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

NPA and CIVIL issues with user Adamant1

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

---

I stumbled on a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Combermere School, which appears to be part of a pattern of what a teacher would call "challenging behavior" by an Articles for Deletion-specialized editor. A strong example would be [1] which contains groundless accusations but the history of the AFD contains many more. The history is complicated by a pattern of the editor repeatedly editing their own comments. Having spoken to a past pupil of this ancient school on Barbados to check its background, I made a submission to the debate and I fear I will be next for what look clearly like personal attacks, rather than a debate about the issue, which is the notability of the school after 326 years, hardly a casus belli. I would normally just stay away from Wikipedia for a few days and ignore any excessive response but I realized that this way of not handling the problem is holding me back from editing and enabling the potential for abusive behavior. So instead I call it out in the hope that a senior editor or administrator can provide counselling or guidance. Perhaps this editor, Adamant1, should work in a less stressful area than AFD, or be allowed nominate but not "debate". I hope that I'm doing this correctly, and thank you for any community help that can be provided. 91.193.178.64 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have sadly seen the same pattern at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantine 1 University. Not only an AfD which should not have been started (a mistake I have made quite a few times myself), but then stonewalling, attacks, frankly ridiculous dismissals of sources for the most spurious reasons, and a general unwillingness to look at the issue with an open mind and to change their opinion when it is shown to be wrong. There is no shame in having to withdraw an AfD because you missed sources, did a poor WP:BEFORE, or any other reason; but there is a problem if no reasonable discussion can be had and nominators (or others) can't admit fault and can't accept good sources provided by those wanting to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To take the AfD at hand, once someone produced this book, the AfD should have been withdrawn. Instead, Adamant started claiming that the book "Combermere School and the Barbadian Society" was only 1% about the school and basically dismissed the source and frustrated the others in the AfD massively. Fram (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not familiar with Adamant1, but the book in question has some limitations on its scope and sourcing. Per its self-description: "Although scarcity of adequate documentation results in an uneven treatment of different periods". We could use it to expand the article, but apparently the school's history has not been fully recorded. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Fram, thank you, and Dimadick, I think we can go a bit further on that book--it's published by two academics, it's published by a university press...that the authors acknowledge not all the records were found does not mean that the information in it is not somehow acceptable. If we were to discredit the U of West Indies P because--well, because why? I'll not pursue that train of thought. And while Uncle G got to pontificating here before I could, I'll say that that is exactly the kind of book we need on Wikipedia to cover underappreciated areas. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I do agree that Adamant1 does occasionally go a bit too far, and possibly needs a reminder that civility is important and a warning against making personal attacks. Some attacks I have noticed and have been "eybrow-raising" but I ignored it due to their being directed at paid sock, and I don't have much sympathy for those. However, if similar is being directed at good-faith contributors though, that isn't good enough, and I am somewhat disappointed if that is occurring. However, I do think that there is a good chance that these problematic behaviours could be sorted out. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Perhaps being exposed to too many paid socks and the such is resulting in conduct radicalization and thus increasingly worrying incivility, if what you say is true Mako001. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Paid editors don't wave around sources like these. They generally enjoy sourcing articles to press releases and puffery, and live in the main in the bands, businesses, and biographies area of Wikipedia. After all, it's the bands, businesses, and biographic subjects that want the coverage and will pay. ☺ A school that's in a Barbados National Trust pamphlet doesn't need to. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • What I was referring to, Uncle G, is the tendency for highly active AfD editors that commonly encounter socks to start dismissing IPs, new editors, etc. because they start thinking anyone that disagrees with their view must be some kind of bad faith actor. A strong inclination towards deletionism makes you think you're a hammer surrounded by rusty nails. That refers to the conduct issue. In terms of AfD competence, that's a different thing, and the Constantine 1 University AfD indicates Adamant shouldn't be nominating if they're unable to know when they don't know enough about a subject to determine notability. On the other hand, they have a pretty accurate voting record, so I'm not sure if the competence hypothesis holds water. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
            • "Deletionism" isn't actually a genuine philosophy, note, and people have been dismissing accounts without user pages and editors without accounts for decades, and not on the grounds that they disagree with them, but on the grounds that those things alone are wrong. Novice editors around here may enjoy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Uncle G from 2005. ☺ In any case, SeoR (talk · contribs), whom much of the specious argument has been aimed at, is neither an account without a user page nor an editor without an account. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
          • @Uncle G: I was referring to another AfD which had a paid sock getting blown up, though I don't recall where I saw it, as it was a few weeks ago at least. I will say that Adamant and Fram's "chat" on Constantine 1 saw suboptimal behaviour on both sides, though I am in no position to judge who was "more wrong". @A. C. Santacruz: I'd rather avoid speculating on the causes of their behaviour. One thing is for sure though, they don't tend to mince their words, and that can come across as rude, if it does, another editor may react in kind, and subquently the whole thing spirals into the pit of indents. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

            It seems I misunderstood your characterization of them, Mako001, my bad. I thought you were describing them as having often and repeated interactions with paid socks as a majority of their editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • That's its annotation in the Handbook of Latin American Studies. Its self-description is the blurb on its back cover, which is wholly different. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Carla Yules, Miss Indonesia 2020.jpg

Miss representation

• • I'm rather enjoying finding chapter 4 of ISBN 9789766400460 entitled "The Role of Combermere School". It devotes 40 pages just to people at that school who played cricket, at the school and later. Please don't tell the cricket notability people. ☺

    As for the claims in that AFD discussion, they are patently ridiculous. Even I can see bits of that book, and I have in many past AFD discussions found that my access to things is less than many other people's. Strewth! — We know the house names of the school in 1946 and a detailed background of the new headmaster. It's not wanting for in-depth coverage, and how one can honestly think that only 1% of the book is about the school, even if all that one saw were its table of contents, escapes me. It seems that much of what Adamant1 writes applies to Adamant1: "Seriously dude, why not just admit you made a claim about the book that wasn't true or that least that you had zero knowledge of instead of back peddling and continuing to obfuscate about it?"

    And for goodness' sake it is "mis-represented" not "miss-represented"!

    Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    • You're having trouble finding this book? fiveby(zero) 15:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
      • I said "Even I can see bits of", not "find". ISBN 9789766400149 enables one to find it, and that's already in the article. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• This isn't the first time Adamant1's editing around articles concerning schools has been discussed here: see here and here for previous examples. I can't understand why someone would go on the offensive so quickly about a subject like that. Their last block was for two weeks, but here we are again. I see they've edited this page since being notified about this discussion, but have not thought it necessary to contribute here; I'd really like to hear from them about whether they recogise that their conduct in that discussion has been problematic, and whether they think they would be able to rein it in. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Please look at this edit.Jacona (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• To be honest, I'm with @Fram on the point about the book. I don't participate in many AN/I discussions these days but I happened across this AfD, as I read them a lot, and followed it here to this discussion and I've read the entire thing for the past hour or so. I do believe there was misrepresentation, whether in good faith or not doesn't matter. Once the book was brought forward the discussion should have been dropped. It just seems to me that winning the argument has become too much a priority and it has lead to some very pointed situations for @Adamant1 and that is most unfortunate and completely avoidable. If you all want to review the behavior of others surrounding this discussion that is your choice and I won't say it isn't relevant because it is but the fact is this AfD nomination became a disruption because of the actions of @Adamant1. They say they wanted others to comment but when each commented they began trying to unravel their comments and find fault with them. We've all been there and I'm sure many of us have done the same thing. That doesn't make it the right response. If the subject was so clearly non-notable after a BEFORE search as @Adamant1 seems to believe it is then I think whomever the experienced closer is that would have the task of going through each !vote has the ability to decipher that and side with the nomination. You only need to argue so hard if a) it isn't as concrete as is suggested or b) it's more about the win than the discussion. My observation is it's probably a combination of the two. I believe @Adamant1 nominates in good faith but the discussions and interactions with those that oppose their points of view are where it goes off path. If you want others to comment then let them comment. Everyone involved knows where you stand as the nominator. This doesn't apply in cases where @Adamant1 is directly addressed. --ARoseWolf 13:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  And while I can see a passionate defense of an article an editor wants retained, why get so heated about an article that you (Adamant1) want deleted? There's always future opportunities to nominate the article again, and, gosh, there are so many articles deserving deletion that one should just move on and find another article to nominate for deletion instead of wasting your time on one particular article. You can't fix Wikipedia in a day. Accept your losses and move on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I'm busy with other stuff right now so I don't have time to read through this discussion or much to say about it. Except for a few points,

1. 1. The IP address that opened this said I made accusations in my comment that they linked to. I'm not sure what accusation they are talking about. There is a The St. Michael School in the town as the school that the AfD is about and it's it reasonable to me that's what the article was talking about. Otherwise, I don't see why the author of the article wouldn't have just said Combermere School. For some reason that led into Jacona attacking me multiple times for supposedly intentionally miss-representating things somehow. Which I didn't do. There's zero evidence that the author of the article was not talking about The St. Michael School though and even if they weren't that's not my problem.

1. 2. Jacona has a history of rather problematic, aggressive, and none guideline based issues. Just to cite a few, are them saying news headlines are significant coverage, that the amount of Google hits something receives shows it's notable, and repeatedly asserting that nominators aren't looking for sources even after they have told him that they did. For instance I told Jacona 4 times myself that I looked for references before nominating Combermere School and they still continued to accuse me of not looking for references. Also, in the Ian Holiday AfD they said "he nominator could not have performed WP:BEFORE and could not have read the deletion policy. competency is required, either read the deletion policy and follow it; stop bringing disruptive, ridiculous nominations to WP:AFD." In the AfD for Raja Dashrath Medical College they said there is a that that non-English subjects aren't notable unless they're written about in English language sources, which is clearly nonsense. In the Combermere School I asked them to drop the discussion multiple times and they refused to. Clearly Jacona is bias, has a bad attitude toward nominators, and is unwilling to drop things when asked or assume good faith.

1. 3. On the other accusations as to my behavior, I am perfectly willing to change my opinion and am civil when other people are civil to me. I have actually changed my vote from delete to keep twice in the last couple of weeks thanks to Grand'mere Eugene and a few others putting work into a couple of articles. I also often vote weak delete with the caveat that I can understand why people would vote keep and that I'm willing to change my vote if someone can find usable references. So the accusation that I'm a deletion hard liner that always articles deleted and just gets in arguments about things is patently false nonsense. What I don't have a tolerance for is people acting in the disingenuous, ridiculous way Jacona does. Especially in my nominations. That said I even went out of my way to explain the guidelines to Jacona and provided them Links to the Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions Essay. So it's not like I didn't try to help them along. BTW, as a side note to this the last voter on Combermere School AfD said this "the ill-based and possibly evidences US-/European bias given the lack of respect given to coverage by actual newspapers and other sources from Barbados." The mentality around here is that nominators can brow beat by every rando that comes along and should just take it or be reported for ANI if they push back. That's the only this complaint exists, because I'm just mot willing act like a supplicating, submissive chump to a constant stream of lies, verbal abuse, and false accusations. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• You just don't get it, do you. You are the one who consistently lies, writes verbal abuse and makes false accusations, as is clear from the discussions linked here and many others that you have been involved in. Maybe it would be best for everyone if you stayed busy with other stuff. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I provided evidence for everything I said. So I'd love to see some evidence of me constantly lying about things, here or anywhere else. I'm sure you know accusing people of things without providing diffs or citing examples can be considered a personal attack. In the meantime I'll leave this quote from a comment you made a few days ago. "There's loads of evidence of that, if you would just care to click on the word "scholar" above. What on Earth makes you think that his books have not been reviewed? The only reason I can think of for that is that you think yourself too important to simply look, which is what people who are here to build an encyclopedia do." Like I said then, maybe don't throw stones in glass houses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not provide evidence for what you said. And yes, I made that statement, which was well supported by evidence that was already in the discussion at that time. Stop claiming that others are lying when it is you who are lying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant1's behavior has been exceptionally poor and overly confrontational in this entire matter. When I saw this thread, I decided to look for coverage in reliable sources and in less than a minute, I found an academic book that says that, in its first 75 years, this school "provided the Barbadian community with the vast bulk of its business leaders and civil servants " and that it is "perhaps the first school anywhere to offer secondary education to black children". Uncle G has mentioned the same book above. I have added those quotes and the reference to the article. Perhaps if Adamant1 spent a bit more time looking for sources as opposed to expressing indignation, we would not be here. Cullen328 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You know people can find different references when they look for them right? I said in the AfD that I was fine with the book SeoR found being used as a reference if it turned out to have in-depth coverage. It just didn't seem to when I read it. So I don't really where the idea that I give a crap about this outside of Jacona badgering me is coming from. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that but if you are having trouble finding things online that other editors are able to find easily, perhaps you should try humility instead of aggression. You are the one who wrote confidently, after all, In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school. which turned out to be entirely false, as this particular book published by a university press is entirely devoted to this school. You has chance after chance to back off and withdraw this deeply flawed AfD nomination, and instead you chose to double down and argue endlessly. Not a good look. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Please will you do me a favour? Would you be willing to read through your interactions with SeoR at the Combermere school AfD with fresh eyes, and tell me whether you see anything that you would do differently, were you to have your time again? Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I will when I have the time. There's always things that I can do differently on introspection. I never claimed otherwise. In the meantime would you be willing to agree with me that SeoR shouldn't have made claims about "the whole book being about the school" and then argued with me about how much coverage it had when they hadn't even read it? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, I would not. The title of the book refers to the school - it is fair to assume that the book is substantially about the school. Pointing out that some of it is about other stuff, like alumni of the school, or sports teams of the school, or the history of the area the school is in, or whatever, is, and I'm sorry to be blunt here, pettifogging pedantry. I appreciate that you say you looked at some different book on Google Books (I'd be interested to see a link to that by the way), but you went into that interaction like Rambo trying to take out the bad guys. SeoR didn't deserve that level of hostility, and I'm flabbergasted that you're trying to defend your approach there. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. When I read the book it wasn't even substantially about the school, at least from what I could tell at the time. Obviously that's up to interpretation though. I don't think it's pedantry to be clear about how much coverage a reference does or doesn't contain either. There's a big difference between all of the book, a chapter of the book, or a paragraph of it being about a subject. I don't think you can judge just by the title either as much as something having 3300 Google hits makes it notable. As far as the book goes, the reference to it is in the article and you can click on "link (amended by Girth Summit)" on Google to read it. Maybe I was hostile to SeoR after the discussion had gone on for a while, but I had asked him to not make claims about the book until he read it that he ignored and was also being attacked by Jacona at the time, which he seemed to be in support of. As I made clear to SeoR my side of the discussion wouldn't have happened, the confrontational bits or otherwise, if he had not of made claims about the book when he hadn't read it and then doubled down on the claims. If he had of just been up front from the beginning that he didn't read the book and had no idea how much coverage of the topic it had I wouldn't of even gotten in the discussion. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask for someone to be upfront about a reference and if they have read it or not when they vote. Especially if it's used as part of their vote rational. No where did he ever say "The title of the book refers to the school so I think it might have in-depth coverage but I haven't read it." I would have had zero issue with that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No - you were excessively hostile from your very first reply to SeoR, in which you accused them of massively misrepresenting a source - that's ABF right off the bat. Why wouldn't you just ask them politely to explain a bit further, e.g. "Hi SeoR - are you sure the book is about this school? I looked at it online (here's the link), and it looks to me like it only mentions the book in passing. Have you got a copy of it?"?

As for how you formed your opinion of the book, I'm still confused. The link you posted above, it doesn't go anywhere for me, but this is what I get when I click on the link in the article. That looks for all the world to me like a book that is about the school - there's even a snippet from a scholarly review of the book, explaining in detail about how the book is about the school. I am really scratching my head at the idea that anyone would question what the book was about in the first place - but that is a side issue, the real question is why you were so aggressive in the first place. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Holy crap - I fixed your link, and followed it - what the blistering blue barnacles about that link made you think it wasn't about the school? Just from looking at the Contents page, it's obviously about the school, in its entirety. The first sentence of the preface describes it as a book about the school. As the young people like to say, "Dude, what the fuck?" Girth Summit _(blether) 19:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Did you actually read it? Page two is an extremely long paragraph about planters and how they didn't educate blacks because they saw them simply as good manual labors. It might just be me, but I don't think that's related to Combermere School. Outside of that there's also a whole chapter about legislation in Barbados having to do with education. Sure, it's slightly related to Combermere School because it's part of the school system, but that's about it. Lets see, what else is there? There's a whole section on staffing at Foundation Boy's School. I could be wrong, but I don't Combermere School is Foundation Boy's School. Maybe that was one of it's "pre-modern" names though. There's also a section about Central schools, whatever those are. I don't really know, but guess not Combermere School. I'd love to know how exactly you think a paragraph about planters and slaves is obviously about the school. Let alone how the "fuck" is book is entirely about the school when it literally discusses other schools and the school system in general throughout most of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Words fail me. This isn't about finding paragraphs that aren't related to the school - it's about the entire book being structured around the history of the school, which naturally includes the context that the school was created in. Please see the section I'm about to create below. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• "In a bold move, Serial closes the AfD per SNOW". It's clear enough an outcome already, and it's also acrimonious enough at this point. FFTR, of course, but I think it's for the best; since notability's been clearly established, there's no need for an AfD, and for the behavioral issues, that's discussed here. SN54129 19:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably a good call. I'm glad the book turned out to have enough coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not that it "turned out" to have enough coverage, but that it was obvious from the moment it was mentioned that it had enough coverage. Competence is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Post hawk justification

-EEng

It didn't seem to when I read it and I still don't think it does. It's almost like people can't have different opinions about what in-depth coverage is. Even if it did have enough coverage though at this point it's a post hawk justification for SeoR voting based on something he had no knowledge about at the time. I'm sure we would agree that someone voting keep because there's 3000 Google hits that they sure are in-depth coverage but haven't actually read through wouldn't be appropriate, because it's on them to provide the proof that the sources have the coverage they claim they do at the time when they vote. I fail to see how this is any different. Just because it turns out 2 weeks later that there's two references in Google search with in-depth coverage doesn't mean it was automatically obvious there was the whole time either. Let alone that it means the nominator was just incompetent from the beginning. That's not how the AfD process works. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You still don't think it does? Then why did you just say that it turned out to have enough? Your penultimate statement and the one you just made can't both be true simultaneously. Your incompetence seems now to be even greater than I thought it was before. Of course people can have different opinions, but when a whole book is obviously about a subject the opinion that it is not is incompetent. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: TBan from deletion discussions about education, broadly construed

I'm basing this proposal on Adamant1's failure to see the problems with their own behaviour in the discussion above, and on a review of deletion discussions concerning Constantine 1 University, Ian Holliday and Combermere School, and also the archived ANI threads here and here. I am no starry-eyed inclusionist, as my own AfD track-record shows, and I am not at all concerned by someone participating actively in discussions about articles they have nominated for deletion - I do that myself, it's entirely reasonable. This is about the excessive hostility that Adamant1 has shown to other participants in those discussions. It shouldn't really matter whether those participants are clueful or newbs, but in practice is does: if you are willing to accuse experienced, hard-working volunteers of misrepresenting sources on grounds that are so flimsy as to be non-existent, you shouldn't be working in that area. Since all the problems I found centred around deletion discussions concerning education (a school, a university and a scholar), I propose that Adamant1 be indefinitely topic banned from deletion discussions concerning education, broadly construed. I do this in the sincere hope that they will continue editing, do some introspection, recognise that there is a problem, modify their behaviour, demonstrate that they can do better, and request that the ban be lifted in six months to a year. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You said above that the book is "entirely" about the school. In no way is that statement true for the reasons I provided in response to your comment. Your the only one misrepresenting sources here by saying the book is "entirely" about the school when it clearly isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You are being ridiculous. The authors of the book describe it as being about the school. That they discuss other schools, or the educational environment it exists in, does not somehow make it about something else. By this line of reasoning, no work of history can ever possibly be about a particular subject, because they always include discussion of the context in which the thing they are discussing happened. This is all beside the point however, because this proposal isn't really about your ability to analyse sources, it's about your behaviour towards people you disagree with. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) That that book is entirely about the school is perfectly clearly true. Just stop accusing everyone else of misrepresenting sources when that is what you are doing yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

(This is response to Girth Summit since there was an edit conflict) Cool that the author describes it that way. I backed up what I said with sections and topics that are covered in the book that have nothing with the school. If a book is 80% about other things then yes it is about something else then the school. A history of education under slavery and major discussion of other's school hiring practices isn't just "context" either. What's rediculous is claiming that it is to justify me being topic banned. As far as your accusation of me being "excessively" hostility in AfDs, I will agree that I was hostile in the Combermere School AfD, but not "excessively" and only after repeatedly being lied about and pushed around by multiple people, both in that AfDs and others. The context, repeated railroading in the AfD by the keep voters, and Jacona downright ridiculous behavior everywhere should factor into this. I went out of my way to try and deescalate things and explain things in a reasonable way to everyone involved, including him. in no way was the hostility one sided and I'm not responsible for the discussion escalating. I'm not really hostile in relation to AfDs that have to do with education more generally either. I'm actually pretty congenial most of the time. Even with my own AfDs and people who disagree with me. Education or otherwise. I've already provided some evidence to that fact and I'm more then happy to provide more if you want me to. I don't think one disagreement with specific people that turned hostile on both sides really justifies me being topic banned though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This response makes me question whether you are competent to engage in discussions concerning scholarship of any kind, but I think we should leave this where it is to allow others to comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that others should comment. That said, it should go without saying that I'm talking in relation to the notability guidelines and what they considered significant coverage, not scholarship more generally. Obviously they are different things and we don't decide what's significant, in-depth coverage of a topic based on standards in the field of scholarship or whatever. No one would argue that the Combermere School article being 80% about the history of education under slavery would be appropriate even if it's "context" and that's how the book or "scholars" covers the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Support tban from all deletion processes. I've been following this thread and reading the linked AfDs. The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning, on the flimsiest and most unsupportable of grounds is, quite frankly, astonishing. AfD is not a battle to "win", it is a discussion to be held sensibly and collegially on the merits of an article for inclusion. This kind of behaviour brings the process into disrepute, has the potential to drive good faith editors away and should not be permitted to continue. As the editor shows no sign of accepting this, despite many opportunities, much explanation and clear guidance, I can't see any alternative to excluding them from those discussions for now. Hopefully such a break will give them an opportunity to reflect on what has been said here. Begoon 21:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite tban from any deletion process, broadly construed, to be effective when the block expires. This is on the strength of the remarkable timesink and demonstration of incompetent battlegrounding which the editor treated us to below, subsequent to my original vote, and the bizarre revenge filing and flurry of talk page barbs. I get that they were upset at the looming tban, but they were surely given enough clues to back off and stop digging. I'm not confident this would not be a permanent, ongoing problem and resource drain, and I'm concerned about the good faith users it might hurt or drive away. I'm going to say that I also concur with those questioning general competence after this command performance, so if someone suggests something stronger and sensible the closer may interpret this comment as tacit support for that too, if it helps. Begoon 11:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: "battleground approach" 1. ["No worries. It happens. AfD is a de-defacto way to improve articles as much as it is a way to delete them. So within reason it's better to make the mistake then not since you never know if people will be able to find references that were missed initially."]

2. ["Keep I'm changing my vote to keep because I think there's been enough improvement to the article since the nomination to justify keeping it."]

3. [Thanking someone who made a comment that disagreed with me "Jax MN, thanks for the comment."]

4. [now that I've look at the book's I think there's enough references to justify keeping the article. ]

5. [voted deleted and then mentioned a potential redirect target - "It's briefly mentioned in the Whitestone, Queens article. So maybe that would work for a redirect."]

6. Me conceding that I was wrong about something not being a controversy - "Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy." So hostile of me.

7. [for deletion/Bill Workman|Hhhhmmm, OK. Obviously the guidelines are pretty vague on a lot of this stuff and I don't really feel like arguing about it.]

8. "Thanks. Having an article for Emma E. Booker is a good idea. Perhaps we can just mention the school there if one gets created before the AfD is closed."

9. ["Unless I missed it there doesn't seem to be any Religious persecution in South Asia type articles. Nor even a one for Asia in general. Which honestly I'm kind of surprised about. There are various articles for religious persecution in particular countries though, including India. Maybe just merging/redirecting this to Freedom of religion in India would be a good step forward."]

Those are just a few examples of "The battleground approach, hostility and unreasonable bludgeoning" that I'm apparently doing. I'm more then happy to provide more. In the meantime I must be playing 5D battleground, hostility chess or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Adamant1, as I said on your talk page, I am pulling for you. I believe your heart is in the right place. But this is not helpful. It is like someone accused of murder shouting "but look at all the people I didn't kill!" I am not saying you have to agree with others' critiques, but sometimes it is good to consider them a bit before responding. Just some unsolicited advice. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm just providing counter evidence to the claim that there's a pattern of hostility and me treating AfDs as a battleground, which I don't think exists if there's 9 examples of me being congeal and only one of hostility. That said, if it isn't helpful then I won't provide anymore examples. Unfortunately it's hard to know what to do in situations like this and your really damned if you do and damned if you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that there's some Catch-22 involved. There's no doubt about that. I would just offer further that when you see things one way, and everyone else sees it differently, that's probably not the fight to have. You can always take the "I disagree, but will go with the flow" sort of approach. Again, I am not saying you shouldn't argue your take on things. It's just that sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

OK. I agreed with Girth Summit that I was hostile in the AfD. I've already apologized and was discipled for my past actions to. So I'm not sure what else I can do at this point. It seems a little bad faithed and disciplinary to have me topic banned for issues that have already been dealt with, but whatever. I guess that's just how life goes sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am no expert, but my suggested strategy would be this: make one more post. One. Say where (if anywhere) you think you have fallen short of expectations, and how you plan to address similar situations in the future. Having done that, never look at this thread again. I know it's a hard thing to contemplate, and I have given this same advice several times before. I don't believe it has ever been followed, and I am not sure I could do it. But I honestly think that would be the optimal move. Whatever happens, I wish you the best and hope you continue editing constructively for many years. Dumuzid (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Adamant1’s behavior on many contentious topics turns far too quickly to attacking people acting in good faith to improve an encyclopedia. In the past, he has been banned for short periods, he has been warned repeatedly on his talk page, and he has been the subject of multiple WP:ANI threads. How much more of the community’s energy is his behavior worth? White 720 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

My behavior has improved a lot since the other ANI complaints as the examples I provided show. In no way is how I acted in the Combermere School AfD comparable to what got me banned before either. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Most of the links above do not work for me but the link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) does work and Adamant1 was exceptionally combative and hostile throughout that conversation. If Adamant1 really believes that this is "congenial" behavior, then that is an additional problem. I share Girth Summit's deep concerns about the competence of this editor, given the evidence that has emerged in this conversation. Cullen328 (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume your talking about the back and forth between me and Necrothesp. If so, I was rather heated in that discussion but we have long standing issues that he is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss. For example the rant on his is rather disparaging. That said, I will concede that the AfD was probably not the best place to rehash things and I'll try to keep personal issues separate from AfD discussions going forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

No, we do not "have long standing issues that he [i.e. me] is unwilling to acknowledge or discuss". We simply have differing opinions. The problem is, you get hostile and aggressive whenever I state those opinions. You don't have to agree with them, but your constant attempts to bully editors who disagree with you and your increasing hostility and aggression to those who don't cave in are getting out of hand. You seem to have the impression that no one has a right to state a contrary opinion, and that is not acceptable. You even wrote that you hoped someone would report me to ANI for stating those opinions and implied that I was a vandal and/or troll, which is really beyond the pale. You then made claims that were patently untrue about editors being sanctioned at ANI for stating opinions such as mine. You need to learn that anyone (you, me, anyone else) is entitled to express their opinion at AfD without facing a barrage of condescension, unpleasantness, aggression and suggestions that they should not be allowed to say it. But it is quite clear from your comments thus far in this discussion that you really do not understand why your behaviour is concerning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Begoon and continued battleground editing. Despite Adamant1's protests to the contrary, I've seen no real improvement. Miniapolis 22:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I was blocked like six months ago for floating conspiracy theories that a group of people from ARS where out to get me blocked. When have I said anything alone those since then? As far as I know I haven't even talked to anyone from ARS in at least a couple of months. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You were blocked for two weeks less than four months ago by Drmies for disruptive editing, behavior very similar to what you have been displaying in this thread and recent AfDs At that time, Drmies wrote I don't know if this will do any good in the long term, but once we warned, and infractions continue, we should act on it, and it seems pretty certain that Adamant's behavior does not help foster a collegial atmosphere. It is possible that a next time we should consider a topic ban from that area, perhaps, but I really hope there won't be a next time. And here we are. It is the "next time". Cullen328 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction: The block was in December, 2020. Cullen328 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

From what I remember Drmies blocked me for "condescension" that was largely from me making up conspiracy theories, which I'm not doing anymore. Let alone in this thread. No where have I claimed this is a conspiracy theory, that anyone is out to get me blocked because of one, or have been "condescending" toward anyone over it. A couple of the people who wanted me blocked back then gave the reason that I was accusing random people of harassment. I'm not doing that anymore either. Here or anywhere else. I don't even think I said Jacona was harassing me. So in no way are the issues that led me to being blocked continuing. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you were blocked for condescending edits and continued badgering, and now you are offering us more condescending edits and continued badgering. Cullen328 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I think I've been pretty reasonable and non-condescending about this. Especially considering no one has provided any evidence for any of the accusations being made about me outside of the hostility thing, which I'm not denying. I'm not going to argue with you about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Evidence? Again, you are the one who confidently wrote In fact 99% of it is about "Barbadian Society" and less then 1% directly relates to the school, which is a manifestly false statement. Those of us who have online access to much of the actual content of the book know that it is false, since the the central focus of the book and the reason for writing the book is the Combermere School. Instead of conceding the point graciously, you have vigorously wiklilawyered the ludicrous claim that, because the book touches on how the school interacted with and influenced other schools and other institutions in Barbados, it is somehow not about that school. That is an utterly disingenuous example of you digging in your heels and refusing to make reasonable concessions in a debate. Cullen328 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes evidence. I asked Phil Bridger of evidence that I consistently lie, write verbal abuse, and make false accusations. He hasn't provided any and the banner at the top is pretty clear that people should include diffs demonstrating the problems they are making claims about. If those are things I'm constantly doing then it should be easy for him to provide diffs of me doing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

, I just provided a direct quotation from you that consists of a complete misrepresentation of a book about this school, and the book was published by a university press. We all make mistakes. I do all the time but I also go out of my way to correct my own errors as promptly as possible. You, on the other hand, have doubled down on your obvious error, and dug in your heels. Now, you defend yourself by spouting hogwash about colonialism, and then advising other editors to brush up on their colonial history.

