Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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, ([1], [2]), and otherwise making unhelpful user talk page posts ([3]). 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: [4] ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
  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)
• They are blatantly the same person. Quacking loudly. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Just posting here to say the editor has simply stopped editing the offending articles and removed all the comments pointed out here, but has not responded to this thread or described any intention to change their pattern of behavior. I am doubtful that the behavior would not simply recur in some time, when we have all forgotten about it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:29, 12 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 [13]. 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)
• Support - Obviously not here to be constructive. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: In the 10+ years that this user has been around (I'm counting the history of BrandonTR and BrandonTRA as the same person), they have only been blocked once, for 48 hours. I don't think we should jump straight to an indef block. This seems premature to me. -- Mike 🗩 15:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would tell you that blocks are usually not meant to be punitive, they are meant to be preventative of disruptive behavior. If we can reasonably determine that this editor will be disruptive again, and has very little interest in being constructive, then the block is probably justified. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - Time to escort the editor off the property. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-pornography AfD's

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

---

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 [14] 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[15]. 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. [16] 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

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

---

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: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. 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%: [23]

  Subtropical-man: 18.6% [24]

  Supercopone : 0%, but TBD [25] Has weighed in at 39 AfDs in 3 days, only one has closed so far.

  Spartaz: 83%: [26]

  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 [27] 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)

• At the very least something needs to be done. This thread should not be archived without action. This kind of well-poisoning should not be allowed to continue unchecked. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that we already agreed to let it die and no longer engage with him.Super (talk)

05:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Where did we agree that? And why do you refer to yourself in the third person? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Me and Subtropical-man man have agreed to changes. I am only wrapping up with the AfD's Inwas already involved with. I stepped back from new ones and told an admin that earlier. Another admin literally told me I needed to file here when I questioned how to handle this. Please see that on my talk page. That said I have done nothing causing any issues in AfDs that should result in a topic ban other than working to save articles that have merit. My crime is wanting to stop massive deletions and wanting to improve WikipediaSuper (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support AfD topicban for Supercopone; no opinion on siteban or sanction on Subtropical-man. I watch WP:DSGEO and often see non-policy-based WP:ILIKEIT-type !votes on their part, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonax, Washington, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundale, Washington, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Coal Mine, Texas. Their participation in these is solely disruptive as they do not put any effort into demonstrating GNG. Additionally, there is battleground behaviour evidenced in this thread as they try to equate their WP:ATA-based trend of keeping to Spartaz's and Mlb96's deletes that are based in policy and consistent with consensus, as demonstrated, in addition to their constant accusations on Spartaz of being "anti-pornography". eviolite (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

So a entry by Lewis and Clark and a long time home to native Americans is notable and worth bringing up like I did in the Moons article? You cherry pick my votes in bad faith. The real problem here is I don't blindly vote delete everytime.Super (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The nominator already brought those up. Finally, we have the name origin story, which is a perfect bit of "just-so" fabricated from Lewis and Clark's journals. The entry in question is definitely Clark's work, and does nothing to pin down a spot to such exactitude. You did nothing to demonstrate a pass of either WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND on any of those articles; being named by L&C does not affect either. If you had read the nominations you would have seen that. Nobody is blindly !voting delete; they have presented rationales based in policy and backed by consensus. And your continuing battleground and constant WP:IDHT behavior here makes me weakly support a siteban as well. eviolite (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

So the point is that in good faith with a notable mention as a place where Lewis and Clark stopped at I voted Keep. I don't think my vote to keep can in anyway be twisted to be negative. You and other do not have to like it. It seems me defending my actions upset you enough to want me banned? Super (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Once again, that does not show notability in any way. See WP:ITSNOTABLE and the actual relevant guidelines WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND which have been linked to you multiple times. The reason I weakly support a site ban is your consistent refusal to read guidelines/policies in addition to levying accusations on users like Spartaz and other commenters here. eviolite (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats your opinion. I feel it does. You cannot ban someone for having a different opinion then you. I felt it should have been kept and more information added.Super (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban as this user very clearly is not engaging with the AFD process in good faith, and has no intention of starting any time soon. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thats not true. "Very clearly" is a misleading claim. I actually have been working hard to provide factual information that is useful to the afd process. Literally just wrote a letter and sent it snail mail to a historical society for information.Super (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually have been working hard ... Literally just wrote a letter and sent it snail mail ... Millennials, lol. Levivich 01:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support siteban -- user is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and is being disruptive. They need to go. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose action against Subtropical-man. The coverage of subjects in fields that are too taboo to receive mainstream coverage (i.e. the kind of sourcing we prefer and require) yet are immensely popular in regard to other metrics is something many may find wildly frustrating. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia that is free, open, and not easily manipulated by those who may have hidden conservative (or quasi-progressive) moral sensibilities. This whole matter is really just a symptom of our inadequate system of determination due to the lack of and repeal of special exemptions allowing an adequate amount of coverage for those who work in the adult industry. Especially given the existence of this thread, I do not imagine that Subtropical-man will engage in further frustrated behavior around the topic that might get them pulled back here anytime soon. Neutral regarding Supercopone (have not done and do not plan to do the necessary amount of due diligence to weigh in on that portion). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • who is that dig about moral sensitivities pointed at please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    • It is certainly not an attack on anyone; rather, it is just hypothetical musings that the culture here surrounding the coverage of the pornographic industry etc. gives anyone who might covertly harbor such sentiments many legs to stand on, while leaving those who wish to see the indecorous topic reasonably covered with few. I could say the same thing about the way the domain was handled in the past potentially enabling innapropriate fandom; however, there is no need because the pendulum has swung far enough in the other direction to make such speculation unwarranted at this time. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Christ what a load of vacuous bullshit. --JBL (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Vacuous truth perhaps, due to the courtesy of maintaining civility (something I would encourage others to do). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Civility aside, it definitely feels like you are obfuscating the discussion with needlessly vague and complicated statements. That may not be your intention, but it is nonetheless quite frustrating. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Fair enough—perhaps the complication arose due to vagueness which was seemingly neccessary for politesse; I apologize if my presentation of statements above in a manner to avoid personal hot water resulted in inarticulate inconciseness—anyhow, I rest my case. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
              • Its not the slightest bit civil to try and pin labels on people who disagree with you, especially shitty little comments about moral sensibilities and then try to claim some moral high ground for your actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Rather than engaging in unsupportable speculations about hidden motives, we should focus on dealing with the clear-cut behavioral problems that are openly displayed in this very thread. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• This has been open 10 days now and the longer its left open the more nasty comments about me are being made. There is a clear consensus that I am the aggrieved party here so why are we allowing this to continue? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment As there is essentially no valid opposition (subtropical obviously opposes his own sanction, Godsy posted a bit of an aimless word salad), support for Subtropical-man to be topic-banned from deletion discussions, and 1-way banned from Spartaz seems clear. Supercopone, the instigator, a site ban seems clear. ValarianB (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• You're wrong. There is opposition, also no serious arguments for topic-ban. The blocking policy is clear. I do not meet the requirements to topic-ban because I am not active in topic of pornography. Also, your "1-way banned from Spartaz" are disputed. There is no consensus and also I made a statement, I quote: 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. So if I get an "1-way banned from Spartaz" I will have to create a new section/subsection in this discussion about "2-way banned" and the discussion will be extended. So far, I haven't started a discussion about 2-way banned to avoid prolonging discussion. Your opinion is already known [28]. Your aggressive comments who attacking me isn't helping here, it only unnecessarily prolongs the discussion. I think the discussion could have been closed a week ago. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support deletion topic ban for Subtropical-man, and support a site ban for Supercopone, based on prior behaviour. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• What is the difference between your "deletion topic ban" and "site ban"? Second question: why do you support block whole AfD if I are no AfD issues me except pornography (not to mention that I quit pornography topic a few years ago and the current case is an exception because I was asked to speak)? I understand that you may have old prejudices against me, however, they are not important here, because these must be actual/current cases. I too can bring 10 users to vote to block for you but: Wikipedia is not a democracy. Topic-ban for any user is a serious matter and must to be serious arguments in accordance with the banning policy. Wikipedia:Banning policy say in the intro: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. If user for few years has not been active in both: pornography topic and the AfD, does not meet requirement for topic-ban in accordance with the blocking policy. Your comment is just Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE and propably a violation of WP:CANVASS. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 00:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support deletion topic ban for Subtropical-man, and support a site ban for Supercopone. Reading through all the relevant discussions both of them seem pretty combative here and in AfDs. It should go without saying that AfD isn't a battleground. While I agree that bans are a serious matter, neither seems to understand why their behavior is an issue. So bans seem like an appropriate way to avoid possible future disruption from them. Going by their actions in this discussion I doubt they will just stop magically stop being combative about things without some kind of formal action being taken in the meantime. It's not like they can't appeal the bans at some point in the future when they have both calmed down and are willing to get along with others better. -Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1:, You wrote: "So bans seem like an appropriate way to avoid possible future disruption from them". You used the word "them" which in this case cannot be qualified together with user:Supercopone. Here we have a completely different situation. User:Supercopone is active in AfD matters, I am not. I quit pornography topic a few years ago and the current case is an exception because I was asked to speak. I abandoned the topic of pornography few years ago by my own free will. So, by what law do you use slander that I am going to come back to the topic of pornography in the future? Your comment here violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A few times before I mentioned that I doesn't edit this topic from few years, I asked doesn't ping me on topics like that. I'm angry that Supercopone got me into this discussion... and even I got an apology. Everything indicates that I am not going to edit this topic, and your comment is purely speculative. If you have evidence that I intend to be active on a topic, provide that evidence. If you have no evidence, so - you breaking two Wikipedia rules, please correct your statement or/and change the vote to neutral. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I could really care less if you participate in things related to porn again. Your being disruptive in this discussion. The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles. It was your choice to participate in this discussion and throw around accusations at everyone in the process, even if you were originally pinged by Supercopone. In the meantime, it's not on me or the community at large to excuse your combative behavior just because you were pinged by someone. Seriously, find a better excuse and stop responding in a defensive way to everyone who "votes" in a way you don't like. It's beyond bludging at this point and does nothing to help your argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Adamant1:, you wrote: "I could really care less if you participate in things related to porn again. Your being disruptive in this discussion. The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles" - your commnet has proven once again that your support for topic-ban violates Wikipedia rules. Your previous comment violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this commnent in not accordance with the blocking policy, because for used a topic-ban there must be a reason: current, regular destructive actions on a given topic, and not just an aggressive tone of speech at all. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 09:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't really feel like belaboring this discussion anymore then it has been but WP:CRYSTALBALL has to do with the content of articles, not dealing with disruptive people at ANI. In the meantime it's perfectly reasonable to support a topic ban for "chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Both of which you've clearly displayed. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe WP:CRYSTALBALL has to do with the content of articles, however, it perfectly described your problem: Wikipedia is not unverifiable speculation or presumptions. You cannot argue based on speculation or presumptions, must to be serious arguments and evidences. Second: I understand what you wrote, however "combative" style of expression has nothing to do with topic-ban. Your idea is so absurd that if I write aggressively on the talk page of Talk:Elephant, I should have a topic-ban for any articles of Elephants? or maybe topic-ban for all animals? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLUDGEON. Especially the points made in the "Dealing with being accused of bludgeoning the process" section. You'd do well to follow them here. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• The situation from a third person perspective (step by step, point by point): user quit pornography topic and AfD at all a few years ago and the current case is an exception because was asked to speak. User abandoned the topic of pornography and AfD at all few years ago by my own free will. The user has never had any problems with the AfD with other topics. To sum up: user inactive in AfD and also in topic of pornography. User spoke up on one case (over the past few years ), upon request by other user. The user was angry that he was being pinged and asked not to ping him. The user has written several times that he does not want to get involved in pornography topic. There are no arguments to propose a topic-ban in this situation, not a single rational argument consistent with the blocking policy. Based on the pillar of banning policy, to quote: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish user", the only thing is that the user may want to edit porn sites in the future, however, these are only unsupported speculations contrary to the actions of the user who abandoned the topic of pornography and AfD at all and his statements. From a technical point of view, there is currently no any basis for using topic-ban. Even if the user in the future (which is unlikely) the user decides to return to AfD and pornography, and if (repeat: if) its editions will be controversial, you can ask for a topic ban (then based on banning policy). As you can see, looking at the matter from a third perspective is crucial in such matters. As of today, there is not even any substantive (arguments, evidences) or technical (banning policy) basis for topic-ban.

• In this discussion, three users showed an extreme lack of objectivity, two voted for topic ban without providing arguments and evidence (Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE, Wikipedia:Assume good faith). The only user who tried to argue is Adamant1. However, his first comment here violates two rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, second comment of "The combative way your acting here inclines me to think it's just your approach to things in general that is the issue and not something specifically related to porn articles" - it even proves that it does not cover the topic-ban at all. These three users not only showed a lack of objectivity and also slander and lying speculation were used against me. I am asking the administrator to restore order here. These slander and attacks on me must end here and now. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 10:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • You say I am asking the administrator to restore order here. These slander and attacks on me must end here and now. I have been asking this for days now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note Please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Topic-ban for any user is a serious matter and must to be supported by serious arguments in accordance with the blocking policy including an important sentence {{tqq|Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. Also, remember to assume good faith. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support bans. I wasn't going to weigh in, but the not a vote box above which has just been placed by Subtropical-man has convinced me that they do not have the good judgment necessary to contribute in these areas. - MrOllie (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• This (deleted) box is request for substantive arguments (instead empty votes per Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE) and following the rules of Wikipedia (including banning policy) did not appeal to this user. I'll leave it without comment. I have never seen a more absurd vote in a discussion on Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• As I wrote before. Wikipedia is not voting, not democracy. This is obvious. The above vote is a parody. Some of the comments are even so sloppy that it's even hard to read what type of blockage it is: topic ban for pornography topic, topic ban for AfD (any topics) or topic-ban for pornography topic in AfD. The latter is theoretically the most reasonable and justified, however, no one even suggested it. Close whole AfD for user. It does not matter that it is against the policy of blocking and common sense. Some of the comments here are trolling and revenge, not a substantive discussion. I ask again: where is the administrator? The administrator should paste vote box and instruct others, because as you can see , when I pasted vote box, the user voted for my topic-ban. How long is this circus going to last here? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 18:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Note. Information for the administrator closing the topic. Recently, there have been a few votes without any arguments and against to the banning policy. Some comments/votes had the hallmarks of revenge for their aggressive speach here, which have nothing to do with the topic-ban on the AfD. No arguments were given, nor was it proven that topic-ban is necessary. Luckily, Wikipedia is not voting, not democracy. This is obvious. Even Wikipedia:Consensus in intro say Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Considering that there are no substantive arguments nor was it proven that topic-ban is necessary, it is obvious that there is no consensus for topic-ban for Subtropical-man. Considering that the discussion has been going on for 11 days, and the new comments (Wikipedia:JUSTAVOTE) are more and more like trolling, I suggest closing the discussion. If the administrator closing the discussion has any doubts about topic-ban for Subtropical-man, please write, then will take the opportunity to obtain a third opinion (Wikipedia:Third opinion) - a neutral person who will not be guided by emotions, who only check it formally - according to Wikipedia standards and rules and banning policies and that there are rational arguments for the necessity to enter topic-ban. From the above discussion it follows that there is neither rational arguments for the necessity to enter topic-ban and is against the banning policy. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Subtropical-man:, enough with the giant info-boxes, your opinion does not deserve or warrant a higher form of display than any other editor. I formatted them as comments and left an unsigned template, you are free to atach your actual signature and timestamp as you wish. ValarianB (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I added a final note for the administrator, necessarily as mbox, as my summary and statement. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Again, not your place. Knock it off. ValarianB (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't need your permission to use mbox. Stop trolling. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

New suspicious nom

Apologies...this had nothing to do with the above. Feel free to ignore this wholly. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

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" [29] 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 [30] 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, [31] 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 [32] 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 [33] 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 [34][35][36] 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 ([37]). 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 [38] 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: [39] and [40] 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)

