Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

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.

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 [4][5][6] 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)

"rude, hostile, arrogant, and uncollaborative" I am uncollaborative with people who personally insult me, which is the only thing you are doing. They are a conspiracy theorist who thinks a cabal of editors is conspiring to suppress them on the talk page, and they have personally insulted myself and others who they believe to be part of this cabal. I never once insulted them personally, only calling a claim of theirs dumb, while they have called me personally all kinds of names, and now so have you. Bill Williams 02:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bill, I had not even previously interacted with you when you started with that, so please cut out the bullshit and lies. You might wish to recall that this is an entire thread on your misconduct and misbehavior in multiple locations, as reported by multiple independent users. In this thread, rather than offer any kind of explanation or apology for why you have repeatedly behaved in such a rude, hostile, arrogant, and uncollaborative fashion so as to lead your fellow editors to open an administrative thread regarding your misconduct (not to mention earning yourself a politics topic ban which you apparently ignore,) you continue to display the selfsame behavior here. Perhaps you should think on that. 108.30.187.155 (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Previous IP here...I insist on having the WP:LASTWORD here. Please be kind to others. Also, it seems some of you may need to be kinder to yourselves. 2600:1012:B065:F8DB:31E4:61E0:EE11:128B (talk) 05:14, 8 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, ([7], [8]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([9]). 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: [10] ([11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
  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 [19]. 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)
• Support, per all above. BD2412 T 22:31, 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: [[20]]. I reverted them with an explanation here [[21]], 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: [[22]]).

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 [[23]].

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 [[24]]). 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)

Hello @XOR'easter: and @The Blade of the Northern Lights:. I'm afraid yet another SPA (and possible sock/meatpuppet?) has again just made a similar unsourced exit to the page, here: [[25]]. Skllagyook (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:CANVASSING & WP:SQS by Cornerstonepicker

Canvassing

User:Cornerstonepicker is canvassing on this RfC [26] 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. [27] [28]

• Previous canvassing on Nicki Minaj: [29] [30] [31] [32]
• Previous canvassing on Cardi B: [33] [34] [35] [36]

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". [37]

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, [38] only to be again reverted immediately by Cornerstonepicker the next day telling me to "go on the talk page." [39] 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. [40] However, that was also reverted by him with another edit summary telling me to use the talk page. [41] and revert all of my changes. Other editors have noticed this stonewalling pattern as well. [42]

Here's another example. I suggested this change on the talk page to merge two redundant sentences in the lead per MOS:REDUNDANCY. [43] 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. [44] 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. [45] 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. [46] 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. [47] 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. [48] Binksternet also voted in support of Cornerstonepicker's July RfC. [49] 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? [50] 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. [51] 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. [52]. 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. [53] 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)

@Cornerstonepicker: You're citing previous talk page discussions from several months ago as the reason why people are not allowed to make policy-based improvements to the lead? (such as merging redundant sentences, adding more detail to albums, etc.) Frankly, that seems to be status quo stonewalling. Also, "overstuffing" doesn't make sense given that your lead has a wordcount of 546 and the improved more compact lead has a wordcount of 552. (I used wordcounter.net) That is a wordcount difference of six words. shanghai.^{talk to me} 20:31, 8 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)

    • who I don't interact with But you have interacted with the editors you are pinging to vote on your RfCs. [54] [55]
    • so that the talk page isn't a ghosttown That's what WP:FRS is for, to invite activity from unbiased editors to vote on RfCs. I recently hosted an RfC on the same article without "inviting" specific editors to comment on it, and it received plenty of activity receiving comments from 14 different editors. The main issue here is that you are pinging editors who have a history of similar opinions with you and whom you've interacted with to comment in RfCs that, by design, already work without needing to "invite" anyone. That is WP:CANVASSING.
    • they don't have to agree with me The editors you usually ping have a history of doing such. shanghai.^{talk to me} 20:53, 8 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 [56] 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[57]. 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. [58] 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: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]. 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%: [65]

  Subtropical-man: 18.6% [66]

  Supercopone : 0%, but TBD [67] Has weighed in at 39 AfDs in 3 days, only one has closed so far.

  Spartaz: 83%: [68]

  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)

That data is not correct and leaves out a lot.Super (talk) 22:18, 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)

More unfounded allegations and personal attacks. Please provide diffs for your claims about me or withdraw. Honestly, why we tolerate this kind of abuse and harassment?. Its shameful that good faith editors can be abused like this with no consequences for the abuser. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have summoned him to the afd, yes, but since then that user had chosen to double- and tripledown at every opportunity to slur and harass (the numerous examples of such are linked to by other editors, and can also be found in tis very ANI) an admin with whom he seems to have a philosophical disagreement with on deleting articles. I used to take part in deletion discussions more, but found it to be a drags after awhile but that is just my preference. I also see no insults levied by Spartaz anywhere. ValarianB (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• As user:Supercopone mentioned, it was a one-time issue. I have not had contact with the user Spartaz for few years. In 5 December 2021 I was asked to speak in this topic, all this. I see that there is no consensus to topicban for Spartaz, ok - I respect this decision. As I mentioned (in 5 December, and later also) - please do not ping me on pornography topic! I do not plan to edit in pornographic topic, I abandoned this topic a long time ago. And I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. I Ask, to Spartaz did not contact me too. For me, the topic is finished. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support any action to stop this disruption, and generally urging everyone to raise the bar of tolerance for incivility (especially but not only at AFDs). I would have liked for this to have been dealt with via an indef block from the first uninvolved admin who saw it, as that would have saved other editors time. Editors who personally attack other editors should be given like one warning and then an indef, and let them make an unblock request that shows they can use this website without abusing other users of the website. Levivich 18:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from AfDs and a one-way interaction ban for Subtropical-man to prevent them harassing Spartaz. This has gone on long enough, and they have shown an intractable need to attack Spartaz over valid AfD activity. Considering Supercapone's comments above attacking Spartaz, I would not oppose a one-way interaction ban against them as well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose to this. I have not had contact with the user Spartaz for few years. As user:Supercopone mentioned and I mentioned above, it was a one-time issue. In 5 December 2021 I was asked to speak in this topic, all this... and I regret that I agreed. I see that there is no consensus to topicban for Spartaz, ok - I respect this decision (I wrote about it above). I do not plan to edit in pornographic topic, I abandoned this topic a long time ago. And I do not plan to contact with Spartaz, I suffered enough through him and I wasted a very lot of time to discussion with him. If there is to be a ban to contact, it is only two-way. There cannot be a situation that Spartaz will attack me and I will not have a chance to answer. I think that I and Spartaz do not feel like contacting - of our own free will. No orders or prohibitions are needed here. However, if someone wants to impose interaction ban, I demand two-way option, because I still feel threatened and will feel threatened later. Besides, I don't want him to contact me. However, I believe that we have both learned a lesson and we will avoid each other - of our own free will. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Boomerangs are nothing more than retaliatory behavior for reporting someone. The fact not one person even looked into this other than saying "its ok to delete as much as possible" and "he's a long time editor and admin." How about one admin take it upon themselves and look into this? The level of clearing pornography bios from Wikipedia is astounding [69] If someone doesn't see this level of deletion as destructive then there is not hope to change anyones mind on this subject. I have been back throughany of these and many should have been keep based on standard notability alone. Except he uses wording to take makes it seem as if no pron bios should exist. Please just take a look someone.Super (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I had a look, and I agree with many others above, i.e. it is very clear that your persistent meritless haranguing of Spartaz needs to stop right now. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Or, perhaps, people have looked into it and come to the obvious conclusion that Spartaz's behavior is fine and yours is problematic. --JBL (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban for Supercopone. When someone persistently misrepresents and misconstrues like this with such reckless abandon, there's no real point in kicking the can down the road. It's clear that they can't/won't abide by our collaborative requirements. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:53, 8 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.

Which is why I appended on I had no thought about it being you (sigh). There are a lot of those noms right now, and since this is the administrator's noticeboard and it felt like something they had to take care of, I alerted here, just to rule out any possible connection. Sincere apologies for the haste and rush (or even mentioning you), but I would do the same thing with a Groundhog Day reset because I care about en.wiki's integrity. Did not mean to anger you. Nate • (chatter) 00:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• • Hey User:Mrschimpf I assume good faith with your actions. You are an amazing editor here on wiki and I wish others would assume more good faith (myself included). You sir are a legend on the discord! So many editors look for anything to be a victim over these daysSuper (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't raise it as a subsection of a section about me then. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

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 [70] 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)

• If you want to know what Wikipedia rules on consensus are, I'd advise you to read WP:CONSENSUS. That being said, you can hardly point fingers at someone for (allegedly) only posting sources from one side, when you are doing the same thing. As far as disruptive editing charges, you were the first to make one. Finally, I get the strong impression that what you mean by your repeated requests for an impartial editor to "take up" your concern is for an admin to say that you're right, everyone else is wrong, and things must be done your way. I am not myself an admin, but I can fairly confidently say that's not going to happen. Ravenswing 18:38, 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.[71] They also change to wrong release dates.[72] 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[73] 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”[74] 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.”[75] 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)

Well, it is not my insinuations all he way. It is my legitimate concern, shared by some others (and disagreed by others). Did you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-04-26/News_and_notes? A government has a fundamental WP:COI. When a politician writes "to fill Wikipedia with unbiased information", we only know too well what happens next. I understand that any social group has a share of well-meaning but misguided "patriots" who would try and "fix" information in wikipedia about them, be it a corporation or a country. We deal with this on a regular basis. But when these efforts of "fixing" become coordinated and spearheaded, call me paranoid, but I would expect a problem. Notice that I am not editing Ukraine-related articles (I mean not intentionally; overlaps do happen.). Last week was an exception; I run into the subject when I was posting my own AfD nom and accordingly reviewed a couple of recent ones. Loew Galitz (talk) 18:33, 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[76] and Økonom[77].
• 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"[78]
• 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[79] and of a journalist[80] 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[81][82] 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: [83][84][85]
• WP:POINT-y behavior[86] 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 both a topic ban and an indefinite block. 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. EDIT: An indef would also be reasonable given the discussions below. --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[87][88] 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)
• Support an indefinite block per Bishonen and Dennis Brown. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support either INDEF or TBAN. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef and tban Wikipedia is not a vehicle for propaganda. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef. Given that 1Kw was whitewashing actual Nazi behavior over 10 years ago, and still seems to be pushing racist bullshit, I don't see why they weren't blocked under WP:NONAZIS long ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  ... possibly because NONAZIS being an essay, it's a highly inappropriate ground for a block? Ravenswing 06:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  It falls under the more general heading of WP:NOTHERE, under which we block people all the time, so no, it's not inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block A topic ban is not an appropriate sanction for racist POV editing. It is a half measure and sends entirely the wrong message. The only appropriate remedy in such a case is an indefinite block per WP:NOTHERE and WP:NORACISTS. The evidence presented against this user in that regard is compelling and in line with my own experiences with them. It doesn't take a particularly close look at their edit history to see clear signs of abusing good faith, such as WP:WikiLawyering in edit summaries and on talk pages and feigning ignorance when called out by other editors. They are very obviously WP:Gaming the system to push their POV, and they have done so—successfully—for years. Considering I have caught the editor brazenly lying about sources on more than one occasion (see WP:Articles for deletion/2020 Villejuif stabbing for a pretty obvious example), I would not take them at their word that any source actually says what they claim it does—it would probably be a good idea to double-check every single addition they have ever made to see if the sources were misrepresented (leaving aside for a moment whether the additions themselves were WP:NPOV-compliant – odds are that they weren't). I would like to draw everyone's attention to a specific example of this: the article Ylva Johansson (their diff, mine, talk page). The user blatantly lied about what a source said in service of their POV editing on a WP:BLP article. Looking back at it, not bringing that to WP:ANI immediately was a big mistake on my part. Their comment on the talk page is also a typical example of their WP:WikiLawyering and general bad-faith trolling (for lack of a better word). They knew about the connotations of that phrase. Of course they knew. I should have called them out on that instead of being diplomatic about it. TompaDompa (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban from immigration, politics, and race, broadly construed, but oppose indef block for now. However, if he so much as touches an article related to the topics, slap him with an indef. I feel like the user should get a second(?) chance, but should be kept out of these areas. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:58, 9 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.

