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

Solidarityandfreedom's violations of WP:PROMO, WP:COI, WP:EW and WP:COMPETENCE

Solidarityandfreedom created their account with their first edits attempting to make a Wikipedia page for the chairman of the American Solidarity Party, Draft:Patrick Harris (Party Leader). They then used their account to spam the article for the American Solidarity Party with Twitter links to the American Solidarity Party's "Liberation Caucus". Solidarityandfreedom has been cautioned and reverted by many veteran Wikipedia editors for promotion and the deletion of cited material as can be seen here by Avatar317, here by Rediculizer42, here by Goodone121, and here by Anupam. Solidarityandfreedom's conflict of interest agenda is clear here and their misrepresentation of citations has been noted. They have done the same at related political and religious articles too, with others such as Litawor reversing their edits here and Pbritti reverting their edits here where Solidarityandfreedom is citing primary citations. Solidarityandfreedom's talk page is plastered with warnings from users such as ValtteriLahti12 and others who are tired of wasting their time with this editor who clearly does not have the competence to edit here. Goodone121 has noted that they use misleading edit summaries to blank large amounts of content from articles [1][2]. A topic ban from all articles related to religion and politics is the next best step here, but since these are the only topics that they edit, a site ban could only help him now. TolWol56 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Having monitored Solidarityandfreedom's edits from time to time, I agree with TolWol56 insofar as action appears necessary but disagree with a site ban, as the edits are innocuous enough. A topic ban, even a temporary one, seems proportional. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've only seen Solidarityandfreedom's edits on the American Solidarity Party article, but I would classify EVERY edit I saw by that editor as promotional and poorly sourced, with a clear bias of trying to write what they want and then finding "sources" to stick behind their statement (often SELF-sourced to the party itsself - As an easy extreme example, we don't allow white-supremecist groups to characterize their own organizations, we use Independent Sources WP:IS.) Addditionally, Solidarityandfreedom often deleted SOURCED info that doesn't align with what they want the article to say.

The username seemed to me like a redflag for a potential COI on at least the ASP article, and because of their repeated tendentious editing on that article, I support a topic ban for the ASP article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Solidarityandfreedom has started to sock as 72.28.3.68 and is pushing their same POV COI cruft.[3][4] Would anyone oppose a site ban at this point? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Solidarityandfreedom from American Solidarity Party, although the editor is still able to make their case at Talk: American Solidarity Party. I have warned the editor that taking their disruptive style of editing to other parts of the encyclopedia may result in a broader block. Cullen328 (talk)

In response to the IP editing, I have semi-protected the article for one week. Please inform me if the disruption resumes, and I will semi-protect for a longer period. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, but they are now socking with an IP.[5][6] Perhaps an indefinite block and protecting the article would be the next step? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above, 1990'sguy, I have already semi-protected the article. I am not going to completely block the editor unless they continue their disruption after my page block. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Without comment on the overall behavior, noting that in consultation with Cullen I've closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solidarityandfreedom with a finding that they are likely not the same person as the IP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban for Solidarityandfreedom on politics and religion articles, broadly construed

• Support: This editor is only here to promote their COI views and they have dug a hole for themselves by not taking warnings seriously. Instead, they are still edit warring to push their POV across a range of articles. After this ANI discussion was made, Solidarityandfreedom has resorted to socking under 72.28.3.68.[7][8] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• (other comment) In my opinion there doesn’t necessarily need to be an entire ban, however I would support a block on the Girolamo Savonarola article as he constantly adds information that contradicts the sources that were already used, seemingly to go against the common claim that he was a proto-Protestant (like Philip Schaff and even Britannica 1911 mentioned). ValtteriLahti12 (talk)
• Support topic ban per my original post and the proposal. TolWol56 (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• (other comment) Why would you do this Valt you know me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solidarityandfreedom (talk • contribs) 23:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Your edits in the Savonarola article were not sourced., though I do not support an entire ban. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN or even a NOTHERE block per proposal. From the twitter link-spamming to religious disruption and promotion, I'm leaning more into a total block, but my judgment could be wrong. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

User:CRS-20 repeatedly changing date formats

CRS-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user CRS-20 has repeatedly been changing the date formats from "mdy" to "dmy", and the associated templates, for articles related to US spaceflight, which goes against the guidance in MOS:DATETIES. This user has been asked multiple times by multiple users to use US date formatting for US-centric articles, but has continued to make these edits.

Diffs showing changes from "mdy" to "dmy"

Space Shuttle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Diff 1
• Diff 2
• Diff 3
• Diff 4

Crew Dragon Demo-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Diff 1

Requests to not change date formats

• Talk:Space_Shuttle#Clarifying_appropriate_date_format_for_this_page
• Talk:Space_Shuttle#Stop_changing_date_format
• User_talk:CRS-20#Please_don't_change_date_format_of_American_Spaceflight_articles_from_MDY_to_DMY
• User_talk:CRS-20#Date_format_changes
• User_talk:CRS-20#January_2022
• User_talk:CRS-20#Please_revert_your_date_format_changes_on_all_US_Spaceflight_pages

-Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If an admin looks into this, I would request that they also do something (such as a final warning, ideally) about how CRS-20 simply does not communicate. I have been annoyed off-and-on for over a year by how CRS-20 rarely replies on their talk page. A few times they have replied in French (1, 2, 3), so there might be a language barrier. Here's one particularly bad example of them never replying, even though I consider the issue I brought up to be severe. Here's a more recent case with no reply or change of behavior. Sometimes there is a minimal reply, such as these five sections on the talk page (e.g. see here for a minimal reply that doesn't really address the question). Here's the most recent. Here are the unsorted miscellaneous examples with me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, links copied from here. Just to be fair and present the whole story, a few times, such as here, I have actually gotten an interaction. Leijurv (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation; none of CRS-20's contributions are tagged as mobile, so they are choosing not to communicate. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 16:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Another example just today of (what I perceive to likely be) a language barrier is here, with It's not his function. reading like something translated from another language, and, on top of that, not really demonstrating any understanding of what Balon is saying and why. Leijurv (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Lugnuts and revenge AfDs

User:Lugnuts has received some attention here and some restrictions, I guess I don't need to rehash this here. He is now disrupting AfD, on the one hand by accusing User:Cbl62 of being a proxy for User:Johnpacklambert at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnolds Krūkliņš, and on the other hand by starting revenge AfDs against Johnpacklambert, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conners Creek, Michigan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, on the latter even claiming that it fails WP:V even though it was very easy to confirm its existence and find multiple sources. Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramdasa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, ...

Can please something be done to make it clear that taking articles on viable topics to AfD as a revenge for having your own articles at AfD is very poor practice and should stop? Fram (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, not informing JohnpackLambert of these AfDs was a rather poor decision as well, but fits the pattern I guess. Fram (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Interestingly I was informed of the 2 later mentione AfDs, and 1 other that is not named above, but the 2 on places that are now part of the city of Detroit I was given no notice on. So it is not that Lugnuts does not know how to inform editors of AfDs, he just chose not to place notice of the 2 on places in Michigan on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• For pity's sake, at what point is Lugnuts' manifest and ongoing bad faith going to stop? Quite aside from that it's a horrible look for the Wikipedia champion of creating SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs sourced only to databases, how many disruptive bites of the apple does this guy get to have? I'd be entirely comfortable with Lugnuts getting an indefinite topic ban from the AfD process (except for commenting in defense of his own article creations), to add to his mounting block and tban tally.

  And the further question is this: at what point will we be forced to conclude that Lugnuts is not here to build an encyclopedia so much as he views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground of combats to be won and enemies to be thwarted? Ravenswing 15:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• He did it again [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliff, Michigan]. This may in fact be a valid AfD nomination, but he has again failed to notify me as the article creator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, "he did it again" could be misconstrued as "he did it again after this ANI report was opened", but it was started at the same time as the other AFDs. So it's more a case of "he did it another place that hasn't previously been mentioned". I was initially confused, so wanted to prevent others from being confused. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Your point is well taken. His failure to post notice on my talk page about these nominations made it harder to keep track of when they were occuring.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Another example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, where Lugnuts took a gratuitous dig at Johnpacklambert's religion, knowing that he is unable to respond. Unseemly. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I have taken the liberty to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duboisville, Michigan, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. C. Nelson, as Speedy Keeps. These are NAC's done under WP:SKCRIT #2B: nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption. They could also be equally considered to qualify as criterion #2a: obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing's suggestion is a good one. Let's make it a formal proposal.

Proposal

Lugnuts is banned from the AfD process, except in defence of articles he has created.

If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment/oppose Looking at the most recent AfD noms by JPL, I see that half of the most recent ones (from 5th Jan) have targeted articles I created. Being somewhat vexed by this (and no, that's not an excuse), I picked some of JPL's creations at random. Many of them are fine. The ones I came upon were not/are not in the best shape, and would come under the comment of "SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs", above, sans the sourcing bit, such as this, this and this, for example. I did look for sourcing for all of these, and then logged the AfDs. I think other editors who found those stubs in those states might have done the same. However, I understand the tit-for-tat aproach this could be viewed as, for which I apologise, and for the spam comment too. Infact - @Johnpacklambert: I apologise for that comment about the spam/CoLDS and any offesene it may have caused.

My AfD data is pretty good overall (if that counts for anything). Good faith works both ways, and I'm happy to not log AfDs for articles created by JPL that would be viewed by any reasonable editor as a "revenge AfD". As for the bit about not letting the article creator know about the AfD, WP:AFD states "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page" (my emp.) - it's not a requirement. Maybe that needs its own discussion/RfC. The outcome of this proposal may already be a fait accompli, but I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support: And so here we are, yet again. From another editor, I would credit Lugnuts' professing contrition, but he's done that before. Over, and over, and over again. He promised back at ANI in April that he had learned his lesson, and would stop creating sketchy sub-stubs to bolster his creation count; he broke his word there the next day. His block log is studded with exhortations of good faith going forward, apologies, atonements ... leading right into subsequent blocks. After being tbanned from new stub creation, he's turned his attention to new redirect creation, dozens in the last month. JPL's slowly working through the many thousands of unsourced sub-stubs Lugnuts has created, and so all of a sudden Lugnuts is on the one hand screeching BEFORE! at JPL while taking JPL's own article creations to AfD, with such threadbare evidence and rationales that they're being speedy-kept en masse.

  Enough. Lugnuts has been around a long time now. He has over a MILLION edits, and I don't think it's the slightest bit unreasonable that after all the blocks, after all the ANI threads, after all the edit warring, after all the disruptions, after the bans, we not only expect the civil and collegial behavior that we would out of a newbie with a couple hundred edits, but we hold him as accountable as we would that newbie for willful defiance of those standards, and that he'd have just enough common sense to recognize that he's on very thin ice and ought not go out of his way to lash out at other editors. At some point, to paraphrase Anne of Green Gables, we need to see adherence to civil behavior more than fulsome apologies after the fact. If Lugnuts is incapable by playing by the rules, if after all this time he still doesn't get it, then what the hell, people? Ravenswing 20:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support tban from AFD, except to defend own creations - This is clearly beyond the pale. Between the aspersions of proxying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin, these (fairly clear) revenge AFDs, and all of the past history with problems in this area, it's clearly time to nip the problem in the bud and stop the disruption in this area. Past attempts to deal with this have not worked, so in order to stop the disruptive behavior, this looks necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Commentpersonal attacks and well poisoning removedIt is also clear that Lugnuts' AfD's were, as he admits, a "tit-for-tat." We could just ban all three of them from AfD, but I think it would be more productive for all three of them to simply agree to cease the behavior that got us into this mess in the first place, with sanctions to be involved only if they don't. I would strongly oppose any sanctions that don't address all three users involved in this mess, but frankly don't see the need for anything at all if people just move on and don't repeat the behavior that got us here. If they show an unwillingness to do that, so be it, we'll do what we need to to make it stop. But hopefully cooler heads can prevail. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Smartyllama Unless you are willing to open a separate thread with direct evidence of proxying I suggest you withdraw the personal attack and well poisoning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    • It is possible JPL was just writing for his own convenience and did not actually expect anyone else to do his bidding, I'll concede that, and if that's the case, apologize to JPL for my lack of WP:AGF. However, if that's the case, it was still unwise given his already-in-place sanctions since it could easily be interpreted as such. If he would simply agree to refrain from suggesting pages for deletion on his talk page beyond the extent that he would be able to nominate them at AfD, that would be sufficient in my mind. As for having this conversation in a separate thread, the issues are related so I think it's best to consolidate them all in one place. But I don't particularly care about the formatting one way or the other, so do whatever is more convenient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I removed it for you. Don’t restore it, if you have an allegation open a separate thread. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• For what it is worth I am not trying to work through Lugnuts creations at all. I am working through 1912 births, and have been going backwards through the years from 1927 or so. I have since the end of December in part focused on the state of Olympian articles I come across. The fact that a large percentage of those that do not meet our inclusions criteria that I end up taking to AfD are from one creator is a function of who created what percentage of those articles, not from any actual attempt to target the work of one person on my part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• I never mentioned either of the articles I was alleged to have been proxying in my post. I mentioned a totally different person. That I have to even point that out is very odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm convinced that Lugnuts, unfortunately, has become a net negative at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Commemt — Unfortunately the trio of Fram, Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert are all editors I have high regards for, thus I’d recusing myself from either supporting or opposing this, but I’d make a few statements (off topic) prior addressing anything else. I see that editors time and time again are irate about Lugnuts's article creation to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace. Now to the issue on ground, I’d like to state definitively that revenge nom's are tasteless and in the past I have “speedy kept” AFD's I believe were created in bad faith. Infact i speak about this on my Userpage, see; User:Celestina007#True Editor Growth, thus I applaud Eggishorn for doing the needful, In my experience Revenge Noms are disruptive because more often than not they are without merit. Furthermore it is improper to swear at AFD's thus i do not appreciate Lugnuts's choice of words at the AFD. It is also improper to say an editor acts as a proxy without cogent proof & that is seriously an egregious accusation to make if it can’t be corroborated, Having said I appreciate Lugnuts because they are an archetypal example of a “serial article creator” stub or not. it is unfortunate that this has spiraled into this, if there is a possible manner Lugnuts can be warned without any formal community enforced sanctions I’d be happy but as earlier stated I wouldn’t be supporting nor opposing this, I however fully understand the frustration on the part of Fram, JPL, RW & Buidhe. Hopefully this can resolved (amicably) without enforced sanctions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - The creator of an article should not have to be contacted, when that article is being nominated for deletion. Such a contact-requirement hints of acknowledging a type of ownership. I wouldn't favour such a requirement. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Contacting the article creator makes sense when the article is new. Perhaps the creator was in the process of adding relevant information regarding notability or knew more about the subject that he/she did not include. The contact will act as a spur to improve the article. Once the article has been around awhile, contacting the creator doesn't seem a necessity. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's acknowledging a kind of ownership so much as acknowledging that there's a good chance they have an opinion on whether the article should be retained. Acknowledging ownership would be to give that opinion additional weight because they're the creator, which we don't do. Theknightwho (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Notifying the creator of something when it is sent to deletion seems fair IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  From the WP:AfD page - While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. -Indy beetle (talk)

  Not to mention that it just feels like common-sense and basic courtesy... Begoon 17:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Meh. What concerns me is counting article creations (95,525, 95,926, 95,545), being tbanned from making articles under 500 words, and then switching to counting category creations (7,871, 7,872, 7,873). This, combined with the "revenge AFDs", makes me question whether Lugnuts sees Wikipedia as a game, with a PvP component, and is trying to hit the high score. But he's apologized for the AFDs and said he won't do it again, so I don't see why we can't just accept that as resolving the issue; I don't see this AFD problem as so longstanding or widespread that we need a sanction to prevent further disruption. Levivich 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. An AFD topic ban does not really focus on, or address, the problem identified here; and allowing Lugnuts to participate in discussions involving their own articles (where much of the problematic behaviour seems to occur) seems to undermine the intent. Lugnuts appears to understand why their actions in targeting JPL's creations were unacceptable, even if it should not have needed pointing out to them, so it's probably best to accept their assertion that it will not happen again. Most concerning are the personal attacks and casting aspersions, which absolutely must stop. Given the volume of database entry-type stubs Lugnuts has created, it should have come as no surprise to them that cleanup efforts included a significant proportion of their creations. It would also be helpful if Lugnuts did not hamper such efforts by reverting bold redirects without appropriate rationale or article improvement, resulting in avoidable AFDs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support at what point do we notice a user disrupting every area they turn to and realize that it's the user that is the problem here, not the specific area they're popping up in? Since there doesn't seem to be much stomach for the simpler solution, sure, let's keep going and adding more restrictions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  @David Fuchs: I'll tell you at what point: at the point at which you're ready to make a site ban proposal. Are we there? If so, go ahead and make the proposal, I'll probably !vote for it. But adding one bespoke sanction after another for what are really limited infractions... meh. Go for it all or it's not worth our time. Levivich 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, hence I'm not proposing it. If this restriction passes there is the slightly higher chance either Lugnuts figures out maybe being disruptive isn't a good idea and modifies his behavior, or it's another sanction to throw on the case for the inevitable ban discussion. My experience with wiki disputes is you're better off doing something to roll the boulder rather than waiting for it to come back down the hill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, either, and maybe you're right about doing something. The way I process this is like this: if I'm at the point where I no longer believe that if Lugnuts says "I won't do it again," he won't actually do it again, then I should support (or maybe even propose) a siteban. Personally I'm not at that point. I've made plenty of criticisms of Lugnuts's editing, but breaking promises isn't among them. So I figure he should be treated like anyone else in this situation: you mess up, you say sorry won't happen again, you're given the chance to make good on it. I fear that editors already under sanctions will feel like they can't afford to make a mistake or else they'll get in serious trouble, and that's a tough way to edit, it's tough to expect reform from someone who feels they're under a microscope. I do see your point of view, though. To each their own? Levivich 19:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I rarely frequent AFDs, as I'm not an overly good judge of what article should or shouldn't exist. Just wasn't one to learn many of Wikipedia's alphabet soup article status rules. I figured leaving AFDs in the hands of those who are familiar with that area of the project, was best. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  While I'm sure we're all deeply fascinated by this little excursion, what does your personal relationship with the AfD process have to do with the proposal at hand? AngryHarpy‍^talk 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm already aware of the deep fascination by my little excursion has created, which adds up to me being Neutral, on whether Lugnuts should be banned or not from AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for using a bullet point. Levivich 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Strong Neutral or Weak Neutral? That could be crucial. Begoon 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  Bullying never works, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - When you look at all the long-term WP:CRIC members who have either driven themselves crazy, gone AWOL, completely raged against the machine, or just given up, it's not really a coincidence. One can name half-a-dozen long-term expanders of the project who have given up over the years. Lugnuts, this isn't just about you, and JPL, this isn't about you, either. Please know, JPL, that I empathize with you over some issues more than anyone here would understand. Use your frustrations that I know you have, to achieve good. Not for raging against the machine. Take a step back just for a while and focus on another area you enjoy. Or just do some Wiki-gnoming, or something that will keep your mind busy.