I know of WP:PAYWALL and WP:OFFLINE, and am forced to remind Mztourist of there existence constantly, and I am not the only one, please look over Mztourists comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree. What I absolutely cannot stand is not that some of the articles I have created have been AFDd, it is when myself and the community have provided overwhelming support for WP:GNG, it doesn't matter what the source is or how notable the person is with proof, he will aggressively deny it over and over. With Mztourist, there is no discussion, there is no compromise. This discussion here shows the same thing, he absolutely refuses to take even a shred of responsibility despite the obvious facts that he is aggressive and rude when conducting AFDs, which others have noticed. I source my articles, and I am improving, but my interaction with Mz has been so frustrating I have been ready to give up contributing all together because it isn't worth the frustration and anger it causes when I cannot have a civil discussion with the person attempting to delete everything I create because he just keeps repeating the same thing over and over even if it isn't the case. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not that I'm saying references have to be online and easily accessible, but there is a standard of "in-depth coverage" that should be followed and it's on the person who is providing the references to show proof that the standard is being met if they are the only person that has access to them. Which, unless I missed it, didn't seem like you were willing to do. In the meantime I don't really blame Mztourist for being skeptical of your references since you've repeatedly and openly been hostile toward him nominating your articles. It wouldn't really be much of a stretch that someone who thinks their work is under attack, revenge nominates articles for deletion and calls people autistic, would also use questionable references to get their articles kept. Not that I'm saying your doing that, but considering how you've acted I can understand where people might be hesitant to take your word about the references being adequate. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you didn't read the interactions between not only myself and Mz, but his interactions between Mz and others in the AFDs. When Mz first made those claims about paid archives, I actually took the time to clip, save, and add the copy of the article to the link so everyone could read the articles, it made absolutely zero difference, because he never actually has a conversation, he stands on his soap box yelling, and when you try to appease him, he just refuses to respond. Take the time to read [[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander K. Tyree]], it doesn't matter what we all do to appease him, he never stops yelling the same thing. He has not a single time admitted through all the AFDs, despite who has added them, ever conceded a new resource has helped the article at all. He stands there yelling to delete until the bitter end despite all of the articles except one, which was merged, being kept. The same here, he pushes the blame for our interactions 100% on me. You act like I have been making comments such as the autistic one from the beginning, that isn't true. That was made after more than a year of systematically being targeted again and again and Mz refusing to actually hold any time of meaningful discussion. If you would go back and look at the articles I AFDd of Mz, two of them had I believe a single reference and one and on references at all, the others were AFDd on the the same reasons he had AFDd another article based on WP:GNG. I was pointing out the hypocrisy that he was AFDing articles which were much better sourced while creating articles which had zero or almost zero sources. He became super defensive as well, despite being in the wrong. All of a sudden a single obituary was enough to support GNG. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jamesallain85: You might not be aware of it, but the first person who called him out about the paid archive thing was Andrew Davidson, who is topic-banned from participating in AfDs for various reasons. Including repeatedly harassing nominators about arbitrary nonsense. Whereas, the other person who raised concerns, Cullen thought Alexander K. Tyree should be notable because they are a vet and teacher. As if that's some great accomplishment that makes the person instantly worty of notability or something. Which is just laughable. So I don't think other people having opinions against MZ in that AfD is the slam dunk in your favor that you think it is. Especially with Andrew. As far as MZ being super defensive, the first comment was an accusation that he might have nominated the article as revenge, which he was pretty none defensive about, and then you were pretty defensive in your follow up comment. Which MZ ignored. So I don't that's a slam dunk in your favor either. If anything it just shows that you were needlessly defensive about it from the start when MZ was actually pretty normal about the whole thing. Even after he was being accused of doing a revenge nomination. I'll give you that he was kind of defensive toward Andrew, but my guess is that it had more to do with the ongoing issues that led to Andrew being topic banned then it did anything to do with you or that specific AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the level of synth and at times outright information fabrication that occurs in some of these articles, I completely understand MZ's skepticism about sources that can't be easily verified. It may be policy to allow paywalled sources, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's always good policy. Intothatdarkness 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Here was my attempt to appease [[41]], and like normal no response or even a verification. Because it makes no difference I stopped taking the extra time to try and appease because it is simply a waste of my time if they are just going to continue making the same comments. This was the state of the article I AFDd [[42]], I think some are so focused on my recent poor behaviour, but are failing to see the issue that has led up to this point. Look at the Proposed deletion of Robert B. Carney Jr. here [[43]]. It can attest to Mzs civility while I was trying to have a conversation on the issue. Jamesallain85 (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did you continue to post to that thread (in the last link) after they twice told you to stop posting to their talk page? That’s not very sensible and puts the claim of “trying to have a conversation” in a different light. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 10 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)

• Support boomerang. All else aside, I'm not seeing where Jamesallain85 has actually provided any evidence that articles he created are being targeted, which makes his prolonged campaign against Mztourist (both via revenge AFDs in the past and things like this filing) an extremely inappropriate response to the normal AFD process, as well as egregious WP:OWNing. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 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 ([44]) 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)

I'm not taking a view at all on this dispute, other than to say that I don't feel WCM's comment is at all misplaced. I too have seen exactly this pattern in other editors who ended up being banned after years of people defending incivility on their part. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 14 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)
• Oppose; no evidence of any wrongdoing on Mztourist's part that would rise to the level of justifing sanctions against them. Indicating that they feel that Jamesallain85 has largely created substandard articles now, in this discussion, is the opposite of an admission of hounding, since it says that they were nominated due to their low quality rather than who created them. It's not ideal civility but insufficient to justify sanctions (since it is still ultimately a comment on contributions and not the editor.) Having some nominations closed as keep is also not an indication of wrongdoing. If people want to argue that Mztourist is at fault for something, they need to present specific obviously-bad nominations, or enough borderline nominations to support the accusation of a pattern of harassment, or an actual admission that that's what they were doing rather than them just expressing a low opinion of the articles Jamesallain85 has created. I'm not seeing any of that here. --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - mostly what Aquillion said. I asked for diffs and so far the only diff I've seen of alleged wrongdoing by Mz is Special:Diff/1059105125, which was an insult and that should be avoided of course, but it isn't anywhere near enough to support any sanction. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: Maybe I am just being a curmudgeon here, but this AN/I thread (which includes this proposal) seems like fairly solid evidence that the issues here are not likely to be resolved by the two parties coming to any sort of agreement. jp×g 23:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

User:JPxG it was a good faith proposal to address the underlying issue here, JA85s creation of numerous minimally referenced 1-3 sentence milbios that don't show notability, apparently relying on the now deprecated WP:SOLDIER. I would hope and expect that when a User has had several pages they created tagged, PRODed and/or AFDed they would stop and ask themself "am I creating pages about notable subjects or not?" then revisit and expand and improve pages they had created to prevent future PRODs and AFDs, however JA85 has shown no intention of doing that. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a response to my comment? jp×g 13:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Mztourist (talk) 11:06, 18 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)

I suggested an interaction ban and the admonishment to deal with a comment that went too far. I'm disappointed that the community is divided over the interaction ban, particularly so when one editor is saying they are not the problem. It shows they have a lack of awareness that their conduct is also part of the problem and I feel they are being encouraged in that belief with editors stating one side was worse than the other. WCM_email 20:42, 11 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)
• Support - per above, this is probably too weak, but better than nothing. Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support this definitely too weak sanction as better than nothing. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 16 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 [45]) 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)
• Oppose A one way interaction ban is a charter for abuse, this has been a two way street with both editors rubbing each other the wrong one. There is blame on both sides here and only one side is insisting they've done nothing wrong. A one-way ban sends the wrong signal. WCM_email 20:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose one-way IBANs in general, and I don't think it'll cure the disruption in this instance. Oppose admonishing Mz as I don't see any evidence of anything worthy of admonishment (Special:Diff/1059105125 ain't it). Levivich 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

New proposal

User:Jamesallain85 first agrees to never again create a military biography stub and secondly agrees to within two months revisit and expand all the military biography stubs created by him with reliable sourcing, following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD. I will recuse myself from all involvement until after the Milhist review. Mztourist (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose This is completely unacceptable, it is perfectly acceptable to create stubs for other editors to later expand. WCM_email 20:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Please explain what is completely unacceptable about it? JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs that haven't been expanded in 2 years. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I also find this to be a good example of how AfD is in fact a default article improvement system. Nothing else here seems to work, even if the improvements are at times of questionable value. Intothatdarkness 14:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Mainly due to the burden it might place on Milhist. Ja85 seems to have OWN issues with stubs in any case. Intothatdarkness 23:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: Mztourist's lack of insight into the problem of questionable AfD noms does not appear to be improving and suggesting imposing restrictions that are stricter than policy mandates for new articles is neither justified nor helpful. Jamesallain85's autistic comment was definitely unacceptable / offensive and sanctionable, but this is a situation that leaves neither party looking good. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that an IP who has made a total of 34 edits should take such an interest in this issue... The root cause of the problem was that JA85 created 1-3 sentence bio stubs under the now deprecated SOLDIER 2 years ago which no-one has ever expanded and every time I AFD one of them JA85 comes complaining here to ANI. Mztourist (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• As a milhist coord, I should note that the project doesn’t have the special authority to review something like that. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This is exactly the type of attitude which as plagued me for more than a year. I would like to point out that Mz has a large number of subs on fire bases and landing zones in Vietnam, many poorly soured with a single source for many of them, without specific page numbers, the source is not available online to be reviewed. Essentially everything Mz is accusing me of he has done himself on a larger scale, but if I AFD a single article, despite these the shortcomings, it results in explosive accusations of revenge by Mz and nonstop AFD of more articles, he is a bully. My AFDs are not revenge, they were to point out the hypocrisy of Mz pushing standards on others which he doesn't hold himself. Here are just a few examples: Landing Zone Virgin, Firebase Mile High, Firebase Checkmate, Firebase Currahee, Landing Zone Uplift, Catecka Base Camp, Ninh Hòa Base, Firebase Birmingham, and many more. Mz talks down to and belittles fellow editors and thinks he is somehow above the standards that are supposed to guide us. Then when there is a disagreement, the fault lies 100% with his opponent. I am not the only editor to have experienced this. Despite his many contributions, his attitude makes wikipedia a hostile negative environment. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

All of those pages are longer than your 1-3 sentence stubs. They are all sourced to a reliable source and they all have specific page numbers. The source is divided into sections, 5 is the book section and the number after the dash is the page number. Each page contains encyclopaedic detail that establishes notability unlike your Navy bio pages. Just being an Admiral is not a pass on notability. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You might wish to explain this page numbering convention somewhere in the sourcing tables, then, as it's not exactly conventional or readily obvious (or change to a format like Section 1, page X). And as far as explosive accusations...I've seen far more aggressive OWN behavior from JA85 than I have MZ. And I will mention yet again most of this wouldn't likely be a problem if there was a functional article improvement process apart from AfD. AfD isn't the proper venue for this, as it results in drama, an avalanche of poor or questionable sources and information, and articles being kept and then never improved again. Any process that allows an article to be kept by noting sources that are never added to the article is to my mind broken or at least in need of an alternative. Intothatdarkness 16:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Intothat I have gone through and clarified all the refs. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Intothatdarkness, I take your opinion with a grain of salt, as you have had a clear bias through not only this process, but the AFDs as well. As far as Mz's stubs, that book is the only single source for each of those articles and not available to be viewed, there is no support for GNG, and most of the articles I listed are also just a few sentences, all of the things you are accusing me of. I am sure you will argue somehow they are different, they aren't. Jamesallain85 (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything when it comes to article format, JA85. That you think I am is interesting. The only format comment I had was directed at MZ. Your OWN behavior has been commented on by others in this discussion. My remarks about AfD's current default function also extend well past any stubs you may have created. Those stubs are actually a fairly minor example of the issue. Intothatdarkness 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of AfD is not to improve articles, it is to delete them. Please read WP:BEFORE subsection C1, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Intothedarkness, have you ever voted "Keep" on a single AfD that wasn't written by Mz? I couldn't find one. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Not that it matters in the slightest, but like others I don't tend to vote keep if an article looks solid and notable. Since Keep or No Consensus (which is in effect Keep) both result in the article being retained, there's really no reason to vote Keep just because. I don't keep a spreadsheet of my AfD votes. Intothatdarkness 18:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it does matter, because the articles of Mz that you voted to keep were way under par in comparison with many that you voted delete, from my point of view I think one could easily claim WP:MEAT in those instances. You literally vote delete on every AfD except those from a known colleague? What do you expect editors to think? Jamesallain85 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Jamesallain85 you seem to have unlimited time and energy to argue here and elsewhere, however you can't be bothered to revisit and improve any pages you created unless they're AFDed, that really speaks volumes about you and what you're HERE for. Mztourist (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I find that very ironic coming from you. All I want is to contribute and not have any arguments, instead I am constantly being drug into debates on AfDs which shouldn't even exist according to policy. Then after nominating you get your pals to vote delete on your AfD nominations to boost your score. I wish you would focus more on adding content instead of attempting to AfD everything on wikipedia. I can understand targeting cases such as the Tuskegee Airmen where egregious copyright was called into question, but your continues targeting me I cannot understand. Every time I think you are finished I will not have to interact with you, you just AfD another article I authored and I get drug back into debate. I am trying everything to wash my hands of you, hence the requested interaction ban. You do not hold any special position of authority over other editors, and you claiming that I am not Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia is flat wrong. Jamesallain85 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said, you seem to have plenty of time for arguing. The simplest way to stop being "drug" into debates on AFD is for you to go to all the stubs you created and expand them with decent references and not create new stubs. I do not attempt "to AFD everything on wikipedia". The number of articles I have created and my total contributions are vastly more than yours. Mztourist (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Should I bow before you and your articles? This discussion has turned into exactly what I knew it would. Like normal you just ignore the discussion and turn back to your stub accusation, which I have pointed out you have the exact same issue. Why don't you repair your stubs first, then when everything you have created is perfect and you no longer have any stubs, start AfDing my stubs, at least then you wouldn't be a hypocrite. I have every right to contribute to wikipedia, and just because you have created vastly more articles and stubs, again doesn't give you any special rights. I think this discussion is proof enough itself we need an interaction ban. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stub states: "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." and "State what a person is famous for". Unlike you, I don't create 1-3 sentence stubs, if I create a short page it is referenced to one or more reliable sources and notability is clearly established, whereas you act as though WP:SOLDIER still applies and just being an Admiral or winning a couple of Navy Crosses is a pass on notability, which it is not. Mztourist (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of information included in the info boxes which you are neglecting to notice, which cover things like awards and commands, which do speak to notability. I can go back and add a couple more sentences, but I know that wouldn't satisfy you anyway, just like when I took the time to post the articles so they were visible through the paywall, you just ignored that fact and just kept fighting to delete. You know very well that per WP:ANYBIO section 1 "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" has included multiple Navy Cross winners. Explain to me how Landing Zone Uplift passes GNG and Alexander K. Tyree which you fought so valiantly to delete doesn't? I would appreciate a serious and honest response, because it is issues like that which I cannot look past. Jamesallain85 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If there is verifiable information in the Infobox then that should be in the body of the article, properly referenced. You say "I can go back and add a couple more sentences", please do more than that, expand all your stubs with as much verifiable information as you can find. It is a matter of debate whether multiple Navy Crosses satisfy #1 of ANYBIO, that category is usually for the Congressional Medal of Honor, Victoria Cross, Nobel Prize, Oscar, Grammy etc. Google Landing Zone Uplift and see how many hits you get compared to Tyree. Mztourist (talk) 11:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

JA85, your attempt to bully me out of AfD participation is noted. Intothatdarkness 14:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

When I Google Landing Zone Uplift and Alexander K. Tyree to be honest there were plenty of links for both. I would be more than happy to go back and expand my articles, but it seems most of the time I am able to devote to Wikipedia lately ends up dealing with AfDs discussions, not something I really enjoy. I have a lot more references on hand than when those articles were written, but it takes time to pull out information and get it documented. Also with concern to #1 of ANYBIO, Navy Crosses, Distinguished Service Crosses, Air Force Crosses, etc. are very often nominations for the Medal of Honor that were depreciated to these awards, which would pass ANYBIO #1 if they had multiple of these awards. I am not saying they should bring back WP:SOLDIER how it was previously, but it would be nice if there was a subsection for additional criteria that covered military biographies in notability like they do for so many other specialised biographical categories. On another note, I would like again truly apologise for my comment, it was out of line and the result of a lot of frustration. I really would like for us to put aside our differences and focus on contributing to Wikipedia. Jamesallain85 (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding of things the special notability guidelines are only "indicators" that the required references will exist, not a guarantee that they do or even if a guarantee of notability. So even if there was special guidelines for the medals you'd still have to find and references to the articles or risk being AfDed anyway. There's never going an instance where you can just create un-referenced articles and expect them not to be nominated for deletion at some point by someone. Even if it's ultimately not Mztourist who does it. In the meantime making this a personal issue between you and Mztourist, instead of an issue of your articles being of sub-par quality, is just kicking the can down the road and you should improve your articles either way if there's a way to. Your responsibility to create content that passes the notability guidelines doesn't just get a pass because Mztourist created a few questionably notable articles either. The only reason it flies at all in this case is because Mztourist is the subject of this complaint. That won't be the case when someone inevitably nominates your articles later though. So you might as well just improve the ones you can now and move on. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

At the time those articles were created there were a different set of standards (WP:SOLDIER). The medals I have added are have always been referenced. I have no problem expanding the articles and will do so. Jamesallain85 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

By pointing out your AfD voting record? I am simply pointing to the facts, you are accountable for your own actions, and those actions have fairly clear motives. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• So you will continue to create minimally-referenced stubs and in turn demand that no one question them? That's not super reassuring either. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - "following which they are reviewed for notability by an impartial milhist User who will either pass the page or submit it to AFD" isn't something we can make happen via proposal. Also, this doesn't need bespoke babysitting sanctions. Editors should either edit non-disruptively or GTFO, IMO. Levivich 16:50, 15 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 ([46]). 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 ([47]).

I initially contacted the user to inform them that I believed that they had conducted a personal attack against me [48]. 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 ([49]). I deleted the quoted text (though, I left behind everything else that they had written) and left a "personal attack removed" notice ([50]).

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 ([51]). 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 [52] and in [53]).