I also had created a sockpuppet investigation regarding his creation of three accounts in wiki, the latest account that he created is User:AtorniYormeJKLlamera. He also keeps on removing some sourceful statements without stating a valid reason in an edit summary. NewManila2000 (talk) 13:16, 9 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,[89] 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 [90].

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[91], [92][93] after this user blocked this user permanently [94]. 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"[95] 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[96], 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)

Mike Novikoff and a strange way of edit-warring

Mike Novikoff performed today a third revert with this edit summary. First, it contains my real name, which I do not really appreciate. Second, if I get the point, he thinks that because I blocked him on Wikidata for a day for personal attacks, it is ok to revert here my edits without going to the talk page. Could an admin intervene please. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If I understand correctly another part of the edit summary, he thinks that I resigned somewhere (where?) under a cloud, which is factually incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not an admin, but: the edit summary was indistinguishable from trolling (and conceivably should be rev-delled). I have no idea what the MOS has to say about this (and don't really care to know), and the coat of arms is pretty. So I have reverted. --JBL (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Me neither, but I see that the US states have seals. If I can parse the edit summaries, the user says they would remove these seals as well but do not have sufficient userrights as the templates are protected.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And, completely independently, POV pushing in a Russian-Ukrainian article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Anyone gonna revdel that edit summary? jp×g 08:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Still having issues with User:Mztourist

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

I have brought up this issue multiple times before and it hasn't been settled and continues to be a problem. One user, Mztourist has been intentionally targeting me as well as being constantly uncivil. One failed AFD attempt after another, and now I have been the victim of tag bombing. Could understand an article here or there, he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes. Mztourist's goal is to be disruptive, he has made it is personal goal to delete as many articles I have created as possible. The last AFD he even deleted citations and then claimed it should be deleted because of the lack of citations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley C. Norton. Because of past issues I now refrain from editing any article he is involved with or AFD any article he has created to avoid contact, only to have him continually target me. I have attempted to have a no contact agreement in the past, something I still support to remedy the problem. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

You've provided one link to an AfD from 2 months ago, which did not involve any obvious impropriety. If you want anyone to take this complaint seriously, you should provide evidence of inappropriate behavior, not just unsupported attempts at mind-reading. See Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide for explanation if you don't know how to produce diffs. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is a diff that I think is worthy of noting. – ².O.^Boxing 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm especially curious about this statement ("he literally tagged 20 articles inside of 10-15 minutes") and if the OP could provide diffs for this because I don't see that looking at Mztourist's contributions. We haven't always agreed but I don't think it's right to infer someone's goal as being disruptive without providing proof of that. How do you know what his personal goal is? I look back at the your contribs going back to September and I see possibly three articles brought up before AfD and two out of the three were a "keep" or "no consensus" result. Every other AfD you have participated in was started by someone else. I'm not doubting how a person feels and, based solely on what I read above, the OP clearly feels like Mztourist is targeting them but the community can't act on a feeling, however sympathetic we may be. JBL is right and we have to be fair to Mztourist too, thus the need for diffs. --ARoseWolf 21:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think if the article was deleted or not is the issue. It is the intention, Timothy J. Edens was nominated twice by Mztourist after it had already been nominated before. Then he deleted references to attempt to get Stanley Norton deleted. Then when the current AFD McGregor started to look like it wasn't going to be deleted, he tagged 20 articles saying "This page should be expanded with reliable sources or deleted." I wasn't informed on my page of any of those tags. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Given the personal attacks leveled by Jamesallain85 in that AfD, I'd say WP:BOOMERANG block is in order. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The response I just wrote was deleted, so I have to start again. Look at his edits starting December 6th, every tagged article was created by me. As for my comment, it was a serious question, did you read the conversation to that point? I am accused of not citing an article enough, I improve the article and am accused of ref-bombing. In the past I AFDd and article of his which literally had no citations and was accused of revenge AFDing. Am I just supposed to take this lying down, because it doesn't matter what I do I am wrong. If I improve an article its wrong, if I don't it's wrong. If I point out an article needs improvement its wrong. My wife makes an edit with the same IP, I get blocked. I get targeted by a user, and I get blocked. Mztourist is not being civil, I have actually stopped editing any article he is involved with and will not AFD any of his articles because I am trying to avoid him, but he continues to harass me.Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For a list of the AFDs I am referring to, they are all listed on my talk page. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps explain Special:Diff/1059147105 and Special:Diff/1059146759 or is there policy the rest of us are unaware of that allows you to remove others Talk Page comments because you don't like them?? Slywriter (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I started to mark them as vandalism, then I just came here to bring up the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, if I went right now and tagged every page that needed improvement that Mztourist has, that would be OK. I feel like there is some bias here against me. I have tried to take care of the issue I am having in the past, again it was ignored. His demeanor is unprofessional and results in hostility. Jamesallain85 (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

If you feel any article needs improvement then you can tag it no matter who originated it. We don't own articles here. Anything any of us has created or offered as time to the encyclopedia, while appreciated as it should be, is owned by the encyclopedia and controlled by consensus within the community. Please don't insinuate bias against you. I'm sorry you feel that way and I completely understand and validate the fact you do genuinely feel that way but accusing others here of bias isn't going to go favorably. You said 20 articles in 10-15 minutes. I only see 16 total articles they contributed anything to for the entire day of December 6th. I didn't check whom created all 16 articles but they aren't yours even if you created them and contributed heavily to them any more than they are owned by any other editor here. It doesn't warrant the aspersions I see in some of the diffs. The one on autism was highly inappropriate. I have a nephew with severe autism and it's nothing to speak of lightly. --ARoseWolf 21:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support boomerang of any kind. Another combative AFD participant. "Are you autistic? ... You are living in your own little world" [97] is beyond the pale. Let's remove editors who act this way from AfD (if not the website). Levivich 21:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone that read the entire conversation would notice this is not a new issue. I have attempted in every way to distance myself from Mztourist, he is the one that continues to initiate interactions and make accusations. It's been more than a year, what do I have to do. That comment was made after I noticed the massive list of articles he tagged. I apologize, it was made in the heat of the moment over a long and ongoing issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Every time I have tagged or AFDd an article I have been accused of revenge, in every instance. I realize I do not own any articles, what I have issue with in one individual who over the course of a year has systematically targeted articles I created. It has been ongoing since August of 2020. I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize. If I AFD an article I am accused of revenge. If I improve an article I am accused of ref-bombing. If I don't improve an article I am accused of writing poor articles. Every action I take is reflected as negative. I feel like I am constantly been bullied, and it isn't that other editors haven't noticed, but the issues continue. This has been an ongoing issue for more than a year, I have attempted to arbitrate it several times with no success. I don't care if a hundred other editors AFD all of my articles, I just don't want to be harassed every time I logon to wikipedia by the same person with the same negativity trying to destroy my contributions. I am sorry if my comment wasn't appropriate, but I am at a breaking point. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support boomerang as per Levivich, with edits like this they can go find another past time. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I would voluntarily take a year ban if it meant when I came back I wouldn't be harassed by Mztourist. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that not a single person as acknowledged the escalation that led up to this. No one is looking at the issue or how it came to be.Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless you're going to provide diffs to back up your claims, I would suggest you stop. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how to provide diffs, I have provided the discussions. Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have done a singularly crap job of presenting a case against Mztourist, and meanwhile your own behavior has been repeatedly and obviously problematic. It is not at all surprising that someone who behaves in straightforwardly unacceptable ways (deleting appropriate-looking talk-page comments, writing "are you autistic?", making obvious revenge deletion nominations) and alleging wrongdoing without providing any evidence at all is not getting a friendly reception. (Personally I think it is conceivable that there is merit to your complaint -- but I'm not going to waste my time building a case for you, particularly when your behavior is much more obviously problematic.)