What could possibly be more condescending? Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Adamant--did you really say, in an AfD you started about an institute of higher education, that "the fact that it's "history" goes back to 1685 doesn't automatically it notable"? In your time here, have you learned nothing about institutes of education and notability, and about books? And you put "history" in quotation marks? Why was that? Is this because it was a school for Black students, maybe? Sorry for asking--asking for a friend, I guess. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Two things to that, 1. I put "history" in quotation marks because there isn't any guideline that says "historical" subjects are inherently notable and I don't think there is an agreement among Wikipedians as to what makes something "historical" anyway. Nor do I have a good idea of what is "historical" and what isn't. 2. As far as I'm aware the West Indies is ethnically/racially heterogeneous. So the students being black, if they even are/were, had nothing to do with it. In fact I think in the 17th century at least the major strata of West Indian society were Europeans. Whoever your asking the question for really needs to brush up on their colonial history. I guess seeing racism everywhere comes from as much ignorance as being an actual racist does ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • When you are in a hole, stop digging. The school (if you haven't read the article, I recommend it) was for colored students, so yeah. "History" is not to be put in quotation marks. If you're not familiar with the notability guidelines for schools, or with WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and if you can't fathom that a school that's almost 400 f***ing years old is likely to be notable, then you simply shouldn't be participating in deletion debates involving schools. Oh, the "major strata of West Indian society" in the 17th wer indeed likely to be white! Bravo! because they owned the plantations and the people who worked on it. OK, I think I'm done here with this editor. Ima go with a general WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, at a minimum. Editor simply does not have a clue. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've actually read the article and all the references in it multiple times. Thanks for the suggestion though. If you've read the book and the comments here about it you'd know that there are gaps in the schools history. Just because it's been used for colored students at certain point's doesn't mean it always was mainly/or only for them. If you think that something that has been around for almost 400 f***ing years has automatically served exactly the same group of people that whole time then I suggest you read up on history more, because you obviously don't know how colonialism works. In the meantime there's no need to fly off the handle over it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Just to add another example of civility on my part, I listened to the advice given to me by Girth Summit and apologized to SeoR for the hostility that I showed them in the AfD. If anyone else has other suggestions of how I can remedy the situation I'm more then willing to listen and consider it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, stop bludgeoning and badgering by replying to every.single.comment here (why you think that helps you is beyond me). I'm just about ready to block you from this noticeboard for the duration of this proposal. I also have no idea why you keep providing examples where you were civil. What do you think that proves? That you're only uncivil some of the time? Failure words me. El_C 03:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

i that read wrong. 晚安 (トークページ) 08:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support User is fostering a toxic environment in those discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support, and I'd so far as a complete full ban from Afd's period if this is how they act. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 04:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Update: I'm now supporting a full ban from anything to do with AfD's, broadly construed due to the retaliatory ANI post below. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 05:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • How is the ANI complaint at all retaliatory when the person I opened the complaint about has had literally nothing to do with this? Is there a rule that someone can't open a complaint if they currently have one open about them or something? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
      • And as "1%" came up against a whole book, now Special:Diff/1080305965 comes up against the claim of "literally nothing". Uncle G (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Hhhmmm I didn't see his comment. That said, it's had literally zero effect on this. So it might as well be nothing. It would be pretty weird if I tried to get revenge on him for making a random comment that I didn't even see. If I wanted revenge why wouldn't I go after Girth Summit or someone who's actually trying to get me topic banned instead of some rando commenter? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full AfD ban, and support some block for the comments about Drmies and colonialism above (which show the same kind of gaslighting as before), for the retaliatory section about Jacona, and for the blatant lies about that section: not remembering that Jacona had commented here, while in their first defense yesterday both the full point 1.2 and part of 1.3 are about Jacona? Fram (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

You know Drmies accused me of racism right? Also, I said I didn't see Jacona's comment, not that I didn't remember it. That's kind of a weird mistake to make for someone who's also going off about gas lighting in the same comment. Same goes for you mentioning the colonialism comment while leaving out that it was in response to someone accusing me of racism. BTW, in case your confused Uncle G was talking about a comment made by Jacona, not my original comment where I mentioned him. I can see why you would make that mistake and think that we were discussing my original comment, not the comment made by Jacona later on. Either way it isn't evidence that I opened the complaint to get revenge on Jacona for anything. You should really have more evidence then a couple of miss-read sentences and a hunch based on them if your going to suggest I be fully banned from AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support After wading through walls of text and having to read rather unpleasant "congenial" snippets from Adamant1...essentially per Begoon and Cullen328; I also see CIR issues. Lectonar (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Adamant1's behaviour has been extraordinary. Support GirthSummit's proposed TBan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Appears to be a pattern here. I've found this user to be repeatedly dismissive of valid sources. NemesisAT (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBan due to long-term disruption and failure to learn from previous sanctions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I'd support a total XFD ban, but the initial proposal to be banned from education-related AFDs is at least a start. Adamant1 has a CIR issue, or they are being willfully obtuse, or deliberately ignoring when evidence to the contrary of their initial presumptions is presented. Any of those is an anathema to the proper functioning of Wikipedia, ESPECIALLY in AFD discussions, where new evidence is often dug up, and we require intellectual honesty when assessing that evidence. The WP:BLUDGEON issues at AFD as well seem a major problem, coupled with the tit-for-tat ANI report below, I think Adamant1 needs a formal ban of some sort. --Jayron32 16:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support for proposal at hand. Would also support a complete ban from deletion process, as it has been shown the BATTLEGROUND attitude is long term and not improving. It isn't out of range, per his behavior in this very thread, to consider a CBAN for CIR. It's seems that he's not grasping how Wikipedia works. 174.212.212.163 (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full AfD ban How many more ANI threads do we need dealing with Adamant1 relentlessly writing page after page of fastidious explanations of why he disagrees with others at AfD? That's enough. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support ban from AFD discussions - this reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but even without all of the hostility and WP:BATTLEGROUND, this and this are good examples of WP:BLUDGEON. Adamant1's replying to everyone s/he disagrees with and arguing endlessly (rather than trying to find common ground and/or know when to let an issue go) and refusing to withdraw an AFD (even after having been shown multiple sources) is just more work that needs to be done for both the admins and non-admins closing AFD's. The writing large amounts of needless material and being a timesink at AFD makes it to where (as of right now), Adamant1's participation in AFD's is of little to no use versus the amount of disruption being caused and Adamant1's contributions to the project would be better served someplace else other than AFD.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support full ban from AfD - I've never seen sustained worse behavior - a combination of dishonesty and WP:CIR issues - than this editor has demonstrated at AfD. When I looked back at prior issues with this editor, this is a persistent problem. We can't build the encyclopedia when we have to spend so much of our time dealing with a disruptive editor who is not here to build it.Jacona (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support T-ban A break from AfD is definitely necessary for Adamant1. Dhawangupta (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I won't support a complete ban from deletion related topics as some have offered here. That is a ban that would potentially keep an editor of this encyclopedia from being able to defend an article they have created from deletion should that day ever occur. However, the T-ban that was proposed that targets the specific area of concern might be the answer to stem the immediate disruption while giving @Adamant1 the opportunity to redeem themselves and have the topic ban lifted one day. After all, short of a sitewide block, isn't that the goal of these types of sanctions. Stop the immediate disruption but allow the offending editor the opportunity to correct their behavior. Sanctions are not meant to be punitive but they are a powerful tool of the community to help correct the trajectory of an editor that is acting in good faith but has lost sight of the overall goal of the community and the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  A topic ban is also to protect the good faith users who the hostile behaviour might hurt or drive away. It's not just a rehabilitation exercise. Since new or relatively inexperienced users can frequently end up in an AfD, and already feel disoriented by the mass of new rules and jargon they need to navigate I don't think having an editor so hostile and pointlessly aggressive in the mix is in anyone's interest. (Nor do I think experienced editors should need to be exposed to it...) You do make a good point that they should be permitted to defend their own creations though, should the need arise - that's a simple exemption to incorporate in the topic ban. Begoon 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you are saying that you honestly believe that Adamant is such a threat to new and inexperienced editors here on the encyclopedia then why not propose a site ban. Look, Adamant's behavior is unacceptable and I agree that this isn't a rehabilitation exercise but when sanctions are not punitive the hope is that the editor does rehabilitate themselves and correct their actions otherwise, if there is no element of good faith in their being here, then why are they allowed to remain here? Adamant has brought about a situation, of their own making, in which they are either here in good faith but are misguided in their approach or they are not here in good faith and should not be allowed to stay. A full ban from deletion related discussions won't stop the disruption if you honestly believe they aren't here in good faith and are a threat to the ability of the project to retain new or experienced editors through Adamant's interaction with them. But if you believe there is an element of misguided good faith then, regardless of whether it is a full ban or a topic ban of deletion discussions, the point is to stop the disruption, protecting the encyclopedia, and, in doing so, hopefully give Adamant a break to learn from their mistakes. We may differ in opinion of which ban is appropriate but once we start going into the realm of editors being a threat to other editors then we stop assuming good faith and move into the question of why we allow an editor to stay here. If you believe that then a full ban is of no use to support. --ARoseWolf 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wow. I didn't propose a site ban, because, like you, I don't think the user is a complete net-negative. I'd have done so if I did. I'm not sure quite how to respond to the rest of your long (and, to me, quite unclear) post - you seem upset about something I said? What's the confusingly emphasised "threat" thing about, by the way? That, I confess, utterly confused me. Begoon 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not upset, in the least. It was in response to you saying that new and inexperienced editors frequent AfD discussions, which is true. But they also frequent other areas of the encyclopedia, obviously. You did not specifically use the word "threat" but it was implied in regards to Adamant driving away or hurting good faith users which is also an implication that Adamant isn't acting in good faith, albeit misguided. We are not as far apart in our positions as my words may have given the impression. Just having a discussion about the subtle differences. I apologize if it came across otherwise. --ARoseWolf 14:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's fine, and I accept your apology. I'm not sure if it "came across otherwise" because I'm still trying quite hard to understand it, if I'm honest. It felt like a bit of an odd post which kind of threw me - but this is the internet, after all. Begoon 14:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support T-ban Many problems here, battleground, cir, just plane rudeness. Paul August ☎ 11:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposal for education related T-Ban, at a minimum, along with th a formal caution not to continue the issues elsewhere, at risk of a full AfD ban. Whilst I was initially somewhat neutral regarding (or even slightly supportive of) Adamant1, their conduct above has erased any objection I might have had to the proposal. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support TBan from all of AfD. This comment is beyond the pale. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support For all the reasons listed above. Temperment seems to be an issue here. Nemov (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked

Adamant1 blocked one month: User_talk:Adamant1#Block. El_C 08:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure needed

Can someone please close the topic ban section one way or another before this gets autoarchived? Fram (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Another bump here, discussion has stalled out & we need a admin to make an assessment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Desertambition's hostile edit history

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

I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[2]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[3] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[4]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know if a new block is needed at this time, but at a minimum I think it is appropriate to topic ban them from making accusations about editors behaviour outside of ANI, with a warning that making accusations at ANI, if found to be baseless, may also result in a block; Desertambition is an editor that rather than understanding that editors may disagree with them in good faith instead accuses those editors of violating behavioural policies. I've presented these examples before in the ANI thread they raised against me on March 29, but they are an excellent example of this; on March 1 they accused three editors who had disagreed with them primarily about article titles of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING, without having presented any evidence before or since; myself, Spekkios, and Toddy1.

I see that there are also many examples of this at Talk:Flag of Alabama, with Desertambition accusing editors of STONEWALLING, BADFAITHNEG, TAGTEAM, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour - and I expect that I've missed a few other accusations, either on the talk or in edit summaries. I would also note this commentary on their user page, about what they consider a common interaction with editors and admins.BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. I note that they have already been blocked twice for this kind of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Nemov and Spekkios have been WP:STONEWALLING on the flag of Alabama page for weeks at this point by creating a WP:TAGTEAM. I have barely edited the page and engaged in extensive discussion on the talk page. BilledMammal is another user who has tried to get me blocked repeatedly. I have not made more ANI posts or engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.

I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [5] and here [6]

I always try to write very clear edit summaries and discuss disputes on the talk page while following sources and consensus. However, Spekkios and Nemov have exercised complete control over the flag of Alabama article while removing information about Confederate symbolism and writing misleading edit summaries.

Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [7]: [8]

Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [9]

Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [10] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.

Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [11]

After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [12]

Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [13] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."

Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [14]

Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [15] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.

I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [16] [17] [18] but I know that's not the focus of this post.

It is so frustrating to deal with these constant reports and attempts to get me blocked. I continue to engage in good faith discussions with editors about these issues and often they are unwilling to build consensus. Desertambition (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I've never called for you to be blocked - above, you will see that I am suggesting a limited topic ban that will allow you to continue contributing to your chosen topic area - and while you haven't opened a new ANI thread since March 29, it has only been a week, and the issue here is your habit of casting aspersions against editors you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I had a conversation about these exact issues at User talk: Cullen328#WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama on March 27. I, too, am very concerned about this editor's right great wrongs variety of POV pushing. Their attempt here to argue the content case is yet another example. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with behavioral issues, not to adjudicate content disputes. This editor consistently argues, in effect, that all the many other highly experienced editors they interact with are in error, and only Desertambition is correct. This editor seems incapable of self-reflection and self-correction. I agree with the succinct assessment by Ad Orientem above: This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Firstly, I appologise for this block of text but this isn't an accurate summary of my actions. I performed a major reversion because there had been 23 edits and about half of them were reversions. I rolled back to a previous version because there was obviously a dispute about the article content as shown by the number of reversions, hence my edit summary. I would have reverted to an even earlier stage before the flag was added, however I elected not to because another user had performed some article maintenance that I didn't want to revert. Therefore, I selected the version just after said maintenance was performed and manually reverted the remaining content, hence my second edit summary "ditto here". I posted a section in the talk page notifying editors of the rollback I performed. I shortened the description because it was very long, and further discussion occurred about the caption on the talk page. I didn't remove the image entirely because I think it needs to be there, but the caption was very long and could be shortened. I did actually elaborate in the edit summary. Finally, the flag was restored to the article by another user for a valid reason. I adjusted the flag caption, because as I said before the previous was too long, but the current just states what the flag is. The caption I selected linked the flag image to the article. Desertambition reverted that edit. After a little discussion on the talk page I selected a new caption which was again reverted.

I apologise again for that large explanation of what is essentially a content dispute, but I just wanted to show how wildly different Desertambition's version of events is. They believe that Nemov and I are actively engaged in some sort of conspiracy to "remove confederate symbolism" to the point where a good-faith edit to improve a caption (which was being discussed on the talk page) results in an accusation of "scrubbing" the word confederate from the caption. Desertambition has accused us of engaging in historical revisionism including making an accusation of me "preventing almost any edits about Confederate symbolism". This is blatantly untrue. Anyone can quickly read the article and find an entire section on the origins of the flag, including ties to the confederate flag. The word "confederate" and "confederacy" have been mentioned 8 times each in the (relatively short) article. I have been supportive of including the confederate battle flag in the article. I have been supportive of edits improving the article and adding more context to the time in which the state flag was adopted. To paint me out as a historical revisionist, implying that I'm a confederate sympathiser is absolutely not productive nor in good faith and something the user has been warned about in the past. --Spekkios (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [19][20]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [21]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [22], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [23] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No one is saying that "racism = bad" is an unacceptable stance. Where your behavior is objectionable is that you seem to presume that you're editing on the side of the angels, and therefore those who disagree with you must be doing so out of foul motives. And that just simply is not the case. To put it bluntly, no one elected you the arbiter of what is or is not a "racist" edit. We are all the arbiter, collectively, and we arrive at those decisions through consensus. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're on the losing side of the argument, and when that is the case, the onus is on you to lose gracefully and move on. What best resolves this conflict is for you to get that. The patience of the community to wait for you to do so is finite, if not already exhausted. Ravenswing 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

D received an indefinite block that was lifted with WP:ROPE as justification. Then the editor was blocked a few days later. It's the same pattern. Hostility, accusing everyone, and then begging not to be blocked again. I can understand lifting the block the first time. The editor was given two more chances after the last chance. The editor has proven why they were initially blocked. It's not going to get better. Nemov (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It was two months later, not "a few days". The block was for edit warring, I was not paying attention to my reverts and broke the WP:3RR. I readily admitted and accepted that. Desertambition (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time you respond you reinforce the issue. You were blocked 40 days later for reverting edits. After being told that you have one last chance to work with others in good faith. Instead of listening, you accuse others and make excuses. You haven't readily accepted anything. After the block CaptainEek pointed out you were still not accepting what had happened.[24]. I agree the sentiment that You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. That's exactly been the case. After failing to comply so many times, why should we waste any more time hoping you'll figure it out? Nemov (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That isn't an accurate summary of the situation. Toddy1 warned you that you were at five reverts, but despite being aware of that you chose to make a sixth. Then, when they opened a AN3 report you said Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring. After you were blocked you accepted you were edit warring, but the fact that it took a block for you to come to that conclusion is not good. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made an allegation of racial bias since I was blocked months ago. I do not think I am perfect and not all of my edits are helpful. I will readily admit that. I have not said anyone is making "racist" edits. I have said repeatedly I will not make allegations of racial bias in any capacity, that was made clear months ago. I am fully aware of the need for consensus and I do not believe two users deciding amongst themselves constitutes WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take my concerns to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests. I have a desire to include information on Wikipedia that accurately reflects reliable secondary sources, not push an agenda. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests also is not accurate, as can be seen with your habit of making repeated move requests for articles whose discussions produced a consensus against you with minimal time between them. For example, Mafikeng was moved to its current title after a discussion on 3 December 2021. You disagreed with that consensus and opened a new request on 7 January 2022, and then another on 31 March 2022. While consensus can change, and it is appropriate to open new move requests after a suitable period of time, three move requests in four months is far too many and an example of refusing to get the point. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. less than a week ago your talk page contained a list of "Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting" [25] which was described distinctly less than favourably by the admin who unblocked you [26].

Here you say that another editor is very attached to pre-apartheid names and only seem to take into account white South Africans and flat out accuse them of "racial bias" [27]

Here you "completley don't accuse someone of racism" by asking them what their opinion of white nationalism is [28] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

That list was created four months ago and was collapsed by an admin. I have not made allegations of racial bias since the block and do not plan to. No one would be able to tell what was in there without opening it and I didn't think about it. Deleted it the second a user requested me to. Desertambition (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Desertambition wrote above: Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith?^{5 April 2022}

• When he wanted to be unblocked, he/she wrote: I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing^{16 January 2022}
• But after he had been unblocked, he/she wrote: I had an admin make up false reasons to block me when I brought up racism and then I was not given a chance to appeal.^{19 February 2022}

That is not showing good faith. The second statement is completely untrue. The first statement was from his unblock appeal (the one he/she says that he was not given a chance to make).

Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

• BilledMammal 1 March 2022 29 March 2022
• Nemov 25 March 2022
• Spekkios 1 March 2022 25 March 2022 4 April 2022
• Toddy1 1 March 2022 2 April 2022
• Ymblanter 19 February 2022 23 March 2022 23 March 2022 24 March 2022]

Maybe he/she cannot help doing it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal?

There seems to be a fair bit of support here to do something. What should we propose as a path forward? On WP:ROPE basis the editor should be banned, but maybe a topic ban at the very least? Nemov (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The editor seems to seek conflict. He/she gets it through move discussions, articles where racism is an issue, and ANI. It is not reasonable to ban him/her from ANI, because it would make him/her vulnerable to bullying. But topic banning him/her from (a) undiscussed moves, (b) move discussions, (c) deletion discussions, and (d) racism broadly construed for nine months might bring out a more positive side to this editor. (As far as I know he/she had not misbehaved in deletion discussions, but we do not want to move his/her conflict-seeking behaviour from move discussions to deletion discussions.) I think a year is a bit long, and 6 months too short, so 9 months sounds right to me.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't take pleasure in banning users and D has shown an ability for research. I support your idea. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with time-limited bans. I think that if a ban is imposed, whatever it is, then it should be indefinite - otherwise, the editor doesn't need to improve, and instead can just wait the clock out. Further, an indefinite ban might be shorter than a nine month ban; they might demonstrate sufficient improvement in three months for an appeal to be successful.

I would also suggest something similar to "racial issues broadly construed" rather than "racism broadly construed", as I feel the latter is slightly narrower than the area their behavioural issues exist in. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment - Regardless of what sanctions I do or do not deserve, it hardly feels fair for editors I have active conflict and disagreement with to decide on my sanctions. Desertambition (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal

I have not had any prior involvement here, and so have not had any active conflict or disagreement with User:Desertambition in the past. So, this should feel fair when I propose this:

User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at this noticeboard. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Given that a significant amount of my edits are concerned with move requests and discussions, that does not feel like an appropriate sanction. It is also unclear what "racial issues, broadly construed" would apply to. Desertambition (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the issues with your editing are also in those areas. Let's just say that you aren't going to be getting out of this without a restriction on your editing of some sort. You can appeal in three months, which is relatively soon, often such bans last at least 6 months or more.

"Racial issues, broadly construed" would involve any topic related to race and racism, since that is where the issues lie.

Basically, the advice is, if you aren't sure if a given edit would fall into that category, don't make it, without at least asking an admin if it would contravene your TBAN. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I will take whatever sanction admins feel is appropriate. It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here. Are the other editors completely faultless in these interactions or am I the sole problem user in your view? Desertambition (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here.

Yes, that's appropriate since you're the editor under discussion. There's also a long list of editors who have provided numerous examples of your conduct. This is why some are not hopeful that any temporary measure is going to work. You are seemingly incapable of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your actions. Nemov (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time I have come to ANI the discussion comes back around to me so it seems frustrating that there is no critical evaluation of other users. What I have done does not excuse this conduct from Nemov: [29] [30]. We are in active disagreement so there is an obvious COI with Nemov recommending sanctions for me. Desertambition (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, well, that's the way ANI works; Nemov is no more debarred from commenting here than you are from commenting here ... surely by your own stance you aren't a neutral party either, right? (And seriously, you think that Nemov asking for a citation to be rendered properly is inexcusable conduct? Really?) With that being said, I support the sanction as Mako001 set it forth. Ravenswing 07:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

They were not just asking for a citation. They were 1. Saying I was arguing in bad faith and 2. Refusing to discuss the issue and come to consensus. Seems to be a very uncharitable reading of the diffs I provided. Desertambition (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning the constant WP:BADGERing from BilledMammal.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desertambition#Deprived_of_context

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_April#Queenstown,_South_Africa_(closed)

3. Following me around on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_London_Airport#Requested_move_10_April_2022

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Makhanda,_South_Africa#%22Also_known_as%22

These are only a few examples of many. Desertambition (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is OK for Desertambition to reply to BilledMammal's comments, but it is not OK for BilledMammal to answer back? But if BilledMammal does, then Desertambition MUST have the last word. Who is badgering who?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Desertambition: And that right there is why you are here in the first place. Whenever issues are raised with your editing, you promptly go on the offensive and engage in what-about-ism, casting aspersions, and such. The "it wasn't me it was everyone else" route will not lead anywhere good. I sincerely caution you not to keep pushing your luck on this, as you are lucky to get off with just a TBAN. A siteban wouldn't be completepy unreasonable, given how many times you have been told not to engage in combative behaviour, and still continued to do so.

Of course, you can always just double down, never admit that you have ever done anything wrong, and keep casting aspersions without substantial basis, but if you do, just let us know that you intend to do so now, as it will save everyone's time. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Support indefinite ban This last exchange has exhausted my faith that this editor will ever learn. Every prolonged exchange ends in hostility. This user will be right back here once a temporary ban is over. The first ban didn't work. The second ban didn't work. A threat of a topic ban hasn't worked either. I see where this is eventually heading. It's just gonna waste other editor's time getting there. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

- Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite ban after reviewing the examples below. I don't think a topic ban is going to solve the temperament issue. Nemov (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to repeat again that we are in active disagreement and there is a blatant COI here. Desertambition (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Comment I found this thread after encountering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ora (currency), an AfD that followed this PROD attempt. In both cases, the rationale does not appear to be based on notability, but on the editor's opinions of the topic at hand ("non-currency... non-English sources, and the article seems to exist largely for WP:PROMOTION...one step above monopoly money"). They have also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council following a similar PROD attempt, the deletion rationale of which appears similarly based on opinion on the topic rather notability. Concurrent edits to first article feel problematic as well, with the user removing sourced text apparently because the source is dead (the text in question is trivially sourceable too, eg.), while adding unsourced text that reflects the AfD rationale. Particularly concerning is that the AfDs and edits occurred after this AN/I discussion was opened, where the PRODs mentioned had already been brought up, which makes it hard to understand Desertambition's assertion above (also before the AfDs) that they "don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point". If an AfD nomination citing the use of non-English sources is not meant to disrupt to prove a point, then there is a lack of understanding that would appear to warrant a topic ban. CMD (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  You should probably wait a bit before making an WP:ANI complaint as the Ora request has been withdrawn and I have added citations to the article. Hardly seems blockable to make an WP:AfD request that may have mistakes. I also stand by the Orania Representative Council nomination. Again, none of this seems to break guidelines by any measure. There is also nothing wrong with creating deletion discussions after a PROD attempt has failed, in fact that is the entire point of deletion discussions. Someone asserting that they disliked my AfD/PROD requests is hardly grounds to stop editing in good faith. You may have misread my request for the Orania Representative Council as it was absolutely based on notability, I'll repost it here for your convenience:

  Article about a non-notable pseudo-governmental body that was created in 2017. Article is replete with false information that is not supported by sources. Many of the sources are misleading, not in English, or just not relevant at all. Nothing about this council necessitates an article of its own. Anything that is of note is mentioned in the Orania, Northern Cape article. Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001 from what I can tell. Information on the council was largely added by one user and fails WP:GNG. The article is extremely misleading and filled with WP:WEASEL words that imply Orania is a separate municipality. In fact, residents of Orania vote in local elections along with every South African. Strong suspicion this was created with WP:PROMOTION in mind. Desertambition (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Could you explain how that rationale relates to WP:Notability? CMD (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  After I posted the above, Desertambition reached out on my talkpage under a section titled "‎Reaching out in good faith". After I replied, they stated they did not feel I was acting in good faith. I find it hard to read the intention behind this, as if it was deliberate trolling given this AN/I it could not be more on point. CMD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Despite everything above, Desertambition is now edit warring their changes I mentioned above into the Ora article, with an edit summary opening with "Stop edit warring" to boot. Given that and the previously mentioned items, I have shifted my comment above to support, as explicit sanctions appear to be needed. CMD (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am not breaking any guidelines. This is a weak attempt to get me sanctioned because you personally disagree with my edits. First you recommend I be blocked because you disagreed with two of my deletion discussions (???) then you refuse to discuss article related issues on the article talk page after failing to thoroughly examine what sections of the article were changed/removed and why. Brute forcing your preferred edits with no arguments rooted in existing guidelines/policies is edit warring and "no u" is not a cogent argument rooted in existing guidelines and policies. I have created a section to discuss issues with the article if you would like to begin discussing your specific grievances in depth. Desertambition (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  You are edit warring, again. You have accused me of bad faith, which seems to be another pattern. There does not appear to be an understanding of notability, along with misunderstandings of sourcing policy. On the content, I have noted issues above, on the AfD page, and on my user talkpage. Your new post on the article talkpage does not appear to have taken any of those into account, and I do not see why raising issues in a fourth location is productive at this point. CMD (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I literally did not accuse you of bad faith, I said "It does feel a bit like you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH." Very uncharitable way to view what I said. I was trying to WP:BENICE and reach out. Article issues should be raised on the article talk page. I see no reason why I need to track all of our discussions and tie them back to the article talk page. Desertambition (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now, pretty much all recent contribution of the user is edit-warring and removal of the warnings from their talk page. Could we please put them back to the indef block they belong to? I think it is clear that they are incapable of collaborative editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  "All" is a bit of an exaggeration when I have not broken the WP:3RR and am engaging in extensive discussion on the talk page. You have made it extremely clear that you feel like I should have never been unblocked and trust me, I hear you loud and clear. I do not believe I am incapable of collaborative editing and have engaged in discussions extensively that have lead to improved articles and stronger consensus. Clearly users have nothing positive so say about me but I am not vandalizing or editing for the sole purpose of being disruptive. Many times consensus has been opposite my position and I have complied. Desertambition (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am afraid what you believe is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is what the closing administrator believes. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  Desertambition, you appealed your indefinite block on the basis that you understood why you were blocked, and were sorry. It was NOT on the basis of the block being unjustified. Yet some time after you were unblocked, you posted on your user page to the effect that you were wrongly blocked. That statement on your user page more-or-less says that you were wrongly unblocked. If I were you I would ask that the statement on your user page should be revdeled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban to address the disruption, neutral on the indef. I am concerned by them making one statement to get unblocked, and then effectively retracting that statement afterwards, but not enough to support the indef at this time - a final last chance could be beneficial to Wikipedia if it turns them into a productive editor who can collaborate with those working in the same space as them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support proposed topic ban (though I would have preferred one limited to 9 months, instead of one he/she had to appeal). Since he/she got blocked on 22 March after making 4 reverts in 24 hours, he/she has mostly restricted him/herself to three reverts when edit-warring, and even self-reverted a 4th revert on 10 April after being reported. So Desertambition is capable of learning. He/she still has not understood why we have to put edit warring notices on his/her talk page after he/she has made 3 reverts to a page in 24 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • There were four reverts on 12 April at the Ora article, but either way I do get the impression 3RR is being seen as an allowance rather than a limit. CMD (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon and pointless edits once again

This morning, I asked Dicklyon about a series of useless cosmetic edits he made which filled up watchlists for no benefit to our readers at all[31]. His reply boiled down to "you can hide minor edits", which is not helpful as many of us don't want to do this (as many errors and vandalism are hidden behind "minor edits as well"). He then started on another run of decapitalization edits, which included errors, turning blue links into redlinks[32][33]: when this was pointed out, Dicklyon simply restarted the changes which I objected against in the morning, making more utterly pointless, semi-automated edits[34][35].

