attempt to use the RfC to quash neutrality issues is rather silly; if you actually take a look at the discussion, you will notice that what I am advocating for is to put the NPOV labels in particular sections that have contested POV. The fact that option A, which I included for completeness, does not seem to be a good option is not a breach of civility nor any other behavioral issue. I’d encourage people here to actually read my !vote I left in the RfC in terms of my rationale. This is a board meant for persistent behavioral issues, not complaints about neutral and brief RfC prompts. If the option is a poor one one, then this can very easily be resolved by making good arguments against it in the RfC. There is no reason this should have been brought to ANI. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

According to this, the tag cannot be removed until the problem has been resolved. Is there any indication that that has happened in last few days? What is a reason to draw attention of external users, who, most likely, are not familiar with all details of the conflict? To try to resolve a content dispute by !voting? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

They're saying that yes, they acknowledge that A was extremely unlikely to get consensus (they didn't even support it themselves), they just included it for completeness. If something utterly bizarre happened and A somehow had a clear consensus, that would mean the dispute was resolved - while that is vanishingly unlikely, there's nothing wrong with including an unlikely option in an RFC, since it produces more clarity in terms of ruling things out and focusing the discussion afterwards. It doesn't waste much time or energy to add it as an option that almost nobody will choose, and it means that later on people can point to the RFC to clearly establish that removing the tags entirely has no support. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want a serious and thoughtful discussion, join DRN, as I proposed. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Mhawk10 here. These arguments against moving the tag can and have been made at the talk page. I personally think the tag should be kept and maybe the RfC was hasty but does it really require posting at a page for 'discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems'?. The user is not mandated to join a time-consuming and so far fruitless DR to edit the article discuss a potential edit to the article, especially as the user has indicated not wanting to join. I have no reason to believe Mhawk10 was acting in anything other than good faith in a way to constructively improve the article - which is what we should all be trying to do Vanteloop (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before seeking help from others. I don't see any signs that user made any reasonable attempts to discuss global issues of this article.

As you probably noticed, I am not requesting for any actions against any user. I am asking if that RfC is legitimate, because I have strong reasons to conclude that this RfC must be speedy closed. In my opinion, that is a right place for such a request. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably not a wise RFC, but not a misuse. Certainly not enough to justify ANI. Aircorn (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think it's clear they included option A purely out of completeness (since even they themselves didn't support it.) Keep in mind that an affirmative consensus would be needed to remove the tags completely - it is both reasonably longstanding and that's generally how dispute tags work, since a lack of consensus plus recent discussions or RFCs indicates an active dispute. Any admin closing this would know these things, and the RFC's creator reasonably knew that. More generally, when writing an RFC it makes sense to include all obvious options, since, if nothing else, that produces more clarity by letting you say "ok, we had this as an option and it did terribly, so if someone wanders in and removes the tags entirely later on we can point back at the RFC." If anything the fact that they included option A (a change from the status quo that is extremely unlikely to occur) when they themselves supported option B (a change from the status quo that it is at least plausible a consensus might support) could be seen as a sign of good faith, since it makes it more likely that the RFC will deadlock and leave C as the status quo - ie. if they left out A entirely, it's reasonable to infer that people who would otherwise support A would instead support B, since that makes the tags less visible. A closer might follow that logic and lump A and B together if they reach the threshold of a consensus together but not separately - but they might not, depending on how the comments are worded and such, so if anything including A makes the outcome they wanted less likely. --Aquillion (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Should the RFC be withdrawn? I don't know (even though I was surprised by its sudden appearance), but I participated in it. Will we need an RFC on the RFC? It's quite confusing, overall. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering the results are not unanimous, it isn’t consistent with WP:WITHDRAWN to withdraw it. And, I’d hesitate to withdraw an RfC with such a level of participation, anyway. Me doing so would not be appropriate at this point. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It is quite normal to start an RfC about some piece of text, a title or a picture. That is pretty much ok, although a user who starts it is expected to try to resolve the problem at the talk page first (which has not been done in this case).

However, a POV tag is not just an isolated picture or a piece of text: it is an indication of some problem, which is directly associated with it. It is not allowed, per our rules, to remove or to move the tag if the problem has not been resolved. Therefore, the tag should never be a subject of the RfC. A correct RfC should be like:

• A Do you think the article has no global neutrality problems?
• B Do you think some sections of this article violate NPOV, but the article as s whole does not?
• C Do you think the article as a whole has serious neutrality problems?

That would be more consistent with our rules. However, even in that case, such an RfC would be incorrect, for no consensus is needed to place the POV tag. The tag is placed when one or several users believe the article has serious POV problems. If the concern about neutrality is legitimate (serious arguments have been presented on teh talk page), this tag can be removed only when consensus is achieved that those concerns have been properly addressed (which is an almost verbatim description of the WP:CON process).

Now explain me: how did you expect to address my legitimate concern by starting this AfD, if you even haven't explained what those concerns are?

Your AfD literally means:

Some user expressed some concerns about neutrality and placed the POV-tag. Do you think those concerns have been properly addressed, so the tag can be removed?

That is (literally) what your RfC means. You totally ignored the essence of the neutrality dispute, you said nothing about it, and you ask an outside opinion if those (unnamed) concerns have been addressed. That is highly inappropriate, and that is a direct attempt to resort to voting in violation of WP:DEMOCRACY.

I see no significant problem in the RfC proper, because it will hardly change the status quo. However, I see that trend (to invite people to !vote without properly explaining the core problem) very worrying. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Paul, if you don’t like the framing of the RfC because of your underlying policy analysis, so be it—you can make that argument in the RfC that anything other than your preferred option is not a good option. And, if you think options B (or A) don’t address what you see as the core problems in the existing neutrality dispute, that is something that you can argue on the talk page in the actual RfC. But if you are going to make the assumption that launching an RfC is somehow a violation of WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, I really have no clue where in policy this comes from. The whole point of WP:DETCON is that consensus from an RfC is not ascertained from a vote, but ascertained from analyzing the arguments presented in light of policies and guidelines. The argument you are making is that I am somehow trying to resort to “voting”, which is wholly inconsistent with what the point of an RfC actually is and shows an underlying assumption of bad faith. I am generally mild-mannered and oppose handing out strong sanctions on ANI to non-vandals, but persistently and baselessly accusing another editor in what amounts to an extraordinarily minor dispute (over where to place maintenance tags) of trying to manipulate Wikipedia through launching a request for comment with a brief and neutral opening statement (!) is starting to make a strong case for a WP:BOOMERANG. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I already explained, for several times, that when I came here, I never requested for any actions against any user. My point was that the tendency to resort to an RfS in this type cases is worrying. I have no idea what other platform could be used to discuss this problem.

I thought I clearly explained that the key problem is not in your option "A", "B", and "C", but in very idea to discuss the POV tag without discussing the reasons for its placement. I placed this tag in September, and I explained the reasons. Since then, virtually nothing has changed in the article, so there is absolutely no reason to expect that the article's problems, which lead to the POV tag placement have been resolved.

Even worse, the recent RfC demonstrated that there ARE serious reasons to expect that the article has severe NPOV problems. In that situation, to immediately start an RfC that questions this conclusion without making any attempt to resolve or at least to discuss neutrality problems on the talk page is a pure forum shopping.

By the way, how do you understand my explanation of the reasons for placement of this tag on the top? Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• This RFC was started in good faith as far as I can see. That Paul Siebert appears to be continuing to forum shop for some kind of Admin intervention does raise some questions about whether his behaviour crosses the bounds of WP:BATTLEGROUND. Note that the topic area is under an WP:AE discretionary sanctions regime. --Nug (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ignored Unblock request

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

---

I requested for a partial block to be undone more than 3 weeks ago. It is absurd that I should have to wait this long for an answer. At the advice of User:Bishonen, the blocking admin, I am appealing the block here IAW WP:IAR (the blocking admin even suggested this course of action).

Background

• I saw that material and references involving the Daily Wire were being removed. That dispute led to multiple discussions about the reliability of the source
  • WP:RSN
  • WP:AN #1
  • WP:AN #2
  • WP:ANEW
• Largely after those discussions, I edited the Daily Wire page as multiple remarks in the Daily Wire criticism section were unreferenced (WP:BLP/WP:V), but they were re-added shortly thereafter (for example, criticism linked to climate change denial despite the fact that the website does not deny climate change...many people debate the extent/what we should do about it; to lump them all together as deniers is absurd). Others were conclusions/WP:OR based on the articles, but not directly supported; additional articles were added.
• After contentious discussion with multiple editors and iterative changes (including WP:WIKISTALKING), corrections to the verbiage were made and/or sources added. However, several editors seem to be hell-bent on portraying DW in an extremely negative light adding criticism without the criticism of that criticism which rather clearly shows their hyperpartisan bent/methodology to be flawed. I objected and explained why.
• Bishonen apparently felt my summary of the article/quotes were intentionally flawed and misleading and, without warning, blocked me for a month. I explained in my I was gone for a little over a week and, upon return, immediately appealed my block on the following grounds.