I don't even know how to provide diffs I provided a link with an explanation in the very first response to you in this thread! --JBL (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here I am being accused of revenge for AFDing an article with a singe reference [98] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your AfD nominations are obviously revenge nominations: you have only ever nominated articles to AfD that were created by Mztourist, and you have only ever done it immediately following a moment when they nominated an article you created for deletion. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here he is bragging that he got an article deleted despite it passing all six requirements for the defunct WP:Soldier, [99] Jamesallain85 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a totally inaccurate summary of their comment. You are digging a deeper hole for yourself. --JBL (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Er, no he isn't. He's saying that an article can (and should) be deleted even if it meets one of the six requirements, if it doesn't meet WP:GNG. And he's correct. In fact GNG trumps all of the requirements, technically. Claiming they're saying something they're clearly not isn't helping you at all here. Black Kite (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here another editor essentially states Mztourist is could be revenge AFDing me because of an ongoing dispute from June of 2021 [100] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Not really. They say there might be a dispute. Please stop doing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is another editor acknowledging that Mztourist holds a hostile position to citations that he can not personally view online [101] Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, back in June, Mztourist filed an ANI against Jamesallain85 with much the same complaints and shrill language -- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's_concerns_about_User:Jamesallain85 -- and some likewise shaky grounds. A mutual interaction ban was mooted then but failed to gain much traction. Obviously, there's a great deal of mutual antipathy on both sides. It's plain that whether or not they're capable of playing together nicely, they're deeply unwilling to do so, and it seems to me that this would be soonest resolved by both of them being enjoined from interacting with one another now. (Whoops, and there's this one from September: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1079#Ongoing_Target_of_Overzealous_Editor Ravenswing 23:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree. It's fairly clear that Jamesallain85 is certainly displaying some elements of WP:CIR here. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• If so, it doesn't need to be Mztourist to play traffic cop. Nor should JA85 be AfDing articles Mztourist created, at this point. Ravenswing 23:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't AFDd any articles recently, the last one I did was because it had a single reference, once it was more clearly referenced I close the AFD myself. Despite that I have a continues line of AFDs, only from Mztourist. When one is finished, the next one is coming soon, and as I improve them he only becomes more hostile trying to delete them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm talking about in this report, where they're assigning motives to other editor's comments that they clearly never intended, even before the AfD nonsense. And frankly I'm still tempted to block them for the "autistic" comment. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mztourist has been here several times before, and is certainly skating on thin ice. But he's never commented something that broke me out of my long time lurking relative silence. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• And that comment definitely deserves a block. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• I assumed good faith until it became systematic. In the last year only one editor has tagged and AFDd articled I created, and despite any improvements I have made to all of those articles, he fights to the bitter end to delete. When it becomes obvious then I loose assumption of good faith. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will happily take a block, I deserve it. I commented in the heat of the moment after I have been trying to improve McGregor, loading myself up to improve the article, only to have him stack a pile of tags that threaten to delete more articles. I apologize for the comment and will willfully take any disciplinary action, but I want the issue to be stopped in the future so it doesn't come to such matters again. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mztourist files AfDs on a number of articles, and a look at his history indicates that they're almost all military bios. This seems to be his gig. His match rate at AfD is frankly mediocre (62% of filings), but I just looked at the last 25 he filed. Not only do I not see any obvious signs that he's uniquely targeting you, but you have participated in a number of them without there being obvious signs that the AfDs concern your own articles. If you want to disengage with Mztourist as badly as all of that, you are doing a poor job of doing so. Ravenswing 23:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• When it comes to commenting on AFDs, I do not look who initiated the AFD. In face many times if I am on the fence I choose to refrain from comment. While true he AFDs more than just my articles, he is the only one AFDing my articles. Is that normal? Why was I accused automatically of revenge when I AFDd one of his articles? I have stopped interacting with any articles that he created, but I should have a voice when it comes to AFDs without being targeted. I am far from the only person that has had issues with Mztourist, I have said I take responsibility for what I said. But it still doesn't solve the issue at hand, why must I sit back and refrain from tagging or AFDing articles he created only to have him continuously do it to me? Why am I constantly being accused of revenge and nobody cares about his actions or demeanor? Compare Mztourists AFD match rate to his match rate with articles I created, he only achieved one merger. Every other article was voted to keep or no consensus, if he wasn't targeting me his rate with my articles should be at least similar. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Gee, I dunno. Maybe we come to that conclusion because Mztourist has filed 120 AfDs, a handful of them being of articles you've created. By contrast, every single AfD you have ever filed [102][103][104] has not only been on articles Mztourist created, but each and every one of them closed as overwhelming Keeps, with only one single vote to delete between them other than your own. Kinda fails the duck test. Ravenswing 23:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Considering I closed them myself or asked for them to be closed after they had met WP:BIO, I think it is comparing apples and oranges. The articles I AFDd, except one I did by accident, were all source with one or two sources at the time I AFDd them. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Nice try, but no. You closed none of them (nor would it be permitted under WP:Deletion policy for you to do so, and you only changed your mind on just one at the last bitter end. That's the one in which you outright called Mztourist an asshole. Ravenswing 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I could go back and find the instances where I asked to have it closed in the AFD discussion (at least two occasions) but it would be a waste of my time anyway ([105]). I can tell you there is one thing I didn't do, delete his references and then AFD the article he created on the basis of lack of references, but I am sure that doesn't matter either. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• It would certainly be a waste of your time, because other than the single one I read ten minutes ago and already mentioned, you didn't do it. By the bye, do you really find that this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of arguing every point to death with everyone -- it certainly shows forth in these AfDs -- is getting people to see things your way, instead of cementing opinions as to your own behavior? Ravenswing 00:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I guess this will be like every other time I came here to settle my dispute and absolutely nothing will be addressed about the actual dispute. If I had acted in the same manner as Mztourist and deleted his references and then AFDd his article how do you think the conversation would have been handled then? There is a double standard here, and a clear bias. Why hasn't that been addressed? Why is it ignored every time I have brought it up? As far as bringing up every point, that is what I was just asked to do, here again I am being penalized for something I was asked to do. Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Here is the second retraction that doesn't exist [106] Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm struggling to understand what you're trying to show here. The AFD in that template is a red link and I looked in your history around the time and don't see any creation of an AFD page on the article. AFDs aren't generally deleted just closed. So it looks like you started the AFD process by adding the template. But later I guess you changed your mind so you undid the addition of the template and didn't open the AFD. While this is sort of a retraction, it's a lot less positive then you seem to think. It's not like after opening the AFD someone pointed something out that you completely missed. Instead whatever caused you to change your mind happened before you properly opened the AFD. Which means you really should have done whatever it was that made you change your mind before you added the template. Yes it's good that you didn't actually open the AFD once you somehow came to the realisation the article didn't merit deletion but that's a fairly minor positive, it's the only real basic level of what we expect from editors. Frankly I'm not sure why you're adding the template nearly 1 hour and 30 minutes before you plan to open the AFD anyway (well that's how long it took you to remove it). AFAIK most editors start the AFD first then only add the templates as it doesn't leave others confused about why the article is linking to an AFD that doesn't exist. Or if they are going to add the templates first, have their AFD prepared so it only takes 10 minutes or something to start the AFD. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Jamesallain85: When you make atrocious comments like the autism one, you shouldn't be surprised if we don't give a damn about some alleged minor wrondoing of the other party. Even more so when your response here about your atrocious comment is so poor. Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support boomerang Frankly the autism comment is enough for me. If they had shown some recognition of how bad their comment was, perhaps we could let it be, but they've shown no such recognition instead seem to think whatever lead up to it makes it not so bad. And if that wasn't enough, they seem to have no answer to the suggestion their AFDs were in revenge. Further they evidence they've presented against Mztourist so far (although I admit I haven't looked at all of it in part since it's presented throughout this discussion) doesn't seem to shown significant wrong doing. E.g. yes it is wrong if Mztourist did stuff because they didn't understand that offline sources are perfectly fine but that's the sort of mistake that happens and if the editor learns from it and takes step to fix their errors as far as possible, isn't something we would likely block them over. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Boomerang obviously. Jamesallain85 created a whole lot of minimally-referenced 1-3 sentence stub bio pages in December 2019 and January 2020 e.g. Wilhelm L. Friedell, Thomas Withers, John Addison Scott, William V. O'Regan, William Lovett Anderson which I have progressively tagged, PRODed and/or AFDed, as I have with pages created by other Users. Jamesallain85 has taken great offense at this and in addition to expanding the AFDed pages (poorly in my opinion) has abused me, REVENGE AFDed some of my pages and brought various complaints here. The only person being uncivil here is Jamesallain85 with his insults like the appalling autism comment. In addition he has absolutely no right to delete my comments on article Talk pages just because he doesn't like them, examples here: [107] and [108] Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Jamesallain85: the autism comment is a sticking point, people can't see beyond it. Recommend a couple options. 1) strike the comment and leave a sincere apology here (we have autistic users on Wikipedia). 2) request WP:OVERSIGHT to delete it entirely from the record as a gross violation of civil and hurtful to others (and an apology here to be clear not just hiding a mistake). I think you do good work and hope you can continue improving Wikipedia. -- GreenC 06:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Hm. People are "supporting boomerang" without any actual definition of what they're supporting. So here's a proposal: Jamesallain85 is interaction banned from Mztourist, defined broadly, and including AfDs. (No objection, of course, should an admin hammer him over his repeated incivilities and his reverting Mztourist's talk page comments.) In the interests of keeping the peace, Mztourist is enjoined from filing AfDs or PRODs on article creations of Jamesallain85; if JA85's article creations are substandard, someone else can file on them. Ravenswing 07:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jamesallain85's pages have been substandard for over 2 years without anyone doing anything about them and they are only improved (poorly IMO) if they go to AFD. I don't see why I should be enjoined from PRODing or AFDing them due to Jamesallain85's uncivil responses. Mztourist (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Because you've been uncivil and abrasive too in dealing with him, and the easiest way to refute the notion that you have a personal crusade against him is not to have one. If his article creations are substandard -- and, for the record, stub creation on Wikipedia is not illegal -- other editors can deal with them. If they don't choose to deal with them, then perhaps the creations aren't so egregious as all of that. Honestly, you do have a success rate at AfD filings of little better than random chance. Ravenswing 08:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ravenswing That's very unfair. I think their AfD record is pretty good. Only 26 Keeps from 119 noms (62 delete, 12 redirect, 4 merge, 15 N/C) is a solid performance, especially when you consider that (a) a number of the military articles were improved after the AfDs began with offline sources that Mzt would not have had access to, and (b) a number of them were Keep-spammed by the Article Rescue Squadron. Black Kite (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(shrugs) Hell, I've been keep-spammed by ARS (what AfD regular over the last decade hasn't been, at one point or another?), and I've got 35 keeps off of nearly 500 noms. I'm aware that sentiment is trending towards painting JA85 as the bad guy, and not without cause, but c'mon. Ravenswing 08:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support Boomerang - Jamesallain85's comments are beyond the pale. Might also require them to have to go through AfC for article creation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• "I am constantly accused of having poor references because they are from books or from archives instead of online content that he can scrutinize." Adding this here at the bottom so its easier for @Jamesallain85: to find: If Mztourist is telling you that they personally have to be able to review and scrutinize every source or it isn't reliable then they are wrong. Rather than getting defensive and becoming uncivil you could always point them to policy. WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE comes to mind as examples of policy or supplemental explanations. A source does not have to be online nor does it have to be easily accessible to be considered reliable. In some cases the only copy of a source may be found in a local university library. It can still be reliable. We generally accept offline sources when they are properly delineated. You can't just put down a book name and author nor can you say from page 1-999. Be specific. If you have read the source or possibly researched/own a copy of it then you should be able to add enough information to make us believe the source is credible. But to the point, no, a source does not not have to be online and does not have to be free to the public for access in order to be considered reliable. --ARoseWolf 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In the discussion below a few points were made that I think deserve a response. The tone of a comment can be uncivil no matter how mild one may think it is. Saying someone can be "brash" and "abrupt" and that they need to "tone it down" is not a real admonishment nor does it curtail any act of incivility. The brashness and abruptness is incivility and will damage any ability for collaboration, especially with those that may share a different opinion from Mz. The unwillingness to admit or accept any fault is a cause for concern and it should not be ignored by the community. With all due respect to @Slywriter, we have a case where incivility has gone both ways, however mild as one may think one side is, and this is the venue for the community to discuss and admins to determine and enforce a consensus from that community discussion. This is the exact place and the perfect opportunity for this to happen. I stopped going to AfD's altogether because of the incivility that is so easily displayed and overlooked during the process no matter which side I fell on. Personally I loved the challenge of not only discussing but improving and seeing the improvement brought about because of AfD's despite the fact that AfD is not article improvement. I hated seeing articles deleted but Wikipedia has so many articles that are below sub-standard and filled with non-notable subjects. Mztourist does a great job of pointing these out and I have praised them in the past for doing so. We have agreed in some cases and disagreed in others. I believe both editors in this case could be and are amazing and can produce incredible things for this encyclopedia. When viewing this case in a vacuum, they are, however, both guilty of incivility, whether in tone or words themselves. These are just observations based on the conversations and examples provided. --ARoseWolf 14:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD may not be article improvement, but it does serve this function almost by default due to many things that are beyond the scope of this discussion. One thing I have noticed, though, is that passive-aggressive incivility often gets a pass by the community. It's much easier to call out and sanction the brash person than it is to look deeper. I'm not disagreeing with your observations, or saying that this case is an example of passive-aggressive incivility, just adding an additional perspective. Intothatdarkness 17:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose Interaction Ban

A lot of people seem unable to get past the autistic comment, which was frankly completely outrageous and was deserving of a block in it's own right. However, blocks are to prevent damage to the encyclopedia and not punitive, the problem being the comment seems to have provoked a classic ANI pile on and we're not getting to the root of the problem.