This is the umpteenth time they have been told to be more careful, to listen to onjections, to follow policies, ... all to no avail. Can we please just topic ban them from either using semi-automated tools, and/or from capitalization changes? Fram (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. I've also worked through a lot of others on that list without issue (though less concentrated to one editor's watchlist I admit). I'll hold off on such work if it's deemed too useless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you instead commit to holding off on such work until it's deemed useful? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

On the "Test Match" fixes, there were only a few dozen, and I had noticed and avoided Test Match Special in most, but yes I agree I was not careful enough. I promptly fixed them all after the error was noted. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

...an error which wouldn't have been seen if your previous advice to "hide minor edits" was followed of course. Fram (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't we have a general guideline that if there are tasks that are doable by both and large enough in scale that they should be left to be done by a bot? If there was only 20 or 50 such fixes I can see this being done by an editor. But higher counts should be left to bots. --Masem (t) 15:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of a guideline, but I'd be happy to have bot help when there are more than a few hundred edits needed. However, at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DoggoBot 5, where 16,000+ edits were needed, I got slow-walked and pushback of the form "why is Dicklyon asking for bot help instead of just doing this himself?" So I did; I got into efficient bot-like clicking and did all of those with zero complaints (except a few redlinks caused by not also moving redirects back at WP:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13A, which we're now trying to get fixed by bot at WP:RFBA#TolBot 13B since I can't do creations or moves with JWB). Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think 500 edits in 12 minutes is the very definition of a meatbot. Fram (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Those link updates were completely safe, so could be done quickly with bot-like clicking (unlike the Test Match fixes which I did more slowly and still made a few mistakes on). I accept your complaint that many of them had no effect at the level of the reader, due to piping, so maybe the link fixing to avoid redirect through a miscapitalization should just not have been done. But don't mix that up with how quickly and efficiently I did them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at just one of the many edits that flooded my watchlist, surely this is a violation of WP:NOTBROKEN? I can understand edits such as this more which affect the displayed text, but the Battle of Rocroi edit doesn't change the visual text in any way. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's Fram's exact point, which I have acknowledged. However, though they don't change the displayed text, the edits are not completely pointless. The point is to avoid redirecting through a miscapitalization, to get the complaint count down at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. I acknowledge the harm to your watchlist display, but that's the only harm in these edits. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that reducing a software-created 'complaint count' that almost nobody seems to be aware of [36] is more important than the time wasted through actual contributors having to look at invisible changes in article space. I've got to say that I don't think such arguments are very convincing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

One of User:wbm1058's complaints was that nobody but him seemed to be aware of that list of errors. He asked me to help, so I've been doing that. I make no judgement, and express no opinion, about which kinds of contributions are more important. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It's only showing up in that list of errors because you tagged links to it as an error [37], a tag that is completely incorrect anyway since "Not in Wikipedia's style for article titles" is NOT the same thing as a miscapitalisation error. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: I'm not sure how feasible it's going to be to get that page to zero entries. rcats aren't this black-and-white thing, and I personally think you mistagged Habsburg Monarchy when you added {{R from miscapitalisation}} to it. That's very clearly a {{R from other capitalisation}} kind of deal (which I went ahead and corrected). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wait.. you actually reverted me. "Habsburg Monarchy" is in no way incorrect just because "Habsburg monarchy" is preferred (Habsburg Monarchy is literally a proper noun, and a differing style guide would say it's fine to write out. Also, literally the article Habsburg monarchy literally leads with Habsburg Monarchy... is a modern umbrella term coined by contemporary historians...

You are misusing the the rcat system right now by claiming that this is a miscapitalization (something that literally unnecessarily adds to the database report you are claiming to care about). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What I care about is the over-capitalization, not the database report (though the main purpose of the revert was to get it to show up on the report so I could illustrate that). If the RM consensus is that WP uses lowercase, doesn't that make it an error to use uppercase on WP? Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm wrong, then probably most of the others in that report are also wrong and don't belong in a list of things inviting fixes. Other than RM discussions, I don't know of any mechanism for deciding what capitalizations are wrong for WP, and I'm guessing that's how most of those got labeled as such. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not sure this is an actionable complaint. Fixing linked miscapitalizations isn't a high priority, but it is a worthwhile task. We shouldn't tolerate errors in our articles, no matter how minor. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The miscapitalisations were invisible to readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. And we should not tolerate errors in our page source, either. There's a reason we fix Linter errors, even though they often don't have an impact on the displayed page. Tolerating errors is bad practice. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

They're not invisible -- they're visible if you hovered over the link. works fine for me, but regardless, wouldn't this happen for any example of WP:NOTBROKEN links? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

An alternative capitalisation, one which until very recently was the actual article title (and also occasionally appears in sources) is neither a spelling error or a mistake; even if it is not the preferred option according to Wikipedia style guidelines. Fixing this non-problem, at a rate of 100s of edits an hour, is a disruptive exercise in time-wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify my comment, I'm referring only to this diff, which you seem to have acknowledged. Those are WP:NOTBROKEN issues, but I'm assuming that is script error. The rest, which result in visible changes to the page output, are not WP:NOTBROKEN issues (and I'm making no comment on those). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

No, not 'script error', the hundreds of WP:NOTBROKEN violations (the ones with a piped link) were deliberate. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)To open an ANI over this matter seems petty to me. Dicklyon is a reliable and well-respected user who contributes invaluably to this site. I understand some mistakes were made like in regards to test match, but does this warrant an ANI? We all make mistakes some times, but Dicklyon is constantly contributing valuable material and to frame this as "User and his pointless work" seems unnecessary. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Dicklyon is adept at creating busywork. So he pitches up at Habsburg Monarchy instigates a page move to “correct” the title which then creates a “miscapitalization” in redirects … only solvable by Dicklyon saving the day by dozens of corrective edits to those links to the self same article. What a waste of time. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hmmm. How long ago was that whole WP:JR deal? Exact same thing. In all fairness, go check out WP:MAW sometime and you'll see editors who specialize in polluting watchlists in like fashion but have orders of magnitude more edits to their name. Not only do they get usually get a pass, they're even rewarded for such behavior. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The amount of time and effort (and other people's time and effort) a few editors are willing to expend either making or complaining about these kinds of edits is mind-boggling. Like it or not, one of the groups Wikipedia attracts are the kind of people who really get into formatting, organization, and style, and spend a lot of time thinking about, finding, and fixing this stuff. On the whole, that's a good thing. Sometimes it's annoying, but for everyone else, IMO the sooner you learn to ignore or work around/with it, the happier you'll be. This is the sort of nearly pointless edit that we could devote a few hundred k of text on or just say "meh," futz with your watchlist settings a bit, and do something else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• This complaint is without merit. Dicklyon is fixing capitalization errors, which is entirely allowed. He has found an efficient way to do that by targeting the miscapitalizations list. If no one does that the list will grow. Is the list to be ignored? Is the complaint that he is too fast? Would it be better if he strung it out over an hour instead of 12 minutes? The watch list sometimes gets flooded. If it bothers you, take a break. If you miss some vandalism, don’t worry. There will always be plenty of vandalism. This discussion should be closed with an apology to Dicklyon. Constant314 (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The "errors" being "corrected" seem altogether more minor than some of the ones caused in the process. Had they been done over a hour, they might have been done more accurately. And if there are sub-tasks here that can "safely" be done at bot-like speed, why not use an (approved and flagged) bot to do so? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I know, the process being complained about (the bypassing of thousands of links through the miscapitalized redirect Habsburg Monarchy) did not create any errors. And the few errors I made with the much smaller and slower batch of "Test Match" fixes created only 6 case errors, which I fixed quickly. Let me know if I'm wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry if I didn't distinguish sufficiently clearly between the two cases. For clarity, I'm saying they're on the one hand being done needlessly and with human error, and on the other, needlessly and unapprovedly in a manner you don't even claim to be supervising. "Only six errors" isn't an especially great accuracy rate, and it's not clear to me that there's no possibility of false positives in the Habsburg Monarchy case, as opposed to merely good fortune none occurred. Or at least were detected yet. Which is kinda the point of prior discussion of full automation of such things, so as get more than one set of eyes on agreeing "yes, no possibility of error here, can be done by bot in the way described". The remedy in the former case seems to be a little more careful; and in the latter, to follow the bot policy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Before this also becomes a 600k timesink like the last one, can I just say that if people want to help clear down lists there's nearly 24,000 articles with WP:V issues right here Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It would likely be a better use of time than this thread, or arguing over capitalisation. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• This looks like an unambiguous violation of the bot policy (which includes WP:MEATBOT), all for a very useless edit (WP:NOTBROKEN). Since this is not the first time this has happened to Dicklyon, I would support an editing restriction from any such high speed semi-automated edits (unless prior approval has been sought and obtained as per the bot policy).
• The WP:Bot policy is there for good reasons, and if you're going at a speed of several hundreds of edits an hour (just over the first five days of April so far, Dicklyon has over 11000 edits (and then there's the whole month of March, at a similar pace: who knows how many other problematic edits have gone unnoticed?) - which, even assuming a very generous "awake 16 hours a day and only editing Wikipedia all the time", comes out to nearly 140 edits per hour - and we all know, realistically speaking, it's far faster than that) then there's not much room for wiggle room. Such large scale edits must get community consensus first, even more so if they are purely cosmetic. If they're not willing to abide by the established consensus regarding such edits, well then they shouldn't cry foul when people understandably get upset about it, and they most certainly should not ignore such complaints. This is a collaborative project, and if you're not willing to collaborate with others (which includes, occasionally, disagreeing), then it's time for a trip to the sin bin until community concerns are addressed and corrected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not important to fix these, but also not pointless. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not so. I repeat what I said above, since you missed it: WP:NOTBROKEN includes this advice: "Good reasons to bypass redirects include: ... Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected." Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  "Habsburg Monarchy" is neither a spelling error nor a mistake - it's an alternative stylistic option (which happens to not be favoured by Wikipedia practice, but is entirely legitimate). And, on top of that, it's not even visible to the reader, so it's entirely inconsequential. But, even if you were right, such a large scale editing spree affecting hundreds, nay, thousands of articles should have been checked with other of your fellow editors to see if there was an issue instead of acting like you're all alone and can do whatever you want. Speak of failing to get the point. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Over-capitalization is an error with respect to WP style. It's fine elsewhere. As others point out, it's visible in mouseover tips. If people would rather these be not fixed, we should revise WP:NOTBROKEN to say something different about that. The numbers for Applied Mathematics and Valide Sultan there are much lower than they were a few days ago too; these were much more complicated and took a lot longer each due to the variation in the first word capitalization in different contexts, which is not a problem with Habsburg. Several others no in the list today were due to my efforts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  As for "should have been checked with other of your fellow editors", I think they have been by now, and no errors have been found. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is you that you're fixing a problem which is not a problem. WP:NOTBROKEN says rather explicitly that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles.. Whether somebody bothered to create a list of redirects from "miscapitalisations" is entirely that person's problem. Wrong capitals would be a problem if they actually appeared in article text. Given they appear in a redirect, (and given on top of that that until recently, the article was at the capitalised version!: should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?), and are thus not reader-visible, this is entirely an exercise in time-wasting and in irritating your other fellow editors. To take a real-life lesson, there are lots of things you need to get prior permission before doing. Justifying after the fact with "oh, but I didn't do anything wrong" shows that you're not getting the message. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I quite agree that There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. But when linking through redirects with piping (or without even) when the redirect is an "error" w.r.t. to WP conventions, fixing it is OK, even recommended, per WP:NOTBROKEN, as I read it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Also note that many of these fixes DO affect the article display. Fixing only those would leave a big number listed in the report of linked miscapitalizations, so you could never have confidence in whether the job was done or not. It's better to fix them all, so the count tells you if there are more. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Re "should we change all links in other articles each time a page gets moved?" that depends. In many cases, yes, changing incoming links is part of the normal page move cleanup process; but it's sometimes hard and complicated, so it doesn't get done. When wbm1058 pointed me at the database of linked miscapitalizations, and suggested that would be a good thing to work on, I was happy to have it as a way to identify such clusters of linking errors. Fixing the visible ones worked best if also fixing the piped ones; I understand from this discussion that some regard that as busywork that serves no useful purpose and just pollutes Fram's watchlist, so maybe I should stop that. Other seem to think it's a good thing; we should probably get to a consensus at WP:NOTBROKEN instead of flogging me about it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• As others have said, there are good reasons to take care and establish consensus for mass changes across a broad swathe of articles. I'd just point out that the community usually loses patience with people whose only edits are tinkering with things that have little or no effect on the reader, especially when done by the thousands, cf. Betacommand, Rich Farmbrough, and many others. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well you're certainly not talking me then, are you? I've recently created multiple new articles, and new illustrations, and lots of other things besides this one bulk case-fix operation across a narrow set of articles. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• They just need a flat out ban from all automated editing and a strict rate limit. Then when they (as will almost certainly happen) refuse to abide by it, they can join the ranks of the indef blocked editors who dont learn. We went down this road for years with editors like Rich Farmbrough, RAN etc. This is just another example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  No specific accusation, just lump me with others who had problems? Or my work quality is OK, it's just that the quantity is too large? That's not fair to me or anyone. If I've done something wrong, say so specifically. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is that the benefit of having correct capitals is much less than the harm caused by irritating good editors. Whether a particular edit is "good" or not is irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Got it: no such thing as a "good" edit, but Fram is a "good" editor and I'm not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• The only real policy violation that I see alleged is that Dicklyon edits too fast, and I think it's fair to ask him to slow down. Otherwise, fixing capitalization seems to be within the realm of permissible cosmetic edits, yes? Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Dicklyon is too fast too furious. He save his time by Automatic mass edits. Some other slower and more careful editors spend their time to find his mistake Manually - a few found in thousands check - and get upset. Whose time is more valuable? Leemyongpak (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast. Show me an actual policy that says a human correcting capitalization in a bot-like manner is a violation.
  • Per WP:MEATBOT “merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.” The gist is to avoid high speed editing that causes a lot of errors. No policy violation here.
  • WP:NOTBROKEN is a guideline and not a policy. It makes no mention of miscapitalization. There is no basis to infer that NOTBROKEN applies to the correction of miscapitalization. No violation here.
  • Per WP:COSMETICBOT “this policy applies only to bots, human editors should also follow this guidance.” The editor is in violation of a should and not a policy.
  • The existence of the Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations is tacit approval to resolve items on the list.
  • Incorrect capitalization is a grammatical error, not a cosmetic error.
  • Overloaded watchlists are an irritation. Incorrect capitalization is also an irritation. Who's irritation matters more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constant314 (talk • contribs)

    I think WP:NOTBROKEN applies in support of what I did here. And WP:COSMETICBOT, which I just looked at, has Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as ... the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs. That's what I was doing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Utter bonkers. Point by point: "merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time" - as has been shown, this was at the rate of several edits per minute (I think there's one stretch of nearly 500 edits in half an hour, which comes out to one edit per less than 4 seconds: no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so - and when edits are done at such a rate, there is a policy, WP:BOTPOL, which needs to be followed, and which was obviously not followed at all). Nor was this for "a short time". Over the past month (March and the beginning of April), Dicklyon has more than 30,000 edits. That's a lot of "short times".... is a guideline and not a policy is the most utterly ridiculous WP:WIKILAWYER that can be said about absolutely anything. It's still a community-accepted norm and simply because it hasn't been given the golden stamp of being a policy does not mean that you can just ignore it as some form of rounding error. Policies and guidelines have been agreed upon over years of collaborative editing, and they obviously set out accepted practice. As for WP:COSMETICBOT, simply because it is a "should" and not a "must" doesn't mean it should be ignored, either. The bot policy also says (WP:MEATBOT) For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. and Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request. If you're going to be making thousands of edits at rates of over a dozen a minute, there should clearly be some doubt... Obviously, both of these statements are valid concerns (which thankfully happen to be from a policy and not a guideline, so no more silly nitpicking on that). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re no way a human editor is taking the appropriate measures to avoid errors when doing so. No, of course not. You take precautions to avoid errors up front, just like when making a bot; you don't run fast until you're sure it's right. If you think this is problematic, show me an error. I admitted to the 6 errors on the smaller slower batch of "Test Match --> Test match", where I was actually paying attention; I agree I'm not perfect, but if an error is found, I'm all over making it right. Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re: it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, that fine. In the case of the bulk Habsburg Monarchy that Fram is complaining about, there was nothing "contrary to consensus", and there were no "errors an attentive human would not make". and re: If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request., there was no doubt. If you'd like to look at the particulars for why no error was likely to be possible, I can show you. Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    Re policy vs guideline, I agree it's not a very useful distinction. I respect both. I happen to do a lot of work based on MOS:CAPS, guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Constant314. No policies were violated, but it sure is a good thing that we're spending a lot of time talking about it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions per Constant314. The time sink is not someone doing WP:WIKIGNOME work such as this, the time sink is discussions such as this. There's no rules against working fast, and these kind of periodic ANI discussions are starting to feel like a personal vendetta against Dicklyon. --Jayron32 13:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • If they are different persons bringing these issues here, then it is incorrect to make the claim that this is a "personal vendetta against Dicklyon". As far as I remember, this is my first ANI discussion of Dicklyon's edits (or else it has to have been in some distant past). There are rules about working fast (WP:MEATBOT), and stating that they are gnomish edits doesn't mean that anything goes or that e.g. WP:NOTBROKEN doesn't apply. The timesink is that these unvetted, unnecessary edits are not error-free, and shouldn't just be ignored. For nearly a month, some of his semi-automated "case fixes" ruined a template on a number of pages (e.g. here). This "case fix" of Habsburg monarchy also case fixed multiple cases of "Dual Monarchy" to "dual monarchy" despite this (in thin this context) almost invariably being written with a capital M, it changed "Central Europe" to "central Europe" even though this is commonly capitalized... Just ignoring his gnomish edits will only let such errors proliferate, for little actual benefit. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Those downcasings of dual monarchy and central Europe were done by hand, based on my interpretation of the evidence in light of guidelines; nothing to do with JWB or the class of edits that polluted your watchlist, annoying you. If you think I'm wrong there, then per WP:BRD, feel free to revert, and we can discuss. And while I did mess up a bit on the Dallas Cowboys (see my talk page), that was while developing patterns that I applied across all the other teams; I verified that I got all those right, but I failed to notice that early mistake in developing the patterns; I own my errors, and quickly fixed it when it was found (11 articles total). Dicklyon (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: Constant314 nailed it with "An editor should not be sanctioned for making proper edits merely because he is fast" (and all the WP:POLICY citations backing that up). This is yet another case of people with a "pet" style they like, trying to defy guidelines and "go after" those who make our material compliant with those guidelines. If you want to propose that WP should not use the capitalization that overwhelingly dominates in reliable sources, and should not default to lower-case when in doubt, feel free to propose such a massive change at WT:MOS. It is not a behaviorial matter and thus is not an ANI matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You were the one who proposed that! In your essay Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Still work to do

I'm not going to do any more bulk case fixing in piped redirects, but there appear to still be about 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of monarchy. I'll need to go slow to only fix those. I did a few as an example (see edit summaries with case fix (visible text only) (via WP:JWB)). Any reason not to finish those up now? Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please don't do any more bulk case fixing or any other mechanical-style bulk editing without approval at WP:BRFA first. I'd rather that such edits not be done at all since random minor inconsistency in such things doesn't bother me, but that's just me. I don't agree with Rhododendrites that this stuff in the aggregate is a good thing. It has caused astounding amounts of pain in Wikipedia over the years. Remember the date delinking arbitration, remember Betacommand, it goes on and on. RGloucester made a non-suggestion (i.e. he considered it unthinkable) that I thought was brilliant, that of demoting the WP:MOS from "guideline" to something like "suggestion" in order to shut all this down. That is something to take to heart. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Dicklyon has used semi-automated tools to do an enormous amount of cleanup on tennis articles, the vast majority of which has been completely uncontroversial. If the issue here is that the Habsburg Monarch → Habsburg monarchy changes are unnecessary, then it and redirects like it should be removed from WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations (by replacing {{r from miscapitalization}} with {{r from other capitalization}}). If the issue is that changing the capitalization of piped redirects is unnecessary (which I tend to agree with), then the database report generator should be modified so that piped redirects aren't included if possible. Regardless, the report only contains 3400 articles, so we're not talking insane numbers of edits to clear it (assuming highly-linked redirects aren't added to it). Letcord (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

See below. Dicklyon put the Habsburg Monarchy redirects in the Database rport after the complaints about his edits, and after I said I would raise it at ANI: and he put it back into that Database report after yet another editor had removed it (by, indeed, putting it back to "other capitalization" instead of "miscapitalization"). It wasn't an error when Dicklyon started his "cleanup", it became an error when Dicklyon made it so after he received pushback, and it isn't an error now when another editor reverted him again. This is not an editor trying to clean out error reports, this is an editor creating errors so they can then clean them out... Fram (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

If Habsburg Monarchy is indeed an incorrect capitalization, and therefore linking to it erroneous, then regardless of whether it was officially tagged as such (and thus included in the report), it would have been valid to fix those links. So it comes down to whether Dicklyon's considering that redirect's capitalization to be "incorrect" was correct (I have no idea). Perhaps it should be required in future that redirects with over a certain number of non-transcluded links to them be discussed on the report's talk page before being categorized as "incorrect"? That would prevent issues like this from arising again. Letcord (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's what {{r from other capitalisation}} says: This is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. That is exactly what "Habsburg Monarchy" is. It being not the option preferred according to Wikipedia style does not make it incorrect. And messing with this ex-post-facto in an attempt to justify such edits is pure disruption and busywork-for-the-sake-of-busywork-style time wasting. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking more carefully at the history, this is worse than it appeared. Dicklyon's defense for the Habsburg Monarchy edits is "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing, so when Habsburg Monarchy got moved creating thousands of miscapitalized links that would show up there, I decided to fix it preemptively. " But the Habsburg Monarchy redirect (until very recently the actual article title) wasn't on that list when Dicklyon started making these edits, nor when I complained at his talk page, nor when he restarted the same edits, nor when I complained about them again on his talk page. He rapidly added them to that list after I had said I would take him to ANI over these issues[38], and when that edit was undone[39] (not by me), he reverted it[40]. Basically, he is using his own after-the-fact unilateral actions as a justification for his need to clean out that database report: he creates an issue which he then has to work through, against objections from others. In what way is this acceptable editing? Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fram: what. the habsburg monarchy page was moved to the current capitalization. dicklyon should be very well allowed to change those capitalizations. if readers hover over those piped links, they will not see a preview, they don't have a quick summary of that article. raising this on ani seems to me a severe overreaction. the {{r from other/miscapitilization}} thing is an issue, but that's an entire separate thing from what you raised up here! 晚安 (トークページ) 09:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The issues are carrying on when there are objections, instead of dealing with these objections first; making errors when doing these things (the second batch); WP:MEATBOT issues; the creation of an "error", a listing in a database report, to justify his changes after the fact; his edit warring over this. We have guidelines that say that redirects shouldn't be changed to point to the target table instead, per WP:NOTBROKEN. Perhaps that guideline needs changing, but until then it shouldn't be ignored by editors who feel like it. I am now testing the previews (I hadn't enabled them, find them annoying), and for direct links and piped links, they work perfectly (i.e. when a page links to Habsburg Monarchy or to Austria, the hover is for Habsburg monarchy). So as far as I am concerned, the reason you give for these changes is not correct. If it is different for others (mobile, other browser, ...) then please enlighten me: but until then, this change doesn't bring any profit as far as I am concerned. Fram (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I was fixing it "preemptively", that is, before setting it up to appear on that report. I later labeled it miscapitalized to show how it would appear there (just like most of the others there have been labeled as miscapitalized after an RM discussion decided they should not be that way). How is this "worse than it appeared"? It's exaclty what I said. Dicklyon (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A post hoc justification of creating an error for things you were already removing but which were objected against, and edit warring over it to be kept labeled as an error, is a worse look than finding something on an error report and starting to remove them. "The listing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations had been pointed out to me by wbm1058 as a more productive target for my JWB-based case fixing", so instead of simply doing case-fixing, you put things on that report and then do case fixing, or (as here) you do casefixing and put them on that list when people complain... Fram (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't create any errors, so no such justification was needed. And I did most of that case fixing before marking the miscapitalization, to avoid it showing up in the report with big numbers. You interrupted that work, leaving errors, so then I marked it. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

"I didn't create any errors" ... "leaving errors": it was only an error (the capitalization) after you turned it into one by labeling it a miscapitalization instead of a different capitalization. Your excuses here don't make any sense, apparently you had to mark the capitalization as an error because I interrupted you? Fram (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

you need a break. 晚安 (トークページ) 07:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@晚安: No, Fram is absolutely in the right for pointing this out. Habsburg Monarchy was incorrectly tagged and placed on a database report it had no business being on. I don't think you seem to understand the situation here based off this reply. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's an opinion, not absolute. As I see it, Habsburg Monarchy fits very well into the class of redirect titles on Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations; it seems to belong there. Why do you disagree? Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As pointed out already by RandomCanadian above, just because something does not conform to Wikipedia's specific manual of style does not automatically make it a miscapitalization. The RM did not get consensus for "Habsburg Monarchy is invalid and miscapitalised". The consensus was the article title should be sentence case because our manual of style proscribes that and both capitalization schemes saw about roughly equal use in reliable sources. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I find this to be a novel and odd argument. The whole point of the RM discussion and move was that the capitalized form of the phrase was wrong for Wikipedia, per MOS:CAPS, which is about capitalization, not about titles. What do you think sentence case means? The phrase is not "invalid" or "miscapitalized" in some other styles, but it's wrong for Wikipedia, and ought to be fixed, at least where it shows up in articles. Either that or everything I've been doing for the last 15 years to help Wikipedia move closer to implementing its guidelines has been a waste of time. That's why such things get tagged as miscapitalized, and why we work on fixing them. Numerous respondents here have supported such work. I'm flying out in a few hours, so won't be back to argue this further. Feel free to get the last word in. Dicklyon (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

HabsBurg monarchy would be a wrong capitalisation (no serious source capitalises it like that). Habsburg Monarchy is an alternative capitalisation (not a mistake) which does not conform with the Wikipedia style guide, but might conform with another (or be part of an upper-case title): therefore, it is not "wrong", it is, just as the redirect categorisatio ntemplate says, a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. It leads to the title in accordance with the Wikipedia naming conventions for capitalisation. Wikipedia naming conventions are not divine truth; and simply because something does not match them does not make it wrong, it just makes it different. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the pushback and misunderstandings, and my upcomnig wikibreak, here's what I propose to do:

1. I will leave these 267 articles with visible over-capitalization of Monarchy to others to fix over time to be consistent with the RM consensus.
2. I will stop responding to further cleanup requests at the tennis project, referring them instead to list at AWB task request and/or to seek bot approval (one such is pending and will complete without my further involvement).
3. I will stop interpreting the database report on linked miscapitalizations as suggestions for useful work to be done.
4. I will completely stop using JWB until at least after my upcoming long trip and wikibreak (returning mid May).
5. I may start an RFC on the interpretation of NOTBROKEN, to see how the community feels about fixing very minor errors.
6. While traveling with intermittent Internet I'll restrict my limited WP edits to more creative work like uploading photos.

Thanks to all who have supported me here; but let's not further pollute Fram's watchlist. Dicklyon (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to do a bit of JWB just now to repair a goof I made on a few articles on March 9 that was just pointed out to me. Just a dozen or two articles with about three things to replace, in football. Dicklyon (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. Just 11 articles. Dicklyon (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Given that 'Habsburg Monarchy' is as or more common in prose than 'Habsburg monarchy', it seems silly to have a guideline that mandates the second usage throughout Wikipedia. I'm fine with enforcing such a standard for article titles, but shouldn't article text be governed by something like WP:ENGVAR or WP:ERA? At least in cases like this where there are two competing conventions of capitalization in use in reliable sources? I suspect that this is a very common position with historiographical terminology. 'Byzantine Senate' is given as an example at MOS:CAPS, but when I check ngrams it appears that it should be 'Byzantine senate'. A whole lot of historical terminology will probably fail the "substantial majority" test. (Abbasid Caliphate does.) I don't think it is the right test, but even if we use it for titles I see no reason to force it on prose across the board. Srnec (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  If you mean to question or change MOS:CAPS on the basis that it's "silly", this is not the place for that. As for that Byzantine Senate example, I agree, that's a bad one and should be removed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of the above and I won't, but what I will do is comment on the pagemove Habsburg Monarchy to Habsburg monarchy. Look at incoming links from templates for the old title, and then read WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. I have previously tried to get Dicklyon to concentrate on links from templates after his "oh so important" pagemoves, but he seems incapable of "fixing" those redirects which actually DO need fixing, instead preferring to concentrate on those which do not. See his talk page a year ago. DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Duncan, greetings from Amsterdam. Thanks for reminding me about fixing template links first. I didn't forget them, but when I generated the list of files to edit in JWB, from main and Template spaces, it put the Template ones last in the list (I could have done them first if I had thought it would be an issue). Within a day of the move, my process was stopped by Fram complaining here, so didn't get to the templates; and yes I had forgotten after all this discussion to get back and take care of those. As I said, though, there's still work to do and I think I didn't count templates in the 267. Dicklyon (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I updated 13 templates. There's more to do, like other articles and templates with still-overcapped titles, but those will wait. Off to Cape Town in the morning. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Page previews

Above, the claim was made that such changes to piped links were useful because "page previews" (the popups you can enable in preference / appearance) don't work for redirects. In my experience (confirmed above by Procrastinatingreader if I read it correctly), page previews work perfectly for redirects as well (e.g. Habsburg monarchy, Habsburg Monarchy, and Austria all give the same result). Can some people test this and indicate whether they see any difference between those three popups? Fram (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say page previews don't work. I said they show the miscapitalized text even when the text is hidden by piping: Habsburg monarchy. My claim was that the hidden text with wrong capitalization (what I was fixing), is "not invisible to users". But the RFC I started at WT:Redirect indicates that people aren't bother by that kind of variation showing up as an extra line in the article preview, so I won't be fixing those anymore. Dicklyon (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

but sometimes it fails? why?