At the end of the day, how do you salvage a broken project for the sake of what has become Frankenstein's monster? It's impossible because Frankenstein's monster will come back. Bobo. 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So is that a "yes"? Begoon 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support with a hope this will end the disruptive editing.--Darwinek (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ban as I said last time a restriction came up, the disruption just moves when you restrict Lugnuts in one arena. While I believe he does indeed have the competence, he lacks the temperament to edit collaboratively. It's time to stop with regular time sinks related to this editor. Star Mississippi 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBAN from AfD as this user really doesn't know how to handle it in a constructive matter. Also would cite WP:CIR. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Which particular part of WP:CIR do you think applies here? Begoon 17:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose It has stopped already, so a ban would be punitive - no similar problems with the editor's other AFD participation. As for "views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground", if that's true, it looks like Lugnuts is not the only one - other editors describe opponents' contributions as spam([9][10][11]). The likely effect of recent changes to guidelines, and two proposals currently at WP:CENT, is that many articles that satisfied what was the consensus interpretation of guidelines for more than 10 years will be deleted; many of those articles were created by Lugnuts. There is even a recently written essay "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer", but there are printed encyclopedias in which the gazetteer section is the longest, and consists almost entirely of what would be called sub-stubs. Unfortunately ban proposals are made at a noticeboard intended for quick response to incidents, so context is usually missing. A865 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Odd for a new editor with just 17 edits to find this discussion, as well as show familiarity with ANI practice, pick out essays and guidelines, and the like. Ravenswing 19:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The above proposal needs closure, and perhaps someone can also have a word with Lugnuts about his continuing WP:OWN behaviour? This was already raised in the previous discussion about his editing, but simply continues; if someone dares to edit an article Lugnuts has created, he for some reason needs to be on top of the editors list again, even if that means making purely cosmetic, totally unnecessary edits to achieve this. That this needlessly pollutes watchlists and recent changes for other editors seems to be of no importance. All from the last few minutes: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Fram (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Lugnuts apologised for what he said/did, with this happening the best part of a week ago with no repeat action. If this thread is anything to go by, they are doing their level best to improve their communication skills. If they create a similar issue in the future, and lets hope that doesn't happen, then think of stricter courses of action. StickyWicket (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - that little qualification, "If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded", would convince me, if I needed convincing. I accept that he has not behaved sensibly, and until I started looking at the recent AfD nominations, I thought he was over-reacting. But now I see what looks like a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, I am concerned at the motivation for it. I think there are far more useful things we could be doing. Just because we've amended the guidelines to say that Olympic competitors aren't automatically notable, that doesn't mean we have to delete all relevant articles immediately. Allow some time for improvement, and I'm sure Lugnuts will try to do this himself. Deb (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Mm, well, considering that what, less than one thousandth of one percent of Lugnuts' article creations have been brought to AfD post-revision, I really rather think we're in no danger of a bare fraction of those sub-stubs ever being deleted -- if as many as 25 per day were nominated, it'd take over a decade -- never mind "immediately." As far as improvement goes, I've just looked over every one of the couple dozen pertinent deletion discussions filed over the last several weeks. In not a single one of them has Lugnuts advocated deletion. Your surety appears to be based on magical thinking. Ravenswing 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure what point you're trying to make, but you're not making it effectively. It appears to me that several of the nominations have been made without due consideration of the individual circumstances. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Denman, where the best-performing member of a team has been randomly nominated. Deb (talk) 10:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Ravenswing's point is coming across to me quite effectively, actually, but yours isn't. In the AFD you mention there is only one keep vote so far (yours, lacking any valid argument) and even Lugnuts agrees it should not be kept. Lennart97 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ban - Lugnuts is a net-negative to this encyclopaedia. They are not here to build an encyclopaedia. They have shown this again and again.
  Editors above are asking why Lugnuts' articles are being targeted for AFD - the simple answer is they are not, but that Lugnuts has created so many notability-failing articles that you need only click on "random article" a few times and (if you do not come across a mass-created species-stub or geostub article first) you will arrive at a single-sentence, single-source stub about some 19th-century cricketer or pre-war Olympian. If one tries to make a start of cleaning up sports bio stubs the articles you will be dealing with will overwhelmingly be articles created by Lugnuts.
  None of this would be so bad if it weren't for the uncivil behaviour aimed at people who do try to clean these articles up. Last time Lugnuts received a TBAN but they seem not to have learned why they received it, what it was that led to the issue being brought to ANI in the first place, and that was their uncivil behaviour (in that case canvassing on AFDs and making groundless accusations of harassment against editors who AFD'd their articles). Here we see that their behaviour has simply moved on to another kind of uncivil behaviour (revenge AFDs). The constant feature is their inability to act civilly despite having been given so many chances. The object of this uncivil behaviour is to disuade people from dealing with their articles. In the absence of a ban I support the proposal, but in reality the massive number of Lugnuts' articles and the fact that the AFDs they are most likely to be uncivil on are the ones for their own articles, makes this only a very partial solution. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Look - if you really think I should be banned for being a a net-negative to WP, then feel free to start that as a new discussion. You've already stuck the knife in with your last complaint against me, where somehow canvassing editors equates to a topic ban on article creation. You even followed that up on my talkpage saying you don't want to gravedance.

I've already apologised to JPL (in this thread) and to CBL62 too (here) for the comments I directed towards them. Since then, several articles I've started have gone to AfD. Have a look through the comments I've posted in those to see if there's anything amiss. I'll save you some time now and say there isn't. Your comment of "....created so many notability-failing articles..." is incorrect, as at the time of creating any article, they met the notability criteria that existed at the time. There's this rather big RfC relating to sports notability if you wish to have your say on this area.

I'm not sure what more you want me to say or do, but I feel whatever it is, it won't be right for you. I'm not going to respond further to you here, or bludgeon this thread, in fear that you somehow bait me into saying something I may regret later. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"You've already stuck the knife in with your last complaint against me, where somehow canvassing editors equates to a topic ban on article creation. You even followed that up on my talkpage saying you don't want to gravedance.". I think the closing admin should read this comment and consider whether it shows any progress at all from the previous ANI, or whether Lugnuts simply saw the previous ANI as a bad-faith attack personal attack on them, and in fact that's simply how they see every ANI discussion that is brought about their behaviour. Ultimately, they don't think they ever did anything wrong in any of this. FOARP (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions — I initially expressly stated that I’d recuse myself from this discussion but having seen the rationale by Deb, I agree with them, I’d have to oppose this, furthermore, I do not see Lugnuts as a net negative, I find their work in football/soccer topic area to be quite impressive and in general, the entirety of their body of work. Celestina007 (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support AfD ban. I had to control-F to make sure I hadn't already participated in this discussion, since it resembles so many of the others Lugnuts has been the subject of. Previous partial sanctions clearly do not/did not work, as he just immediately transfers his large-scale problematic editing behavior to a new arena -- in April 2021 when his autopatrolled right was removed and he was cautioned not to keep mass-creating poor-quality microgeostubs (something he continued doing during the ANI discussion) he just redistributed his efforts into mass-creating (even more) poor-quality athlete microstubs. When this resulted in a ban from writing articles under 500 words he quit editing for 2 weeks altogether before resuming with thousands of pointless cosmetic edits (something he's been blocked for before) and overriding existing Wikidata shortdescs with local shortdescs that have basically the same wording, seemingly to stay at the top of an article's edit history. All while continuing to be uncivil (which he has been blocked for multiple times). Things will not change without bans. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would note that he even does that when the Wikidata shortdesc is inappropriate, such as here where the subject being a tennis player is entirely unrelated to his notability.

While here, I will note for Deb and Celestina007 that when reviewing microstubs of Olympic athletes it is very difficult to find ones that were not created by Lugnuts. This means that a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia by removing microstubs on non-notable Olympic athletes might appear to be a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, when it is not. BilledMammal (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Third-party edit interpolates pejorative content to my post

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

---

User:Newimpartial edited a discussion page section from what I had initially titled as "Sorry" [26] so that the title now reads "Sorry, not sorry" [27]. The section title now imputes sarcasm and WP:INCIVILITY that I didn't author and gives the equivocal impression, contrary to WP:REFACTORING guidelines (i.e. absent links to the original to clarify what I actually said and without a summary of the changes on a different page), that I titled the section as it now stands. Please offer assistance to ensure no one is misled into thinking the current title is my doing rather than Newimpartial's. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

As I noted on their talk page, these edits imply that Kent Dominic states "Sorry, not sorry", rather than "Sorry" - while refactoring headings can be uncontroversial, particularly on a users talk page, this is only the case when it doesn't result in a different meaning being ascribed to the author. I also noted that there is a pattern of this in Newimpartial's talk page edits; they made this ghost edit, which corrected a typo that confused Kent Dominic, and then responded to his confusion as if the typo had never existed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal, having reread the exchange, I still don't see any evidence that it was my typo that confused Kent, much less that any kind of pattern on my part was involved. I initially typed nonminary for nonbinary; in their reply, Kent referred to my sentence that includes “nominary identity”, which was neither what I typed nor what I meant. None of the subsequent discussion, visible, e.g. in this diff, leads me to think that the typo played any role in Kent's reaction to my comment. So I have no reason to think I did anything untoward in correcting the typo, much less that it is part of some (nefarious?) "pattern". Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The confusion appears where they say Sorry again, but I can’t make heads or tails of your sentence that includes “nominary identity.”, which is clearly a misreading of the typo "nonminary identity", a confusion that you address in the reply made with your ghost edit. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

If you understand what Kent's confusion there actually was, and what gave rise to it, you are reading that exchange more successfully than I was then or than I am now. I didn't (and don't) know what had him confused, so I just restated my understanding of things, in my inimitable way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent, this really sucks. Is there anything I can do to convince you to withdraw? Firefangledfeathers 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically, Newimpartial was wrong to change your heading. However, I gotta say they were provoked by the lengthy, circular, but spiraling downward discussion. You should have put a lid on it way earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Provocation? No. Lengthy posts? Yes. Circular? I wish. From where I stood, the goalposts weren't moving, just the rhetoric. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: I would have wished, but the point of the discussion is moot now that Newimpartial has taken remedial action --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN reads Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided - which is what I believe my edit (to my own Talk page) achieved. Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Newimpartial, you should not be adjusting for tone like that. I doubt that's what SECTIONHEADINGOWN suggests. El_C 03:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have already edited the section heading one more time, to achieve what I for one find to be a truly painful level of clarity and transparency. The current heading cannot reasonably be mistaken for what the editor originally posted and does accurately describe the content of the discussion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Like. Sorry you were subjected to that nonsense. El_C 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Honestly having read that discussion, I've never seen anyone (Kent) use as many words to try and justify why they will not use a singular they, despite being repeatedly informed that they is the correct pronoun to use for the other party. Frankly, NewImpartial's change to the section header kinda fits the tone of the conversation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there is Template:They, which if the editor has specified in their preferences a gender will automatically fill in that preference, avoiding cases of accidental misgendering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: Is it accurate to write "if the editor has specified"? It appears that a specification will be listed regardless of whether the editor has set one. How is it possible to avoid specifying? Or maybe more specifically, how do I specify in my preferences that I'm fine with either gender-neutral or gendered language? I only see options for "prefer gender-neutral", "prefer masculine", or "prefer feminine", not "don't care what you call me". —David Eppstein (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Good observations; good questions. I hope someone posts a response with more info. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I had missed your post about Template:They until moments ago. If certain editors use it, it would obviate most incidents like the one that ultimately resulted in this thread. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Very easy to avoid using the singular "they" (which is what I do), when conversing with an editor. Just use the editor's name. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, we remember. ;) El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Was that comment really necessary GoodDay? JCW555 talk ♠ 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

It's sage advice. Best to look at every editor as having no gender. Don't bring the town down, over pronouns. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Unless you are conversing with They, of course. (Unfortunately you cannot because they are apparently a banned sockpuppet.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Kent Dominic, RE: However, if you, Newimmpartial, represent more than one third-person editor, please let me know and I'll factor that into the equation when referring to you in a mutually agreeable way. Deal? And: If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me. Use singular they, not complicated. You risk a WP:BOOMERANG with these antics. El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• @GoodDay: I offered to use that same strategy, among numerous others, which Newimpartial graciously accepted. Subsequent argument was wholly unrelated to specific instances of co-referencing editors but rather the manners in which pronouns tend to be construed by various speech participants. It seemed (and still seems) to me that Newimpartial simply didn't want to acknowledge how people in various quarters interpret certain pronouns in ways that depart considerably from ways that comport with sensibilities to the contrary. Long and short: Denying evidenced dynamics doesn't make the dynamics disappear. I don't mind being shot as the messenger, but it became apparent that the message contained historically archaic and linguistic protologisms outside Newimmpartials's comfort range to withstand. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would point out that Kent began to edit war over the heading after I told him to remove himself from my Talk page. I don't think he should have been doing that. Newimpartial (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's very clear that you're a writer, Kent Dominic, and more broadly an explainer. Both are generally good traits (to the extent that any trait can be good or bad) and both are traits that I believe the two of us share. I've found that in my case, I'm sometimes so eager to explain my point of view in a conversation that I overlook things the other party has said which render what I'm about to say to them incorrect, irrelevant, unnecessary, or otherwise not worth saying. My advice to you, if you're willing to take it, would be to take advantage of the opportunity Newimpartial has given you by ending the conversation on their talk page. It's a chance to reread what they've said to you, not with the intent to respond, but with the goal of understanding and considering. There are some important points in there that I think I might have missed if I was on your side of the screen. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the sentiment, User:Ezlev. I really had intended merely to apologize in the "Sorry" thread. In hindsight, I shouldn't have used what I thought would be obvious self-effacement with my "If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me" remark, which apparently caused the ensuing fallout. Or, perhaps I should have formatted it as nonbinary singular third-person pronoun to better signal that I was referring to nonbinary as part of a lexical category, not gender identity. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 09:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• How about everyone tries to be excellent to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Newimpartial: Heeding my edit summaries' requests would have obviated the need to go on record here, right? No need to reply since I'm glad you've subsequently relented and remedied the situation. In the most charitable way I can put this, in case you missed it: It seems that you persist in associating me with rationale that's not part of my thinking. Moreover, it seems you feel more comfortable simply denying rationale that doesn't comport with your own. Obviously, I'm not asserting that as being amenable to objective proof one way or the other, only as how you come off to me. I truly hope I can be proved wrong on both accounts. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's request for excellent behavior. But I feel that something a bit more direct is called for in this situation. I was neutral about this thread until I read the appalling thing that Kent Dominic wrote. Kent Dominic, condider this a formal warning. If you ever refer to a human as "it", I will block you. If you ever deliberately misgender another editor, I will block you. You must read Singular they and all of its references and fully understand the long history of its usage in the English language before you comment again about this issue. If, after reading all of that, you freely choose to engage in disruptive and insulting edits about this issue, then I will block you. I hope that I am being clear. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Sorry User:Cullen328, can you clarify where you are seeing the use of "it" in reference to another human, as I cannot see it? If you're referring to the comment you are responding to, I don't believe either of the two uses of "it" are in reference to a person. Obviously, if Kent Dominic has used the word in such a manner then it is unacceptable, but I am not seeing the reference. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @BilledMammal: My best guess is that User:Cullen328 skimmed the first part of the "Sorry" thread and misinterpreted my initial reference to "it," and that the separate discussion of "it" further down (the part you're likely referring to) didn't get read. Rereading the initial part now, I can see how one might interpolate a disrespectful intention. So far, however, no one except Cullen328 has inferred anything untoward. I can only speculate that Cullen328 read, "If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me" and mistakenly presumed I was advocating "it" as a substitute for a singular "they" as a disparagement. Whether construed as a bona fide disparagement or as a joke, I hope continued reading here would clear it up: What does one typically ask when there's a knock at the door? What does one usually say after getting tagged in a game of Tag? (I've never heard, "Tag! You're they.") How do we reply to "who's that in the picture?" More cogently, according to the Oxford English entry for "it" - PRONOUN

1. [third person singular] Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. // ‘a room with two beds in it’

1.1 Referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex. // ‘she was holding the baby, cradling it and smiling into its face’ (italics not in original)

2. [third person singular] Used to identify a person. // ‘it's me’ (italics not in original)

• I can also understand how that huge wall of text in the "Sorry" thread might dissuade a reader from reading every single item. Accordingly, if anyone read the teal comment (i.e., as just reposted above) and construed it quite literally rather than tongue-in-cheek self-effacement re. my familiarity with the topic as presented in excruciating detail later on in the thread, and without knowing all the linguistic (incl semantics, syntax, lexicology, etymology, and phrase structure) work that consumes me during my time offline as well as online, then shame on me for not including a smiley face and a "LMAO" disclaimer. I guess my reputation as linguistics nerd hasn't preceded me as far as I'd imagined. But please, everyone, don't quiz me on phonology or morphology - esp. Old English. And I'm not really up on that. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Kent Dominic, I'll be blunt: it was disrespectful and inappropriate. And if it wasn't clear, mine was also a formal warning. If you do something like that again, I will also block you. And might I also suggest you just speak plainly on this matter, without "excruciating detail" that might come across as filibustering...? It probably has little utility, anyway. El_C 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, BilledMammal, I think there could be some justification in reading all references to "it" as a pronoun for persons, in the context of nonbinary people, as potential dogwhistle rhetoric even when - as in this instance - the user is not explicitly referring to any nonbinary person as "it". After all, that is the way dog whistles work, and any sufficiently oblique comment is susceptible to multiple, layered interpretations as to its meaning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking of talk page titles that need to be changed, because they are inaccurate: it is false and misleading for the original comment in this discussion to title this as a "Third-party edit" and refer to it vaguely as "a discussion page". In fact, the edit in question involved Newimpartial retitling a section of their own user talk page to indicate what they, the main reader of the talk page, understood the subtext of the post to be. To me, this seems a lot less problematic than someone coming into a discussion between two other parties on a general-audience page and retitling it to cast aspersions on one party. If a Wikipedia editor receives a user-talk message with what they perceive as a hostile title, but don't want to delete or archive the message itself, are they forced to let that title remain on their talk page? WP:OWNTALK doesn't seem to address this possibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @David Eppstein: I agree that "third-party" is inaccurate and false. I admit not proofreading the title and I bear responsibility for that lapse, but I don't agree the title is per se misleading in the context of the WP:DIFFS and LINKS provided for readers to see for themselves what the issue was. It's a moot point in this case since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction, as the one who initiated this ANI. No comment on the WP:OWNTALK consideration you raised except to say I hope others keep in mind that, often, hard cases make bad law. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Supposed "legal issues"

• Plintron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 183.83.211.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5.195.60.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 27.4.205.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 203.212.218.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These 4 IPs have/had removed the same section – first edit from last November, although the others were made within the last week – claiming it to be defamatory or "under arbitration and confidential by law". The first IP also claimed that the section was added by "the party in dispute with Plintron, Surf Telecom". I don't know who is in the right here. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 13:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The section concerned is badly sourced, or unsourced entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

A look at the deletion log shows at least half a dozen deletion on CSD grounds for G11, A7, and G12 issues. I've nominated for deletion so we'll see what happens when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plintron closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I chopped bits of the promotional content, but what is left does seem like the output of a PR department. The IPs were right to remove that legal blather though. Zaathras (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Plintrongroup

Not unsurprisingly, a new account cropped up when the article got moved to afd. Right at this exact moment they haven't done anything nefarious or malevolent enough to justify admin action, however that username needs monitoring. I go back to work starting tonight, so in 24 hours if its still as it is someone needs to step in take action on username violation grounds. While not an issue yet, they are starting to circle the NLT drain, and that will need to be watched as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Reported to WP:UAA. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 10:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Plintrongroup blocked per WP:CORPNAME Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 08:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Regular disruptive editing from PhilLiberty

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

---

PhilLiberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked 4 times in the past for edit warring and disruptive editing. They still continue disruptive editing today. If you look at their contributions, nearly all of them have been reverted by editors.

Most recently, they have been making drastic changes to articles related to anarchism, and then edit warring when those changes were reverted by editors, asking PhilLiberty to discuss those changes on the Talk page before making them, pointing at WP:BRD.

Those drastic changes included sticking a large diagram below the lead on several articles, which has been deleted from Commons for copyright violations but now reuploaded here, again without a license or copyright information, apart from a vague "Hogeye Bill use at will" (the image is taken from here). I have outlined numerous factually incorrect and controversial things regarding the diagram on the talk page. Other changes involve completely inverting statements, removing any statements they don't like or agree with adding statements without any sources, and removing existing sources. All of PhilLIberty's changes seem to be ideologically driven, with no consideration for sources and ignoring consensus.

