Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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 [1], alleging facts from unreliable sources [2], stripping out statements from high quality reliable sources [3], 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)

@98.51.101.124: My question about 73.202.58.200 was not about their edits. The only edits they made were related to Scarlett and Ozoma on their respective articles at the same time the WP:SPA and its WP:SOCK appeared and engaged in the same purpose, which led me to believe they were all three one person, and based on their geo, seemed to be an Apple employee with a vendetta. Now that the users have been blocked, the IP user, if not one of the two users above, can continue making constructive edits. I do not have a COI with any of the subjects I have edited, nor have any of my edits been "un-cited". Thank you. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

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)

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 [4] 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 [5][6][7] 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)

He has called me in this talk page alone, a "hyperpartisan idealogue", "rude", "hostile", "arrogant", "uncollaborative", "uncollegial", and being part of a "political gang" that "aggressively gatekeeps" what does not fit my "highly ideological POV". Instead of complaining about my responses, deal with his repeated person attacks and conspiracy theories about a nonexistent cabal that supposedly opposes him. Bill Williams 21:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill, your comments to them were indeed rude, hostile, arrogant, and uncollaborative. It's not surprising they feel they are being gatekept. ––FormalDude ^talk 00:23, 7 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, ([8], [9]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([10]). 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: [11] ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
  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 [20]. 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)

• Support For a decade of tendentious disruptive editing on the same topic, should've been blocked a long time ago. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 6 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.[21]

Later, I left a message on her talk page informing her that accusations she's made against the subject of this article[22] 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.[23]

On another talk page, she seems like she's being intentionally combative.[24] I ask her if she's trying to start a fight. [25] 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.[26] 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.[27] Her response was to ask if I'd delete the page.[28]

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)

I am siding with you Bob drobbs, this is textbook example of harassment and in the case of the user being combative with other participants of the AfD, disruptive. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:30, 7 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)

If starting a request for comment on the article talk page over where to place maintenance tags is pure forum shopping, then words have no meaning. How is starting a formal discussion on where to place tags forum shopping when it’s done on the article talk page—the exact page where maintenance tags are supposed to be discussed? If you believe that my proposal to tag section-by-section is a bad one, so be it, but the continued attempts to frame the creation of an RfC as some sort of conduct issue is simply uncalled for. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:42, 7 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)

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: [[29]]. I reverted them with an explanation here [[30]], 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: [[31]]).

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 [[32]].

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 [[33]]). 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)

How do you know that it's a sock without taking it to SPI? Genuinely curious. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 02:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You likely won't get a direct answer due to WP:BEANS. However, certain socks have patterns that people are familiar with, so admins recognize their style. Other times, it's clear that two accounts are editing the same topics in the same way, and whether it's a sock or a meatpuppet, the results are the same. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING & WP:SQS by Cornerstonepicker

Canvassing

User:Cornerstonepicker is canvassing on this RfC [34] 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. [35] [36]

• Previous canvassing on Nicki Minaj: [37] [38] [39] [40]
• Previous canvassing on Cardi B: [41] [42] [43] [44]

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". [45]

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, [46] only to be again reverted immediately by Cornerstonepicker the next day telling me to "go on the talk page." [47] 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. [48] However, that was also reverted by him with another edit summary telling me to use the talk page. [49] and revert all of my changes. Other editors have noticed this stonewalling pattern as well. [50]

Here's another example. I suggested this change on the talk page to merge two redundant sentences in the lead per MOS:REDUNDANCY. [51] 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. [52] 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. [53] 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. [54] 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. [55] 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. [56] Binksternet also voted in support of Cornerstonepicker's July RfC. [57] 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? [58] 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. [59] 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. [60]. 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. [61] 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 uninvited (?) 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) [62]. 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.

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 [[63]]. 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 [[64]]. Have also violated 3RR (reverted about 6 or 7 times) around this diff [[65]]. 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 [[66]] 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. [[67]] 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. [[68]]. He also went and added the wrong details in this page as well. [[69]]. 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)

I would like to add on the topic. I added the maintenance templates for a reason. I did not find any source in the article supporting that content. I did not remove the content because I am not sure of its incorrectness. Zoticus777 is repeatedly removing the maintenance templates and accusing me of sockpuppetry. I think it's better for him to add relevant sources before doing so. Anjuvannam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anjuvannam (talk • contribs) 04:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-pornography AfD's

Note: I've closed all sections except the "Suggesting WP:BOOMERANG" section; there is no consensus yet on whether to sanction and/or topic ban User:Subtropical-man and/or User:Supercopone. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

initial report

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

---

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 [70] 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)

• • You believe an almost 100% deletion rate isn't suspicious? Has anyone looked at the accounts that seem to always vote delete on all of these? Super (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercopone (talk • contribs)

• I know there are many articles of poor quality and without sources. However, the user Spartaz's phobia already affects better articles, such as Devon (actress). This is a current case. This article is correct, text, infobox, photo from Commons, not stub - 14,170 bytes, 28 sources and.... 27 interwiki[71]. She is awarded the most important award in the porn industry (so-called Porn Oscars), she was the Penthouse Pet and appeared in notable film of Pirates (2005). There are no reasons why the article should not be on Wikipedia. The user Spartaz has already started deleting valid articles. This is already dangerous and destructive for Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Phobia? Excuse me but what the actual?. I find this accusation deeply offensive. How dare you label me with an abnormal mental health tag. Can someone deal with this please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• The citations consist of the usual interviews, press releases and awards rosters. Start-class content doesn't make an article notable. The remaining notability rationale is an appeal to PORNBIO, which was deprecated in 2019. Again, the consensus for WP:BIO changed, and this stuff doesn't count anymore unless it is supported by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• The fact you think that the delete rate is based on votes leades me to believe you may be forgetting WP:NOTVOTE. Of course, I'd hate to vexbysterang myself, so I'm going to stop there and leave a reminder that AFD is not a vote. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 02:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure about any canvassing. The only problem I see in the AFD is from Zaathras who speaks about 'extreme hostility' which doesn't seem to exist, then calls for another user's vote to be stricken. diff. Pretty far from WP:CIVIL. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That would be the vote canvassed by this edit which should be discarded. And if you could go back to the afd and cite the sources you say pass GNG it would really improve the quality of that discussion thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Is asking for another editors opinion on a article canvassing? He had been involved in previous discussions on this article and cannot see where asking for a useful comment on sources is not allowed . You issued me a warning for that after I filed an ani.Super (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I discovered the canvassing diff while checking your talk page messages about me and saw you had indeed blatantly canvassed subtropical-man. You clearly were looking for support to the discussion so most certainly canvassing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Supercopone: Please read WP:CANVAS. It's considered canvassing to only notify users who align with your goal, and it appears that the only user you've notified about the new AFD (Subtropical-man) voted keep in the original AFD. You failed to notify any of the other seven participants, some of which voted to either delete or redirect. Isabelle ^🔔 22:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought an editor could nominate as many articles as possible. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as an involved editor. Of the AfD nominations by Spartaz since 30 October that have been closed, all but one was deleted for failing WP:BIO. The latest nomination, Constance Money, may survive. (Nobody's perfect). However, in the case of Devon, the notability is questionable at best. I haven't voted, but I do see a valid, good-faith rationale behind the nomination. This is a good-faith house cleaning to weed out a backlog poorly sourced articles after notability and sourcing guidelines were tightened. The current rate of AfDs is hardly taxing on editor time and attention, thus little disruption if any. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG applies here. This morning I had pondered filing something involving both Supercopone for a bad-faith WP:CANVASSING and Suptropical-man for an out-of-left-field personal attack (yes, bob drobs, I stand by the "extreme hostility" characterization) against admin Spartaz. The former - AFD #1 of this subject, Supercopone chose 1 of 7 participants to canvass here. The latter - Suptroipical-man posts an egregious tirade against the article nominator here. They slightly softened some of the language upon challenge, but it IMO changed little. Both of these users have effectively tainted the afd , making a rancor-free discussion going forward rather difficult. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Please also note above where Subtropical-man is using ableist slurs like "you have a phobia" against editors his disagrees with. [72] Zaathras (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You have voted delete on every single one of User:Spartaz av AfD posts. Is that not weird to anyone else here? You aggressively intervene anytime someone votes keep.Super (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I take an interest in the subject area because it appears that the Wikipedia has been for a decade or more used as a platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy. I am not opposed to pornography, but I love the Wikipedia and hate to see it coopted for commercialism. I also "intervene" when someone posts a sub-optimal reason to retain an article. The D in AfD stands for "discussion", if you did not know. In closing, I believe there are tools available somewhere to examine how a person votes in an AfD vs. how the AfD is closed. I'm fairly certain the majority my entries in various discussions will be matched by the close decision. Zaathras (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• I would support TBANing Super and Subtropical from AFDs. We as a community are way too tolerant of editors who use AFDs to fight. Comments in the AFD and here like "I get it you do not like pornography", "User:Spartaz seems to have some sort of bias against pornography", and "user Spartaz's phobia" are all ad hominem attacks. It's exactly the opposite of "comment on content not contributor". We shouldn't tolerate this, even a little bit. Anyone and everyone making these sorts of attacks at AFDs who doesn't strike/retract them when asked should be TBANed. We've got to clean up AFD. Levivich 15:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know that I'd go as far as a TBAN, but it's weirdly combative behavior - It's not like Spartaz isn't giving policy justifications for their nominations. It's totally normal for editors to focus in on a specific area for a short burst of time. That's not evidence of anything except for dedication to the project. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  user:Spartaz treats others' work as "rubbish" and writes such words in an open discussion. User who treats other people's work as rubbish, should not be able to act on the AfD, especially that deleting articles is the main activity of this user on Wikipedia. These are serious allegations! I do not write that we should use TopicBan for Spartaz because he using the term of "rubbish" for other people's work (it does not meet TopicBan requirements, TopicBan is never given to a person for using an inappropriate word, TopicBan is only for debatable activity on a topic), but because high bias of this user and his disrespect for the articles of other users and his non-neutrality to remove articles. Just like a policeman, a policeman must respect every human life, if he thinks some people are "rubbish" then we have the Gestapo or SS [Note: I gave this as an example from another topic to clarify the situation - the example above does not apply to any person on Wikipedia. The above example is only to make you aware of what's the matter.]. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Just like a policeman, a policeman must respect every human life, if he thinks some people are "rubbish" then we have the Gestapo or SS