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 [54]), 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 [55] 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: [56] 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)

The page has been temporarily protected by El C ([57]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed, for the fourth time, the personal attack against me over at Talk:China–Lithuania relations. I've restored the "personal attack removed" ({{RPA}}) notice as well. As far as I'm concerned, this settles the dispute between me and the IP user (who operates multiple IP accounts) regarding their personal attack against me. Obviously, if this user has the audacity to restore their personal attack against me for the fourth time, then we will continue to have problems. As for the other issues that have been highlighted in this discussion, they are less of a concern for me, though I still think these issues need to be investigated by the administrators since some of them are quite serious allegations, although they are not related directly to me and my case here at ANI. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The two IP users involved are the same person

I have found some pretty damning evidence that the two IP users who have been abusing me (and have subsequently been vandalising the two articles China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations) are the same person. Just compare these two edit revisions. The first edit ([58]) was conducted by IP user 195.135.49.168 over at China–Lithuania relations whereas the second edit ([59]) was conducted by IP user 139.47.34.245 over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. The contents of these two edits, despite having been conducted by two different IP users on two different articles, are clearly identical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP was removing sourced information from China–Lithuania relations, as well as the personal attacks. I put China–Lithuania relations on two weeks' semi-protection. I'd suggest the same on other affected articles. Blocking the IPs for a time may be appropriate. But I'd feel more comfortable if other admins concurred on these actions, rather than doing it all myself - David Gerard (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I still intend to get the personal attack against me at that article removed... I removed it earlier myself and left an RPA notice, but the abuser (who is using two IP accounts) reinstated it. And when I tried to remove it again, this user began engaging in an edit war with me. I abandoned the edit war relatively quickly and left the article under the abuser's version, with the personal attack still present in the article. The entire point of opening up this ANI case was to get rid of the personal attack... it's been several days and no progress has been made in this regard. By the way, I have to comment here or else the case will get closed prematurely... no other admins have shown up yet. With that being said, thanks for taking your time to comment here. It does give my case some legitimacy, I would think. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Just an update, there appears to be a 3rd IP now, and this new IP has made an interesting threat here: Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan_relations#Full_revert_of_non-consensus,_unilateral,_non-NPOV_edit_by_previous_editor. Essentially, they are accusing me of pushing POV from a particular "side" and threatens to "expose" some wrongdoings(?) from that "side" if I do not stop pushing back against their edits. The rest of last night's Talk comments are a clear example of WP:BLUDGEON. DrIdiot (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I have also noticed the arrival of this third IP user (whom you've described above) — IP user 195.235.52.102 — editing the article Lithuania–Taiwan relations, who is most likely the same person as the person who operates the other two IP accounts. So, this person operates at least three IP accounts, and probably more than that. At this point, it seems that their usage of multiple IP accounts here could be intentional (i.e. Wikipedia:Sock). The person operating the multiple IP accounts has denied the allegation of their IP-hopping*, i.e. they are pretending that each IP account belongs to a different person in real life. By the way, all of these three accounts can be geographically traced to the Province of Barcelona in Spain. The person in question seems to be of Asian origin^✝, so I suppose that they might be an ex-pat operating out of Barcelona, or they could simply be using a VPN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

_{*(Re: "Denying IP-hopping") — They have said ⇒ ...I would refrain from trying to "trace" other users... ([60]) – and – Oh yes, you also accused me of IP-hopping. Any evidence? Does that constitute a personal attack under Wikipedia's own definition? ([61]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)}

_{^✝(Re: "Asian origin") — They have said ⇒ I am not a Christian but a Taoist and Buddhist... ([62]) – and – [I looked at] your ideologies. Not a single Asian ideology and no stances on Asian geopolitics ... to rectify your bias, studying Asian history and ideologies ... would counterbalance your ... militant, radical and verbally aggressive stances. May I suggest the (Taoist version of) the Middle Way ...? ([63]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)}

Comment - on the 'IP-hopping' issue, note they didn't actually address whether or not they were the same person, only whether they were 'IP-hopping' (i.e. changing IPs deliberately to avoid evasion). Very few of us have static IPs anymore, and when you're an IP editor you generally have no idea what IP address your edits are going to show up as (nor have any control over it). A user actually attempting to sock-by-IP-hopping, and one that was tech savvy enough to IP-hop at will on WP (using unblocked IP addresses) would unlikely be careless enough to use IPs all from the same town. Short version: assume they're the same person, assume they're not pretending otherwise nor have any control over their IPs changing. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:6CAD:7C51:CA86:3A6A (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed that the IP user managed to hop from IP no. 1 to IP no. 2 and then back to IP no. 1 again (whether intentionally or not). But then, they hopped over to IP no. 3. This has been disruptive... They've neglected to respond to my initial contact with them over on IP no. 1, for example, only responding to me on IP no. 2. They might not have even seen my original contact... which would have led to some confusion on their part, perhaps. I see no reason why this user shouldn't establish a registered user account. It would make all of our lives a lot easier. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This would be completely consistent with (for example) someone editing from multiple devices or multiple locations. It is helpful to distinguish "things that are annoying about the world" from "things that someone is intentionally doing to be difficult" -- changing IP addresses (and the attendant difficulty of communication) in most cases is in the former category. --JBL (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be pointed out that IP-hopping is not my primary accusation here (which is why this ANI case is here and not on the sockpuppetry page). This ANI case is primarily about a personal attack that was thrown at me by IP no. 1 and then re-instated by IP no. 2 after I had removed it. Bear in mind that the user had not interacted with me before, so the first time I had met them, they were yelling out abuse at me. I've subsequently gone ahead and removed the personal attack again, several days later, and it hasn't been reinstated yet, perhaps due to inattention from the IP user. The IP user has been editing two pages, China–Lithuania relations and Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Both of these pages have subsequently been blocked by two different admins (I'm assuming that El C is an admin) due to the disruptive behaviour of the IP user, which includes citing a deprecated source, removing sourced material, and behaving generally disruptively, among other things. This ANI case has been appropriated by DrIdiot, who is mainly concerned with the removal of sourced content over at Lithuania–Taiwan relations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Jargo is correct that my concern is mostly with that article. However, if you look into the talk page Talk:Lithuania-Taiwan relations you'll find many examples of the IP user... being generally disinterested in understanding sourcing policy (the justifications being mostly ad hoc), as well some strange threats (search for the text "If you continue with your one-sided trigger-reverts"). The discussion is hard to follow since the IP user generally does not sign off with 4~ on subthreads. In this case I don't consider it a personal attack... but feels a lot like WP:NOTHERE. Anyway, I agree the personal attack on Jargo (see [64]) is more egregious. DrIdiot (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Re: Personal attack) — What's worse than the IP user's initial act of throwing out a personal attack at me (which might be forgiven due to the benefit of the doubt) is the IP user's subsequent insistence on reinstating the personal attack after I had clearly explained why it was wrong. This indicates not only their disruptive tendencies (whether intentional or accidental) but also their intention to behave disruptively, which I think is a much more grievous wrongdoing. The user edit-warred with me in order to force the personal attack back into the talk page, which, in my opinion, is a terrible pattern of behaviour. The user had initially thrown the personal attack at me in order to "expose" me. This falls in line with their tendency to push conspiracy theories ([65]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

This ANI case is about to die. It seems that the IP user has been inactive for several days. Still, I am keeping this case open since it hasn't really been resolved; it's just been frozen. I guess the IP user may have lost interest in Wikipedia after they were (temporarily) blocked from editing their two favourite articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly are you expecting to be done at this point? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Mainly expecting an investigation of the IP user or an extended block of the two pages. It depends on whether the IP user comes back. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I guess the case can be closed at this point. It's been a further three days and there's no sign of the IP user. In any case, I will not forget this case if they do indeed return at a later point. But I will still give them the benefit of the doubt at first if I ever encounter them again. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:43, 18 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)

Since OhNoitsJamie (talk · contribs) has warned 203.145.95.X for personal attack or groundless accusation, you probably need the actual ip range and which articles with {{la}}. Matthew hk (talk) 06:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. Tuen Mun South extension's semi protection expired one day ago, and the IP is right back to pushing the same obscure place name there. Likewise at Kowloon City Plaza they are continually adding an obscure lot number. At Prince Edward, Hong Kong they are changing instances of the common "Mong Kok" place name to the obscure "Tong Mi". At Tung Chung East station they have changed "Tung Chung" to "Kei Tau Kok". What a headache. I am thinking of opening at page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse because this obscure-place name-pushing has been affecting Hong Kong articles for a long time.

Citobun (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm really surprised nothing is being done about this guy. This is getting dumb at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 07:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Padgriffin: To be fair. From the edit log of City University of Hong Kong, seems there are more than one guy (203.145.95.X verse 1.64.48.231 verse 124.217.188.X which seems they have edit warring to each other). One of them (124.217.188.X) clearly linked to User:蟲蟲飛 (as evidence on participation on Afd), a globally locked user which linked to CCP. However, they enjoyed collateral damage by your can't tell the harassing is from the same person, just ip hopping using mobile service provider and home ISP, or multiple person that have the same harassing behaviour, as they refused to create accounts. For clearer documentation, i think user:Citobun really need to add the diff links to indicate which ip is actually harassing him recently, and which id keep adding narrow-interest info of land lease lot number , and which ip keep adding obsolete place name. Matthew hk (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the IP from Tuen Mun South extension for a year. I suggest that you make a page at WP:LTA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, for example, this is yet another ip from HK using yet another mobile phone network CMHK (182.239.122.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)), which adding unsourced trivial Five Big Manmade Climbs" (五大人造爬上), in which does not even have google search result for "五大人造爬上" (Special:Diff/1060049801). I can't tell it is the same guy or not, but they (the ips from different range and ISP of HK) consistently adding unsourced content in non-constructive level. Matthew hk (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And tracking the page history, the above 五大人造爬上 hoax was also added by 1.36.41.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (zh:special:Diff/69080201) and in ja-wiki (ja:special:Diff/87001909) so that we never able to know it is the same person or not. Or is it the same as 203.145.95.X, or the ip that harassed Citobun, that Citobun fails to add the exact diff and ip number to this thread?) Matthew hk (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And as mentioned that this thread need proper documentation , Ymblanter blocked 42.200.166.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which clearly not from the same ip range from my last thread (and also not the ip range of my second last thread), so that i really can't tell they are the same person or a cult of toxic people. Matthew hk (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And And tracking the page history, 42.200.166.X ip range did involved in ip hopping in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Unicom Hong Kong. Matthew hk (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there are multiple long-term disruptive IPs active on Hong Kong articles (especially those relating to the MTR and border crossings), but I believe that the editing centred on adding obscure place names, uncited geographic/naming trivia, and land lot numbers is one individual (the same person who is harassing me) as the editing patterns are quite consistent. I will soon make a page at WP:LTA as Ymblanter suggested. Citobun (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have created a page at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. Citobun (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, regarding the question of whether it's one or multiple individuals – I was scrutinising the earlier discussion at WPHK. While IP addresses like 116.92.226.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 116.92.226.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) were pretending to be different people, it is clear from their editing that they are the same person. They were doing something similar over at Talk:MTR (two IPs were talking to each other pretending to be two different people, but they both have the same narrow editing interests, e.g. "New Kowloon" 1, 2). Although in relation to the Hong Kong border crossings dispute I do believe there are multiple anonymous individuals involved in that dispute. Citobun (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

They are still stalking my recent edits. Citobun (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Omg c'mon have you actually found out how common references to New Kowloon, the Victoria City or land lot numbers are on Wikipedia? Land lot numbers appear in news stories in the press here too. And no I don't think I ever edited the Tuen Mun southern extension article. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I have observed a long-term tendency of Citobun to disregard entire edits whenever he or she deems something to be wrong. Since Tuen Mun South extension is protected I would use it as an example. In his or her edits[66][67] he or she has repeatedly disregarded changes to the capitalisation of the letter G, addition of the convert template, and disambiguation between the MTR and the MTRCL. This happens over many Hong Kong-related articles and it has been a long-term behavioural or editing style issue. It makes him or her a person particular difficult for other editors to work with. Even worse was that he or she never bothers to go to talk pages.

On the other hand he or she has kept asking for proof that the area was indeed referred to after Butterfly Beach. 42.200.166.13 had submitted references[68] and added some more[69] to fulfil him or her but he or she has never been satisfied. I have reviewed the references submitted and they do demonstrate that the neighbourhood is called after the beach, especially those added on 10 December. But he or she didn't bother to review the newly added sources. And he or she in fact does the same thing all along with many other Hong Kong-related edits - Dismisses whatever he or she doesn't know or doesn't like as obscure, and rejects all references. He or she is using his or her very own life experience to refute reliable sources. Perhaps he or she's too young to know what older people perceive about the geography, topography of this territory or life in this territory, perhaps he or she's living in a particular corner of this territory which hinders his or her knowledge of the rest of this territory in general, or maybe we have been all wrong and he or she's been right all along. No matter what from what I seen the way he or she puts it is discriminatory, antagonistic towards other editors. This isn't helpful to the Wikipedia project. 116.92.226.240 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Needless to say, this is the Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Hong Kong geography warrior. I don't want to get bogged down arguing about another one of your made-up names – but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? No, of course not. But that's the essence of your argument. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to push your personal agenda. Citobun (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Fellow administrators all you need to do at first is to verify whether what Citobun suggested was true. Land lot numbers are used extensively in Hong Kong.[70][71][72][73][74][75][76] They certainly aren't obscure. In older neighbourhoods stone markers aren't uncommon. And in fact there are mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, e.g. Cheung Kong Center, an entry which Citobun's associate Matthew hk had recently edited. ... but: if someone refers to the "World Trade Center area" in a general sense, referring to the vicinity of the World Trade Center in New York City, does it then mean that Lower Manhattan can be called "World Trade Center"? Names aren't made up by me but the locals, and we indeed gotta look at each individual cases. Locations as far as Sugar Street is still referred to by many as Daimaru even though it's a block away from where the department store used to be located. Tai Fat Hau isn't just a name used by the locals. It made its way to be the name of a local council constituency, even though the namesake company had gone many decades ago. Other similar examples may include Tit Kong, Ngo Keng, Tai Hang and A Kung Ngam. And despite his or her WTC example he or she has practically endorsed that same usage with something like "Tuen Mun Ferry Pier area" in his or her edits to Turn Mun southern extension. On the other hand references to New Kowloon (which he or she admitted to be not incorrect) and the Victoria City have been so extensive on Wikipedia that that's an implicit consensus among Wikipedia editors active in Hong Kong-related topics perhaps since the earliest days of Wikipedia. These are easily verifiable and administrators shouldn't hesitate verifying them yourselves. What he or she has been doing is to stick with his or her very own experience and understanding, enforce it in his edits, and use IP editors from Hong Kong (which he probably knows very well why so many Hongkongers don't edit from registered accounts) as scapegoats or human sheilds, that something he or she has succeeded so far. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@116.92.226.240:, you show up as ip hopper that block evaded? (from 42.200.166.13 ip). You literally borderline personal attack and admit you are involved in adding narrow-interested "official name" of some location (aka land lease lot no) that they never a common name and violate WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT on wikipedia is not a travel guide or a bin of trivial info. Matthew hk (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And just checked , Ymblanter has blocked that ip (116.92.226.240) for 31 hours as well. Matthew hk (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What? How could you come up with something as such? Please read carefully as far as possible. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not informed of the exact reason why I got blocked. But my changes to the Wu Kai Sha station article were reverted, for no reason. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You (116.92.226.240 and later 116.92.226.235) are blocked as a suspect of ip hopping from 42.200.166.13 as LTA (and i don't bother to check page history of which ip that rearrange my comments order, but assume it is you). Just create an acoount or don't do the same behaviour as the LTA to received the collateral damage. Matthew hk (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have fallen victim of what Citobun (mis)represented. He argues and edits against whatever kind of reference to New Kowloon for obscure reasons. But now that I got reported and reverted for removing a reference to New Kowloon. (@Scottywong: FYI.) 219.76.24.209 (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the damages are beginning to surface. He or she has made his or her way to mislead administrators. 116.92.226.235 (talk) 13:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@219.76.24.209: How and why am I getting roped into whatever this is? What do I have to do with any of this? Why are you pinging me to this conversation and posting cryptic requests on my talk page? —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• OhNoitsJamie has made a good faith assumption that the ip can able to use talk page and other ways to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but once again the ip bomb this thread with wall of text of no meaning and the same can't tell it is meatsock or ip hopping behaviour. And clearly canvassing Scottywong, which Scottywong don't even know what ip want for him. Matthew hk (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, I am not sure why 219.76.24.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) show up as the ip (or the range) is not mentioned in this thread before, but may be he want to self confess for a block. Matthew hk (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think that a few rangeblocks would help quell things down. From the LTA page created, I calculated these ranges:

• 116.92.226.224/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.24.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 219.76.63.96/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 124.217.189.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 220.246.91.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• 203.145.94.0/23 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

wizzito | say hello! 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I propose that we follow WP:DENY for this LTA and simply revert on sight. We’re long past the point of getting any successful conflict resolution with this user and their persistent IP-Hopping and tendency to invent (rather obvious) alter-egos to stack discussions has shown that attempting to engage with them has and will be completely unproductive. This user has already wasted enough of our time. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve also noticed a pattern with this LTA’s editing style- they seem to have a tendency to first perform an unproblematic edit, then follows it up with another edit introducing a questionable place name or location into the article. Examples of this behavior can be seen on Java Road, Fat Kwong Street and Wanshan Archipelago. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP editor has also seemingly acknowledged their LTA “nickname”, as evidenced by this edit summary. DENY is definitely needed. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 16:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Instantnood?