Some of the articles affected:

• Anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Anarchist schools of thought (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Free-market anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Individualist anarchism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Progressivism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am frankly tired of fixing and reverting the disruptive editing this user is performing. They don't seem to understand that all changes need adequate sourcing, nor do they seem to want to cooperate with other editors by discussing those bold changes. I would really appreciate some sort of intervention here. BeŻet (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at some of the recent history and what I see includes accusing other editors who revert them of vandalism, while restoring their edits against consensus (reverts are sometimes by other editors than BeZet). Also text alterations without updating the sources, resulting in material that sometimes deviate from them. An example is here with the vandalism edit summary and the sources having no mention of "free market". Occasionally I see an attempt to discuss at article talk pages but not systematically. I'm not sure about the merits of the promoted diagram, I've not studied anarchism in a while and political science is not my field. As for its copyright status, it's ambigious, the comment has an apparent author name and "license" assertion: "Hogeye Bill use at will" but no link to the original source. "Use at will" may perhaps mean in the public domain but if so, that too is not ideal (WP:PD). —PaleoNeonate – 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The diagram is complete WP:SYNTH in that it was created by the user himself (according to him). ANd as someone who has studied anarchism heavily, it is a load of tripe. The user is a blatant POV pusher trying to push a fringe ideology. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:7A (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If so, does this mean that Phil is also Bill? If so, was there a successful appeal by Special:Contributions/Hogeye? Interesting links:

• User talk:Michael Hardy/Archive2#Spencer Heath
• File:AnarchismTree05.jpg
• File:AnarchismTree10.jpg
• File:Anarchism-Tree.jpg
• File:AnarchismTree07.jpg
• File:IndAnarchismTree.jpg
• This search includes ANI, SPI cases etc.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive75#User:Hogeye
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hogeye
• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive74#User:Hogeye, Talk:Anarchism, and Template:AnarchismDildo
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/mises.org (permalink) included File:Ideomap-v21.gif
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive139#User:216.55.185.224 is a block-evading sock puppet of User:Hogeye shows interaction at individualist anarchism
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hogeye
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 5#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Intangible (October 2006)
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hogeye Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hogeye

Maybe it's time to file Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hogeye... —PaleoNeonate – 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding: here they are arguing in support of the diagram's conclusions but without providing sources. —PaleoNeonate – 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Was this apparent WP:POVFORK really first introduced here? Some edit warring to restore it happened when 5 other editors were restoring the redirect. But this was in 2019 and there were some blocks that year already. —PaleoNeonate – 14:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

If Phil is Hogeye, wouldn't that be against sockpuppet rules? It also means that he was blocked over a dozen of times then before. BeŻet (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether a WP:TBAN would be appropriate here? BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just saw they'd made a bunch of disruptive edits and reverted them. What caught my eye was the placing of an apparently self-created image directly in the middle of a lede, then noticed they have also been changing the wording in articles, even removing sourced information, to the point that it appears to be POV pushing. This seems to be just another day in a week-long cycle of attempting to push these kinds of changes to the above-mentioned articles. And going through their user talk page, this seems to be incredibly persistent behavior, with 3RR violations and disruption warnings stretching back 15 years. I certainly think a TBAN is appropriate, at minimum, but I have to wonder if they won't simply take such behavior to other sections of Wikipedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Vandalism on Indian constituency pages

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

---

There is a range of IPs which are making disruptive edits on Indian constituency pages. This person/group changes the party of constituency winners to BJP on many of these pages. Some of the IPs involved: 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. The editor moves on to a different IP before the 4 warning levels of vandalism can be posted on their talk page. Is this the right place to request a check for other similar IPs, and a range-block? Pinging @Dhruv edits: since he discovered most of these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The range 2402:8100:2039:0:0:0:0:0/44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to cover most of this - contribs have an exclusive focus on Indian constituency/politician pages; a very large percentage appear vandal-like and have been reverted. The rest of the IPs have only <10 edits each (

• 122.161.53.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4050:2DC7:B80B:F90F:0:0:0/56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2402:3A80:1BEE:5014:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2409:4050:2ECA:9FFA:DDE7:0:0:0/56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

) hemantha (brief) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Blackmanniger/sandbox

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

---

Suggesting the history of User:Blackmanniger/sandbox be deleted, and unsure what kind of action against Blackmanniger (talk · contribs), based on the first edit. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Simple. WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Crosswiki abuse.

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

---

Hi. Sorry if I get this on the wrong place. It was for informing of this. An user moving another user's user page and talk page due to some problems in another wiki.And moving it to call them fascist on the process.--Lost in subtitles (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a good place to report disruption. I moved the pages back and warned the editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Repeat hounding by editor

For almost two months now, I have been hounded by a person operating primarily without a registered account, but on one occasion created one, which was quickly blocked from editing in the article space. It is clear to me that the differing IP addresses and single account are operated by the same person, as they all 1) have a surprisingly advanced knowledge of wiki policies and procedures and 2) do not understand English very well.

The hounding first began with the IP addresses 49.150.116.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 49.150.96.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I caught the user's attention by removing a flag from an infobox (which I do per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG). It was quickly (and wrongfully) reverted by the person, who was currently paying attention to the article. The person began policing my edit history, making several reverts and citing Wikipedia policies (which they did not fully understand), for example: here, here, and here. You can check this editor interaction tool on the two IP addresses to see how frequently and quickly this person followed me around. My user page was bombarded with warning templates, and the IP address sought to get other editors, for example wallyfromdilbert involved (evidenced by their talk page). With their help, the person left me alone temporarily.

A month later, the person returns to their frantic editing, this time as Aesthetic Writer. Gerda Arendt alerted me to the person's return. They picked fights about infoboxes and made generally unconstructive edits all over the place, and as a result tons of editors voiced complaints on their talk page. I encourage you to review that discussion. Here are more of my edits that were policed and senselessly reverted: here, here, and here. The account was eventually blocked from editing in the article space, and the hounding stopped again.

That is until today. Under a new IP address, 2001:4452:465:9200:C52C:F77:C2A:8752 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the person is back and hell bent on punishing me for policies they believe I have violated in addition to resuming their policing and reverting (see here and here). Strangely enough, the person is now asking editors on the meta wiki to help them. I would really like this series of hounding episodes to stop once and for all, but I don't know how to move forward. Thrakkx (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding: the editor I met as Aesthetic Writer (their talk and my archive) was problematic as not understanding enough English to grasp objections. Just look at their disruption on Talk:Mozart and Leopold Mozart on 9 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I defend my claims against me, so recently I was modifying Thrakkx's actions for some short descriptions and infoboxes which they violates any Wikipedia policy. I did not harass Thrakkx, but recently I removed birth dates for Mason Gamble and Mason Ramsey without sources which they violated WP:BLPPRIVACY. While Denniss replied this message about unsourced date of birth and full name of Mason Gamble which about to take part of WP:BLPDS. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For requirements to file an arbitration enforcement request, by investigating a conduct dispute for Thrakkx's actions by editing short descriptions and infoboxes. If nationality parameter is included (e.g. Bertrand Russell, Audrey Hepburn) if necessary for consensus. If flags in military personnel infoboxes could neither required or optional if needed for dual/multiple (by current or former) countries (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette). If short descriptions in lists by using "Wikipedia/Wikimedia list article" to "none". --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Lastly, hatnotes are optionally used, but not to link for trivial uses (e.g. Timeline of the far future). --49.150.100.127 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the global lock log of the account this is User:SwissArmyGuy, the "unique" understanding of English and policy seems to match their typical behaviour quite well. Given that they were arbcom blocked due to some deeply unpleasant stuff these IP ranges should probably be given a long range block. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

But I recently reported Mike Novikoff for misuse of navboxes, because it's my first incident to report via administrators' noticeboard. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, since they mention me... There is an unanimous consensus at WT:MOS that most images, and in particular flags and coats of arms, should be removed from the navboxes per MOS:DECOR. That's exactly what I've been doing for some years now. Then, all of a sudden, 49.150.112.127 comes down like a ton of bricks on me: he reverts my edits at about ten of navboxes at once on 27 December, and again on 30 December. Furthermore, instead of trying to discuss the content questions, he immediately proceeds to some weird complaints and accusations against me, which looks like a real nightmare. I've started the discussion at WT:MOS exactly because of this, and even now, when the consensus is crystal clear there, the IP still calls it a "misuse". In the past few days I thought of asking for either a semi-protection of the templates in question or for a block of the IP user, so thanks a lot for doing the latter. — Mike Novikoff 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/49.150.96.0/19 for three months and Special:contributions/2001:4452:465:9200:0:0:0:0/64 for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Weird Spammy posts by DarrylRMarsh

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

---

DarrylRMarsh (talk · contribs) keeps posting nonsense about owning countries and demanding money despite a warning.2001:8003:34A3:800:4CFC:D917:23C1:AB40 (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they're either a troll or mentally unwell. Either way, they're obviously WP:NOTHERE. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 02:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. He promised me and 7.9 billion other people five grand. I’m waiting for my check. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

So very NOTHERE. Ravenswing 03:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be hard to judge which of their last two edits are less tethered to reality. Editors like this should be indefinitely blocked very promptly, as there is zero chance that such people will make positive contributions to a neutral, well referenced encyclopedia. I sincerely hope that this person finds personal peace and effective treatment. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of their edits contain personal information, presumably their own but possibly someone else's. Revdel might be appropriate here? Mlb96 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

IP 185.113.63.109 is a single purpose troll account

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

---

I mean, just look at their contributions. I don’t think saying more is necessary. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Baxter 329 WP:GREATWRONGS WP:NOTFORUM

Baxter329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Baxter329. They’ve been courtesy-warned already but based on their edit history I think that’s WP:AGF one talk page rant too late. I mean, you don’t say “stop robbing convenience stores” after someone already robbed six of them. Dronebogus (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: You must notify users if they are brought up on this forum. I'll notify that user now. As for the user's behavior, I'd warned them "one last time". If they continue, I was planning to bring them to WP:AE. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• This editor is aware of BLP discretion sanctions. I'm very close to applying them - hoping for a comment here that demonstrates an understanding of what they've been doing wrong, or at least some willingness to learn. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • They’ve continued to engage in their problematic editing patterns since being warned. I’d give them a short wiki-wide block per WP:NOTHERE Dronebogus (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Although they violated WP:FORUM last week, they haven't edited much lately, I'm curious what prompted this report today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dronebogus, I count 5 or 6 complaints you have brought to ANI in the past day or two. You know, you don't get a barnstar for the most complaints posted to noticeboards. I'd try to be more selective and only bring serious, intractable problems here. You don't want to get a reputation as a drama board regular. Believe me, it can be hard to shake off. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an MfD where Dronebogus voted "delete" and tried to rebut every user that voted keep. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 13:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh my. Thanks for the explanation and warning. I will stop doing that kind of thing. Thanks a lot. Baxter329 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I am requesting a clarification. Was the only problem my comments, or was there also a problem with me posting links to Politifact, Forbes, the Star Tribune, Yahoo news, KTLA, and the BLM website? If the former, I understand. If the latter, please explain what is wrong with those sources. Baxter329 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue I looked at was involved a WP:FORBESCON source being used to support critical content (including assertions about medical conditions) about a living person. It's not an appropriate source to support any assertion of any kind, much less what you were using it for. I haven't looked at the other issues. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Both. You appear to be trying to add content to support specific political right-wing talking points and to discredit/disparage individuals associated with left-wing politics. You may not conduct WP:SYNTH, i.e., you cannot take an event/person/issue and try to connect it to some other event/person/issue. This can be done iff secondary reliable sources make that connection.

To illustrate, Neil Young recently told Spotify to remove his music or get rid of Joe Rogan's podcast, which Young said was spreading misinformation about COVID-19. After this, you added (twice; and on this page) and defended adding content to highlight what you claim to be Young's hypocrisy regarding GMOs stating that Young uses insulin. In your defense, you said that because GMOs can save children's lives that somehow makes Young's alleged hypocrisy notable. No reliable source made that connection, only you did. And you did so because of Young's recent news-generating actions.

Another example is on Black Lives Matter where it appears you wanted to add any material which would try to frame the movement as violent or destructive (e.g., [28], [29], [30], [31]) again with the apparent goal of highlighting "hypocrisy" (e.g., [32]). You also wanted to portray BLM as anti-family saying, "I'd like to this wikipedia article to address why an organization that claims to care about black lives wants to get rid of the nuclear family" and "The out-of-wedlock birth rate for Mormons and Orthodox Jews is extremely low. For blacks, it's more than 70%." (See also [33]). Go even go as far as to say "I think this quote should be included in the article. I think the article should explain why an organization called "Black Lives Matter" supports a policy that has created nothing but death, misery, and famine in every country where it has ever been adopted. Far more black lives have been murdered by Marxist governments than by the police in democratic countries. I'd like the article to address these points."

The reason I'm assuming good faith with you is that some of your politics-related edits appear to be constructive and helpful (e.g., [34], [35], [36]). I think you just have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (e.g., [37]) and its purpose (e.g., [38]). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

TBAN violation

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

---

Aydın memmedov2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reported user was TBAN from the AA2 area, broadly construed today but has since created an article in violation of his topic ban. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. See ANI discussion, RESTRICT log, TBAN notice, block notice. El_C 15:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:LIVE violations on the Tram 11-article, due to a recent controversy

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

---

First of all, I am not going to name contributers or anything since it is not directly an edit war or a "fight". My point is, there is currently a lot of "mess" going on, on the article about the Croatian rap duo Tram 11 that even led to WP:LIVE violations on that article.

Backround and short explaination what happend: The Croatian rap duo Tram 11 has released a new album, called "Jedan i jedan". The album and especially the song "PSK" recieved negative criticism because it contains provocative and politcally incorrect lyrics and the critics even led to their contract with their label being cancelled. One lyric of the song "PSK" contains the phrase "Jasenovac myth" and it made critics speculate if they are "argumenting that the term is often misused by some Serbian politicians and historians" or if it is "holocaust denial". So far, there are sources that there have been such critics, that is in the article under the "controversy section" and so on...

However, during the last days there was a lot of content added, that violates WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and (most of all) WP:LIVE. By registred and unregistred users. Examples: first controversial edit, removal of the clean up, accusations of being "far-right" (obv. unsourced), very controversial sourceless claims etc.

Me and some others have tried to fix and clean up the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations, but it is only a question of time when it gets readded, removed, readded and removed etc. again.

We need thrid opinions here and eventually an intervention (e. g. page protection, till the situation cools down)...

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected the page for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:, thank you! Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Edward Colston

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

---

I am going to bed now, but I wanted to bring this up about the article. Twice AndyTheGrump swore on the talk page in the current conversation there and I feel that is completely inappropriate to do. And for reasons I don't understand, they are removing what I believe to be valid and legitimate content and citations on the article without direct discussion about that content. I believe these users are trying to history wash the article. I feel that we need stronger oversight on the article there. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The swearing - two uses of the word fucking - was used for emphasis and was not directed at any editor. The rest of the discussion, whilst bad tempered in places, is a content dispute and of no interest to ANI. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 00:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It would almost certainly have been in Govvy's best interests to read up on Wikipedia's policies (e.g. on copyright and plagiarism, and on identifying reliable sources, if nothing else) instead of starting a thread here, in my opinion. But here we are anyway. With a complaint entirely lacking the diffs required. To save time though, I'll repeat what I said on Talk:Edward Colston. "When I see a Wikipedia article attempting to whitewash slavery, I will swear all I fucking like". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Are we really going to start an ANI over someone saying a bad word, OP? Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Nothing to see here, however I would advise Govvy to take care to follow Wiipedia's Reliable Sources and Copyright violation policies. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• On the talk-page, AndyTheGrump wrote And I've no idea what the heck you are trying to prove here, but I'd have to suggest that it is singularly ill-advised. You might do well to consider how this vacuous stonewalling in apparent defence of a major slave-trader might look if it were brought to the attention of WP:ANI. I am inclined to agree with this description of the situation. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Those who know me also know that I am not inclined to drop the F bomb here on Wikipedia. But in this case, it was not gratuitous and not part of a personal attack. Instead, it was directed at any attempt to "soften" the horrific nature of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I understand and agree, although I probably would have chosen different words to express my indignation. Each of us has our own style. As a side note, I am quite impressed with the straightforward language from the museum in Liverpool. Well done, AndyTheGrump. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fucked protection one week (again). El_C 03:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Closed already? @Nick Thorne: My post here was more in the hopes of looking for a strong willed person who can help give the article some oversight and help keep peoples emotions down. When AndyTheGrump swears like that on a talk page, that to me is emotional writing, when I see that, I don't think he has a clear head. As for the issue of copyright, the citation it was linked too, it wasn't even pointing to the correct page on that website. I actually tried to rewrite that bit he removed to avoid copyright ages ago, that edit here, which also at the same time, was the citation for the previous sentence, went and left that sentence without the citation. :/ As far as I am concerned liverpoolmuseums.org.uk is a reliable source as is David Hughson an author, [39]. So you have to forgive me why you feel the need to post that I am not following RS sources... :/

I also believe some of this editing is off the back of having pushed the article for GA which I felt was in a good enough position for GA. I don't know whether or not the conversation at User talk:AndyTheGrump#Colston, is concerning or not. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You are concerned that I questioned the 'GA' status of an article that cites anecdotal commentary made in passing in a (possibly pseudonymous) historical travel guide to London written 87 years after Colston's death as an authority for Coulson's 'expenditure' on charity? Fascinating... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You wrote: As for the specifics of this particular article, we'll see, though I suspect that Govvy may regret posting at WP:ANI, which will no doubt attract more eyes to the article, and to Govvy's self-evident lack of understanding of several Wikipedia policies

John Maynard Friedman wrote Govvy has a lot to learn, but could start with wp:cherrypicking.

I've been around wikipedia a long time, a few of the admins around here have known me a long time. If I am posting at ANI it's for a reason, you really should have a look at yourself before judging me. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, we both have block logs indicating that admins have known us for a long time. Though I'll note that they seem to have renewed their acquaintance with you rather more recently. Or isn't that what you mean? Are you suggesting that admins should show preferential treatment to their acquaintances? Human nature being what it is, I'm sure it happens sometimes, but I don't think that drawing attention to the fact is tactically wise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For someone around a long time, Govvvy, I might also expect you to have understood WP:POV and WP:GA. Given your responses at User talk:Vacant0#Edward Colston, I took you to be a relatively recent editor. [ Vacant0 just did the GA review and is largely an innocent bystander in this case.]