Oddly, it seems to fail intermittently this way, even in exactly the same context. I can't figure out how to make this reliably repeatable. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's this: the normal non-redirected preview always works, but the preview through redirect (piped or not) only works the first time after a page load; after that it just shows like this screen clip. Reloading the page resets it to work once again. Or so my limited testing suggests. Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If I'm right, this piping through the article title should keep working: Austria, while the ones piped through redirect don't: Austria. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So it seems that piping through redirects is indeed somewhat broken, miscapitalized or not. There should be a global technical fix for that, I would presume (or maybe it's working as intended?). Dicklyon (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Turning off the "Navigation pop-ups gadget" gives a more reliable and completely different looking preview, not showing the redirect name all. So that's where the oddness is, and the behavior I was noting. Resolved. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Can confirm, the popups for the redirect are supposed to work but frequently fail to load, whereas they work 100% of the time without a redirect. Turning off the gadget does not display any alternate popups whatsoever for me. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We have, under appearances, a "page preview" toggle that works all the time, it seems, unlike the more buggy gadget. Fram (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

user:Mariofan3 WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTWEBHOST

Almost all of this user’s edits are to WP:FANCRUFT fake articles about non-notable web shows. They may need blocking for abuse of Wikipedia for webhosting purposes. Dronebogus (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

You haven't notified the user, and you have provided zero diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dronebogus's assessment. The editor's entire contribution history is clear that they're using Wikipedia as a webhost and are WP:NOTHERE. Schazjmd (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified. Also I peovided “diffs” in the form of statistics because literally their whole edit history counts as evidence. Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly why do you care, secondly they're user pages, I wasn't trying to record notable information cuz the info I was recording was relevant to me, obviously no one is gonna look at those pages so idk why you are calling it "web hosting". Also like i'm gonna use wikipedia of all things to self promote lol, I was just recording info related to my projects cuz it was fun, stop going to furthest extreme, It's just harmless pages I was just practicing the wikipedia source with, calm yourself Ryan Jay (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3: It’s not “practicing” if you never put your skills to use on actual articles. Dronebogus (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not exactly fair is it, I admit I got carried away and made a few too many pages, and forgot to actually edit other pages, so I apologize for that, honestly the one user page I care about rlly is the Snowtab in the Void one cause of the amount of time I put into that one Ryan Jay (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: Wikipedia:How to use your user space and WP:USER. Many, if not most, users who have been around for any amount of time, create user sub pages for any number of reasons. There's no limit on how many a user can have. How do any of us know they aren't working on ideas for expanding an article, or building ideas and sources for a new article. And as these guidelines say, "You can put more or less anything on your user page, as long as it does not break any other rules (for example, no copyright violations or insults directed at other users)." — Maile (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I know that, but this user hasn’t spent enough time anywhere else on WP to justify making 500+ edits in userspace Dronebogus (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    Literally 90% of their edits are on personal projects, which is the definition of WP:NOTHERE (“Editing only in user space”) Dronebogus (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I could easily change that though, I mean I believe I contribute to episode list pages occasionally I could just do it more often but with other pages Ryan Jay (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Fandom exists. They have practically zero standards as long as you don’t add porn, slander, or hate speech. Dronebogus (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
  • ok Ryan Jay (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Mariofan3 and Dronebogus: "Fandom" is a more general topic. It would appear to me that the wiki-hosting website Fandom (website) is what might have been intended here. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

      Yes thank you Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Fandom does not like falsehoods any more than we do. wikia:User blog:Wikiatastic/A perfect rules article for your wiki#No Vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I’ve seen some comically terrible wikis. Dronebogus (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• @Mariofan3:, please save whatever content you want from these pages ASAP as they will very likely be deleted, either as WP:U5 violations or through WP:MfD.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

This user’s mainspace behavior also includes personal attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mariofan3#March_2020 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes#This_is_annoying), blatant vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=838356166 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Screams_of_Silence:_The_Story_of_Brenda_Q&diff=prev&oldid=956108419) and a general flippant and hostile attitude towards editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_DuckTales_(2017_TV_series)_episodes&diff=prev&oldid=945408058). Honestly I’m not sure why they expect us to believe they can actually edit the wiki competently. Dronebogus (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC) 2 Years Ago -_- Ryan Jay (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Also not gonna lie now is when you are starting to be a bit of an ass about this, I already agreed and have been as close to “nice” about this situation as I can be, all your doing now is just bringing up random stuff from 2-4 years ago that doesn’t affect this current situation, what are you, a twitter user? Quit it already, I already agreed to the page deletions (or well even if I disagreed I wouldn’t really have a choice now would I), I don’t care about this situation after this point, so can it just end now lol. Ryan Jay (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition of bad categories by Sarahlundell and refusal to communicate

Sarahlundell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) won't stop adding incorrect categories to articles, which is 100% of their edits to date. Typically this involves adding random politicans to Category:LGBT heads of government, even people whose article doesn't describe them as gay, as well as edit warring after first attempt is reverted but also adding someone to the LGBT writers category whose article doesn't describe them as gay. I've tried to communicate with them, but they just carry on with the bad category additions. FDW777 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: This user [41] was created within minutes of Sarah Lundell and is doing the exact same, adding LGBT categories. I would be amazed if they weren't connected. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

She is not alone, although she may be alone in adding the category to people who are not openly LGBTQ. Several other people have been eagerly adding this category to everyone from mayors to state legislators. We need to have a discussion somewhere about exactly what constitutes a "head of government". In my opinion, that does not include mayors. Where should this discussion go? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We have an article Head of government that pretty clearly explains what one is. Deor (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Which I linked them to on their talk page. FDW777 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw the "LGBT heads of government" category pop up on some LGBT mayors I've watchlisted and at least one legislator's page. They are not heads of government. I set up a SPI thread for this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ivance1027 prior to seeing this thread (no idea who the "master" is, but it could be Sarahlundell is the "master" account). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I had just commented on the SPI before seeing the thread here. This appears to be part of a WikiEdu course on LGBTQ Wikipedia editing. The stated goals are "adding tags to LGBTQ+ individual's Wikipedia pages as well adding people to lists of LGBTQ+ individuals" - unfortunately it seems like the students did not receive adequate instruction on categorization. Pinging the course instructors Awatkins123, Gabagirl and Whatknows to inform them of this thread, and will crosspost to the education noticeboard. Spicy (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring this out, Spicy, nice work! When you talk to the instructor, be sure to point out that they can't add a category about something that is not mentioned or documented in the article. If these people are trying to teach their students how to edit Wikipedia, that should have been in lesson 1A. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems that these class editing projects, and editathons etc are almost continuously causing issues. I came across another one a few weeks ago where people were assigned articles to edit, and almost every edit had to be reverted. I'm starting to wonder if serious restrictions and rules should be put around these sorts of activity. I don't advocate banning them, but they need to be controlled in some manner as they are very clear net negatives at this point. Canterbury Tail talk 12:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN - we did teach students that categories need to be documented in the article. The articles targeted for adding categories all came from Wikipedia Lists of LGBT people - so if there were people wrongly categorized as LGBT this was a mistake already on Wikipedia. Students were directed to use the citations in the Wikipedia lists to add such information to article to back up categories if it was missing. In this process, we did run across missing or inadequate documentation in the LGBT lists - which we tried to improve when better sources could be found. Awatkins123 (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the educational benefit from having students add categories to articles? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Idk? Wasting server resources? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do we need Wiki-Ed? It causes more problems then it solves. What is its purpose? Teaching? There's like, you know, education for that?? Is it to teach people how to edit Wikipedia? Fact is that most people in their life will never edit Wikipedia after Wiki-Ed. The student accounts are a drain on server resources. There's no reason to do this. It's also MASSIVE spam on talk pages. Why does this even exist? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 02:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ricky Luague and image uploading

Ricky Luague (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ricky Luague is an extended confirmed user with a good number of edits that seem mainly constructive at a first glance, so I consider them to be a decent contributor to the project. However, I have noticed the increasingly large number of files they have uploaded with no source or licensing information at all (empty file description pages). They have been notified, either by a bot or a human, each time at their talk page with absolutely no response. (Their only edit to their talk page was in May 2018.)

This appears to be reaching a level of disruption, as they are leaving these possible copyright violations for others to clean up. (Plus, their consistent lack of edit summaries doesn't help.)

I suggest a partial block from the file namespace, as they are a longtime contributor to the wiki, but I leave that up to the community here. Bsoyka (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have been given any particular non-template warnings of any sort to date, so I've left one. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Stifle: They did the same again. Still no response on their talk page. Bsoyka (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked from File namespace. This is indefinite strictly in the sense of "having no defined end date"; any administrator is hereby authorized to unblock as soon as they are satisfied that Ricky Luague understands and will comply with policy. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 10

Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 7 October in 2019 (only 42.3.120.242 is not),please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Djjjjjl. El_C 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

i will light you on fire 晚安 (トークページ) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

+Special:Contributions/112.120.179.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 18 July in last year,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Plllllljn. El_C 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeated topic ban violations by EnlightenmentNow1792

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Timeline of events

12:30 EnlightenmentNow1792 is left a notice that they have been topic banned per a complaint at WP:AE [42]

12:39 EnlightenmentNow1792 leaves a rather unpleasant message towards the enforcing administrator, indicating that they are aware of the topic ban [43]

13:49 They re-join a discussion about how the article on the holocaust should present its impact on other groups, including Eastern Europeans [44]. The specific edit being discussed is this one, [45], which directly deals with the Eastern European related parts of the article.

15:09 They leave a comment in a discussion about the Azov Battalion [46]

17:26 They leave another editor a message about an article on an RT journalist, indicating that they have been discussing this by email. [47] This message asks another editor to, among other things, edit the article on their behalf to include information on the journalist supposedly being controlled by the Kremlin and pushing Pro-Russian Warmongering.

17:53 I leave them a message telling them that their edits were in violation of their topic ban [48]. They remove the message, falsely calling me a sock [49].

18:05 They leave another message discussing the RT journalist's article and asking another editor to "rectify it". [50]

18:21 They rejoin the discussion on the holocaust, claiming that the section of the article dealing with the holocausts effects on the Poles, Soviets and Ukrainians is not within their topic ban [51]

18:23 Another message in the discussion about the RT journalist, although this message is just a thank you [52]

18:27 Another message in the discussion about the holocaust, making ridiculous statments like inability or refusal to look at sources, is not contained in, or covered by, anything written in, WP:TBAN. [53]

I have tried, in good faith, to inform this editor of what the extent of a topic ban is on the assumption that they did not realise they covered all content on the project, in response to which they reverted me and called me a sock. In less than 4 hours they have made a number of edits that are in direct contravention of their ban, even after I had informed them of its extent. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. Not going to waste my time on addressing the substance of this complaint (almost every single diff is a grossly misrepresented). Permanent ban of the very obvious sockpuppeteer responsible for this "wikistalking" will benefit the Project on several fronts. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a sock – the IP is well known to many editors as a long-time productive contributor. DanCherek (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks pretty clear to me that you have been repeatedly violating your TBan and engaging in attacks on other editors. Exactly how do you see the linked edits as not falling within the scope of your TBan? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

EnlightenmentNow1792, before you called the IP editor an "obvious sock", it would have been wise for you to take a look at their contributions. You would have seen that they have been editing for five years, have made thousands of useful edits on a wide variety of topics, and have never been blocked. Would you like to withdrawn your false accusation? Cullen328 (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The single IP has not made "thousands" of edits. However, assuming it's the same person, Special:contributions/192.76.8.0/24 has, but that would not have been obvious to many editors. That said, there was no basis for calling the IP a sock regardless.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Re the 15:09 edit: it was striking a number of the user's prior comments and withdrawing from the subject, so that's within the spirit of the topic ban if not the letter. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• I would have blocked EN1792 for the topic ban violations, but it's been a long time since I've done an AE block, and I was concerned I'd screw up the paperwork.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• The 17:26 edit is the only one that's blatantly violating the topic ban. Some of the others are tangential subjects, and it depends how broad one wants to get with "broadly construed". On the one hand, I'm not quite ready to block EN1792. On the other hand, if they don't scale back the scope of their edits, they're on borrowed time before they do get blocked for violating the topic ban. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• EN1792 has been just issued a topic ban, so their emotions are running high. Also, they appear to be inexperienced and might not totally comprehend what TB actually means. I understand that, but what I can't tolerate is calling other Wikipedians humourless bullying sociopaths. -->[54]. I asked them to remove what appeared to me a WP:PA -->[55] but the response was ...I have asked you to stay away from my talk page... (in the edit summary [56] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• This ANI is TOOSOON. @C.Fred: the 17:26 edit was made to my talk page in response to my email. It did not occur to me (or probably to EnlightenmentNow1792) that a Brazilian journalist who may be a "useful idiot" for the Kremlin was in "Eastern Europe." And EnlightenmentNow1792's crabby general remark, on his own talk page, about humorless bullying sociopaths...that frequent the Wikipedia Admin/Arbitration/incident/enforcement noticeboards is not the kind of PA that people get blocked for...I hope. Give him some time to figure out the TBan. It's for the good of the project. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm all for giving them time but the fella needs to back off with that battleground mentality. Seriously. I haven't seen such outrageous behaviour for a long time. Perhaps they might benefit from a couple of days' break. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

HouseOfChange sent me an apology by email and may well have sent one to this editor. If so, it wasn’t all that graciously received, but this editor did go back to a place where I had pointed out that they were berating the wrong person and made an apology of their own. I call that positive. Elinruby (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC) The alleged personal attack is a different editor, not a party to this complaint, not an admin, who is blissfully unaware of it. So it might be a bit thin to call it a personal attack. The people complaining went through the editor’s edit history talk page to find this remark that they object to. Elinruby (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC) And it’s actually quite nuanced, if you looks at the links, and it’s in a *thank you note* Elinruby (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

TE by Bloodofox

Bloodofox (talk · contribs) is engaged in WP:TE over at a WP:BLP JP Sears. Some WP:TE I will list a few from this month:

• 16:11, 13 April 2022‎
• 05:19, 7 April 2022‎
• 16:35, 5 April 2022
• 22:48, 3 April 2022

I have tried to get some outside eyeballs at times when I wade into this seemingly political article here Talk:JP_Sears#Include_conspiracy_theorist_content and this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Office_for_Science_and_Society. Didnt think that ANI was needed until I noticed the TE continues against other editors as well ScottishFinnishRadish, Bonewah who maybe showed up as a result of the RSN or RFC? The whole purpose of these methods is to get outside eyeballs to a somewhat obscure topic. The article (while not seemingly about an overtly political subject, seems to be now given the discussion of the conspiracy theorist claim, which is a political term that bloodfox is pushing (and some other editors seem to support at least partially in the RFC).

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A little background: I'm the individual that has provided most of the sources on this article. Before I arrived, it was a puffpiece that did not reflect the reality of coverage of the article's subject. In turn, I've attracted much of the ire of the encamped editors on this page, including this one. In fact, this editor has been trying to scrub it of anything the editor deems "political" about the article's subject for years now. This includes sources like the New York Times (2022) description of the subject as a "conservative conspiracy theorist" and this source from McGill University's Office for Science and Society discussing the subject's uploading of at least one now removed conspiracy theory-promoting video on YouTube, WP:RS be damned (and with it WP:LEAD—got to make sure those lead sentences don't appear in Google snippets!).

Having not gotten their way despite repeated, tedious RfCs (like this one) and even attempts at having English Wikipedia's conspirituality article deleted (yes, seriously), the editor now appears to be attempting to just bump me off from discussion. This editor has been watching the page since at least 2020 ([57] and I'd argue edits like these, where the editor less-than-subtle alters descriptions of individuals like Del Bigtree and Plandemic creator Mikki Willis, provide insight into the editor's motives). Further context: This article has recently attracted sympathetic editors who also appear to be keen on presenting the article's subject more as a concerned citizen anti-government freedom fighter (conveniently, just as the subject now presents himself) rather than, as the NYT puts it, a "conservative conspiracy theorist" headlining anti-vaxxer operated "anti-mandate" events. And so I guess it's now time to try this angle.

Anyway, classic pseudoscience and fringe article tactics that I've seen plenty of times in related territory, like over at Falun Gong, Epoch Times, cryptozoology—or, really any number of other fringe and pseudoscience articles I've had the, ahem, pleasure of editing and providing "inconvenient" sources for over the years. All meet with lawyering and tedious attacks (and yet all stay due to WP:RS). Anyway, in short, what you're seeing here can be summarized as 'when ya can't outright scrub the article, go after the editors themselves with whatever tedious argument you can make to at least try to slow the source additions down and maybe you'll get lucky with it'.

The article does indeed need as many eyes as it can get—and not just those whose beliefs align with the article's subject. That's all too often the case for these obscure figures promoting fringe and pseudoscience this or that. The aligned IPs we've seing drawn to the article lately have not been helping the matter either. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"I'm the individual that has provided most of the sources on this article." sounds a lot like WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR which states ""I created/wrote the majority of this article." (implying some kind of right or status exists because of that)". The ducks are quacking WP:FOWLPLAY... Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The only issue I have is with the frequent aspersions towards the motives of editors who don't agree with them. A reminder to "play the ball, not the man" might be nice. I originally saw this article on the WP:FTN thread, then took a deeper look when it came up at WP:RSN. I have no previous involvement with the article. The discussion is quite split at this point, but there is plenty of disagreement with Bloodofox's viewpoint that isn't from fringe topics and pseudoscience promoters or people with an angle, or encamped editors. Good faith disagreements can arise without someone on the other side being a shill or supporter. All of these examples are within the past week or so:

• In their response here I've attracted much of the ire of the encamped editors on this page... got to make sure those lead sentences don't appear in Google snippets!.. This article has recently attracted sympathetic editors who also appear to be keen on presenting the article's subject more as a concerned citizen anti-government freedom fighter... and not just those whose beliefs align with the article's subject.
• [58] would seem to speaks volumes about your angle here
• [59] these discussions of fringe topics and pseudoscience promoters are so predictable.
• [60] I get that there's a desire to downplay the subject's involvement here either due to BLP concerns or editor personal beliefs
• [61] And you're aggressively lawyering to keep out of the article. Given that there's a concerted effort to present the article's subject here as a freedom fighter over a conspiracy theorist, despite WP:RS, I guess we'll just need to wait for more sources to pile up (and then expect subsequent lawyering to try to keep them out.)
• [62] Jt, do you have some connection to the article's subject or are you just a huge fan?
• [63] I get that you're also eager to scrub the article of any mention of Sears and his anti-vaccine activities—you've been trying this for years now
• [64] Ah, the joys of working on fringe articles, where the lawyering to censor an article in favor of the article's subject never stops.

So again, a little reminder to WP:AGF and comment on content, not contributor motives might help the discussion, especially when uninvolved editors show up from noticeboard threads.. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a common problem in articles about pseudoscience and fringe topics. Proponents will doggedly insist on keeping the article pro-fringe, and the editors who stick to WP:FRINGE and WP:RS get worn down dealing with it.

This has driven many a good editor away from such articles (and Wikipedia as a whole) because they have to constantly be polite while the fringe-believers continually keep pushing the boundaries. it's exhausting and frustrating. bloodofox is one of the best editors I've seen in this area, and I can't blame them for being a bit blunt with these other contributors. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Does that include myself? I'm not a pro-fringe editor, I was brought, initially, by a WP:FTN discussion they opened, and paid further attention when a second thread was opened on WP:RSN. Just because someone disagrees does not mean that they are pro-fringe. This is just a failure of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

ITT: Editor who's tired and a little overcommitted talks to whitewashers, gets snippy, snippiness spills over to affect other good faith editors. I don't think this rises to the level where sanctions are needed but there might be an opportunity for Bloodofox to think about his word choices.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem with fighting FRINGE is the same problem with fighting anything too much. Eventually, everything looks like a fight and everyone becomes either an ally or enemy. FWIW, i agree with User:S Marshall, i dont see any official action as necessary at this time. Bonewah (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Bridgerton Cast List

A number of editors, including me, have been editing the cast list of the TV series. Majority wanted a separate division for the members of the eponymous Bridgerton family for clarity. At present, user Dmargi has been reverting these edits to follow MOS on cast list. But I argue that a simple alphabetical arrangement on a large ensemble cast is a disservice to the readers, especially when the focus of the story is obviously to the Bridgerton family members. It just does not make sense, style-wise, to let the protagonists of the show scattered and buried in the section. Maxen Embry (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Took a look at the page history, and saw only a couple of reversions of the cast list, unless something occurred further back in the history. I also looked at the talk page and found absolutely zero discussion of this issue. Where has the majority come to this decision? If there hasn't been talk page discussion to reach consensus, I'd suggest that it's awfully early to bring the concerns here. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Have already raised the issue on the talk page. How do other editors access it tho? My worry is no one would reply to it. Maxen Embry (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Maxen Embry, have you considered notifying WikiProject Television? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and incivility by Sayurasem

Recently Sayurasem have been mostly editing food-related articles related to Indonesia, some of them overlap with the cuisines of neighbouring countries in the Southeast Asian region. Their editing seems to indicate a pattern of highlighting or promoting a nationalistic Indonesian point of view at the expense of neighbouring countries, aggressively removing legitimate sources that are not Indonesian in origin while not scrutinizing Indonesian-centric self-published sources up to the same standard of quality, even when they are objectively unsuitable for citation on Wikipedia, like personal blogs or websites run by non-notable people who have not had work published elsewhere by a reputable publisher: here is one example with one being cited as a source and the other as an external link. This is not entirely problematic in itself and perhaps could be a matter for dispute resolution to settle, except that their edits have been undone or reverted by many editors besides myself and it is quite clear they intend to continue the pattern of repeatedly reverting anyone who disagrees with their edits. Sayurasem would occasionally retort in an aggressive manner in their edit summaries whenever the content they introduced or removed is challenged, claiming without providing credible evidence that the article's contents are "destroyed" or alleging that there is somehow "manipulation of article references". They have retaliated to recent edit attempts with further edit warring, or making incivil accusations on user talk pages like mine, instead of making a good faith attempt to discuss their disagreements with other editors in the relevant talk pages of the disputed articles. My attempt to explain in an impartial manner my disagreement with their non-neutral point of view and disruptive editing pattern by highlighting relevant guidelines or policies here, and my later warnings requesting that they cease posting on my talk page with their personal attacks, have been met with further animosity or ignored. They continue to display WP:IDHT and ownership behavioural tendencies, ironic considering what they have accused me of.

I am also calling into question their competence as an editor: there are at least two instances I am aware of, here and here, where an article they had newly created was found to be in violation of copyright or are redundant content forks of an established page by more experienced editors, who promptly removed them from mainspace in response. If their behaviour is not considered to be serious enough to warrant a temporary block, I believe a warning should be issued to Sayurasem at the very minimum, and for any interested administrators to keep an eye on the topic areas they are active in for problematic behaviour or potential copyright violations. I take responsibility for minor transgressions like violating or close to violating 3RR, because I was under the impression that some of their edits constitute vandalism and should be reverted. From the way they aggressively asserted their familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines and policies to me, it is possible that Sayurasem may have previously edited under a different account, but I do not have evidence as to whether this user is a sockpuppet/master. Haleth (talk) 07:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Response

I will answer briefly but first I have the right to say that these are all baseless accusations made by the "senior editor", he seems to want to blame and corner the editors who disagree with him. If you look at the talk page, he has also had conflicts with many other editors (actually he is not 100% wrong, but he is a little "selfish" and forces his opinion to be accepted by others")

Curry mee

My edit on 24 february 2021 [65] destroyed by haleth (according to his point of view) [66] and this [67]

Lemang

Haleth revision (admits lemang comes from Indonesia) [68] new editor attack (which only has 6 contribution history) [69] Previously, many ip(sock) attacked this page, tried to destroy the article many times [70] [71] [72] shocked, once again related to sockmaster Awanama (talk · contribs) [73]

Dadar gulung

See my edit history on 23 february 2021 [74], before it was tampered with by a malaysian nationalist editor [75] Suspected sockpuppets [76]

haleth seems to help Wikipedia:The duck test editors and ip (socks)

And no, I'm not breaking any rules about "references" on wikipedia.

All sources that I have listed are from government websites (Ministry of Education, Culture, Research, and Technology (Indonesia) and National/international news portals that have high credibility. Sayurasem (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• My interactions with the editor in question is limited to Mee rebus and their actions to attempt at content forking the article into Mie rebus and Mie kuah redirects. While I had not look at the editor's contributions in depth due to IRL activities, a combination of such actions and the perennial obsession by various nationalistic editors with respect to food in the region would usually require someone step in and check through their edits to ensure that POV/revisionist content do not creep in. – robertsky (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Robertsky, stepping in and thoroughly checking through Sayurasem's edits to ensure that POV/revisionist content do not creep in was exactly what I did. Instead of addressing my criticism or making a good faith attempt to reach an compromise or understanding, all I got was for my time to be wasted by Sayurasem doubling down on their belligerence, conveniently ignoring the numerous instances where I had reverted editors who appeared to be pushing Malaysian nationalistic agendas or conspiracy theories. Instead of properly responding to concerns about their disruptive behaviour and incivility, they attempt to deflect by highlighting the behaviour of other editors who are not part of this discussion and doubling down on their aspersions cast at me. I now find it very curious that this editor, who have not joined Wikipedia for long and was fairly inactive for an extended period of time, appears to be aware of this serial Malaysian nationalist sockmaster @Awanama and seems to know a lot about the problematic topic of sockpuppeteering or concepts like the duck test. Haleth (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

”conspiracy theory" how can you call facts a "conspiracy"? edit history of all editors is not deleted, and can be seen by everyone, So stop accusing others of "lies and conspiracies"

• Remove Indonesia and Singapore, replaced exclusively with Malaysia (all Ip from malaysia [77])

[78], [79], [80] WP duck [81]

I assume haleth is Malaysian so with an "invisible" nationalist she defends several unconfirmed editors, this is just my assumption, actually I don't want to accuse, the problem is she accuses me of not being "neutral", even though I use credible sources Sayurasem (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

btw this page Mee rebus has also been attacked by "malaysian nationalist accounts" (currently blocked) [82] [83] [84] Sayurasem (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sayurasem I suggest not using government sources and national sources for these articles. Each nation are more than likely not to push their own narratives that they are the origin of the dishes. That is unless that the competing claims are acknowledged (at the very least, even if it is not accepted) like that of Yusheng where everyone went 'dispute is meaningless' in the end, or in Chilli crab where the disputed origin is laid out in a coherent manner. – robertsky (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Jv.anthonny

• Jv.anthonny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jv.anthonny has been going around music articles adding unsourced recording years to infoboxes ([85][86][87]). They have been warned many, many times to stop adding uncited information, but it appears as if they are resolute to keep up this behavior, and they remain completely silent on their talk page. They were previously blocked for similar reasons in February 2022. Since they have been given a final warning yet again, I'm bringing this issue up here for an admin's judgement. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Apparently they're an iOS app user, which explains why they're completely silent on their talk page -- they get no talk page notifications, and probably don't even know they have a talk page. Incidentally, they also don't see block messages. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Question: is the information they're adding factually incorrect? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: There's no way to know if the information is correct or incorrect (recording years aren't usually printed on a song/album's liner notes or discussed by the musicians), and if they're taking the information from another article where it's also unsourced, then they're citing Wikipedia. I have no idea where they could be obtaining this information, but the main issue here is that they aren't providing citations for their claims. They're being disruptive. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. If blocks are necessary here, it'll be yet another case that could've been rectified if we could actually... communicate... with the editor involved. It's been over a year since WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU was created, and even longer since when these issues have been present in the app. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Sockmaster reviewed own article with a sockpuppet account to promote it to a good article in less than a day

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

---

There is this article, Penang, which was promoted to a good article back in 2018. However, perhaps because no one else realized, but the reviewer and reviewee were eventually discovered to be both the same person using sockpuppet acounts.

I'm not sure about Wikipedia's procedures, but shouldn't it count as an instant WP:GAFAIL back then considering that the GA Review was helmed by Semi-auto, a confirmed sockpuppet of Vnonymous, who was the user who has made major contributions to the article and had placed the nomination. One thing that also stands out is that the article went from nomination > review > pass in less than a day, and was passed by their own sockpuppet account.

This person was literally reviewing their own content and pretending to be distinct personas. There is a whole lot of boosterism throughout this article added by this user that should be addressed. How does Wikipedia deal with situations such as these? Paul K. Sutton (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know whether we have anything that says the GA is automatically invalidated - although there may be. There’s WP:SOCKSTRIKE which says none of the SOCKSTRIKE measures should be used for closed or archived discussion. If comments by sock puppets may significantly affect the outcome of the discussion, a new discussion should be opened in a proper venue which suggests it should just go back to WP:GAR. I note that an experienced legitimate third editor was also involved and seemed to like the article. DeCausa (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Mmm, I don't know. The purported "boosterism" also comes with heavy use of inline citations, so unless you're impeaching the citations as well, I'd think we're talking throwing out the baby with the bath water. Honestly, this looks at least GA-level to me. If you have issues with the article, that's a content dispute not suited for ANI; if individual citations are flawed, that's something you can correct yourself, as any editor can. Ravenswing 14:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the question is not really whether the article is indeed GA-level on its own merit, but the dishonest methods taken by the sockmaster to deliberately mislead others (WP:BADSOCK) to make it a GA in the first place. Is it even normal for an article to be promoted to a good article that quickly, especially when they did it themselves? In addition, they seem to be accounts passionately focused on Penang and Penang-related topics, with definitely some level of boosterism involved looking at some edits of theirs. One could argue that the intention of promoting their own content and the city to the extent of resorting to deceiving methods such as the usage of sockpuppet accounts for GA nominations is pretty much boosterism in itself. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel like WP:IAR is an option here if someone wants to just yeet the GA tag. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if there's no rule written down about this, I think it makes sense to just delist with no further ado per WP:NOTBURO. The Sock's approval is meaningless (and, even if they weren't a sock, would be questionable given the brevity of the review relative to the size of the article). The third editor who commented on the review only commented on the use of images. It seems very unlikely that they evaluated the other 5 criteria. In particular, the article has well over 300 inline citations. If it's going to be marked as a GA, we should be confident that a reasonable number of those have been scrutinized for verifiability, and I doubt that has happened here. Colin M (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

They could have at least reviewed mine while they were handing GAs out. Not only a sock, but inconsiderate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Having taken a quick look, I can confirm the article meets my personal 'not-obviously-crap' assessment, and suspect it may fall somewhere within the broad vaguely-defined range of 'goodness' as seen in GA assessments generally. Accordingly, I'd recommend just finding someone willing to do a reassessment, and leaving as is for now. I doubt that our readers are going to up sticks and move en-masse to Penang just on account of a questionable badge on the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This would be much better discussed at WT:GAN so editors familiar with processes can opine and also so any decision can be more easily found if this happens again. We have had socks pass their own articles before and they are dealt with quite harshly (indefinite blocks, GA removal and review deletion). In all the cases I remember the sock has been found because they review their own article. I don't think there have been ones four years after the fact, but given the GA pass was deceptive I think removal is still very much warranted. Maybe with Begoons comment copied onto the talk page. Aircorn (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• I was just posting a link to here from WT:GAN when I noticed that discussion was stared there at the advice of Colin M. Could we close this so we are not cross posting and that is the much better location. Aircorn (talk)
• There are other examples with this pair of socks, e.g. Talk:George Town, Penang/GA2, which SounderBruce put in for GA Reassessment but (mostly per AGF it seems) it was kept. Doesn't seem like an actual review was done on any of these, even though (from a cursory glance) they seem like decent articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see any lingering issues with George Town. By reassessing it the article has been reviewed by an independent editor. I can't find any other Good Articles passed or nominated by this editor looking at their contributions. Aircorn (talk) 02:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say SonderBruce's judgement at George Town, Penang (the editor that reassessed it) was clouded, they did not know they were dealing with sockpuppets. I have tagged them about it on the GAN discussion to let them know about it. I guess deny recognition could apply here, as the the original GA review was done in the same deceptive method as Penang, with both the sockmaster and sockpuppet pretending to be different people and it being rushed in a short span of time. Paul K. Sutton (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Troll

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

---

New user Xani LapZerin is engaging in disruptive racially motivated POV edit wars and was subsequently banned from editing the page, and has now resorted to posting pictures of Hitler to his profile. 77.96.159.195 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

How's that putting a portrait of Hitler makes a troll out of me :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xani LapZerin (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are incapable of understanding why it was inappropriate, you clearly lack the competence to edit Wikipedia. I have removed the image, and suggest you find something more useful to do, if you wish to continue contributing here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Xani LapZerin for disruptive editing, specifically plagiarism, Hitler trolling and general incompetence. The recent discussion at Talk: Kirkuk is illuminating. Cullen328 (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Skibbereen-based IP range disrupting film articles

Someone in Skibbereen, Ireland, has been disrupting film articles using a dozen IP addresses. Disruption ranges from trivial and irrelevant unreferenced additions to wrong names inserted in lists of cast members. I don't see anything useful coming from this person. They have never used an edit summary, and have never replied to a talk page warning. Can we rangeblock them and save us all the trouble? Involved IPs listed below. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• 86.40.215.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.222 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.215.10 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.253 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.156 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.215.27 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 86.40.214.21 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Note that 86.40.214.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) was range blocked 3 times in 2018/2019 noted as block evasion in one block. Seems never stopped. That range seems exclusively used by this editor so a range block would have little or no collateral damage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, good catch. I would love to see another rangeblock on the /23 but with a lengthy duration. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. As mentioned, there's practically no collateral damage so blocked for a year. Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Marvelous. Thank you, Black Kite. We will revisit the issue in a year! Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Disruption again started by Mrvillainwolf

Mrvillainwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mrvillainwolf got blocked by Daniel Case Special:MobileDiff/1076443409 for one month. After their block expired they are back again at disruptive editing as can be seen Special:MobileDiff/1082870333, Special:MobileDiff/1082869951 and even here Special:MobileDiff/1082870537 Please take care of it. Thanks. Packer&Tracker«Talk» 16:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Nawabdera

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

---

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

They were soft-blocked a few months ago and have been using their user talk page to spam. Please revoke TPA. Thanks in advance. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I've sent the required notification for you. Bsoyka (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I've revoked talkpage access and removed a lot of promotion, inappropriate personal details, and other things that don't belong on a Wikipedia talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 21:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC).