  Procedural: No warning was given prior to the block, the block feels personal, and even the blocking admin agrees that the block rationale is unusual.

  Substance: I readily admit I omitted quotes, but no misdirection was intended. The publication published the remarks as part of their reporting, ergo, they stated it as much as the sources did. The source of the criticism is hyperpartisan, not the non-partisan group they claim to be. Their analysis is demonstrably/highly flawed and should not be included per WP:UNDUE/WP:RECENTISM without clear caveats

  Behavioral: I have agree to refrain from any actions on that page until the block would have been over as a sign of good faith, ergo, the block is not needed.

To date, no Admin has reviewed the request. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• notification as required. No reply needed, Bish. Just following procedure Buffs (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• In this particular case, I made comments on Buffs' talk page for the reviewing admin to read, but didn't review the block, because I didn't want to deal with the expected "involved" argument (which I don't think applies, but didn't want to spend time argue about). I think the block was correct, and would not have unblocked. But I will agree that our unblock review system is kind of broken. Every time a long-neglected unblock request is brought up here, I resolve to be better and review more unblocks, then I do so for like 1 day, and then just drop it because it's not fun. I need to do better than that, but we need to do better than that. There are, what, I'd estimate 4-5 admins that together do about 95% of the unblock reviews. We can't expect them to carry even more of the weight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The partial block is going to expire in less then a week. Allow it to expire. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To be blunt, ^^^ this attitude is part of the problem. No one is willing to review anything "just let it expire" = ignore genuine requests/drive away more editors. Why bother to have any appeal process if no one is willing to review it? Admins effectively become prosecutor/judge/jury/executioner with no oversight... Buffs (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a point could be made that repeated requests for unblocking should incur additional intentional delays in responses to discourage repeat requests (effectively Admin-shopping)...I looked at others requesting unblocks. Many are on unblock request #4+... Buffs (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I served one-year. It changed me from an Elias to a Barnes, in my approach. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Even procedurally, it isn't justified
2. The cynical Barnes executes Elias, so...I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to imply that is a positive outcome. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

At least you had a platoon of Arbitrators at least listen to your points and give a ruling. Buffs (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom toughened me with their implementation of their ruling in 2013, including the eventual locking of my user talkpage. After successfully getting re-instated after one year, it took me about three more years to get a topic-ban repealed, while waiting for another one to expire. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment at a glance, there are quite a few non-productive comments on Talk:The Daily Wire by Buffs, and very little about specific changes to the article. Removing Buffs from that article for a short while looks like it was the correct thing to do. As far as commuting to time served, I agree with both Floq and GoodDay - this should have been addressed earlier, but at this point we might as well just wait until it expires. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, you're kindof but not quite agreeing with me; I don't think it should be ignored until it expires, I think someone should accept/decline it. I'm just on the decline side. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't mean to put words on your mouth. I was agreeing with you on this should have been addressed earlier, and with GoodDay on we might as well just wait until it expires. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  So, this should have been addressed earlier and your solution is to ignore it some more? Buffs (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm saying I think the initial block was justified, and a debate now over whether to make it a 28 day block or a 30 day block is a waste of time. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having had a look at Buffs’ unblock request, I’m not sure why it wasn’t declined long ago. It’s argumentative with little apparent recognition of what they’ve done wrong. Based on the content of the request, keep the block till full term. DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • +1. --JBL (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Foreground
Your best course of action. Stop complaining & let the partial block run its course. Otherwise, you'll create the impression that you're being combative. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been ignored for 3+ weeks trying to be patient and wait for a result with no reply at all. When I bring it up at ANI, no one addresses the points I made, the response is "2 days isn't important" (implying I should have complained sooner) and "don't argue about it. You'll seem combative". Thanks for the "advice," Bishonen. As "justified" as I am (Bishonen's words, not mine), it's clear that admins aren't interested in doing anything that isn't easy. Buffs (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not quite as bleak as "No one is willing to review anything". It's not that all unblocks are being ignored, it's that no one so far has volunteered to review yours, while they've reviewed many other people's. That's unfortunate, but there are several possible reasons. One possibility is that they're doing triage; it seems more important to review sitewide blocks, or permanent partial blocks, than a block from one page for one month. Especially one that appears to have been justified. Another possibility is that they suspect that, if they review it and decline the unblock, you'll start harassing and insulting them. You do give off that vibe. For example, if I can across this thread with fresh eyes, I'd notice your snide comment to Bishonen about her attempt to help you above, and say "life is too short to deal with someone like this", and move on to deal with less obnoxious editors. You're kind of relentlessly aggressive; people don't like that, on WP and in real life. Maybe there are other reasons I haven't thought of, but those seem the most likely for why your request isn't being reviewed, and other people's are. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've harassed no one ever. Based on this reaction, I think her advice was poor. That's an assessment of the situation: fruitless. For you to draw the conclusion that I'm going to harass others when I'm the one being wikistalked is absurd. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I just feel the need to chime in here briefly to say Buffs, I believe you edit in good faith, but your argumentation style certainly can come off as borderline bludgeon-y and tendentious. I don't mean this as an insult, but to say that Floquenbeam may be right even if you have the purest of intentions. Just intended as a word to the wise. Dumuzid (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can you explain why being unblocked from this specific article/talk is so important to you if you were already willing to voluntarily avoid the article/talk for the duration of the block? What's the substantive difference between these two outcomes? I can understand the displeasure with the unblock request not being handled sooner. However, this kind of situation becomes increasingly unavoidable as the number of active admins drops precipitously as it has for the last few years. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm trying to act in good faith and reach a middle ground. The point is that the block was (and is) unnecessary. At no point did Bishonen even attempt to talk to me or warn me. Had she said "If you continue X, I'll block you for a month", I would at least have had the chance to stop. WP:BEFOREBLOCK is a policy, not a suggestion:

  Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than by administrators only.

  However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.

  There was no attempt at a warning of any kind, just straight to a block. You don't have to like me/my edits/agree with me to see this step was completely skipped; there was no attempt at prior communication. Buffs (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  The point of warnings and WP:BEFOREBLOCK is to make the user aware of what they’re doing wrong so they stop. It’s quite clear from your talk page that you continue to think you’ve done nothing wrong and the block was wrong ab initio. The warning issue is therefore a red herring. Good block. Do you acknowledge your fault in this? DeCausa (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but I don't do struggle sessions/public groveling. Regardless of what I have or haven't done, whether I'm sorry or not, or whether I even understand what was wrong or not is irrelevant. Given the chance, I could have and would have stopped regardless of whether I think I was "right" or not had an admin addressed the issue with me. Given that I was acting in good faith, that opportunity, as required by policy, was not afforded to me. Ergo, the block should be overturned. Buffs (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• For what it is worth I have reviewed and declined this unblock request. I do believe there is a bad habit of the less than trivial unblock requests being forgotten about. Not sure what the solution is though. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, HighInBC. I'll close this to prevent further digging. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Shrek99178

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

---

Shrek99178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user's only edits have been to List of films banned in the United States, where they have persistently added unsourced and highly dubious entries, e.g. [75]. The entries do not specify where and by whom the films were banned, since in the United States films are protected by freedom of speech. Non-automated edit summaries are short and nonsensical. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User partially blocked (from List of films banned in the United States) for 72 hours. Almost blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE but thought the partial block might prompt discussion by the user. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User removing women from their professional categories

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Contact David Eppstein or me if the improper editing resumes. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

---

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

BostonMensa has been using HotCat to take women out of non-diffusing parent categories so that they are only in subcategories (see for example 1 2 3). This violates WP:EGRS point 5, and many of these categories are prominently templated as being non-diffusing. I tried to start a conversation at their talk page, but they did not reply and instead re-did one of the edits. I commented on their talk page 2 more times, and pointed them to the similar discussion at Category talk:American women political scientists. They still did not respond, but have continued to use automated editing tools to remove women from professional categories that they are not supposed to be diffused out of. Example edits after I tried 3 times to start a discussion include 1, 2, 3. There is already a lot to clean up here, and if they continue using automated tools to rapidly segregate women out of being members of their professions, then the cleanup job will get that much harder. - Astrophobe (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur that this is problematic behavior, to the point where I blocked a different user (User:ThurstonMitchell) for similar mass removals of non-diffusing parent categories last July. That block was with an indefinite term, but I intended it to run only until they agreed to stop doing these removals, which they never ended up doing. BostonMensa's non-responsiveness to user talk page discussion (instead blanking the page without response) suggests a similar trajectory. However, BostonMensa has not edited since the talk page blanking four days ago, so blocking would likely be premature unless they resume. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