Since Govvy is persisting with this complaint after its closure as a content dispute, I suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG case should be opened. Is there a Wikipedia equivalent to "wasting police time"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with JMF that the decision to re-open this was poor and that a boomerang should be considered. I think the description of Govvy's engagement on the talk-page as "vacuous stonewalling in apparent defence of a major slave-trader" was accurate, and Govvy's failure to change course concerning. --JBL (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And I agree with you, JBL. Look, Govvy, you can't prohibit folks from speaking emphatically or from calling a WP:SPADE a spade — even if that spade amounts to a harsh critique. Criticism is allowed, including criticism of the criticism (for extra meta), but that's not really what you're doing here. I don't know if you've been formally warned about this yet, so this is a formal warning: you need to observe WP:ONUS better and to not file frivolous ANI reports. And read the room. There's an acute lack of clue in you re-opening this thread, in light of pretty much every single comment in it. El_C 13:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@El C:, I've never seen WP:SPADE before, I am not sure I quite understand it, all I wanted to do was reply to Nick Thorne, I thought the first conversation would have remained open when I woke back up. :/ I am still unclear what course I am suppose to change too either, per JBL's comment above. All I know is that the article seems a sensitive subject and all I wanted was a non-partisan player to help steady the ship. Too me it seems certain editors want to unbalance the information on the article and that to me is concerning. From my experience on the article, from my point of view, information was wiped out then when I reverted, then they goto the talk page. Surely that should be done the other way around! I am not trying to play the victim, I find it very strange that people want to bury me with policies and what not. Govvy (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Govvy, again, per my warning to you, you need to observe WP:ONUS better. If at an impasse on the article talk, there are dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of, like running an WP:RFC and/or posting to WP:RSN. El_C 14:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Storm598

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

---

It's virtually impossible for one person to keep up with the massive number of edits to political articles made by this editor, but in the past their editing in the area of American politics has garnered them a ban from that subject area. As I look at the large number of articles they have touched recently, I am very concerned that this editor's idiosyncratic views may be corrupting those articles in the same way they hurt AmPol articles. They've shown in the past that they're not nearly as knowledgeable about politics and political theory as they believe themselves to be (they recently declared on their talk page that they are an "expert on European politics", but they've said in the past that their basic viewpoints comes from reading a Korean political blog), and they like to label things and spread the label around, as they did with their recent creation of Template:Liberal conservatism.

Folks who have the time might want to look into Storm598's editing to see if a ban on editing all articles about politics of any sort might be in order, if not a site ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is the most recent noticeboard discussion concerning Storm598 that I am aware of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have never edited Wikipedia through South Korean blogs. You keep distorting my remarks, but in the California Democratic Party's Talk session, I said I don't think the political position of the CDP is "Centre to Centre-left". I mentioned DPK, a liberal party generally considered "Centre to Centre-left" in the debate. In South Korea, DPK is judged to have a social conservative character, but I just told you the popular view of South Koreans that the U.S. Democratic Party often sees it as social democracy, and I didn't use it as a basis. And it's a Korean wiki, not a blog. I was saying that CDP is a clear "Centre-left" in the context of American politics and never a "Centrist". It also mentioned South Koreans' perception of the political position of the Democratic Party of the United States as a rebuttal to the fact that the Democratic Party of the United States is "Centre to Centre-left" in international political standards. Of course, I have never edited Wikipedia based on Namuwiki.--Storm598 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Because I mentioned Namuwiki only once in the Talk of the California Democratic Party article, I think it's an excessive leap to claim that I'm being influenced by Korean blogs when editing articles on European politics. I'm not a user of Namuwiki, and I'm not very interested in Namuwiki. --Storm598 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• • Beyond My Ken may not agree with the existence of a template called Liberal Conservatism. But this is a term that is used very often in European politics, and I really don't know European politics. In Europe, the term liberal is used in a completely different context from the United States. And Liberal conservatism is one of the main ideologies of conservative politics in Europe. I think that's too much if you say I need a measure to ban the editing of all political articles. Obviously, the template consists of topics related to general liberal conservatism. --Storm598 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Liberal conservatism is a term often used in European conservative politics. In particular, it is a key ideology in European mainstream centre-right conservative politics. And have I ever edited to the level of being banned in European political Articles? --Storm598 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Support topic ban against editing articles about politics worldwide, broadly construed. This editor is obsessed (colloquially) with adding their own highly idiosyncratic South Korean interpretations of how to describe the political ideologies of various political parties in various countries. In theory, every one of this editor's edits should be fact checked by another editor who is familiar with the literature about the political party in question. In practice, that is simply not possible. A broad topic ban is needed to prevent further disruption in this topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

When editing European politics, I didn't edit it by referring to the South Korean wiki or site. Let me refute all the edits that BMK has returned.--Storm598 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Conservative liberalism# : Conservative liberalism and right-liberalism are often used synonyms. However, in some regions, such as Germany, right-liberalism also means national liberalism. Please refer to the German Wikipedia. #--Storm598 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Ordoliberalism# I admit that this article is controversial. Ordoliberalism is the core of the social market economy. But in German political standards, it is economic liberalism. The problem is that as you can see from the history of the article, many editors have made false edits that regard "ordoliberalism" as part of "social liberalism" because it is related to the social market economy. So I found data that classified Ordoliberalism as conservative liberalism and classified the article as conservative liberalism. Ordoliberalism is clearly related to Germany's center-right Christian democracy or liberal conservative political forces.--Storm598 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Christian democracy# : In European and Latin American politics, Christian democracy is usually a centrist or center-right ideology. Christian democracy usually appears much more in the form of right than left. For example, Gremialismo is also a clear Christian democratic ideology, which has an economic liberal nature. Especially in the Spanish Wikipedia, Gremialismo clearly states that it is an extreme right-wing (extrema derecha) ideology. # --Storm598 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Berlusconism# Berlusconism is a centre-right liberal and liberal-conservative ideology. Liberalism here is, of course, not that liberalism in the United States, but (classical) liberalism in Europe. Of course, Berlusconi has a right-wing populist personality, which is often compared to Trump, but that doesn't mean his political tendencies are the same as those of far-right politicians like Trump. Berlusconi has said a lot of rude things, but he has rarely taken a far-right view on internal affairs, and is in solidarity with the centre-right European People's Party.--Storm598 (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason why I should be banned from all political articles? --Storm598 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• I admit that I made a wrong edit in an article related to American politics. However, I think the measure to ban editing in all political articles is clearly excessive.--Storm598 (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's a problem to create a Template:Liberal conservatism arbitrarily, I won't create a new template before I go through enough consultation with other users before I create the template in the future.

When I edited European politics, I referred to other language versions of Wikipedia a lot. Also, I have been exposed to data related to European politics for nearly a decade. Even if very few related edits were inappropriate, I think most of them were clearly fact-based productive contributions.

Nevertheless, if my editing is unsatisfactory, I will refrain from editing bold articles when editing political articles other than South Korean politics in the future and contribute much less to Wikipedia than before. Obviously, I think the ban on all politics is harsh. --Storm598 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And I think his opinion may not be objective because there have been several conflicts with Beyond My Ken in Wikipedia. I have previously questioned BMK's editing on the Administrators bulletin board by inappropriately editing articles related to some countries.--Storm598 (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There may be people who are suspicious of my editing besides BMK because of the wrong editing I showed you in an article related to American politics. However, it is clearly excessive that I should be banned from all political articles because of the bold editing of European political articles. I have knowledge of European politics. Really.--Storm598 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Rather, I think there are some productive edits in European political articles, including Ordoliberalism articles, such as appropriately correcting the wrong edits of some users. #, #. The reason why I classified Ordoliberalism as conservative liberalism was to prevent this misunderstanding. I think it's really too much for me to ban the editing of all political articles, including European politics.--Storm598 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just to state the obvious, Storm598 didn't receive a ban from American Politics because of "wrong editing I showed you in an article related to American politics", they got it because of a continuing pattern of disruptive edits in multiple articles on American politics. The discussion in which this community ban was placed can be found here. Note that the closer commented that there was also "some support for banning from the topic of all politics", so the problem of their editing in political articles in general is an issue which has come up before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were user who expressed the view that all political articles needed a topic van when I made disruptive edits in American political articles. But you haven't been able to provide an accurate basis for what wrong editing I made in a recent European political article. You are arguing that all political editing should be banned just because my editing is suspicious. I can provide much more evidence in detail that you have made disruptive edits in some articles related to politics in Europe and Asia. --Storm598 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • No, I am making a different argument. I am saying that you make a lot of edits to political articles, so I haven't been able to check them all, but that those recent ones I have checked have been almost uniformly wrong, unsourced, and based on your opinions and not on generally accepted ideas about political theory. I have undone edits of this type, but I don't have the energy or the time to examine all of your many other edits, so I am asking other editors to take a look at them to determine if -- as I suspect -- they are equally as bad, unsourced, and ungrounded in fact. If they are, then there is a case for a topic ban from politics in general or, since those are pretty much the only edits you make, and you have not shown any respect in your editing for Wikipedia requirements such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, a ban from editing the site on any topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That's just your view. You have reviewed a total of 4 articles today. I fully explained in those four articles that my editing was not wrong. On the other hand, you have made edits that violate WP:V and WP:NPOV in articles related to political parties in various countries, including India, Russia, UK, South Korea, etc.--Storm598 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Of course it's my view, whose view would you expect me to have? That's why I'm asking for other editors to examine your editing. I have wasted many hours of my life dealing with your disruptive editing and your WP:BLUDGEONing of discussions. I have no intention of wasting any more than is necessary this time around. I will just say, in short, that your "explanations" are, in and of themselves, prima facie examples of why your editing is disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Don't waste your time, just manage your life and save time. After all, you can't provide any evidence why my editing is a problem. It's just your very, very subjective judgment that it's likely to be.--Storm598 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
            • Shall we talk again about the Indian National Congress article, Conservative Party article, Liberal Party article, Fatah article, various political party articles in South Korea, Soviet Communist Party articles, and numerous editorials that violate and even destroy NPOV and V? Because American politics is exceptional, you are an expert only in American political articles. In particular, it was very annoying that you forced the Liberal Party to mark its political position as "Centre" without considering the political situation of the time, or to describe the Conservative Party as classical liberalism. Surely you don't know much more European politics than I do. So you don't have the capacity to talk about the ban on European politics. Before criticizing others, first look back on the devastating editing you did in articles on European and Asian politics.--Storm598 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
              • I apologize for the cancellation line above. I confused you with B.M.L. Peters. I'm sorry about this part. However, my position remains unchanged that my discussion on European political bans is unfair.--Storm598 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have made comments in the previous two discussions, which I have not yet re-evaluated. However, I note that my previous mentions of edit summaries were not taken to heart. I would explicitly advise Storm598, whatever the outcome of this discussion, to greatly increase their use of edit summaries. This is general good practice, but feels specifically important for these sort of political edits, especially those in areas such as the template and category space where sources are not usually used. CMD (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your advice. In the future, we will use more editing summaries. --Storm598 (talk) 10:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, one diff that I think sums up the problem is Special:Diff/1068249567. They do not understand WP:BLUE and assume their own personal knowledge is sufficient to dispense with proper sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's not what I mean. I can add liberal conservatism to all articles related to everyone listed in the template. However, many of the people written in the template have already been mentioned a long time ago in liberal conservatism articles.--Storm598 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have anxiety symptoms. I'm also in a bad situation personally. I don't think I've made a very problematic edit in an article related to European politics, but I don't think I should edit Wikipedia. This is not about whether I have editing skills or not. I'm just saying I won't because I'm in pain.

I don't know when I'll come back, but I won't come back this year. I've broken my promise before, so you may not believe it, but I'm going to log out from now on. If we talk here now, I think I'll want to edit Wikipedia again. (I'm aiming not to return to Wikipedia for the rest of my life, but I won't say I won't return because I might not be able to keep this later.)

I really had a terrible childhood, and I'm still in a terrible situation, have various traumas, and feel severe fear of being criticized or unpredictable by many people. But if I don't quit now, I'll want to edit Wikipedia again. So I'm going to log out now.

However, it is revealed that the atmosphere of Wikipedia has changed a lot. Long before I started working with this account, it didn't cause much trouble when I was working with another account, but other users didn't doubt or treat new users' editing like this. I was really happy when I edited Wikipedia three years ago with another account. But now I'm not happy at all and I'm in complete pain.

You may come back later, but for at least a few years, you don't edit Wikipedia itself and try not to log in.

I'll log out. I'm sorry.--Storm598 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Apparent legal threat at Bernard Kouchner

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

---

The IP editor 68.132.114.72 appears to have made a legal threat at Bernard Kouchner. See the edit summary on Special:Diff/1068189295 - "back off? this sounds like a threat, will be reported to police". PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I was within a hair of bringing IP 68 to ANI, but not for the threat (which I only just saw now) but for IP 68's insistence on repeatedly adding allegations of pedophilia against a living person to the article Bernard Kouchner. I left details and diffs at IP's talk page, here: User talk:68.132.114.72#Unwarranted accusations of pedophilia against a living person, nearly simultaneously with the required ANI notice by PohranicniStraze at IP 68's Talk page. I've reverted IP 68 twice at the article for their pedophilia allegations, and explained at their UTP as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for six months. The pattern of personal abuse, BLP violations, bad sourcing and Jew-tagging goes back several months tgo their first block, which was for one month. The silly legal threats and edit-warring to include obvious BLP violations are just extras. I've deleted the recent edits and summaries, but someone might want to go farther back, since this kind of behavior appears to be a habit..Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Ignoring consensus at Black and white cookie

2600:8800:200B:1900::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Black and white cookie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It started on January 7 when a user from Mesa, Arizona, removed a section at Black and white cookie about the cookie as a racial metaphor, arguing that it had zero relevance to the topic. I objected to this revert, but got reverted twice more, including ignoring directions to discuss this at the talk page ([40] [41]). Then they did, at Talk:Black_and_white_cookie#Racial_metaphor_section.. At this point, I went on to explain why the section is relevant to the topic and amounts to due weight.

In the same thread, Apocheir (talk · contribs) (who did the second revert) interjected about why they had previously renamed the section from "In popular culture" to "As a racial metaphor". (They did this in November 2021 to prevent addition of irrelevant trivia like what Agtx (talk · contribs) had removed in March 2021.) After this, the IP user changed the header to "In Popular Culture", and commented on the talk page that they thought the old title was better; both of us disagreed. Apochair restored the old title on January 10, though shortened to just "Racial metaphor". On January 13, ignoring our objections, the IP started a slow-motion edit war over the title:

1. Changed to "In popular culture" with an edit summary, Change section header again, as per talk page. I already discussed this a million times on the talk page.
2. Changed to "Racial metaphors/in popular culture" with an edit summary, Improved content for all
3. Changed to "Seinfeld trivia & more" with a misleading edit summary, Fixed typo
4. Changed to "In popular culture" with an edit summary containing only a full stop
5. Changed to "In popular culture"
6. Changed to "Seinfeld trivia and more!" with a mocking edit summary, Lol page consensus

It is unclear if they are aware of WP:3RR, though they are studiously avoiding it. Also pinging @Sea Cow, who reverted two of the listed edits but is not otherwise involved in the dispute. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've warned the user of violating 3RR now. After the last edit listed above, they did the following:

1. Changed header to "Racism of cookie" and added a demeaning remark about a BLP
2. Changed header to "tThis is a racist cookie"
3. Changed header once again to "In popular culture"

This is becoming unambiguously a bad-faith edit and the user needs to be blocked urgently. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I normally don't want to discuss content here, but clearly we can't use the Tablet source, as it's clearly unreliable. I can attribute this lovey-dovey we-are-the-world sentiment to is an exchange from the a 1994 episode of Seinfeld (yet another Jewish institution that I loathe because, well, it’s just awful), called “The Dinner Party.” We can't trust any source that says the Seinfeld is awful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to express concerns about an article's content on its talk page. What's pertinent is that this IP editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. He's been subject to a one-week IP range block, mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2022/01 § Black and white cookie, but after that block ended he started right up again. Can we get a longer range block, or a semiprotect on this article? -Apocheir (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Two more edits: Changed to "In popular culture" and Changed to "Everything is racist even cookies". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 2

Special:Contributions/219.77.200.0/22,this LTA edit in this IP range after 21 August in last year (only 219.77.202.56 is not him/her),zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 12:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, with MCC214#ex umbra in solem above and LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) above above, I'm tripping balls over here! El_C 12:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@MCC214: Hint: it is possible to blacklist individual pages on youtube.com globally so they cannot be used ({{BLRequestRegex|youtube.*?<videocode>}} (or similar) in your request makes getting rid of this only 2 clicks away). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea,but also this LTA DE (revert edit after he/she add youtube links quickly,delete blank after he/she add blank quickly),also,in zh.wiki,I find his/her sock account GAME (do 50 meaningless edit (zh.wiki autoconfirmed user should create account one weeks and do 50 or above edits) to need to get autoconfirmed user,after he/she can edit in related page when page have been semi-protected),so this problem should decided too.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/42.2.168.0/24,only this LTA edit in this IP range after 24 April in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC) +Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA edit in this IP range after 9 May in last year (only 42.3.120.242 is not him/her),zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 11:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Insisting on false information on Spanish-language television blocks

Angel Arreguin Hernandez is insisting on keeping the "Moved to" section on Spanish language television blocks Planeta U and Toonturama, despite it containing information such as the acquired programming such as Dora and Diego "moving" to outlets like Pluto TV, or Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and Handy Manny to Disney outlets, when such are more their homes than these Spanish blocks they're being leased out to, and aren't actually moving. I was previously threatened with a block just for removing it even though they know it's false information.--CreecregofLife (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well actually, bot saying I didn't do it nothing. Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What bot?--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Content removal by IP

Could a sysop please look at this discussion which relates to removal of content from the article by an IP who claims to be a bona fide former editor. My impression of their activity, especially as the target is a Churchill article, is that the IP may well be the latest HarveyCarter or similar. The content in question was added to the article this month by Klbrain as an agreed merger (proposed by Dubarr18) and I believe it should be tagged for sources until a reasonable time has elapsed. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As I have pointed out to you, both on your talk page and the article's talk page, the information is not supported by any citations. You have ignored WP:BURDEN in reverting my edit; to reiterate, BURDEN is a WP:POLICY. As the page is also Featured, WP:FAOWN is also relevant. As you have said you intend to add citations, the please feel free to re-add the information with citations when you can. It's absence is no loss to the article, and much of it is of questionable use and standard for a decent article (when you add citations, please consider just what is being re-added and whether it is relevant).

As I pointed out to you on your own talk page, my former account (to which I do not have access) was named SchroCat. I do not know why you think I am someone else, but as your first post to me (based on no previous interaction at all) was the accusation that "it is obvious from your knowledge of the site that you are evading a block", it's nice to see a variation in the false accusations. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:V says: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. "May" does not mean "must" and this article is not a WP:BLP. It is wrong to remove recently added content, bearing in mind that this followed a WP:MERGE, because that effectively hides it and it could thereby be lost to the article, albeit still in the history. If, however, the content is tagged for citations, it remains visible (for, I stress, a reasonable length of time) and the tag invites citations. As on the article talk page, you have again ignored the bulk of WP:BURDEN and the whole of WP:CONSENSUS. The proposed merger achieved consensus and the material was added to this article by consensus. If an IP can come along and remove the content without consensus only a fortnight later, then the site is leaving itself wide open to abuse.

WP:PRESERVE is relevant as it is part of WP:EDIT, another policy. It includes:

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other Template:Inline cleanup tags as appropriate
• Adding appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself
• Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge

So, this content was moved by consensus from its former article (now a redirect) and, because no one has yet been able to fix the citation issues, a cleanup banner was added to request citations. The converse of PRESERVE is WP:CANTFIX which talks about "situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it". The only one of these that could apply here is WP:V re "handling unsourced and contentious material". There is nothing obviously contentious about the material so we are left only with material that has not yet been sourced with no good reason to suppose that it is not verifiable. If you read the content, it has credibility and so we come back to that part of BURDEN which says: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. As there was a clear consensus to merge the content into this article only a couple of weeks ago, an objection to early removal is completely valid and citation needed tags are the sensible solution until a reasonable time has elapsed. As a challenge has been made, I would say one month from now is a reasonable time for citations to be provided and, if that time elapses without provision, I will withdraw my objection.