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

User:Filedelinkerbot is malfunctioning

The bot deleted a picture here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dmitry_Utkin&action=history

"Removing Commons:File:Dmitry Utkin.jpg" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2B30:ABD0:5C68:181F:E14F:E884 (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The bot did not delete an image, nor does it appear to be malfunctioning. The image was deleted on the Commons by an administrator, and this bot is simply removing the link to it now that it's been removed. Bsoyka (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

@2600:1702:2B30:ABD0:5C68:181F:E14F:E884: Filedelinkerbot is not malfunctioning, the picture was Deleted on Commons because it was an Copyright violation. Chip3004 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright violations from User:TheGreengiant23

User:TheGreengiant23 continues to insert repeated copyright violations into articles. In June 2015, this user was blocked for copyright violations.Back in January of this year, [88] an unrelated discussion unearthed multiple violations of copyright, but nothing came of the discussion. There appears to be a Wikipedia:Competence issue with this editor. The latest example is this [89]. I reverted their edits at 2030 Winter Olympics because the opiniated text. On a hunch, did a check to see if there was a copyright issue, and there was. Some of the text is copied from here [90] Note: I have not left a warning for them or notified them of this discussion as per their wish for me to not write on their talk page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have notified TheGreengiant23 of this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This user have been told to let me (and others he's bullying) alone. It's a little game he's playing with others, accusing users whom he dont like the contributions to revert without asking their opinion and than accusing them on anything possible (pseudo vandalism, copyright, harassment, etc.) This user have clear mental illness and i wont go further in this non sense. I dunno if their is a rule for falsly reporting users and intimidate like hes doing but plz adm have some lil judgment and don't take his word like cash. Thank you very much. (Speaking in the name of all his victims, who are in vast majority experienced and fabulous and positive contributors) TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@TheGreenGiant23: I strongly recommend you retract your comment about mental illness. Like, immediately. – ².O.^Boxing 10:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And looking at diffs from the previous ANI discussion regarding these two, GreenGiant seems to enjoy using mental health issues as an insult. Id support an indef just on this. Utterly pathetic. – ².O.^Boxing 10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I see GreenGiant has been rightly blocked. That'll be that issue solved then. – ².O.^Boxing 10:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes utterly pathetic to use mental illness as an insult, but the key issue here is the repeated copyright violations. I do not think this editor understand the policy. From 2015 till now, there have been repeated violations. When will this be dealt with? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@User:Cullen328 What are the next steps in relation to the copyright violations? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, if you see any clearcut copyright violations by this editor in the future, bring the matter to my attention and I will block the editor. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The revert looks good to me. In addition to copying that article's title and subtitle verbatim, a sentence was copied from the first source, and the Akimoto quote doesn't appear. The second paragraph's quote is actually from a creative agency's blog, which was not cited. If you have five examples, you can list at WP:Contributor copyright investigations. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

COI/UPE bullying

• Chris troutman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DoubleCross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scope creep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a few years due to general inactivity + being locked out of my account. But after noticing that a startup called Remote that I was learning about didn't have an article, I tried to log back into my account and to my surprise I succeeded in regaining access. So I started to update myself on what has changed around here, as I would like to become more active again. And I proceeded to create an article on the mentioned company.

That proved to be a quick reminder that Wikipedia is not always an enjoyable experience. The stub was first speedy deleted due to lack of sources while I was still gathering them (I don't think Drafting existed a few years ago so I was just editing as I would before - directly on the mainspace). I reached out to the admin who speedy deleted, who then restored the stub as a draft. I finished adding sources and moved the article back to the mainspace. Shortly afterwards, user Chris troutman nominated it for deletion due to concerns about the company's notability and the sources I had gathered. So far so good, but in his reasoning was also the allegation that I may have a conflict of interest as this company was "an odd choice of article to write after [me] having stopped editing for years".

I ignored that and the discussion proceeded to focus on the sources and how to improve them. As the outcome was leaning towards Keep, Chris brought up the COI allegation again and demanded I disclose whether I have a COI - a demand which I refused to comply. Chris then took it to the COI noticeboard. Two users agreed with him on similar assumptions: the quality of the sources and my choice of article meant I had to have a COI.

Users DoubleCross and Scope creep then decided to up the ante and accuse me of being paid to create the article[91][92]. And now I even have a user implying I7 should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE.

I may have been away from Wikipedia for years, but unless a lot has changed during my absence this is bullying plain and simple. I used to break fights by reminding users to be civil and assume good faith, and I'm disappointed that this type of hounding is allowed to run unopposed.

I would like to be clarified if the users above are in their right to make these accusations. Húsönd 23:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a COI, it's best just to say so. That said, we have high standards for notability of corporations precisely to avoid poorly sourced boosterism, regardless of whether it's well intentioned creation or not. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the spectre of spammers, passions sometimes run high in deletion discussions for companies, and the independence of sources can be debatable. While the launch of this AFD unfortunately followed some snarking by the nominator Chris Troutman to the article creator Husond upon his return, discussion was proceeding quite well. Unfortunately, Scope creep joined in with a rather passionate Delete, and reacted to my answer to his comment by wholly reverting my response [93]. I think this was a decidedly suboptimal reaction, but that happens. Things degenerated from there. As pertains to me, he's now responded to 3rd parties calling him out on his conduct by accusing me and Husond of being corrupt on his own talk page. I've asked him to withdraw the accusation, but he does not seem inclined to do so. I do think a 3rd party look into the conduct issues here all around would be helpful, hopefully leading to a deescalation and withdrawal of rash accusations. Moving from conduct to content, I shake my head sometimes how much more scrutiny we place on articles about 2nd tier but (arguably) notable companies versus minor celebrities, all from a fear of COI which actually arises just as frequently for personal vanity articles. However, this is not new (see for instance [94] from 2006!) and probably not solvable at ANI. Martinp (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that scope creeps reversion was totally out of order and their corrupt accusation is not ideal either. As to the COI insinuations it just makes me uneasy. I can see why they were made and companies are notorious for it, but Husond explanation is also entirely plausible. Overall I think the evidence is a weak to go all out on UPE and it is really just a red herring as regards the AFD anyway. It would be great if scope creep could restore Martins comment and editors could leave out further accusations of COI at the AFD and just focus on sources. If non-neutral editing or spamming results then the COI accusations can be revisited. Aircorn (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree about the odd imbalance between the treatment of notable companies and minor celebrities. People tossing COI accusations around should really check the sources more thoroughly first to determine whether a subject is credible before assuming corporate articles are being put up in bad faith. Sure, there are a lot of crap, spammed company articles, but it is also normally pretty obvious whether they are credible or not from the sourcing. It is also pretty normal for a Wikipedia editor to see a company in the news, go to check for it on Wikipedia, note an absence and then try to do something about it. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Martinp had only made two comments in the discussion prior to the one which scope_creep removed, one of which was Martinp's !vote and the other of which was expanding on the !vote. To say that Martinp bludgeoned by posting a third comment, which was the first time they had replied to another person in the discussion, would stretch the definition of the term "bludgeon" beyond its breaking point. scope_creep should voluntarily restore Martinp's comment at the AfD. I also feel the need to point out that scope_creep has a history of playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations, so it does not surprise me that they would refer to Martinp as "corrupt" solely because Martinp disagreed with them. Mlb96 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Husond, yes, things have changed a lot since the early days when you were highly active before going pretty much silent for a decade or more. You have been an administrator off and on, and have lost your administrator's tools twice, I think. One thing that has changed for the better, in my opinion, is that we work much harder to control the promotional contributions of spammers/paid editors/COI editors. As an administrator for almost the past four years, I have blocked 5849 accounts and about 80% of those were spammers and COI editors. One useful tool is the direct question to a possible COI editor: "Do you have a conflict of interest?" This is not bullying. It is protecting and defending the encyclopedia. You seem to consider this entirely legitimate question to be unacceptably intrusive and are refusing to give a direct answer. Your refusal reflects very poorly on you, because you could have easily and promptly and conclusively denied all accusations of COI editing and PAID editing. But you have declined to do do, which leaves these possibilities open for editors who patrol COI and POV editing. Let me be crystal clear with you. If you harbor any wish to be an administrator again or return to the status of a respected and trusted editor, you need to answer these questions frankly, honestly and fulsomely. Your reluctance to answer places you firmly into the informal category of editors who cannot be trusted. Is that what you really want? Cullen328 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The direct COI question might not be bullying, but it can be presumptive and certainly feel quite rude depending on the context. A more astute accuser might have AGF upon seeing an editor with 36,000 edits under their belt, a history of adminship and a gazillion barnstars and perhaps recalculated, especially when the article was clearly being built with quality, guideline-compliant sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of the article and its sources. I wouldn't have AfD'd it if it didn't look questionable. More to the point, our deletion discussions are not political events where the consensus casts !votes based upon who's hot and who's not. An editor with longevity isn't given special permission to do undisclosed paid editing. Barnstars don't earn an editor the right to use vulgar language aimed towards another editor. And editors like you create our Super Mario problem, making adminship a big deal, by intoning that if you were once popular and now seem to be violating policies and guidelines a regular editor like me isn't allowed to say so because I'm not of the ruling class. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't make adminship a big deal, or trust editors solely based on counts, but historic access to admin tools does, by definition, carry the implication of a certain level of past community trust, and might give one pause for thought before exercising an itchy trigger finger ... unless one is to totally distrust the whole foundation upon which this community is built. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We certainly have different views on the question "do you have a conflict of interest?". You find it a useful tool, I find it a tool for fomenting discord. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion that may easily poison the process - as seen here. Even if an editor denies COI when asked to disclose, other editors in the room will still wonder if the editor was being honest. So I can't really see what's the point of the question. Unless of course you get a lot of editors saying "why yes, I do have a COI, thank you for asking" - but even those, I'm inclined to believe did not require the question in the first place as their COI was probably pretty obvious anyway. Now of course you may claim that demanding a user to disclose COI was actually instrumental for increasing your prolific COI block tally - and I would love to learn more about that - but in any case I have serious doubts that it offsets the damage the demand may cause when aimed at the wrong users.

You think my refusal to acquiesce to Chris's demand to disclose COI reflects very poorly on me - that is your opinion, and I can live with it. I never asked for respect or trust - if the community indeed saw me as a respected and trusted editor, that was probably because I was consistent, reliable, and unafraid of expressing positions that may not please everyone but were backed by sound reasoning. You can rest assured that that has not changed, and it is definitely not the mop that is going to make any difference. Húsönd 18:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have a COI, it's really very simple to say, "No, I don't have a COI." You're well within your rights not to do so, but if you had simply done that from the beginning, I'm quite sure everyone would have assumed some good faith and all of this suspicion and acrimony could have been avoided. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I wasn't particularly discussing Martinp in any accusation about being corrupt. I didn't believe at the time, they had a handle on the policy, although I've since found out they have written some of the NCORP policy. I was speifically speaking about the behaviour about editors who are trying the game the system, that I believe is happening here on a regular basis. I shouldn't have reverted the comment by Martinp but by the same token, this type of behaviour where editors now try to for push for a no conensus, so the article is kept, by continually pushing the conversation in the same direction that it becomes bludgeoning, is now common. It is standard pattern. I thought it was that. Even after I called out the references, where 6 out the 9 were press-releases, and 2 of the remaining were 2 sentences each, still the comment, ignoring the references and there is no other coverage. Mlb96 above makes the comment about me, playing fast and loose with COI/UPE allegations. To a certain extent I do, but nobody seems to care about it. I thought by now, there would be sea change, but no. I will stop working on coin and Afd and cat:nnn from this point forward. I think about 60% of the articles are now paid for and that it's now de-rigueur to pay for articles on Wikipedia. A few days a sock master self-confessed to running a farm on the coin for four years. That is the tip of the iceberg. I really don't understand why we are doing this. Its madness. I rail against the 1000's of hours I've wasted working to keep it out, that could have going into writing new articles and and there is so much still to be done. scope_creep^Talk 07:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Through comments here at on his own talk page, scope_creep has effectively withdrawn his accusation against me, so that side-show is over. That said, it feels like his accusation of corruption against Husond still stands, though maybe he means it as a general accusation against "spammers" and just assumed Husond was one (and lumped me in briefly too). And I think there's the rub:

• @Husond: (and others): for better or worse, Wikipedia is now pretty merciless regarding COI and UPE, for companies in particular. On Wikipedia, one rarely has to do anything, so formally if someone asks you if you have a COI you don't have to answer, but in practice if you want to Get Things Done you have to answer queries about COI swiftly, truthfully, and nonevasively, even if they raise your hackles. Otherwise your contributions may be treated as suspect. Specifically - asking you to declare whether you have a COI about an article you created that is up for deletion is not inherently out of line; and while you may not have felt the way it was first raised was appropriate, when multiple people are asking, you more or less have to reply.
• @Chris troutman and Scope creep:, and others: The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own.
• Everyone, at AFD it's good to actually evaluate sources and engage in discussion; and opinions may vary. Be wary of conclusory thinking, especially if there are accusations flying around. Martinp (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"The obligation to be civil, to AGF, and to not bully does not stop just because your spidey senses about COI are tingling. It may build a sense of camaraderie to treat spammers as The Enemy, but you still can't BITE newcomers and people speak up when it turns out not to be Evil Spammers or clueless newcomers, but long-term editors that you're bullying. And while you feel strongly it poisons the well when someone is (potentially) being paid to edit, it's also true it poisons the well when accusations of UPE/COI are flying around. They take a life of their own." Well said. I think Nietzsche said something about staring into the abyss... Begoon 12:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at your methodology for determining who's an UPE, I'm surprised you think it's only 60%. You accused me of being paid to edit WP, still no statement that there might be a possibility that you might be wrong (let alone a retraction), and now you go on a rant on why the process is broken. At the risk of generalising your contributions to the COI/UPE fight based on my encounter with you, I can't say I will be sorry to hear you intend to be less involved in these matters going forward. Húsönd 18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• As the guy implying I should be kicked out because I'm so obviously an UPE, no, only if you're an undisclosed paid editor, then, yeah, taxi to Inglewood for you. But Husond, why did you never answer Randykitty's question at BN? That seems a dead cert way of stirring suspicion before you've even done anything. SN54129 13:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps he felt it was ever so slightly akin to the idea of being asked when he had stopped beating his wife? Not everyone takes questions like that in good spirit. I certainly understand why they might sometimes need to be asked, and I'm not saying they should not be asked - but nobody is under any obligation to respond to interrogation and, while you may infer whatever you wish from a non-response such non-response is perfectly valid. We allow (no, we insist on) anonymous editing. There's a huge disconnect between that and the additional step of allowing interrogation of those anonymous editors about their connections. We're not going to solve the tension between anonymity and COI in this thread, and it leads to horrible situations. I'm not sure there is a solution, but I'm damn sure we won't arrive at it here. Begoon 14:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  It was a polite question, one asked in good faith, about a reasonable clarification. Interrogation it was not. Those questions are asked (no, insisted on) every day, and—far more to the point—they were asked back in the OP's own day. This isn't some radical new expectation created just for them. And what makes a refusal to answer worse was that it was in the context of requesting tools back. Frankly, if anyone thinks it's OK to request "powerful" (in-Wikiverse) tools, but refuses to answer basic questions as to account security, then either their competence or good faith absolutely needs to be questioned: asking the community for advanced rights but unwilling to respond to a polite question? The odd thing is, they haven't demonstrated such a thin skin since, either at the AfD, or here... SN54129 14:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was making a more general point about the ludicrous position which we take that anonymous editing is fine unless we wish to question people, in which case they must answer. I haven't looked at anything else, so if you've had other discussions with people mentioned in this thread they didn't factor into my response at all. The "beating your wife" thing was just an aside about how we think it's ok to ask unanswerable questions - well, unanswerable without prejudicing the things we say we hold inalienable. I've generally tended to agree with you in the past, and I'm sure I'd probably agree with some of whatever personal points you're making here. None of that was my point. If it's about some "resysop" request, well, ok, I haven't looked. What I'm saying is that you cannot fully allow anonymous editing and then quiz people about their identity/affiliations. The two positions are fundamentally incompatible. But, as I said, we won't solve that in this thread. Begoon 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  (EC) @Begoon: I very, very rarely visit BN but I think if someone mentions a question at BN, you can assume it's probably a resysop or desysop request even without knowing that Húsönd used to be an admin which was sort of indicate in this thread. But anyway, you're free to check out BN to see if you think it could be something else Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 46#Resysop request (Husond). You can see it was indeed about a resysop request and the question had zilch to do with identity/affiliations.

  I actually don't think what they said is particularly surprising given the edit history. They edited on "2020-04-30T21:09:21" [95] and then next edited on "2022-04-05T13:09:15" [96] which was their request on BN. So "I forgot my password a couple of years ago - which in turn distanced me from WP - but I just remembered it and managed to log back in" seems a reasonable thing to say, as they may have lost access not that long after their last edit in 2020 and then only were able to gain access again it nearly 2 years later. If I'm reading the logs correctly, they were doing enough (maybe just enough at times, not sure) to keep the bit since losing it for about a month in 2012 until they lost it in 2021 [97] which would seem to further support the notion they may have lost access to their account which distanced them from Wikipedia.

  OTOH, I also don't think there was anything wrong with RandyKitty asking that question, it was a reasonable thing to query especially since Húsönd was asking for the bit back. If Húsönd saw it but refused to answer it that IMO does reflect poorly on them, my assumption is they just didn't see it. (They did reply twice in that thread after the question was asked [98] [99] so it can't be a matter of them not checking the thread.)

  I'd note that unless Húsönd transverses time in a different manner from the rest of us, whatever people may feel about the way they were treated and the questions they were asked afterwards in relation to the Remote article etc cannot be the cause or an excuse for them failing to answer Randykitty's question since all that stuff happened after the BN thread was basically dead.

  Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Did you misunderstand the question? Husond claimed in his request for the tools that he forgot his password before anyone asked him anything. Perhaps this was a sheepish bullshit (untrue, but not meant to deceive) excuse for not having edited. RandyKitty questioned if this statement was in fact a lie (meant to deceive). 54129 knows about WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and so questions Husond's apparent need to deceive, about which the community is concerned. Husond could've just been honest and said he wants the tools back and so officially be above the law. He didn't have to excuse not recently editing, but now we are questioning if Husond didn't return to Wikipedia for honest reasons, hence the immediate and unnecessary deception. That Husond started this post at ANI only after editors started supporting deletion of the apparently-CoI article indicates his need to punish those who point out his seeming dishonesty. Of the many problems Wikipedia has, one of them is that the editing community no longer silently adheres to the political agreement that might have existed in 2006 and the oldtimers can't figure out what to do about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  While there was definitely nothing wrong with Randykitty asking the question, it's IMO also silly to make a big deal over what Húsönd said. They did basically disappear for nearly 2 years which included them losing the bit in 2021 after they'd been doing enough to keep their admin bit since briefly losing it in 2012. It seems entirely plausible that what they said is basically true, they lost access to the account for 2 years. Technically it wasn't quite 2 years, but people don't have to be that precise over timeframes. I'm reminded of a maybe somewhat unPC joke I once heard about a girlfriend questioning her boyfriend about an ex they met and then questioning him again and making a big deal when he said they dated 3 years the first time and 4 years the next time. (It's also possible they don't quite remember when in 2020 they next tried to access their account and realised they could not. And remember that people's perceptions and memory of time can often be inaccurate, I'd suggest COVID-19 has thrown it out of wack even more for many.) Of course Húsönd should have just clarified if they saw the question and if they intentionally didn't then that does IMO reflect very poorly on them. But it seems easily possible they just missed it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:AGF didn't die out in 2006 and you need to go back to basics. Húsönd 19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  I didn't reply because honestly I didn't understand the point being made so I didn't give much thought to it. But going back to it, I think the user is implying that I couldn't have forgotten my password because I edited in some recent years. I can't see what's suspicious about that. I had access until one day I was prompted to type in my password and realised I didn't know what it was. I used to be permanently logged in and can't even remember when did I have to type in my password prior to that time. Húsönd 19:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Stonewalling at the article Turkish War of Independence

On March 9, I made a request to add a content in the article Turkish War of Independence regarding killing of Muslim Turks during the war. It was rejected same day by Buidhe, stating that “It is not clear what specific edit is being asked for and if so, whether it has consensus.” However, prior to the edit request there had not been any discussion about the content, therefore it is unclear how there was no consensus against the content at the time.

Again, on March 9, I made a second request improving the content with more references and an explanatory foreword. This was also rejected by ScottishFinnishRadish, who claimed that there was no consensus about the content and asked me to discuss it first without himself/herself discussing the content.

On March 11, I wrote a critique of the abstention of discussing the content I proposed, this critique is available at Turkish War of Independence talk page.

On April 3, I created a request at the Noticeboard page of Wikipedia Neutral Point of View under the heading Turkish War of Independence & Atrocities. As of April 16, it is yet to be answered.

On April 11, I started a “Request for comments” to discuss the content I proposed. The engagement was very limited: Buidhe, seemingly cooperative at first, stopped replying after two responses given by me. On April 14, another user Alaexis stated, without elaboration, that the content would not be “DUE”, because according to he/she there was no section that discussed civilian loses. I explained that there was a section that covered civilian loses under the heading “ethnic cleansing” but he/she too did not reply.

So far, nobody was able to challenge the content from a factual perspective (i.e., disprove the massacres against Muslims). The limited amount of criticism emerged from editorial concerns that, I believe, are specific to Wikipedia. I even offered some compromises to satisfy these concerns but did not receive comments on them.

It has been over a month since the content has been proposed and whilst I made every effort I could think to cooperate and create a better article, I did not receive proper feedback from Wikipedians. Under such conditions I believe my efforts to add the content regarding atrocities against Muslims Turks during Turkish War of Independence are being stonewalled.

My request is either discuss or add it to the article.

Best regards.--176.219.152.58 (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment given that a RfC is underway, the best course of action at this stage would be to get more input by publicizing it. M.Bitton (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Observation. Part of the problem may be the wall of text approach to your requests. Nowhere was the a clear indication of what text should be inserted or where it should be inserted into the article. Sometimes shorter is better in requests: I've frequently advised editors to break long multi-part requests into smaller requests that go one item at a time.

M.Bitton is also correct. There is participation in the RfC that you started three days ago. —C.Fred (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty evident that 176.219 is User:AdaletAdam, indefinitely blocked since 11 April. Compare, for example, AdaletAdam's comments in this talk page section. Someone let me know if they need more proof, or if this needs to go to SPI, but it's fairly quacky and I urge admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I was wrong. A wicked spirit bamboozled me into comparing AdaletAdam comments against other AdaletAdam comments, which resulted in my confidence that the comments were made by the same person. My apologies to 176.219 and anyone who wasted time investigating. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha. 'A wicked spirit', a.k.a. the 'Will Smith defense'. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User:GenoV84

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

---

• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On April 14, 2022, I removed a minor sign from Islamic eschatology as it was based on a hadith that was graded as Da'if (weak) meaning that the hadith is unrealiable and should be disregarded. The sources that the user included also state that the Hadith is Da'if as can be seen here: . Another editor indicated this to the user on January 25, 2022. (see edit history) but he ignored the comment. Weak Hadiths are disregarded by the Islamic community either due to discontinuity in the chain of narrators or due to some criticism of a narrator. If a narration cannot be traced back to its source then the narration is unreliable and there is even a chance that it was fabricated therefore hadiths like these which are classified as Da'if should not be used. The user "warned" me on my talk page that I was commiting vandalism but when I tried to engage in conversation he deleted my comments on my talk page and gave me a "third warning." It's clear that the user does not want to engage in conversation. He claims in the edit history that "No academic sources have been provided to support these unsubstantiated claims" yet as i've indicated above, his own sources claim that the hadith is Da'if. 190.83.141.216 (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

We can't base that article on which hadiths are reliable - they are all made up. Besides, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong at Ani. 107.115.5.118 (talk) 06:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Absolutely we don't do content disputes at ANI; this, however, is at least as much about behaviour as it is content ~ the kind of behaviour which is neither collegial nor constructive, so it definitely isn't wrong to be be here. IP 190..., the previous respondant, IP 107..., is quite right, the discussion about some hadith or story being reliable or not worthy of inclusion, is not for here, so please go to the talk page. But, that IP has been thrice accused of vandalism, the first time over a year ago, so potentially not even the same user, and the second and third time (using second and third level templates, which seems a bit silly, considering the length of time since the first) by GenoV84. As far as i can tell neither of the edits thus targeted are vandalism: In the first IP 190... gave a clear explanation (though erroneous) of why the action was taken ~ obviously not vandalism ~ and the second, for which a third level vandalism warning was given, was simply to remove the very old warning from the talk page. I mean, come on, that's just being nasty. I think the best result here is if IP 190... understands and agrees that content disputes belong on the article talk pages, and GenoV84 agrees to be a bit more thoughtful and careful in dealing with other members of the community. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 11:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey yeah I wasn't specifically reporting the content dispute. I was reporting his behaviour in terms of removing my comments from my Talk Page and not being willing to discuss a way foward but yes I know that content disputes belong on article talk pages but after seeing his behaviour on my talk page I decided to ask for advice on this board on a way to move foward. 190.83.141.216 (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors aren't allowed to remove sourced informations with references from the encyclopedia without consensus, in accordance with the WP policies WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOVHOW, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia which holds a neutral point of view regarding all belief systems, including political ideologies, conspiracy theories, and religious traditions. Posting a warning message on a user's Talk page for their repetitive disruptive behavior and unjustified intentional vandalism is not "nasty", is just the way Wikipedia works: revert, warn, and go on. That's all. GenoV84 (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As a general rule, editors aren't allowed to remove sourced informations with references from the encyclopedia without consensus... that's not correct, and none of the policies you linked to really say that. Here's a better policy to read: WP:NOTVAND. Levivich 20:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those policies are correct, and in case you didn't look at the history of the Islamic eschatology article, those informations had been originally provided by an anonymous IP, not me; subsequently, various other IPs have attempted to delete the aforementioned content with and without edit summaries, and their edits have been reverted for the exact same reasons. Despite the fact that this hadith can be found in one of the main five hadith collections which Sunni Muslim scholars regard as the most important sources for the sunnah, along with the Quran itself. We can discuss for days and weeks if this particular hadith is sahih (sound/reliable) or not, but that applies to virtually any other hadith, including those collected in the books Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. (See the articles Hadith studies and Criticism of hadith for further information regarding this debate among Muslim scholars). GenoV84 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No we cannot discuss whether it is Sahih or not because the source YOU used in that article (which I included above) states that the hadith is Da'if (i.e. not sound or reliable) so there is no debate on whether it is weak or not if the source that you included says that it's weak and everytime I point this out you continue to ignore it. BTW sunni scholars do not regard all of the 5 hadith collections as sahih and the one that you included as I just indicated with your own source is Da'if. Specific hadiths within a Hadith collection can also be weak (just like the one you used in that article for example.) 190.83.141.216 (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The editing policy of Wikipedia is based on collaboration between editors and providing references. I haven't seen one, single, reliable academic reference which attests that this hadith is weak, and even if that was the case, the Islamic eschatology article contains a list of various events related to the end times, and there are plenty of other hadith related to the minor and major signs of the end times, regardless of the varying grade of reliability or chain of transmission. As I stated above, Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, not an "Islamic" encyclopedia. Therefore, we are not obligated to follow the rules of Muslim scholars regarding the religious texts of Islam (or any other religion, for that matter....), and anything significant related to the Islamic religion, including beliefs and practices, can be mentioned and cited here, and that also applies to the hadith and the Quran. If you are not willing to discuss with me or other users, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. Plain and simple. I was right in my judgment to revert and warn you for your blatantly disruptive behavior, it's the standard way to deal with vandals and lots of other users do exactly the same everyday, but you got so butthurt about being reverted that you singlehandedly decided to bring me here hoping that this report would help your case against me, yet you clearly stated that you're not here to discuss or compromise, only to complain. Dear @LindsayH:, stop feeding the trolls. GenoV84 (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Those edits were not vandalism. You're spending your time here arguing the content instead of addressing your improper accusations of vandalism, warnings and reverts. Lindsay is not feeding trolls and is not the only editor with concerns about your edits. Levivich 15:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

References

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

IP 72.174.131.123

The IP 72.174.131.123 has been making disruptive edits and personal attacks over the past five months. As demonstrated by their talk page, they have engaged in an edit war every month since December 2021. Earlier this month, the IP repeatedly attempted to add unverified rumors to the Die Hard (film series) article. In defending their edits, they called a Wikipedia guideline "stupid" and insisted the rumors should be added because they were "pretty sure" of them. When another editor informed them that they needed proper references, they accused the editor of only making "non-constructive reverts".