I just realised this might be User:Instantnood – a user who was very active from 2005 before they were banned in 2007 for disruptive behaviour. Check out their edit history. Their editing patterns and interests are shockingly similar (similar subjects, adding the exact same obscure place names such as New Kowloon and Tai Wo Ping, same fixation on the terminology surrounding Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan/China). And there have been a lot of suspected Instantnood sockpuppets over the past decade. Thoughts? Citobun (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. Looking at Instantnood's MO, I'm not 100% sure that the IP is Instantnood- they've mostly just been pushing obscure place names and not attempting to promote Hong Kong nationalism in articles. There might be a connection but it's prolly not enough to make a solid link. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 17:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the IP has been engaged in the same kind of country-terminology debates as Instantnood. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Citobun (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Gandalfett

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

---

I note edits made by Gandalfett to be highly problematic. I created a talk page discussion a few months back on Chinese Singaporeans, laying out my reasons to possibly expand the page with more information, considering that they make up a significant proportion of the country's population. I bought up Chinese Malaysians as a possible article to look into. I think the message was definitely seen by some users (shoutout to Deoma12, etc), as over the months since, edits were made to do exactly just that.

However, a few days ago, it seems like many of these contributions were purged or wiped out, especially by this user "Gandalfett". I began to realize this a few days ago, when they inexplicably removed my talk page discussion without any reasons whatsoever. Why? I'm pretty sure there's a rule on Wikipedia that discourages removing other users' talk page discussions like that. I then looked into their edits, and also found out that they made unexplained, significant removals on the article, with some edit summaries pushing its own personal opinions such as "Not useful information and may arise wrong implications" without further elaboration. As I'm not entirely sure of the procedure or have the means to deal with a user like this, I decided to make this post in the hopes of counsel by more experienced editors or administrators as to how better deal with a situation such as this. Thanks. MarionLang (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This is MarionLang's third edit to Wikipedia. The Moose 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay...? I'm not an editor, it's exactly why I asked for advice from editors that have been here for much longer. I was bringing up as to why an editor removed my message on the talk page without reason. Am I missing something here? MarionLang (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Confused irrelevancy

@The Moose: Per WP:Blanking, Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. If a user removes material from their talk page, it is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display, and usually users should not be forced to do so. It is often best to simply let the matter rest if the issues stop. If they do not, or they recur, then any record of past warnings and discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, and these diffs are just as good evidence of previous matters. Chip3004 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC) I don't think this is a user talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC) @Gandalfett: I highly Recommend that you look into Archiving your talk page, if you want to you are welcome to copy the first 9 lines from my talk page which is the Archive option, Just replace " My Username with your own and you will have the ability to archive your talkpage. Chip3004 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC) Chip3004, that's all very well, but this complaint was not about the user talk page, but an article talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Even though Gandalfett has been here for two years, they may still not be aware of having a talkpage, that's the problem. But none of the behavior you describe is acceptable, MarionLang, and I have given them a sharp warning. If they don't change their ways, possibly because they don't see the warnings, please let me know on my own talk, or else post here again. And Chip, it would have been better to follow MarionLang's link than assume it was a user talkpage and copy the whole of WP:BLANKING text for her; it's not relevant. Also, why should Gandalfett archive their talk? It's quite short. Bishonen | tålk 20:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC).

Update: They know they have a talkpage all right, and have edited it to complain about my warning. Good, now we'll simply see if they stop the problematic editing. Bishonen | tålk 16:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC).

Digression about digression
(outdent) why this tangent about Gandalfett's talk page? The issue is with him/her deleting a comment on an ARTICLE talk page. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I propose to restoring the information that was removed by said user @Gandalfett: on the article regarding Chinese Singaporeans, as these information were properly cited and if it was removed without any reason, I don't see why we can't put it back. Since it was deemed that the behaviour of the user @Gandalfett: is unacceptable. --Deoma12^(Talk) 02:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Good call, Deoma12. Bishonen | tålk 19:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC).

Update 2: Gandalfett has again removed sourced text without giving a reason, and I have partial-blocked them from Chinese Singaporeans for a week. Bishonen | tålk 22:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC).

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

Warring between Wikicircuitz and Uma Narmada

Two editors are having issues. Not sure who is doing it to whom.

• Uma Narmada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikicircuitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adakiko (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

They having an edit war in many articles, and talk pages. I suppose to report these two users. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 09:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Please help me from this problem.That user is making all my good credits of edits by reverting it and making it worse - Vandalism and disruptive edits.recheck our contributions and that user is providing same reason for every reverts.dont have proper way of reply or clarification while doing the reverts..please block that kind of users who fully try to damage and distruct someone's effort as an editor... persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada

Please help me from this problem. This user Uma Narmada is making all my good edits by reverting it and making it worse

Please help block this user vandalism by Uma Narmada Vandalism and disruptive edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicircuitz (talk • contribs) 09:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wikicircuitz:, I'm confused by the sequence here. Your very first edits on Dec 12 were to revert Uma Narmada. Looking at logs from this page and this, you seem to have started blaming them after they reverted edits from an IP. They had touched none of your edits at that point. On both pages Uma had two edits at most, hard to see that as "persistent" disruption. If the IP was you, you should read WP:MULTIPLE.

14:05, 2021 December 14	Wikicircuitz	Persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada
18:31, 2021 December 13	Uma Narmada	Undid revision 1059457844 by 60.54.96.158 talk)
21:17, 2021 December 9	60.54.96.158

14:01, 2021 December 14	Wikicircuitz	Persistent disruptive editing by Uma Narmada
18:28, 2021 December 13	Uma Narmada	Undid revision 1059803693 by 60.54.96.158 talk)
00:16, 2021 December 12	60.54.96.158

--Hemanthah (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Both accounts are warring on Meena (actress), which just had protection lifted and has been consistently socked by Mridul varma tharakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), along with other Indian film and actor articles. Protection may be needed again (I say possible sock as I again had to advise them that Wikipedia talk:AIV isn't for reporting vandalism, and a previous Mridul varma tharakan sock had done the same). @Ponyo: as they checked on this last time. Nate • (chatter) 13:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• There was some drama on my talk page with Wikicircuitz changing [77] comments by Uma Narmada. Neither of them are using article talk pages and the minimal use of each others talk page isn't helpful. Mandatory reading and use of WP:BRD would be helpful, putting both of them on a 1RR for a short time may help. I concur that there's a strong odor of socks here, Uma Narmada has a very strong focus on puffing up Jyothika (and a slight focus on puffing down Simran (actress) and accusing others of being Simran fans). I saw this pattern before from user GOOD morning SPI here, most recently used Yevaraina and most likely Riya Iyer S Menon (both blocked), but I haven't tried to work on an SPI yet. The attitude alone is very similar to GOOD morning. Regardless, both are being disruptive right now. Ravensfire (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Editor AlexBrn lacking neutral viewpoint

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

---

Editor Alexbrn is active in a lot of articles where Ivermectin is mentioned and has a biased view. In the latest talk under Paul Marik, after I had mentioned an UnHerd talk with a Wiki co-founder, he commented ad personam:

"If Qanon's your thing, fine; just don't expect it to get traction here. Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."

This is proof of his biased thinking and immoral speech, suggesting a user would be interested in Qanon after the user has linked to an UnHerd video. Alexbrn actively suppresses the reflection of different opinions in the medical world about the use of Ivermectin and other medicine against COVID in main articles and likes to get personal then on the talk pages. Otaku00 (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otaku00 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a whole long discussion before the boomerang block here, or can we just jump right to WP:NOTHERE to save time? --JBL (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I was betting with myself how long that would take.

[X] Unsigned post

[X] Ivermectin

[X] Complaining about someone saying "Wikipedia goes a different way, prizing accepted knowledge rather than crankery."

I guess we can leave the thread open for a while, but in the interest of reducing drama, maybe just block now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I missed one.

[X] Recent block for personal attacks in the topic area they're complaining about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked indef: User_talk:Otaku00#Indefinite_block. El_C 13:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• Perhaps their TPA should be revoked; they have made 21 edits to their talk page after being indeffed. dudhhr_Contribs 14:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• I would like to take this moment to remind everyone how useful the WP:LARRYEM link can be. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced content on List of WarnerMedia television programs

Imtiaz.kazi3 is adding unsourced content on List of WarnerMedia television programs. 85.255.236.101 (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I suggest that you take your report to WP:AVI. Chip3004 (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a very bad recommendation. AIV is for blatant vandalism, not for this sort of thing. Also, neither the IP (whose burden it is) nor you has bothered notifing Imtiaz of this thread. I have done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Never saw an IP bite a registered user that hard before, seriously, tone it down. Threatening blocks on their first warning for adding usourced content, then telling them that they would be indefinitely blocked, definitely counts as biting the newcomers. I really don't think that there is a case here, if there was, this IPs behaviour has rather eclipsed it IMHO. Might I add that this IP is possibly evading a block. 85.255, do you know User:Nabasile? @Geraldo Perez: and @EvergreenFir:: Do you either of you have more experience with Nabasile? If so, is this IPs behaviour something you've seen before? Mako001 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It is definitely Nabasile - IP range, edit focus and general behavior. I didn't report as an IP sock when I first saw the 3 IPs he used as he seemed to be trying to communicate what might me a valid concern and wasn't trying to edit articles. His concern might be valid and he did make other sock edits to to Kazi3 expressing it previously. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Special:Contributions/85.255.236.0/24 has blocked IP addresses with this behavior pattern. Not sure a block is fully warranted as they are not being disruptive (though they are evading a block). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Vodaphone uses Special:Contributions/85.255.232.0/21 as one of its cellular data network assigned ranges (AS25235) and Nabasile gets random assignments each time connecting. Also shows up on other ranges owned by Vodaphone and Virgin Media. Lots of vandalism which is not Nabasile on that range too - too bad we can't treat cellular data networks like VPNs and block them completely. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

An IP address uses my username to make vulgar discussion

I just woke up with a notification from Trailblazer101 saying I "violated" the Wikipedia etiquette on Talk:Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. I checked the edit history and an IP address (103.146.225.223) disguised under my username to make inappropriate discussion there. I don't know what to do so I came here for the first time and would like your help on this matter. Centcom08 (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP address is now blocked. I'd suggest you just drop Trailblazer101 a note saying that it was a troll trying to cause disruption, and leave it at that - they can check the history of the talk page for themselves. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please block 103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well, who is highly likely to be the same user (both addresses geolocate to India) and has just made additional personal attacks toward the same two editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Another IP address 103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has further engaged in personal attacks against myself and Cent on the same subjects on both of our talks, despite the issue being resolved. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And that IP is attacking editors at Talk:Spider-Man:_No_Way_Home#Maguire and Garfield. Should be blocked either way. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: It seems that This ip (103.146.225.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is doing the same thing as IP (103.146.225.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) Chip3004 (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Persistent edit warring and article ownership by Broadmoor

Broadmoor has a history of edit-warring and article ownership of Florida A&M University. He or she has been blocked twice for edit warring and has many warnings on his or her Talk page (e.g., August 2021, June 2019, March 2018) so he or she is definitely aware of our policies against edit warring. He or she has been engaging in edit wars and ownership of this article since 2015 continuing through to this year. Today, he or she edited the article to remove information that is the primary subject of the first source cited in the article. I reverted that edit, Broadmoor reverted, and we exchanged another pair of reversions.

I don't mind a little bit of rough and tumble editing; I do mind when an editor knowingly and repeatedly engages in edit warring and ownership over several years despite multiple discussions with other editors and warnings. The edit summary used in his or her latest reversion, "it doesn't belong there. let's go to arbitration, i will continue to remove it." clearly communicates an eagerness to continue edit warring and owning the article. The most recent warning left about edit warring was left just a few months ago, by an administrator, about edit warring in this same article. This is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Can an administrator please make it clear to our colleague that this behavior is not acceptable? ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. Broadmoor, you are headed toward a partial block from the article, in which case you'll have to make your case on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Broadmoor is continuing this behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks ElKevbo. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:2600:8800:1F03:9D00:20E8:34B7:3C24:F388

This ip has posted something to their talk page that is very offensive. This edit. Chip3004 (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hhhh! El_C 04:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I read this as an exultation as if in orgasm. Yknow, basically the whole thing was just a misunderstood flirtation, and anon IP is soliciting OP for relations. If there's a "Wikipedia is not a dating site" essay, I haven't seen it!! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this really a matter for AN/I? I'd say an IP user posting "suck penis" to their talk page (and that being their only edit so far) isn't chronic or intractable. Just slap them with a templated warning. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 16:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Kaidros

Kaidros (talk · contribs) is a new user. OK I get it. We all make mistakes when starting, but this is becoming a WP:Competence issue due to the user being unable to listen to the others. At Historic center of Mexico City the user removed this image and this information I reverted them with the summary: "Unexplained removal of sourced content". The user returned and removed once again the picture with the following summary "a bicitaxi image insert on this section is irrelevant to the text, images should include images of the buildings refrenced in the section." I restored it and moved it to another place and expanded it upon the missing information.[78][79]. The user returned and once again removed the information and the image without providing a reasonable reason to remove the image and the content.[80] Once again, I restored the content[81] as it was clear that this is not about being misplaced, but on very personal grounds to exclude the content. Once again, the user removes the information now saying that "rickshaws are no where a commonly used form of transportation also source number 49 is 6 years old, source number 50 is an unavailable link and source 51 never states or support the claim that it is a common form of transportation, it actually refrences bicitaxis being almost eliminated and says there are trying to come back after many years of being on the decline", none of it a reasonable reason to delete as it could be fixed easily. I further expanded the information to up-to-date information,[82] because the user literally demanded me to do it [83], just to be reverted because "Former edit was a resolution, stop editing to your liking and keep the resolved version" This is not about the content. First, it was problematic, then it was slightly improved with a minor rewording, but then the problematic content resulted a better option according to this person. I would take this to AN3 instead, but this is just a case of a user that is not listening to the rest. Like in Mexico City, Kaidros makes a change, they are reverted with a truly wrong reason,[84] then restores their preferred version [85] to end up getting reverted with the following summary: "images are usually placed with a consensus, please discuss at talk page." At the talk page, however, the user writes that the image has to be replaced under a very personal view ("[it looks] packed and messy"). There are no indications to gain consensus, but just to get someone else to fix it for them, just like in the first example, where the issue was easily solved to the point that the user could have fixed it by themselves. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This issue was resolved with help of User:SpinningCeres with this 1 edit by adding the rickshaw information where i even apologized to him and stopped editing the page, but User:Tbhotch is insistant on having his way so he kept on editing the page, this user has a history of reporting users if they disagree with him with a section on his talk page titled 'Interesting' from just 6 days ago where he reported this user even after the issue was resolved being proof of this__Kaidros (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Excepting that 2601:48:8100:B6A0:B435:22AF:C973:92A9 (talk · contribs) was not reported by me, which by the way was eventually blocked due to persistent disruptive edits, that user's case can be seen here. That user thought I had reported them here, but this is a different user that was falsifying information about living people. And this doesn't excuse you from persistently removing sourced content. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I made my edit after noticing the article on recent changes. I was trying to push the dispute in the right direction out of what looked like a stalemate. It was not meant to be a end-all-be-all resolution, which some of your (User:Kaidros) comments seem to imply. SpinningCeres (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes I understand, i am just mentioning that you (SpinningCeres) as a third party did come in and defused the situtation to the point where i apologized to User:Tbhotch and did not edit any further, i am not trying to bring you in the middle of this but i did agree with your edit and thought it was neutral enough. As to you (User:Tbhotch) i just wanted to better the article by adding more truthful information in the transportation in mexico city, to where you insist bike taxis are common, without mentioning taxis or tour buses which are the actual main transportation methods of the historic center of the city, rather you kept on reverting the information to say rickshaws are a common things without providing a single source where they state specifically this point, one of your sources was a dead link and another mentioned bike taxis being in the decline for years, i am not sure how you are assumming this means they are common, i dont understand the need to keep adding this false information, i am suspicious this a personal issue with you, you seem to be the only person with a problem with the last edit made.—Kaidros (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kaidros: It's not the end of the world, I can go and create an article about them as there is enough information for an independent. We are not here discussing that, we are here discussing how you keep doing things. You insist that it is me the one that is falsifying information yet I didn't add that information, I merely restored it as you didn't provide an acceptable reason to remove it on multiple times. Whoever added it, they can be found in the history and when. Now if they are not common, then why you simply didn't remove the word "common", or performed a simple rework like Ceres did. If the links are dead, then why you didn't request an archived copy. No, you keep reverting it until you were asked to stop, and even after that, you have continued reverting. This is why we're here, not to discuss if taxis are more popular (there or everywhere). The article is obviously incomplete, for example there is no information about the RTP, Ecobici or trolleybus services. Should I add it? I don't know. Why would I waste my time looking for information if you will come and revert me because it doesn't satisfy you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: the correct bicitaxi information is literally already there in the final edit, your actions seem personally motivated rather than trying to come to an agreement to have a factual page, Wikipedia isn’t a place for your personal motives remember that.__Kaidros (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kaidros: And those personal motivations are? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch:, well for starters a personal motive is defined as a motivation arising from an individual's internal desires for the satisfaction and fulfillment of specific needs. My assumption from your specific actions would be you are trying to make it seem that bike transportation is more popular in Mexico City than it actually is, you most likely desire a more eco-friendly travel like other cities such as Amsterdam or Barcelona but this just isn’t the case in Mexico City as of this moment, your own “sources” state this exact point, with one of them even stating they are trying to rescue this service from disappearing. the current edit of the page includes bicitaxis but in a more neutral sense but you are very insistent to keep up a version that states it’s a common thing pairing it along side the metro and metro bus, seems very bias, please state your issue with the current version of the article please because i personally see it as fair, inclusive and informative, you are the only one that has an issue with it._Kaidros (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kaidros: So you assume. Assumptions are not facts. In fact, you don't know anything about me to assume things about me. You assume is that I care about bike transportation (I don't) that wants to give undue weight to bicycling in Mexico City (I'm not) because I desire eco-friendly traveling in the city (that's the function of the Ecobici (Mexico City) system, not mine). You keep insisting that this is "my information", that it is "my ideology that bicycles are common in the city" and that I'm on a personal journey to promote cycling because I'm some sort of pro-environmental neo-hippie. Yet as I told you above the information was added by another person earlier this year, information that you could simply have corrected by removing the word "common" from it and by simply modifying it to say that the rickshaws were declining, just like Ceres did. So please, don't assume things about other people, because if those started assuming things about you, you wouldn't like it, would you? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: well funny thing is, the edit you mentioned has been edited out by multiple users, why do you think this is so? you think we all just have a personal vendetta against it? no it’s just inaccurate, but the good thing is that accurate information has been already added, so i don’t see you continued problem with it, you are making it impossible to resolve this argument by acting immature, your rickshaw information is there, what else do you want, or you want it to say “rickshaws are super common all over the city and the government is giving a million pesos to the drivers in 2021” haha, the information is there man move on it’s not the end of the world.___Kaidros (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: i also wanted to add, the edit you mentioned is of a user that is depicted in the picture, he is editing his own picture of himself on the article without any context, not sure if that goes against any wikipedia rules but it doesn’t seem like good behavior.__Kaidros (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kaidros: If by "multiple" you actually mean "Tbartovic and I", then you are right, but that's hardly "multiple". The thing is that Tbartovic removed two things without explanation [86][87], and just like with you, I requested them the same thing, to explain their motives and they later explained their reason [88]. And guess what, I didn't revert it because the user satisfactorily gave an appropriate reason without taking it personally or assuming the other party was misinforming the audience. Tbartovic was later reverted three weeks later, but in that case you can ask the reversor their reasons, not me. And its weird you call me immature when you were the one that said: "haha, the information is there man move on it’s not the end of the world." And I actually have moved on,[89] I have better things to do than playing 20Q, maybe it's time for you to do the same, however, I'm sure this won't be the only ANI case you'll have in the future if you continue with that WP:Own attitude. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: I can see, just like last time i apologize for the inconvenience and im ready to go my seperate way, i hope this was a case of being able to come to an agreement without the need of an administrator, have a good day fellow Wikipedian.___Kaidros (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Two days EC, please both take it to talk. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Chiefsfocus