I have done considerable work on the Churchill articles which are a prime target for IP vandals and so I am entitled to be suspicious when yet another IP appears who deletes content and demonstrates a wide knowledge of site functionality. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR. The bottom line, as Dumuzid has pointed out to you, is to add citations. You may have "done considerable work on the Churchill articles", but that give you no excuse to ignore policy and re-add material challenged for being unsourced. I did "considerable work" on the Churchill as a writer article, taking it through the FL process when I did so, but I don't claim that gives me any special status as far as this or any other Churchill article goes. What I do know is that unsourced content shouldn't be on any article, let alone something featured that is supposed to represent our best work. Spend less time building up a spurious Wiki-lawyer approach and more time adding citations and ensuring the information is well-written and well-supported. I don't see what is so difficult about that. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, this should be easy. If you have citations, simply include them. No matter who the IP is (I have no reason to doubt they are who they claim), they are behaving completely reasonably given the applicable policies, in my opinion. Sure, sometimes large sections are added pending citations, but when challenged, the solution is to add the sources. Cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No Great Shaker, I am replying here so as not to confuse the threading, forgive me for that. The fundamental rule of Wikipedia is to cite your sources. Any of the steps you outline might well have been taken, but removal strikes me as perfectly reasonable in this situation. One way or another, the section needs citations. I fundamentally agree with the IP here, and so far as I know, I am, like you, an editor in good standing. I do not see the harm in saying "add the citations before publishing." It has to happen eventually one way or the other. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

2600:1700:8EA2:200:0:0:0:0/64

2600:1700:8EA2:200:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) has been soapboxing, edit-warring and accusing others of harassment, "libel and slander", censorship and bias on Talk:The Gateway Pundit since 22 January. Kleinpecan (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Range blocked for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban yet again

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

---

Johnpacklambert is topic banned from articles focused on, and edits related to, religion or religious figures, broadly construed. This topic ban was agreed as a condition for lifting an indef block. You may recall his topic ban violations reported here in early December, or his topic ban violations reported here in late December].

Johnpacklambert edited Diana Reader Harris. He added a category. It is difficult to understand how he could have added this category without reading the article to establish that such a category applied. The second sentence of the two sentence lead says She was a keen advocate of women's ordination in the Church of England. It is difficult to understand how Johnpacklambert missed that Reader Harris was the first woman president of the Church Missionary Society. It is difficult to understand how he missed an entire paragraph about her activities in the Church of England, including preaching and acting as a lay canon. Even if he were only concentrating on categories, it is difficult to understand how he missed Category:English Anglicans, which should have been a big, red, flashing warning sign not to edit this particular article. The article riddled with references to her church activities.

Johnpacklambert is either magically able to edit articles without reading them, completely incompetent, or knowingly violating his topic ban. Since this is far from his first violation, the answer seems obvious. Reasonable Funk (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Block Sock/Ignore And don't keep open for 3 days. If no other editor is noticing than it's a stretch to say these edits are disruptive and it's time to stop allowing this sock to consume our most valuable resource, time.Slywriter (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

She was a keen advocate of women's ordination in the Church of England is not a "religious figure." She was at various times a member of Dorset Education Committee, the Independent Television Authority, the councils of the National Youth Orchestra and the Outward Bound Trust, the Church Missionary Society, where as its first woman president she brought it to espouse the 1980 Brandt Report on bridging the North-South divide, and Christian Aid, where she was also chairman in 1978–1983. She joined the council of the Royal Society of Arts in 1975 and chaired it in 1979–1981. is not a religious figure. Being religious and involved in some religious groups does not make the article focused on a religious figure, nor were the edits related to anything religion related. You're stretching further and further each time you make a new sock to report these "violations." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? How is someone so involved in the Church not a religious figure? The topic ban is from religion or religious figures broadly construed. Would editing an article about a Serbian Orthodox priest count, or is that too much of a stretch, too? Reasonable Funk (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Nableezy allegations

Template:Closeme Nableezy has twice insinuated that I am a sock of a banned editor. I am not and have clearly stated this to him.

The context is an RFC in which Nableezy and myself have different views and some participants were outed as socks of banned editors. He has sought to similarly portray me as a banned user which is wrong and unpleasant.

I have asked him to withdraw his allegation but he has declined. I have asked him to at least clarify his comments so that it is clear that the allegations do not personally refer to me; again, he has declined.

Nableezy has already been warned at AN/I over his tone and was again warned about this last October at AE by two admins.

He was specifically warned regarding accusing other editors of being socks of banned users and reminded of the appropriate way to handle his concerns about this.

I was informed after taking this to AE that AN/I was a more appropriate forum for this matter.

AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have made no such insinuation, and I leave it to the reader to consider how a new editor finds ANI and AE threads with such ease. As far as that warning in the AE thread, where I said "I am directly saying that Inf-inMD is a sock of NoCal100, who'da thunk it? Well besides me. But as to the point, I have made and make no insinuation that this editor is a sock, just that they do not have the required number of edits to participate in discussions in project space related to the ARBPIA topic area. And they do not. And it would marvelous if somebody would enforce the ARBPIA requirements on that RFC. nableezy - 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That contribution history insinuates sock all by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have always wondered about the editors who make a blank user talk page. Sure it makes the red link blue, but anybody who later looks at it the history is gonna think hmmmmm. Short term vs long term cost/benefit analysis I guess. nableezy - 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is there a WP:SPI report open, or should a new one be started? Best to discuss socking at WP:SPI, rather than elsewhere. Here's some background music to play while you work. [42] I think WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK may be relevant, and that we should close this, per WP:DENY. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• FWIW I agree with the more robust interpretation of Nableezy's remarks, although I respect that that's not how he intended them; it is clearly a case of being correct "all be it" accidentally so. This means I also agree with Only in Death. This means I disagree vehemently with the OP, that the OP has any case whatsoever, or indeed, standing. This also means I agree with Jehochman: close with no action. SN54129 18:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• People should either raise an SPI or strike accusations of socking - otherwise the accusations are casting aspersions and/or personal attacks. Cut it out - there is already one open Arbcom case at least partly about editors accusing any new editor entering the field of being a sock - we don't want that sort of behaviour to spread to other areas. And no - this should not be brushed under the carpet.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Nah. "New" users who show up in contentious topic areas, showing a familiarity with editors there and with project processes are immediately suspect. Their goal is to sealion regulars into mucking through bureaucracy to get rid of them. ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly did I accuse this editor of being a sock? This diff is a response to a user saying that the RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area, and says that evidence of that includes the heavy socking, established, in the past RFC by Icewhiz. This diff says that the user, at the time of their first !vote, had 9 edits and that their prior edits, such as their first ever, show their interest in the topic area. And that, as an aside, the edit immediately prior at RSN to their 9th ever edit and first ever contribution to RSN was an Icewhiz sock. "An aside" is something that is not directly related to the topic under discussion. Not an accusation directly related to the topic under discussion. So what exactly do I need to cut out here? And for the record, Ive already directly said I do not know if this user is a sock. And tbh, I dont actually give a shit if he or she is a sock or not. Either way, fewer than 500 edits and should be restricted from editing that RFC. nableezy - 19:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec)User: Only in Death and User:Serial Number 54129 have certainly accused the OP of being a sock, and your comment about blank talk pages is hardly civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

You dont think it is curious when an editor knows that having a red-linked user talk page draws attention and so creates a blank one? Well I do, and I dont find making a remark on the merits of the near term benefit of appearing not to be a new user vs the long term scrutiny such behavior draws to be uncivil in any way. I also find it curious when an editor's first ever edit includes a well formatted, named, and re-referenced reference (eg here). There are all sorts of explanations for that, but a common one is sockpuppetry. I am however aware that SPI is not for fishing, and since I am unable to connect these curiosities to a named editor, yet at least, I have not accused this editor of being a sock, here or anywhere else. And the two diffs used to show me making such an accusation do not do so. nableezy - 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually I said their contribution history insinuates a sock. In much the same way an editor's contribution history of removing unflattering material from extreme right-wing US politicians insinuates the editor is a republican.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 and OVERLINK

• Special:Contributions/240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64

240F:113:125:1:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs) has been editing for a bit over a month. Almost all their edits have been to infoboxes of articles related to children's TV shows, and most of these edits have been simply adding wikilinks to common words, in violation of WP:OVERLINK. Examples of linking the word "male" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, "female" 1 2, "cat" or "dog" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, and country names 1 2 3 4. This is not an exhaustive list. They have been hopping around their /64 range, so they have a number of talk pages, and most of them are full of warnings, many of them specifically pointing them to WP:OVERLINK: 1 2 3 4 5 6. They have not replied to any of these warnings, nor ever edited any talk page as far as I can see.

They are editing quite persistently and are wasting a lot of other editors' time to revert their changes. They seem to be using the mobile web, not the app, so I don't think this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, although they may not be aware that they have a talk page. Perhaps a block is necessary to get their attention. CodeTalker (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the /64 range one week for disruption and failure to communicate. They have been active since 12 December and made over 300 edits. Nearly all of their edits get reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring user

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

---

Could someone please check this report: [43] This user continues edit warring, despite multiple warnings, and has made already 6 rvs on a single page. Grandmaster 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata

Further information: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yashthakurkamail and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kairakairav

First discovered in September 2021, the users listed in both of these SPI cases have involved in a long-term abuse by adding puffery elevating Karna of Mahabharata. While the initial attempts back in the earlier days remained relatively low, the current activity is off the shelves with multiple accounts [and IPs] popping up everywhere on a daily basis. The edits involve Karna with:

• great puffery (all the diffs in the SPIs, some: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48])
• tactics to throw off the sock smell ([49])
• editing elsewhere unrelated to the topic (perhaps good contributions [50]) and coming back ([51], [52])
• misrepresentation of sources ([53]),
• OR/unsourced with misrepresentation of sources ([54], [55])
• edit warring between each other ([56], another sock master was also suspected at SPI)
• one user adds and self-reverts followed by another user reverting it projecting a reinstatement of valid content ([57] next two edits, [58] next 4 edits)
• some single-purpose accounts with less than 10 edits with all of their edits mirroring a previous sock, or a future sock mirroring them ([59], [60])

Some users reported in the SPI were blocked as CheckUser confirmed, some by duck, some by disruptive editing, some by behaviour, some open pending [behavioural] investigation, some suspected of meat puppetry. This most probably is a paid editing ([61]). Some pages are semi-protected with very few ECP protected. Note: the diffs I linked here are just a sample among hundreds of edits in the whole racket. Digging thru them is difficult, but if requested, I can provide more. I'll be notifying these non-blocked users of this ANI (from SPI). Some more accounts might also be discovered, post which I'd add and notify them.

• Ambenath24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Anther24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Anupamsharma00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Elbacha917 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ilyadante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Shahzaib6008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Sharon Githirwa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Willow smiths (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 102.118.180.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.161.52.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I don't see this activity scaling down and ceasing anytime soon and I suspect, will continue if left unchecked, causing a great deal of cleanup left for us, given that more than half of the articles go unnoticed as they might not be on the watchlists [as they aren't that high on the priority, if not at all, lists of editors]. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this situation. This almost certainly is a gang of sockpuppets and meatpuppets, probably being organized somewhere offline, since they do identical edits but CU to multiple countries. But I’m not so sure about User:Ilyadante being a part of this sock/meat farm. I’ve seen only a few edits from them on the subject of Karna. They do quite a lot of other work, here and especially on the Russian Wiki. (An unrelated issue: they used to have a disclosure on their user page here that they are a paid editor. Their initial disclosure was about Stephie Theodora, and they then created two drafts about her, which were rejected at AFC. They later disclosed several other employers.[62] On January 25 they removed all the disclosures.[63] They recently created an article about Kozlovsky Evgeny Alexandrovich, putting it in mainspace but it was moved to a draft; it makes me wonder if that was paid but not disclosed.) In any case, I do not regard them as part of this gang. The rest almost certainly are. Several, not listed here, have been blocked already. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

DaxServer, just a basic question because I don't have time right now to look at every diff and editor, how many pages are involved here? Is it a focus on one article? A half-dozen? Several dozen? Or more? I'm just trying to get a sense of the scale of disruption here. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz Several dozen. I compiled a short list here: User:DaxServer/Karna disruption (anyone is welcome to expand) This list is from just a few users. I would dig thru some more users to see which pages are affected and update the list when I have time.

Also, this is a cross-wiki abuse. One user uploads images in Commons [64] (SUL) which are in turn used by other users here [65] [66] [67] and other wikis [68]. There could be other uploads by other accounts.

• Angla Bangla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Antigua33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (edits today)
• Blolk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ccmnair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kelvin Wanjiru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pallavi Venugopal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 111.68.97.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 212.58.121.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 5.178.249.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'll be notifying of ANI to these users as well. Some of them seem to be SPA. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: You may also note another kind of disruption that is being done. That is, the sock-puppets are adding citations whose actual content is exactly opposite to what they are adding in the Wiki article. Like in Jaya article here [69]. To explain the background here to the admins, there's a huge offline tussle between Karna fans and Arjuna fans going on since ages (much similar to Shahrukh vs Salmaan, Federer vs Nadal, Achilles vs Hector, etc). There are rabid members in both sides but the former group is much larger in number and more problematic, as we can see already. The popular image of Karna, courtesy televised serials and literature is actually a much more glorified (and inverted) version of what is actually there in the primary sources of Vyasa's Mahabharata. This is the main bone of contention. Added to that is the problem that many fans have heard the names of the primary sources, translators, etc and have probably read them in bits and portions for confirmational bias. And now they are throwing in these names as citations to validate their puffery. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Panchalidraupadi Yes, it is a deliberate error, the citation verifies the opposite like you said. I've already put this in my original post as "OR/unsourced with misrepresentation of sources", perhaps I should have worded it as "deliberate errors with sources saying opposite".

In my further investigation, I see edits going as far as 10 July 2021. During that time, the edits were made by IPs. Some edits were reverted, while some haven't as they articles are relatively unknown, I've reverted them. I keep finding even more accounts/IPs. Here's my now-updated [still-]short compilation User:DaxServer/Karna disruption — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@DaxServer: Thanks for all your efforts. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This problem sounds enormous, more than one editor should have to keep track of and monitor. I wonder if there are any kind of sanctions that would be appropriate to seek over this topic area. That's a big undertaking but it sounds like this disruption isn't ebbing but is likely to continue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There's WP:ARBIPA (and proposed amendment) which is broadly construed for India-related topics. I probably want to consult any or more of @RegentsPark, @SpacemanSpiff, @Johnuniq, @Bishonen who are active in ARBIPA areas. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• ArsheyaSagar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Please review this user's edits too. Probably part of the team. Venkat TL (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Venkat. Seems one of them [70] [71] [72] and 3 other edits. More:

• 182.65.108.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 122.161.48.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) There's a 122.161.52.204 reported above. Maybe the same user, with an IP change? It's the same subnet. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 21:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL Hi, Why am I being suspected as a socketpuppet, I am a new user on Wikipedia making effective contributions. This is like hurting new editors on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArsheyaSagar (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Steven Crowder YouTube video

Steven Crowder published a YouTube video today called "EXPOSED: Wikipedia’s Bias Tested and PROVEN!". In the video, they speak about how they used a handful of accounts to "test Wikipedia's bias":

• User:LandausBatteringRam
• User:Kkeeran
• User:SDFausta

It's also probably worth keeping an eye on the following pages which they mention having "tested", as I imagine they might see increased vandalism or edit warring as a result:

• Steven Crowder
• Minimum wage in the United States
• Transgender youth
• George Floyd
• 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit
• Stop Asian Hate
• 2021 Boulder shooting
• Ron DeSantis
• Texas Heartbeat Act

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

1. LandausBatteringRam (talk · contribs)
2. Kkeeran (talk · contribs)
3. SDFausta (talk · contribs)

Using user template for ease of access. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've added those that have seen recent vandalism to my watchlist. Would it be a case to block the main account (which appears to be Kkeeran, from the snippets of the video I've seen) for WP:POINTy behavior and WP:NOTHERE? Isabelle ^🔔 00:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

On obvious COI grounds at the very least... Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

But have his edits been uber-disruptive? Although I can't see him staying here for long, maybe a warning first would suffice Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't this still qualify for blocking as sockpuppetry? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• All of those account should be blocked as sockpuppets. I could have sworn there was an essay or a rule about not using Wikipedia to do social experiments. But in any case, they should be blocked as the community does not (or at least, I don't) appreciate being treated as lab rats. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Rockstone35: I think you're remembering WP:NOTLAB. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and the project is not a laboratory for experiments on our processes. I see more than enough justification for a block without needing to trot out more links to policy. Let's not spend any more time on this. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Apparently, this video is an hour long, and it looks boring as hell. On the other hand, it was uploaded today and has almost half a million views. From what I can gather, the general theme is that some guy makes controversial edits on WP:AP2 stuff, waits for someone to revert him, and then concludes we are full of shit because we reverted a sourced edit. Based on the contributions for these accounts, it seems that a lot of them have already been reverted, presumably for being bad edits. Is there a benefit that we would gain from reverting the rest or blocking the accounts? I really don't see the benefit of capriciously removing a bunch of otherwise-acceptable edits, in a way that's extremely visible because our actions regarding these edits are being actively used as evidence that we are capricious.

  I think this needs to be thought over for a second -- it doesn't matter whether you hate the guy, there are a lot of people people curious to see what we do with these accounts, and a lot of them are probably forming their whole opinion of the project based on it. A WP:NOTHERE block makes no sense (their edits are adding a bunch of sourced information; while the edits are crap and they're clearly here for WP:ADVOCACY, it's completely inane to say they are not "trying to build an encyclopedia"). Like, okay, maybe the guy is an asshole, maybe the people who watch his videos are assholes, but do we need to go out of our way to troll them at the expense of following our own rules? I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of some policy against livestreaming your Wikidrama to half a million people, because it's obviously prone to causing problems... but it should exist before we start enforcing it. jp×g 08:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Even if you assume that these are good faith edits, which they demonstrably are not, one may not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point or edit to right great wrongs looks like I needed to trot out more links after all... ; that's the very essence of WP:NOTHERE. These accounts were created to prove a point, and they don't need to stick around for us to wait for their owner to test boundaries any further. Keeping them unblocked out of sheer defiance of giving the owner the satisfaction, so to speak, is even less likely to be fruitful than simply blocking them and moving on. While we're speculating about potential consequences, how do you know that the absence of a block won't be used in a subsequent video about Wikipedia's alleged editorial incompetence or an alleged inability to police its content and contributors? Fundamentally, there's no use wondering what will appear on or out of YouTube from this obvious block. Also: speaking personally, I frankly don't care that people are forming incorrect opinions on our supposed capriciousness, as I do not edit out of a sense of vanity. AlexEng^(TALK) 08:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't care about the people who follow him or the impression they gain of Wikipedia based on our actions, if they're watching him, they probably already don't think highly of the project. At any rate, I don't want it to appear as if we are fine with destructive behavior or his trolling. I say we should block all of his socks (and, if I'm honest, community ban him), not to retaliate against him, but because he is not acting in good faith and is damaging our project.-- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Edited to add: I don't know if we need such a policy to punish him for livestreaming his wikidrama; it seems like we already prohibit it, and even if none of our rules do, IAR would be appropriate in this case. Still, though, his edits were not made in the interest of the project, but rather in the interest of "one-upping" us. We don't need him, or his drama. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: I've had a look, so I may as well tell you what I've seen. There's a couple of unused accounts, but User:Lilyahayes can be added with a couple of edits. CU says these accounts are editing from the same place, but doesn't say how many people there are (it's almost certainly fewer than the number of accounts). In the video, Crowder mentions 'members of his team' or similar, which seems plausible to an extent. I've gone ahead and notified Kkeeran of this discussion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed community ban