Okay, I don't care about your note after this, Subtropical. This is uncalled for.

Spartaz isn't calling people "rubbish," he's talking about the content of the articles. The fact you've turned this around as some kind of attack on your person is just baffling. Look man, I'm no prude. If you saw my Patreon, you'd blush. But removing non-notable porn bios from Wikipedia is appropriate because those articles don't meet our standards. Not because they're porn performers, but because they haven't enough claim to fame to meet Wikipedia's general standards. Just accept that and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• • It seems as if you just willfully misinterpreted what he said User:HandThatFeeds. That's really disappointing as it seems that everyone is ignoring the main issue. You assumed bad faith in your actions.Super (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, I can see that you completely misunderstood the meaning of my comment. First of all, nowhere (I repeat: nowhere) did I mention that the Spartaz calling people "rubbish", I wrote many times, that he called "rubbish" other users's work (i.e. articles). For example, the current AfD (made by Spartaz) is about Devon which complied with Wikipedia requirements and was not removed by consensus. This is not a "rubbish"! The second thing: please read and understand the previous comments, for example: I know there are many articles of poor quality and without sources. However, the user Spartaz's phobia already affects better articles (...). Soon, articles that meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements will be removed, by misinterpretation by Spartaz. He will want to prove in AfD that they do not meet of requirements. Spartaz has done such things in the past - although the article met PORNBIO's requirements, he over-interpreted the rules and voted to delete. Repeatedly. One of the perfect proofs is first AfD about Devon. The article met the requirements of WP:PORNBIO, she had the most important award in the porn industry, Spartaz voted for removal after all. That is why I wrote about the fact that a person with such extreme behavior towards articles could not decide about them anymore. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: A tiny bit off topic, but what's with the frequent use of "Spacnaz" when (I assume, from context) you mean Spartaz? You switch back and forth in the same paragraph, to the point where for a while I thought there were two editors with similar-looking names doing something you think is wrong. If this is some kind of nickname, stop it now. If this is some kind of non-English spellcheck (my best AGF-compliant guess, though I have no idea what a Spacnaz is), then please take more care. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, sorry - my bad. I corrected it. Thank you for the info. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It seems as if you just willfully misinterpreted what he said

Super, this is a bad hill to die on. When someone compares another's actions to the SS and Gestapo, there's no room to equivocate. Don't do that. I don't care how many Notes one puts in the comment, it's a personal attack to claim that good-faith edits are like the Gestapo.

Subtropical, you explicitly said: if he thinks some people are "rubbish"

You directly accused him of calling people rubbish. If that was a typo, then fine, I'll accept that. But his calling edits rubbish does not justify equating him with the SS, in any way of speaking.

Second, you've continued attacking Spartaz by saying Soon, articles that meet Wikipedia's minimum requirements will be removed, by misinterpretation by Spartaz.

You've directly accused Spartaz of looking to delete articles which do meet Wikipedia's standards. And then you state The article met the requirements of WP:PORNBIO when you've been told that PORNBIO is no longer accepted. You can't use PORNBIO to determine if an article is appropriate for Wikipedia anymore.

You've done nothing to but cast aspersions this whole time, and I strongly suggest you step back & rethink your approach. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for using the word "phobia", maybe it was tasteless. I understand of "assume good faith", but it was hard to understand that someone is trying to justify the removal of thousands of articles because he thinks the work of dozens of users is "rubbish". I guarantee that such words can offend many users. No matter what your beliefs are, we have no right to offend others' hard work - it goes both ways, including me, Supercopone, and Spartaz. Levivich, if someone treats others' work as "rubbish" and writes such words in an open discussion (like Spacnaz), if someone treat Wikipedia as a battlefield to fight pornography per WP:BATTLEGROUND like user:Zaathras (because he thinks that it "platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy"), these are perfect examples for TBAN. Levivich, where's your neutrality? You propose TopicBAN for used word "phobia" (because someone wants to delete thousands of articles and apart from the fact that your idea doesn't meet any requirements of TopicBan), and no reaction whatsoever for using WP:BATTLEGROUND to fight with porn "rubbish" by user:Spartaz and to fight with "platform for free advertising for the porn industrcy" by user:Zaathras. So, sorry for using the word "phobia" etc, one little non-vulgar word... because some user can push apart from substantive discussion. So that a certain user does not have to avoid substantive discussion, because he focusing on the word "phobia" - once again, I apologize for using this word. In this situation, any subsequent comments like "because you used the word phobia" should be treated as spamming. I used that word and apologized (and I still waiting for apologies for calling "rubbish" others' hard work). Writing about "phobia" for the tenth time is littering the discussion. This is a place for a substantive discussion. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man: The articles in dispute do not number in the thousands. The last time I looked, porn AfDs since 2019 counted in the mid 100's. There is a consensus that PORNBIO was supported by low-quality sources and that articles that relied on that SNG are no longer necessarily notable. Yes, editors contributed content relying on PORNBIO, myself included. Editors agreed that standard was no longer tenable. Taking an ownership interest in the content to the point of taking offense *is* a battleground mentality. Pornography is pervasive with and overwhelming volume of non-notable content pushed by low-quality sources. It is a perennial problem in Wikipedia that used to get an inclusionist exemption, and there are Wikipedians of good faith, who believed it hurt the project. That view is now consensus. Please accept that editors working on that consensus are acting in good faith. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

we are being played here

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

---

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)