IP Harassment by 184.147.248.119

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

---

Offensive material:[76][77][78]

Please check here for other possible offensive material.--John the Janitor (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I protest the characterization that I am doing the harassment. Instead I will accuse some Wikipedia editors of playing team sports and harassing me because I believe some of them are manipulatively framing their politics and prejudices as "human rights' here on Wikipedia. None of my points of criticism of talk pages I have edited don't have solid evidence what I say is true. For instance, there is only one "pushback" page for Greece. Is anyone with a straight face going to claim to me Greece population 11m, is the only country in the world currently trying to discourage further migration? Rather than address that lack of consistency the creator of the page, who lives in a country 30 times the population of Greece and also engaged in pushbacks, made a lame excuse he doesn't have time? Or is anyone going to claim to me that certain Wikipedia editors aren't, after framing Greeks as "nationalists" for objecting to name recognition, today trying to whitewash half the former Yugoslavians little switch of identity into antihellenic founders of the Hellenistic period and ongoing irredentism? WTF? And there is no mention on the Wikipedia's alleged "human rights" page of how 'human rights" definitions are being followed a-la-carte even at the highest levels? The current members of the alleged UN human rights council fricken doesn't follow its own principles towards migrants. How is that not a valid point? Instead of addressing my points, certain editors keep repeatedly trying to silence my criticisms on talk pages because I disagree with their definition of alleged "human rights" which is at the heart of the issue (I haven't even touched a single wikipedia article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you here to argue with editors that follow those articles, or are you here to collaborate with us? 331dot (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The question you frame is combative and doesn't address a single point I've made above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is not about discussing your points, but your behavior. Your lack of an answer actually answers that question for me. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

??? Again you're combative by creating a false narrative. You can't analyze my behavior without first addressing what I've written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

If asking a question is "combative" that says more about you than me. You are treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Your "question" was patronizing. It's blatantly obvious you had made your mind up even before you posed your "question". I would point out you have yet to address a single one of criticisms above. How exactly are you going to determine "my behavior" as you put it without actually first confirming what I say isn't true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Your views or position are not relevant to your behavior; you could be arguing that the sky is blue. It doesn't matter. What matters is how you go about arguing your position, and right now you aren't going about it the right way. 331dot (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I profoundly disagree with your personal moral theory that what I have to say is not relevant to the discussion. . In law, courts examine evidence they don't just accuse someone of bad behavior without ever addressing the substance of what they have done and said. Presumed innocence.. not guilt as your initial patronizing "my behavior" question implied. Granted online communities are prone to tribalism among editors which often leads to shut down divergent viewpoints, especially outsiders. My understanding is here on Wikipedia that the articles come first though. Instead of more evasion, why not show me what I've said is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You're missing the point, again. It does not matter what your arguments are when you're stomping around talk pages and user talk pages calling people "bigots", "leftists" "biased", etc. You simply need to stop doing that, and perhaps people will engage with you. If you don't, there's a simple remedy for that. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It is you that are missing my point as my criticisms are valid. Once again not a single attempt to address any of my points. Instead you are accusing me of slander without checking to see if its slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.248.119 (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's enough, I think. Blocked for a week. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Beeswax21412 edit warring/disruptively removing sourced information from Haplogroup R1b based on stated personal opinion/WP:OR.

• Beeswax21412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Giantscastle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Beeswax21412 has been repeatedly removing sourced information from the R1b page based on their personal WP:OR, completely refusing to engage, and ignoring all explanations or Wikipedia policy. They did so/edited initially here: [[79]]. I reverted them with an explanation here [[80]], explaining that their deletion, baded on their explanation for it in the notes, was WP:OR/WP:POV, that those are against Wikipedia policies and we edit based on what the sources explicitly say. They ignored this explanation and simply reinstated their edit with no explanation, instead merely, confusingly, claiming in their edit summary that Wikipedia had " been sabotaged" (here: [[81]]).

I reverted them again, again explaining that deleting information based on peronal opinion was against Wikipedia policy, again linked them to the essays on OR and POV and quotes from a source, and warned them thay if they continued edit warring they would be reported. I then provided quotes from the sourced in two edit summaries supporting the information they had deleted to. Nonetheless Beeswax reinstated their edit a third time, again removing sourced information, with no explanation, an misleadingly marking their edit a "minor", here [[82]].

Beeswax continues to edit war, ignores explanations, seems completely unwilling to engage, either in Talk or elsewhere, and shows a disregard for Wikipedia policy when explained to them.

Here is the page's edit history for referrence: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Haplogroup_R1b

Any help is appreciated. Skllagyook (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Since this is a brand new user, I'm inclined to leave a note about citing sources. If it continues after that then look for sanctions, but that's a bit drastic right now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: I'm not sure, given that they have had policies explained to them more than once and been asked to use the Talk page, but absolutely refuse to engage, continue to edit war and cast aspersions (about Wikipedia being "sabotaged"), completely missing every point. In doing so, they seem unwilling or unable to understand the problems with their edits and to show strong indications of being WP:NOTHERE (seemingly having begun with a single-purpose account used for disruptive editing/edit warring). Skllagyook (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, I get your frustration, but this user has a grand total of 3 edits. I'm willing to at least take a chance here, it's not hard to block if it continues after this point. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A second SPA has made the same edit, including leaving a comma behind, and also with an edit summary saying that "Wiki" has been "sabotaged". XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Don't call it "Wiki". EEng 17:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: I noticed (here [[83]]). I was just going to ping User:The Blade of the Northern Lights about it. Both new accounts seem likely to be the same person. So they seem to be abusively using more than one account/socking now. Skllagyook (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I'll block the sock and give the master a week, if anything else happens I'll up it to an indef. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING & WP:SQS by Cornerstonepicker

Canvassing

User:Cornerstonepicker is canvassing on this RfC [84] for Nicki Minaj. They have canvassed before on RfCs relating to musicians, including Cardi B and Nicki Minaj. The last time they canvassed, they were given a written warning by another editor. [85] [86]

• Previous canvassing on Nicki Minaj: [87] [88] [89] [90]
• Previous canvassing on Cardi B: [91] [92] [93] [94]

This is related to the second issue at hand.

Stonewalling and other problems

Their efforts are to keep potentially contentious information that isn't usually seen on other articles about musicians (such as Taylor Swift). They have not given any policy-based reason to keep said information, only giving patent objections in edit summaries such as "no need to remove this". [95]

There are times where I tried to make edits to Nicki Minaj, and Cornerstonepicker has stonewalled a majority of them through reverts. When I discussed it on the talk page to avoid any edit wars, a discussion would seem to start, but then Cornerstonepicker would not reply back. The discussion would not receive any more activity from them or other editors, and I would restore my edits given the inactivity, [96] only to be again reverted immediately by Cornerstonepicker the next day telling me to "go on the talk page." [97] I would then try to engage on the talk page again, and I tried making a new edit per WP:BRD that hopefully addressed everyone's concerns. [98] However, that was also reverted by him with another edit summary telling me to use the talk page. [99] and revert all of my changes. Other editors have noticed this stonewalling pattern as well. [100]

Here's another example. I suggested this change on the talk page to merge two redundant sentences in the lead per MOS:REDUNDANCY. [101] It received no response, and after seven days of inactivity, I try to make the change again. The day immediately after the change, Cornerstonepicker reverts it. [102] He brings up his passed lead RfC from July as a reason for why my changes to the lead are reverted. (Also, notice how in the first reply of this July RfC he is pinging specific people to comment, which may be WP:VOTESTACKING)

They are treating the previous lead RfC like it is written in stone, and that any and all changes require a new RfC themselves, when all that the previous RfC for the lead did was allow it to be re-written. The previous RfC does not prevent other editors from making policy-based improvements. An example of which is this very necessary edit to remove 17 citations from the lead per WP:LEADCITE. [103] In addition, this is the same RfC that Cornerstonepicker canvassed other editors to vote for, so the validity of this RfC is questionable. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a pattern between the users they advertise the discussion to? As in, are they advertising to top contributors of music artists (or rap, or some other connection), or is it to users who share similar opinions as them? If the latter, that's when canvassing becomes a problem. Panini!^🥪 16:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• It'd also be helpful to note that the eight examples linked all pre-date the two warnings the user receieved, half by a month and the other by two days. Panini!^🥪 16:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Panini!: If you go to Diff 114, you can see above that he is canvassing an editor to vote on the Cardi B RfC. That was the canvassing that robertsky warned him for at the time, as far as I can recall. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: Usually it seems to be the same group of people. I don't know these editors specifically so I'm not sure of their editing habits, but one thing I did notice is that they usually ping people who voted the same as them in RfCs. For example, in the most recent canvassing they pinged ChicagoWikiEditor, someone who, like Cornerstonepicker, also opposed the Cardi B RfC. [104] Something more blatant is how, in the afromentioned talk page discussion down below, he randomly pinged ChicagoWikiEditor to comment on Minaj's occupations in her infobox, despite ChicagoWikiEditor previously not being involved in this at all. [105] Why that editor specifically?