While this editors edits aren't necessarily problematic, their username and user page are. When I saw the username it looked familiar at first, then I realized it's because it's a blog about the NFL team the Kansas City Chiefs that I personally follow on social media. Their Twitter is this and their website is this. If you look at their user page, it appears to be an advertisement. Seems like a WP:PROMO violation.--Rockchalk717 07:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've G11-tagged the user page. I see no other promotional edits for this user. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Block required

Please can someone block Ruling party (talk · contribs). They are reinstating disruptive edits (moving categories out of process) and labelling the undoing of their changes as "badfaith vandalism". Their response to me pointing out the problem was this. Thanks, Number 57 13:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Ruling party blocked, clear case of WP:NOTHERE. --Yamla (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Number 57: but you are an administrator here, you can block him right? —Ctrlwiki • talk • 13:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I was concerned I may be deemed to be involved, particularly as I have raised issues with this editor before. Cheers, Number 57 13:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Ctrlwiki - Many administrators are very serious about the need to separate their acts of editors from their acts as administrators and to avoid mixing the two roles, so that an administrator should be otherwise uninvolved. When it is obvious that an editor is problematic and needs to be blocked, it is often wiser to let another administrator do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Can Covid-19 misinformation (namely horse dewormer misinformation) get revdel'd from my Talk page?

About a month ago, after having, I think, conducted some minor cosmetic edits on the article Ivermectin, I received this message on my Talk page, erroneously aimed at me.

Now, I'd normally have just left it up - I'm not starting a discussion about the user in question who posted it here - but in hindsight, I wasn't comfortable with the fact that three articles referenced in this message were still on my Talk page; as such, I removed them.

My question is - is there any way to suppress the fact they were added and removed in the first place? I don't want the URLs in question to be even available for someone to look at, even through edit histories. I'm unsure that this would be viable criteria for revision deletion, but this isn't really a sensitive request as such, so I think I'm correct to ask here. Thanks!--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 16:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's revdelable. We are awash in Ivermectin idiocy everywhere, so I don't think we need to worry about someone linking to an old version of your talk page. Removing it was, of course, fine (it's your talk page), but I wouldn't revdel it if it were up to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Are you sure that you linked the correct diff in your original post? The only URLs I see in the linked revision are to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, which is operated by the United States National Institutes of Health (while I agree that the government is often untrustworthy, my understanding is that Wikipedia generally considers the NIH to be a credible source). jp×g 00:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

PubMed is just a database; most of the stuff in it is unreliable for our purposes (and some is the most awful crap). It's a common misconception that because something's "in PubMed" it somehow has an NIH imprimatur. Alexbrn (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@JPxG: - I have to admit to not having read the sources in question, but as Alexbrn says, it apparently doesn't always host reliable content. The text around it, which made a point out of Would You Like To See My Peer-Reviewed Studies Down Here In My Cellar Next To A Cask Of Amontillado Wine, seemed to indicate quackery if nothing else.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 11:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not revision deletable. More importantly, you shouldn't edit anyone's comment to alter its meaning. (Exceptions would include BLP violations, copyright violations, etc., which is not the case here.) You should restore the comment, then you're free to delete the whole discussion, if you wish to do so. Politrukki (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

My first article on the English wikipedia

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

---

The Russian Wikipedia has an article "Уральский, Марк Леонович" (https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Уральский,_Марк_Леонович). I would like to put its English version (translation) into the English Wikipediа as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mark_Leonovith_Uralski. Help me,pleas, this to done Mark Leonovith Uralski (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC).

People are strongly discouraged from writing articles about themselves: WP:YOURSELF describes the issues. It also suggests Articles for Creation, but I have to say, the RU Wikipedia article doesn't have any references aside from one interview and your own web page, which means its translation would have a hard time passing the General Notability Guideline. --GRuban (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This has also been asked at the Teahouse, which I think is a much better place to ask. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Block request

Requesting a block on Rui Gabriel Correia (talk · contribs) from editing the article Battle of Diu. The user insists on engaging in disruptive editing either removing images related to the article, or inserting false and unsourced information even after I already explained why his edits aren't reasonable - his justification is that if three other people have also done it, then it must be true! It's completely ridiculous and shouldn't even be an issue, as it goes completely against Wikipedias most basic principle of WP:VER. Wareno (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I have protected the article. There's edit warring going on all over (yourself included). You don't get to use the "revert" function as a weapon even if you think you are correct. Consider this your warning. With the article protected, it will remain in its current state until such a time as everyone comes to a consensus on how to proceed on the article talk page. Use dispute resolution processes if necessary, but you must reach consensus on the talk page before it will be unprotected. --Jayron32 19:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. However, do know that there's no "think" here; I'm merely removing (or trying to remove) persistant vandalism that isn't supported by any sources, as the failure of the other user to produce them upon request will attest to. Wareno (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism is not "things that are not supported by sources". If there is consensus that these things are not supported by sources, then you will have no trouble showing that on the article talk page. "Things not supported by sources" are not an exception to WP:EW, and you will be blocked for edit warring over that as well as anything else. Please stop calling things that are not vandalism, "vandalism". It is unlikely to work out well for you if you keep doing that. Instead, hold discussions on the article talk page, generate a consensus by bringing in outside voices if necessary, and then the let an admin know so the article can be unprotected. --Jayron32 15:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Having just looked through the article and its history, what this alleged "vandalism" consists of is that Wareno wants his pet image in the article and doesn't want a flag icon the other fellow's sought to put in. Trout slaps all around, but neither one seems to be accurate. Wareno's image pertains to a people who killed the Portuguese commander ... on a different continent, a year after the battle the article commemorates. The inclusion of a crude illustration of those generic people is trivial at best, and not remotely vandalism. Ravenswing 16:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Further ... this isn't the first time Wareno's been edit warring on this page, or issued insulting threats: [90] Ravenswing 16:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that you took the time to look through the issue. But I'll point out that the justification for the recent edits made by the opposite party were that A) the image was removed because it's "unrelated"; B) That the flagicon along with the belligerents it represents belong in the list of participants of the battle. First off, as we can see, the section from which the image was removed specifically mentions the people whom the image was made to represent roughly in the same time period, hence, it's not at all "unrelated". Quite simply, some user thought it was unrelated, and removed it, so of course I put it back. Second, some users have inserted some belligerents into the box, which did not take part in the battle. Where are the sources that prove they did? They don't exist, as I already said time and time again, but why isn't the opposite party being asked to produce at once any evidence that justifies their behaviour? Once they are, you will see the issue settled. Wareno (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Unrelated" might not be entirely accurate; "too trivial and inconsequential to the subject of the article to warrant inclusion" is. I would've removed the image, as irrelevant to the subject, myself. And yes, we have heard your arguments. For my own part, I don't care much for the inference that the issue will not be "settled" until the other fellow "justifies" his behavior, the more so that you are edit warring yourself, and you've done it more than once on the article. You do not own this article, and your permission is not required for others to edit it, even when they're editing your own contributions. Ravenswing 20:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"Unrelated" is what they wrote, and unrelated is what it isn't. Images are optional if you don't like them, but keeping "Timoja" and "Vijayanagara Empire" within the box is factually wrong plain and simple, and not subject to becoming true through the rule of majority, unlike what the other side thinks. I have duly justified my edits, which is an easy thing for me to do. The other side has not. I have done my part. Wareno (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read, WP:EW, as it appears you have not yet done so. The policy states "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense." You can be blocked for edit warring just as well if you are correct or if you are wrong. It has nothing to do with who is correct. Indeed, if you are correct, then a talk page discussion will make that obvious. --Jayron32 12:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments on changes by user

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

---

I want to make it clear this WAS NOT directed at me, however I did notice it, and thought I should bring it up. During an edit on the page Outline of the French Army at the end of the Cold War, Buckshot06 made the following comment on an edit: "far more f***ing accurate and inserted a bare link reference with information which is correct, however the commend doesn't seem very professional. Comment here. Again, I want to point it this doesn't seem to be directed at anyone, but does seem a little harsh and thought I should bring it to your attention. Page history edits here. Thank you. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what administrative action you think is warranted here. You came straight here without actually discussing it with the user first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You've had to seen worse, on Wikipedia. The comment isn't even blatantly aimed at another editor. What policy do you believe is being infringed? Ravenswing 03:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this can safely be quickly closed with no action. As well as the comment not being directed at another editor, it even contained asterisks in the original. If we blocked editors for making comments in edit summaries that do no seem very professional to everyone we would have very few unblocked editors, and, even so, I disagree with that assessment. I have seen and heard far worse in my professional life. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Mitchellhobbs deleted my updates as "improper" with no explanation as to why

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

---

DIFF: [91]

MY POINT: Jack Palance was born in 1920, not 1919 and died of pancreatic cancer at age 86

EDITOR NOTIFIED: [92]

a) PALANCE, JACK was born 18 February 1920, received Social Security number 057-12-2514 (indicating New York) and, Death Master File says, died 10 November 2006 Check Archives.com for JACK PALANCE. ($) Source: Death Master File (public domain) (at [93])

b) https://www.ebay.com/itm/401741990048 -- copy of death certificate with correct year of birth (1920) and cause of death (pancreatic cancer)

NOT TO MENTION ANCESTRY.COM, WHICH I KNOW SOME DO NOT CONSIDER UNDULY RELIABLE: ([94], [95], [96], [97] and [98]).

65.88.88.200 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

user:Mitchellhobbs undid the edit on December 12. The IP raised the issue on the article's talk page on December 15 [99], and here all of six minutes later. This should not be at ANI. Wait for the talk page discussion to actually happen. Meters (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

False Information about Article: "Barbary pirates"

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

---

IN the text it claims, "The main purpose of their attacks was to capture slaves for the Ottoman slave trade as well as the general Arab slavery market in North Africa and the Middle East. Slaves in Barbary could be of many ethnicities, and of many different religions, such as Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.[1]

While such raids had occurred since soon after the Muslim conquest of Iberian Peninsula in the 710s, the terms "Barbary pirates" and "Barbary corsairs" are normally applied to the raiders active from the 16th century onwards, when the frequency and range of the slavers' attacks increased."

I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with at fact that the 'Barbary pirates' took Europeans or any peoples as slaves in any way shape or form. Please remove this false information about slavery. What they did is imply rules for the Mediterranean Sea and others had to pay fees to use the Mediterranean Sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.24.17 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, this would make for a much more compelling argument if you could point to sources for your preferred content, and/or places where the existing article does not follow the sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

See Barbary slave trade. No idea what your disagreement is about. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Good grief, there are thousands of sources supporting the assertion (heck, it became a political issue in the UK, contemporaneously), even if this was a fit discussion for ANI, which it isn't. Ravenswing 02:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

NEW AN/I THREADPROBLEM ACUTE!CLOSED WITHOUT ACTION"CONTENT DISPUTE"Burma-shave

Personal attacks

Baseless

Ass

Persians

-EEng

See here. A user has been personally attacked by another one with really informal comments.Tintor2 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Because they applied Template:Slave narrative to a horrible tone-deaf $2 'educational' 'game' which apparently casts slavery as a game and originally included a mini-game where you arrange the occupants of a slave ship, Tetris-style. Drmies had every right to call Haleth to the carpet for comparing a video game's mangled narrative to the stories of actual people who were scarred by human slavery and wanted to voice them. They should be relieved they didn't get slapped with more than Drmies rightfully chewing them out for such a dumb edit. Nate • (chatter) 04:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Meh. A 15-year-old accounts' user should have known better. Drmies was incivil but it was rather adding that template was dumb. Play stupid games... EvergreenFir (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like unnecessary vitriol from Drmies in response to what appears to be a good faith attempt to add a video games section to the Template:Slave narrative template. Also some ire randomly directed at Silicon Valley after four video games (developed in Minnesota, Bulgaria, Denmark, and France, respectively) that deal with the subject of slavery from a first person perspective were added to the template by Haleth. Notably, Drmies doesn't appear to object to (or maybe didn't notice) the numerous works of fiction – most written by modern authors with little to no connection to slavery – that were already in the template. Setting standards for the use of the template is one thing; that's a content dispute that should take place in an appropriate venue. It's another thing entirely to attack another editor with baseless aspersions. I don't agree with the above users who are mischaracterizing this as a cut-and-dried issue of flippant behavior being appropriately chided by Drmies. AlexEng^(TALK) 09:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AlexEng, look at the article for that game, what that game does, and how critics responded to it. There is a huge difference between a work of fiction (in the case of some of these "works of fiction", based on slave narratives--or personal experience) and a video game. Have you read Our Nig? Did it figure a scene "in which the player [reader?] needed to "stack" slaves in the storage compartment of the ship", and did it "trivialize slavery"? Inquiring minds want to know. If video games "deal with the subject of slavery from a first person perspective", does Zelda deal with "the subject of magic and flying up walls from a first person perspective"? Of course this is a "content dispute"--in which one set of edits was indeed tone-deaf. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. It's been a long day, so I'll keep this brief, maybe even terse; no offense intended. I did more than look at the article. I also read the store page on Steam's website and watched the trailer. It's an educational game in which the protagonist is an enslaved child forced to participate in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The 15 second mini-game was clearly intended to underscore the abominable conditions aboard slave ships and the Middle Passage. I'm not going to address your bizarre comparison to a fantasy game. If you want to re-litigate the issue of inclusion, that should probably be handled on a talk page. What concerns me here is that you appear to have made a mistake regarding the intentions of another editor, and that you are now doubling down on that mistake rather than apologizing and effectively ending this whole dramatic spectacle. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Drmies is clearly in the wrong here. WP:CIVIL applies to everyone, even those acting in good faith. Slave tetris does not make being uncivil okay. That being said, this isn't worth anything other than a light scolding, if that. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 13:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Close. A trout to the OP for the absurd decision to bring this here, and a trout to anyone who thinks there is any reason we should waste time discussing third-party drama-mongering. Haleth and Drmies are both grownups and if one of them wants to have a discussion at ANI they both know how to start one. --JBL (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of shit on ANI lately that could have been resolved with a talk page conversation instead of a full-on drama board posting.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If describing things that are patently tone-deaf and fucked up as "tone-deaf" and "fucked up" is a problem, then just shut the whole project down for the good of humanity. Dumuzid (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• On the technical level, WP:BIDIRECTIONAL explains that Playing History 2 - Slave Trade should only have a navbox (Template:Slave narrative) if that article is listed in the navbox. On the editorial judgment level, adding that template to that article raises questions of competence. To complain about a few bad words is simply pathetic if you are not also strenuously complaining about use of that navbox. Johnuniq (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  It would be nice if editors could please examine the details of the dispute before commenting and assailing someone else's competence. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  All that shows is that Haleth added a game to the navbox and added the navbox to the game at the same time. Before that, the navbox showed links to 94 serious articles concerning Slave narratives. The game is obviously not a slave narrative and thinking that it might be is not a good sign. Johnuniq (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  So what was the point in citing WP:BIDIRECTIONAL if it's not relevant? English is a living language, and the meanings of terms change over time. If you read slave narrative, you can see that the term is redefined three times in the article, making room for fictional works and "neo-slave narratives" which don't match the definition in the lead: the (written) autobiographical accounts of enslaved Africans. I presume you're okay with those, though? Presumably you're also fine with The Octoroon, written by Irish-American playwright Dion Boucicault? The whole host of novels and young adult fiction doesn't seem up for debate either. So, clearly, when an editor seeks to expand it further by adding a novel medium of storytelling to the stack, not only is it wrong, but it entitles others to then deride them and otherwise question their competence? Did I understand correctly? Not a great look. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  AlexEng, perhaps you should move your content questions to the article talk-page. This thread was opened by someone who is neither Drmies nor Helath, and evidently neither Drmies nor Helath have any interest in pursuing this as an ANI matter. It should be closed, and anyone who wants to weigh in on the content issue can do it somewhere else. --JBL (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Racist language on Talk:Cap-Haïtien_fuel_tanker_explosion