On the Randall Cunningham article, they have repeatedly removed information about the subject being third in quarterback rushing yards with significantly longer and less specific wording. Their argument for not including this information is it's "subject to change", which ignores one of the main reasons Wikipedia allows for easy editing. In response to my edits, they said I'm "being ridiculous" with demands of "a very junior editor" and called my edits "boneheaded, not just here, but elsewhere". They also went on my talk page to interject in a conversation from over a year ago and accuse my editing of being "destructive to some degree". Bluerules (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. See Special:Diff/825559319 from February 2018. It looks like our protagonist has been at this for several years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo bot-like editing

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

Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo is a two month old account that is racking up thousands of semi-automated edits at a fairly shocking pace. An editor has complained on their talk page that they were removing infobox parameters that could have been fixed, although I'm not sure on what scale they're making mistakes. Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith, but I'm under the impression that this level of rapid semi-automated editing is enough for the user to be considered an unauthorized bot under WP:BOTPOL. What is the best course of action here? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

hello Swarm!, about the problem on my talk, MB were just reminding me that i have a mistake on editing |postal_code= and also other fixable parameters on "template:infobox settlement". i recently try to avoid those mistakes again and presistently focuses and more carefully fixing them. however i'm not a bot, i know it's shocking, but i actually opened more than 100 tab on Chrome and edit the articles one by one. The general process takes about 1 hour per se. I actually keep an eye on my editing record. And i'm also surprised that i managed to make 2000 edit on a month period. overall, thank you for mentioning me in WP:ANI, and i hope i did not make any awful mistake. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:MEATBOT? If you are editing rapidly and such editing is producing errors an attentive human would not make then it doesn't matter if you are running a bot, using a script or just editing very quickly. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The pace of editing definitely seems human and is not too rapid. (I mean, for comparison, this board has often refused to take action against established editors who are actually possibly using bots on their account, or at least making so many (debatable) systematic edits that their behaviour is indistinguishable from one.) Different question as to whether or not any of the edits are problematic, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

taken into account the amount of problematic edits that i made, it's only a handful, and mostly on a high-traffic pages, as MB mentioned on my talk that i noticed. however, there are mainly mistakes that i made, for example mentioned above, |Postal_code= or |iso_code= and sometimes map, but luckily some other helpful editors fixed it aferwards. i did fix them as of now though. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m not trying to get you in trouble for making mistakes, I just think this scale of bot-like editing means you get treated like a bot under bot policy. Like, you can’t do it without approval. I could be wrong. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

if ever, i will try to reduce it to more acceptable pace. but the reason of those quick-paced edits that i made was solely for my intent to reduce backlog for the corresponding template. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that you're making a lot of mistakes in doing it, I just had a peek at a few of the edits you've made and there were issues with over half of them.

In this edit the parameter needed its name fixing, not deleting [100]. You should have just removed the "Gibbons is home to K.B"

In this edit [101] the "Parameter" you removed was someone's attempt at adding an image caption, it should have been moved to the caption parameter.

In this edit [102] the parameter needed the half HTML comment removing to fix the name, it didn't need deleting.

You've made a load of edits where you've been deleting "pushpin_map1" and related parameters [103] [104] [105]. These are an old obsolete method of adding multiple pushpin maps that was removed a few years ago. These should have been converted to the new format like so:

|pushpin_map = Map 1#Map 2

|pushpin_map_caption = Caption 1##Caption 2

Rather than being deleted.

I looked at less than 10 edits, The error rate here seems enormous. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of behaviour requires approval under how the bot policy is currently implemented, but the edits do have to be improvements and absent of errors, otherwise it's just disruptive editing.

On that note, as to the purpose of Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo's edits, afaics I think they're (mostly) removing parameters used in articles that aren't recognised by the infobox template? If this is because the parameters were renamed/removed, then fwiw Primefac has a bot task to clean that up (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30). If there is a new format to convert them to, such that they will produce an output, then that should be preferred to just removing them. For edits like [106], these are legitimate, because that's not a parameter that's ever existed in the template AFAIK. Others, like this, result in visible improvements to the article by removing bad parameter fields. In general, the removal of non-existent parameters is considered a useful task, since it improves wikitext clarity and reduces confusion (c.f. the PrimeBOT 30 approval). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes exactly!, i was removing parameters that are not recognized by the format. however, there are some mistakes. but i believe it is not as serious as precieved. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

192.76.8.70 take into consideration that most pages that i actually edited is low-traffic to low-importance but this is not the case. the general intent for me is to reduce the backlog. as i said earlier, i did mistakes. the |pushin_map1= and other parameters that were labeled per se, some of them did not show any changes to the infobox overall. So i flag them as "unknown format" anyway. thoroughly i did fixed some of them, but my focus was to remove the unrecognized format out of the infobox. i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. Take into consideration that this is not simple and short task to do. Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale. moreover, the articles that i got was randomized aswell per Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: I've just been through your last 40 ish edits and at least 10 of them contained mistakes, that's an error rate of 25%. You're making even more questionable edits while this discussion is going on which is probably not a good idea.

In this edit [107] Why did you delete the latitude and longitude information rather than converting them into proper parameters?

You need to slow down, double check every edit and make sure that everything you are removing couldn't be placed in another parameter. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you checking the edits you are making at all? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who was paying even the smallest amount of attention would have made this edit [108]. Why did you delete the parameter rather than fixing the obvious vandalism that was causing the error? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@192.76.8.70 I did not know which one of them is questionable, i did checked and re-checked. and also my apologize for not updating the parameter. but on what condition does my recent edit is questionable ? They seems to be fine on a sense. i just trying to clean them. And that was actually is a mistake. but on a sense, it isnt. I just reverted a blatant vandalism. why not you fix it ? i did not know why did you talk in an antagonizing manner right now. i try to keep things warm and civil here. I did change and put things where it belong, for example, sometimes |pin_code= was mistaken to be a |postal_code= and vice versa, i did put things where it belong and fixing it if it isnt. but i do make mistake, just so be clear. right now, you talk to me as if i did not recognize there is one. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you've been brought to the administrator's noticeboard because people have concerns about you performing rapid bot like editing it's generally a bad idea to continue performing rapid bot like editing while the discussion is ongoing.

I have been fixing the errors in your edits when I've come across them, but other people shouldn't be needing to follow you around cleaning up your mistakes. If you're going to be making large scale changes to articles then you need to get them right first time. The issue here isn't specifically "pin code vs post code" or the map edits, it's generally that you don't seem to be making any effort to check what you're doing and are creating a lot of messes for other people to clean up. If we wanted to bulk delete all incorrect parameters we could get a bot to do it trivially, but we don't. We want people to take care, think about what they're doing and fix the issues where possible. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

"Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale." If it (whatever "it" is) was widely viewed as a major issue, though, there probably would be, don't you think?

" i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. " You should be checking and previewing every edit, don't you think? Begoon 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

i'm not reffering to those pin code errors, i just trying to make a stand here that those mistakes were inevitable as you said about |longtitude= etc, it is really clear that the format detects it to be unrecognized. Where should i put it ? consider it. I did put focus on it. If seen on your POV right now, seems that all my edits were problematic. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You should have read the documentation at Template:Infobox settlement which clearly explains how to deal with all the different parameters the template can handle and what format they need to be in. You shouldn't be deleting stuff just because an automated tool tells you it's unrecognised, you should be putting some effort into figuring out how to fix it. Yes, there is a parameter for keeping longitude and latitude data in, and it should take you a few seconds of reading the documentation page to figure out which one it is. Yes, your edits are problematic, because you've been making thousands of edits deleting stuff from templates without bothering to read up on how the template works, without bothering to see if the information could be preserved in another parameter and seemingly without bothering to check your edits before you save them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon yes i did preview it 2 or 3 times before publishing it and as you said, "if it's a major issue". But is it ? No it isnt. But the thing is only a few people would like to do this on a large scale on a "minor issue", on a pretext to minimize the backlogs. and i'm actually happy to see people fixing the errors i made, i feel that they helped me in a certain way. anyhow i did not intend to create any harm to the encyclopaedia. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

But your comment, confusingly, says that you previewed most of them, except those you missed. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

take note about my saying above on line 2, i opened more than 100 tabs on chrome, (which now seems to be a bad idea). i did preview most of them as i said above, 2 or 3 times. But there are some i missed. By "some" is not elaborated as many, but infact minority of them. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem? I guess what I'm really asking is whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: you may notice that many Wikipedians are highly skeptical of anyone making large numbers of edits, and will comb through them to make sure you're not making mistakes. The problem is the amount of work it makes for other people when there are mistakes. Some people (basically everyone at the top of WP:4000) do successfully make large numbers of edits for a long time... others (including some of the people at the top of WP:4000) wind up getting banned because the benefit of lots of small changes doesn't quite make up for a lot of other people's time spent cleaning up when those small changes go wrong. The takeaway here should be: be extra careful when editing rapidly, and maybe even slow down a little. If there's a single large batch of edits you want to make, you can always create a WP:BOT account. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Rhododendrites thank you very much for the advice!, i will be extra careful next time. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. I'm sure that slowing down and being more circumspect will be appreciated. If you have time to answer the questions I asked above, which you probably missed, I'd appreciate it, but regardless of that, your greater care, deeper consideration, more thoughtful consideration of options and willingness to engage can only be a good thing. Thank you. Begoon 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Begoon i did and i will re-evaluate my approach, but does that mean i will stop editing ? No, these are critiques and advices that i sought have to accept. i infact still and will keep editing on that topic and try to improve my approach and slowing down a bit. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Good luck. I hope this discussion has avoided the whole thing becoming a bigger/ongoing issue. Begoon 13:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon it wont!, thank you for the participation and advices on this discussion! -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. Indulge me, because I'd like to just ask one of those questions again:

"So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem?"

I'm particularly interested in "whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Begoon 1. stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, i did not agree on the first half sentence, however, i did agree on to re-evaluate. the thing is, i did not have an intention to stop editing. the secenario that i would be ended up doing is to slow down and carefully fix the parameters on the format per se. in my opinion, it's really unproductive to stop just because you made a mistake. what you must do is that; you must fix it and overcome it much more carefully.

2. take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. I'm actually quite having a trouble on comprehensing this one. But if you meant that, will i accept the advices on board above or not? definitely i will accept them. There is no way i'm not gonna accept them. Overall the general reason for me here on the encyclopaedia is to contribute and do the right thing. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. We'll see how that goes. I'm not entirely optimistic, because it feels like the things you don't want to do - taking more care, slowing down, listening to people who disagree with you rather than plowing on, accepting your path may be flawed, finding better ways to edit, are not really things you seem keen to hear. I somehow don't feel it will be long before we can know for sure though... Begoon 14:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just fixed one of this editor's "delete the parameter instead of fixing it" errors that was made two hours ago. This editor is failing to listen to advice and continuing their disruption. Here's another recent one from less than three hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Jonesey95 that edit was made before this ANI discussion even started, and were already addressed. thank you for fixing it. but this doesn't mean it porhibits me to correct other article's parameters carefully. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Untrue, AFAICT, based on the time stamps. The discussion was started four hours ago; the disruptive editor responded nine minutes later. Both erroneous edits were made after that response. I just reviewed this editor's most recent 30 edits and had to revert 8 of them. This is a terrible error rate. This editor should take the time to read the template's documentation and commit to stop removing parameters. In general, when the editor fixed a parameter name instead of removing the parameter and value entirely, the fix was valid. The editor should focus on that type of edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not - but you're not really showing the positive commitment I'd have hoped for here. I'll ask you again: What's the emergency that makes you think you can edit like a bot against very clear consensus? And why haven't you just said "ok, I'll stop doing that because it's not clear that I should" yet?

You're starting, if I'm honest, to just look like a nuisance. Begoon 15:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• I blocked the user for a week, just to reduce damage to the project, since they kept high-rate editing against objections. I leave the discussion here open.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem necessary. After their response to me above, they made nine edits in nine minutes. That's not a particularly high rate of editing. Has anyone identified problems with any of those nine edits? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • AFAICT, all 3 of the edits 192 commented on Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango's talk page were after they replied to you, actually after all replies by them on this thread except that to Jonesy95. They're counting 3 out of 8, you're 3 out of 9, either way assume 192's assessment is fair that's a terrible error rate. Technically, these may have only been specifically identified after the block but IMO it was reasonable enough under the circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Indeed. :/ Looks like the message didn't sink in. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I just visited another 50 or so of this editor's edits to settlement infoboxes, and I found that they deleted valuable information instead of fixing the broken parameters at least a quarter of the time. It pains me to say that, unfortunately, all of this editor's infobox settlement edits that are current edits should probably be reverted so that they can be revisited properly via Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. It appears that there are about 2,000 such edits dating back to March 25. Here's one dating from March 25 that I just had to revert. I don't know how this would be done, or if there is a better way to address these hundreds of errors tucked away amid some valid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Why shall trolling usernames, only intended to disrupt collaborative editing, be allowed to stand? TrangaBellam (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Mass revert seems appropriate. There are scripts that do the bulk of them in a few clicks (User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps I'm jaded but the user name, signature and edit summaries smell troll to me. Coupled with the inability to read the mood here and the arbitrary nature of the edits (some improve things and some don't), I would be inclined to block indefinitely, particularly if problems continue. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  2,000 edits, most of them helpful, without attracting attention until the 1,900th edit, doesn't smell like a troll to me. It seems more like a CIR problem to me. I don't think it changes the outcome; a longer block is probably appropriate if the editor fails to comprehend the problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I’d recommend a conversion to indef for CIR indistinguishable from trolling, pending only a logged WP:CONDUNBLOCK. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 17:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, troll or incompetent, either way, the username just screams "I'm not here to make your lives any easier". SN54129 18:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  WP:UNCONF. Basically, a “confusing” username (excessive length is cited as an example) is strongly discouraged but not outright prohibited by the policy. However, such a username should be viewed through the lens of its edits, and it can be viewed as an aggravating factor, including when issuing blocks. That’s the policy guidance as far as the username goes. Regarding the user, if there are no objections I am not going to let the block expire and will be converting it to an indef until a conditional unblock can be negotiated. Regarding the edits, if there are no objections to a mass rollback I can do that as well. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

user Rooveaouravevo (2 threads)

Requesting help to stop vandalism on chinnese australians

User:TyronMcLannister is vandalising the wikipage Chinese Australians by repeatedly removing Chinese Australians of partial European descent despite leaving out other wikipages Cornish Australians and German Australians that contain famous figures that are of mixed cornish and mixed german ancestry as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 10:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rooveaouravevo: This isn't vandalism - this is a content dispute. Go to the talk page of the article, Talk:Chinese Australians, and have a discussion with TyronMcLannister about what definition of Chinese Australian should be used in the article, If that fails to resolve the issue follow the steps outlined at WP:Dispute resolution. Be careful chucking around accusations of vandalism - vandalism is a deliberate attempt to harm the project, disagreements about content are not vandalism. You are also supposed to notify other editors when you open a thread about them here, I have done that for you. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• This is a new account whose entire field of interest is original research in citing sources in specific two articles:[109] and [110], as well as changing the established definition of ethnicity in the article to its own. My friendly and polite attempts to explain to the new user that it is necessary to cooperate and seek consensus with other editors based on reliable sources were unsuccessful, he began a vindictive action of accusing me of vandalism and spamming these accusations, including on the administrators Talk pages, as we can see. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I was only removing your fabricated false definition and following what other ethnic Australian wikipages have defined. Chinese ancestry are those of full or partial Chinese roots just like the wikipage African Americans identified Barack Obama as African American despite his mother being of European and the wikipage Cornish Australians identified Robert Menzies as Cornish Australian even though his father is not Cornish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooveaouravevo (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You continuesly refuse in constructive cooperation in the creation of the encyclopedia and continue to project personal attacks, accusing me of "false fabrication" of something. And what does this have to do with African Americans and Barack Obama? In the United States, a different definition of ethnicity has historically developed in the context of blacks, and even more so, Barack Obama associates himself with African Americans, which is confirmed by sources. Even before you registered an account in the project and started making changes, the Chinese Australians page had a well-established definition for a long time, and if you do not like it, you must first come to a consensus in the discussion in order to change it. Wikipedia does not standardize definitions from other articles. It is also unacceptable to make unconstructive edits, replacing quotes from reliable sources with your own thoughts. TyronMcLannister (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

OR and CIVIL issues with user Rooveaouravevo

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

Rooveaouravevo this is a new account created less than a week ago whose entire field of interest is original research of citing sources in specific two articles:[111] and [112], as well as changing the established definition of ethnicity in the article to its own without consensus with other contributors. To my friendly and polite attempt [113] to explain to the new user that it is necessary to cooperate and seek consensus with other editors based on reliable sources were unsuccessful, he made a false claim that his edits were based sources [114] and then began a vindictive action of accusing me of vandalism and spamming these accusations, including on the administrators talk pages as we can see [115], [116]. Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TyronMcLannister (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Um, it seems way too early to conclude Rooveaouravevo is NOTHERE. Yes they don't seem to understanding our sourcing requirements and are way too quick to throw around accusations but I see no reason to think they aren't here to build an encyclopaedia. While you have made an effort to engage with them on their talk page, it's often difficult especially for a new editor to see the other editor is right when they're in direct dispute with this editor. Also while your earlier effort was decent [117], you too seem to have descended into false accusations of vandalism [118]. Since you yourself have seemingly been here for less than a month, I guess this can be forgiven but it's a little bit silly to complain about an editor falsely accusing you of vandalism if you've decided to give as good as you got. I'd also note that the article talk page doesn't seem to have been touched by a person in 3.5+ years and I don't see any significant discussion of definitions even in the past. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that your boorish opinion is somehow appropriate here? Don't project or mirror yourself in me, because that's the only thing "a little silly" here. I did 100% right in interacting with this user who was unwilling to cooperate constructively and deliberately changed the meaning of source citations, wherever he made any edits. But you twisted the whole context of my actions in your comment. It even looks like you are interested in this controversial account in some way. TyronMcLannister (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

All Wikipedians who have the time should speak up when an editor is proposing action against another editor without evidence or reason to support such action. And no, you were not 100% right. You cannot falsely accuse an editor of vandalism just because they falsely accused you of vandalism, that's ludicrous. It's actually still a personal attack which could lead to you being blocked just the same as Rooveaouravevo, but Rooveaouravevo has already been warned by the IP above. Since you yourself apparently a new editor, we can be taken as a case of the blind leading the blind, but we can fairly say perhaps one of the reasons Rooveaouravevo is confused about what vandalism is is because they were unfortunately taught incorrectly by you.

Also, to some extent Rooveaouravevo is now starting to "win" this content dispute in behavioural terms (which is what interests us at ANI) since they've made it to the talk page [119] while you have not. While it was perhaps a good thing to approach Rooveaouravevo directly especially as a new editor; as always teach don't preach. Since you yourself are involved in the content dispute and edit warring to boot, at some stage and especially before you came to ANI to complain, you should have started the talk page discussion and invited them rather than waiting for Rooveaouravevo to do so. Whatever WP:ONUS says (and it doesn't say it's okay for either party to edit war), it's incredibly lame when an editor comes to ANI and there's zero talk page discussion because one or both editors are insisting the other editor needs to be the one to initiate it.

My earlier point is an important one, we don't deal in content disputes here so it doesn't matter much to us who might be right in the content dispute with the possible exception of cases where the content changes are so terrible that no editor can reasonably defend them, simply the editor's behaviours in the content dispute and starting a talk page discussion is one of the very basic requirements.

Again, I'm taking you as your edit history suggests as a new editor so won't bring WP:BITE etc in to it, however you still should not expect to be treated favourably at ANI if you're going to propose severe action against another editor and your own track record in the dispute is very far from the ideal.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If they have nothing to say other than baseless accusations to "defend" someone who is wrong but has a similar view on the "topic" being contested, then they should not speak up. TyronMcLannister (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@TyronMcLannister: For once I have to agree with Nil Einne, who has perhaps been a little harsh on you, just as you are being harsh with Rooveaouravevo. It's inconsistent for you to complain about someone else's incivility and then call his opinion "boorish". Deb (talk) 14:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Another mushroom after the rain... You seem to have misunderstood my comment, just as Neil Einne misunderstood my actions towards the user: I'm not "complaining" about his tone, I'm not truth sensitive and I'm proud of it. I complain about his hypocritical passive-aggressive false accusations that I am "not sincere" in my actions, he literally projects himself and mirrors these qualities to me, and everything else is a rhetorical device. Again, you do not need to project to me the qualities that you yourself have, but ask directly. Better to be honest but rude than pseudo-polite and projective. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Best of all to read WP:CIVIL before you get a well deserved block for aggressive assholery. --JBL (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

No need to scare me, it won't work anyway, better turn your advice to yourself. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• @TyronMcLannister: Tread carefully. Between this and your attempted refactoring someone else's edit, you are on very thin ice. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: How about the comment right above yours. This is not even rudeness, but something more. TyronMcLannister (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I would have used another term. But the principle difference is that your uncivil commentary looks like an ongoing pattern of behavior compounded by a bad case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: I'm sorry that you have such a view of the situation. Because i'm actually sincerely support constructive criticism with facts and logic and i'm ready to change as soon as there is a reason for it. But i can't tolerate slander and manipulations. I am ready to admit that I am a bit rude in rhetoric by American standarts, which means Wikipedia standards (but I am Russian and this is not "rude" here) - there is a factor of cultural differences but I can adapt, also I mistaken in editing another answer, but I do not admit rest of the accusations, such as accusing me of being "insincerity" about my concerns from one of the local "rules experts". He initially stated that I allegedly "out of revenge" warned the editor about vandalism on his page, such an accusation does not hold water, because I left evidence that the editor was first warned about the rules of Wikipedia in a friendly and polite manner, but Rooveaouravevo not only didn't listen and consciously continued to do what he did, but also went to slander me, accusing ME of vandalism. Nil Einne literally rearranged the context of my actions, created strawman to make my complaint look irrelevant and absurd. So I reacted to his comments as I reacted. TyronMcLannister (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to massdelete pages created by impersonating account

User:Edit filters is an impersonation of software-backed sysop account User:Edit filter (on Special:ListUsers). They are currently reported at UAA. Not just impersonation, but the user has created a number of random talk pages, with {{WikiProject help}} banner, where the banners simply shouldn't have been placed because those pages doesn't fall under WP Help's scope. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • C • L)} 14:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for their username, and personally place the chances of this being a malicious actor somewhere below 50%. As for the pages they created, I've deleted some. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

User:BrightWikiEditor

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

---

This editor primary contributions here for many years is their sandbox about a fake polymath, and nothing else. No edit on main namespace, not even on their talk pages. This is an obvious WP:NOTHERE incident, which to quote from the essay, has "long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Related ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:Mariofan3 WP:NOTHERE, WP:NOTWEBHOST. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

BrightWikiEditor has been blocked by GeneralNotability. Deor (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Djm-leighpark bullying

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

---

• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polycarpa aurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aviram7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Polycarpa has requested I self-refer at Special:Diff/1083071207 to ANI where tehy will present evidence of my bullying of Polycarpa & Aviram7. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

To be clear at the outset Aviram7 had explained and removed the somewhat disturbing (at least to me) monetizing word from their user page and replaced by monitoring the issue probably arising from English not being there native language tongue and I fully AGF monitoring was the word that they intended to use. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• All of your actions surrounding this article here and on Hindi wiki are nothing short of mind boggling. Do you really think @Polycarpa aurata I confirm I have not had intercourse with that woman or that man to my knowledge. I have not been a member of Wikimedia UK but have had virtual intercourse with one of more members of Wikimedia UK and have sent an email to them from Arnold/Daybrook MacDonald's on the morning of 1st April 2022 waiting 2 hours from an NHS professional in West Sussex which never happened. Now if you want further information you'll need to jump and raise a WP:COIN. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 4:43 pm, 12 April 2022, last Tuesday (4 days ago) (UTC−4) is appropriate? CUPIDICAE💕 22:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds like a language/WP:CIR issue. I hope. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

You'd hope, but I'm fairly sure Djm has in the past said they're a native english speaker. If it is a CIR issue, well they've been around long enough that they should know better and should be CIR blocked in that case. CUPIDICAE💕 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I've re-read that quote multiple times now; it's nothing short of mystifying. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

'Intercourse' has the meaning of 'communication' here but it is very poor phrasing. "...I have not communicated with..." / "...have had virtual communication with..." would be sooo much better. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labour and internal intercourse. This statement is generally recognised. But not only the relation of one nation to others, but also the whole internal structure of the nation itself depends on the stage of development reached by its production and its internal and external intercourse. ("Production and Intercourse. Division of Labour and Forms of Property – Tribal, Ancient, Feudal." The German Ideology, 1845).

El_C 18:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Actually you know, reading through this behavior, I think a boomerang and block is in order. Djm has a tendency, as noted in several different ANI threads to fly off the handle and spout nonsense at the drop of the hat whenever there is conflict involved. So to save on the long winded non-explanations, we should just cut to the chase and stop the disruption. See below:
  • Implied intent to reveal personal information - a year ago
  • AFD interference and allegations 6 months ago, which features these gems: Djm-leighpark requesting self-block: @RandomCanadian: Given that's the way you wish to play that AfD farce which I have been requested I not to comment on I am not becoming inclined to take WP psychotic actions and therefore requesting you or some other admim block me (& Djm-mobile ^ bigdelboy) on english Wikipedia for 2 weeks to avoid me making uncharitable personal attacks which I now feel is inevitably welling up within me an would likely result in a likely indef block. I understand it is reasonable to make this request. While I use WikiBreak enforcer I will not use it for this purpose. Given my previous block history is is reasonable for me to make this request. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:21 am, 10 October 2021, Sunday (6 months, 6 days ago) (UTC−4) among others
  • continued disruptive COI editing where Djm...booomerangs himself? Pure disruption to ANI, just as this ridiculous thread is
  • another disruptive ANI thread where Djm talks to themselves the whole time.

I could go on but I think there's a point at which we as editors have had enough disruption. CUPIDICAE💕 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark tried to bully me after I made a single edit to Monisha Shah an article which seems inexplicably important to him. He left big warning messages about "biographical articles" and "India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan". Monisha Shah was born in India but so far as I know is a British citizen who has lived in England for decades. Djm-leighpark started a new section where (based his "analysis") he accused me of having previous accounts. I replied that I did not, but he continued to harass me because he didn't like the way I phrased my answer. Eventually an admin had to ask him to stop. All of this over a single edit. I saw him doing the very same thing to User:Aviram7, the user who asked for Djm-leighpark's Google-translated Hindi article on Monisha Shah to be deleted. I told Aviram7 that Djm-leighpark was a bully and Aviram7 did not need to be concerned by what he was saying. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment. This exchange is straight up wild to me:

@Djm-leighpark: So a relative of yours missed an xray appointment. Can you tell me how that is *any* way related to me or to Wikipedia? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Polycarpa aurata:: Because I screwed up in cancelling it early dealing with your privacy pushing which has cascaded out pushing a lot of other issues. I've also threatened a complaint against a hospital over failure to handle something. That's my fault but its affecting other people in real life. Yes that's my problem. And you've done everything but answered the straightforward question. Is there something your're not telling us? Now have your last word. I likely not to respond to it. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've interacted with both Djm-leighpark and Polycarpa aurata before. I can't say I have had a negative experience with either of them, but... my gosh I have no clue what Djm-leighpark was thinking here. It's so guilt-trip-y, and it makes me question whether Djm-leighpark can actually edit Wikipedia without seriously adversely affecting their personal life. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Monisha Shah and Samir Shah

This concerns the page for Monisha Shah and editor User:Djm-leighpark. There was a Monisha Shah page but it got deleted in November 2021 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah). Djm-leighpark contested the deletion (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 28). At some point Djm-leighpark started a new page for Monisha Shah as a draft and it was approved last month. That page was also deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah (2nd nomination)). Before it was deleted, Djm-leighpark used Google translate to translate it to Hindi and added the page to the Hindi Wikipedia. Not only didn't Djm-leighpark add any Hindi sources, he actually removed most of the English sources that had been used on the page here. I suspect that Djm-leighpark is not even able to read one of the sources (which is behind a paywall), but he has not responded to my question. He has said that he intends to contest the second deletion of the Monisha Shah page here. I tried to ask him about his interest in Monisha Shah but his replies were nonsense.

