Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks

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

---

Ashton 29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ashton 29 is becoming increasingly problematic with his editing at multiple articles, reverting to blatant personal attacks on several occasions and edit-warring to get his preferred images into articles even when discussions have shown no consensus to include them. His edits have not been clear vandalism and his edit-warring has been drawn out over time so WP:AIV and WP:AN3 don't seem appropriate venues for reporting his actions but I have given him several warnings, including a final one and yet he still persists.

Back in 2015, in a discussion now archived here, he proposed adding File:Gold Coast summer, Burleigh Heads Beach.jpg to Australia after his addition of the image was reverted by HappyWaldo. The obvious consensus of that discussion was that the original image was preferred. Despite that, he restored it to the article in February this year,[1] but that was reverted by an editor citing the 2015 discussion. Ashton 29's response was to edit-war the image back into the article, acknowledging the 2015 discussion when he said "that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people" in his edit summary.[2] It's ironic that he mentioned that the image "is more populated with people" as that was one of the issues that resulted in rejection of the image. This time I removed it stating "The discussion is still valid until another discussion overturns it. That there has been some time since you failed to have this image used doesn't mean you can force it back into the article.",[3] and Ashton 29 let the matter be until recently when he again restored it, this time without any edit summary.[4] It was immediately removed,[5] but, less than 2 hours ago the image was again restored without explanation.[6] Ashton 29 has made no attempt to open a new discussion about this image on Talk:Australia and seems content to continue trying to sneak the image back into the article. I raised this matter on his talk page 5 days ago but there has been no response other than the edit-warring.

Ashton 29 has done this sort of thing at other articles. For example, his addition of a montage to the infobox at Hobart was reverted,[7] and his response was not to open a discussion but to simply edit-war, telling the other editor to "take it to the talk page",[8] even though the burden is his to gain consensus for its inclusion once it was opposed. Ashton 29 is strong proponent of montages and has been involved in attempts to include a montage at Sydney. A montage was proposed for this article last year but was opposed for various reasons. While discussion was still open in March, Ashton 29 added his own montage to the article.[9] That montage included images that had been rejected in previous discussions so it was reverted. (It shouldn't have been added while the discussion was underway anyhow!) Unfortunately, during that discussion another editor decided to resort to makes personal attacks so Ashton 29 decided he would too.[10] I removed it and warned him.[11] This obviously had no effect as several weeks later on April he added another, this time attacking both HappyWaldo and me.[12] I removed that one and warned him,[13] but his response was to restore the attack. Another editor subsequently made comment about the attacks.[14]