I think it's worth considering simply CBANning him and getting it over with; he should not be welcome to edit after using us as an experiment. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per DENY. Just block or warn the accounts and move on, an official ban will only be grist for his "liberal bias" mill and cause further attention and thus disruption. Pinguinn 🐧 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Seems like an overreaction. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• It doesn't seem like an overreaction to me, but I'm inclined to agree with Pinguinn's reasoning. A no fuss block by an uninvolved administrator would be more than enough. We don't need to devote so much time to this. AlexEng^(TALK) 13:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Just blocking the main account is sufficient. If they violate the block by creating sockpuppet accounts, we'll block those too; there's no need to formally ban them to do so. --Jayron32 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Let me get this straight -- some shock jock (or pundit, or whatever this guy is) has made an account here for the purpose of showing his followers that Wikipedia blocks people for no reason... and that, itself, is the proposed rationale for blocking it? This seems like the goofiest possible reasoning, and it doesn't look to me like the accounts have done a whole lot that would warrant blocking (indeed, they weren't, until it was revealed they were being run by some political talking-head). I understand that it seems like something should be done, and this is certainly something, but I don't think it should be done. jp×g 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Uh, to be clear, there is a difference between a WP:CBAN and a block. It's beginning to look like some people are opposing a block in this section. You can see above that there is opposition to a CBAN with explicit or implicit endorsement of a block. I'm afraid we're getting our wires crossed here by treating them the same. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think the distinction really matters here; as far as I can tell, the existence of the YouTube video doesn't militate in favor of a ban or a block. jp×g 22:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • How not? He is quite clearly trying to disrupt the project and use us as pawns for his experiments. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I don't know what being "used as pawns" means. If I write a FA, am I using the reviewers as pawns to improve my writing skills? Are administrators being used by the community as pawns to delete pages and block users? jp×g 22:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • If the community reaches a consensus to block a user without setting any conditions by which the block can be lifted, then a future community consensus is required to unblock the user. That is what a community ban is. (The third bullet in the section you linked to covers this.) isaacl (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Is the concept of a community ban, distinct from a block, no longer understood on Wikipedia? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

        The community can reach a consensus to enact editing restrictions for an editor based on behaviour. As described in Wikipedia:Banning policy § Community bans and restrictions, an editor that has been indefinitely blocked by the community is considered to be banned. isaacl (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

        Yes, but the community may also simply vote to skip the indefinite block stage and to outright ban a user; that's how community bans used to be imposed; I guess with the addition of the third bulletpoint, the concepts of a community ban and a community indefinite block are being aliased. Still though, a banned user shows up in the banned Wikipedia users category, which is not the case for a simple block. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

        Whether the words "ban" or "indefinite block" is used by commenters, the end result is the same: the community has reached a consensus to block the user, and the community has to reach a consensus to unblock the user. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The only reason why we're having this discussion is because of the YouTube video. When random accounts disrupt Wikipedia in a vain attempt to prove a WP:POINT we warn a few times before blocking. If we're actually trying to uphold our principles here, then we need to treat these accounts in the same way as any other disruptive account. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose both a block and a community ban. Although he indeed has used multiple accounts, is there clear evidence that he has violated WP:ILLEGIT? Kingoflettuce (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Two of the accounts edited the same page (Texas Heartbeat Act), which is prohibited for undisclosed socks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• The adage “Do not feed the trolls” seems to apply here. And definitely do not over-react to them. The individual edits were not really disruptive, and those that are not up to our standards can be (have been) dealt with through normal editing. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Banning or blocking them for now, as it will only serve to 'prove them right'. "We tried to show Wikipedia's far-left liberal bias but we got banned for doing so, they knew we were right hence why they had to shut us down" (somewhat like the Streisand effect). Issue a formal warning though.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Should respond to on-wiki behavior appropriately and leave it at that. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 01:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The disruption, such as it is, is relatively minor and nowhere near what would rise to the level of a community ban. Let's not give this fellow his preferred cause célèbre. Instead, let's follow the spirit of deny. Normal reverts of inappropriate edits. Normal page blocks or complete blocks of normal length, as called for by the editing going forward. No rewards to trolls. Cullen328 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: The fellow seems to be an asshole troll, no error. But we've got a lot of jerks on Wikipedia (and I expect a fair lot of folks would number me among them). The question I have for anyone seeking a ban is this: would you propose such a sanction for the edits the guy's made if they came from Some Random Editor, absent that video? Ravenswing 04:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing in Wikipedia policy dictates that someone who edits the site cannot post a video about it; in the case of accounts editing the same page, the proper course of action here is to block the puppet account and warn the puppeteer account (I think it’s rather clear from the video that Crowder lacks enough comprehension of Wikipedia policy to have known using multiple accounts was in itself an issue). WP:DENY is also clearly the best medicine here, as we’re far more likely to encounter broader disruption if we throw gas on the fire with a needless block. WP:POINTy behavior and experimenting with our processes are also not severe enough issues to warrant this type of reaction; if this was a long term pattern of continuous disruption after many warnings my opinion would be different on that. Besides, I rather think we have thick enough skins here to take his misfounded criticisms and show that we do in fact welcome a diversity of ideas here… we just require that our articles are factually based with reliable sources. And to those who are being ever so brazen as to start name calling… can I suggest that you not violate BLP even on ANI? That policy covers the entire site, so let’s please keep our opinions of people to ourselves and focus on the facts of the matter. ​ — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as overkill. Just block any policy-violating socks. At least this does explain something odd that I'd seen; User:Kkeeran came to my attention when they added this to 2021 Boulder shootings, sourced only to a tweet. After I reverted it, another editor User:Styles who hadn't edited for 3 years, twice re-added it. Obviously they'd seen the video and wished to "help". I'll keep an eye on that and protect it if it keeps happening. Black Kite (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support on principle per WP:NOTHERE; specifically, trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia and major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention. The argument that we should avoid banning him (as our policies require) because he would claim persecution is meaningless - by that argument we could never ban anyone with a YouTube channel ever. And the argument that we would not block him if it weren't for his off-wiki activities are similarly absurd - those activities overtly state that his intent was not to build an encyclopedia, while their very existence makes it clear that the purpose of his edits was to produce material that could be used to promote his channel. And the argument that he has broken no policy is similar absurd - WP:NOTHERE exists specifically for situations like this. Setting the precedent that a celebrity can use Wikipedia edits to make a rhetorical point on their YouTube channel is a terrible idea in the long term. EDIT: And also, obviously, a severe WP:CANVASS violation by posting the video, whose intent is plainly to direct people to Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • After having to watch the video in full, as an old friend contacted me to ask my opinion of it… (which is how I came to be aware of this situation) and going through it point by point to explain to my friend what was being misrepresented… I’d say while “trying to score brownie points” seems to fit (as the intention of the video is of course to give content to his viewers) it doesn’t necessarily fit entirely. The reason is this line: without expecting the edit to remain in place or caring if it doesn't. I would say the video is mostly him showing he thinks the edits would remain in place (per his [simplistic] interpretation/misinterpretation of our policies), and he did care that they were removed. As to “major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention”, this also doesn’t fit. I won’t quote the entire paragraph explaining what that’s about, but to summarize: that part of the NOTHERE policy is intended for people who, either intentionally or not, cannot find a way to conduct themselves in a civil enough manner for editors to relax collegially together. The edits in question here don’t come down to an issue of civility, legal threats, or gross disruption… they amount to someone seeing a perceived issue of neutrality and entirely failing to understand the use of talk pages, what consensus means, or any of our core content policies… then making a whole video about it (where they essentially get everything wrong). Laughable? Yes. Blockable? No. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose That is just adding fuel to the fire; Prefer DENY at this point. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'm of the opinion that ultra-conservative pundits won't make Wikipedia a reliable encyclopedia. Simply look at Conservapedia. Additionally, this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

CIVIL issues at AFD

Jkaharper (talk · contribs) recently posted a !vote at AFD that briefly touched upon the content of the discussion but was primarily concerned with discussing the behaviours of myself and Johnpacklambert in a manner that violates WP:PA, with the most problematic example being in this fragment: This is getting quite boring now. A single user obsessed with deleting bios of noted individuals, flanked by his sidekick. Their own edit histories show they have nothing constructive to offer in terms of building pages up – they simply wish to destroy the hard work of other users.

As a single example, I didn't initially intend to bring this here, but I believe their unusual understanding of WP:PA, where they rely on the Wiktionary definition rather than policy means that this issue needs to be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the editor takes issue with the required notification being placed on their talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment- Funny thing about AfD culture, isn't it. If someone says "User:Example is an obsessive asshat" that would be a personal attack. But if they say "Keep- nominator is an obsessive asshat" that's all fine and dandy. Reyk _YO! 00:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Hi @BilledMammal:, there seems to be a contradiction in what you've written above. You say "the most problematic example being" and then "As a single example", so which is it? Either there are multiple examples or one. Also, can you please quote me the section of WP:PA you feel I have violated. As I previously said, I do not feel I have infringed upon your character, lifestyle etc. nor did I dismiss any of the comments you made on the AfD – I addressed them. IMO, this doesn't constitute a personal attack. Users must be free to criticise general conduct and patterns of behaviour especially if they feel it's non-constructive. Even if my choice phrasing was rather strong, I do not personally believe I crossed a line. I said that we should agree to disagree. My intent was not to offend, therefore I cannot offer you an apology. Thank you --Jkaharper (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A single post, with multiple examples within it, of which the quoted is the most problematic. I will leave the rest of your comment for other editors to consider, as I don't believe a back-and-forth between us here will be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Well it's quite a serious point actually, and I'd prefer you answered it as well. You've quoted WP:PA so I assume you've read it and believe I violated it. I'm asking you to specify which section/paragraph/sentence fits your claim. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I'm not a platypus, but I'll answer anyway. I think Comment on content, not on the contributor. fits the bill. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • So we should never make statements about the general conduct and/or constructive nature of a user's input? Hmmm... --Jkaharper (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If you don't see the difference between constructive criticism and personal attacks, and how your language was a PA, then I'm going to bow out. Probably not going to have any productive discussion starting that far apart. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• What does seem clear to me @BilledMammal:, is that even if you consider this a "personal attack" you've ignored two of the specific directions under section 4 on appropriate response – isolated incidents come under Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks and only if something can be deemed "particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults)" should you raise it here. --Jkaharper (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think the second part of the quoted statement is pretty dickish (Jkaharper, that's playing the ball, not the man--right?), but as far as personal attacks go, meh, I don't think it's ANI-worthy. I don't quite see why BilledMammal wasn't happy with just leaving a warning, but had to get a pound of flesh at ANI. Editors, you're not always going to get it. Leave a templated warning, second or third level, for personal attacks/harassment. Do it again if it happens again, and/or report at AIV. Much simpler, much less self-incriminating--in this case, with less attention drawn to what really amounts to badgering at the AfD. And Jkaharper, you can always try to say "sorry, I'll do better next time", and walk away with your reputation intact. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: did you intend to say AIV? I thought that was only for extremely blatant ongoing cases of vandalism or spam. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • User:AlexEng, the templated warnings for personal attacks are in the same pull-down menu as those for vandalism, and as far as I'm concerned, personal attacks, harassment, hounding, etc. all fall under the broader definition of vandalism, "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". So if someone were to warn an editor a few times for that and then report them to that board, and I were to see it, I would take it seriously and consider blocking, yes. I know it's not the most common thing to do, and much later on in Wikipedia:Vandalism it says "harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently", but I think admins should consider that not all editors know exactly all parts of the policy and take reports as they come. "Wrong board" should not be the easy way out, as a kind of dismissal. Consider also that if an editor gets a level-3 warning for a PA, and then a level-4 warning for more straight-up vandalism--and there's a bit of a borderline anyway: "While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article..." Consider how many ANI posts are actually "simple" cases of vandalism--I'd be a lazy admin if I said "that's not for here" and do nothing about the situation. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The only issue I see with that is there's probably a 50% chance of hitting a PA feedback loop. Editor A makes what Editor B considers a personal attack. Editor B templates Editor A with the PA template. Editor A responds to that template poorly. Editor B templates again for that response. Then it goes to AIV and you get "Well, is it really that bad? I've seen worse." Going the template to AIV route would have to be some pretty clear cut personal attacks, especially for an established editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • ScottishFinnishRadish, I don't see a lot of those loops, but if that happens then ANI is the next step, yes. I just think that this was never really ANI material. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting point, Drmies. When I posted the above question, I thought you had mad a typo in writing AIV instead of ANI, but now that I see your reasoning, I understand what you meant. Thanks for clarifying! AlexEng^(TALK) 16:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
        • User:AlexEng it's a very valid question and I'm glad you asked it--you certainly had a point and I realize (now) that I'm kind of molding various aspects of WP:Vandalism. Another grey area, BTW, is "disruptive editing"--they're all overlapping terms in some ways. You gave me cause to look over that entire page and that was useful--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) The comments are not so extreme that I would have brought this to ANI, unless the user was not otherwise receptive to discussion. That being said, Jkaharper, the wikilawyering in this thread is not helping. ANI is an appropriate place to discuss user conduct; an AfD !vote is not. If you have some concrete problem with a user's behavior, you could address it with them personally in a civil manner, on their talk page. If the problem is serious, you can seek dispute resolution options and community review at ANI. In any case, your analysis of a user's motivations and edit history do not belong at an AfD page. Without demanding quotations from policy and without picking apart individual sentences to misconstrue meaning, can you at least agree that the above {{tq}}ed quote is not particularly civil? If you can't, then we may actually have an issue that merits community review. Otherwise, I suggest dropping the stick and walking away from this thread. AlexEng^(TALK) 04:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I felt the same way and hadn't originally planned to bring this to WP:ANI, except that when I attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page they insisted on using the definition of "personal attack" from Wiktionary to determine whether their comments were appropriate, rather than WP:PA, and declined to continue the conversation. Given this unusual definition of PA I felt it was likely that issues would continue, and decided it was better to correct the issue now, while it is sufficient to correct their misunderstanding rather than anything more serious - although if there are more appropriate forums for such a correction, I would appreciate being pointed towards them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Hi @AlexEng:, I wanted this conversation to end about 4 hours ago frankly. I told the respective user that we should agree to disagree and that I no longer wanted to speak about it, so where their new charge of they “thought issues would continue” comes from, I’m not particularly sure. I do not intend to interact with said user again. Whilst I do not take back anything I said, I can see how the particular wording/phrasing comes off a bit strong, and how some can be sensitive to such language. In future, I will be more wary of this so as not to appear “dickish”, as User:Drmies poetically put it. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

46.177.143.114

Can someone please revoke the ip's talk page access ? The ip address is 46.177.143.114.

F.Y.I there is ongoing Vandalism by the ip (46.177.143.114) on the talk page of the ip. Chip3004 (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• No, not vandalism. They're just blanking; pay it no attention and it won't bother you. User:Binksternet, just leave it be. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Bludgeons for Deletion Episode 2: The Indonesian Connexion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Azhari · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions]
• Amoeba69th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We've got another case of a single-purpose, possibly high conflict-of-interest editor bludgeoning an AfD discussion. In this case, aside from providing poor sources that have thus far either been dismissed or deferred to people who can read them (read: I've been repeatedly pointing them to WT:WikiProject Indonesia for their Indonesian-language sources) the discussion has begun taking a more personal tone, with such classics as implying millenials should not comment, implying people who don't know her should not comment, implying non-Indonesians shouldn't comment, invoking WP:Don't be high-maintenance to dismiss criticism of his sources or behaviour, and attempting to filibuster with BLP claims. Given the user's editing history I suspect conflict of interest at the least, but they've refused to answer any direct questions, whether on-wiki or on IRC, about their connexion with Azhari. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 03:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I just went to the user's talkpage to warn them after I'd seen the AfD, and noticed your alert about this discussion. Likely enough I'm being too soft, but I merely warned. No prejudice to another admin blocking directly. The user's repeated invocation of WP:HIGHMAINT as an argument in discussions is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC).

Noting for the record arguable cavanssing at my userpage here. I accepted their article Dance to Survive at AfC as borderline notable, and they contacted me to ask for help keeping Sarah Azhari, though since it was phrased as request for advice rather than a keep !vote I wasn't too worried about it. Rusalkii (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Amoeba69th has not participated here but did open up a query in reliable sources in an attempt to continue the argument in another venue. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Publicly apologize if my statements sounded angry and/or limiting to another user's logic and opinion. Amoeba69th (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Evidently the above 'apology' meant nothing. Amoeba69th has now chosen to use Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, of all places, to post a further personal attack on contributors. [73] AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I partially blocked Amoeba69th from Sarah Azhari, Talk:Sarah Azhari, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Azhari for the next week after seeing the comment on AE's talk page. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Page moves despite editing restriction.

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

---

User with editing restriction preventing them from moving pages....[74] is moving pages [75]. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please note that my earlier moves were bold whereas this move is for a valid and suitable reason. Every page move isn't a bold move. There is a good reason as to why this move was conducted because of an error in the infobox of the airline page. The page was recently moved to its former name but the justification had an error. Username006 (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Username006, did you successfully appeal the above editing restriction? If not, it sounds like you are prohibited from making even uncontroversial moves, even for a good reason. Andrewgprout, did you discuss this with the editor prior to coming to ANI? It's possible that they just forgot. Please also remember to SIGN your talk page messages. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: Thanks yes I missed my signiture when notifying the user not sure why that happened, I have added it now. In answer to your question I did not discuss this with Username006 before bringing it to ANI, unfortunately I do not subscribe to the view that they may have forgotten the restriction, and I do try to keep my direct interactions with this user to a minimum as I suspect it does neither them nor I any good as such interaction has been particularly unfruitful in the past. I was not aware that this was either a requirement or in this case particularly useful. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: there is no such requirement, and you are also not required to interact with other users, at least within this context. I did, however, examine the move that the user did in this case. First of all, yes, it looks like a violation of their editing restriction. But perhaps more importantly, it looks like a good move. It was a technical revert of a bad move done by a perhaps more inexperienced editor, since the refs in the article support what Username006 wrote in their edit summary. The fact that you didn't discuss the move and rather went straight to ANI just makes me concerned about the nature of your complaint. If you consider this move to be disruptive, could you please explain why? AlexEng^(TALK) 07:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: If you mention WP:BRD, then why don't you reply on the talk page is a good question as it may seem you yourself are being disruptive per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by ignoring other editors' questions. Please respond. I myself was unaware about the edit restriction as I took a break in between a block but I have no intentions to do disruptive stuff anymore. Username006 (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Username006 also appears to be using multiple accounts [76] which seems problematic at best and I'm not sure the reasons given there for the multiple accounts are acceptable. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewgprout: There is no harm in using multiple accounts as there have been no edits which are abusive in any means. See here: [77]. You seem to be WP:POINTY here. Username006 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not true, Username006. If you have an alternative account(s), you must disclose them on your User page. I see you disclose the relationship at User:NeatArena91 but please also do so with your primary account. . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liz: Will do. Username006 (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect, Liz. There are valid reasons for not disclosing alternative accounts per WP:SOCKLEGIT. It's unclear if those reasons are relevant here, but your use of the term must is improper. In fact, the guideline uses should and recommended rather than levying a strict prohibition like the one you implied. In any case, it's a moot point, because that account has been used a handful of times and has only one edit outside of userspace; it's clearly not being used to WP:GAME the system. No violation exists, which leads me to my next point. @Andrewgprout: note that users are not required to publicly justify why they have an alternate account, so your opinion on their reasoning is not germane to this discussion and appears from my outside, uninvolved perspective to be some kind of attempt to score additional points against the user. You started this discussion regarding the user's WP:PAGEMOVE, which looks like a violation of their editing restriction, but now we are drifting into other topics. Can you please explain what you're trying to get out of this ANI report? I'll answer your above questions in a separate edit to maintain readability. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• If USername006 is indeed 23 years old [78], I can only congratulate them on taking a photo of an aircraft in 1989 (User:NeatArena91). Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Sorry, that's an error, that is not my image, it is one of my family members' images which I'm advertising as myself on their behalf so I'll correct that if that brings up confusion. That's all. Also, I suspect that Andrewgprout's reason of making this section is not correcting me, but moreover, just a tit for tat edit as I made an edit reporting them:[79] and only hours later did they make the "tit" edit by creating this section. His rationale for making this section also seems to change. Username006 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Back to the original issue at hand. Username006 is banned from moving pages, and there is no exception for, and I quote, a "valid and suitable reason". This ban was worded in unambiguous language and contains no wiggle room. You may not move pages. @Username006: Do you understand this and do you agree to avoid moving articles in the future? --Jayron32 13:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• I just closed the AN3 report Username006 made against Andrewgprout as no violation and vexatious - Username006 was trying to make an edit war out of three reverts on three separate articles. I've previously blocked them twice for disruptive moves against consensus. With that bad-faith AN3 report, the violation of their move restriction, and the general inability to listen or work with other editors or to profit from experience, I think a one-month block is in order, and that it will be a last chance. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Acroterion: Okay, so I made a move, but I am doubtful on your rationale as there your assumption of bad-faith and edit war is plain incorrect. If you see the edits, Andrewgprout is being the disruptive one as he doesn't respond and doesn't seem to even see the summary of the edit per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by ignoring consensus. Me having a bad history doesn't mean you pin up all arguments at my fault. If you could, can you explain these reverts Andrewgprout is making? And an exception to bad-faith is when there is a clear justification with diff's mentioned at WP:GOODFAITH. Therefore, I would like you yourself to provide an explanation to Andrewgprout's edits if you think my edits are disruptive instead of blaming everything on me if I get into a conflict with Andrew. Moreover, I don't have a problem to work with every editor. It's Andrew who is behaving so and that's where the problem possibly originates from. A good example would be a person who actually replies and discusses conflicts with me. For instance, I was with an edit conflict with User:Nigel Ish at Convair 990 Coronado here:[80] but, I took the discussion to the talk page and the user replied to me in a civil format and the argument was settled. Here though, that's not the case because Andrew doesn't seem to reply to me, even after Andrew himself promoting WP:BRD and that is a clear-cut disruptive sign per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.Username006 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You are outright banned from moving pages, do you acknowledge that? It's not open to interpretation. And also the WP:POLEMIC you just wrote on youser user page is not helping your case, and in fact will likely be counted against you here. Stop blaming others for your edits. Your edits are the responsibility of you and you alone, no one else forces you to do anything. You're not steering this conversation in a way that looks good on you. Canterbury Tail talk 14:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: Yes, I do acknowledge that, and I removed that message on my user page also due to WP:POLEMIC but the problem is "stop blaming others for your edits" is what I hear everytime. Does this mean I have to accept everything and always think that I'm wrong? I believe that's not the case. Also, there has been no justification given to explain Andrewgporuts reverts and not responding to me. If a reasonable answer can be given. I may as well stop this. Otherwise, we will really not proceed anywhere with this argument. Also I suggest you too stay WP:COOL. I can agree with editors as long as they communicate with me which Andrew is clearly not doing. Trying to prove me wrong everytime is (hopefully) not some form of goal here. Username006 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