A couple of points need to be noted:

1. Above Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard".
2. The interaction between the two is not productive, both are uncivil and abrasive towards each other.
3. Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep.
4. JA85's stubs are being improved and expanded by the community.

On this basis an interaction ban seems appropriate. It stops the toxic interaction between the two editors and allows both to continue editing. I think ANI needs to do something to nip this in the bud before it ends up at arbcom. WCM_email 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose This is misleading.

• "Mztourist's nominations are routinely being closed as keep". Only 26 of his 119 noms have been closed as keep.
• "Mztourist basically acknowledges he's been targeting JA85's articles, describing them as "substandard"." Mz has nominated over a hundred of these articles for AfD, some of which have been JA85's. Meanwhile, every single one that JA85 has nominated has been started by Mztourist. Who is targeting who here?
• Apart from a few snippy remarks I don't see that Mztourist is doing much wrong here, whereas Jamesallain85 is an editor who has borderline CIR issues, calls others "autistic" and has misrepresented others persistently, even in this thread. That's not equivalence in a million years, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually I meant that many of Mztourists nominations of JA85's articles are being routinely closed as keep. I feel that is accurate and not misleading. And it seems from the comment below I'm not the only one to notice. IMHO they're rubbing each other the wrong way and the best way to stop it is an interaction ban. That seems better than the arbcom case its heading for, neither would come out of that well. To add the comment from Mztourist that it's all the other parties fault does show a lack of awareness of the impact of their snarky comments. WCM_email 12:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as I mentioned above. Ravenswing 13:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support, as it seems that this is by no means a new issue. Both editors have accused other of vengefully nominating their articles for deletion. Both have, in fact, nominated the other's articles for deletion. There have been threads here from both of them about this already. Accusing people of being autistic is pretty rude — certainly, you should not be saying it about people you are arguing with on Wikipedia. I think that people are often allowed to slide on personal attacks, and this deserves some form of formal admonishment. However, Jamesallain is far from the only person who has been abrasive at AfD. In fact, in the discussion linked earlier in this thread (for Stanley C. Norton), I had an extremely long and unpleasant exchange with Mztourist after I added sources to the article, and I didn't even !vote on it. I think the most appropriate solution would simply be for both editors to stay out of each other's hair, and not interact on Wikipedia (perhaps simply avoiding nominating each other's articles for deletion altogether). jp×g 09:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• JPxG as you well know, I and others believe that you refbombed that page. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's fine — there's no rule saying everybody has to agree with each other, and I am perfectly happy with you saying you think some article is bad that I think is good — but it seems to me like the forcefulness with which your opinions are made is not entirely necessary in conveying your perspective. jp×g 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, indeed -- having just looked at that page -- you did say so. Over and over and over again. Ravenswing 13:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It does seem to be a recurring issue with Mztourist, I noticed the same at this AFD when I started looking at the interaction between these two editors. Perhaps @Cullen328: or @Andrew Davidson: may care to comment but he does appear to somewhat harangue other editors about sourcing. I get the impression he really doesn't like sources that are not online. The questioning of good faith comments by other editors does rather suggest a lack of good faith. WCM_email 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson is topic-banned from AfD and will not be able to comment.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose completely misleading summary of my actions. The incivility comes entirely from JA85, not me. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have already withdrawn myself from AFDing more articles of Mztourists, and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome. I sincerely apologize for my comment, it was out of line, it was the result of building frustration, however that does not make it OK. The issue here has been on both sides, and I do not believe anything other than an interaction ban would rectify it, it has been ongoing more than a year. Wikipedia has more than one editor that is able to point out failures. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - While Mz can tone it down a bit, to equate the actions of both editors as equitable is not correct, imho.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose When someone edits in a narrow field, they are more likely to engage with the same small group of editors which can give the appearance that an editor is following them around. Also finding a sub-standard article and then reviewing the editors history for other sub-standard edits isn't hounding. And civility as a whole in AfD needs to be addressed by the community.Slywriter (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Mz is highly active in a narrow field, one that attracts some fairly passionate editors, as well as some who lack actual content knowledge but are intent on keeping anything that ever touches Wikipedia. Jamesallain85 seems to take criticism of content as a personal attack, and frames any response in that manner. While Mz can be abrupt, they certainly aren't comparable. Intothatdarkness 14:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I take it as a personal attack when it is worded as a personal attack ([109]) Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As a response to your previous comment, this diff strikes me as downright mild. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Something that friends of Mztourist might wish to consider, I've seen it time and again when incivility is excused, it becomes a habit and gets worse to the point where the community finally loses patience and yet again we mourn the blocking of an experienced editor. Real friends would tell him to stop. WCM_email 14:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a "friend" of Mz, and I take your point completely, but here I don't think that any perceived incivility by Mz is the problem - or it's certainly not the main problem by a long way. Black Kite (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Wee Curry Monster I am surprised by your rather barbed comments about me. Please advise when I've been uncivil in my dealings with JA85. Mztourist (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Mz is skating on thin ice, and really needs to look at how they interact with others. But this issue is much more to do with JA. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What is this issue you are speaking of, because the issue I brought here was the interaction. Read my response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Roy McGregor (admiral) and how it escalated. This has been a perpetual problem for more than a year and it will not change. Mz takes no responsibility, he has stated himself that the issue lies completely with me. That is not the attitude of someone that is willing to change. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Looking over things it appears that Jamesallain85 is mostly the aggressor and in the wrong here. So an interaction ban wouldn't really be the best way to deal with the issue IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support points made by the nom. -- GreenC 19:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I feel, and this is my own personal opinion, this proposal hurts Mz more than it would James, especially considering James has backed off already. Mz does do amazing and positive things for the encyclopedia in a very targeted field and that's coming from someone that doesn't share the exact same point of view. I realize something must be done but I don't feel this will affect both parties equally. --ARoseWolf 20:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Looked at in context Jamesallain85's MZ's nominations are the root of the problem. They seem to be deliberating attacking the reasonably aceptable work of another editor, using a mistaken idea of the rules for WP:RS. I can not tell if it CIR, or something else, but at the very leastthey need to be removed from AfD. If conflict continues, it might require further action. As for Mz JamesA, he was acting under what I consider rather extreme provocation. They still shouldn't have responded that way, so I suggest either an admonishment and warning, or a very short block--perhaps 24 hours. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose admonishment for Jamesallain85

I don't think the autistic comment can be allowed to pass without comment from the community. I propose Jamesallain85 is admonished for that comment with the warning that if any such comment is repeated it will result in an immediate and escalating series of blocks. Such blocks may be imposed by any admin without referral to ANI. WCM_email 09:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. As I said in my comment above, it has no place in a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, and we should not put up with it. jp×g 10:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ban an admonishment is completely inadequate and will do no more than the warning given to him after this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1070#Mztourist's_concerns_about_User:Jamesallain85 Mztourist (talk) 11:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Ravenswing 13:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support, as I feel this is a very weak response. But if this is the best that can be done, it's better than ignoring it and hoping it will go away. Intothatdarkness 13:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Intothatdarkness above. I find this sort of thing far more offensive than the standard sorts of statements involving four letter words. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support it's offensive and there is no place for such behavior.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Admonish is not enough, what epitaph would they have had to use to receive harsher censure? ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Two editors cannot get along, and it's not the first time an interpersonal conflict between the two has ended up at this noticeboard. An admonishment just reads like "we don't like what we're seeing, but we also don't know what to do about it / don't want to do anything about it." If this is all that's done, odds are this will end up at this noticeboard again at some point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Which it already has twice before this year, and will again, given the lack of stomach for something as simple as a mutual interaction ban. Ravenswing 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Admonish it should be clear by the way Jamesallain85 has acted in this ANI complaint about their side of the disagreement that an admonishment alone probably won't deal with the issue and is therefore to weak of a sanction. Especially considering the whole autistic comment, but even without that there's enough on Jamesallain85's side to warrant more then a rebuke IMO. More so because there's already been ANI complaints about them that didn't seem to correct their behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support reasonable solution along with the iban. -- GreenC 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support I support admonishment even though James did apologize, which I personally accept as a member of the community. This is something that can't be overlooked and James needs to understand this type of comment is never okay and certainly not understandable under any circumstances. --ARoseWolf 20:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support as a first-line remedy per above and my reply in the next section. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE. James strikes me as someone who genuinely wants to improve the encyclopedia, but made a horrible, egregious decision. They seem to have gotten the message that such language is intolerable here and I doubt that they will repeat it. In light of this, I would support giving them a final warning with the understanding that using similar language again will result in an indefinite block. Mlb96 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Propose one-way IBAN for Jamesallain85 and admonishment for Mztourist