He also pinged Binksternet, another editor who was uninvolved in the discussion until that point, in another Nicki talk page discussion recently here. [106] Binksternet also voted in support of Cornerstonepicker's July RfC. [107] Again, the question of "why that editor specifically?" happens here again. shanghai.^{talk to me} 16:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

? I open RFCs for everybody to collaborate with an opinion, and @ active editors that take their time to give suggestions, with whom i don't even interact at all. You ping users that call you "Bestie". This just sounds that you're bothered by the last RFCs, where editors pointed out there was pov pushing and bias on certain edits. For example: this looong conversation, with a lot of participants, to remove such: Talk:Nicki_Minaj/Archive_5. I understand she's your favorite artist, but let people that don't agree with you, and that have time to check it out, give suggestions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Cornerstonepicker, but why are you pinging those "active editors" specifically? Especially one with patterns of voting similarly to you. The example you linked is from August, when I didn't even know what canvassing was and thought that was appropriate since you were also pinging specific people. That was my fault as an amateur editor. You however are a 7 year old editor with thousands of edits, you should know better than to ping specific people to vote in your RfCs. That is WP:VOTESTACKING and against policy.

And why have you still not addressed your stonewalling? Where even admins have noticed your stonewalling against me on the article? [108] Lastly, most of the opposition against my policy-based edits has been your constant stonewalling reverts, where even other editors have noticed that you revert first before using the talk page. [109] shanghai.^{talk to me} 02:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In addition, User:Cornerstonepicker, you say you do not interact at all with the editors you are pinging to comment in these RfCs, but you have actually. [110]. Using the Editor Interaction Analyzer, you have interacted with this editor, whom you recently pinged in the RFC you started, many times. shanghai.^{talk to me} 12:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous RfCs on Nicki Minaj

Declaration: I am one of those "pinged" though I have not commented on the RfC. However, I am surprised that the OP is concerned about any possible "canvassing". After all, the result of the previous major RfC on this subject went against them but they have persisently ignored the result in favour of their own version ever since... Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite: WP:APPNOTE says: The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Binksternet and ChicagoWikiEditor for example have shown patterns of voting similarly to Cornerstonepicker in RfCs. Why are they being pinged in uninvolved talk page discussions?

If you want editors to comment on your RfC, the RfC noticeboard is there for that purpose. My point is that Cornerstonepicker is specifically picking these editors in RfCs, which is canvassing. I have been making policy based improvements to the lead, such as removing 17 citations and merging redundant sentences. Black Kite, another admin has supported my edits and has noticed the stonewalling from Cornerstonepicker and others. [111] shanghai.^{talk to me} 06:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

nope, the long rfcs conversations were about removing pov pushing and overstuffing.... only for you to re-add pov pushing and overstuffing gradully. and the seventeen citations you removed were not added back. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see this as a flagrant violation of WP:CANVASSING. You can't only notify the people on your side. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok three people that I @ed this time, which wasn't spam, and who I don't interact with, I just disinvited (?) to avoid any discomfort. It's weird because it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion, so that the talk page isn't a ghosttown. They don't have to agree with me, Idk them at all, I just know they participate. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Breach of TBAN by The Pollster

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

---

So, to summarize the chain of events:

• A TBAN was imposed on The Pollster on 26 November 2021, which reads like this: "Per consensus in this thread The Pollster is topic-banned from articles and article content relating to opinion polling, broadly construed." This was specifically noted to them in their talk page (02:29 Nov 26), with the following wording: "you have been topic-banned from articles or article content relating to opinion polling. As with most such bans this is "broadly construed" which is an elaborate way of saying it should be taken to cover the entire field of polling-related content in Wikipedia and not a specific list of articles." (This included the links to the appropiate guidelines on this issue, which explain in a very clear and straightforward way what the implications of a TBAN are).
• Today, TP clearly broke this TBAN by conducting further edits at Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election‎ (14:38 Dec 3 and 14:41 Dec 3), which involved the inclusion of an additional polling chart in the article (note that this chart was a part of TP's contested edits that got him into trouble the first time).
• TP was reverted by DeCausa (14:51 Dec 3), who then went on to ask TP for an explanation on this TBAN breach on his talk page (14:51 Dec 3).
• TP reverted DeCausa by arguing that "this edit has nothing to do with polls. I added an additional chart that shows mfg-exclusive polls" (15:44 Dec 3) and by replying in his talk page that "Yes, I added an ADDITIONAL CHART. It has nothing to do with polls. The chart shows trendline excluding MFG, while the existing chart shows trendlines with MFG (which is not in parliament yet). Both charts must be shown." (15:48 Dec 3)
  • (Yes, weird to claim that an edit has nothing to do with polls, then immediately thereafter acknowledge the edit adds a chart that HAS to do with polls... anyways, remember that a TBAN applies not to content, but to pages as a whole).
• DeCausa replies, obviously perplexed (15:54 Dec 3), while I myself reverted TP's latest edit in the article (15:50 Dec 3).

We are basically seeing a repetition of the previously-exhibited behaviour that brought TP to be topic-banned in the first place, as well as an apparent inability or unwillingness to get the point (in what constitutes a clear case of WP:IDHT, even after the community's consensus has already decided on the measure to be adopted to curtail his behaviour). Instead of seeking to learn from his errors and to show that he is able to re-gain the community's trust again so that the TBAN is lifted, we see a return to edit-warring. I bring the issue to the community's attention to see what should be done in order to avoid further disruptions and TBAN breaches. Impru20^talk 16:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The violation is clear and so I have blocked The Pollster for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Self promotion on en.wiki by User:Jimbo Wales

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

---

EEng

Am I crazy? Jimbo has posted a thread on his user talk page promoting an auction of some of his stuff, which he has refused to confirm would not benefit him personally. This is self-promotion 101, right? I've told him if he doesn't remove it, I will. That's policy, right? There's no Founder carve-out, is there? Just because the WMF told him to post to his user talk page (I'll take him at his word they did), doesn't mean he can actually do it, overriding our self-promotion policy, right? Can I get some quick feedback on the appropriateness of my removing this thread, if he doesn't? And whether (I can't believe I have to say this) I'd be justified in blocking him from his talk page if he restores it? If any one of us tried to pull this, they'd get a warning and a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Note from Jimmy - I was instructed to inform the community by the Board of the WMF and advised by the Foundation comms and legal staff that a post to wikimedia-l and to my talk page would be the right way to do it. Characterizing this as "self-promotional" or "advertising" is frankly silly, as I don't think anyone would plausibly imagine that I'm hoping some random talk page reader is going to be the buyer. I can equally imagine that if I had defied the board and refused to communicate with the community about it, someone would be getting inflamed over that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Informing people is one thing. What you wrote was an advertisement. I doubt the WMF told you to write an advertisement. "Inform" would have been "fyi there is an auction of my computer coming up [link]." Levivich 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Characterizing this as "self-promotional" or "advertising" is frankly silly, as I don't think anyone would plausibly imagine that I'm hoping some random talk page reader is going to be the buyer. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "frankly silly", and I don't see how the latter part changes anything. Who would want such an NFT? A big fan of Wikipedia, probably, and one who's invested (emotionally) in its history and inside baseball. If it's advertised in lots of other places, then that cuts the odds that the eventual buyer will have learned of it from that specific place, but each advertisement is still, well, an advertisement. And yes, if you'd defied the board and refused to communicate with the community, someone would be getting upset, too. But that's just a sign that both courses of action were not good. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You dare to go up against the emperor? GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone ever noticed that the "i" in "Incidents" looks like a camera? He could be watching... Panini!^🥪 16:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Give him a carefully crafted Topic-Ban please. -Roxy the dog. wooF 16:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support removal - No an editor can't advertise an auction of his property on his user page. Obvious violation of NOTPROMO and should be removed. Same rules for everyone. I would treat this the same way as we would for any other user. We don't even allow Patreon links on user pages, right? Cuz if this is allowed, I'm gonna start selling shit on my user talk page. $5 for a Burma-Shave, $10 to join your content dispute, $20 to stay out of your content dispute, etc. Levivich 16:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't we allow Patreon links on user pages? Maybe I'm out of date here but the only similar conversation I remember was on Commons The Land (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that Commons does but enwiki does not. Levivich 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons at least makes a small amount of sense if the person makes free content images and has a Patreon related to funding them doing that. That at least is ostensibly for the benefit of the Wiki (of Commons in that case). Silverseren^C 01:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons also has a policy expressly permitting paid editing. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support allowing Patreon links, but not going so far as selling content disputes. Benjamin (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wales is way out of order, and you will get shat on from a great height if you try to do anything about it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Have they received the requisite number of twinkle warnings for Spam/promotion yet? Yes, it should be removed if they're not confirming it will not benefit them personally. Also, can he actually auction off the first edit as a NFT? Isn't that public domain? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Precisely because it's in the public domain, you can sell an NFT. You and I could sell an NFT on it if we wanted. But art collectors want to buy from Jimbo. JBchrch talk 21:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been reviewing RD and OS policies all day to see if we can just delete the damn edit... GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. If Jimmy had added it to Jimbo Wales, that would be a firm No under our self-promotion policy. If he'd offered to edit Wikipedia for whoever buys the NFT, that would be a firm No under our COI policy. I don't see that we have a policy against mentioning on a User (or User Talk) page something that a user is doing that (potentially) earns them money. There is >1 Wikipedian who has written a book which is on sale for money and they receive royalties from, and has mentioned the fact they've written a book on their user page and/or in talk page discussion. This situation seems analogous? Plus, I'd much prefer to have Jimmy (or indeed anyone in a similar position) communicating with the community about this kind of thing than not. The Land (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The only thing I can add to that is that I have zero expectation that posting to my user talk page is useful way to promote the sale of anything. Transparency with the community is really important to me and I won't apologize for that!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We block dozens of people daily for promotion within their own user space. It doesn't have to be in article space. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd wager the dozens who are blocked are single purpose accounts, clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Surely you're not suggesting Jimbo's motivation is, in any way, similar? I'm glad I noticed the discussion on my watchlist, even gladder that I was able to read it before the present storm. The only negative thing engendered, in my opinion, is finding myself commenting here; knowing better.--John Cline (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