• @Spartaz: I can't agree with your logic at all, and encourage you to retract it or provide better evidence. Since the account was created it has focused on educational institutions in Georgia. And it's not unheard of for an editor to dive into AFD. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Specifically, it can't possibly be both the original contributor socking and a compromised account. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. Sorry, you see from my link I had a filter on the contribs and this confused me and made the editing gap look 5 times longer Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC).
    • At a glance (with the full edit history), Supercopone definitely looks like an editor who had some specific interest in "non-traditional" schools, fell into AFD last week, and has been making new-editor mistakes since. However, it is somewhat suspicious that of the 50+ pings that could have been made, they pinged exactly one editor (Subtropical-man) who apparently had retired from porn-related AFDs for reasons which should be obvious. I'm not sure I could cause this amount of disruption with one ping to an AFD if I tried. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

      A 12 year old account that has only been active since December 2nd. Since the 2nd, he has voted in 68 AfD discussions. I see this as a bit suspicious given they have used vocabulary that makes me believe they are not a new user. – The Grid (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's not true at all, I have never used vocabulary of the sort! I have been active over the years. I served in the military so you will see long periods of absence in my editing history.I am sorry I could not manage to find the time to edit overseas to keep my account consistently active for your liking. I am now retired so I will be around much much more.Super (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I did not want to drag him into this. He was actually pissed about it and asked me not to ping him. I am interested in religious diploma mills as they seem to be prevalent here. User:力 He had just made some amazing points in the original AfD and sadly I dragged him into this. I also just retired so have much more time on my hands.I got into AfD's after I saw some useful article vanish and I wondered where they went.... Well down the rabbit hole I went.Super (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with what Spartaz is doing, their requests have fully justified rationales and most have closed as delete. I've read stories where porn performers are harassed because people have added their real names to articles. Wikipedia has a duty of care towards BLP subjects, and deleting articles on non-notable individuals is an important part of that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Overwrites with redirects

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

---

@Spartaz: if you want to delete articles, please take them to AfD, and don't just short-circuit the process by just overwriting the article with a redirect, as you have done at Chasey Lain and Constance Money. -- The Anome (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• That would be the redirect for an article deleted at AFD that I put back after an ip posted an unsourced article in its place? As for the second its a valid editorial choice and if you disagree I will take it to AFD after you revert it. Please see WP:BRD. Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You are completely right about the first one; please accept my apologies. I've now re-deleted it, replaced it with your redirect, and protected it, with appropriate comments.

    Regarding the second; yes, please take it to AfD. -- The Anome (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

    • I have done that, the two academic sources for that article turn out to be a single name check in a work reprinted in another so this does not have the implied level of sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Suggesting WP:BOOMERANG

User:Supercopone appeared out of nowhere on December 1 and began posting in a huge number of AfDs, !voting to keep in nearly every single one. While this is not a problem in an of itself, Supercopone's rationales are rarely based in policy. Here are a smattering of Supercopone's posts in AfD: [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]. Rationales like these popping up over and over is obnoxious to people who are genuinely trying to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted, and have the potential to be confusing to the closer. I suggest a topic ban from AfD for User:Supercopone for a limited period of time, at least long enough for them to learn what kinds of rationales are acceptable at AfD and what kinds are not. Mlb96 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• • You seem to vote delete the majority of the time. So I would suggest a topic ban for you as well.Super (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • It's funny you say that, because I was worried that I was voting keep too many times so I started commenting more on AfDs that seemed incredibly obvious deletes to balance it out. But that's besides the point, since you seem to have missed the reason I'm suggesting a topic ban. It's not that you always vote keep, it's that your rationales usually have nothing to do with policy. Mlb96 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Supercopone does need to do better if they are going to keep participating at AFD at the pace they are. Hopefully they can commit to focus more on quality than quantity going forward; if not some community-imposed restriction will be necessary. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User:力 I am taking a break for awhile while I work on learning a bit more. I will actually work to improve articles for awhile before jumping back in to AfD's. That being said, is it your opinion no issue exists at all with the deletion of all these articles?Super (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Since "you vote delete a lot" seems to be a line of attack mounted by the 2 editors in question here, here are some statistics. When one's actions are upheld by a community of peers for the great majority of the time, then that is by definition not biased, has not "lost neutrality and perspective", nor is it a "phobia".

  Myself: 71%: [79]

  Subtropical-man: 18.6% [80]

  Supercopone : 0%, but TBD [81] Has weighed in at 39 AfDs in 3 days, only one has closed so far.

  Spartaz: 83%: [82]

  As for the merits of the boomerang, Supercopone is not off to a great start with the canvassing and the attacks. Subtropical-man has just gone beyond the pale and is a definite support IMO. Zaathras (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting data is presented in your link: Quote: "Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Spartaz: 8187!!!!!. Analyzed the last 250 AfD pages edited by this user. Keep votes: 0 (0.0%). Account of Spartaz is mainly used to delete articles. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 16:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man:, we're skirting close to WP:CIR concerns here. If a person nominates a page for deletion, and in a clear, convincing majority of the time the Wikipedia community agrees with it the nomination, then it was a good nomination. End of discussion. Your personal feelings about the concept of deleting an article are not relevant. ValarianB (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Er until recently, my contribution to afds was closing them which leaves a blank contribution in the tool. More recently I'm clearing out the non notable porn articles so I'm not voting elsewhere much. For fucks sake! I'm following policy here. BLP & N are fundamentals. Why am I expected to justify doing policy based activity against moronic metrics. I'm clearly not getting sanctioned but no one is stopping this drip drip bullshit comment ary aimed at me. It's no wonder good faith editors get driven off the project. Can an admin either stop subtropical-man and supercopone from throwing round these spurious and insulting allegations or close this down. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that admins often seem to be reluctant to take quick, obvious, action, such as closing the original report here. All User:Spartaz has done is to nominate some articles at AfD, as is everyone's right, and most of the discussions have resulted in consensus agreement with that editor's opinion. Anyone who disagrees can simply comment in the discussion, and if they disagree with the assessment of consensus they can go to WP:DRV. Shouldn't this discussion have been closed after two minutes, rather than the two days that it has been left open? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. --JBL (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support afd topic ban and a one-way interaction ban for Subtropical-man preventing him from harassing Spartaz further. ValarianB (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I pinged him. He had already stepped back and I unwittingly drug him back into it all. Yet Spartaz is allowed to carry on his work unchecked even though he admits he wants all the porn Bio's gone because he sees it as advertising. An account that seem to always seem to support him at all cost keeps at it, Spartaz still gets to insult and and taunt other editors and the take away is to ban User:Subtropical-man user from AfDs? You also need to retract you absurd claim of harassment or show proof. Discussion is not harrasment.Super (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

New suspicious nom

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

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk Dirty to Me (film)
• PleaseDoNotBend (talk · contribs)