It's clear, from my reading of the above, that there are concerns about giving a pass to Mztourist's civility, but that it does not rise to the level of a sanction. I believe that he should be formally warned against uncivil behavior in the future. However, since the locus of the problem is primarily Jamesallain85's behavior and his conflicts with Mztourist, there should be an IBAN applied to him interacting with Mztourist. That IBAN will also serve as a suitable sanction given the "autistic" comment that was made earlier.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Could someone who supports action against Mz for incivility please quote and diff some recent examples? Levivich 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way IBANs are good options only in limited circumstances. Even in cases where a one-way IBAN is enacted the other party should treat it as two-way (at minimum, not intentionally put themselves in the way of the other editor). Specifically in this case I'd note that (based on user talk page notifications at [110]) it seems post-2020 Mztourist is the only one who has nominated Jamesallain85's articles for deletion. It doesn't really matter whether the rationales for deletion were solid or not, the point is that Mztourist repeatedly initiates interactions with Jamesallain85; I'm assuming that will continue in the future, in which case a one-way IBAN would just create agitation and not be an appropriate solution here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see enough evidence that Mztourist is deliberately targeting Jamesallain85's articles for deletion out of malice, at least not in the same way that JA85 retaliated shortly after this became a sticking point between the two of them. The proper response to having an article proposed for deletion, if you feel that the subject is notable and that the article is worth keeping, is to improve that article so that it stands muster. Retaliating against the filer is not the proper response. This is why the IBAN needs to be one-way, since up to this point apart from being short, Mztourist has not attempted to weaponize Wikipedia's processes against another user. WaltCip-(talk) 18:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: (nods to ProcrastinatingReader) I was thinking the same thing; what, Mztourist gets to tee off all he pleases on Jamesallain85's article creations, and JA85's not allowed to defend them? Oh dear me no. Ravenswing 18:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I think Jamesallain85's personal attack in this instance was understandable in view od the absurd nominations being made by Mztourist, who does not recognize the principle that paywalled sources are acceptable. The proper remedy is a topic ban for Mztourist against making AfD nominations, at least of Jamesallain85's articles. An admonishment for Mztourist JAwould be quite enough considering the provocation. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• You think that calling someone "autistic" was "understandable"? Good f***ing grief, this place is rapidly going down the toilet. Black Kite (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 I suspect anyone who used "Jew" or "gay" as a negative because they were "provoked" would be indeffed on sight. Can someone explain how using "autistic" as a negative is better? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    • "Understandable" does not mean that I think it was good behavior, but I would not, personally, give anyone an indef for the use of an insulting word, tho I would for frequently talking this way. The more serious forms of personal attack are concentrated attacks on someones work , it's attacking for the purpose of attacking the individual, not for enforcing a (misguided) understanding of RS. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Let me clarify my Jew/gay analogy. It's not just a personal attack. The implication of such an attack is that users who really are Jewish or gay or autistic are somehow unwelcome here. So it's a attack not just against the one user, but a large fraction of Wikipedians. People who are routinely discriminated against IRL, and might have thought of Wikipedia as a refuge. When we say it was "understandable", what message are we sending to those users? If Jamesallain85 had said "asshole" or another generic insult that would be different, because it's not targeting any group. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
      • (e/c) @DGG: What are you talking about? That last sentence is incoherent. Also, I assume you're not considering the effect using "autistic" as a slur has on, you know, people with autism. How does that rank on the seriousness scale for forms of personal attack? Also, there are more sanctions than "understandable" and "indef block", and in this section, indef block isn't even proposed. Also, to save on pings, in your comment in the previous section I'm fairly sure you've mixed up the two editors. Otherwise, great job though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Well, I can't speak on behalf of the entire autist community, but I don't feel particularly "targeted"; it's not like this is significantly worse than "imbecile" or "moron" or "idiot" (all of which would be clear personal attacks and worthy of sanctions/admonishment/etc on that basis). jp×g 00:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
          • If someone says, "You eat with chopsticks? What are you, Chinese?", that's an offensive slur, even though there is nothing wrong with being Chinese. It draws on a stereotype and implies that there is something wrong with being Chinese and eating with chopsticks. In the same way, the "are you autistic?" comment was offensive even though there is nothing wrong with being autistic, because it implied that if a person were autistic, that would explain why the person would "fail to grasp" things. That's tantamount to calling autistic people stupid, which is significantly worse than calling the editor you're arguing with an idiot, imbecile, or moron. It's one thing to get into an argument and call the other guy an idiot, it's quite another to get into an argument and call the other guy autistic. I think we can tolerate the former but not the latter. The former is an attack against the other editor, the latter is an attack against the other editors and autistic people. (And it's an attack even if no autistic person actually feels attacked...the success of the attack is irrelevant.) Levivich 06:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Why does one get a pass while the other does not? On a project which supposedly has civility in discussions as a primary focus of the project how does either promote collaboration. Do I believe James was inappropriate? Absolutely. His autistic comment was vile. I also feel Mz was inappropriate. We all know the connotations and stigmatizations associated with the perception of mental illnesses. Some of the first code words you always hear are the ones mentioned here. Getting triggered enough to call another human terrible things inferring mental illness is okay but asking them if they are autistic is different? An attack is an attack and neither should be tolerated. I do think DDG has a point in the discussion of targeted actions. I think we can say that Mz targeted James because Mz feels that James produces sub-standard work, however, Mz targeted articles on Wikipedia that he feels are sub-standard and that's actually encouraged. Remove James and replace them with someone else and Mz would do the same thing. So it's not personal against James, in that sense, and no editor here should become so attached to anything they write that they feel personally attacked when someone disagrees that it belongs here. Likewise, no editor should become triggered enough to call another editor names just because they disagree, no matter the provocation. This is a case of both editors not being civil, regardless of the words used and it shouldn't be tolerated because, as a community, it is one of our primary principles for a healthy and productive collaboration effort. --ARoseWolf 13:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

the last sentence means that he's attacking the articles to attack the editor; I don't see how it could be misunderstood. I fixed the names. . And I continue to think that emphasizing individual words as bright lines does rational handling of disputes a disservice: typically #1 pushes #2 repeatedly, until #2 says something we regard as inexcusable. But I've broken my rule not to comment more than twice in a single discussion, for which I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. -- GreenC 19:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment In the past we had much more serious offenders who were allowed to stop their offensive behavior and go free. Something like this: [18:26, December 7, 2021]; is certainly unacceptable but it doesn't require IBAN. Admonishment for both is more appropriate. Relative to Mztourist behavior, something like WP:DISENGAGE might be advised. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose one-way IBAN, Support admonishment I oppose any interaction ban at this time but support admonishment of both James and Mz. Diffs have been provided, along with the witness statements of others who have dealt with Mz that have labeled them "abrasive, "abrupt" and acknowledged they need to "tone it down" which are all indications of the tone of incivility that Mz certainly is not alone in exhibiting but is often the result of their discussions with those that have an opposing point of view, especially at AfD's. Because I feel both editors can do amazing things for the encyclopedia I stop short of any ban or block at this point and feel an admonishment would give both an opportunity to evaluate and take corrective steps to improve their tone when dealing with others in the community. --ARoseWolf 20:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose A one-way IBAN essentially means that Mztourist could nominate James's articles for deletion and James would not be allowed to defend his own articles. That strikes me as completely unfair. If there is to be an IBAN, it should be two-way. Mlb96 (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support directly addresses the only behavioral problem here. --JBL (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support since I agree with JBL that it's the only thing that will address the behavioral problems here. As a side to that, the thing about how Jamesallain85 wouldn't be able to defend "their own articles" if there was a one way ban is a little ridiculous. The articles don't belong to Jamesallain85 and if said articles are truly notable then other people besides Jamesallain85 will be able to defend them as such. I'm assuming without the behavioral issues being a part of it. So this seems like a good option to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You know what I meant, don't nitpick over semantics; "their own articles" as in "articles that they wrote," not "articles that they own." And it seems unfair to force them to put their faith in other users when it's their work on the chopping block. The notability guidelines are intentionally vague, but that also means that sometimes users come to different conclusions. The person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor. Mlb96 (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's less to do with what you meant and more to do with the fact that Jamesallain85 clearly has some ownership issues when it comes to articles they have created. Which IMO is just being fed into with how things are being phrased. I'm not saying it's intentional on your part though. Outside of that, I agree that a person whose work is up for deletion shouldn't be prevented from making arguments in their favor, but that doesn't include calling nominators autistic. If he was just making normal arguments we wouldn't be here right now and I wouldn't really care about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the specifics here, I've been fairly successful at getting ArbCom to stop using "admonishment" and I'd like to just butt in here and explain why: we warn users all the time for any number of things, but somehow with more long-term problems we admonish them instead. I don't think that makes much sense and strongly prefer "formal warnings" to "admonishments". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I would be inclined to agree with this. jp×g 00:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Mlb96 and ProcrastinatingReader; of particular concern to me is that in this situation both editors seem to have been behaving rather badly, so a one-way interaction ban would be quite lopsided (being, as it were, a reward for one party and a punishment for the other). Comments like this do not indicate that this is a situation where one person is just being aggressive for no reason. jp×g 00:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

What's wrong with Mztourist saying that Jamesallain85's time could be better spent writing detailed, properly referenced pages? Even if it's a tad defensive, it's rather weird to somehow equate that to Jamesallain85 calling Mztourist autistic. They aren't even on the same level. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "equating". Let me present you with the following scenario, and tell me what you think of it.

CEPHALUS: Thrasymachus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot.

THRASYMACHUS: Cephalus, you are a gigantic goddamn idiot and you should go fuck yourself off a bridge.

Personally, I would posit that while Thrasymachus has clearly violated the bounds of civility, so too has Cephalus, and the greater indiscretion of Thrasymachus does not somehow vindicate or invalidate the fact that Cephalus has said something extremely impolite. In an environment where propriety was considered important, the conduct of Cephalus should not be permitted either. jp×g 04:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose one-way IBAN since that has no possible chance of working. You can't have one person allowed to talk about and try to delete the articles another created, and the other not able to say anything in response. Dream Focus 05:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support one-way IBAN and oppose admonishment obviously. Whether a few Users consider me "abrasive" or "abrupt" that doesn't in any way rise to the level of JA85's personal attacks of saying I'm screaming, being petty, making myself look like an ass and calling me autistic just in the one thread. So its a bit hard to accept that me saying "If only one of those "better things to do" was actually writing detailed properly referenced pages..." is in the same league. Mztourist (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

IP edits to the 'Cars (video game)' page

There's this persistent IP user that's been constantly trying to change the date of one of the sources on the Cars (video game) page from February to January 2006, despite the associated source clearly supporting the February date. I have tried to reason with this user three times now, but they have ignored my attempts to reason with them. And they have ignored the warning messages that I've left on their userpages about edit warring. I don't want to be penalised for edit warring which is why I have brought the issue here, so that hopefully an administrator can look into this issue and put a stop to these IP edits. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That sounds more like something for WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'll slap semi-protection on it. They're using a dynamic IP, so they may not be seeing the talk page notifications. As such, hard to say if this is petty vandalism or if they think they're actually fixing something. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

103.214.61.251 at Battle of Longewala ‎

• Battle of Longewala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 103.214.61.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

At the above article I noticed this edit several days ago, which does not appear to match the edit summary. Upon further investigation, it turns out it's largely a revert to the April 2020 version of the article. Despite me reverting with a clear edit summary of "We are not reverting to an April 2020 version of the article for no clear reason" the IP has proceeded to revert multiple times despite the explanation at Talk:Battle of Longewala#We are not reverting to April 2020 and at User talk:103.214.61.251. Despite both those messages they have made this report at AIV claiming that refuses to engage in discussion about why he is doing so, when I have made my objection to the reversion to the April 2020 version of the article quite clear, and have asked that if there is an issue with an edit made at that time (as their first edit summary suggests that they should edit the current version of the article in order to correct that. FDW777 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Down among the dead men? Eyeballs, please.

A rather odd, in my opinion, edit adding WP:DEATH to move review Qwirkle (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding an irrelevant tag and citing WP:BLANK when it's removed? Seems kind of WP:POINTy to me. clpo13_(talk) 03:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, two different people had removed the addition which should have indicated that the inclusion was controversial and that it should have been discussed before added again. I also agree that adding this to the move review page isn’t necessary.--67.70.101.149 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is extremely bizarre (and incorrect), and gives me a "did he make a bet at the bar" vibe. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. I should think it is now abundantly clear to them that this was incorrect and unhelpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Warren Beatty vandal

• 2600:1700:8440:ADD0:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• Warren Beatty
• September 2021: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#South Carolina BLP violations – rangeblock requested

A three-month rangeblock by Black Kite expired on Special:Contributions/2600:1700:8440:ADD0:0:0:0:0/64 and the range is immediately back accusing Warren Beatty of draft evasion and whatever. Can we reset the rangeblock? Thanks in advance. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done for a year--Ymblanter (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Bravo. Binksternet (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• ( Peanut gallery comment) Good grief, what an incredibly dull thing to BLPVIO about! If they were yelling at him for having been in Ishtar, now that at least I could understand, but this? AngryHarpy‍^talk 15:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User: 2600:1002:B022:6B4F:711D:4DE:6527:4924

User:2600:1002:B022:6B4F:711D:4DE:6527:4924 has been continuously vandalizing pages for a long time. He has got many edit warnings in his talk page. But he did not stop doing so. He has triggered the edit filter many a times. I have reported him to WP:AIV, but I thought to bring the concern here, because if he does not stop soon, then it will be difficult to revert all the things he does. So someone please block the ipv6 and the range too. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 07:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Thanks, but I think after 31 hours, they will start doing again. Itcouldbepossible ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Log)} 08:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably. I did a longer range block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Reywas92

User:Reywas92 has proceedingly become agitated over time in DRV discussions, particularly directed at me. While we have a disagreement, that disagreement has resulted in crossing the line in this change comment "you are absolutely insane and I must bring up WP:CIR if your interpretation is this twisted" as well as the harsh comments in the discussion. The editor has also began mass deletion reviews of articles that I initially created or was involved in in a seeming attempt to target my efforts and make it difficult. At least 13 by my count. This is putting undue work on the members of the college football project as noted here by another editor. The AFD process seems to work well, but it doesn't need to be agitated with such activity. I had hoped that we could discuss the issues as they may be based in simple misunderstandings, but that seems to not be the case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Reywas's tone in that AfD is certainly regrettable, but I would also find your evasive, non-substantive responses there frustrating: those quotes are the epitome of passing mentions. --JBL (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It is in fact crazy to think those trivial passing mentions constitute significant coverage for the purposes of GNG. This is the perhaps the most clueless thing I have ever seen in AFD, and I stand by it.