This wouldn't be the first time Jimbo's activities onwiki were questionable... Izno (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Content in userspace is weighed against the person’s project contributions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem worth making a fuss about. There might not be an exception made for Jimbo's founder bit, but there certainly is for WP:JIMBOTALK, which people use for all sort of off-topic chat, often with a much looser connection to the project's goals than this. – Joe (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Much ado about nothing but a nice talk page notice about what's occurring with an important piece of Wikipedia and internet history, Wales' personal computer from the time of the site's creation. I hope it sells for as high as it can and is placed in a major museum. Jimbo has a sense of history, which is how he put his attention into creating such a place and, fortunately, that same sense of history resulted in his keeping the computer, a modern day Syng inkstand. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  If he wants it in a museum he could donate it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  His property his business. Jeez, green eyed monster stuff coming out here. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Who's jealous? Personally, I'm a bit entertained at what looks like poor judgment, and yet another instance of the WMF being disconnected from the editing community (surely they'd know that somebody would get upset and would suggest a better alternative). XOR'easter (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  (ec)Green-eyed monster? Rubbish. If I owned something I thought ought to be in a museum I would donate it, not sell it. What's the saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing? DuncanHill (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  And if I owned something related to a good cause and I thought somebody would want to buy it, I'd donate it to a group (a charity, a foundation, whatever) who could auction it off, so that everybody is absolutely clear that the money never enters my pocket. XOR'easter (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  Like Caesar's wife. DuncanHill (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I do not care if he wants to auction this stuff. WP is famous because of the work of editors, and Jimbo is possibly going to make money off the backs of that work, but it wouldn't be the first time. But it seems reasonable to draw the line at him violating WP policy to publicize it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds like it's pretty personal for you, that we volunteer here. Making money off our backs is both incorrect and makes it sound like you see Wikipedians as slaves. As I say, I've been paid well for my time at Wikipedia - found a quarter at a conference once - and didn't even expect that. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. If "I have zero expectation that posting to my user talk page is useful way to promote the sale of anything" then why post it at all. Fatuous is the kindest word that I can think of. There are several (dozen/100/1000) other places on the net to advertise this. MarnetteD|Talk 16:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Why post it at all? The WMF board told me to, and I wanted the community to know about it. And yes, I'm talking about it in the press (which actually works a little bit better than my user talk page to get the word out!). It's a pretty odd notion that I'm trying to use my talk page as a promotional space, in these circumstances.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm still not following. For analogy, suppose an author gets interviewed by the New Yorker about their new book, and they also take out an ad in the Podunk Weekly Bugle. The New Yorker interview is obviously much higher profile, but the Podunk Weekly Bugle ad is still an ad, even if it doesn't cause a single sale. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've removed the thread in question from his user talk page. There's another thread there, started by another user, asking questions about the auction. I'm less sure how that fits in, so I'm leaving it alone. Seems kind of like an end-run, but it wasn't started by Jimbo so it's complicated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder, if the emperor wasn't just testing us. Anyways, in agreement with your deletion. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverted, per WP:IAR. Panini!^🥪 17:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

...Restored, per consensus. Panini!^🥪 17:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• WP:IAR applies in this case, as no actual self-promotion is going on here. The guideline that says that we cannot post material like this on our userpages is based on the reasonable assumption that almost always such postings are self-promotion, but almost always is not strictly the same as always, this particular case is the exception. And WP:IAR trumps all other rules and guidelines on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • There's very clearly not a consensus that this is an exception. There could be, eventually, but it's not shaped up that way yet. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • No one is going to buy the NFT because of the posting on Jimbo's page. What the posting does is to notify Wikipedians to prevent the predictable brouhaha later when they find out about the NFT and start to moan about why this wasn't discussed beforehand. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • An unsuccessful effort at self-promotion is still self-promotion. Just look at all the LinkedIn-style autobiographies that die at AfD. They still violate WP:PROMO even when they are completely inept. XOR'easter (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • Those autobiographies fail the standards we set of acceptable Wikipedia articles. In contrast, talk pages are for communications between users here on Wikipedia. Disruptive conduct, using userpages as advertisement etc. are all good reasons to remove userpage postings, we have guidelines about such removals. Clearly, this particular case is exceptional, the Wikipedia community would certainly be interested in the news Jimbo posted. THe posting hasa legitimate purpose as a notification, it doesn't have any of the problematic aspects that the guidelines are about. Count Iblis (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
          • If the Wikipedia community would certainly be interested in the news Jimbo posted, doesn't that at least hint that the post could serve as an advertisement? Who else would be buying? Yes, the posting has a legitimate purpose, but one that comes wrapped in layers of problematic aspects. The legitimate purpose could have been fulfilled by, for example, a column in the Signpost written by the WMF themselves, clearly spelling out how the money would be handled. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• It is disingenuous to consider Jimbo as "no different to any other editor." He clearly is different because this thread was started rather than just issuing a templated warning on his Talk page. His Talk is also used by people posting all sorts of stuff unrelated to Wikipedia - that doesn't generate ANI threads about misuse as a webhost. Let's face it, like it or not, he has a unique position in the history and culture of this project and at times he's going to do things differently. We should cut him some slack. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, he has a unique position in the project's history. By the same token (ha ha), one could argue that, since he is the project's main public face, he should be held to the highest standards of propriety. Most of us could do something a little gauche without it reflecting upon the project overall, but people who get international media attention for what they've done with Wikipedia and whose public image is linked with that of the project may deserve less slack. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Jeez, agree with Count Iblis. This is so petty. If Jimmy Wales announcing that he’s selling off some notable Wikipedia memorabilia on his Wikipedia talk page isn’t IAR (if it was needed, what’s self-promotonal about it anyway?) I don’t know what is. DeCausa (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • IAR is about improving or maintaining Wikipedia. This doesn't improve or maintain the encyclopedia. IAR doesn't apply here. Levivich 17:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