Samir Shah is Monisha Shah's brother. A draft page was created by User:OliverSeager. It was rejected. Djm-leighpark decided to edit it and it was moved to a page. After OliverSeager kept editing it, Djm-leighpark accused him of conflict of interest. Djm-leighpark went so far as to dig up archives of a page for Samir Shah's company to show that OliverSeager worked for him. Neither of the pages for the Shahs would exist here if not for Djm-leighpark's actions. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark blocked indef

User_talk:Djm-leighpark#Indefinite_block. El_C 23:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Good block (per my above comment). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Return to Monkey Island editing

Return to Monkey Island (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I noticed Return to Monkey Island was making weird edits on their userpage [120] [121] [122]. They have also trolled admins in the sandbox [123] and when warned about it, said the warning was abuse and that nobody was allowed on their talk page [124] [125]. They also like to remove links without a proper explanation [126] [127]. They have also personally attack admins in their sandbox [128]. Overall, this pattern shows Return to Monkey Island should be blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:612A:5550:531E:89C0 (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but started with a message at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow. If even half of that is true, then me thinks that what we have is a young person who needs to develop more writing skills before editing Wikipedia. The editor's very odd userpage kinda confirms this. A loose necktie (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• They backed away from this comment [129] after making it and reverting it, but it demonstrates a lack of self control, as that was a wildly inappropriate response to what was a very mild and relaxed discussion. I just backed out and prepared to watch the crash and burn that was inevitable on some page or another, to be honest. I get the feeling the WP:CIR issues are at play. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  If I wasn't clear, I don't think this user should be editing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I said sorry and didn't make any more of the edits I was told to. Unless you want me to beg forgiveness after apologising what ore can I do. Especially when I haven't made any edits that are vandalising on pages. And the redlink thing I was doing it cos I thought it made wiki better then stopped when told it was a rule. I made mistakes and owned up you can see I said sorry to people about them I'm only human. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Other then sandbox which is for more relaxed editing (I will not make fun of admins there again) any edit I made on pages I thought I was correct and I have apologised on that guys page and someone else's. If I was intentionally editing pages to take the piss then yh block but I have not ever intentionally made wiki bad and since apologised when I did. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Also here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabrina:_The_Animated_Series&oldid=1082695203 and here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey_Island&oldid=1082711683 show I have edited constructively fixing grammar and adding sources see I knew Alexandria Boyed was in it but the tweet was vague and you can check the talk page I asked if the tweet was enough a source and told no so agreed not to edit it until another source came that out right said she is in the game I then edited it with the source, Showing I am not here to vandalise this site I am here to help build an encyclopaedia even if I have made mistakes about how I have done it. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think you're missing the point, or at least my point. I'm not really concerned of your opinion of admins, or redlinks. What concerns me is the fact that you seem to have a problem with self-control. THAT causes problems around here. Just because you think of something, doesn't mean you have to leave it in a post. Your knee jerk reaction on Acroterion was unexpected and a bit disturbing, particularly since he and I were simply explaining how redlinks are useful. I expected "oh, I get it, although I don't like the look of it" or similar. Instead, you start telling us when we can and can't block you. I think I can speak for both of us when I say, a block was not remotely in our mindset. We were just being helpful, what you called "insanity". That makes me question your competence; your ability to function in a collaborative environment. If you react that poorly when someone tries to help you, I can't imagine how you are going to react when there is an actual dispute. Well, actually I can: very poorly. I'm not sure if it is your age, your situation, I don't know, but I don't think you have the competence to be here, honestly. To me, it's just a matter of time (say, 1 week or less) before we are hearing more of your disruptive reactions to what most people would consider are ordinary events. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  But I apologised and for my outburst like if I do it again then you'll be like "HA I knew it" but If I owned up said sorry and haven't done any of the things you said not to (all before this admin page thingy) then surley you could give me a chance. . Return to Monkey Island (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  That's nice. But you seem to have a problem with going to 11 when responding to ordinary interactions and explanations. I am not encouraged by the way you keep responding. You're being given a chance. Please make use of it and learn from experience. Acroterion (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  thank you. Return to Monkey Island (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Return to Monkey Island is a video game that is slated to be released this year; it was announced on April 4. User:Return to Monkey Island was created on April 7. Maybe I'm off base here, but am I the only one who thinks that "Return to Monkey Island" is an inappropriate promotional username in this context? It strikes me as a type of product placement. Levivich 17:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm just hpyed about the game I don't work for anyone or trying to sell it Return to Monkey Island (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not going to lie, this user name alone got me hyped. It's kinda weird to be suspect of someone naming their account after what will likely be one of the best releases in a decade. 107.115.5.107 (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Same I was so happy they were making a new Monkey Island I saw this guys name and thought wow a super fan who edits we can be friends and edit Monkey Island pages together and then I see he's retired looked at the history and saw the staff bullied him off! Well I'm not making an account if this is how you treat fans who want to edit pages they care about. 51.9.73.127 (talk) 10:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I hear a WP:DUCK quacking...--WaltCip-(talk) 12:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

POV pushing from user:Sloppyjoes7

Original statement without the in-line replies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1082592810 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1062741551 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)#Erroneous_sentence_was_corrected,_then_reverted_by_an_administrator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloppyjoes7#April_2022 denies transwoman is female, repeatedly, backing their claims up with misinterpreted information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082592098 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082593422 whitewashing anti-trans sports bill twice https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Sky_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1082590965 not offensive in a vacuum but the summary + overall edit history implies whitewashing under the guise of “correcting bias” This isn’t a new phenomenon, in this editor’s meager history they’ve also made edits like: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347606 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347764 pro-creationism POV push https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=507175376 fake balance inserted into another religion-related article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=500347056 another extremely weasely POV edit to same article Getting WP:NOTHERE vibes. Dronebogus (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1082592810 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)&diff=prev&oldid=1062741551 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Julia_Collins_(Jeopardy!_contestant)#Erroneous_sentence_was_corrected,_then_reverted_by_an_administrator and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sloppyjoes7#April_2022 denies transwoman is female, repeatedly, backing their claims up with misinterpreted information

This is false, as nothing was misinterpreted. My edits and comments were absolutely factual, and not a single editor or admin has presented any evidence that my edits contained misinformation. A few days ago I asked for any such evidence, and to date, no evidence has been presented. Literally just accusations without any reason, explanation, or defense. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082592098 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Florida&diff=prev&oldid=1082593422 whitewashing anti-trans sports bill twice

Eliminating extreme bias is not "whitewashing." Please refer to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and follow those guidelines. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources have reported that the law's phrasing regarding "of the male sex" is focused on barring transgender girls and women, trying to say we can only use the law (which uses the phrasing it does probably for a few reasons which likely include trying to cover legal challenges with a plausible denial) as the source is cherry picking sources that support a particular view and is in fact contradictory to the very first sentence of WP:NPOV you cite. Describing the views reported in reliable sources with a reasonable amount of weight is not "extreme" bias. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The law in question literally does not "bar" transgender persons. It does, however, prevent male individuals from competing in sports deemed for females. Therefore, male individuals are still allowed to compete, so long as those individuals compete in sports deemed for males. So, even now, you are misrepresenting the facts by claiming it is "barring transgender girls and women". This is why it is important to maintain a neutral POV and state the facts. Opinions may be included in articles, as well as alternative points of views, but they should be adequately labeled as such.

As for the claim that quoting a law is "cherrypicking" in an article about said law, this claim is so patently bizarre, it defies reason. No, it is not cherrypicking to quote a law in an article about said law. Laws are a subject where the wording of the law is *particularly* important. So, while the arcane nature of many laws often justifies interpretation or clarification, it is not reasonable to say that quoting the applicable portion of a law is "cherrypicking."

As for the WP:NPOV, the actual concern is you calling it "whitewashing" to correctly describe a law. The term "whitewashing" implies that the law is wrong, bad, or otherwise offensive, and that attempts to explain or describe it (as opposed to condemning it) are "whitewashing." Your usage of the term "whitewashing" suggests that you are not willing and/or incapable of describing the law in question without introducing your personal bias. This should be taken into account regarding this situation. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to address all the parts of this reply (I just have a habit of refreshing tabs before I close them, maybe I'll revisit this response later), but I wanted to note that I'm not the one who used the term "whitewashing" at all; that would be the person who opened this section, who I am not. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, the person who used the phrase "whitewashing" multiple times was User:Dronebogus Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I was about to correct you but you beat me to it. I'm not the one who is trying to "push a certain narrative" here, and you're the one who introduced the "confusing formatting" with your in-line replies, FWIW. Funcrunch (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Sky_Studios&diff=prev&oldid=1082590965 not offensive in a vacuum but the summary + overall edit history implies whitewashing under the guise of “correcting bias”

You can be an advocate, but Wikipedia is supposed to present factual information, not be a place where people can twist facts to push narratives and advocacy. I did not "whitewash" anything, and the record is clear on this. I removed biased non-neutral information, and replaced it with correct and accurate information. (Which has since been twisted back into non-neutral POV, and is still non-neutral as of today.)Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As the article on Florida House Bill 1557 states that it is commonly known by critics as the "Don't Say Gay bill" I thought that saying "Florida House Bill 1557, known by some as the Don't Say Gay bill" was a reasonable thing to say but I admit that I did not include citations when I made that change. Following your comment here I have added 2 citations to the article to support the fact that it is known by some under that name which I hope deals with your concerns about NPOV editing. Gusfriend (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn’t a new phenomenon, in this editor’s meager history they’ve also made edits like:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347606 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genesis_flood_narrative&diff=prev&oldid=510347764 pro-creationism POV push
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=507175376 fake balance inserted into another religion-related article
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham&diff=prev&oldid=500347056 another extremely weasely POV edit to same article

It is true that I have made edits to articles that flatly call the Judeo-Christian worldview a lie. Those corrections were to fix articles that violate the WP:RNPOV of Wikipedia. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting WP:NOTHERE vibes. Dronebogus (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Then these "vibes" are not based in reality. While I am not saying every edit is perfect, they have been made in good faith, and I try to include sources/citations wherever applicable. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This person's edits seem... I don't want to overuse this term, but... tendentious at best. They read as advancing a particular POV and bias hiding behind a civil veneer of misapplying policies in a way that seems meant to advance their views. - Purplewowies (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sloppyjoes7: Trans women are women who were assigned male at birth. Being assigned male is not necessarily equivalent to being of the male sex. Calling trans women male, or saying that they are not female, is misgendering just as much as calling them men or saying that they are not women is. This is not just my personal opinion or "fringe", this is the current consensus of the Wikipedia community. Funcrunch (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not the consensus of the Wikipedia community, which makes a distinction between an individual's sex and gender. It is also a belief held by a minority of people. Furthermore, and more to the point, the terms "male" and "female" refer to an individual's sex, not their gender, and therefore have nothing to do with misgendering. While I have very strong views on the subject, I did not include my personal views, and the edits in question were not about the word "woman" but rather the word "female." This is an important distinction when it comes to Wikipedia guidelines. I carefully looked through Wikipedia's entire article on Trans woman to see if I was conflicting with that article, as well as a few related articles, and found no conflict. Those articles clearly assert and describe a distinction between an individual's sex and gender. If there is evidence to the contrary, (as I have already said days ago), I am open to seeing such evidence. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, and more to the point, the terms "male" and "female" refer to an individual's sex, not their gender, and therefore have nothing to do with misgendering. Trans woman says, in its second sentence: Trans women have a female gender identity. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "female gender identity" is, indeed, a phrase, and those three words should be taken together, not apart. Therefore, there is a distinction between "female" and "female gender identity." In fact, that article delves into that very distinction. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Sloppyjoes7 replied to Dronebogus's original statement in flagrant violation of WP:INTERPOLATE. I'm slightly disappointed that no one in the above exchange noticed this (except Funcrunch) and corrected it. I have restored the original post as a collapsed statement.
  @Sloppyjoes7: Don't ever do that again. When you respond in-line like that, it makes everything impossible to keep track. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Topic ban on gender related topics broadly construed

• I believe that a topic ban on gender replated topics is called for at this point. My proposal is partially based on a desire to short circuit the discussion before it reaches the point that Sloppyjoes7 talks themselves into a site wide ban. Apologies if that is not appropriate reasoning or if it is too soon to propose. Any other editor should feel free to suggest a different course of action. Gusfriend (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is absolutely too soon, and is unfounded entirely. What is clear, as evidenced from the handful of editors replying here, (seen in their own self-descriptions on their profiles), is the people calling for such a ban are advocates. A neutral POV is unsatisfactory to them.

  In other words, a few advocates pushing a certain POV are trying to not only silence opposition to their POV, but (in this case) silence accurate information that they don't feel is adequately biased enough. So it's not only about silencing one point of view, but actually silencing a neutral point of view. Therefore there is a stronger case to ban User:Gusfriend, User:Isabelle_Belato, and User:Dronebogus than there is to ban me. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  By your logic, shouldn't you be suggesting that Drmies (an administrator) be banned as well, for warning you about this edit summary? Funcrunch (talk) 03:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. I believe that Drmies, at the very least, should lose administrator status, as being an admin requires greater dedication to neutrality and accuracy, as well as more trustworthiness. That warning was unfounded, entirely. Furthermore, I believe the warning was a form of abuse of authority, and therefore, I would consider a ban justified. (Obviously I have no way to enact or enforce this, that I'm aware of.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Clarify - Are you claiming that Amy Schneider is not a female? GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Based on what has been said so far, I fully support a ban. I do not believe this user is giving edits on here in good faith and is coming to edits with a biased, partisan viewpoint, even questioning "female gender identity" as a concept, in one of their above edits, claiming it is different than "female" but offering no evidence to support their assertion. Sloppyjoes7 appears to be, from what I have looked at and seen, bad news. Historyday01 (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  Support - From what I've read in this thread. Their understanding of laws as sources is also deeply problematic, and I would encourage them to read WP:RSLAW to understand when and how to use sources of or about law in articles. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Supoort per evidence I presented, WP:NOTHERE and Wikipedia:IDHT problems. Wouldn’t mind a complete ban since they’re also engaging in vindictive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior against everyone they disagree with, demanding arbitrary blocks left and right, which is unrelated to the topic of LGBT issues. Dronebogus (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I have never seen this "Administrators noticeboard" before, so this is new to me. So, not only have I not seen this process, I am now subject to being banned through this process. Is that correct?

  If so, is it not reasonable to reply to others civilly, calmly, and in good faith in order to address personal attacks that threaten to delete my account? Is that not precisely what I have done? Can I literally be considered as violating rules for simply responding to accusations against me that I see as totally and utterly false, and explaining why those accusations are false?

  At this point, I think I may need WP:DR, though I'm not totally sure that's appropriate here. Again, I am a casual editor who only edits from time to time, and this whole thing has blindsided me, and I'm not sure where it's all coming from, or why it's attracting such attention from censorious individuals. I don't know what is typically done in these matters. Perhaps most people are simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board. I don't know.

  (Note: no, I have not "demanded" anybody be blocked, much less arbitrarily. You will see no such thing in my edit history.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  As it says at the top of this page, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You were notified. No, most people are not "simply banned before they even see or are aware of this board". Funcrunch (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Same IP user likes to edit a page

This IP user 103.144.225.75 (talk) (contributions) somehow continue to disrupt edit page on Myanmar National Airlines by adding widebody aircrafts (although no announce from the airline) and adding a country with no reliable source provide. I even left a warning to stop but did not listening. Hopefully this IP user will be block. Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Master Vampire Shihab and 89.147.140.163

Master Vampire Shihab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.147.140.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sylhet Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylhet region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Greater Sylhet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The User:Master Vampire Shihab has had multiple warnings on his talk page regarding his troublesome edits by multiple users, and actively edits with his IP too. On 24 March 2022, I raised the issue on this noticeboard and he was subsequently blocked for 31 hours. Despite this, the user continues to vandalise Wikipedia, refusing to engage in a civil manner. UserNumber (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

On my DYK contributions

Summary of DYK process on Wikipedia

Background: A user (hereafter nominator) nominates an interesting fact from an article. The interesting fact is known as Did You Know (DYK), and is nominated on a template subpage. Another uninvolved user (reviewer) reviews the fact, checks the quality of the article, Points the problems(if any) on the subpage. Nominator gets chance to fix the problem. Once satisfied with improvements the reviewer approves the DYK. Fact is displayed on DYK section that is transcluded on the mainpage. At the end of this, the nominator is said to have earned one successful DYK Credit, and it is noted on the user talk page of the nominator. Quote from Wikipedia:Did you know (or WP:DYKRULES) 29 December 2021 Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination by a user, he must review one other DYK nomination (unrelated to nominators submission) ‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ for DYK nomination. Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nominator is exempt from QPQ.

Below are the dates when I had accumulated the so called "DYK credits".

Table for Successful DYKs [130]

Date	Successful DYK (DYK Credit) Diff
14 January 2022	1
22 January 2022	2
16 February 2022	3
2 April 2022	4
14 April 2022	5

The WP:DYKRULE originally said, "users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt from making DYK reviews" and I have understood it as new users "lacking sufficient expertise of the compliated DYK process to conduct proper reviews". Anyone who looks at the dates on these diffs above, would agree that until 14 April, I was not eligible for making DYK reviews for nominations by others. Yet in the past two-three weeks I have faced continuous harassment and threats for blocks, topic bans etc for allegedly gaming the system. Those users seem to believe that I am against doing reviews, even though I am already doing reviews, as I am expected to do.

Please review the timeline of events below and let me know if the uninvolved users believe I have erred and liable for sanctions as some are baying for. My expectation in bringing this complicated matter to ANI is to seek an end to this ongoing harassment and denigration by some users.

My entire DYK contributions timeline

My entire DYK contributions timeline Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? [131] 16 Dec 1st DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unseccessful as improvements were not done in one month time 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [132] 17 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [133] 22 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 April) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [134] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 18 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [135] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 11 Feb) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [136] 11 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unsuccessful by Narutolovehinata5 as timely improvements were not made 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 14 Jan First DYK credit successful 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [137] 15 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 22 Jan 2nd DYK credit successful 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [138] 10 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review. later closed as unsuccessful on 10 Feb 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? 3 16 Feb 3rd DYK credit successful 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [139] 23 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [140] 22 Mar DYK closed Narutolovehinata5 did an involved closure of the discussed he participated in, as unsuccessful. I requested for a review, but was ignored by Narutolovehinata5. Other users pointed involved closure, I asked to re-open, my request ignored By Narutolovehinata5 who did not undo the close. I gave up pursuing this. 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [141] 23 Mar DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 4 2 Apr 4th DYK credit successful 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [142] 4 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [143] 6 Apr DYK Rules changed the WP:DYKRULES werr changed by Theleekycauldron from checking for DYK Credits, to check for "nominations" (successful or unsuccessful or whatever) [144] 7 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs [145] 7 Apr DYK Rules restored I objected to the change as no new RfC had been done and the change required an RfC. I asked the proposer to conduct an RfC for the proposed change. My request ignored. No RfC started. Diff No. Date Event Notes DYK Credits QPQ expected from the DYK Nominator? Is user expected to review Other DYKs ? Reviews done [146] 19:28, 7 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1 [147] 22:31 7 Apr Harassment New thread started by Schwede66 to attack me over my objections saying that I am a newbie with strong opinions. Schwede66 Made several inaccurate statements, admonished me for not reviewing DYKs and at the same time admittedly conveniently ignoring that 3 hours ago, I had already done my first review following the changed rules. Schwede66 started a thread claiming that I was not reviewing DYKs and yet calls the fact that I had already started reviewing, as "irrelevant" and not worth commenting. In this comment Schwede66 wrongly accuses me of saying "I don't need to do QPQs" he gave no diffs and I never said that. Schwede66 continued later, [148] [149] 1 [150] 8 Apr Rfc Started to discuss DYK Rule change No RfC was started for a day, So I go ahead and start the RfC linking the diff and seeking opinion for the new change of WP:DYKRULES, and I note my objections as oppose !vote. The new rules essentially demanded new users without successful DYK credits to review other nominations 1 [151] 8 Apr Rfc closed in 12 hours Several users voted as support and oppose, yet the RfC was inappropriately closed within 12 hours of starting. I did not object to this closure, even though I believed the closure was not appropriate. Essentially I WP:DROPped the WP:STICK 1 [152] 12 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2 5 14 Apr 5th DYK credit successful 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 2 [153] 14 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 3 At the time of writing, I have 5 Successful DYK nominations, 3 unsuccessful and 4 are awaiting review.

Policy disagreement on a recent change of rule

DYK rule were changed on 6 April without seeking wider consensus for a big and controversial change. The question due to the change was "Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations?"
Until 6 April, users who submitted DYK nominations were asked to judge a DYK Nomination if the nominator had 5 or more 'successful DYK Credits' (aka 'DYK credits' checked using this tool). A proposal to change this rule was made on 4 April , where it was proposed that users with 5 or more DYK nominations (Successful or unsuccessful or pending) be asked to start judging DYK noms that others have filed. The change demanded users with 5 unsuccessful nominations, to start judging DYK nominations. Asking people with failed nominations to judge is a major change in WP:DYKRULES and deserved wider community consensus before implementation. In my opinion I noted that nominating a DYK is mostly just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the old rule demands. This change in rule was significant watering down of the requirements without considering the ill effects.

So clearly there was a policy disagreement between users on WT:DYK. Accordingly I tried to follow Dispute resolution. I let the RfC lead the policy disagreement to a conclusion, but my efforts for a consensus via RfC were thwarted and the RfC was closed within 12 hours. (diffs in the table above)

Harassment

After my RfC was closed 10 days ago, I yielded and did not continue my objections on DYKRULE any changes further, also started reviewing DYKs as per the changed rules. Since I have given up and complied with the new rules, this inappropriate harassment against me should have ended. Yet the scheming against me and attacks on WT:DYK continued as of today (since 4 April). And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI.

To conclude, there is no ongoing (or ever) disruption by me on Wikipedia, nor have I expressed intentions to start any, there are no grounds for attacking me and this ongoing witch hunt being pursued by some of these users against me, must end. Venkat TL (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you add diffs for the scheming, harassment, and attacks on you? Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd It is in the collapsed table on row 7 April. I will add some more in next 5-10 mins. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

My apologies; from the collapse header, I thought it was just your DYK work. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added few more diffs in the table row 7 April, Some attacks with factually inaccurate statements and slander are these [154] [155] [156] [157], in the last thread Joseph2302 attacks me and claims I have started tonnes of QPQ discussion threads when they were started by Narutoloveninata5 or Theleekycauldron. The only thread I started was RfC for seeking dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

"I was criticized" ≠ factual inaccuracy, let alone slander. Stop whining and arguing and go do something productive instead. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone wanting the context of this thread should look at the two discussion threads Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#QPQ_freebies and especially Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Article nominators and other editors removing comments by others on a DYK nomination. The idea of a topic ban for Venkat TL has been floated there by several editors. --JBL (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Context threads User talk:Narutolovehinata#QPQ and
  Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive_185#RFC: Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations Venkat TL (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

In Venkat's table above, labeled as "harassment", are Schwede66's comments at Special:Diff/1081517890 and Special:Diff/1081535891. I'm more concerned by Venkat's comments at Special:Diff/1081527663 and Special:Diff/1081539768.

The content/policy discussion at WT:DYK can handle the WP:DYKRULES issue; that's not an ANI issue.

I am as concerned at others about Venkat's intense focus on the QPQs, and whether he does or does not have to complete them. That is such a strange thing for someone to focus this much attention on. Even stranger for a new editor, whose account was created in August 2021. But then Venkat's made over 20,000 edits in these last nine months (that's about 75 edits a day, every day) [158], of which only about 4,000 are semi-automated [159]. That leaves me wondering if this is a continuation of some older dispute. Anyone who can put out 16,000 non-automated edits in 9 months (that's about 60 non-automated edits every day!) would not be trying to delay doing a QPQ for DYK.

I think a TBAN, if the DYK regulars want it, would help reduce the disruption they have to deal with. Levivich 17:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, There is no ongoing dispute, as I have given already given up 2 weeks ago. There is no ongoing disruption at WT:DYK, I have never ever said that I did not want to do QPQs, The WP:DYKRULES before it was changed said users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt and I understood it as "lacking sufficient expertise to conduct proper reviews". As noted in the collapsed table, at the time of writing of this comment, I have already done 3 QPQ reviews of nomination by others. Accordingly I have considered myself not eligibile to review DYKs of others and Some users are a conflating this as "Hostility in doing reviews" and while doing this they keep ignoring the fact that I have already done 3 reviews and listed them as QPQs. The policy disagreement is over, and I see no reason why these users even after 2 weeks continue to pursue that against me. Venkat TL (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• This looks like a classic case of "Self-governing area of the 'pedia makes a minor change to its internal rules, user refuses to accept the consensus for that change, others in that area get frustrated, and the user runs to ANI." The "harassment" diff does not look like harassment, or even really incivility. If there's something I'm missing there, please point it out; otherwise you should rescind your accusation.
  DYK is an entirely optional area of Wikipedia. (Well, all areas are optional, but DYK is particularly optional.) It's also an invaluable area for encouraging content creation, and time spent arguing over procedural minutiae there is time taken away from its maintainers' work reviewing, promoting, and enqueueing hooks. If a significant portion of your time on-wiki is being devoted to arguing over meta-level things at DYK, you may need to reconsider how you're spending your time. If you've reached the point of thinking that a wiki-wide consensus was needed to change "fewer than five DYK credits" to "previously nominated fewer than five articles", you may be in too deep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please notice carefully and you find that none of those meta discussions on QPQ (you are talking about) were started by me. Others started those thread naming me in the original post and enforcing their own unwritten rule, clearly different than what was written in WP:DYKRULES of the time. You may have your opinion on the policy disagreement, it is more than what you claim it is, my position on it is explained at the RFC thread. In any case I have moved from past, and not pursuing any point from the two week old threads/issues and I expect that others should also move on. Venkat TL (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Tamzin is correct here. DYK is supposed to be an enjoyable area of Wikipedia, where editors can get credit for their work, but is not so important as to be a topic for such wikilawyering, a word which, if it hadn't already been invented, we would need to invent for such behaviour. Just get on with editing the encyclopedia, Venkat TL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  ... And I have already moved on. My last comment on WT:DYK was a week ago, so I am not responding there anymore, I even unwatched WT:DYK page, to stay awy until I was pinged yesterday on a plan to escalate it to ANI. Even now, in this thread I am not pursuing any of those past issues, Pray tell me @Phil Bridger how am I supposed to advertise that I have moved on? Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You started this thread today. If that's moving on, then I'm a banana. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Why have you started this thread? It advertises that you have not moved on. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict with the two above) Not to be snide, but it would be a poor advertisement an editor has "moved on" to introduce a thread claiming harassment by DYK volunteers. This is gaming, and exactly the sort of behavior which has plagued this editor's DYK nomination templates. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger Kusma This thread coming to ANI was a forgone conclusion, Please check the thread linked below BusterD. The ANI posting was ready. The thread created by folks at WT:DYK uses a table with twisted timelines to build a false case against me. In this thread I have shared a clear timeline of the events so that folks can see that certain events I am being accused of happened in a certain sequence, when the rules were something else than what they are right now. If it helps you, I am willing to close this thread, since I am not pursing anything other than peace for myself and others. But all signs at WT:DYK show that the post "shooting for topic bans" was imminent, and if it does, then I would rather that this thread remains open. Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems likely that User:Venkat TL has seen this topic ban being drafted by DYK regulars and is trying to make their case before such a ban is discussed. I have had little direct contact with the user, but have seen sufficient to think a DYK topic ban is becoming necessary. DYK (like everywhere else on Wikipedia) is staffed by volunteers; if those individual volunteers were to choose to simply ignore any further DYK submissions from this troublesome contributor, it might be POINTY, but not totally out of line. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I was pinged on that draft thread. In my original post I have said "And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI." The diffs are in the table. Yes I am referring to it. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG

• Proposal: Topic ban, of duration to be decided, from all things WP:DYK, until Venkat TL can demonstrate proficiency elsewhere on the 'pedia, preferably mainspace, and a willingness to drop both the issue with DYK and their less than collegial approach to other editors in such a small corner of the project. Let them adjust to a project-wide perspective before returning to procedural minutaie. SN54129 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  [160][161] You are proposing a topic ban without any ongoing disruption or evidence of disruption. In the last 6 days I have not posted 'anything' on WT:DYK. How is that for a demonstration? In my opening post above also I have noted that I am not pursuing either of the said issues. Those issues and incidents from 2 weeks ago and earlier, were only posted here to give a context, not to re-litigate anything. I have moved on. . So please clarify what "ongoing disruption" do you seek to contain by proposing this topic ban? If any type of BAN is imposed without clear evidence of ongoing disruption, then I assure I will abandon editing altogether. I am not contributing here for any sort of winning or defeats. Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. I believe a retirement would be ultimate demonstration of WP:DROPping the WP:STICK. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Personally when I move on from things I do it by not opening threads at ANI, and then not responding to every critical comment. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't you ask folks who are building up ANI case at WT:DYK (using events that happened 2 weeks ago) to move on like me? This ANI thread would never have happened if I had not been pinged yesterday at WT:DYK. Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Notice that those people aren't here making absolute fools of themselves trumpeting how they've "moved on" while responding to every single comment critical of them? Here's how you can prove me wrong: by writing "You know, you're right, my behavior here is the exact opposite of what the phrase 'moving on' denotes; I'm going to stop now and let this thread run its course without any more input from me." (And then doing that.) --JBL (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban of limited duration as suggested above (ALL things WP:DYK, including new content submissions). Gaming and battleground behaviors are undercutting the energy and industry of this otherwise promising new editor. I want to encourage Venkat TL to think less of winning, and more of helping. BusterD (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Venkat TL displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick (while hilariously proclaiming to have done so). I think BusterD is spot on with his comment about "winning". I'm not sure a DYK topic ban is the best possible remedy for this, but I can't think of anything better right now. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  You can count me as a supporter of the developing consensus for an indefinite topic ban with appeal no earlier than six months. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I also support (and agree with both of the above that a time-limited ban might be appropriate in this case). Venkat TL seems to need some assistance with moving on. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) *I have to note that the editor's civility issues on DYK were not just limited to the diffs link above. For example, on one of his DYK nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, he removed comments I made on the nomination regarding QPQ as well as a concern unrelated to QPQs (in this case, me noting that his preferred term at the time, "greenhorn", was jargon and probably needed to be replaced by a more easily understandable phrase). In another of his nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka, he accused DYK editors of having, quote sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list after it was noted by me and other editors that the article was unstable at the time and was unlikely to pass DYK. After I closed said nomination due to stability concerns, he started Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185#DYK closed without proper review, where he continued making bad faith comments against me and others. To be fair, in said discussion, other editors did note that my closure was perhaps out of process as I had previously commented in the nomination and thus may have been too involved to make a proper closure, to which I apologize for. Nevertheless, other editors, including those same aforementioned other editors, noted that Venkat had engaged in bad faith and/or personal attacks throughout the proceedings, with quotes such as Please do not make this an ego issue and all you did was close the DYK with prejudice based on past interactions or my comment on DYK. In addition, during said discussion, the editor referred to all comments regarding their behavior as "off-topic" rather than addressing them.

To me, what is shocking about the editor is their lack of good faith when discussing with other editors, not to mention making personal attacks over disagreements. At the very least I'd support some kind of restriction such as a topic ban from DYK, mainly for the incivility shown and how it appeared that they continued to engage in such incivility and problematic behavior despite multiple warnings. As for the length, I don't know if indefinite would be advisable given that the editor had nominated some nominations that largely followed the processes and he has even started providing QPQs. I'm actually leaning more towards a temporary ban (perhaps at least six months), but my concern is that this limited topic ban would not address the wider attitude issues the editor has expressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I just realized that just on this very thread he has been expressing the behavior that other DYK regulars had expressed concerns above, as seen by the above comment Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. For the record, his retirement from DYK was never our intention, and the only reason ANI was ever considered on WT:DYK was due to the aforementioned battleground behavior that multiple editors, including several admins, had observed. If anything surprises me, it's that this wasn't brought up at ANI sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you would have wanted resolution you would have opened threads on my User talk and not on WT:DYK which is sort of noticeboard for all things DYK. From my perspective, there was never ever any battle to fight. There was a Procedure disagreement that I had clearly WP:DROPed 2 weeks ago. Venkat TL (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point here. The reason you ended up in this situation wasn't your opposition to the QPQ rule or even your disagreement of the Hijab nomination being closed. It was your attitude and lack of good faith, as seen by your multiple comments accusing editors of "pushing" you to retire from DYK, or accusing DYK editors of having an "ego" and failing nominations for "sadistic pleasure". Indeed, multiple editors had requested you to apologize for your comments, something you have repeatedly declined to do. Had you made an effort to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment and made an effort to have a less accusatory behavior, as well as heeded the advice of multiple editors regarding your attitude, I don't think Schwede66 and the others would have considered a topic ban in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

None of the stuff you commented here are recent. I am not revisiting month old comments. If there is something that 'I had done' and you found disruptive and worth BLOCKS and TOPIC BANs in the last 2 weeks, I will be happy to discuss. Venkat TL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, even when those comments were new you declined to acknowledge them or apologize for them, even going as far as calling the requests for apology "off-topic". For example, Schwede66 and BlueMoonset both asked you to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment (and may I add that both requests for apology were made less than a week after the comment was made). The "sadistic pleasure" comment was most certainly not a "month old" when it was brought up by those two editors and yet you didn't apologize for it even then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As for actions comments that can be considered disruptive or worth blocks within the last two weeks, your comment removal from the Mann ministry nomination (which was done on April 8th, so within the last 14 days) could at the very least warrant a warning, not to mention the battleground behavior and assumptions of bad faith in this very thread, notably with comments such as Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As noted in my edit summary, the comment was 'moved' to Article talk page, you raised this diff, by starting a thread on the WT:DYK noticeboard (instead of my user talk) and I replied there. I did not contest it when it was restored. If you would have asked this on my user talk, then also I would have self reverted. I have nothing new to add here than what I already said in that thread. Venkat TL (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You should not have moved the comment in the first place, even if you disagreed with it. The comment was on-topic to the DYK and raised concerns about the hook wording. Why did you move the comment in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

As I replied in the diff, I linked above. At that time, I (wrongly) assumed that thread to be offtopic from DYK as it was about QPQ and you explicitly noted that you were not reviewing the DYK. QPQ was being discussed at WT:DYK. Article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements, so I had moved it to article talk page. When others restored it and disagreed with my wrong assumption. I agreed with the restoration. I apologize if my moving of comment caused you any trouble. Would I do it again? No. Venkat TL (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I generally think "indefinite with appeal no sooner than six months" is better than a six-month topic ban but I support either per mine and others comments above. Levivich 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indef DYK topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. It was me who drafted the ANI notice at DYK but Venkat has beaten me to it by posting something themselves. Schwede66 22:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Like Kusma said in this subsection, Venkat TL "displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick", I can confirm this with my first-hand experience with them. From that experience I can also say that they either look down on other editors, or consider themselves superior than others. Because of such attitude, they had taken me to ANI not so long ago, where Abecedare had mediated. I support indefinite topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, it's this doofus! Makes it seem less likely that a topic ban will be sufficient, unfortunately. -- JBL (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Jet Bropulsion Laboratory then there was this encore special:permalink/1077702496. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out in conjunction with what JBL said above, this is clearly a user whose battleground behavior extends far beyond DYK. Just on these noticeboards, there are numerous examples ([162] [163] [164] [165]) displaying clear battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, and making everything personal; all of this can even be seen in this thread. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support any kind of topic ban although I generally favor indefinite to be lifted on an appeal showing clue. DYK is a very important part of Wikipedia and should be protected from people who devote too much time and energy to arguments. Whether the details of Venkat TL's statement are correct is not relevant—life is not always smooth and we have to live with what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from DYK, to be appealed no sooner than six months. Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban. Venkat TL seems entirely unable to grasp that DYK is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere and is completely incompatible with their battleground attitude. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs is not pertinent to QPQ

I see this list used in error at the top of this whole thread. Please be advised, that this is not a list used to calculate who is eligible for QPQ. This list is compiled by individual editors of how many DYKs they have already had on the Main Page, and the list is used to award the editors according to the numbers they have there. On the far right-hand side is a column where the editors link to their user space pages where they've done their own list of what they have created.