The simple misunderstanding is that you think all college-level coaches are automatically notable, but this is not the case. Most of the AFDs I just started were on articles you mass created at the same time, so why is it an issue to discuss them at the same time? When you made over 1,000 on marginally-notable coaches of minor teams, I can't wait for one discussion to close before opening the next one. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, I can sort of understand why Reywas92 is getting frustrated, even if they could so with toning it down a bit. There still isn't a single example of SIGCOV in that article and I'm astonished that an experienced editor thinks that meets GNG. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just checking personal attacks are no longer a policy violation and are standard practice if you disagree with their understanding of a guideline? It seems like you are blaming me for the other editor's behavoir.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unlike another thread on this board right now, which involves one editor saying to another, "are you autistic" (intended as an insult), saying "you are absolutely insane" isn't the same thing. Calling people insane or crazy is pretty standard hyperbole in the English language (unlike calling people autistic, or the r-word, etc.). I don't see calling people crazy or insane as a personal attack for this reason. This is especially true if the person being called absolutely insane is engaging in behavior that seems absolutely insane, such as arguing that a single sentence mention meets SIGCOV (which, I agree, is a "twisted" interpretation). Even worse when the person making that argument is an admin, who should know that a single sentence mention is not "significant coverage" under any reasonable interpretation of what those words mean, and certainly under the consensus interpretation (is it your first time at AFD or what?). Yeah, it would be better to not call people crazy/insane, but this is a situation where an otherwise civil contributor lost their cool in the face of obstinance, and rather understandably so. It's even worse when the admin who is arguing that a single sentence is SIGCOV is doing it to defend an article they created about a particular brand name product (here, the Shyster(tm) lure). This is what you'd expect from a WP:UPE engaged in WP:PROMO, not from one of our admins. And the greatest irony of all: this is an AFD about a lure. :-) Levivich 15:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, having clashed with Paul McDonald on his absurd take on notability for college coaches (= everyone who's ever coached a collegiate game at any level is notable, the GNG be damned) over a dozen years ago, I am not astonished ... except that someone so profoundly out of tune with one of Wikipedia's most important guidelines got the mop in the first place. That a single sentence constitutes a trivial mention is included in the definition of WP:SIGCOV, for pity's sake, and someone who even after so many years, so many edits and becoming an admin either refuses to acknowledge it -- or worse, outright defies it -- really doesn't have any business in the deletion process.

  As far as how much work might fall on the college football project goes, tough. I just looked at a half dozen of the ones up at AfD, and the most recently created one is over a decade old. If the college football project can't be bothered to source stubs in a decade's time, then that's strong evidence they didn't give enough of a damn about the stubs in the first place. Ravenswing 17:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  • FYI, my position over a decade ago of all college football coaches are inherently notable has changed over time and a long time ago. I tend to use WP:GNG as a better standard. That shouldn't be the point in this discussion, but I thought you'd like to know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I do. Thank you for the clarification. Ravenswing 19:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• I'm pretty much where Levivich is. Calling someone insane is not ideal - it doesn't add anything to the strength of your argument. At the same time, Paulmcdonald's previous comment "I really don't know why the concept of WP:SIGCOV is so difficult for you was personal, disrespectful and unhelpful. I don't see anything here in the way of an actionable personal attack, but this is another reminder (if one were needed) of the importance to do out utmost to avoid making AfD discussions personal. Don't make smart remarks about the other guy - just point out where and how they are wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • comment That's fair, I will remove the personal reference. I was just answering the editor's question from the previoius comment: "why is the concept of significant coverage so difficult?" The user asked, I answered.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    That's also fair. It's something I've opined on in the past - one uncivil remark leads to another slightly more uncivil one, and another - it tends to escalate, and AfDs where people are invested in the article's they've worked on spiral quickly. I think that's what has happened here, but I don't imagine anything coming from this other than a reminder to all to try to treat each other with the utmost respect. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't have much sympathy for these "mass deletions create a lot of work for me" complaints, especially when they come from the editors who created the article or are active in the Wikiproject. If the topic is notable, why weren't the sources included in the first place or added as part of the project's routine maintenance tasks? –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This isn't about afd.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

    This is about AfD though. What you have encountered (and engaged in) there is, unfortunately, par for the course. I don't know how much time you spend there, but it can be a swamp - that interaction is pretty mild. Why? My take on it is that folk are very invested in the discussions. Authors are obviously invested in their article creations, but noms are also invested in their nominations. After all, there have been countless occasions where I have been very confident that I have invested more time doing a WP:BEFORE search prior to nominating an article than the author can possible have spent writing it! When two people, both confident that they are right, and both having invested significant time in coming to their viewpoint, clash heads, it is frequently the case that they act sub-optimally. If I could see an easy way to fix that aspect of AfD, I would take it, but it is a cultural problem - we're not going to solve that by whacking individuals. Or, we'd have to whack a lot of them to solve it - blocking a significant proportion of our community of editors in the process... Girth Summit _(blether) 22:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have to say I found his comments highly offensive. Based on replies here, I'm wondering why we bother to even have rules on civility when they clearly just will not be enforced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  He said that you 'must be insane if...'. It's common hyperbole - it's unnecessary, and I wouldn't do it myself, but it's pretty mild. Our rules are necessary because people regularly go much further than that: I've been called a racist, a social justice warrior, a fucking cunt, a paedophile... you get the drift. NPA exists for a reason, and it is enforced - just not as strictly as you seem to think. While I think the threshold for enforcement is too high, I wouldn't support a sudden and arbitrary change to it. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  To weigh in on this as someone not invovled but who has read over everything here, that is an extremely low bar that you are setting there, and one which falls far below what is actually stated in WP:CIV and WP:5P4. I would also draw a distinction here between "doing X is insane", which is a statement that an action is absurd, and "you are absolutely insane", which is a personal attack on the individual. It's a foundational aspect of WP that we don't tolerate it. Any discussion as to the merits of the AfD argument are totally irrelevant, because at the end of the day Reywas92 always had the option of building consensus in a legitimate way. If the articles are useless crap, there's nothing the creator can really do if the consensus is to delete: consensus does not require unanimity. Theknightwho (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• What I'm getting here is that we should push the limits of the guideline WP:GNG to the toughest, harshest limits of anyone's interpretation but the policy WP:CIVILITY is basically optional. We have to change everything, starting with the "Four WP:PILLARS of Wikipeia" -- that will be more accurate and in alignment with what to expect and how we are behaving. I don't think that's a good idea, but it looks like we have already done that in practice. I argue (likely to deaf ears) that the strictest interpretation is being directed in the wrong place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I see you're familiar with hyperbole as well. Levivich 13:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • My statement was not intended to be an exaggeration. That statement reflects precisely what I observe.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No, what we are getting is that for many years and articles your interpretation of notability for head coaches was way out of sync with general standards, and that it now is clear that your interpretation of notability in general is way out of sync with community standards as well. I notice that you hardly create any articles nowadays, otherwise you would be a poster child for the admins who need to get their autopatrolled right removed. Fram (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The statement of Fram above precisely proves my point. It could well be that the articles in question and many others should be deleted. But it seems that position cannot be stated without extensive name-calling. So instead of being a policy violation, incivility has become a tool that majority editors freely use when they disagree with a minority editor. And it's worked in my case, because I tire of the harsh words and am on Wikipedia much less. I also take offense to being called a "poster child" -- there SHOULD be no place for name calling anywhere in Wikipedia, much less on the Administrators' noticeboard. In summary: if the position of an editor really is out of alignment with consensus, that will come clear quickly in the AFDs or merge proposals or whatever and the closer can make that call. It's really hard to understand that an interpretation of notabiliy would be so terrible that it actually warrants uncivil behavior.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I echo your sentiments on this. It's really disheartening to see experienced users appeal to the merits of the AfD request to excuse insults. This isn't Reddit, and I think we'd all benefit from re-reading WP:NPA (and also this bit of advice). I should also point out that not only is civility part of the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, there is a very obvious reaason behind that, which doesn't just amount to sensitivity: people are far less likely to dedicate the time to contribute to a community where that kind of behaviour is tolerated, much less excused. Fundamentally, this is a question of whether some minor individuals warrant mention in a collaborative project we all contribute to voluntarily; let's keep perspective. Theknightwho (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, so you are not only out of sync with our notability rules (and what is significant coverage and so on), but also very, very easily offended. Noting that an editor whose creations are too often about non-notable subjects should perhaps have their autopatrolled right removed is not incivil, but the kind of thing these noticeboards are for. Until very recently, removing this right was impossible with admins, and some admins seemed to think that this was an unnecessary change because we have no admins whose creations need checking. In reality, we have at least a few for whom this would be desirable, and this thread and the related AfD are showing why you would be one of this small group. And if you are so, so worried about civility, you shouldn't accuse people of "Nominator is posting statements that are not true and this seems to be getting worse through several AFDs." without then providing any examples of statements "that are not true". Fram (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Starting to feel like bullying now. Theknightwho (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Best suppress that urge then, as that wouldn´t be acceptable. Fram (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Lionel Aschka

Is User:Lionel Aschka's userpage an appropriate use of a user page? - MrOllie (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have requested the page be Speedily Deleted as it is a personal attack against multiple editors. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleted and user indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Threat at Talk:Coinbase#Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

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

An IP user has placed a threat to "bombard" this page and "impose their will on us" over some crypto currency drama. I figured I'd bring this here, now, rather than wait for the possibility of things getting annoying. A few extra eyes on the page, especially if those eyes hold mops to protect the page in case of disruption, would be appreciated. Thanks.

And please know that we have the power to bombard this page with hundreds of requests all at once!! But we prefer to be more diplomatic and give you 72 hours to respond before we use our brunt force to impose our will on you. Coinbase is controlling the news media but we control all social media and are going to force Wikipedia to include our story..[111][112] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a comment trying to dissuade any attempts at disruption. Two hours ago, CNBC published an article about this person's grievance. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I added the news with a citation. Hopefully that's enough to avoid the possible disruption the editor in question is talking about. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Tumbleman sock

or equally problematic impersonator in action here.[113] edit might need hiding, and user blocking. Alexbrn (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Revdel'd the edit. If it's a sock of Tumbleman, obvious block. If it's an impersonator for a sock of Tumbleman, again obvious block. Either way, user blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Flagrantly racist comment by IP-hopper

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

Since EC protection was lifted a month ago we've been seeing a gradual return of disruptive behavior at Talk:Race and intelligence. Probably the most flagrantly racist comment has been this one by the IP address linked above: [114]. That comment was quickly reverted, and the the IP range 191.106... disappeared from the page. But the same line of argument, only toned down to avoid running obviously afoul of WP:NAZI, was quickly taken up by another IP range, 2800:484:877C:94F0... [115].