The above nomination was just made with a blank nomination rationale, and clicking on nom PDNB's userpage, I came upon what seems to be a copy of a true adminstrator's userpage, along with a claim that PDNB is an admin. A lot of small edits and two weeks to get ACU privileges, and likely shooting for EC. Since the AfD was for a porn film, it raised my flags towards this topic (I am not claiming Spartz is socking at all here, and this is likely 100% separate from that! But there seems to be something else fishy in the topic area). Nate • (chatter) 10:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Really?? Are you seriously that incapable of comparing a long term editor's contribution who always makes policy based nomination statements and exclusively on BLPs with a random drive by nominating a smutty film? Its offensive to even link this to me with the faux i'm not suggesting bullshit. Really you are trying to link me and its offensive. And stupid as you have no evidence. What's next? I'm not saying Spartaz was standing on the knoll but... For fucks sake. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

This pretty obviously has no relationship to the subject of this discussion, so, if admin action is needed, it should be in a separate section. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for extension of partial block

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

---

A follow-up to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1078#Easy partial block request. After the previous block expired, that IP hopper has gone back to trying to amplify the Greek heritage of Adèle Exarchopoulos, and (mercifully to a much smaller extent) John Stamos. Could their partial block be extended? – Uanfala (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I reinstated the last partial block for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

EnlightenmentNow1792

• EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs)
• Iraqi Turkmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user is definitely WP:NOTHERE. His words includes nationalist garbage, these silly arguments, you are a complete novice in this field. Also by adding WP:TEXTWALLs, it's so hard to follow his texts. Also want to add that it's an user that knows wp rules very well. It's also a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Beshogur (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's better for administators to have direct evidence rather than having to take your word for it, even though what you cited is correct. The examples they listed come from these diffs: 1 2 3. Panini!^🥪 12:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment you've been deleting reliable sources, so this might end up boomeranging on you. Yet another bad assessment. Sorry. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

you've been deleting reliable sources, so this might end up boomeranging on you So the ones he reverts aren't reliable (like Al Monitor)? Also the reliable source he used might be reliable but has nothing to do with Iraqi Turkmen (we call this WP:OR, thus the article. A strict terminological distinction should be drawn between Turkic, the name of a language family, and Turkish, the name of a language Say me please how this is related to the topic? Adding source to a existed sourced sentence. And how is much like Iranic - had yet to reach beyond academia isn't his own words? Beshogur (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

References

If you bothered to read the talk page, you would see reams of discussion on precisely this topic. Of course it's "my words", I'm not quoting anyone, nor am I saying anything controversial. It shouldn't need a source, but I included one after you questioned it (which you subsequently deleted). Turkish is part of the Turkic language family, and the terms are often confused (and confusing for the layperson) so I thought it essential a clarification was made towards the beginning of the article... much like the source I quoted does. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• This user has made a bit over 200 edits, meaning half of which went towards Iraqi Turkmen and its respective talk page. Over there, the user has been warned of all the reasons stated by the discussion's creator, as well well as POV pushing, by Sseevv, and Austronesier. A455bcd9 is also an active user on the talk page as well. I would like to emphasize a benefit of a doubt here in hopes it leads to a more positive outcome: 1, where they apologize for TEXTWALLing and approve of the outcome, and 2, where they seemingly apologize for a mistake they made. Enlightenment alleges that they have heavily researched this field and created academic papers about it. Panini!^🥪 12:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• Please read the sources, then look at the drive-by reverts Beshogur and Sseevv have made. It should be self-evident who is dedicated to improving the quality of the article and who is "POV pushing". Note: this is the second time Beshogur has created an "incident" on this noticeboard about me [83] without bothering to engage on the Talk page or even state what his objections are. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed that in good will, however you're doing the same. Considering the article is on my watchlist. I can not even follow your edits and textwalls in the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have so much trouble reading my "textwalls" (150-200 words), then you obviously must have a great deal more trouble reading the academic sources I am citing (I have dozens at my disposal, amounting to 10,000+ words, 90% of which reflect the current academic consensus, and 10% of which don't, but I keep for curiosity's sake). So one must ask the question: on what grounds to you object to my edits if you can't read my stated justifications, nor presumably read any of the academic sources I am citing? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

IP racist vandalism

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

---

Too much for me to deal with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:40:1:239:E82F:EA2E:CC7B:76DC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 72 hours. Also Sandy hope you don't mind I changed the header here to something a bit more...not that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No prob … but I thought it would get quick attention (the “Ewww Black people” vandal :) At least I think all their messages were the same … I didn’t check all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

All of those still need to be revision deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

RickinBaltimore, and the clown is back. Could you perhaps block the entire /32 range, or would there be too much collateral damage? Kleinpecan (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ Mitchell. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all who dealt with this! Springee (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a lesson for me … because the IP was still going, I wanted to attract fast attention, but I see if was not wise of me to repeat the vandal’s words in the section heading and edit summmary. I hope there’s not a next time, for me to apply the lesson learned. Thanks, all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Sajaypal007 page hijacking

I wish to file a complaint against User:Sajaypal007, he has hijacked https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lalsot and he is repeatedly vandalizing the outcome of this battle & changing it to Rajput victory when it was nothing of the sort, both sides claimed victory in this battle and multiple credible authorities have stated the result of this battle to be indecisive. Administrator kindly investigate this. A.A Ghatge (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This looks more like a content dispute than behavior. There's no discussion on the article talk page. I would suggest following the advice in dispute resolution. Note - this is caste related. Ravensfire (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what an administrator would do here - You should make an attempt at communication on the talk page before escalating to this noticeboard. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 17:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This fact has been mentioned in the talk page in 2020, the page is still showing incorrect outcome for this battle. The page has been hijacked and edits made with the view to correct it are being removed repeatedly by User:Sajaypal007.

A talk page which neither of you has used. Slywriter (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Let's try this again, @A.A Ghatge:. You need to discuss this on the talk page FIRST. Sajaypal007 has even asked you in his edit summaries to discuss it on the talk page. Nor is it apparent from looking over the article history that Sajaypal007 engaged in vandalism -- the definition of "vandalism" on Wikipedia is not "He's making edits I don't like" -- nor do I see that you informed him that you were taking this to ANI, as you are required to do. Ravenswing 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
• The administrator's noticeboard is for settling problems or disputes that require administrator action or intervention that regular users can't do themselves. This includes stuff like user blocking, page moving, and restricting user rights. A problem like this one can most likely be dealt with via discussing opinions on the article's talk page. If the editor in question refuses to discuss and continues to do so without questioning others, then it becomes disruptive and ANI becomes necessary. Panini!^🥪 17:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I have posted my grievance regarding the result of this battle on Talk page & also discussed what solution can be worked out. I want to reiterate however that the present page is misleading & distorts the facts about this battle. In the interest of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, I really want this to be corrected at the earliest, that is all. Will my posting regarding this on talk page means this will be resolved? Because, I have little experience so far posting on talk pages. A.A Ghatge (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Time you started, then, @A.A Ghatge:. Will your posting there mean that this will be resolved in your favor? No, not necessarily. @Sajaypal007: posted versions supported by sources -- this is not a clearcut "you're right and everyone else is wrong" situation -- and the way we decide how the article will look is through consensus. A catchphrase of mine is that the nature of a consensus-driven effort is that sometimes you're going to be on the wrong side of consensus, in which case it's incumbent on you to lose gracefully and accept the result. Ravenswing 02:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please define consensus. Because, I have with me multiple authoritative sources that back up my edit. Also @Sajaypal007: has only posted version from the Rajput account of the battle, Maratha accounts claim that they were victorious that day. I ask you is it fair to state the result of a battle as a victory for one side when multiple authoritative sources state that both sides claimed victory and the result was actually Indecisive. I request you to go through my edit, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Lalsot&oldid=1058284846 to judge for yourself if I was being disruptive here. I did no such thing except faithfully report the result of the battle as it has been reported by several authoritative sources. This disruptive editing charge made by Sajaypal007 lacks merit and is grossly unfair to me.