The tool used to calculate QPQ can be found by opening any nomination, and selecting "QPQ Check' from the upper right-hand corner toolbox. Then input the user's name, and it returns the number of DYK's they have been given credit for. I believe there is also another tool, but someone else will have to list that. The one for Venkat TL says he has five credits already. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The new tool, which counts nominations rather than credits, is at [166], although it's still a work in progress. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Maile66 I have copied the quote about WP:DYKRULES as it is, from the link I indicated in the original post. this is the link I copied the quote from. I have already shared the link of the tool to check successful DYK Credits. That link can be found as a diff on top of the table of successful DYKs. Venkat TL (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL: Understood. Just so you know, that list that Wikipedians update themselves is not the gospel of stats. I haven't updated my own stats there for a while. Some of those people listed haven't participated at DYK for years. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Repeat violations Qaumrambista

• Eastern Catholic Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Epiclesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Qaumrambista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been repeated incidents wherein editor Qaumrambista has demonstrated inappropriate behavior, violated Wikipedia rules, lied about engaging in sockpuppetry, and circumvented blocks. The user in question initially came to my attention regarding edits to the page Eastern Catholic Church, their first being an IP edit on 14 April that was reverted by Vif12vf. A series of repeated efforts to insert this information into the page ensued, with the editor violating the 3RR standard from multiple IP addresses (including IP 1, IP 2, and IP 3. Another IP has been blocked, but I do not know if this IP is the same editor). The IP editor received a block from editing Eastern Catholic Churches following a request for protection I initiated. The editor promptly created an account, Qaumrambista, to circumvent the block (a charge they unintentionally admit to here). The block was extended to this new account on 15 April.

A new incident was initiated after I performed cited edits to the article Syro-Malabar Church. The editor started a conversation on the talk page, to their credit, but from an IP address. This same IP edited the articles Epiclesis and Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites, (edits for Epiclesis, rites). On the edits on the rites page, the IP editor cited the initiated conversation on Talk:Syro-Malabar Church. Part way through the discussion on the talk page, the editor swapped to their account (it appears the editor is logged in only on their phone and not their desktop). The editor has deleted sourced information, inserted improperly sourced information, and ignored the discussion when it suits them. Most impressively, they have claimed it was not them who performed the edits on other articles, suggesting an intention to use the IP as a future sockpuppet. When pressed about the issue further, the editor evaded.

Besides the technical violations, the editor has behaved inappropriately towards me more than once. The most frustrating incident of this was referring to my edits as "ignorance" and "stupidity" on my talk page. The conversation devolved further, despite my repeated efforts to remain cordial. I request administrator action to at the very minimum protect the pages listed above, and more if possible. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I neglected to add a warning from admin Yamla, who declined a request for unblock and offered advice to the editor in question to avoid editing religious articles for a short period until they had developed their editing abilities further. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, since nobody seems to have looked into it yet, here's an example of why we should also suspect this editor of WP:NOTHERE: [167]. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me answer the allegations one by one. First of all, I acknowledge that before creating this account I used to edit with an ip address. But since the account creation, I have edited only with this account. I haven't edited in Epiclesis and Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites. And the alleged desktop ip address that initiated the discussion in Syro-Malabar Church is not mine. Secondly, the block was extended to my new account only in the article Eastern Catholic Churches, and it was due to a misunderstanding. I thought I was allowed edit if I created an account as the message that I got from Wikipedia implied. Meanwhile, Pbritti is constantly and continuously vandalising articles related to Syro-Malabar Church. For example, Pbritti was repeatedly removing the sourced content in Eastern Catholic Churches and reverting to an erroneous date 1663 which one new user had added very recently. The article actually had the correct version before these erroneous edits from some ignorant users. I tried to correct it but was again reverted, this time by another user due to block evasion accusation placed by Pbritti. I urge Pbritti to avoid these kinds of vandalisms and request administrator intervention into these matters. Thirdly, I have no plan to do any sort of sockpuppetry anywhere.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Qaumrambista: I see no evidence that Pbritti is editing in bad faith; please do not label their edits as vandalism. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the IP that the user claims is not them appears to be a dynamic IP and when Qaumrambista was tagged, that IP ceased editing entirely and the logged in user joined. This is by no means absolute evidence, but compelling enough that I had felt the need to include it. Almost too pointedly, they can't refrain from calling a user "ignorant" in this thread. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Well, I'm ready to drop that accusation of vandalism. However, I have no doubt that Pbritti's edits on the articles related to Syro-Malabar Church are mostly disruptive.Qaumrambista (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Trolling, possible compromised account or just an editor with an agenda?

I came across what I assumed to be vandalism from a new account at Jack Posobiec by Npsaltos62. I was surprised to see a long term editor thought inserting their personal commentary ([168][169][170]) into a mainspace article was appropriate, so I left them a warning, which they responded with some pretty nasty statements, including some anti-semetic remarks.

• • Slanted political opinions are dripping from every word. Do you truly lack self-awareness? Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting, Disgusting. Your day is coming. The world is not taking this crap any longer.[171]
  • Grow up, you childish, petulant, globalist drone. There is no originality, critical thinking or open-minded acceptance of opposing opinions. You are driving our society directly into the evils of authoritarian control. No debate means no originality. [172]

I'm asking for an idefinite block at this point because it doesn't appear they're here to contribute meaningfully and only here to support their personal agenda, as evidenced by their past edits and block history CUPIDICAE💕 18:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't think we can just ignore that. This is laced with WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I would support an indef, but prefer it be a community decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Especially given their most recent response...I'd say a cban is warranted. CUPIDICAE💕 19:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems kind of weird. I went through their contribution history (last 1000) and they seemed to make anodyne edits until suddenly going off the rails today. Schazjmd (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: is there a possibility of a compromised account? This seems like a weird time, place, and manner for an editor to just snap that way... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspected the same but I'm fairly confident they're not actually compromised, but given they gave their real identity, a quick google search shows this to be...part of their personality to say the least. CUPIDICAE💕 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

ah. that's a real shame. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A cban would definitely be overkill here, there is no long history of problems. This was sudden, but severe. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a cban is ever inappropriate for someone who is spouting racist and anti-semetic dogwhistles (really, it's a vuvuzela.) CUPIDICAE💕 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: erm... Whats racist dogwhistles? —usernamekiran (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I linked it in my opening statement, the use of globalist is a known alt-right/far-right/right-wing dog whistle usually referring to Jews. More context, and more and even moreCUPIDICAE💕 12:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked. GiantSnowman 19:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've asked this editor multiple times to leave me alone. The editor continues to stalk my edits, either undoing my edits or by newly editing pages the user has never edited prior to my edit, and by leaving messages on my talk page about my own edits.

This stems from several months ago during an issue at a television show article. Since then, the user continues to leave messages on my talk page following edits I've made and undoes edits where I've removed content that does not meet WP guidelines. The user then labels my edits "ownership" in edit summaries.

The user has been blocked six times for personal harassment and personal attacks, and has other topic bans based upon disruptive behavior. [173]

Earlier, the user made this edit to Talk:List of The Mary Tyler Moore Show episodes—a page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit. The user made this edit to The Mary Tyler Moore Show—another page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit.

I edited The Beverly Hillbillies on 11 and 15 April, removing cruft about character "abilities" and in-universe details about a fictional house. [174] Later on 15 April the user left a message on my talk page about a person I removed from the "guest stars" list of The Beverly Hillbillies. [175]. The user had not previously edited The Beverly Hillbillies article.

I asked the user to leave me alone and stop stalking me on the same day. [176]. On 17 April, the user undid my edits to The Beverly Hillbillies with the edit summary "Reverting attempts to own the article." [177] The user then left a message on my talk page stating "Every editor, me included, has the right to read your edits and comment on them." [178] After I again posted on the user's talk page asking him to leave me alone, the editor made another edit to my talk page "warning" me of ownership. [179]

AldezD (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

There is some history here [180][181][182][183]. There is a lot of incivilty in that from both sides. On the 13 August 2021 Bugs asked Aldez not to post on their talk page[184]. Since then Aldez has posted five times that I can work out with two of them ANI notices. Over the same time Bugs has posted 17 times on Aldez's page (Excluding Aldez there are only 6 other non automated posts during that time). Yes I guess asking someone not to post on your talk page does not mean you can't post on theirs, but this is taking the piss a bit. And seriously both of your archiving systems are terrible. This seems to fall within the scope of WP:Hounding. And some of the other edits clearly show following. Maybe just 2-way iBan both and be done with it. Aircorn (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, so Bugs has posted 17 times on my talk page despite my repeated asks to leave me alone. And the user continues to WP:HOUND and WP:STALK me. I want this editor to stop this behavior. It's Wikipedia—a free encyclopedia/#hashtag repository of minutia. This editor is going out of their way to bother me, revert edits, and labeling my removal of cruft as "owning" an article. It's a long-term pattern of behavior that the editor has been previously been blocked multiple times. I'm responding on the editor's talk page when they confront me. I'm not stalking the editor's revisions. Now the editor labels my edits to a page I've never edited previously as "ownership", and continues to harass me. Nonsense, stalking, obsession. AldezD (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure as an administrator, I have a very peripheral involvement in this content dispute, as the primary author of Sierra Railway 3, the actual operating steam locomotive that portrayed the fictional Hooterville Cannonball in the related sitcom, Petticoat Junction. So, I am curious why a beat up fictional pickup truck is described as a "character" in the article about one 60 year old situation comedy, while a fictional steam locomotive is excluded from the character list in another 1960s sitcom. That is perhaps worthy of debate elsewhere. "Should mechanical machines be included in character lists for works of fiction?" So, the solution is to discuss the content issues at the articles about the various American 1960s situation comedy shows mentioned here, informed by an awareness and an understanding that this is an argument about obscure trivialities, and that disruptive editing about trivialities is especially unacceptable. The OP should, of course, take to heart the advice at WP:OWNERSHIP, and Baseball Bugs should back off, and instead ask for input from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) AldezD is correct that Baseball Bugs never touched The Beverly Hillbillies until AldezD edited it and only found this by going through AldezD's edits. Baseball Bugs continued to hound AldezD ([185]) after AldezD told him to stop ([186]). Most of the hostility (from what I can see) is being perpetuated by Baseball Bugs. Given the history, Baseball Bugs should not have been going through and reverting AldezD's edits, and seems to be carrying on a dispute with AldezD from months ago. I see in the previous ANI thread, user:Ched suggested that Baseball Bugs and AldezD avoid each other, but that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it (or forced to abide by it). That being said, I agree with Ched that both users are better off avoiding each other, but I also think there should be a discussion about whether Baseball Bugs is baiting AldezD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mythdon: I have avoided this user. The interactions are one-sided. I've repeatedly asked the user to leave me alone. The solution from Ched is ineffective since Baseball Bugs continues to harass me. I haven't interacted with the user outside of asking the user to leave me alone. Re: "that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it", one of us is abiding by it. Baseball Bugs continues to stalk my edits, post to my talk page, and revert edits to articles the user has never touched. It's a long-term evidenced pattern of harassment and personal attacks, previous behavior that has led to multiple blocks for the user. AldezD (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Thesaurus33

User:Thesaurus33 has currently been engaging in disruptive editing on Peyton Manning and Drew Brees by changing the tenses from former to retired. I have already notified the user of their behavior on their talk page, but am not sure if they should be blocked or not. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there anything more than a semantic difference between 'former' and 'retired' in this context? — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 20:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikipedia articles of retired athletes (eg. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB, etc.), they all say former, not retired. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:7807:3148:4619:EC7C (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This user has already engaged in disruptive editing on Peyton Manning and Drew Brees twice by changing the tenses from former to retired, but both edits have already been reverted. I'm currently worried that they will still continue this disruptive behavior, despite leaving them a message on their talk page. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Could we maybe dial down the "disruptive" accusations? They've made 4 edits you disagree with, none of those edits are in the article now, no one explained why they were reverting him, he has not made those edits again since you left an unnecessarily threatening message on his talk page, and nothing at all has happened between the time you left that first aggressive message and you reported him here. You didn't even tell him about this report. It is possible to be a new good faith editor making small mistakes without needing to be threatened. Jesus. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am fairly new to editing on here so please bear with me as I continue to explore with the "training wheels" approach to editing source content. I am not a writer by nature but am trying to improve and get better at it especially for college. Thesaurus33 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for overreacting. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:C130:FB31:A294:F1FF (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

All you had to do was message me, I'm easy going enough to work with and would have respected your input. Thesaurus33 (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Long history of refusing to communicate when warned for disruptive edits or addition of poorly sourced and unsourced content

User:Kielcerin has a history of not engaging with other editors' when warned. User never talks. See past examples in February and March [187] [188] [189], including recent warning [190] for changes made in an article that have twice been reverted without engaging with the editor or providing edit summaries. Earlier raised through 3RR noticeboard, but advised to bring this up to ANI. While some of the edits can be WP:AGF, several editors have also raised concerns over the last few months and there has been no change in behavior or editing pattern(s). I seem to observe that warnings have proven to be futile and perhaps user is WP:NOTHERE. --Pseud 14 (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This does look like classic WP:RADAR behavior. This [191] appears to be the only time they have ever spoken to another user, and as you can see, it's... not great. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox. I don't like blocking under these conditions, but there may not be much of a choice. At some point you have to be responsive to other editors. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Andrewgprout

Andrewgprout is reverting edits from Chandigarh - Vistara operates UK707 using A321N IXC-DEL-CCU with same aircraft, same flight number and pax does not disembark from plane. That is direct route via DEL. I have made attempt to chat with him on his chat page and he didn’t cared about and still reverted the edits and in the past he has got several warning for edits. I want to report this user. I dont know how I can. Admin please help and look into this matter.

Please check the article if the edit that user made is correct or not. Chandigarh Airport - Airlines and Destinations - Vistara - It operates direct flight from Chandigarh to Kolkata via Delhi without changing anything as UK 707 and even airline’s website mentions the same.

I had provided the enough proof from the Wikipedia Airport pages section and still he is reverting. I request the urgent intervention in this issue as he is not ready to discuss either. If you check his talk page, there are several edit warnings. 649pardeep (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: 649pardeep based on your edits, there are no direct flight from Kolkata to Chandigarh even tho it's only a one stop to Delhi according to this website: https://www.airvistara.com/lk/en/where-we-fly. Plus Andrewgprout made a clear reason, so I don't have any wrong with his edit. :)) Cornerstone2.0 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Response:

Cornerstone2.0 Please refer to this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content - Body -> Airlines & destination — Point 7) List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Since UK707 operates IXC-DEL-CCU without any change of aircraft, flight number and passengers getting off plane. Also, you should look at FlightRadar24 data to confirm the same https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/uk707

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/uk706

Update : UK706 operates - CCU-DEL-IXC & UK707 operates - IXC-DEL-CCU using A321N. 649pardeep (talk) 08:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@649pardeep: I guess with only 1509 edits you're still somewhat inexperienced even if you've been here for 4 years, but really you should know better already. This is a WP:content dispute, take it to the article talk page. Talk:Chandigarh Airport has had some activity like bots edits, moves and assessment but doesn't seem to have received a comment in over 9 years! Instead of posting to that most important location, you've managed to post all over the place about this dispute many of them inappropriate both in message and location, like here and ANEW [192] and to a bunch of random editors talk pages [193], [194]+[195] & [196]. You've also posted on Wikiproject Aviation talk pages [197] & [198] which while normally okay should only generally come after you've at least opened a discussion on the article talk page. And maybe more importantly I don't think either of those talk pages are really intended for such messages (putting aside the block request). You did at least try discussing with Andrewpgrout on their talk page [199] although I'd note that came only after you asked LeoFrank for help and you posted all over the place before trying one more time [200]. However even if you'd done those from the get go, it's still no excuse for not posting on the article talk page when you weren't satisfied or received no response. And importantly, if posting on the article talk page while giving ample time for responses (i.e. days not hours) doesn't achieve a result, you need to use some form of dispute resolution. That involves seeking more responses to resolve the disagreement about you two on whether the information you're adding is supported by sources sufficient for our purposes, rather than asking for Andrewgprout to be blocked which is most of your messages elsewhere did request in part. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Reply : As you can see that the talk page of Chandigarh Airport is inactive and there is no comment since many years. I know LeoFrank as he helped me with some edits in the past and yes, I agree that I am still inexperienced, I did research here and then got the idea to discuss with the user and got no engagement. I am not requesting them to be blocked nor did I mentioned (reporting doesn’t mean to block them). I provided enough references and they still reverted (if user can revert the edit they can also answer) if you check the users talk, they haven’t replied most the queries. Since, you’re experienced user here, I request you to provide me some links/resources for dispute resolution.

I request you to check the first link about airport page - that clearly mentions the same procedure and I cannot understand if Wikipedia procedures clearly states what to do then that is not followed. I came here for the resolution. 649pardeep (talk) 09:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@649pardeep: You have no way of knowing who will comment until you've tried. At the very least, editors involved in a dispute are often more willing to comment when you start a discussion on the article talk page since many dislike discussing content disputes on their talk pages yet editors are generally expected to discuss when there is a content dispute. Yes Andrewpgrout could have started the talk page discussion too, but you're the one who came here and posted all over the place without ever posting on the article talk page, not them. So please just post on the article talk page already and wait a few days, it's the most basic step you've failed to undertake. If that doesn't work, I've already provided a link WP:Content dispute which is a link to our guideline on dispute resolution. As I said, dispute resolution does not entail asking for Andrewpgrout to be blocked. And when you report a editor you're basically asking for them to be blocked otherwise there's no point in reporting them. Often there's no need to even mention the other editor in a content dispute and definitely not their behaviour, focus on the dispute. Note as I've already said the first step should generally always be to post on the article talk page no where else, especially if you're an inexperienced editor. Most forms of dispute resolution assume you've already tried on the article talk page in part since they assume all editors involved made a good faith effort to resolve the dispute which entails talking to each other which cannot be done via edit summaries. So unless you're willing to open a discussion on the article talk page, there's a fair chance you're just going to be ignored, or wind up blocked yourself if you keep at it, even if you ask for help in better venues. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I have followed your step - started discussion on article page. Please clear me one thing if Wikipedia procedures directs what to do then still we need to have discussion?? I apologize for the use of wording reporting that I never intended to for blocking user but you are giving warning for the blocking myself is very rude (seems like you are taking it personally) 649pardeep (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It's simple, if you try to make a change and another editor reverts you, you need to discuss it on the article talk page. Maybe the other editor has already started discussion on the article talk page, if they haven't then you start it. Per WP:BRD and WP:Edit warring rarely should you make the change again until you've come to a WP:consensus. It does not matter if you're sure that your edit is supported by our policies and guidelines, discuss don't edit war. If your change is clearly supported by our policies and guidelines, most of the time the discussion will be short since you'll just explain your change, other editors will consider it and say you're right and it will end there.

Note there is never any editor who will rule on a content dispute, it needs to be resolved via discussion. At most, an editor may assess a discussion and find if there's consensus.

There are a few exceptions especially WP:BLP where it's acceptable to force a change but these only apply when the change is absolutely necessary because the consequences of not keeping the change are severe; or the other editor/s are not acting in good faith or not allowed to be here. None of these remotely applied here. Rarely even without an exception it's acceptable to make a change more than once but without violating the bright line no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, even without consensus. But these require good editorial judgment, so especially if you're inexperienced it's better to just discuss.

Note an important point here, an editor being blocked or an article being protected doesn't generally resolve the dispute, it just forces discussion. So even if Andrewpgrout had violated 3RR, while it may be acceptable to report them you'd still need to discuss on the article talk page to resolve the dispute. (If the other editor is never going to be allowed back that's an exception but one with almost no chance of happening here.)

Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Gendalv WP:NOTHERE

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

---

User:Gendalv has been here since 2012 and has edited infrequently, but almost exclusively edited talk pages. It is useful to note that of their three article space edit since 2018, one was revdeled as copyvio (see contributions). They seem to have an axe to grind about Gynocentrism. See here for their callous remark about women in the Rwandan genocide. More gyrontrism complaints here. There are legitimate arguments to be made about balance and the proliferation of literature specifically devoted to women, but this seems to be simply griping. They seem to be treating talk pages like forums offering their general opinions on things, but not really addressing the content (example). This from earlier in the month is not even a content suggestion, just petty gossip. They aren't doing much damage to Wikipedia, but I really think this user is WP:NOTHERE and we should send them on their way. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:Gendalv#Indefinite_block. El_C 10:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Carletteyt

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

---

This is concerning a message that Carletteyt left on my talk page. Here are the diffs. [201][202]

This user is trying to make me contact them on another social media platform. While I don't know if they have malice intent or not, I do find it somewhat inappropriate behavior. As far as I'm aware, I have never had any prior interaction with this user. I have had a former interaction with this user and already explained to them that I don't share private information or my identity (see User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/Archive 2#Some baklava for you!). I'm mainly reporting this because I am 17 (underage), and I'm not sure what prompted this user to leave this on my talk page. I just want some admins to be aware of the situation; I've never experienced anything of this nature and I'm not sure how to deal with it. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I´m 17 too and i´m just trying to meet people with same interest about politics, conspiracies etc. Believe me, it´s my date of birth on discussion page...

Thanks dude Carletteyt (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Carletteyt: I will happily work with you to improve Wikipedia, but I do not feel comfortable discussing my personal life or views here or anywhere else, and I will not be contacting you on social media. Thank you. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Okey don´t worry, i understand the reason.

I just pretended make some new friends out my daily life for feeling a bit alone.

Have a nice day and for help you can talk with me :) Carletteyt (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Iamreallygoodatcheckers, if you ever feel unsafe concerning "underage"-related issues you can always consider contacting WMF Trust & Safety if you feel intervention necessary. You are under no obligation to have contact with Wikipedia users outside of Wikipedia. If you not feel comfortable doing so, you are free to ignore the request. Not passing judgement on you Carletteyt, but On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog... -Indy beetle (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'd advocate for a full block as the pblock didn't work and this user doesn't seem to understand the purpose of Wikipedia and all of their edits save for maybe 3 have been reverted for the same exact reason. A prime case of WP:CIR and WP:IDHT and it doesn't appear that mentoring has worked. CUPIDICAE💕 11:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I and others warned them just yesterday here, which they acknowledged and removed and continued the same exact behavior.[203][204][205][206]. Perhaps a few years to mature and understand the purpose of Wikipedia would do them good, as their reasoning for all errors and continued disruption is "I'm 17" which isn't ever a valid reason. CUPIDICAE💕 11:46, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Telex80

Please look into Telex80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They make quite a lot of small edits that look OK, but every single substantive edit they have made, as far as I can see, is nonsensical (representative example). Edit summaries like "Copy paste from web" suggest further significant problems on top of the incomprehensibility. They have also conducted nonsensical "reviews" of good article nominations: I think this article is summarized for unusual points of shaggy and disploted description at the beginning or start-point of this page. Well, it should be pass instead. They have never responded to any message left on their talk page.

I hope you will take whatever action is appropriate stop this editor harming English Wikipedia. 82.132.213.17 (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week: User_talk:Telex80#Block. El_C 10:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Continuous unsourced edits

Not sure if this is the right place for this - apologies if not. Ip 2402:6B00:46AD:1200:7D61:4224:6971:941D has been making unsourced edits, possibly original research, to Naporitan. I've messaged them and given warnings, but I'm unsure how to proceed as I think they genuinely don't realise what're they doing wrong (as they added msn after a request for sources, although obviously it's not an applicable one) and it's not quite the definition for vandalism for me to report it on the vandalism noticeboard. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 12:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The user is communicating on their talk page and it looks like they stopped reverting, so admin intervention is not yet needed at this time. El_C 12:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

TomStefano

• TomStefano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Planck units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TomStefan's first four edits were to an article, Planck length, that was soon redirected to Planck units per discussion at Special:Permalink/1083115831#Do_we_really_need_both_Planck_units_and_Planck_length?. This follows several other Planck units that were redirected starting in 2020, such as Planck time and Planck mass, following agreement that these articles had no nontrivial content that couldn't be covered in one place. See Talk:Planck_units/Archive_4#Individual_articles for background information from around the time Quondum (talk · contribs) redirected most of the articles. Aside from that, the topic attracts fringe edits and original research because it's quantum gravity, and such content has been greatly cleaned up from Planck units over the past two years.

Their only edits since then thus far have been mostly uncivil comments at Talk:Planck units regarding a perceived decline in quality in the article, and that the other articles on specific Planck units have also been redirected. He squarely blames that on XOR'easter (talk · contribs), who is experienced in the topic area of physics, and several other unidentified editors of the article. He cites a mathematical error (no longer in the article) where the Planck length is stated to be equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a Planck-mass black hole, instead of half that. For reference, Special:Permalink/1083085312 is the last revision before JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) redacted several personal attacks and rants. The IP users 178.120.21.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 178.120.71.56 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are likely the same person — both IPs geocolate to Brest, Belarus and made similar edits at Talk:Planck units.

Here are some snippets from the user's comments, including the suspect IP editors; one quote per paragraph:

• statement is too exact, and hence wrong:
  • You [an IP editor from Lanark Highlands, Ontario] are perfectly right [about the mathematical error]. This is my point, several of the editors working on this page now have too little knowledge of the topic.
  • As it stands now the page is incorrect and is worse than it used to be some years ago.
• Quality down:}}
  • I believe that deleting the separate article on the Planck length deprives readers of all information about this problem.
  • Regge, Migdal, Hawking, - these are all world-famous physicists. What other sources do you need [for a new version of the Planck length article]?

Why lie, I never posted this, it was another user, can be easily checked. TomStefano (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)TomStefano (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• • Moron.

Why lie, I never posted this, it was another user, can be easily checked. I would never be so rude to a person. To claim people said things they did not say is pretty bad. Please apologise! It is clear one has here taken things out of contest, even things that other users said and not me, to get me blocked. The main problem is I have criticised other established editors on a talk page. I have been quite polite. TomStefano (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• • If a person is not competent in the topic, do not go where you are not asked.
  • Sadly several of the editors working actively on this page clearly do not know the field [of quantum gravity] very well.
  • the page is now dominated by editors doing as they want without requirements for solid documentation
  • Some condom accused me of plagiarism. Who are you to judge? Ignoramus.
• On the Planck length:
  • Looks like [XOR'easter] is here to promote researchers [sic] friends and his own subjective views. Even things mathematical [sic] wrong they will let stand as long as it promote someone in their circle.
  • But I would never bother even touch a sentence written by XOR'easter as it will be quickly overridden.
  • The real expert will never have time to waste loads of time on wikipedia
  • Okay, a quick search only show that on this particular page you promote friends of your wikipedia editorial friends (one that like to block others and accuse other for such, one that has been on this page recently to block others from edit, and yes he is promoted by one of the researchers you here promote papers from.)
  • Several comments also quote XOR'easter's comments verbatim.
• Smaller than a Planck Length?:
  • [Weyl's tile argument about discrete spacetimes] should be linked in to this page perhaps as it is highly relevant in relation to the Planck scale (I missed this discussed here also), but I won't even bother as one so easily get overridden and work deleted by XOR'easter. Actually it seems like XOR'easter is clueless on the Planck units, but is dominating also this page now, and has been deleting lots of pages that gave much more in depth information about many topics that could have evolved even further.
  • The current page has much less depth, and is much more confusing than the old system we had.
• Comments at Smaller than a Planck Length? after the redaction by JayBeeEll:
  • Weyl's tile in relation to the Planck scale is not "every idea on every topic", it is clearly a very central problem related to if the Planck scale is unique.
  • But what can I say, what should be on some wikipedia pages is now totally dominated by a small circle of very active wikipedia editors that back each others, block others, delete others. They abuse the consensus system.
  • "and doesn't make speculations/hypotheses come across as established facts." sorry to say it to you XOR'easter but that you mention "established facts" says a lot about your type of editing. For example this page mention that "spacetime becomes a foam at the Planck scale" is in reality only a speculative hypothesis.
  • It seems like many published papers on a hypothesis and that many researchers think the hypothesis is good seems to be mistaken as facts. Often this are just that the problem is not yet solved and the hypothesis is old and well established.
• Talk:Planck_units#Planck time (after final warning by JayBeeEll (talk · contribs) at Talk:Planck units and the user talk)
  • Also some of the worlds most famous physicists have claimed the Planck time could be one of the most important things in physics to understand, and here instead of extending much more [about the Planck time] in a page one have one have [sic] limited this to 5 lines. Clearly if not cleaned up in and improved then someone should seriously look to fund something better, something more similar to what wikipedia once was. There is a massive problem if a handfull of frequent editors suddenly can remove pages others worked on for years.

That last comment has a legitimate concern about the section being focused on the wrong aspect of the topic, but that is the final straw. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)