First off WP:IAR states that it is used If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, How is this improving the encyclopedia? Next, nowhere on that page does it claim that IAR trumps all other rules. Where is the consensus for that notion. As to the staement that The WMF board told me to. What were you going to blocked from editing for life if you didn't post it? In the same sentence JW states that he is trying to get the word out and then claim It's a pretty odd notion that I'm trying to use my talk page as a promotional space. So, for those who need it, according to Webster's self promotion is the act of furthering one's own growth, advancement, or prosperity : the promotion of oneself so no it is not an odd notion at all to mention it in this case. MarnetteD|Talk 17:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It would improve Wikipedia by (potentially) stopping a bunch of editors wasting everyone’s time with a pointless and petty argument about whether its a breach of WP:PROMO, which it isn’t. This is just ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the disputed material. Calling about 5 posts here a 'consensus' to take it out is worryingly trigger-happy. Clearly there is plenty more discussion to be had before any action needs to be taken. The Land (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: - as of this revision I can see about 4 editors supporting your position, and about 6 saying there's no need to remove the thread. Please explain how this is a consensus for you to revert both Count Iblis and myself. The Land (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Land: Because (a) your count is way off, (b) several of what you're counting as opposes aren't saying it's OK, they're saying it isn't worth the trouble. In particular, Count Iblis was referring to a warped reading if IAR. Or perhaps I can violate 3RR, or any other policy, because I think IAR applies to me? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I find it difficult to come up with a firm count because some of the posts are jokey and/or sarcastic in tone. But on the whole I think you've found a 'consensus' to do what you want that isn't really there. Depending on what exactly one looks at there may be a majority in support of you but there certainly isn't a supermajority, let alone an actual consensus. Please revert your removal of it, or at least allow someone else to do so, until there is a clearer result from this conversation. The Land (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm very comfortable with my evaluation that there's a consensus for this. I'm at 3RR anyway; since I don't think IAR means "do whatever I want", if someone wants to go against consensus and policy (and Jimbo's request to not restore it anymore) and they restore it again, I won't revert them. But they won't do so with my OK. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a quick thought as I am passing by but I think consensus is the policy itself, right?. There would need to be consensus to alter or change standing policy implementation/interpretation at another venue. The WMF has treated and continues to treat each and every version of Wikipedia as its own separate entity that makes up its own rules beyond the core pillars and, more importantly, how those rules and policies are implemented/interpreted in regards to their relationship with those principles. Jimbo is obviously not just another editor and there are those who seemingly have some higher status but should they? That's a question we may need to ask of the community. We have had countless amazingly impactful contributors over the years and I have read many of their contributions and even more of their talk pages during my time here to get to know them as a person. Some are no longer with us because of their actions or the rulings of the community/committee, others who have lost the will to continue to contribute and still others who have been ripped from us by death. If a rule can simply be ignored then what enforcement does an admin or arbcom have in the case of others? Is this trivial? Maybe some see that way but others don't and I think we should listen and have a genuine discussion about this. --ARoseWolf 18:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's very different from any political or legal system. The ground rules are what everybody broadly agrees about, which frees the way to make more granular decisions based on these basic rules without getting tied up on determining the applicable standard to make such decisions. This works 99% of the time. But there are some circumstances—the remaining 1% of times—where the consensus is to act in contradiction to the ground rules and do something else. But I don't think these 1% invalidate the 99%. If groud rules are still useful and valid 99% of the time, they are still real and important. JBchrch talk 22:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Remove or replace with sanitised version. *Not only are NFTs badly damaging to the environment and Jimbo's auction be construed as a support for their existence, why bother posting it on talk page? While I recognise and appreciate all that he has have done, its a bit silly to disregard consensus just because the WMF told him to post it there isn't it? After all, wikipedia is a volunteer run project first and foremost, and I think administrators should have at least been notified and given the chance to respond before it was posted. Not entirely happy with how the matter was handled by either party here, if disclosure is the goal then details should've been sanitised. Moreover, this news hardly concerns enwiki users at all, so not sure why it was deemed necessary to post it in the first place? The version as it stands now appears to read like promo. Dark-World25 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• From what I've read, the reason why the Board wanted Jimbo to post the message was because they wanted to be "transparent" with us. But that laptop and that NFT do not belong to the WMF anyway, so how does it matter? If he'd simply stuck to announcing the auction on Twitter and the press - sure, there might be scattered complaints, but surely most people would just go "Huh" and get back to editing? Surely?

Evidently posting about the auction on his talk has generated more controversy (not without basis) than him simply announcing the auction elsewhere would have... either that or I seriously underestimate what the community (as a whole) will complain about. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 17:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Trying to word my thoughts better... I think my question is "Why did Jimbo and the Board think that we would find it of importance to know about Jimbo selling his personal effects?" I do not think this is self-promotion, at least in the sense that we usually see, but I do have the concern I've explained, because if true, that's a serious misreading of community mood by the Board and Jimbo. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 18:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I imagine because they thought the idea of "selling Wikipedia" or something would be controversial with the community, while also thinking that no-one in their right mind would believe that Jimmy posting a FAQ on his user talk page would be seen as promotional. The Land (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

But the NFT sale isn't "selling Wikipedia", and the site's CC BY-SA 3.0 and not ND so there's absolutely nothing stopping him from selling whatever he likes, even if it is a printout of my userpage on a hoodie. A simple explanation of what an NFT is after the fact of the sale would've sufficed, surely? I don't know, but whatever plan I came up with would not involve putting up a big loud announcement of an upcoming auction from which Jimbo would personally be getting money. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 18:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this was the plan all along? To get newspapers to go berserk with "Wikipedia bans own founder for announcing sale of first Wikipedia laptop and an NFT on user page" and get more publicity? </tinfoil> W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 18:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

NFTs are not very well-understood by most people, and many Wikipedians object to one degree or another to people profiting off their free labour. In some other channels, I've seen people objecting strongly to Jimmy doing this (the actual sale, not discussing it with people). So I imagine the WMF thought it would be a bit weird if there weren't a place for 'community feedback' or whatever, and thought Jimbotalk was the right page. The Land (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback can only be useful if it is heard before a decision to go ahead is made. My understanding is that the decision to go ahead with this sale was made before any of us was asked about it. And I'm sure that future generations will look upon the current vogue for NFTs in the same way that we look upon tulip mania. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

From what I understand, the NFT is the first revision of the site, so from when no community effort was put into it yet. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 19:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but the art value of the first edit derives from the subsequent collective work. JBchrch talk 21:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't Jimbo have a personal website, blog, Twitter / Facebook page, or the like where announcements like this can go, without them being part of Wikipedia as a project? That seems like it would be a better place. --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