This is "Brazilian aardvarks" in the making all over again IMO. What I really wanted to know is will my concern be taken up at all by an impartial editor. I see that @115.96.103.214: seems to have raised the same issue as me in the talk page a year back, yet no action. A.A Ghatge (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Dilbaggg page vandalism due to personal views/beliefs

User vandalising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_Era despite users sourcing and providing accurate reference, due to personal bias and fandom of wrestler named Stone Cold Steve Austin, removes sourced and factual data with WP:NOR and WP:Fancruft, which violates [{WP:RS]] and WP:V guidelines.

Everything users added were sourced, user used zero source to justification numerous vandalism instances, proceeded to act belligerent to me and other users as seen on his talk page. User is disruptive to community. Vandalises the article then claims other users vandalise. my contributions were heavy to this article and stood, until user vandalized page.

Every edit was verified and sourced, despite claiming otherwise, yet user edits verified information with unverified personal views. Is a disruptive user awith numerous instances of disruptive editing.

RLMStern (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

It is RLMStern doing that as you may see by his edit history, on articles such as Attitude Era and WrestleMania 18 where he has added numerous unsourced contents, and also removing WP:RS contents. I merely told him to cite WP:RS, but he doesn't do that and keeps adding his unsourced contents and erasing what is considered WP:PW/RS such as Bleacher report, 411Mania. This user registered in October, so I hope he familiarizes with guidelines of [{WP:NOR]], WP:RS before making WP:Fancruft edits worshipping The Rock with no WP:RS to back up most of what he has edited as per his edit history shows. And it is solely to this user I merely brought up the guidelines, check our revision history and see yourself. He just copy-pasted the exact notification I gave him regarding those policies in his talk page, Its annoying when new users refuse to read the guidelines. I was gonna seek AIV after him violated the third warn of erasing WP:RS contents and adding unsourced contents persistantly, but since its already here, let it be dealt with Neutralilly. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

This is false, I have provided accurate sources in line with Wikipedia Policy and WP:RS.

User:Dilbaggg removed factual data, historical events and archival news with no factual referencing, only citing personal view of someone being a bigger star, as grounds to remove data and references that challenge his beliefs. The edits stood and were verified factual. User removed data because "Austin is bigger star", with absolutely zero references, data or numbers which is WP:Fancruft and WP:V, I added factual data and corrected false data and refuted inaccuracies by sourcing actual verified references which you can check. There was no bias on my behalf, only written according to documented facts.

The removal of the facts, references, news and other data for personal views while also belligerent towards me and other contributors of the article. My edits were verified via accurate referencing and expanded upon by many users. You can vet my edits to verify data and debate the facts if you wish.

RLMStern (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Again I added actual WP:PW/RS from Bleacher Report and 411Mania to support my edits, actually, those were the past versions before you touched the articles with unreferenced edits and removed the WP:RS. Also its not just me, another senior decade-long user reverted your edit this time. You are constantly doing WP:EW at this point. Anyway the admins can check Attitude Era, WrestleMania 18 and our revision history themselves, and see. Hope it is explained to you that we must always use WP:RS. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You accuse Dilbaggg of a supposed "fandom of Stone Cold", and yet you insert claims like The Rock was the biggest star and draw of the Attitude era, which appear to be WP:OR. This is a content dispute, and not worthy of ANI. Can you take this to the article talk page, please. — Czello 18:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• OP Blocked for 48h after reverting again for a 4th time. Anyone may revert their latest addition. I note their version of the article strips every single source out of the "Chyna" section, so their claims of "accurate referencing" are obviously untrue. Black Kite (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes the user seems to have already been blocked for WP:EW. I dont want to breach that rule so I cant revert it again today, but another user with decade long experience also reverted his edit. In reality, I restored the article the way it was before he touched it, and it was him removing WP:PW/RS from Bleacher report, 411Mania, etc. Anyway I am done here, and sorry this content dispute wasted Admin's valuable time, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

IP Vandalism on my talk page

An IP user was harassing me on my talk page a few days ago till the time that IP user was blocked on my talk page by and administrator. Today again a new IP user sent me a message by the same way in which that blocked IP user was sending. That IP user was harassing one more editor Manali Jain on her talk page by abusing her with cheap abusive words from Hindi language. I request you to limit my talk page messaging range to autoconfirmed or extended confirmed users. As I feel IPs stalk me. Pri2000 (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Pri2000

@Pri2000: There's only been once instance in the last three days, so I think it would be premature at this point to protect your page. I do have it on my watchlist, however, and can protect it if the disruption intensifies.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

They came back. I put a week of semi-protection on the talk page. Hopefully that is long enough for them to find something else to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Difficult range of IPs to block -- longterm disruption in hip-hop music

• Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Youngstown music vandal

I have been cleaning up after a persistent vandal from the Great Lakes area of the US. I think of them as the Deltron 3030 vandal, because they keep returning to the articles Deltron 3030 and Deltron 3030 (album). The person makes trivial changes in the order that credits are displayed, changing away from official credits.[84] They also change to wrong release dates.[85] The problems they caused escalated in June 2016 in the form of the Youngstown, Ohio, IP Special:Contributions/173.91.192.164—the IP was blocked eight times, most recently for five years.

Recent activity of the same type has been seen from Ohio, Michigan and the Greater Chicago area. The connection to Youngstown continues with IP Special:Contributions/173.91.201.210 from 11 days ago. The Chicago IP range Special:Contributions/172.58.160.0/21 has a great deal of this vandal's work, plus a very few good-faith users. Here's a list of IPs active in the last week.

• 172.58.160.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.165 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.207 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.61 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.201 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.90 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.14 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.160.176 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

How can we focus a rangeblock on this person with minimal collateral? Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/172.58.160.0/24 for three months. That range previously had a one-month block that expired recently. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Previously blocked IP-hopping edit warrior is back

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

---

A little while ago, I made a post here about an IP-hopping edit warrior who exclusively edits articles about a company called Harman International Industries. This user either removes mention that this company is a subsidiary of Samsung, or removes mention that Samsung is a South Korean company. This editor was blocked, and a few days ago I reverted a few edits left over by this user. These edits were all undone by a new IP.

Said IP is: 2409:4040:E00:3960:FFA5:FA90:3810:7BFC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

JellyMan9001 (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the /64 range. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Johnpacklambert is violating his topic ban and unblock conditions

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

---

Johnpacklambert was indef blocked following a long discussion here in August. He was unblocked soon after with another long discussion following here to discuss unblock conditions. The discussion was closed with the following statement of Johnpacklambert's topic ban Johnpacklambert is indefinitely topic-banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed.

On October 29, Johnpacklambert posted something on his talk page about two officials of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Clark Gilbert and Horacio A. Tenorio. He was told "you shouldn't be worrying about the contents of articles about Mormons at all" (italics in original) and "You shouldn't even be making suggestions for content on articles dealing with religious figures or even religion. The topic ban was broad". Despite these reminders that discussing religious figures on his talk page was a violation of his topic ban (and knowing that figures associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been a longstanding concern about his editing), Johnpacklambert started a new discussion on his talk page a couple of days ago. Both of the people discussed (Samuel E. Waldron and Steven D. Bennion) are religious figures.