Was checking on this current news article and did a double take when I saw the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1060491147&oldid=1060489203 62.153.231.130 (talk) 12:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Revdel'd and user blocked for the comment. Lookign at the edit history, NOTHERE applies. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, Sir Sputnik, this points to both Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beaneater00/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ZestyLemonz: Kittenenthusiast88 was linked to the latter, but is a match with this Nazi account, along with CactusRoy and AlbanianPatriot88. I think something needs to be merged. Oh, we need to throw in User:Legume Luncher as well. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_events_portal Overstuffed with hoax articles

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

---

A large number of hoax pages cataloging “archiving” fake “contemporary events” from before Wikipedia existed have mysteriously appeared in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Current_events_portal. At least some are created by user:GeoffreyT2000 but I haven’t checked all of them. I was wondering if special action (like mass speedy deletion per WP:G3) and/or sanctions should be performed. Dronebogus (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks as if these have not appeared recently, but were there since 2017, and have not been added by GeofrreyT2000 (they edited these, but didn't create the ones I looked at). They don't seem to be intended as hoaxes, but someone using the portal format and creating similar pages for older dates, probably in an attempt to be helpful. Fram (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: could you clarify what problem you are trying to solve? As an example, the page Portal:Current events/August 1998 was originally at August 1998 and moved after this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Years/Archive_11#Using_archives_of_Portal:Current_events_for_month_articles. I can see no evidence of anyone trying to hoax here. What am I missing? —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• • I assumed they were all hoaxes due to misusing what clearly appears to be an archive of historical WP news pages as mainspace articles. Dronebogus (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps you should first have discussed this with GeoffreyT2000 instead of running here? They are a long-term editor with a clean block log, the first impulse should be "discuss" instead of "assume hoax" and run to ANI. Fram (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay. Complaint withdrawn. Dronebogus (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

IP range 36.81.12.0/22

This range has been introducting problematic edits at various television series and awards articles, particularly adding foreign networks, which aren't the original broadcasting networks for the series and awards programs in question, and goes against the template instructions for the "network" parameter found at Template:Infobox television and Template:Infobox award. Also, some additional various vandalism or disruptive edits. (Please see their contributions.) This range of IPs geolocates to Indonesia, and isn't the only range from there disrupting these articles (I was seeing IPv4 addresses not beginning with 36, but haven't disseminated the details yet). I am suggesting a range block on the above for these disruptive edits, as semi-protecting the numerous articles involved doesn't seem practical (though I did request semi-protection for one article, Boy Meets World, about a day ago, before noticing this was going on at way more than just that article). From their contributions, this doesn't seem to be a WP:COLLATERAL issue. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I did leave one warning here, concerning the Boy Meets World editing, but noticing the edits were coming from dynamic addresses, I found there was no point in leaving additional ones. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

MPFitz1968 - I did a pretty good poke through this range's contributions, and nearly all of them consist of the addition or modification of content without referencing any kind of source at all. I've applied a 72 hour block to the 36.81.8.0/21 range. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Outing attempt

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

---

OK. This has gone too far. I have never made a complaint before, but I must do so now. In their obsessive zeal to get their way, @A. C. Santacruz: just blatantly attempted to out me here [100]. Can you do something about this editor please? BTW, After push back, teh editor in question deleted the material from Talk.[101]. Rp2006 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The user in question has personally redacted the content and it is now suppressed. I genuinely do not see anything more to do here, but if there are further concerns feel free to convert this close into a comment and re-open. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC) I have been asked in a roundabout way to re-open this to evaluate their overall behaviour, so have at it. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry... @Primefac: I do not see how to reopen it. Rp2006 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If this is going to remain open, it would be reasonable for A. C. Santacruz's ANI pblock to be temporarily removed so she can comment here, presumably with a commitment not to abuse the leeway. If this is not done, I've agreed to ferry posts over from her user talk page. I'd appreciate more eyes there in case I am slow to respond. Firefangledfeathers 22:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, outing somebody is BIG no no, even if they've reverted the outing & it's been redacted. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit more complex than that. There was a source in the article that they were told to read, the source was written by the editor alleging outing. It's a whole clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And here we go again... How do you KNOW the source in question was written by the editor in question. You just participated in an outing attempt. Rp2006 (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Because of the Streisand effect, it did a great job of laying everything out in front of everyone. That's partially why it's a clusterfuck. There's still discussion, saying what I just said, on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that some of what @User:A. C. Santacruz wrote - now on various pages defending their actions - is almost as problematic as the initial and stricken outing text (and thus should probably be purged as well). That's no reason to follow in their footsteps and re-state what they claimed regarding an editor's identity, making the situation worse. Rp2006 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Then why reopen an ANI thread where they're going to defend themselves, leading them to repeat again what is objected to. That's the Streisand effect in action. This is one of the most watched pages, and now this is the most active thread. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean OUTING doesn't provide much clarification for this situation imo. A link is cited on-wiki for 3 years+ which associates editor X with personal information on him. Editor X edits that page throughout those 3 years and does not remove the link. Editor X then asks editor Y to read that (and another) link as part of a talk page discussion. Editor Y replies with information included in the link editor X told her to read. I am terribly confused as to how that is outing, but have since removed the link from the article just in case. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Copied from User talk: A. C. Santacruz by User:Firefangledfeathers

You are dangerous @A. C. Santacruz: Where in the article you just deleted as a reference - and which I restored - does it link a WP user ID to the author? Even the above comment is an outing attempt. Rp2006 (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I find this one difficult. If an editor writes multiple articles off-wiki where they identify themselves as an editor, and specifically state edits that they have made on-wiki, then add links to those articles as references on Wikipedia within articles and raise those articles on talk pages, does that count as "voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia"? I'm inclined just to say that their wish not to be outed on WP should be respected, (because it should), but I can see why the situation might create confusion. - Bilby (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see Bilby, there are no references to specific edits or certainly to a WP ID in the article referenced on Hill's page. Are you now joining Santacruz's detective team? Rp2006 (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a confusing enough situation that even experienced users and admins are pushing past the threshold that you view as delineating an outing attempt. Are you determined to push this ANI filing, knowing that the discussion is likely to amplify points that near or cross that line? Or could we perhaps excuse a less-experienced editor, close this discussion, and possible request some revdel? Firefangledfeathers 22:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If this was a first strike, sure. This is far from that. So no. Rp2006 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So then you'll probably have to back off accusing anyone who looks at the totality of the situation as Santacruz's detective team. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to out you. I am trying to understand whether or not if someone chose to link to articles they wrote where they out themselves by identifiying specific edis they made, if that would cause sufficient confusion to explain an error made by a comparitively new editor. - Bilby (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Where does the info for "someone chose to link to articles they wrote" come from? Rp2006 (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't take a detective to connect the dots, specially when a source in the article says the person helped write the article. My recommendation is that you ask to have your user name changed to a less identifiable one if you do not wish to be connected to your real name. Isabelle ^🔔 23:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And now @A. C. Santacruz: is harassing me on talk with a misgendering claim (See "Dont misgender me").[102] Do I file another ANI??? Rp2006 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

A request to use specific pronouns isn't harassment. Schazjmd (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

In context and under the banner "Don't misgender me" it certainly was. Rp2006 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not harassment. It was a polite and good faith request to correct a mistake you made. Drop the stick and move on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been reading the discussion on Hill's talk page since the start of the month, and I have to say I've been concerned by a lot of the behaviour I've seen by Rp2006. They are aggressively antagonistic, and resistant to good faith attempts to change the article content by Santacruz. The edit war prior to the rejected WP:3O request is a prime example. Santacruz had provided a rather detailed analysis for why she made the edits she did, and there was absolute silence from Rp2006 and the other editors present. I completely understand Santacruz' frustration here, as it seems to me to be a rather clean example of WP:TE and WP:STATUSQUO.

As for the outing, if (and I must stress, this is an if) the author of the author of the source that Santacruz was requested to read is an editor that is editing Hill's talk page, then it is a clear example of at the very least WP:SELFCITE, if not a full on WP:COI. The text at SELFCITE is clear Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. If you cite yourself in a discussion, have a username that is easily identifiable with your real name, then I'm sorry but I feel as though you've given up any reasonable expectation of privacy from that contribution. I have to agree completely with what ScottishFinnishRadish has said, this is a clusterfuck, and one potentially of Rp2006' own making. Frankly, I don't think any further action bar the revdel should happen against Santacruz as I have found them to be a very good and contentious editor in the topic areas I'm active in, and I would maybe suggest a WP:BOOMERANG investigation into Rp2006' behaviour both leading up to this event and through their comments here is in order. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have been "aggressively antagonistic"? Wow. "The absolute silence from Rp2006" - not that I NEED to explain it - was due to a combination of personal schedule and the complexity of the edits needing time to look at, which I did not have. A glance showed me they at least some of the long list of edits partially involved removing material due to misconstrued COI issues, which were already argued over elsewhere. And other editors seemed to agree with me because I was not alone in the reverts to her work. And frankly, I am tired of dealing with this person on a point-by-point basis. She is new, yet thinks she knows everything, and does not take advice. And yes, your "if" is one big IF. Rp2006 (talk) Rp2006 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You are correct that my if is a big speculation, however if it is true multiple uninvolved editors have now commented on this linkage and good faith advice in the form of a username change has been given to rectify that situation. If that editor does not wish to make a user name change, then the text I quoted before from SELFCITE is still relevant.

As for aggressively antagonistic, I stand by that comment. While Wikipedia discussions are largely asynchronous, if you knew that your daily schedule wouldn't let you give full engagement to the discussion until some time had passed, a short note stating something like "I'm busy at the moment, but will get back to you on X date" is relevant and would have prevented a whole multitude of belligerency that occurred in the days that followed.

As for the other editors, I only count two, maybe three, including yourself who are seemingly resistant to change and unwilling to discuss the proposed changes. Wikipedia is about building consensus, Santacruz has attempted to start that by discussing proposed changes. That she was met with silence is concerning to me as an uninvolved editor. If the issues she has raised were discussed before, then linking to those discussions once your schedule had freed up would have been order. If that discussion happened on Wiki, it did not happen in the article talk page as there was no meaningful discussion present at all on it until 25 November 2021, and that talk page has no archives. Again this is something that you or one of the other editors could have easily rectified without it escalating to this point. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Any editor citing their own work in an article who does not disclose that it's their own work is violating WP:COI, so I don't understand how WP:OUTING can come into play in such a situation. If you're citing yourself (and you published under your real name), then you're required to self-out. What am I missing here? Levivich 23:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, the citation in question (I just researched it) was originally added to the article, as far as I can tell, here: [103] by @SEKluth:. So what are we talking about? Rp2006 (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This is probably not the best way to avoid outing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's almost as if avoiding outing isn't the purpose of this ANI thread. Levivich 23:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And the fucks are clustering even more. Who would have thought a bunch of people with borderline COI editing a bunch of articles, citing each other, could end up with a confusing swamp of bullshit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

What you are missing is that Rp2006 did NOT add that citation. Check the history of the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_A._Hill&oldid=882240700 It was added five months after it was published, so not even soon after. In fact since the addition of that citation Rp2006 has NOT edited the Sharon A. Hill page except to revert the massive changes that ACS had made recently. [104] Sgerbic (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Rp2006 has made 16 edits to Sharon A. Hill since 2016 [105], including these three this year: Special:Diff/1057194684, Special:Diff/1059199766, Special:Diff/1060661818. More broadly, Rp2006 has made 13,000+ edits, and if any of them contains a citation to Rp2006's own work, or discusses Rp2006's own work, Rp2006 needs to disclose that, per WP:COI. Levivich 23:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

As I said @Levivich the three edits that Rp2006 made to the Sharon Hill page since the citation in question was published have been only to revert ACS's massive changes to the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sharon_A._Hill&action=history What edits were made prior to that article are not important to the discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes they are, and it also matter if the three reverts contain a link to Rp2006's own work. What doesn't matter is who added it first. Levivich 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

So now a revert of all the edits at a time that include an article (which you say, again w/o proof) is my own work also needs a COI reveal? First off, I'm not sure that's true or makes any sense. (what is if an editor monitors a page that they are cited on, and a vandal deletes it all. They need to explain in teh revert that one of the bits on the page was theirs? Really? Secondly, and yet ANOTHER outing claim (three reverts contain a link to Rp2006's own work) is made! This is amazing. Rp2006 (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You were advised earlier that the whole thread was a bad idea, but you wanted to open the barn door. You can't expect everyone else to get the horse back in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't be serious @Levivich Sgerbic (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ya got me Levivich. I am a writer of books, journal and magazine articles. And I spend all my time on WP inserting my own work (just not this one) as citations. All 13,000 edits. (Where is the laughing emoji)? Rp2006 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

You also spend at least some of your time on Wikipedia being overtly hostile to anyone who finds an issue with some of your edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Mostly just you. And maybe Bilby. Rp2006 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess I did commit the vile sin of removing a grievous BLP violation you added. That's worth your unending animosity I guess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Editors citing there own work are not required to self-out. At least, WP:SELFCITE says nothing of the sort (please do inform me if I'm wrong here!). This seems to be irrelevant. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh... I just read that... And frankly "You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work." is way confusing. That sounds like its something automatic. Of course it cannot be. Is it saying someone doing that needs to make it clear in the edit summary? That sentence needs a re-write! Rp2006 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It crosses over with the WP:COI guideline, where one has to declare if they're editing with a conflict of interest. The end result is linking their username to the name they're publishing under. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE is a part of WP:COI, under the section Other categories of COI, so self-citing is a category of COI. COI says that editors with COI must disclose their COI (it says that multiple times, I assume I don't need to quote it). So, yeah, you gotta disclose if you're adding your own work to an article. Levivich 23:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

That section says the same thing... Not clearer. "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive... You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work..." There needs to be a separate sentence saying to specify it in the edit summary. OR does it go in a section added to Talk? Unclear. Rp2006 (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

There's a section on that same page called "How to disclose a COI" that answers these questions. Levivich 23:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah! There it is. IMHO that needs a link from the other places we have quoted here. But thanks. Rp2006 (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI: I'm taking the Rp2006 COI issue to Rp2006's talk page, to discuss a possible COIN. Levivich 00:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I need to follow this discussion in 3 (or is it 4 now) places. Rp2006 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I came across this when ACS requested input about using a master's thesis in an article here on my watchlist. To which the answer is "usually not RS". I only briefly looked over Sharon_A._Hill which I find a weirdly promotional article. ACS's behavior on that talk page has, from what I can see, only been exemplary: BRD, friendly, and a very detailed reason for her changes (removing the master's thesis etc, removal and discussion of WP:COISOURCE which is also the correct policy to apply wrt publications). So if anything, the other participants' edits at that talk page should be more in focus imo --Mvbaron (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this one of those "High-Traffic Noticeboards" they say NOT to put sensitive matters on? Anyway, unless I'm missing something, it sounds like Rp2006 put a source giving their own name into an article, and has a Conflict of Interest. I support a Boomerang although I am open to correction if something is wrong with my assessment. As such, I have retracted my previous boomerang proposal. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 01:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If you read above you will see that Rp2006 did NOT make the edit. Sgerbic (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

But did revert an edit that removed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

OMG - say it ain't so! A revert of something that might have looked like vandalism to Rp2006 or at least a nightmare of content that needed to be gone though carefully. Sgerbic (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