No communication is needed for you not to move pages. You did so when banned from doing so. How is that anyone's fault but your own? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let me make this clear, I agree that I made a bold move and I acknowledge it and I'm not calling it anyone else's fault as I never intended to and I never did but everyone is just turning the tables against me by not answering my question as to, what explains Andrewgprout's reverts and his inability to discuss with me at the talk page even after he himself promotes WP:BRD, please satisfy this instead of trying to flip the situation again and again. Username006 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's be more clear: you have been told to not move pages whatsoever in the past. Your competence is required. Period. No pointing fingers on who did what. – The Grid (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the same pattern of deflection and refusal to listen that got you blocked the first two times. Your report at AN3 was wholly inappropriate, as was the obvious violation of your page move ban. Your demands that other editors conform to your wishes with little reciprocation on your part is familiar ground. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note The earlier statement by Username006 in this thread ("I myself was unaware about the edit restriction as I took a break in between a block but I have no intentions to do disruptive stuff anymore") (my emphasis added) is factually untrue. Username006 acknowledged the edit restriction at the time he was placed on it here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think you should re-read that and try to understand the user's meaning. It's not a claim that they were unaware of the restriction at any time. It's clearly a claim that they forgot about it, after having taken a break from Wikipedia after their block. Saying that it's factually untrue may itself be untrue, because you may have misinterpreted the statement. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Singularity42 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

First things first, I admit it that I made a bold move and that I'm at fault. Let's get that out of the way. Now could you explain Andrewgprout's edits. I'm not trying to deflect any of my edits whatsoever. That's my question. And also, for the first two blocks, I did not use any such tactic and I'm not using it here either. Instead of pushing this question over to the side and taking the easy way out, let's have a discussion to this move. Also, for the unawareness bit of it, I myself was indeed unaware of my move restriction while I was making page moves because I have been pretty busy lately on some other real-life work. I did acknowledge it then but then later, I forgot about it. For the proof: [81], [82], [83]etc. edits. For this edit: [84], a consensus was made on not to make the change but Andrewgprout made no effort into indulge in a conversation with me.Username006 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You moving pages in violation of your topic ban is something that is worth of attention at ANI. Possibly a clear warning is sufficient resolution, but someone opening a thread to discuss you violating your topic ban is not doing anything wrong unless they're socking, the issue is covered by an iban or topic ban or they're otherwise forbidden from opening such threads. OTOH, you've provided no evidence to suggest what Andrewgprout did is worthy of ANI attention so there's no reason for us to discuss it here. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I'm inclined to sympathize with this editor, because it's not fun to feel like you're being backed into a corner from all sides. Their page move was correct and constructive, but it was a technical violation of their editing restriction, because a revert of a page move is itself a page move. The editor appears to be inadvertently conflating or policy on Edit warring with WP:HOUNDING. I don't explicitly endorse the accusation of hounding, but I am reasonably sure that's what they are intending to communicate. Let's try to be kind and not rush headlong into sanctions over what looks like an honest mistake. Last time I checked, assuming good faith was still a cornerstone of Wikipedia's culture. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree at this point. They're aware of their restriction now and nothing else going on is ANI worthy to my mind now. They're free to ask for their page move restriction to be lifted if they can address the reasonings behind it being put in place, though I'd advise to wait a while before putting in such a request due to the recent inadvertent violation. Just get some air and move on I think is best. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I'm ready to request it but where shall I do it? Username006 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would be strongly opposed to any request that the ban be lifted. The pattern of blaming others for their troubles, the return to the behavior that got the ban imposed in the first place, and the misuse of AN3 to try to win arguments is more than I'm willing to overlook. They can always ask that something be moved. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate on the behavior that got the ban imposed in the first place? That was a rather brief ANI thread. Though, as the responding administrator, I'm sure you have more context than I do. I'm willing to believe that the AN3 report was a misunderstanding of our EW policy rather than an attempt to win an argument. Are you confident that your previous interactions with this editor did not color your assessment of their motives? I mean that question earnestly and not as an accusation. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    To be blunt, why are commenting on something you really do not know the full details about? This is not a first offense. – The Grid (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

    To be equally blunt, asking for clarification is the appropriate thing to do when one is not familiar with the entire context. If you have additional information to provide, you're welcome to do so. It's not reasonable to expect uninvolved editors to immediately understand the nuances of a situation without diffs and analysis. AlexEng^(TALK) 10:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  • No accusation read. Of course it's based on my previous interactions, and I'm following up on the continuing pattern of conduct by this editor.
    • Response to an edit-warring notice inb December: I was about to collaborate after the 2nd revert. But I got busy in some other work. [85]
    • Self-closure of a move request, pre-ban: The move request has been stretching on for too long. Nothing much is going to happen anymore. It is evident that it should be renamed to the proposed title. [86] (moving was appropriate, but not the closure), which was preceded by I'm sorry, I was irritated, because I have a lot of work pending to do. [87]
    • An early move comment directed at Andrewgprout in May: Because I asked earlier and no one was responding so I had to forcefully make you respond. Also, you have answered nothing in the talk page where I'm continuously asking again and again. [88]
    • More move discussion Asking such stupid questions for a request is not ideal. [ [89]] You, William and acroterion are annoying me to my limits. [90]. And many more incidences of petulance over moves, demanding that everybody else conform to their expectations for snappy response to their demands. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I've looked through this again. September 15, 2021 was when the edit restriction was imposed and acknowledged. Since then Username006 has violated the edit restriction quite a bit:

• November 1, 2021 (just over 6 weeks into the edit restriction)
• November 7, 2021
• December 22, 2021
• January 20, 2022 (this seems the least controversial, but it is still a page move
• January 25, 2022
• January 25, 2022 (different article)
• January 27, 2022

The fact that one of these moves was was only approximately 6 weeks after the imposition of the edit restriction, and the second block was for a related disruption after the imposition of the restriction, makes it very difficult to accept assume good faith here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: That first move, was not even a page move, it was a mere redirect move. I think that it is totally safe to move it as in the end, the function that it serves is identical. It's just creating a new page but moving one, and changing the target of another. I don't know what that second one really is as it is more of a glitch than anything else as in the description, neither the original page, nor the target page match up with the title and I recall doing that move on the correct page, that move was done because of a consensus to revert a bold move I had conducted: [91]. and the third one was a very small modification to the year hyphen for consistency with other articles. The fourth one was to fix the red link at the talk page of it. I have no clue, why the diffs don't show it but it was a red-link and I relocated the page for better readability. The fifth, sixth and seventh ones, are the only ones I really consider bold. The first four were limited in how they were modified. Username006 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Acroterion: I have stopped that nuisance trend of mine more-or-less since the second ban and I'm starting to interact more civil towards everyone. It's no longer continuing. I myself am trying to keep cool as much as possible. But that comment of mine in May, still proves that Andrew is not communicating on the talk page with me and that's how WP:BRDs are supposed to be dealt with while Andrew just seems to be doing the R correctly.Username006 (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The moves, and the blaming of others for your conduct continue, as evidenced throughout this thread in your responses.Acroterion (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

You are banned from moving pages. That applies to all page moves. There is no exception for moving redirects, no exception for changing hyphens, no exception for moving articles to fix redlinks and no exception for "BOLD" moves. Do you understand this? So far everything you've said here indicates that you don't. You are not going to get out of this by trying to change the conversation to be about someone else. To me this is looking more and more like you don't understand why your edits were wrong and you don't intend to change your behaviour, in which case the only solution left is to ban you from Wikipedia entirely. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Holy heck. This guy not only violated his tban, he did so many times over. And in damn near every post he's made to this thread, he keeps pushing the "Yeah, yeah, I violated my ban, I get it, but what about Andrew????? "Oops, I forgot about my ban" is a threadbare defense. This really looks like a WP:IDHT instance, and in someone who has a tban mixed in with multiple blocks, multiple trips to ANI and barely a thousand articlespace edits, what contributions has he made worth the disruption? I see no reason not to support any sanctions anyone might propose. Ravenswing 04:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am getting whiplash trying to follow this discussion. We have respected editors saying the consequences for these pages moves are that this should be a final warning to other editors advocating for long blocks and everything in between. Can we lower the temperature here and come to a reasonable consensus? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I was not going to comment further on this issue, I have a feeling I am too close. But I thought I should mention that following a hunch while looking at the page moves around TAM Transportes Aéreos Regionais Flight 402 the user User_talk:使用者名前0006 that had edited the page User:Username006 subsequently did a "technical" move on translates in Google to "Username first 0006". I'm not pretending to understand this and there are I know more that one reason that could explain this but it does seem possible that this is yet another additional account of User:Username006 and if so it involved the two{!) users talking to themselves. Also I am unsure of the value or correctness of any of these moves as Username006 says that it was inconsistent within the article but I at the moment have no idea which conflicting fact is correct - certainly at least one of the references give non current name. Such slapdash changing article names based on the slightest evidence is what I remember lead to the move sanction last year. Andrewgprout (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Checkuser needed Could someone with the technical tools confirm if 使用者名前0006 is Username006 socking to get around their ban on moving pages? The overlap in topic area, username similarities, and article space overlaps rise to the level where I would file a SPI. If you need another example Here [92] Username006 requests that a page be moved, and the community universally disagrees. [93] Here 使用者名前0006 shows up to move the page to the title username 006 wanted, ignoring the discussion on the talk page. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Unrelated from a technical point of view. But. I'd appreciate a second checkuser reviewing, because the timelines strongly indicate sockpuppetry (happy to elaborate a little further, privately, to another checkuser) and the username itself seems to translate into "Username" or "Before Username". --Yamla (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've found evidence of socking, and will file a SPI. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Username006 Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreamy Jazz! I thought there was more to it than I was seeing. I appreciate your eyes on this. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Mralrayz999

• Mralrayz999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bullshit propaganda sources are taken into account. 300k? I fuck your mom 300 times what a bullshit. I will fuck your pro persian propaganda in english wikipedia you miserable loser iranians and fricking bullshit! whoever is in charge in here? some butthurt greeks? if you are gonna define history of the Oghuz turks of ottoman dynasty with some unreliable propaganda sources i will raid every single page of wikipedia fricking low IQ editors and your CEO wonder why Turkey bans Wikipedia, with such editors, who needs more bullshit. FDW777 (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Charming. Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Probably ought to be revdel'd as well. Ravenswing 13:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I've revision deleted the most egregious edit summaries as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

False accusations

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

---

Pri2000 is accusing and threatening me because I filed Sockpuppet investigation on her. She is personally attacking me [94], [95]. Princepratap1234 (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

For desktop users: [96], [97] Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 13:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• I've solid reason to file sockpuppetry against hi. He used to harass me through different IPs. And falsely booked me under Sockpuppetry just because an unknown new user commented somewhat similar to me on Paras Kalnawat's deletion discussion page. I created that user's talk page because I often creates talk pages of new editors. You can see my whole editing history from my day 1 that is 24 June 2021 to till now. Even I warned some users who exactly copied text from my user page. I'm totally against sockpuppetry. But you can see the whole similarities in the behaviour pattern of the accused in the link to sockpuppetry investigation below. How he harrassed me exactly in the same manner by his original account also and IPs also that it lead my talk page to be semi-protected for 2 times. [98]. Administrators can see whole prooves there which I provided through my talk page editing history. Administrators are free to scroll my whole editing history. I doesn't know who that Gari is. Pri2000 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

She just keep harrasing me because i don't let her do fan activities on Wikipedia.Princepratap1234 (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's him who keeps harassing me since last 2 months. Sometimes by own account sometimes by IPs. Administrators should look that it was me who filed case against Krishika Sahni the fangirl. If I've been a fangirl then I would have done many unconstructive edits. I removed unnotable roles from the actor's wikipedia. And Administrators should also look at my talk page editing history and the case of accused. I provided complete proofs against him. Which are completely exactly same. From the way of starting a conversation to the language used. Everything is exact copy of each other. I doesn't who that user is. Who commented in a similar way. What I just know is I created talk pages of several new editors. So did I today for no reason. I had no idea that it can file sockpuppetry case against me. But Administrators please kindly look at my evidences also at his booked case.Pri2000 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the extent of the situation, but the two diffs provided do not look like attacks. BeŻet (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Repetitive unsubstantiated CoI edits to Open Garden article by an SPA

Hi. There's a company, called Open Garden. There's someone named Taylor Ongaro, who was probably one of a group of people who founded the company. There's a WP:SPA, "Taylorongaro," who keeps editing the page to add references to Taylor Ongaro as a founder of the company. It's probably true, but, well, just take a look at the edits. This one is typical:

"All Co-Founders (Micha, Taylor, Stas, Greg) are no longer with the Company, while Taylor Ongaro still owns Founding Shares at the time of this writing in January, 2022 while everyone one else has cashed out."

That was in the mainspace article, not a talk page. No sources, conversational style. And Taylorongaro just now finally responded, kind of, to one of the people who was trying to help on the talk page:

"I'll talk with Verizon Ventures and OpenGarden CEO and get you guys to leave me alone and leave history as it truly is. Are you a kid at this point?"

I have no reason to think that Taylorongaro is editing in bad faith, and the edits may well be true, but they're not helping, and Taylorongaro isn't engaging with people who are trying to help get their edits done in a constructive way. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I did substantial edits to the article recently, trimming down unsourced claims and things that don't seem to be relevant to the business the company now seems to be in. I looked through the Internet Archive and it seems like the company has pivoted substantially a couple of times, and nearly all the text in the article was dedicated to stuff that happened in one era, with little to no attention to either earlier work or recent work. That may well be appropriate, I don't know, I have no attachment to any of the edits, and would be perfectly happy to see them reverted if someone has a reason and a citation to support it. Also, I realize that I made the assumption that Taylor Ongoro was a "guy," which I actually don't have any reason to think. So, my apologies if I've mis-gendered. I'll edit the above into gender-neutral form. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is just my POV but the editor hasn't edited since being given the recent COI warnings. I'm not optimistic about their future as a productive Wikipedia editor but I'd like to see how they behave should they return. I think the next step, if they continue to be disruptive, is to receive a partial block from the article page so they can still make use of the talk page to make any suggestions or if they have access to any useful sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes to long-established end matter organization

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

---

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is on one of his OCD kicks again, changing the long-standing organization of the end matter in multiple articles. It is my understanding that what the regular editors of the article have accepted as consensus should not be arbitrarily changed. BYK seems to be overly concerned with the length of the TOC, adding faux headings at the expense of removing edit links from the headings in the references section, which I use regularly. His changes are not welcome at Asheville, North Carolina, and my understanding is that going on a campaign to make multiple articles conform to one's own style preferences is discouraged. Once he targets an article, he keeps coming back and reverting regular editors of the article who restore the longstanding version. I suggest he take a wikibreak. Skyerise (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• This won't go well.

• ..."is on one of his OCD kicks" again? That's nice.
• ..."he keeps coming back and reverting regular editors of the article who restore the longstanding version." Since BMK first edited the article on 18 January, the only person to have edited it (apart from one IP), is Skyerise, and BMK has "come back" after his first edits ... precisely once.
• ..."His changes are not welcome at Asheville, North Carolina" = "I don't like his changes".