Johnpacklambert's indef block was lifted with the understanding that he would follow conditions set by the community. The terms of his topic ban are quite clear and he was warned the first time he tested them on his talk page. Since he has violated his unblock conditions, his indef block should be reapplied. Non Fungible Tolkien (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

No one could possibly have foreseen that coming! Truly, a shot from left field! 47.189.202.236 (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Topic ban violations need enforcement of the ban, not swept under the rug. EnPassant♟♙ (talk)

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

Johnpacklambert is violating his topic ban and unblock conditions reported by a user in good standing

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

---

The OP is blocked, now we've moved on from that. How do we get the very obvious topic ban violation dealt with? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree this should be dealt with, in the usual manner TBAN violations are dealt with. I believe if an arsonist sets a fire and then reports it to the fire department, it's best for everyone if the fire department nevertheless responds. Levivich 22:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If a user in good standing wants to make a report they should do that. As it stands, per WP:BMB this section should have just been removed and there is no complaint to action. nableezy - 22:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violations don't require a complaint from a user in good standing to be enforced. This is a clear violation of the topic ban and topic bans are enforced strictly. Regardless EnPassant seems to be in good standing and has made their desire for enforcement clear. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Then any admin can enforce it. But this section was archived as being started by a sockpuppet, and it should be discarded entirely. And accepting responsibility applies to edits in the mainspace, you cant accept responsibility for another user's comments. If User:EnPassant wanted to make a section about this, restoring something from an obvious sockpuppet is not the way to do that. nableezy - 00:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Huh. His talk page is pretty weird, isn't it? What does he think it is, an editorial column? Is he expecting lurkers to slap their foreheads, cry out that he's right, and run off to edit according to his bidding? Ravenswing 00:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Why hasn't the OP's talk page access been revoked yet? Enough time has been wasted on them. Regardless of whether the complaint here has merit, it just doesn't sit right with me to reward a flagrant sockpuppet who created a throwaway account in order to pull off a blatant hitjob. Also, their claim that they have not edited for quite some time rings false to me. Clearly they were stalking JPL's edits in hope of an opportunity to screw him over. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week for topic ban violation. To enforce the decision of the community to topic ban this user from the topic of religious figures[86] I have made a 1 week block for a topic ban violation. I have made the block short as this is the first enforcement of this topic ban.

The nature of the report is less than ideal but the facts speak for themselves. The user abusing multiple accounts has been indefinitely blocked and I am about to deny their unblock request. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Negative ethnic stereotyping by Loew Galitz

User:Loew Galitz posted “keeping in mind that some modern Ukrainians are on the quest to rewrite their history”[87] in a comment that is not compatible with WP:Assume good faith, and encourages a WP:Battleground atmosphere on national or ethnic grounds, and doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion (there was immediately an unproductive “me too” comment by another editor). I asked him to strike or delete, but he only moderated the statement by adding “some modern Ukrainians.”[88] I would like this kind of labelling and stereotyping to be discouraged before it creates a pervasive hostile atmosphere.

The article is subject to discretionary sanctions (Eastern Europe and the Balkans) and the user is aware. —Michael Z. 17:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I apologized for overgeneralization when typed without much thinkng and upon request I gave an explanation, copyinjg it here ffor convenience:

I googled "ukrainian point of view"+wikipedia, and lo:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/News_and_notes . "MFA Launches Ambitious Campaign To Enrich Wikipedia with Unbiased Information On Ukraine and the World" - Well, from what I know, "Unbiased Information On Ukraine" includes the statement that Stepan Bandera is a hero of Ukraine an not a Nazi collaborator and antiSemite.

These are rock-hard facts about the agenda of Ukrainian government,<ref>Nazis Triumph Over Communists in Ukraine - Bloomberg : "Rewriting history to glorify nationalists who collaborated with ... It's goodbye Lenin, hello Nazi collaborators in Ukraine these days."<ref>, not some kind of malicious "stereotyping". I further gave examples that we did discuss Wikipedia bias-pushing based on ethnic grounds: I am talking the case of Israel and the case or croatian wikipedia. Loew Galitz (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, the very "Eastern Europe" problem AFAIK started when a bunch of Polish wikipedians conspired off-wiki to "righten the wrong". Meaning there is nothing unusual to have and to discus and to counter any ethnic based bias. Oh, and how could I forget about Russian propaganda carefully watched out in Wikipedia. Loew Galitz (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

doesn’t contribute anything useful to the discussion Yes it does. Bearing in mind the position of Ukrainian govt and the fact the article in question is an example of an explicit rewriting Ukrainian history, my statement was a fair warning. In fact, I browsed other contributions of the author of the weird article in question, and you know what? This guy tried to edit "Steve Wozniak" with the claim that Wozniak was Ukrainian! I can only imagine what may happen in less watched articles. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The article was created by a Ukrainian, and was nominated for deletion by a Ukrainian. And the Ukrainian govt initiative to enrich Wikipedia with Ukraine-related topics doesn't necessarily mean it will be (or is being) done in a biased, non-neutral way. Neither does it mean that the article author is acting on behalf of that government. These are your insinuations all the way.--Piramidion 04:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

1Kwords (A Thousand Words)

1Kwords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I believe that 1Kwords has a longterm POV problem where they make edits that suggest that immigrants to Europe (esp from Africa and Middle East) are somehow more criminal. The tipping point for me was Somalis in Denmark, which 1Kwords has turned into somewhat of an WP:ATTACK page against the racial minority, but several users have been warning 1Kwords for years (dating back to 2019) about their POV issues. Given that these warnings haven't helped, I would request 1Kwords be topic banned from immigration to Europe, broadly construed.

Examples of prior POV-pushing and warnings:

• As mentioned, 1Kwords turned Somalis in Denmark into an entirely negative article about the racial minority. Even the education section portrays them negatively. See these comments by Jpgordon[89] and Økonom[90].
• 1Kwords exhibits WP:COATRACK behavior that tries to portray immigrants negatiely at every turn. For example, on an article about Identity fraud they inserted content about "asylum seeker from Morocco was arrested for having kicked a 16-year-old man in the head". What does kicking a man in the head have to do with identity fraud?
• Horse Eye's Back said that 1Kwords additions "go out of their way to highlight racial aspects of things that an NPOV article just wouldn’t highlight or feature" and gave evidence of that across several articles.
• Another insertion that shows prejudice: "Somalis use knife violence already as youngsters"[91]
• What's worse is that 1Kwords removes content that would show immigrants in a non-violent or positive light. For example, they removed the image of a Somali-Swedish athlete[92] and of a journalist[93] from Somalis in Sweden. See the whole discussion where they give flimsy reasons to exclude the images.
• Another example of tenditiousness regarding images is when they prevented the correction of the y-axis of a graph in order to exaggerate certain negative facts about immigrants, see this discussion.
• Edit-warred[94][95] to remove reliably sourced content that seeks to explain why crime among immigrants might be higher than average. See this discussion with Nil Einne and Snooganssnoogans.
• Repeatedly misrepresented sources at Uppsala University, see this discussion with Bonadea.
• On one hand they say the Swedish Institute is not a reliable source (to remove nuanced claims on immigration to Sweden). On the other hand they thought this source is reliable (addition).
• Said Eritrean Christians in Sweden are "regime sympathizers".
• Edit-warring at Multiculturalism: [96][97][98]
• WP:POINT-y behavior[99] during a discussion with Drmies
• Warned of WP:tendentious editing and POV-pushing at Islam in Sweden by Kashmiri.