From reading a previous thread on ANI where the GSoW was brought up, I can't see how this can be considered an WP:OUT issue. Members of this group have been very open about who they are, what they edit on Wikipedia and connecting those two identities is trivial. Since this has been brought up to WP:COIN, I'd suggest closing this thread as unactionable. Isabelle ^🔔 02:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• It appears the edits claimed to be outing have been suppressed so I am unable to judge whether WP:OUTING applies, and in any case, that issue is now stale. However, for the future, I will indefinitely block A. C. Santacruz if any future edit of theirs involves outing—do not do it. The simple rule is that it may be alright (if needed to improve the encyclopedia) to point to on-wiki examples where an editor has revealed personal information, but hinting about anything else is outing and is prohibited. If there are issues that really need attention, email clear evidence of a problem to WP:ARBCOM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• This is ridiculous. If there's an off-wiki article published that specifically states in detail what edits were made by said author as a Wikipedia editor to a specific Wikipedia article, that author is essentially outing themselves. You could argue that this was off-wiki. That is, until the same editor described in the off-wiki article re-adds this article to the very Wikipedia article in question. Then that editor starts a discussion on a highly visible page on Wikipedia about being outted? Was given the suggestion multiple times to let it go and chose to pursue? Then gets upset when others read the article? Yeah, no. It doesn't work that way. As others have said, see Streisand affect. This is the result of it. I suggest closing this before it gets worse. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:E82E:415A:9A9E:8C4F & User:2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:956F:C209:DF37:8782

Hello! I recently encountered 2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:E82E:415A:9A9E:8C4F ("8C4F") and 2A00:23C5:8D98:E201:956F:C209:DF37:8782 ("8782"), two IPs (probably the same user; 8C4F changed to 8782 on 16 Dec) who have submitted various redirect requests to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories. After various redirect requests for "Etymology of ..." titles were declined (Qwerfjkl declined some requests saying that the IP was a "sock of User:Mx. Clarks"), 8782 created two improper redirects (Talk:Etymology of Khalistan and Talk:Etymology of Doab, India) from talk pages of nonexistent articles to mainspace sections. I'm not really sure what's going on here, so I'd appreciate some help figuring it out. I tagged the talk redirects for speedy deletion under criterion G8, as a talk page of a nonexistent article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why this user is accused of being a sockpuppet. Pinging @Qwerfjkl: to see why they're making such accusations, and also to see why they haven't opened an SPI report about the situation. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 01:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I based this off this comment by @Liz. ― Qwerfjkltalk 08:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: There are reasons one can be unable to access their account outside of a block (For example, if Mx. Clark lost their password) that are perfectly reasonable. Logging out to edit in these situations isn't banned by WP:SOCK. With that in mind, were the IPs doing anything malicious?☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 11:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Plutonical: Mx. Clark is globally locked, which makes it impossible to sign in. While the IPs weren't doing any outright vandalism, they were acting unconstructively in mainspace, creating the redirects I mentioned, and filing lots of poorly written redirect requests. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I had no idea about a global lock on the user. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 17:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 01:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like this person is on a /64, pretty standard for IPv6, if a block is needed here, just block 2a00:23c5:8d98:e201::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) wizzito | say hello! 04:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I went and enacted the range block. The same range was blocked in July for being used by Mx Clarks, and I don't see any activity on that range which is likely not them. I blocked for 1 year given the stability of the user on that range and the lack of any collateral damage. --Jayron32 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Viriditas and combative and accusatory behavior

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

---

After I cropped and uploaded a new image of Nancy MacLean and added it to her biography, User:Viriditas arrived on my talk page, leaving an unhinged tirade that quite obviously violates the fundamental principal of WP:AGF. User:Viriditas accused me of "intentionally introduc[ing] bias" and snapped "I don’t know what to say to this kind of ignorance, other than you should not be allowed to upload images anywhere on Wikipedia ever again." In subsequent messages, the user further accused me of intentionally portraying MacLean as a "criminal being captured at their trial" for disagreeing with their choice of headshot. They continued to show the same hostility, doubling down on their comment that I "shouldn’t be uploading photos." They then engaged in WP:CANVASS, roping in Beyond My Ken, who wrote "I'd like nothing better than to see him gone." This behavior clearly violates WP:UNCIVIL and WP:NPA and should be addressed by an administrator as such. It is important to note that User:Viriditas has a history of using personal attacks stretching almost a decade; this behavior should be understood in that context. Filetime (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also like to highlight the complete lack of context for User:Viriditas's accusations of bad faith. I rarely edit political articles and made no changes to the content of the page that would suggest I have a bias or even opinion regarding the subject. The behavior is indicative of someone who is defensive to such an extreme degree that they are recklessly accusatory and set out to construct narratives of bad faith editing by other users. Filetime (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

You edit-warred a poorly-cropped photo against the expressed views of two separate editors who objected to your proposed change. How about you open a thread on the talk page and try to gain consensus for your proposed new photo? If there's no consensus that your version is better, then, well, your photo won't be included. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: so WP:CANVASS is just going to be ignored here? Filetime (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to note that I did not receive the required notification from Filetime regarding this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also note that in the edit summary to this edit -- Filetime's third reversion to his preferred image) Filetime accuses me of harassment, when all I did was restore the status quo ante after advising Filetime to open a discussion on the talk page, which they still have not done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: This discussion is not about you. You were accordingly not pinged. I did not accuse you of harassment, I referenced your tirade of reversions on 13 July 2021 where you made 4 separate edits simply with the summary HARASSMENT. And no word on what is obviously WP:CANVASS? Filetime (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not want to be cause of drama here during this holiday week when we should all be thinking of family, friends, and loved ones, so I will use this space to make a public apology to Filetime for my overt and unnecessary hostility, and endeavor to have a more collegial working relationship in the future. Please everyone, go enjoy the holidays. Viriditas (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• People who have been edit warring (Filetime) don't normally start an ANI report about it. If someone wants to dig into the history they might find a reason why others were speaking in the manner reported. In that case, further action might be considered. However, the reported discussion does not rise to a level requiring sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• This looks like a possible candidate for a WP:BOOMERANG. I'm all for assuming good faith and remaining civil in the face of disagreement, but the editor interaction analyzer paints an interesting picture here. I'm seeing a pattern of disruptive editing with regards to attempts at image replacement. Calling the note on their talkpage an unhinged tirade left me with a raised eyebrow as well. Finally, I'd also like to note that these accusations of WP:CANVASSing are pretty flimsy and that the user should have notified Beyond My Ken if they were going to talk about him at ANI. AlexEng^(TALK) 11:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave

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

User:Therealmovieinfo and his sockpuppet accounts

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

---

Therealmovieinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was warned numerous times on his talk page to stop adding false information, which included him adding his name, to various articles. He has also made an article about himself and is doing it because he is bored. He also clearly is using the accounts 199.8.47.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Swayne552 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to do these same previously mentioned things. Waddles 🗩 🖉 06:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

List of All3Media television programmes

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

---

Hello, Geraldo Perez's behaviour has gone worse and this time reverted someone's edit. So can anyone please block him to prevent more problems? 213.107.66.230 (talk) 06:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Just reverting block evasion edits by User:Nabasile, which this IP is. Doesn't seem to comprehend that editing while blocked, even using dynamic IPs is still block evasion. WP:SO is still open for this editor but continued block evasion does weaken the case. An official WP:BAN may be appropriate now based on continued sock editing and SPI finding. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A block on the IP is necessary, but I think the user may be too young to comprehend what they're doing wrong. You'll notice from their contributions page that they seem to be focused on children's shows. They also don't seem to have a grasp of WP:CIVIL ("You fucked it up so I'm going to fuck you up" is something a child would say upon realizing that their parents can't see what they do online) or WP:WAR (Said uncivil edit summaries were made in the midst of a revert war regarding removing sources), and have repeatedly made immature edit summaries that show that they don't understand why a particular edit of theirs was reverted. I think that a long but temporary site ban (such as a 3-year one) makes sense, as it will give them time to mature, and they can return to Wikipedia after it's over. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 12:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Edmyoa

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

---

User:Edmyoa's only activity is rapidly posting unclear requests on the user pages of other editors, who appear to be selected at random. They are continuing to do this after requests on their user page. Disruptive and WP:NOTHERE. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of Haiyenslna I think. User:Limpae was recently blocked for making similar requests for the same article. I also received a request from another user, again for the same article. — Czello 09:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Posted on my talk page too. I have reverted their mass edits as they are spam and disruptive. Venkat TL (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

It seems this edit [106] by Rosie0706 on my talkpage includes a legal threat (to someone). Asking an admin to do what an admin should do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear legal threat. I have blocked and left a note why. --Yamla (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate MR close on China COVID-19 cover-up

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

---

Following a bizarre MfD back in June and a contentious Merge proposal in November, a request to move China COVID-19 cover-up to China COVID-19 cover-up allegations was filed on December 8 with NPOV concerns. I kept a careful eye on the ensuing MR discussion, concerned that certain editors who WP:BAR'd the COVID-19 lab leak theory and attempted to do the same with the DRASTIC page would try it again with this page (they even boasted about it in the precipitating NPOV/N discussion).

Following these lengthy MfD and Merge proposal discussions, I was pleased to see the unusually diverse group of editors participating in the MR discussion, as it's usually just familiar names recycling the same arguments. So I was shocked to see Sceptre's premature close with a WP:SUPERVOTE to Move the page, claiming that all opposing !votes were based on mere "personal opinions on China", overlooking all the high quality RS cited on the page and in the discussion [107] [108]. Sceptre then nominated the page for deletion as a WP:COATRACK, implying that they have a strong POV on the matter, making their close of the MR appear all the more inappropriate. Even more disturbingly, several senior editors participating in this new AfD (including one esteemed ArbCom member) are !voting to Redirect the page to COVID-19 misinformation by China, which would give no place for the allegedly alleged cover-up anywhere on Wikipedia. Besides for the obvious concern with these !votes per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, they appear to be part of a larger WP:GAME attempt to override the previous Merge discussion's consensus, which found that a cover-up is not the same thing as misinformation (WP:CONTENTSPLIT).

The closer of the Merge proposal was Szmenderowiecki, and the closer of the MfD prior to that was Zoozaz1, and I found their closes to be accurate summaries of those discussions. Per WP:CLOSE, I am requesting a review of this MR close and AfD nomination, in context of the previous MfD and the Merge proposal. Adoring nanny has already brought up this issue with Sceptre on their talk page, citing the Associated Press investigative report which provides the evidence that supports claim that China covered up the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, that was also aired in a 90 minute documentary by the BBC in the UK, and PBS in the US. I have never seen the fact-checking scruples of so many RS called into question over one claim, no matter how controversial. Gimiv (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do need to behave ourselves better. In particular, I would like to remind Gimiv that the use of alternate accounts to evade scrutiny is prohibited by the sockpuppetry policy. And, well, if someone with only thirty edits (only one of which is in mainspace) knows enough about Wikipedia to be posting at ANI and VPP before they're even autoconfirmed, and to jump in immediately in a contentious editing area… well, there's some glaring questions right there that need answering. Sceptre (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not a sock or a meat puppet. I've been watching these ridiculous discussions on Wikipedia ever since stonewalling of new users on this topic openly advocated for by senior editors and aired in this YouTube clip (65k views and counting). If I have to make a few edits to other topics, I will, but you should address my concern with your close instead of casting aspersions. Gimiv (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow, 65,000 views? That's impressive! Only 20,000 more, and you can overtake this video about a disused railway signal. Sceptre (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given it's clearly a controversial discussion, I am surprised that closer closed it while simultaneously planning on deleting it, which would certainly indicate a lack of neutrality (the status quo being an option inherently somewhat aligned with a "keep" viewpoint). Though I do note that I see concerns with the participants positions/nature as well, but as this is a close query, that's what I'll comment on Nosebagbear (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I felt the closure of the discussion was premature and not sufficiently justified. Citobun (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support closure. I felt they adequately summarized the discussion, and noted the policy angles well. It may be true that the closer wanted to delete the article, but my understanding of Closure Review is that we are assessing the close, not the closer. We should only be deciding "was this close within the realm of reasonable interpretation given the situation at hand?" I would discourage Sceptre from saying such a thing in future closes, but I wouldn't overturn the close itself. I would also point out that Gimiv did not discuss this close with Sceptre on their talk page, which is part of the closure review process. (Note: It should be made clear that I (along with many others here) participated in the RM discussion itself.) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't agree with the close. But I also don't think this belongs at ANI. I did not and do not think User:Sceptre should be sanctioned here, which would be the purpose of ANI. There are boards for reviewing closes. Not sure which one this belongs on. Adoring nanny (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CLOSE says If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Had Sceptre closed the MR without opening the AfD, I maybe would have filed the request at Wikipedia:Move review, but the AfD complicated things. Sceptre is a seasoned editor with 15 years experience, so they should know that zealous actions like these attract the attention of outsiders like me and compel us to join the discussion. Instead, they attacked me claiming I am a sock, which is exactly the kind of ad hominem argument some editors have been using in this topic area to justify their actions. See also the stonewalling comment above. Gimiv (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not the Administrator's noticeboard. I think it would be reasonable to move the discussion there. Firefangledfeathers 17:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that this wasn't the Administrator's noticeboard. How do we move the discussion? Gimiv (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gimiv: Copy and paste should be fine. I'd put a small, signed note at the top that indicates the discussion was copied over from ANI. Firefangledfeathers 18:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I agree in part. Gimiv's stated purpose here is to review the RM, but that would be better suited at WP:Move review. Firefangledfeathers 16:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. Move reviews should be conducted at WP:MR. Although personally I would wait on filing a move review, as the AFD is leaning toward redirecting the article. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Gimiv: It seems you did not notify User:Sceptre of this discussion on their user talk page, as required when starting a discussion about someone at ANI. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you sure seem to know a lot about Wikipedia policies and guidelines for someone with less than 50 edits under your belt. I can see why User:Sceptre raised suspicions of sockpuppetry above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I commented before the MR was opened that moving the page to "allegations" given the content would have actually been an appropriate admin move due to the failure of the page to document anything more than just claims of China's coverup (no conviction or equivalent made). So this is clearly an appropriate closure. --Masem (t) 18:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Combative and NOTHERE IP editor

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

---

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

Are trying to push w:blp violating material over at [[109]], as well as some pretty bizarre arguments over at their talk pages (not it's a dynamic IP, all the 49.204. range that have posted there is them) [[110]]. Mainly relying on dazzling logic to try and argue against policy. It is well beyond tendentious now and is a time sink, going over the same arguments again and again [[111]].Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

And violations of wp:npa [[112]] (posted after this ANI was launched).Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. There has to be some sort of corollary to Godwin's Law for invoking the KKK. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Promotion from 112.209.98.110, 112.209.127.217, 112.209.161.220, 120.28.64.215

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ToBeFree (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

112.209.98.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 112.209.127.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) all of them are adding promotional (I don't know if it's promotional) and unrelated topics in many BLP and non-BLP articles, unreferenced also, clearly BLP violation. Their contributions are the same as the previous IPs I've reported in AIV that is now blocked (112.209.161.220 and 120.28.64.215). Any administrator!? I've warned them, but it is possible that they are not listening and they will do it again. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 09:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected those pages. El_C 14:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. —Ctrlwiki • talk • 14:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Libracarol original research

• Illegal removal of people from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Afghan immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Cambodian immigrants from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Deportation of Americans from the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aggravated felony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Luna Torres v. Lynch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Libracarol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One of our law editors, Libracarol is creating and overhauling articles using mostly primary sources. This is resulting in issues with WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POV, and WP:UNDUE. Please click some of the articles above and take a look at the citations sections to see what I mean.

In law articles, any kind of citation to a court case is WP:PRIMARY. There is strong consensus for this, supported by two discussions I will link in the next paragraph and also supported by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law)#Original texts. And of course, articles should be written using mostly secondary sources, not primary sources.

I have been taking this slow and steady, trying to persuade Libracarol to change their writing style. I achieved consensus at both Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Citations with a lot of cases and Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Legal articles: citing too many cases that their writing style is problematic and they need to change it. However they are not listening.

At the original research noticeboard, I asked them if they would accept our consensus and would be willing to clean up their articles, and they said no. Only admins can decide if I'm engaged in OR but you're not an admin. Please see their full statement here.

Looking at their talk page, there may also be a history of doing this. I see 123 talk page sections before December 2021 on the subject of original research, and 1 on NPOV.

This style of editing looks OK on the surface because it is so well cited, but in my opinion it is actually quite pernicious. It injects original research into articles, and it takes a skilled editor to clean it up. And cleanup can't really begin until the original editor stops defending their edits.