• This is a content dispute. Why is it here? Black Kite (talk) 05:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a long-standing behavior problem on the part of this editor which has been going on for years. He's like a dog with a bone - I haven't seen him do this for some years, or he has stayed away from me. I intend to nip this behavior restarting in the bud. This isn't about "content" - it's about forcing one's preferred referencing style onto articles and falls under WP:CITEVAR aka WP:WHENINROME. I don't have any problem with his actual content changes to the text of the article, only with his style changes that he applies to every article he touches, not just the end matter, but oversizing images and other unnecessary style changes. He's got no consensus for these changes, doesn't even ask on the talk page. Just comes in and takes ownership. It is unwanted and undesirable. In the past he has edit warred over it, and it looks like he intends to again "These sections do not need to be hierarchical, they merely take up space in the TOC. Please do not alter again". That's not up to him, he doesn't get to lay down the law... Skyerise (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And nor do you. Which is why it's a content dispute. Meanwhile, "I intend to nip this behavior restarting in the bud" is spectacularly unhelpful. And unless I am missing something, WP:CITEVAR deals with the format of citations themselves, not the organisation of references. Black Kite (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The organization of the end matter is also protected from arbitrary changes, there are multiple styles and ways of doing it as described in MOS:NOTES. Where there is more than one way to do things, the status quo should be maintained unless one first gets consensus on the talk page. He was reverted, and he didn't then take it to the talk page per WP:BRD. WP:CITE states "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." (emphasis added). The attached note is broader, and says "The arbitration committee ruled in 2006: 'Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.'" I think that's pretty clear. Skyerise (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, organisation of content is not a stylistic change. But anyway, if you can list the "multiple articles" where BMK has recently "(kept) coming back and reverting regular editors of the article who restore the longstanding version" it'd be a lot easier for others to assess. Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Organization of end matter is indeed included within style, rather than content. I accidentally linked WP:NOTES instead of MOS:NOTES. Things covered by the Manual of Style are style issues, not content issues. It clearly states that there are multiple options for both heading titles and heading organization or nesting. These are therefore unmandated variations or options for styling the end matter and are thus covered by the arbitration ruling. Skyerise (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Skyerise wrote on my talk page "The organization of the end matter is up to the regular editors of the article." [99] That appears to mean that Skyerise believes that these so-called "regular editors" -- in whatever way that is defined -- WP:OWN those articles, and can therefore control the formatting of content. As a result of this misapprehension, Skyerise has gone on a little tirade, reverting my edits, including on one article (Irvington, New York) which I wrote almost in its entirety (but which I still do not WP:OWN, contrary to Skyerise's apparent belief.
  Skyerise fails to cite a policy which gives ownership of this sort to such editors, or even one that defines what "regular editors" of an article are. It was my impression that Wikipedia was open for all to edit, and if there was a dispute between editors, these was settled by discussion on the article talk page, not by running to AN/I to tattle - but perhaps I'm wrong about that?
  If Skyerise feels strongly about this trivial issue, I'll be glad to discuss it on the relevant article talk pages, but I don't believe that this is the appropriate venue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, also, I would request that Skyerise be formally warned by an administrator for referring my as suffering from "OCD". Such a diagnosis at a distance from a layperson of a mental disorder is a clear-cut violation of WP:NPA . Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I guess you missed the Arbitration ruling on the matter. Sorry for being WP:POINTY, but you have every right to revert to the long-standing style in "your" article, and editors of other articles have every right to revert style changes to the end matter in articles they are watching back to the long-standing style in that article. If you force it again rather than take it to the talk page, you're in the wrong. Skyerise (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Further MOS:NOTES specifically states (in a footnote): "One reason this guideline does not standardize section headings for citations and explanatory notes is that Wikipedia draws editors from many disciplines (history, English, science, etc.), each with its own note and reference section-naming convention (or conventions). For more, see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals § Changes to standard appendices, § Establish a house citation style, and Template:Cnote2/example." It also says "If there are both citation footnotes and explanatory footnotes, then they may be combined in a single section, or separated using the grouped footnotes function. General references and other full citations may similarly be either combined or separated (e.g. "References" and "General references"). There may therefore be one, two, three or four sections in all." and "Heading names: Editors may use any reasonable section and subsection names that they choose.[h] The most frequent choice is "References"; other articles use "Notes", "Footnotes", or "Works cited" (in diminishing order of popularity) for this material, though these are more often used to distinguish between multiple end-matter sections or subsections." None of these things should be changed to match your personal preferences, once they are well established in an article. The status quo is presumed to be the WP:CONSENSUS. Skyerise (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• You seemed to have missed the notice at the top of every page of the Manual of Style, that makes it abundantly clear that MOS is not mandatory. When a guideline is made mandatory, it becomes a de facto policy, but policies have to be approved by the community, and the community has never made MOS a policy. So this remains a content dispute, which is not adjudicated at AN/I, but on article talk pages, where all editors are equal, and so-called "regular editors" do not hold a veto. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yup, say that if you like - I always like a good weaseling - but observing an arbitration ruling is not optional. The ruling's intent is very clear: you must gain consensus to make those kinds of changes, preferably in advance. If you're reverted, there is no consensus and the status quo remains. You need two more editors to agree with you on the talk page, or no new consensus is established. So post on the talk page, go to 3O, or whatever you need to get that consensus. Because WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Skyerise (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

At first glance, I was ready to respond with my usual "this is a content dispute, and administrators do not adjudicate content disputes" remark, but then looked closer and saw that this not rise to the level of a content dispute but rather a dispute about stylistic presentation, which is utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things. Skyerise has shown themself prone to hollering things like no; you have your own idiosyncracies and WE DON"T WANT THEM in their edit summaries and accusing BMK of having Obsessive–compulsive disorder right here at ANI, which is shockingly inappropriate. I have no idea why this report is at ANI, consider it a complete waste of time of administrators who feel obligated to investigate it, and encourage the OP to back off of their aggressive article ownership

with edit summaries like I know you also know that you are not supposed to change the way the editors of the article have chosen to present the notes and citations. Very poor behavior from Skyerise, as I see the matter. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but, have you seen Irvington, New York? I mean the style issues in the article. At least in Asheville, North Carolina, we know how to use a style guide and why. Skyerise (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen328. And given the OCD PA, the failure to actually provide evidence of a behavioural issue (which was asked for over an hour ago, but ignored), and the WP:POINT edits to Irvington, New York, I'd agree that Skyerise really needs to back off here and go and do something else. Black Kite (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ciao bella! My work here is done. Skyerise (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Black Kite (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I wanted to use this space to say thank you to BMK, for giving us a different perspective on how to use the references section. Because of this discussion, I may request BMKification of an article in the future or follow in his footsteps, as his changes would be a welcome addition to articles where the TOC has grown too unwieldy. Viriditas (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for a temporary ban

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

---

Hello, I wish you ban this user Kadıköylü because he made a clear attack on the Admin User:Charles Matthews with a lot of experience and accused me and him And asks to lock the Admin's account! Please take that into consideration please see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%A1#c-Kad%C4%B1k%C3%B6yl%C3%BC-2022-01-29T09%3A53%3A00.000Z-Ali_Al_Suleiman%27s_new_sockpuppet --Dw Journalist (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

A CU or DUCK block is warranted for the OP. Pahunkat (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Charles Matthews' interactions with علي أبو عمر

Added a descriptive sub-section heading. Feel free to change to something better. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Blocked and edit-conflicted with Girth Summit's close, but I think this might warrant some additional discussion. @Charles Matthews: I am confused (and frankly concerned) about what exactly is going on here [100][101]. Did you create Kinda El-Khatib because of personal communications with علي أبو عمر? I'll also ping @Ohnoitsjamie, Tamzin, Styyx, علاء, and Jimfbleak: who participated in those discussions. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously Girth Summit has done the right thing with this long-standing and devious pest, and I think that the discussion with Charles Matthews was helpful. I'm not clear what the link to Kinda_El-Khatib is? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The sockmaster has been trying to get an article about El-Khatib published here for some time (see Kinda El Khatib for one example, I believe there have been others at slightly different titles). Charles Matthews, who acknowledges being in off-wiki contact with the sockmaster, and has now created an article about the subject at Kinda El-Khatib; I see that he has also edited Atak Domain, very shortly after one of the many recent socks created it, so I am assuming that he is aware that it was a creation of theirs. There may be some good reasons behind all this, but from an outsider's perspective it does look a bit like colluding with a globally banned, block-evading LTA to produce and improve content that they want to see published here - it might be a good thing if CM was willing to explain what is going on. By the way, Blablubbs, I don't think CM has been notified about this thread on his talk? Girth Summit _(blether) 14:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: I didn't notify because I didn't consider it a "report" or a request for sanctions, but you're right, I should have. Thanks for notifying them. :) --Blablubbs (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah - I think that, when a thread about Alice's editing changes tack and starts scrutinising Bob's, it's implicit that Bob needs to be informed properly. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Just trying to explain why it slipped my mind. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, I hope that you will address these matters, in this forum. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned on my User talk, I have been in contact with the sockmaster Ali, and I briefed ArbCom about my discussions (in terms of scope). This is diplomacy, when admin sanctions have not proved that successful.

In any case I created an article Kinda El-Khatib (which is my own text, apart from help with {{lang-ar}}). An AfD was started here (prompted by activities on trWP which I deprecate). A new account here intervened, in a way that was wholly counter-productive.

I hope, at least, the AfD can proceed on its merits. There is a long-standing wrangle here on four wikis. I am looking for a constructive approach, and some sort of confidence-building.

There is a channel of communication open, but the attack on Kadıköylü is transparently useless except as a way of aggravating the situation. A few days ago I was walking Ali through "when in a hole stop digging". I'm not usually lost for words, but in this case I may have to make an exception. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I just ask you to be explicit - when you edited those new articles, including a draft you moved into article space through page protection, did you do so in the knowledge that they had been created by a banned user? I'm trying to get a handle on what you knew, and when. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to hear the answer to GS' question, but three quick thoughts: 1) I'd encourage everyone to take a look at my previous, rather frustrating exchange with Charles on this topic. In that incident, my concern was much more with Charles' decision to go against AfD consensus than it was with him overlooking the socking. While every admin should be in the habit of checking why a page was salted before they move over salting, the reality is that some admins don't do much anti-abuse work, and I respect that. It's good to have admins who aren't cynics about new users. But every admin should understand that when an article was deleted 6 months ago at AfD, you can't move a substantially identical draft to mainspace without a clear reason to think consensus has changed. 2) Regarding the assertion that the El-Khatib article is entirely Charles' own text apart from a template thing, the first sentence or two of § Life appear to have been an unattributed translation of content from tr:Kullanıcı:Super Vikipedi 90/deneme tahtası, created by an Ali sock. As that's now been deleted, Alaa, can you confirm? (Not sure if you speak any Turkish, and I definitely don't, but I'm just comparing to Google Translate, which Charles' content looks to be a touched-up version of.) And 3) While I do think there's a place for trying to talk sense into an LTA, and I've done it once or twice, I don't think the process for that should ever include creating content that an LTA has requested. It walks the tightrope of PROXYING, and more generally is just not something one should do, and eventually can cross over into meatpuppetry. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vikipolimer deleted Ali's draft. Polimer could you inform us? Kadıköylü (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done I just returned the page on tr:wiki for a while. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I insert the screenshot here. You can delete it @Vikipolimer. Thanks! Kadıköylü (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot from TrWiki, @Tamzin. Kadıköylü (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The lead is similar, but enwiki is more organized, includes an extra sentence and doesn't have refbombing. The first three sentences of the "Life" section is a direct translation, as well as the the paragraph which starts with "El-Khatib is known as a social media commentator..." ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, darn, was going to give this analysis, but got sidelined by a phonecall. Since I took the time to transcribe this before the call—btw, @Kadıköylü, I recommed https://archive.org over screenshotting for this sort of thing—here is a Google Translate of the "Life" section's first three sentences. The only differences from what Charles wrote are some copy-edits and the addition of the first two clauses of the second sentence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 23:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: There's a missing point here, that this long term abuser is not limited to English Wikipedia (Please see the introduction on this page), so even if you talked with this LTA, or any other thing, please remember that this is a global case, and any new account(s) will be locked globally even if it is used properly. This will remain so, until the matter is resolved through RFC (for example). Hope the "diplomacy" can help here, but I've a lot of screenshots from several trusted users "in addition to WMF employee(s)" those who tried in the same way as you, and the LTA exploited them to create certain articles, and ended up insulting them from this LTA because they refusing to help him in a specific articles --Alaa :)..! 19:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

+ Hope he didn't tell you the emotional story that "I've a personal issue" with him, as I don't know him in real, and I didn't deal with him before. But I received a lot of insulting wiki-emails from him since I locked his main account before few years until those days. --Alaa :)..! 20:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Block

Please block It's me kuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for their disruptive editing at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University and making so called joke edits to the article since 2020. Cheers --Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 14:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively PBLOCK kuru from the page. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• They're playing games at the article, I see. I have p-blocked them for two weeks from editing it. Bishonen | tålk 16:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC).

82.132.213.165 by Alexander Davronov

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

---

82.132.213.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - NOTICE

Alexander Davronov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summary

Another sock of WP:BKFIP gone crazy at Code reuse. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Related reports at ANI/EW

WP:EW#82.132.213.165 by Pyrite Pro

Previous reports at ANI

WP:ANI#Incidents#51.6.138.13_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#Hohaaa_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#User:51.6.138.90_reported_by_Alexander_Davronov

WP:ANI#Vfnn by Alexander Davronov

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Harrasment - asked to stop

I have been harassed by user User talk:Sportsfan 1234 on my talk page. I asked him to not post messages on my talking page anymore but he still doing it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheGreenGiant23&diff=1068654529&oldid=1068653533). He bullies, constantly reverts edits of many experienced users and accuses others of all sorts of things. He has already been blocked at least once (from my knowledge) for this behavior. I just want him to leave me alone and stop posting on my talk page. Thks for you help. Regards, TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234, anyone can request that a particular editor does not post to their talk page, and that request should be honoured apart from required messages, which yours was not. User:TheGreenGiant23, those required messages include notification that an editor is being discussed here. I have issued the required message for you. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

My last message to the user before they wrote on my talk page was an automated message from TW. I had no idea users can be prevented from writing on other's talk pages. This user has created multiple articles of BLP without sourcing correctly and I have been trying to convey this message to them. I will stop writing on their talk page but someone needs to investigate this user and their articles created for WP:BLP violations, since I cannot comment on their talk page anymore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, yes, a corollary of not being able to post on a user talk page is that if there is a concern it has to be posted somewhere more public. I think that a lot of people come to regret this application of the law of unintended consequences. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

TheGreenGiant23, the concerns expressed by Sportsfan 1234 about three BLPs that you created were entirely legitimate. Do you understand that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is an extremely important policy and that you must ensure that any BLP draft you write is policy compliant before you move it to main space? Cullen328 (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

TheGreenGiant23 needs to learn somehow that adding unsourced claims to BLPs (examples reverted here and here) is not permitted. If they simply revert helpful guidance (which is definitely not harrassment) on their talk page and keep up the same behavior, they will end up blocked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling on List of management of The Walt Disney Company

• Cytkory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of management of The Walt Disney Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've overhauled the article and attempted to explain every single of my changes, Cytkory reverted them without providing an edit summary once. I opened a discussion on the talk page and asked them to explain their rationale. Cytkory did not elaborate on their reverts but elucidated the page's purpose as they perceived it. I then re-explained, in depth, my changes and why I believe that this page is in dire need of a major overhaul (including that most of its content is entirely devoid of sources). After a period of more than three days, Cytkory did not respond (despite ping and user activity) or raise any further objections, so I went ahead and restored my changes. Cytkory reverted again and explained this time "If you don't like it, submit a request for it to be deleted". I replied and asked that we talk this out. After four days, Cytkory chose not respond (despite ping and user activity; again). I reminded them that content disputes are settled through WP:Consensus and that WP:Communication is required on their talk but this didn't prompt them to have second thoughts either. Unfortunately this is just blatant WP:STONEWALLING and WP:OWNERSHIP at this point.

Note that Cytkory has previously been warned a dozen times and was ultimately blocked from this page for the very same reasons. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I see where on the talk page they have at least given you a reason. You two are so far apart on your positions, I don't know if compromising will be easy. Thank you for pointing out the previous behavioral issues that led to their page block (unfortunately the blocking admin hasn't edited since October), but I'm wondering if the content dispute can't be taken to WP:3O before any further disciplinary action is considered? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry if I assumed ownership of the page. I elaborated on our discussions that this page was originally intended for a more detailed look at the leadership of the Walt Disney Company. The way it was updated by Colonestarrice was very similar to way it looks on The Walt Disney Company#Executive management. That is my position on the issue. Cytkory (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Your stance is fine and comprehensible, and I already told you that. The issue is your unwillingness (or inability) to argue beyond the points you have already made. Refusal to respond and comments limited to "If you don't like it, submit a request for it to be deleted" and "it stays the way it was because of The Walt Disney Company page has this page linked described as a MORE COMPREHENSIVE list" are the very things that constitute stonewalling.

Furthermore, we aren't talking about some cosmetic preferences or minor wording differences here; the bulk of the page – as it currently stands – is in direct contravention of core policies such as WP:Verifiability. You have been reprimanded seemingly countless of times on your talk page in the past and you have been an editor for almost ten years, hence you had more than enough time to think about your conduct and approach on Wikipedia. Nevertheless you chose to stonewall here (once again) instead of engaging in a productive discussion, so I'm very sorry, but I'm not buying your apology. Colonestarrice (talk) 23:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral comment Why do we even have this article on Wikipedia? It has four sources in total, there are no other 'list of management of (company)' articles on en.wiki, and is a complete violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY which should be removed because we're not an official webhost of the Walt Disney Company, as the external links just lead us to several Disney 'about us' pages. The only sections which should be here are the chairman, president, board of directors and CEO sections within the body of the main Disney article. I don't often invoke WP:LAME here, but going by another certain Disney movie, this article needs to be taken out back...to run free in a farm up north with other overstuffed media ownership articles with minute interest. There are other articles here that could use attention rather than wars about how a list of forever redlinkers should look.Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If one puts it like this, I completely agree, and wouldn't oppose if someone were to just put the page up for deletion straight away. However, I still believe Cytkory ought to be sanctioned in some sort of way here; as they still refuse to reflect on and reevaluate their behaviour even after this ludicrous amount of warnings spanning almost ten years. Colonestarrice (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING on the Brahma Chellaney article

There appears to be stonewalling (wp:stonewalling) by User:TrangaBellam in relation to a set of changes I’ve been trying to make to the article in question. Details of the issue (and his stonewalling) can be found here Talk:Brahma Chellaney#Advertisement - in essence it has consisted of the user reverting my edits, me asking the user to justify his edits, the user ignoring my requests for a response and when I carry out my changes (in line with wp:silent) the user reverts my edits on dubious grounds. What is strange is that the user has been co-operative in resolving other but very similar changes that I have proposed but is for some reason adamant in opposing the set of changes in question. Any input or oversight especially from experienced editors would be greatly welcomed especially in light of the inordinate amount off time this dispute has dragged on for Estnot (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Estnot, the editor in question has repeatedly made their opposition to your proposed changes quite clear. WP:SILENT does not apply - the editor's opposition is well documented. That editor is not obligated to reiterate their opposition every time you ping them on the same matter. This is a content dispute and this noticeboard does not adjudicate content disputes. I suggest that you try another form of dispute resolution such as a Request for comment to draw new editors into the discussion. You need to build consensus and you do not have it yet. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue is not that the editor opposes my edits, the issue is how the editor has opposed my edits. He may not have any obligation to reiterate his opposition but he does have an obligation to explain it which the corresponding discussion indicates he has not and which is also necessary for him (or anyone else) to defeat my stonewalling objection (Saying “I personally oppose [content x] as the editor did [102] is not an explanation) This isn’t simply a content issue as it is one of conduct as well and it is why I have brought this dispute to this noticeboardEstnot (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Estnot, are we reading the same conversation? I see TrangaBellam making seven different posts in that discussion, which are not repetitive and which are thoughtful, and it some cases, quite analytical and detailed. That's not stonewalling unless you define stonewalling as "the position of someone who disagrees with me". I see zero behavioral issues here, except for you escalating a content dispute to ANI. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Steven Crowder experiment

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

---

Youtuber Steven Crowder has conducted a test on Wikipedia using at least 3 accounts: Kkeeran, SDFausta, LandausBatteringRam

The accounts can be seen on: "EXPOSED: Wikipedia’s Bias Tested and PROVEN! | Louder with Crowder" on the "StevenCrowder" YouTube channel (at 2:08) It's likely that the video may attract unconstructive edits to pages featured on the video.

Kkeeran has tried to make changed to the Steven Crowder talk page, without providing notice of a COI. Based on a review on pages edited, the other ones don't seem like they would violate COI and it doesn't look like all the edits are bad (as a couple that I picked to look at looked benign), but it may still violate policies on not being here to build an encylopedia but rather to expose/test Wikipedia editor biases. They don't try to be meatpuppets as they edit different pages.

Swil999 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Swil999, this matter is already being discussed about 15 sections above. Check out the Table of Contents for this page. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Fryboy Editor repeatedly violating copyright

User:Fryboy Editor just purely copied in text to Pet Supplies Plus, which I have tagged for revdel and reverted. Looking at their talk page, they have gotten multiple copyright warnings (and other disruptive editing warnings) – one on January 13 (marked Final Warning), one on January 2nd, and one on December 29, as well as multiple G12 (copyright infringement) speedy deletion requests, and some file problems as well. I think this is grounds for a block, and I was directed to here off-wiki. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Fryboy Editor I just wanted to make the page better and have a good and lengthy history.