VR _talk 01:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. This all came to my attention after another editor was blocked for edit warring in the course of removing the obnoxious material (which 1Kwords reverted as "vandalism", which it certainly was not). Thank you VR for collating all this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Having looked even more at the behavior described below, I support an indef block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. He has repeatedly been told to stop using primary sources and statistics for WP:OR / WP:SYNTH purposes in articles like these, yet every time one article gets cleaned up and he finds himself hitting a consensus telling him to stop, he simply resumes elsewhere. I would suggest that the topic ban cover the intersection of ethnicity and crime as well, which seems to be at the crux of a lot of the problematic edits. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I find 1Kwords's behavior in this topic area highly disruptive. Recently, the editor scrubbed RS content (including peer-reviewed studies in prominent criminology journals) from Immigration to Sweden because the editor claimed a single source (which conveniently covered immigrants in a worse light than the other sources) was superior to all the other sources[100][101] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support: topic ban (and indef ban, per below). Good grief -- I was especially taken by his bizarre assertion that the Swedish Institute wasn't reliable because it isn't an academic institution. Indeed, it isn't: it's a government agency. Ravenswing 05:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban. The attempt at using Ålands Nyheter as a citation while trying to remove actual RSes already shows their motives in editing those articles. For reference, Google Translate informs me that their recent articles include "The Riksdag receives hundreds of millions from the EU to exchange Finns for foreigners in step with the extermination of the people" and "New report shows? the depopulation of the archipelago and the extermination of the people on Åland" among other anti-vax nonsense. Their NPOV-ness should be obvious, yet they still tried to use it to push their POV. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• I'll support a topic ban if it's what others want, but for myself I recommend an indefinite block. This stuff is all the user does. It's apparently what they're here for. A topic ban would be helpful too, but carries the risk of boundary-testing, gray-zone editing, and general waste of everybody's time. As an example of the user testing boundaries, see the discussion of www.alandsnyheter.com here, where 1Kwords defends their use of it as a source. 1Kwords says, in response to Drmies' accusation that they were using an obviously biased website as if it were a reliable source, that "Actually I didn't know that - Town/area Nyheter is what dozens of publications are called in Scandinavia and it's impossible to know them all" (original italics). I call bullshit. Actually merely looking up www.alandsnyheter.com, it takes a Swedish speaker a couple of minutes to see that it's an outlet which protests, in coarse Trumpian terms, the government's requirement of vaccine passports for restaurants, recommends the use of Hydrocloriquine and Ivermectin for Covid 19, promotes a replacement theory for Finland, etc, etc. There is honestly no way of missing that it's a far-right, conspiracy-theory-promoting, immigrant-bashing outlet, if you speak the language, as 1Kwords does. So do I. Bishonen | tålk 11:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC).
• I would also support a topic block, but I recommend an indefblock, per Bishonen. Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of editing activity. -- The Anome (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Indef block or anything lesser if we must. This is bigger than this one topic. We aren't a soapbox for any political views. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban as an appropriate sanction. Even though some partisan-WP:POVPUSHing is likely it doesn't warrant indefinite ban. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• VR, thank you for your good work here. I support a topic ban, at the very least. And based on some of our conversations, I think an indef block is reasonable as well--see their responses in a discussion on reliable sources, and this weird conversation riddled with ... well, riddles/misunderstandings/word twists. When you combine an obvious POV with a lack of discernment in what are and are not reliable sources, you have a toxic mix. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, oppose indef. We don't know if 1K will repeat the behavior in other topics. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

JKLlamera

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

I want to raise an issue about this user, because as of the moment, the user is still inserting files in some articles regarding on local elections in Philippines that were tagged as "derivative work" in Wikimedia Commons, and also he is keeping on posting and creating unsourced pages here. I hope that the issue will be resolved. You can refer to his contributions for more details. Also, please check if User:JKLlamera and User:jkllamera18 are owned by one Wikipedia user. Thanks. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

DSMN-IHSAGT

DSMN-IHSAGT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is quite obviously a sockpuppet of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Edit-warring, snarky edit summaries and general hostility (for example, DSMN's first edit was a rant on another user's talk page: "Are you still making errors like this, or have you learned how to write properly in the meantime?").

Both DSMN and 51.6.138.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) wrote two uncannily similar threads on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) about using edit filters for "quality control", first on 22 November and second on 6 December:

• Special:PermanentLink/1056615416 § Prevent basic errors getting into articles
• Special:PermanentLink/1059080508 §§ Quality control​ and Quality control mechanism

Kleinpecan (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that striving for higher quality is quite normal. But you find it so suspicious that someone would want to improve Wikipedia, that you file some kind of report? What are you seeking from this? DSMN-IHSAGT (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Of related concern is this edit war Names_of_European_cities_in_different_languages_(U–Z) which also shows problematic edit summaries by DSMN-IHSAGT. Slywriter (talk) 12:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the concern there is that User:Chicdat is aggressively and ridiculously restoring grammar, style and factual errors to the article. DSMN-IHSAGT (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I think the concern there is that you're both at almost fifty reverts each in the last 24 hours on that article alone--the most recent 100 edits are almost entirely back and forth reversions. Leaving the clear civility issues aside, that alone is cause for action to prevent further disruption. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      • My edits were not controversial in any way. I explained them, and there is no rational objection to them. Quite why this user has taken it upon themselves to revert such simple common-sense improvements, I cannot imagine. DSMN-IHSAGT (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Without examining anything any further I've blocked both DSMN-IHSAGT and Chicdat for 36 hours for edit warring and, in the former's case, also for incivility in edit summaries. I have no idea why this was brought to my talk page, but it was. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we block-conflicted – I have indeffed DSMN-IHSAGT for being either LTA/BKFIP or a rather convincing impersonator. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Back and forth edit-warring with an LTA over grammar for 100 edits in a row is a spectacular waste of time, disrupts watchlists, and clogs up the article history, but I wonder if Chicdat's block for edit warring is needed at this point. Reverting edits by banned users is explicitly exempt from the edit warring policy and there was never any doubt that this was BKFIP. Again, the revert war was totally unnecessary and should be avoided in the future for everyone's sake but from the start Chicdat (correctly) believed he was reverting ban evasion. DanCherek (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support provided they can show understanding of why this wasn't the best way to handle. Slywriter (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting edits made by sockpuppets is one of the standard edit warring exemptions, see WP:3RRNO point 3. Given that the account is obviously the BKFIP they shouldn't have been blocked. It would have been better to wait for the account to be blocked before reverting them though. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked both parties for edit warring that was apparently still continuing before investigating. I wasn't familiar with BKFIP (indeed the message Chicdat left on my talkpage "DSMN-IHSAGT (talk · contribs) - BKFIP." would likely have been impenetrable without the context of later messages and this thread) and neither version of the article is obviously better or worse than the other.