He does have a Twitter where he's fairly active, which is why I think it's weird to post on Jimbotalk - unless, of course, the concerns I mentioned were in play. W. Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_c) 19:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I think that Jimmy needs to think more about right and wrong and less about silly instructions that he is given by the WMF. This whole business seems very similar to the cases that we get every so often of politicians who get caught with a hand in the till. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Jimbo should be ashamed of himself. Seriously? He insists on destroying the environment and blatantly violating the most basic policies on a wiki THAT HE FOUNDED? Inexcusable behaviour. 154.47.104.174 (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• WP:TROUT, move on. Jimbo is in the wrong, but it's been removed so give him a trout and move on. This sort of thing is what it's there for. — Czello 18:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• This seems like making a mountain out of a molehill, tempest in a teapot, whatever you want to call it. Instead of starting a respectful conversation with Jimbo about his posting, and perhaps discussing why it was there (the WMF asked him to do so), proposing alternatives if it was too self-promotional (reduce the full letter to a simple statement that the auction was being held and per the WMF he was notifying the community of it), etc. etc. now what the OP has gone and done is taken what is a minor issue that could have been resolved amicably without involving the entire community, and has created an adversarial situation which didn't have to exist. If something needed to be fixed about the situation, a little tact and respect would have done so. Instead we get a "zOMG JIMBO DID AN EVIL THING THAT I MUST PURGE FROM WIKIPEDIA" response, which has now destroyed any chance that we have of fixing this in a way where nearly everybody involved doesn't come off looking like assholes. It didn't have to be this way. --Jayron32 18:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• IAR. If Jimmy was pointing to his used car for sale, that may be something, but this is specifically something Wikipedia related and of interest. I doubt anyone else could point to a sale of something similar, and this clearly falls into a case of IAR. --Masem (t) 18:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I've tried to find WP:Self-promotion 101, but maybe it was deleted. Since I'm pretty sure we're actually talking here about WP:PROMO, I'm not really seeing a policy violation. I can understand blocking other users who set up userpages that are all about "This is my for-profit whatever", in a manner that makes their account creation primarily about selling something. But if there actually are admins who are blocking other users for writing a user talkpage section about a Wikipedia-related upcoming sale, while otherwise not engaging in self-promotion as their primary editing activity, and are making such blocks all the time – I'd like to know who those admins are. We have plenty of editors in good standing who use their real-life names onsite, and who state on their userpages what they do as a profession. That said, I think that Jimmy's original post was a little too heavy on the "this stuff could fetch a pretty good price" side, and that was a wiki-social faux pas. A less wordy announcement, more focused on "just letting you know I'm doing this", and leaving all the explanation of details to the aforementioned press, would have been a better choice. (I also looked at WP:NFT, but that's my fault.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with bits of Czello and Tryptofish. A well-intentioned post about a piece of Wikipedia history, however the tone may have crossed the line into commercial advertising. Certainly this was inadvertent, but after discussion the post has been removed. Seems like a reasonable outcome, and let's hope a museum buys the computer. No one is getting blocked, banned, or asked to do frenetic soul-searching. Shall we all move along? -- Euryalus (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm selling some of those bits on ebay. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I bid fifteen quatloos, Tryptofish. And for the little it's worth, I think stay removed. I don't think Jimbo did anything majorly wrong here, but it just feels inappropriate for all the reasons noted. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • They're worth more than that. But enough about my bits. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Stay removed. I think it's clearly promotional (selling stuff, even stuff related to Wikipedia, clearly isn't appropriate on a talk page; obviously he has a strong personal involvement to the sale.) Now, a strong personal involvement in Wikipedia doesn't mean anything, or no longstanding editor could post anything anywhere, but the sale itself is unrelated to actual Wikipedia activities and includes a financial involvement that raises problems. I don't think it is a huge deal, but we would 100% shut down any other editor who was selling stuff on their user page, and Jimbo ought to be as scrupulous as possible given the danger that even small things he does could reflect on the project. (That is also why I'm side-eying the IAR arguments above - this is definitely a bad case to do that, especially since it's not something that benefits the project in any way.) I don't think it needs to be treated as a big deal now that it is removed, but it should stay removed. --Aquillion (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• +1 to Jayron, Masem, The Land, Joe Roe -- unnecessary reaction (counterpoint: on the desert wiki, the drama must flow), could have been resolved without the fuss, WP:JIMBOTALK has its own traditions. However the remaining threads touching on the topic still get the point across and leave space for responding to community questions, which seems to satisfy the original intent. – SJ + 20:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think the fact that Jimbo is jumping on the NFT scam bandwagon is far more disturbing than anything else. Shows a distinct lack of reasoning. The fact he's trying to profit even more off Wikipedia is just another sign he needs to step away from the project entirely. I Support removal of this advertisement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • jumping on the NFT scam bandwagon More like jumping the shark, eh? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. The founder of Wikipedia auctioning what are basically scam tokens is something I would never have imagined in my wildest dreams. Pyramids09 (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Today I learned about Christie’s The Birth of Wikipedia sale (3-15 December) [112]. Is that free as in gratis or libre? Levivich 20:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Question. Any thoughts about this? Count Iblis (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think Jimmy owes you at least 10% for the idea, but now your posting here is self-promotion and I'm calling for an indef! Firefangledfeathers 21:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  (after edit conflict) If anyone is stupid enough to pay any more for the NFT then I suppose that that would be the "worth" in monetary terms, but for me its worth is precisely the same as any other "Hello world!" ever produced by anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have an important question: Will we have to disambiguate WP:NFT now? —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Paying money for someone to send you a copy of a URL seems quite stupid. Getting paid money to send someone a copy of a URL seems quite smart. For $10,000, any interested party can buy the NFT of the following AN/I comment: "who gives a shit?" jp×g 22:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a deal. But could I please pay in Tongan Bitcoin? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I made a comment on the admin IRC channel about Jimbo spamming, but I WAS JOKING. This seems petty, true we don't have some special founders exemption but what we can have is a little bit of deference. Seriously, this is not a big deal we can all ignore it and move on with the project. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The purpose of WMF asking him to post it here is obviously for transparency, not to increase the income to the auction. And it's sky-is blue that Jimbo also saw it that way and so then it's clear that it was not "for personal gain". For optics, and to avoid creating a "talking case" that could complicate future cases, IMO it is best left out (preferably voluntarily by Jimbo), even if though IMO there was no real violation. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Aren't we supposed to allow some sort of latitude for regular contributors as far as what can be posted on someone's userpage (or user talk, for that matter)? How much more regular can you get? --WaltCip-(talk) 22:57, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, I say this with nothing but love, but what the hell? Do you really have nothing better to do? It's the founder of Wikipedia, saying he's going to be auctioning off some Wikipedia-related stuff, on his Wikipedia page. You're going to edit war over that? It's not that big of a deal man. It's not something we even have to worry about. Do you really think this sort of heavyhanded "policy enforcement" against Jimbo, along with all the drama that follows, over a petty and debatable "violation", is needed or worth it in any way? All because his notification, which the WMF wanted posted, was written too much like an advertisement, even though it was a copy of an off-Wiki communication that was being posted in a reasonable context. Why? Just why? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I am totally amazed at the fuss being raised here. It is as they say in the Northern Territory of Australia "something nothing".--Bduke (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Much ado about nothing. I sympathise with those who are concerned about the potential contravention of our principles, and while dear Jimbo is not infallible I hardly think he was actively trying to sabotage the encyclopedia. Perhaps if he does something like this in the future he can make it more explicit that this was advised by WMF, so there's not as much confusion. Transparency from WMF and co is what we all want. I think NFTs are basically new money laundering devices or "Look at me I'm rich" tags and I'm honestly more curious about how an edit as an NFT is compatible with the creative commons licensing, but we're all gonna be fine. Nothing else to do here. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  No one actually owns the edit so it shouldn't interfere with the licensing; they merely own a piece of wasteful scrap code that represents the edit in the abstract, like how no one really owned Brooklyn Bridge when they bought it. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This will be a story in the next WP:SIGNPOST issue. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Jeez, you guys really showed Jimbo what's what. Good work? Anyway, as I implied above somewhere, the important item here is the computer, which I compared to the that great relic of American history, the Syng inkstand. Both the inkstand and this computer, for different but arguably equal-ess reasons (at least when history gets around to writing the long-view about them), are Warehouse 13-level artifacts. I hope it is sold for many millions, loved by whomever buys it, and that it eventually, someday, ends up in a major museum collection. Until that happens private ownership is just as good as long as its cared about. Thanks should go out to Jimbo for saving it all this time, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Swarm: (and anyone else interested) I’m not sure whether someone who asks "what the hell?" and "do you really have nothing better to do?" is asking rhetorically or not. I suspect they are, but very briefly, I'll review, in case this is an actual question. I brought it here because I asked Jimbo to remove it himself and he wouldn’t. Because I couldn’t think of any other way to get a consensus, and Jimbo has enough political clout that it would not be wise to act against his wishes without consensus first (unlike how we would handle literally any other editor doing this). Because in spite of the fact Jimbo says it wasn’t promotional, it was promotional (read it if you haven't). Because he's being disingenuous in his explanation for how it couldn't possibly be promotional ("no Wikipedia editor is going to buy the NFT" does not mean it isn't building publicity and buzz, nor that it wasn't intended to). Why edit war? Because I waited for a consensus to form, and the people who reverted me felt they had a right to ignore that consensus, and either claim it didn't exist, or that their own opinion trumps consensus thru the magic of IAR. Because I find it important to the site’s long term success that we don’t take our ethics cues from the WMF Board. They have a financial interest in this being publicized too.

In summary, because I don't think the mayor should be allowed to drive 55 mph in a school zone and not get pulled over, while we say "it's the mayor, relax". Because as our public face, he should be trying, actively trying, to be like Caesar’s wife, and we shouldn’t be trying to justify him instead doing questionable things by narrowly parsing policy wording.

It’s apparently not getting re-added, so I’m fine if you think this discussion should be closed because discussion of inappropriate behavior is somehow more damaging to the encyclopedia that the actual inappropriate behavior itself. I'll try and think a little about why someone who's judgement I usually respect thinks onwiki advertisement is fine in this one case, if you'll do me the courtesy of thinking about why I might consider this important enough to address. I honestly do not think you've tried to do that yet. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I would honestly be inclined to agree with Floq here, but it seems to me that this is a follow-up from this post by Count Iblis (which I remembered from way back when). Without out that first thread, I would have otherwise agreed that this seemed like blatant advertising.
  For what it's worth, I have a general rule about not posting to JIMBOTALK, so I was not able to relay the environmental concerns regarding NFTs at the time. If the profits of this transaction are going to go towards developing WT:Social, I know a lot of younger Twitter users would generally boycott any product if it was built using the sale of an NFT. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We have enough self-promotion and hypocrisy on here to deal with. While WMF can indeed override the community if they wish, both technically and "legally", they would do well to restrain that power for only the most extreme circumstances. Jimbo was in a no-win situation (defy WMF vs defy community) and WMF should be ashamed of themselves for requiring it. Solution: post something simple/neutral "Official notice at the direction of WMF: I'm having an auction" + link if required and let's be on our way. This puts the onus on WMF, not Jimbo...exactly where it should be. Buffs (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  Finally getting to Flo (and I'm agreeing with him?...wow, will miracles never cease...I think we're finding a lot of common ground in this discussion. It's been removed and a solid trouting was had by all. Buffs (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Allow, put it back. Within reasonable leeway for the contributor. Also, note that it is related to the project, making it arguably entirely proper, without going to leeway. WP:SLAP User:Floquenbeam for the over-BOLD over dramatic removal. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Streisand effect Cinderella157 (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Reckon it's up to you Jimbo. It's your talkpage & your choice what you put on it. After that, I'll leave greater minds then mine, to figure the rest out. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Stalker