After engaging with that IP range in what I hoped was good faith dialogue, I thought to look up its location and saw that it is the same Colombian city as the 191.106... range. So it appears that my good faith was taken advantage of by this IP user who has shown themselves to be definitively NOTHERE.

I suppose I'm requesting a targeted block on both ranges (191.106... and 2800:484:877C:94F0...) from Talk:Race and intelligence. That should avoid the possible collateral damage of a full block while hopefully protecting the talk page from further abuse. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wow. Profoundly WP:NOTHERE. Ravenswing 18:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a depressing topic to patrol. But it's got to be done. Generalrelative (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  I blocked the IP (though, admittedly, it is not going to have any effect since the edit is almost a week old) and revision-deleted the edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Much appreciated. But to be clear, the 2800:484:877C:94F0... IP range was editing as recently as yesterday. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Saw it immediately before it was revision-deleted (Thanks, Ymblanter). To summarize, it was about how America would become a criminal country if we let immigrants in. How can someone be indoctrinated into believing this crap? ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 18:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but specifically based on the idea that people in so-called "low-IQ countries" are genetically inferior. This is unfortunately not an uncommon belief, as the ongoing POV-pushing in the topic area shows. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The R&I talkpage should at least be indefinitely semi-protected to prevent nonsense like this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Either semi-protection or a range block for 2800:484:877c:94f0:c026:2849:7482:9ef6 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), since the trolling continues. - MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Either that or a longer-term partial block of the 2800:484:877C:94F0... range from this specific talk page, as was done in the case of e.g. User:2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40. That IP range was also topic banned, which might be another an option to consider here. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not see any edits from this range which would justify a block or a revision deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that this is evidently the same person who made the rev-delled comment and that they continue to edit despite the 191.106 IP being blocked. The reason I believe it is overwhelmingly likely that they are the same person is that they are both located in the same city in Colombia –– and we don't typically see a lot of Colombian IPs in this topic area. If there is nothing you can do, however, I understand and thank you for your time. Generalrelative (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Individual edits may look fine, but if you look at Talk:History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy and Talk:Race_and_intelligence you'll find IPs adding some variation of the same talk page section eight times so far. At some point something needs to be done about the talk page bludgeoning. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted these edits by the /64, where they reassert scientific racism and their Jewish heritage, but flip-flopped because I'm not sure it is egregious enough to warrant blanking. What do you guys think? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've hatted them instead. Generalrelative (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown has now semi-protected the talk page, which I see as a solid solution. Generalrelative (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  As the public logs show, semi-protection has happened often, the longest period being in 2014–16, enforced by Doug Weller. Doug's talk page also shows similar disruption by the usual suspect. Mathsci (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

GoAheadFan95 and unnecessary dab pages

GoAheadFan95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) By pure chance, I stumbled across this user today. They moved an article I created some years ago (Desmond Harrison) to a disambiguated title (Desmond Harrison (British Army officer)) in order to create a disambiguation page which distinguished only that Desmond Harrison and one other (Desmond Harrison (American football)). The article on the British general has been there since 2015; when the article on the football player came along in 2018, a hatnote was added, and there are no other Desmond Harrisons who currently have an article on the English Wikipedia. This I reverted as entirely unnecessary and adding an extra navigational step for every reader looking for a Desmond Harrison, not just those looking for the football player. Having examined their contributions, I see that they have done this a lot (in fact, they've done close to nothing else recently)—I can see dozens of new dab pages with only two entries where a primary topic exists or hatnotes have previously been sufficient. I also noticed that their talk page was full of messages about similar moves and other changes for their own sake like creating blank talk pages for dab pages, but none of those messages appear to have been acknowledged or responded to. I'm bringing it here because I don't want to unilaterally delete hundreds of dabs and revert hundreds of moves, and because I feel GoAheadFan95 needs, at a minimum, a warning to slow down and respond to concerns on their talk page, if not a ban on creating new disambiguation pages given their uncommunicativeness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that these DAB pages are unhelpful. (Admins can look at this editor's deleted contributions and see about a dozen DAB pages that are now deleted). I would agree with deleting all the unnecessary DABs created by this user, undoing the corresponding moves, and leaving a final warning on their talk. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I will not create any DAB pages with only two topics, especially where hatnotes have been used to distinguish two articles for years without issue ever again. With that, I changed the link from Desmond Harrison (British Army officer) back to Desmond Harrison and the issue is solved. Thank you. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ad hominem attack (NPA) incident at a talk page for a minor China-related article

I am reporting an incident of an ad hominem attack against me that was carried out by this IP user — IP user 139.47.34.245 — over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations.

The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history. Their first ever edit was a reversion of a reversion that I had conducted over at the article China–Lithuania relations ([116]). Their second and final edit as of now was an incident of an ad hominem attack against myself, published on the corresponding talk page, Talk:China–Lithuania relations ([117]).

I initially contacted the user to inform them that I believed that they had conducted a personal attack against me [118]. So far, after a couple of days, they haven't yet responded to me (at least, not through that account). Notably, the user quoted some text from my user page into the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations in an attempt to prove that I was "biased" (as seen in ([119]). I deleted the quoted text (though, I left behind everything else that they had written) and left a "personal attack removed" notice ([120]).

A different IP user — IP user 195.135.49.168 — subsequently reverted my deletion of the personal attack over at the talk page, and a brief edit war ensued before I conceded to that user (their version remains) and began to seriously pursue a resolution to the dispute. This user was also contacted by me in the same manner as the first user ([121]). Lengthy negotiations have occurred between me and this user at their talk page since then. This user has refused to remove the personal attack, stating that its purpose is to "expose" me in terms of my apparent bias (seen in [122] and in [123]).

I do indeed suspect that these two users are the same person. It is difficult to figure out what exactly is going on due to the usage of IP accounts rather than registered accounts. Notably, the second user's edits over at the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations have essentially combined both their own comments and the other user's comments into a single mixed-up blob (as seen in [124]), so, unless these two users are not the same person, I can't fathom that either user would find such a situation acceptable (it's impossible to tell where one user's comment begins and the other user's comment ends).

My goal regarding this dispute is primarily to remove the personal attack material from the talk page Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I am not pursuing any specific actions against the two users who have been involved in this incident. I've already tried to resolve the dispute through negotiations with the other parties, but they are either non-responsive or refusing to co-operate, so I am now resorting to the incidents noticeboard, particularly because I want the personal attack material to be removed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if it's proper to just add my two cents here, since it's not about an ad hominem attack, but this IP user has been POV pushing and reverting edits without properly engaging in talk. See [125] and Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan relations. E.g. the user doesn't think South China Morning Post is RS and insists on deleting it as a reference even though I have provided them with a link to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Anyway, this is exhausting, and I am done for today. DrIdiot (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

One more: [126] IP user just inserts a random source that doesn't justify the claim when pressed? Edits are full of this stuff. Was hesitant at first but I would consider this disrputive editing at this point. DrIdiot (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, previous example probably not the best. Anyway, the talk page has a record of the discussion. DrIdiot (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to point out something rather interesting (to say the least)... In my original ANI report above, which I wrote only around a day ago, I specifically said "The user in question only has two edits in total across their account's entire history.". This comment has aged like milk... After only one day, the user in question now possesses THIRTY-FIVE edits in total (several of them quite large, I might add). This is also disregarding the high likelihood that the two IP users mentioned above are actually the same person in real life; i.e. their edits should hypothetically be considered together as one unit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Dineshs01102000

On en.wiki, Dineshs01102000 has uploaded at least one copyvio image (File:V Senthil Balaji.jpg), has had at least 13 edits revdeleted as copyvios, and has been warned of the same ([127][128]). On Commons, Dineshs01102000 has been indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. Subsequent to the Commons block, Dineshs01102000 created a sock account, TherkuKL, to continue to upload copyvios there whilst using the Dineshs01102000 account to insert them here; e.g.:

• 15:09, 08 November 2021 - TherkuKL created;
• 15:35, 08 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Actress Vindhya.png;
• 15:38, 08 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Vindhya (actress);
• 15:58, 08 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:B Valarmathi.png;
• 16:00, 08 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:B. Valarmathi;
• 06:20, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Vindhya with Jayalalithaa.jpg;
• 06:23, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Vindhya (actress);
• 07:50, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Edappadi K. Palaniswami with Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa.png;
• 07:53, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Edappadi K. Palaniswami;
• 14:09, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Jayalalithaa with Sasikala at Kodanad Estate.png;
• 14:13, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:V. K. Sasikala;
• 14:15, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Jayalalithaa with Sasikala in September 2001.png;
• 14:16, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:Disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa;
• 14:55, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Actress Jayalalithaa.jpg;
• 14:58, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:J. Jayalalithaa;
• 15:15, 10 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Jayalalithaa in 1972.jpg;
• 15:16, 10 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:J. Jayalalithaa filmography;
• 09:33, 12 November 2021 - TherkuKL uploads File:Valarmathi with Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.png;
• 09:35, 12 November 2021 - Dineshs01102000 adds the image to w:B. Valarmathi;

Even though the images were hosted on Commons, deliberate insertion of copyvios here is disruption to en.wiki. Indeed per previous en.wiki copyvio warnings, Dineshs01102000 would be understood to know full well that they were violating policy. In addition to copyright issues, Dineshs01102000 has previously been warned about abusing multiple accounts ([129]), edit warring ([130]), personal attacks ([131]), and most recently COI ([132],final). This appears to be a user that needs discussion (SPI is not fitting as TherkuKL has not edited here). Эlcobbola _talk 21:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've given them multiple warnings mainly for WP:OR and seen no improvements on their part. Dineshs01102000 added their personal analysis to J. Jayalalithaa and used fictional references and when asked why, this was their response: Common Public claim :It was the fact that the state witnessed from 2006 - 2011.[133]. Does the same thing again[134] after I asked them to respond to my warning.[135]. With subheadings like these, it seems like there may be a WP:COI with J. Jayalalithaa as it is their most edited page. I checked one edit in the article and looks like the copyvio still continues, they've copy pasted content in this edit from this article. I haven't checked rest of their edits in that article. - SUN EYE 1 08:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Harman Edit warrior is back again immediately after being blocked.

The edit warrior who I mentioned in this post is back again with a new IP.