If reverting a vandal isn't working then the correct course of action is not to continue reverting but to ask for admin help. I note that Chicdat has a topic ban from project-space but reporting ongoing vandalism is an obvious BANEX case, and talk pages are also a thing. If they acknowledge they understand this and wont do it again should they find themselves in a similar situation then I will be happy to unblock or for any other admin to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Chicdat was aware of this discussion or not, but I've left a note on their talk page just now to make sure. I'm going to be offline for a bit so please keep an eye out for any comments they wish to make. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Reporting User:Deancarmeli

I am currently changing over the code due to Template:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches being in holding having been deleted at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 November 14#Template:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches after admin's Primefac close. Yet Deancarmeli just reverted my work on this. This is highly disruptive and he seems to be applying his ownership and aggressive nature on it. Let alone he got me blocked for a day a while back. I consider this user detrimental to the project. Can an admin please sort this guy out as I am fed-up with this. Govvy (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Replacement finished, template deleted. Primefac (talk) 12:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As can be seen in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive443 § User:Govvy reported by User:Deancarmeli (Result: Blocked), user Govvy has already been previously blocked for these exact same issue. I've urged them to open a talk page discussion before returning to this kind of an edit war, but it seems my previous efforts were to no avail. Please, try discussing edits in the future. These wars aren't productive. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you on about, Primefac just deleted that template and reverted to the edits I was implementing. Seriously, no edit-war is taking place, you're just rolling around in a can of worms if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli, I am genuinely curious, why do you feel that you are absolutely in the right about this one? The template was discussed at TFD, the consensus there was to delete the template (provided the information was properly included in the articles to avoid loss of information), and yet you proceeded to continually revert and restore the template use. I am genuinely surprised to see that Govvy was blocked as a result of that AN3 report (with a courtesy ping to EdJohnston who did the blocking). Primefac (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: There is the issue of the timeline, you see. While you were reverting edits and removing existing templates, Primefac has substituted a deleted one. There is a difference.
As for @Primefac: Your comment seems more like a statement than a question arising from genuine curiosity, but I'll play along. The main issue with Govvy's edits was undiscussed reversions, this being one of topics they were reverting. I have accepted that Template:2021–22 Toto Cup Al matches was voted to be deleted. The process of reverting multiple edits among multiple pages by Govvy, without discussion and with some bad language, was the main issue. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I still don't understand, whats the timeline! goto to do with removing a template that was closed as delete!? Govvy (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - to be honest, neither Govvy nor Deancarmeli come out of this looking particularly good. @Deancarmeli: this,[102] is clearly a disruptive edit. You reinstated a deleted template in place of the version that had been substituted in its place, making the page have an irrelevant red link instead of a proper table (and I was briefly confused by this myself - I thought you had been simply reinstating the table itself, meaning I mistakenly restored your version but then I self-reverted when I realised you'd in fact swapped the substed table for the now-deleted template). As for Govvy, a look at the original ANI report shows that they were not only blocked for edit warring but also following a warning for using personal attacks, something they seem to have doubled down on with the comment above accusing Deancarmeli of "applying his ownership and aggressive nature on it" while an admin to "sort this guy out" and blaming Deancarmeli for a block made by an uninvolved admin. At root this is a content dispute and I suggest both parties dial down the WP:BATTLEGROUND rhetoric. Instead of attacking each other, please work together to find a compromise or seek a third opinion on any outstanding disputes on the layout of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: Just saying, My edit was at 14:21 and the template was deleted at 14:33. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I have no interest in what people see as the past here, all I am interested in is removing a template that was selected as delete. Hence, all I am trying to do is general maintenance as far as I am concerned. Deancarmeli is the one here who came along and decided to reinstate his template even know it was classed as delete. This too me is disruptive, hence my post here. Primefac, went and deleted the template and reinstated the edits I did. So... what do we have left after that. An editor who re-instated general maintenance editing? I am neither looking for a battleground nor wanting an edit-war. I never posted to the edit-war board. I fail too see why I should be punished for trying to do what I call wiki-maintenance. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Just take the fact that what you might find as "general maintenance" might not be seen as such by other editors who have previously edited an article. For that reason, we have the talk pages. Try to use them. Open up a discussion about you ideas. Give a chance to a collective editing process. That is all you were asked at the previous time. That, and a cleaner language. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I truly fail to see what you're getting at, your template was deleted at discussion, I am removing it. Why on earth do I need to post that to a talk page? Govvy (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias / conflict of interest User:Joshua Jonathan

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

---

It has come to my attention that User:Joshua Jonathan may be acting against NPOV and have a conflict of interest in articles regarding Hinduism, specifically Advaita Vedanta. I have examples of this user being uncomprimising regarding these matters. It worth pointing out this users main interest is Buddhism per his user page [103].

This user seems to think because this user has a understanding of both Buddhism and Hinduism he can make comparative edits, that only seem for example to affect "Hindu" topics. For example, I have had drawn out discussions with this user on the Talk page about Hindu icon Adi Shankara[104], [105][106] after this user blocked this user permanently [107]. After blocking this user, Joshua Jonathan must of thought he could act unimpeded but I was there to address it, which only then it was subsequently changed. This user, for someone that is supposed to be acting in neutrality and in sensitive matters per wiki rules, changed Adi Shankaras religon to "Shaivism"[108] which shows the unawareness and lack of sensivity when dealing with anothers religon. (for the record Adi Shankara is most definitley not a Shaivite.) Almost whenever this user works on a article within the scope of Advaita, the user makes comparions to Buddhism. Its worth noting this user has no interest in promoting articles to GA status[109], so why is this is so invested in topics like these, if not to improve it to wikipedia standard? The reason why I am finally reporting this user is because of the article Advaita Vedanta where this user is acting in a WP:OWN way, against Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and against Wikipedia:Good lede trying to making the lead confusing. This user does good work on other topics, but his lack of senstivity and unawareness makes me think this user is acting in a more meticulous, cunning way. I personally believe this user is a Buddhist trying to discredit Advaita and by proxy Hindusim by insuating that Advaita and Hinduism by proxy is "influenced" or takes "influence" from Buddhism. Both religons strongly dispute this. What this user will do in rebuttal is confuse with excess amount of information that the user with a problem will be discouraged and dissuaded. This user abuses wikipedia warning templates in almost dogmatic way, making sure this user can act unimpeded. I received my first block (albeit a ban from the Adi Shankara page for a day) and my only goal is to improve wikipedia by elevating article to GA status. This user may be great dealing with ips on other Indian topics like hindu/buddhist empires, but when it comes to religon and philosophy, its hard NOT to see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view being breached. Like I said from the start, this users main interest is Buddhism. I suggest a topic ban or article ban so people can actually edit the article without being reverted. JJNito197 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs of WP:NPOV violating edits and / or edit warring to insert a POV? Because, just a reminder, a Wikipedia editor doesn't have any requirement to be neutral. WP:NPOV applies to the articles. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course, but this simply supports why I am making this report. The only reason I am reporting this user is because nothing would happen otherwise. JJNito197 (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So... that would be a no then - you don't have any diffs of actual disruptive editing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Its deeper than a few edits, its an issue that goes beyond a edit or two. Its hard to pin point diffs anyway when the user edits 50 at a time. See the Advaita vedanta page. JJNito197 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see a very brief exchange on the talk page of Talk:Advaita Vedanta, and two reverts. I don't see how this calls for administrator action. If there's is a NPOV issue, then WP:RFN is the right venue for getting wider community attention. –Austronesier (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take it there. JJNito197 (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Going to be honest these look like improvements to the article to me and there's no evidence of edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for going skin deep, have taken it to the specific forum per advice. JJNito197 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Can someone close this please, I didn't realise the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard existed. Sorry JJNito197 (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User page full of questionable stuff.

Hi, this is NOT urgent at all, user is recently inactive. But after proposing deletion for two pretty inapporpriate files on Commons, I checked the uploader in en-WP. How come that user:Ui Neil Mahmuod Elmontaser Cidi Almasri Sandage was not yet blocked for repeated vandalism, and for some pretty outlandish conspiracy theory stuff he posted on his user page? Or at least, kept on a watchlist? Some bad edits lasted for months, and though some few seem actually okay, I can't AGF in this case, just from a glance at the profile. As witnesses outside of his sandbox and user page, I present the militant pope, the women absorbing semen, Hillary Clinton and the bottom 50% iQ. --Enyavar (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't see this user ever making productive edits (the genetics stuff is, obviously, pure nonsense). It's all conspiracy theory word salad, including the twitter account they link on their user page.Citing (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, obnoxiousness deleted. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)