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

---

Somebody please block this vandal stalker of me ASAP 2601:85:C102:BBC0:5D84:2CEB:AE98:D99 (talk · contribs)-- Yankees10 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright it appears somebody handled it.-- Yankees10 19:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Continued disruption by 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C

• 2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

A recent ANI discussion went unresolved, and now the talk page disruption is continuing at Talk:Cedar Point and spilling over to Talk:Cedar Fair in the form of adding walls of text and attempting to discuss behavioral concerns in an inappropriate forum. Perhaps the editor truly wants to improve the articles, but their interpretation of policies and actions resulting from those interpretations are distracting and disruptive. In addition to loose claims about "rule breaking" in almost every talk page post, they are now dropping an unfounded accusation about paid editing, which is an unnecessary escalation of tensions. Seeking some assistance in the matter, thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The Sinebot must be getting wore out, as the IP continues to not sign its posts. GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And this comment was just added by the IP:

As a result, I don't expect much actual progress there, or here, from either of you. Prove me wrong. And also, don't pretend that you haven't repeatedly impeded multiple contributors' efforts to constructively edit these Articles, by forcing incessant discussions about edits, where no discussion was ever necessary. Your hypocrisy is so glaring, that I honestly cannot understand why either of you have gotten away with your nonsense for so very very long.
— User:2607:FB91:100B:2D6C:84D3:617C:5031:C149 23:58, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is an example of what we're dealing with. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

And now the user has moved on to personal attacks.—JlACEer (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well that escalated quickly! Knew it was a matter of time before they cracked. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked that IP for two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Unregistered user sends threatening message

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

---

Unregistered user Dinamo-Barça who is likely associated with the ip address 80.78.77.83 has repeatedly removed FK Dinamo Tirana's official logo from the club's wikipedia page. The same person also left a threatening message calling me a "faggot" and that he will "rape my sister" in my talk page telling me not to add that logo because apparently he doesn't like how it looks. Kj1595 (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

An unregistered user would be represented solely by an IP address. Nevertheless, they need 86'd. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 02:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kj1595: Just for future reference, in situations like this, Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm may be helpful. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Oshwah. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, while I was investigating and preparing to analyze with Google Translate, Oshwah brought the harasser's Wikipedia editing career to an abrupt end. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cullen328, Drmies - You bet. Happy to help. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The account in question is User:Dinamo-Barça, who is registered. Cullen328 (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Should the threats be RD2'd? Which of Dinamo-Barça's edits to User talk:Kj1595 contain threats? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. I can't claim to know exactly how it translates, but today I learned enough Albanian to know it should probably go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Zoticus777

User has had several warnings about removing maintainance templates and uncivil behaviour. Has recently removed maintainance temates from Baselios Marthoma Mathews III after getting a level 4 warning about doing so. has also removed maintainance templates on other occasions such as here [[113]]. Also fileda bizarre SPI against the user who added those templates in the first place. They have also stalked and deleted that editors contributions such as [[114]]. Have also violated 3RR (reverted about 6 or 7 times) around this diff [[115]]. Doesn't seem to be interested in serious discussion. Mako001 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Users last warning was back in January this year, they shouldnt need a reminder but they probably should be reminded.

The Alternate Mako - it doesn't appear you notified this user of this post so I've just done that as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs)

The user Br Ibrahim john who added the maintenance templates here [[116]] is banned and just two week old user Anjuvannam is adding maintenance in another page of Orthodox Church . How would a two week old user know about maintenance templates and if same pattern displayed once by a banned user has resurfaced again in another new user, is it not an extra point to the SPI I raised. The word "Kanjikuzhy" literally means "Porridge Pit" and is a derogatory word used to insult the Malankara Orthodox Church on social media. The Headquarters of the Malankara Orthodox Church is at a place called Devalokam. [[117]] and not the neighbouring village which is Kanjikuzhy. User Anjuvannam tried to add the wrong information at least 7 times and I had to revert. [[118]]. He also went and added the wrong details in this page as well. [[119]]. Is not adding a derogatory /false information to wikipedia uncivil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoticus777 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I knew about maintenance templates when my account was only hours old, because like many editors, I had edited as an IP before then, and already knew many of the basics. I'd recommend that you don't make accusations without good evidence, as Anjuvannam's behaviour is not in the least suspicious or sockpuppet'y, and their "pattern" that you have brought up is shared by many editors, almost all of whom are definitely not socks. Stop wikistalking Anjuvannam, or you will be the one getting blocked, as that is considered harrassment. User Anjuvannam tried to add the wrong information at least 7 times and I had to revert. is a clear admission of violating WP:3RR I'd suggest you read that, as repeatedly reverting other users, especially over "incorrect information" (content disputes) is not acceptable, and constitutes edit warring. Also, thanks for notifying them Amortias Mako001 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Amortias If a user deliberately adds false / derogatory information, apart from reverting what else can I do? Does the user who adds such content not get a warning?

Mako001 No problem.

Zoticus777 you can file a report here, you can discusss it on the talk page of the article in question or you could seek assistance at any of the help pages/projects on the site. Back and forth reverting is only likely to lead to one or more people getting blocked for edit warring. Amortias (T)(C) 17:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-pornography AfD's

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

User:Spartaz seems to have some sort of bias against pornography. Of course its his right, but he along with suspicious accounts associated with these AfDs [120] make me believe something else is going on here. In all this I have made mistakes by pinging another user wrongly. I did so because I thought the user had useful ideas on the matter. Yet, aggressively deleting notable articles is disruptive.Super (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is a preemptive attack based on a warning I gave @Subtropical-man: concerning his attempt to poison the well at this afd by attacking my motives. He was canvassed by Supercopone to that discussion and started casting aspersions. Having warned him to retract or see my raising my own ANI this is clearly retaliatory. I invite anyone who has any doubts about why I’m nominating substandard BLPs to be deleted to cast their eyes over the list of porn deletion discussions and see whether or not my nomination standards are supported by the outcome of the discussions. And now back to the real issue, we have a BLP deletion discussion full of spurious keep arguments based on non-policy reasons but no sources. Also, cAn someone please speak to subtropical about their comments about me in that afd please? Perhaps its time they took a break from AFD? Supercopone is clearly in experienced but I hope that with time their appreciation of where we draw the line on BLPs with rubbish sourcing will improve. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Spartaz, please stop manipulating. I complied with your request and removed the supposed offensive comment. What "preemptive attack" - this is typical "aspersions". User Supercopone decides for himself and does what he wants. I deleted my comment because I didn't want to waste my time in endless discussions. You have a grudge against my comment and you do exactly the same. And double, because you define other users's work as rubbish. Your comment offensive and you insult other users that they create rubbish... and I should scare you now ANI like you did. You do exactly the same. Your problem that (I wrote about in the deleted comment) concerns extreme abuses of the AfD. The same opinion is shared by the user Supercopone. Your main activity on Wikipedia is creating hundreds new AFDs and voting for deletion in existing AFDs. See last your own 100 AFDs - 99.9% your votes is for deletion. You are responsible for the mass deletion of Wikipedia articles. This has been going on for years. You have completely lost neutrality and perspective. That's why topic ban of AFD pages for you is a good way out. Wikipedia needs neutral people to operate on Wikipedia's technical pages, including the AfD, you are not one of them. Your edits clearly show that deleting articles is your phobia, you are doing nothing else. Therefore, other users have the right to demand changes and remove you from AfD pages. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ah thank you for withdrawing your statement (which was still up when I checked the afd before writing my reply) but since you choose to repeat your ridiculous claims here I stand by my comments. There clearly is disruption going on here but its not for nomimqtimg articles when they are getting deleted. Spartaz ^Humbug!…

• Comment clearly there are a few editors that disagree with Spartaz, but I don't see any evidence that Spartaz is doing something ANI would need to discourage or prevent. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia has long had a problem with a plethora of very poorly referenced biographies of non-notable porn performers. Spartaz has worked diligently to take out the garbage through AfD and should be commended for it instead of attacked for the valuable work that they do. Clearly, some porn stars are notable and we should have well referenced biographies of those people. The others should be and are being deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

we are being played here

• Can we get some eyes on @Supercopone:’s edit history please. Long dormant account that was accused of socking appears back after 10 years and first action is to accuse another editor of a COI and taking them to COI noticeboard. Its obviously a compromised account being used to troll. Well played sir!! And there I was trying to share helpful advice. link to comtribs hereSpartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Are you being serious? This is retaliatory because I filed an ani. You warned me right? I messed up filing the ani? Backed the wrong dog you said. You getting called out on your bad behavior does not make me a troll.Super (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)