This time the ip is 223.189.27.144 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Considering this user has no intentions of engaging in discussion or consensus and just wants to continue edit warring. I think page protection may be needed to end this. JellyMan9001 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Could any Admin please Block this ip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:223.189.27.144), It is a block evasion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2409:4040:E00:3960:FFA5:FA90:3810:7BFC. Thank You Chip3004 (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That IP address has not been used in 2 days. The report is stale. Given that we know they use different IP addresses, there is little benefit of blocking this one right now. --Jayron32 14:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Annoying Orange "Cocaine" edits

There's someone who edited the Annoying Orange Wikipedia page claiming that Orange "likes cocaine" which given the fact that this is a franchise targeted for kids I seriously doubt there are references to any drugs (that I know of) the first one to say so is 98.21.245.227. As I edited that false fact about Annoying Orange and Crack Cocaine to where the Cocaine wasn't even mentioned there someone reverted the edits, the ip address is 174.207.34.59 which I believe is possibly a sockpuppet account but that's not an official accusation. I would like to say that this is a real example of vandalism and needs to be taken care of. Thomasthedarkenguine (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@@Thomasthedarkenguine: I semi-protected Annoying Orange for a month. If anything else is needed, please let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Scantydu

Hello. User:Scantydu has just posted a rather incivil retirement message on his or her talk page. While many parts of it are arguably breaches of Wikipedia:Civility, the reason I'm here instead of just ignoring it is the expressed desire for other users to commit suicide, which I believe to be block-worthy. I'm not sure what this falls under, but this user has no constructive edits, and appears to be NOTHERE at the very least. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I smell MrRosstheScientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sock here. Care to investifate or just block per WP:NOTHERE? Loew Galitz (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that does indeed look suspicious. I'll open an SPI. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Concur, the duck is strong in this one. They've both edited the same 2 articles with similar edits, and posted the same sort of "retirement" rant. BilCat (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrRosstheScientist, if you have anything to add there. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Tol needs to stop stalking Scantydu and let him put whatever he wants on his talk page. Geez get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbob104 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked Billbob104, but I'll let someone else have the fun of blocking Scantydu. --Golbez (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For reference, this account was created today, immediately after Scantydu's last edit (this one). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A very entertaining rant on his user-talkpage, getting the attention he hoped it would. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

User:MrRosstheScientist was declined an unblock at 07:57 on 8 December, with User:Scantydu making their first edit at 4 minutes later. Writing style is identical. ➡🗑️ please. Theknightwho (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate death wish screed and will now ponder a block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Eventually, you'll have to lock his talkpage. At this point, the lad is self-humouring himself. Of course, the socks will continue. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am enforcing this editor's retirement with an indefinite block, pending a sucessful appeal. If they return in any way, shape or form before then, the socks will be blocked as well. Cullen328 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth deleting the relevant revisions as per WP:CRD, too? It isn't the reason for the block (so it serves no useful purpose), and seems to fall under "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Theknightwho (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Theknightwho, I take your point but here is my thinking: The ridiculous offensive comments were not directed at any specific editor and cannot be taken too seriously, although they were policy violations. I have removed them from easy public view. But I have left them in the edit history so that any serious editor examining this issue will have access to what this editor said. Any administrator who thinks that I have been too lenient is welcome to revdel or suppress without my permission. I might be asleep. Cullen328 (talk) 05:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Can't imagine you were, in dealing with a troll who claimed to be "retiring" after what I am sure was a harrowing and arduous 20-hour-long Wikipedia career. Ravenswing 13:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look over the page histories, and found this questionable diff from 5 December by 106.206.202.92, which has the hallmarks too. Theknightwho (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh appears to have filed a lawsuit implying Wikipedia editors [unarchived]

Knightedblog0934, a sockpuppet of RK777713 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RK777713/Archive), has previously claimed to be Ryan Kavanaugh and has threatened to sue editors of his Wikipedia article last week. RK777713's identity has so far not been confirmed, but I believe that this article published yesterday and written by Kavanaugh should lay any doubts to rest. I don't know how Wikipedia goes about lawsuits like these. I'm not sure if this is the proper venue, I just felt obligated to let the administrators know. Notifying Tamzin since they were involved with previous sockpuppet investigations. Throast (talk | contribs) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia's legal team can be contacted here if you wish. There's an email address located near the bottom of the page. --Jayron32 12:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping, Throast. I'm happy to contact Legal if you haven't already. It does seem likely beyond any reasonable doubt here that RK777713 is either telling the truth about being Kavanaugh or is someone paid to act on his behalf; if it were a joe job one would expect him to have addressed this in the article. (Obligatory note that RK777713 made this claim implicitly on-wiki here, here, and elsewhere, and, as Throast alludes to, confirmed sock Knightedblog stated it explicitly here, here, and here, so there is no WP:OUTING issue with discussing it.) It would be good to see the text of the lawsuit to see to what extent he mentions Wikipedia, to know how much exposure, if any, there is for individual editors.
  At the same time, in the spirit of WP:DOLT, we should be aware that some of Kavanaugh's claims of improper behavior on Wikipedia have an amount of merit. I've already warned [136] [137] two users for harassing someone they perceived to be Kavanaugh (and whom I concluded at SPI was quite likely associated with him in some way, although not to such a degree as to violate MEAT) and, in one of their cases, for violating WP:BLP against Kavanaugh in the process. (See Special:PageHistory/User talk:Garen67541 for context, noting that the worst of it has been revdelled or OS'd.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I would second Tamzin's concern over the possible merits of Kavanaugh's complaints. The BLP issue is more important than the other issues here. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tamzin: I haven't contacted Legal yet, so if you'd like to, please do. You seem much better versed in all of this than me. Thank you in advance! Sidenote, having been personally threatened, I got the impression that Kavanaugh's legal threats were directed against the "negative" contributions to the article rather than the specific comments made by those two editors. Throast (talk | contribs) 16:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've contacted Legal. For full transparency, a copy of the email is below:

Email to Legal. There's one error in this, since corrected in a follow-up email: The "past ANI" link should have been to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077 § Legal threats against another user. (Also, DYK you can get a version of an HTML email that replaces all links with footnotes? Pretty cool.)

Dear legal team, At this ANI thread on enwiki [1] (permalink [2] as of time of writing), a concern has been raised about a lawsuit filed by American multimillionaire Ryan Kavanaugh against YouTuber Ethan Klein; in Kavanaugh's blog post [3] about the suit (archival link [4]), he mentions concerns about his English Wikipedia article, which seems to confirm statements made by user RK777713 and his sockpuppets of being Kavanaugh. (Past ANI [2], ending in block for legal threats. SPI [5], resulting in various blocks for sockpuppetry and further threats.) I write to Legal for three reasons: One, to apprise you of this situation if you are unaware of it. Two, to ask if there is any exposure here for individual Wikipedians. Kavanaugh's blog post doesn't seem to link the actual legal documents. And three, to request Legal's input on whether the community has taken adequate measures (through revdels, warnings, etc.) to mitigate the possibility of defamatory statements against Kavanaugh on-wiki that could lead to liability for Wikipedians or the WMF (regardless of whether he's actually suing over them). A comment at the ongoing ANI thread would be most welcome if possible. You should also be aware of the existence of User:Garen67541 [6], previously User:88rising88. At the SPI I concluded that Garen is probably not Kavanaugh, but may well be affiliated with him in some way. Thank you for your time, Tamzin Links: ------ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ryan_Kavanaugh_appears_to_have_filed_a_lawsuit_implying_Wikipedia_editors [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1058124674#Ryan_Kavanaugh_appears_to_have_filed_a_lawsuit_implying_Wikipedia_editors [3] https://csq.com/2021/11/c-suite-contributor-ryan-kavanaugh-the-dark-side-of-the-power-of-social-media/ [4] https://web.archive.org/web/20211201163906/https://csq.com/2021/11/c-suite-contributor-ryan-kavanaugh-the-dark-side-of-the-power-of-social-media/ [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/RK777713 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Garen67541

Since I've mentioned Garen67541, I will notify them of this thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Request #34039 according to the response, if anyone else plans to write in. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Unarchiving to note that I've now heard back from Legal, who apologize for the slow response. They reply that while they cannot give specific legal advice here, if anyone does wind up getting sued they should look at m:Legal/Legal Fees Assistance Program and contact legal@ (even if they don't qualify under that program). They don't seem to have any greater insight than we do as to whether Kavanaugh is currently targeting any Wikipedians.

They declined to comment on whether the actions taken so far to avoid defamation at the Kavanaugh article are sufficient. They pointed out that it's hard to be found liable for defamation on Wikipedia unless the claims were both false and unsourced/very poorly sourced (I assume a reference to actual malice or something along those lines). I'm not sure if anything that's happened so far would cross that line... even the quite nasty insults against Kavanaugh that I requested revdel for are not defamation since they're not assertions of fact... but getting sued is unpleasant even if one is sure one will win.

Finally, they noted that T&S can be contacted if local measures prove insufficient for dealing with RK777713 & co. Personally I don't think we're at that point yet, but any editor is free to contact T&S if they disagree. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh, thought that would ping people who'd commented here, but I guess Echo's smarter than I thought (for once). Pings @Throast and Paul August. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I am the administrator who blocked RK777713 back on September 4. I am fully confident that my block was correct and in accordance with policy, and I welcome scrutiny by my fellow editors. Kavanaugh may or may not have valid criticisms of the article, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about addressing these issues. Threatening to sue people is OK elsewhere, but not on Wikipedia if the threats are directed at Wikipedia editors. At least if someone wants to keep editing Wikipedia. So, if Kavanaugh decides to sue me, I will defend myself vigorously on the basis that I was faithfully enforcing the policies and guidelines of this website, and I would expect the WMF to back me up with their formidable resources. I am the eternal optimist. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Earlier this week, the RK777713 account made another attempt at explaining themselves. Interestingly, shortly after said posting, a 10-year-moribund account, Joshduman1 responded to their request. The plot thickens. --Jayron32 14:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There were three instances of vandalism to Kavanaugh's talkpage in the eight hours after his unblock request. My guess is something was posted on a subreddit or Discord server related to H3H3. (I'll confess not having full familiarity with the underlying off-wiki dispute, but I do know that H3 has a very zealous fanbase.) Not unheard-of for people to dust off ancient accounts when that sort of thing happens. I recall an AfD a while ago where someone had canvassed all of their software's users to come !vote, and because of the demographic at play we had 10-plus-year-old accounts emerging to !vote in a single AfD. It's also clear from Garen's talkpage's history that there was some off-wiki attention involved. That general trend is what I'm worried about here. I agree with Cullen that the underlying block here was totally justified, as have been the subsequent sockblocks—I'd be a bit of a hypocrite if I said otherwise—but the subsequent behavior toward RK and their sox, all from IPs, new users, or in this case a long-dormant user, is something to keep an eye on, even where some of it is not disruptive on its face. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Continued harassment by disruptive Hong Kong IP

A thread was recently opened by Matthew hk about an IP-hopping editor who is persistently harassing and insulting other Hong Kong editors as well as adding uncited content (namely, obscure Hong Kong place names):

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#203.145.95.X_harassment,_personal_attack_and_possible_part_of_off_site_canvassing_behaviours

However, no action was taken. Predictably the IP-hopping editor has gone straight back to their previous disruptive activity.

For one, as I mentioned in the previous thread, they are persistently stalking my edits. Yesterday, I made a significant expansion of the "Kowloon City Plaza" article. Immediately thereafter they peppered it with maintenance tags and added problematic content that has been discussed with them before (e.g. they keep adding obscure land lot numbers to Hong Kong articles). They have a long history of such harassment, with much more evidence presented in the previous thread. Citobun (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access

Please remove talk page access from this user. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)