What should be done here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I should add that it appears, from a limited spot-check performed at NORN, that Libracarol is making misleading claims (at best) or factual errors (at worst) when writing these articles. JBchrch talk 14:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae and his supporters claim that a written opinion by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and accessible through Harvard Law School is a primary source and not a reliable secondary source. Me and at least two admins disagree. Novem Linguae and his supporters do not provide any reliable source to back their unsourced POV. Furthermore, he's falsely accusing me. I'm not creating articles, and I'm not engaged in editing of articles but just replying to others in noticeboards. The listed articles have existed for years with nobody changing them, except the first one which I created to cover illegal deportation of legal immigrants (non-Americans). He's reporting me back to back in a very quick way but yet says he's "taking this slow and steady". My talk page is irrelevant. I have not been editing since 2018, and my talk page has been inactive since then. I feel being bullied. WP:BULLY.--Libracarol (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"I'm not engaged in editing of articles" can't be what you meant to say since it's so easy to disprove. That you haven't edited since 2018, when these same issues were raised, and now they're being raised again upon your return to editing, is evidence of a problem: you haven't learned or adjusted to feedback. Levivich 15:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No bullying is going on here. On the other hand, your belittling editors has been noted[113]. Many editors have issues with your editing. Including me[114]. My concerns, are you putting references on a sentence that has nothing to do with what was written. (This is a longtime concern I have had with editing around WP. Here is a link[115] to a talk page discussion I had with administrator) For example this[116]. I'm referring to the re-addition of the Born in East LA mention. OR, bogus referencing and I have multiple occasions in this and another of your articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Based on a quick look, the first three articles are basically POV essays that were/are created or dominated by Libracarol. This work has been enabled by Libracarol's interpretation / interpretive application of primary sources, a key reason why such is not allowed. The first one is particularly creative, essentially arguing that US law is illegal and writing an article title accordingly. North8000 (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• As a general matter, there may be some failure here to distinguish between different types of court filings. Assertions contained in pleadings and briefs filed by parties represent one end of the spectrum, where we should be extremely dubious in relying on these materials for the truth of the matters asserted. That is one end of the spectrum. Unpublished decisions of trial courts are also at the less reliable end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum are the written opinions of the United States Supreme Court, published by the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the American system of shared powers and checks and balances, the published decisions of the Supreme Court are the law of the land. An encyclopedia should not discourage citation to, and reliance on, the actual opinions wherein the law is set forth. All that being said, an editor with a POV can abuse secondary authorities discussing Supreme Court opinions just as easily as they can the opinions themselves. The problem here is not IMO with the usage of Supreme Court opinions but with the POV. Cbl62 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. The Supreme Court opinions I cite are exclusively about giving a specific immigration statute (section of US law) its proper definition and coverage. The statute would be the primary law and the Court's published opinion would be the scholarly work used here as a secondary reliable source. The Court does not make laws, its sole task is to explain to the public what that section of law is and who it applies to (or not apply to).--Libracarol (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict, response is just to CBl62's post) I think that we agree, but just double checking. I never questioned that a SCOTUS decision is essentially the law of the land. My "US law is illegal" note refers to the editor invoking and interpreting rules from outside of the US to say that what is legal under US law is actually illegal based on those non-US standards. And of course, I agree that one can also mis-use secondary sources and that POV'ing is an issue here. But using primary sources outside the limits prescribed by policy provides much more latitude to this type of a POV problem and enables it.North8000 (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  If an editor is aggressively pushing a POV, that can be accomplished just as easily (probably more easily) by using secondary sources discussing SCOTUS opinions. My point is simply that the problem here is the POV, not the reliance on published SCOTUS opinions. Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I never said US law is illegal. The article explicitly states that illegal deportation is illegal because the US law says so. Who on this planet would disagree with that? Is illegal deportation legal?--Libracarol (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  While court decisions may be "law of the land", they are primary sources, just like any laws passed by Congress. Any interpretation or synthesis from those sources require a secondary source, not a WP editor, which is the problem here with these articles. --Masem (t) 19:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Just because a court opinion is a primary source (or is treated as one on Wikipedia) doesn't mean it can never be used. There are some appropriate uses of SCOTUS opinions for example. But we can't write an entire article by stringing together dozens of case citations. And it's even worse when that's done to push a POV, by turning encyclopedia articles into advocacy essays. This is someone who is using Wikipedia to write law review articles arguing for a particular interpretation of law. Libracarol should publish their work in a law review instead of on Wikipedia. Levivich 16:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  The above-listed articles are based on commonly-known facts, such as dogs and cats have four legs, a human has two feet and two hands, Washington D.C. is the capital of the United States, etc. They do not even need a reference. I added the extra opinions of judges (legal scholars) in the event someone has any doubts.--Libracarol (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  If you think "Deportation of Afghan immigrants from the United States violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other laws,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] unless it is done rationally and in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).[8][9][10]", is a WP:BLUESKY statement that doesn't need to be cited, you don't understand WP:V and that's a WP:CIR issue. Levivich 16:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  In my opinion that's the best way. It's saying that they could be deported only as the law prescribes but not any other way. An "immigrant" is someone who has been admitted to the U.S. by the government and has permission to reside in the U.S. [117]--Libracarol (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  It should be noted here than the claim about deportations violating the UN Convention against Torture is erroneous. The CAT doesn't include a blanket prohibition on deportations to Afghanistan, as was discussed to at NORN. JBchrch talk 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's the problem. Most people don't know immigration laws. I wrote these articles so everyone can fully understand them. If one person gets illegally deported the US government could end up paying that person hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages. [118] What benefit does the US get from this? That person will simply come back and buy a new home with no mortgage.--Libracarol (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Per our standard disclaimers, just as we are not a reliable source for medical information, we are not a reliable source for legal information. And asserting that we should have these articles to help prevent readers from getting into legal trouble is not any part of our mission. If the legal aspects of immigration, etc are discussed in legal-expert secondary sources, we can summarize those, but we can't do that off the laws or court decisions themselves. --Masem (t) 19:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Per Levivich, quite happy to cite Libracarol after peer reviewed and RS published :)Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Levivich: If you look closer at reference #4 for that sentence, it doesn't verify it. So why is that reference there? There's plenty more of this in these articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:26, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Highly recommend that Libracarol stop creating or editing such articles, until this matter is cleared up. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you see me creating or editing them?--Libracarol (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Smart move. GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• For purposes of this discussion, let's assume the citations are valid.   We are still left with violating NPOV, Synth, and civility.
  • On Civility, any expert who believes their sheepskin makes them the superior authority on a topic and states other editors can not comprehend the topic fails collaboration and civility. Special:Diff/1060783833 Special:Diff/1060829594 Special:Diff/1060804484. All of these are minor in tone but significant in showing the editor believes they are superior to the rest of us.
  • On Synth and NPOV, combining three sources to create ledes that state in absolute wikivoice "Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), illegal removal of people from the United States[1] violates the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT) and other international law.[2][3]", when a review of the sources shows that the statement has several nuances specifically that illegal deportation only violates CAT if reasonable to believe someone is tortured (Illegal deportation to say Canada doesn't rise to this level) is violation of core policies and a major disservice to readers. Also violates lede follows body. Hard to diff but any editor can click the three sources in article and read the notes.
  • In short, the editor has for years gotten away with creating advocacy articles that promote their personal view of the subject and at this time refuses to bring the articles or their editing style into compliance with wikipedia policies and a WP:CIR ban should be considered unless they immediately take affirmative steps to fix their mess and promise to cease personal attacks and comply with wikipedia policies. Slywriter (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay has suggested above that I don't edit the articles. Only my opponent thinks I'm violating civility, and we're suppose to believe this opponent just because he says so. User:Alyo claimed he/she was a law student but now has changed it to being a lawyer. [119] Whatever I said in those diffs is not a personal attack on anyone because what if I'm a professor and a judge? Slywriter knows that most deportations are to Mexico [120] so why does he uses Canada as an example? Has any American ever been deported to Canada? I wish that could happen to me. Banning me from those articles would constitute injustice and abuse of discretion. I no longer have interest in those articles. The world already knows about illegal deportation without needing to read Wikipedia. Only a couple of people read those articles daily.--Libracarol (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Not only do I seriously doubt that you are a professor or a judge, but you could be Oliver Wendell Holmes rising from the dead and your style of editing would still be unacceptable. And yes, deportations to Canada do take place, which confirms that you may be overstating your expertise by a significant margin. JBchrch talk 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I was obviously talking about deportation of Americans to Canada. The most popular case about Canadian deported to Canada is Stone v. INS (1995). [121] This is a very latest case about Canadian deported to Canada. [122]--Libracarol (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I do hope it's not surprising to you that in the passage of time, a law student would eventually become a lawyer. That's sort of the end goal there. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Returning to the original question in the OP, "what should be done here?": the affected articles should be restored to last-good-version prior to the rewrites (unfortunately, there are a number of affected articles, and the restoration should be done with some care because of intervening possibly-good edits), and the editor should be indef blocked and they can make an unblock request demonstrating they understand and will comply with WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and other core content policies. I'm particularly concerned that this was an issue in 2018, after which a wiki-break was taken, only to return to the same problematic editing in 2021. I don't want to leave this issue unresolved for editors in 2024. Levivich 18:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest that Levivich be blocked for hounding and bullying. WP:HOUND; WP:BULLY. It has been blocked before. [123]--Libracarol (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Please don't call fellow editors "it". And that block log clearly shows the blocking admin unblocked 2 hours later with apologies. —valereee (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't look at how long the block was. I used "it" because others have used it and I got tired of writing he/she. Some find "he/she" offensive.--Libracarol (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Libracarol, never use it for a human. If in doubt, use singular they. Also, sorry everyone, forgot to block Levivich indef. But there's still time! El_C 21:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Don't even use 'they', just use the editor's name. That way, nobody will complain. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Any complaints about they would be spurious. Being respectful doesn't mean we need to coddle anyone. El_C 21:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. In court filings I repeatedly use party's name but was afraid that editors here will become annoyed or something. So I will just stick to name only.--Libracarol (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You appear in an actual court and still you thought it is okay somehow? That's... wow. El_C 21:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's very common to call the U.S. Attorney General "it", including anyone under him.--Libracarol (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems doubtful. An Attorney General is a person. Their office is an it, their statements are an it, etc., but not they themselves, personally. El_C 21:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

He's the head of a department, so "it" is a better choice. If you were to use he or she, it could be a reference to one of his lawyers.--Libracarol (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're able to produce documentation to prove that, that would surprise me. El_C 23:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

"It" is often used to refer to the office of a prosecutor. I have not seen it applied to people, including the head of that office. —valereee (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol, if you go to Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing>Navigation popups, enabling that will allow you to hover over an editor's name and see if they've specified pronouns. If they haven't, we generally recommend using they. —valereee (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It's enabled, and thanks.--Libracarol (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I never bother with the singular 'they/them' pronoun. But, it's up to you. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Stealth political incorrectness, gg. El_C 23:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm beginning to think that a topic ban on law-related articles per WP:CIR might be in order. Despite multiple attempts to explain to them the basics of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY at multiple venues, through both on-wiki and off-wiki materials, Libracarol is still unresponsive and maintains their original position head-on [124]. They still maintain that they are an expert, despite outright mistakes, failures at understanding sourcing requirements, and a general pattern of incompetence. Add in the personal attacks, accusations, strawmanning and belittling of other editors, which are still ongoing [125]. They were offered a chance at cleaning up their articles, but didn't take it. Is there any other way out of this? JBchrch talk 22:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• The way out is simply tag the articles for law experts. I'll periodically update the "notes and references" section with latest Supreme Court opinions that are more directly on point. I'll also try to trim the articles, especially the "notes and references" sections. If we cite mostly outdated law reviews, the article would be misleading readers because the old opinions could have been reversed by the high court. This happens a lot in immigration matters. That's the reason relying on what the high court says is better, but I'm not against law reviews. They go better in the further reading section. I'll say this again. Supreme Court opinions are not primary but reliable secondary sources. "A secondary source is not the law. It's a commentary on the law...." [126] "Secondary sources are materials that discuss, explain, analyze, and critique the law...." [127] "Secondary sources often explain legal principles more thoroughly than a single case or statute, so using them can help you save time...." [128] If you read any Supreme Court opinion, that's exactly what it does.--Libracarol (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• If it is clear that, say SCOTUS overturns a prior decision, and we have articles that use sources that are based on that decision being non-overturned, it is not inappropriate to work in "Prior to its overturnin, this decision was considered by legal experts to..." as the historical nature of how such a decision work is still fine. That's using the non-opinion part of a decision for that purpose. But court opinions are by default primary sources. Just because we have justices that are intended to be experts in the law, we cannot use their decisions equal to a peer reviewed law paper. They may be secondary sources for older cases that are mentioned, but absolutely primary for the case they are resolving. --Masem (t) 23:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You insist on misreading the links that I provided to you at NORN. The first link from Yale Law School doesn't mention opinions and cases in its list of secondary sources. What does that tell you? The second link from NYU Law has a menu where you can select Legal Research - Primary Sources > U.S. Case Law, which leads to this, a page that explicitly mentions Supreme Court cases and opinions. The third link from Harvard Law School lists Case Law in its "Primary Sources" and links to this this video, which gives an example from a Supreme Court case. At this stage, your incompetence, or worse, is evident. JBchrch talk 23:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Me pointing out to the world that Luna Torres v. Lynch was wrongly decided makes me incompetent? NYU says "An introduction to the Law Library and Legal Research for students". What does Wikipedia has to do with that? We are not NYU students. Case law is the controlling law of a specific court and applies only in the jurisdiction of that court. We're simply saying that if a law journal or a book written by let's say a Justice of the Supreme Court can be a secondary reliable source then why can't a similar written work that is authored by Justices of the US Supreme Court be a secondary reliable source for Wiki purposes? Is it the publication company that's the problem?--Libracarol (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

How often do the Justices of the US Supreme Court write about topics which they are not involved in ruling on as a court? —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure but you can search it.--Libracarol (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Associate Justice William O. Douglas was a prolific writer on topics having little or nothing to do with the law, especially world travel, the wilderness and the environment. Cullen328 (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Having looked at the articles and having read the discussion above, it appears clear to me that Libracarol does not understand the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, and refuses to listen to other editors trying to explain it to them. Whether they're a real legal expert or not, on Wikipedia knowing how to avoid original research is a key competence, and since Libracarol shows no interest at all in acquiring this competence, they should not be editing here any further. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor." [129] How do we know you even read the articles?--Libracarol (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Libracarol: Unfortunately, we're at ANI, and we're here because the content you have contributed to articles is problematic, and the common denominator is the contributor. Thus, it is now absolutely appropriate to discuss whether you are a suitable editor for articles related to law, broadly construed. I'd like to engage in discussion, but if you really want to stifle it, I'll go ahead and !vote to enforce a topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a solution but all I see is sort of attacks. If there are problems with the articles let's just fix them and not worry about who I am. I'm not pro-immigrant or pro-government, just reporting what's going on in the world.--Libracarol (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If it were just a few articles, we could do that. The problem is, you keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and it's gotten so bad that it was reported here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

ANI is a user behavior noticeboard and is an exception. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal Topic or Indefinite ban for Libracarol

With all the problems discovered in this editor's work and their pretty much committing WP:IDHT when told how they have been, some form of action needs to be taken. Levivich[130] proposed an indefinite ban and JBchrch proposed[131] just a topic ban. So do you support a topic ban, indefinite ban, or no action at all.

• Support broad topic ban on any law-related article editing. Libracarol is clearly pushing a point of view in his law articles. They should be banned from editing them. Some action needs to be taken but I feel a indefinite ban would be too harsh. Let this editor contribute to WP in other areas if they want....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I got the point very clear. I'm bullied and not wanted here. Even the walls are telling me this.--Libracarol (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If you were not wanted here, you would be indefinitely blocked, and we'd move along. Instead, editors are trying to find a way where you can still participate in a project while avoiding the area where your edits have seem to run severely afoul of Wikipedia's policies while you gain a better understanding of the policies. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You're not accepting our feedback. If at WikiProject Law or NORN you had accepted our feedback and committed to clean up the articles, we would not be here. Your digging in is what has escalated this. You are not accepting what we are saying despite a huge WP:CONSENSUS. If you accept the consensus and clean up the articles, this tension will go away. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You told me to clean up all these articles, GoodDay said don't edit the articles, I said I'm busy, and I'm replying to all these comments. What would you do in such situation. Don't forget I also do a lot of things at home.--Libracarol (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support broad legal topic ban per William. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info and subsequent accusations of having a nationalist agenda

I've reached my three revert limit but Safinazuyuyor keeps removing info that was based on based RS. After their initial blanking, I added two additional RS but they kept on removing the information.[132]. Their removal is blatantly a nationalist POV but, hey, I'm the Kurdish nationalist with an agenda here... This is vile as well[133] but the whole section was unsourced so there's that. --Semsûrî (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I restored the stable version for now. I suggest Safinazuyuyor take their issues to the respective talk pages. If they keep editing like this, they'll likely run into further disputes. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Pleasureme23 - Unsourced content & no sign of WP:COMMUNICATE

Pleasureme23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to add unsourced content/information to articles, most recently receiving a 3-month block for this same behavior in August, with three additional previous blocks for the same behavior in June 2021 and September 2020. As I note here, it appears the editor's previous additions of unsourced content led to many incorrect/still unsourced content on Corn & Peg, that I had to figure out/revert/remove myself.

Apart from this one talk page message, not even on their own talk page, there appears to be no signs of actual communication coming from the user, despite their four previous block of unsourced content and continuing the same thing now. Most recently, a user has given them these warnings just about a week ago, and yet, they still continue with unsourced content being added.

At this point, it seems like yet another block is needed, possibly a much longer block unless they actually show they intend to communicate from here on out, as problems continue to come from this editor. Thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry how has the user not already been blocked on account of their account name?! GiantSnowman 20:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

blocked 1 year for refusal to discuss. User has never edited a talk page, including their own. —valereee (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If we want to get them to communicate, perhaps someone should register User:23? Levivich 20:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you did there. —valereee (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)