Since then, Ashton 29 has had what can best be described as a temper tantrum, which includes encouraging another editor to join him,[15] (which seems a bit of meatpuppetry to me) and making a post that was essentially whining.[16] He then edit-warred at Hobart and restored his image to Australia as explained above. The final warning that I left on his talk page was posted 5 days ago but the edit-warring at Hobart and Australia, as well as the meatpuppetry have all occurred since then. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You singled out me and a few other editors who don't share the same opinions as you, for "personally attacking you". Now I'm not going to speak on behalf on everyone involved, but not once have i targeted, harassed or attacked you in a personal manner. I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress and if you can't accept criticism, then I'm sorry that's your fault, not mine. I'm also not going to sit around and watch you bully other editors into submission, just to get your way of controlling all edits being made to your own personal preferences.- Cement4802 (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason I invited you to this discussion was only because of this post on your talk page made by Ashton 29, which I mentioned above, and for no other reason. If you think it was because of personal attacks you must have a guilty conscience about something that you said. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me like the two edits you cite as personal attacks are uncivil, but do not constitute personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence are personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The latter part of the comment "I've criticised your ideas and way of holding up progress..." from Cement4802 looks like a personal attack to me. From Ashton 29, I've copped "You can't keep peddling that pathetic tourist brochure excuse...get real." It wasn't the first time I've had something like that directed at me. A comment directed at another editor that uses the words "pathetic" and "get real" is obviously not conducive to polite discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, both the Cement and the Ashton comments appear to be personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire, even though he is fully aware of this discussion, Ashton 29 continues edit-warring instead of discussing. At Sydney, before I opened this discussion, he made a number of changes, one of which included replacing an image with what I believe is an inferior one. I reverted the image addition with the explanation "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred."[17] I should note that I made a mistake here and reverted all of his changes instead of just the image change so Ashton 29's subsequent reversion was quite appropriate given the circumstances. I then proceeded to revert the correct revision with an apology in the edit summary.[18] Instead of then discussing the image, Ashton 29 simply restored the image.[19] This is typical. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It really does appear that Ashton 29 does not care any more. Even though he knows there is no consensus to add a montage to the Sydney infobox, he just added one with the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait."[20] no attempt to discuss in the existing, still active talk page discussion, just add it to the article, which is clearly disruptive and he hasn't even bothered participating here. I think he just assumes that he is going to be blocked so he doesn't care. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much that I don't care, or that I "know there's no consensus", it's more that the consensus is really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors, namely AussieLegend himself, HiLo, and HappyWaldo. If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it. But because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. In fact, that's what you do. As others have pointed out, most of what I said are hardly personal attacks. They're uncivil, perhaps, but so is your constant denial of other people's valid contributions a montage on Sydney's page. You can't claim ownership and you fail to reach compromise. If you do not compromise, where is discussion going to get me? You've driven User:Cement4802 to give up on contributing to Sydney's page which is totally unfair. It appears you want me blocked, or afraid, so you do not have an opposition to the way you want a page to look. This is essentially an attack itself. Ashton 29 (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If I had sufficient, substantial reason to know that the montage is void, I'd cease adding it - You do know. There is an active discussion on the talk page about the montage that you have posted to just recently. You know about WP:BRD and yet you keep adding a montage while it is under discussion.

because it's just so unconvincing, so repetitive in its opposing argument, I continue to add it. - Repeatedly adding the montage when its inclusion has been opposed and is under discussion is the very definition of edit-warring.

It's not edit warring either, because I don't constantly revert it. - Edit warring doesn't require constant reverting. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashton 29 tells us just above that the arguments he doesn't like are "really just the recycled opinion of the same three editors..." Recycled? That's a strange description. I would happily have mine described as repeated, because they have never been refuted, but recycled is obviously getting personal, and pretty silly. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that both Ashton 29 and AussieLegend are labelling everything any opinion they disagree with as a personal attack. I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low. All comments I have made are simply critical comments of Wikipedia related actions. I have zero interest in making comments about your personal attributes. I don't know any of the editors beyond Wikipedia, and nor do I care. All of the excuses you two make have been refuted time and time again, yet they're still relentlessly churned out and used to block out any discussion or ideas that you two disagree with - Cement4802 (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Was that post really meant to be about Ashton 29 and AussieLegend? HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: When somebody specifically names another editor and casts aspersions, that's a personal attack. I took great pains to point out on your talk page that you were only tangentially related to this discussion but you immediately took that to be claiming that you had personally attacked me, resulting in the rant above.[21] --AussieLegend (✉) 10:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cement4802: when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack. So is the last sentence above, right or wrong. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend I'd argue that your assumption that Ashton 29 "doesn't care" and that "he assumes that he's going to be blocked" falsely undermines and discredits his actual actions and credibility, without any evidence. That in itself constitutes as a personal attack. Also, HiLo48 describes the comments of Ashton 29 as "silly" which is again unconstructive and a personal attack. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Describing one's comments as "silly" is not a personal attack. El_C 10:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

El_C Neither is the claim that someone is "holding up progress" I don't see you refuting that claim. - Cement4802 (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

"[H]olding up progress" is also not a personal attack. El_C 10:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I reckon it is. What does it add to the discussion? HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: There's a difference between unconstructive comments and personal attacks. MrClog (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree they can be different things. But let's look at the comment. It's directed at particular individuals. It's contains no explicit criticism of the contents of any the comments from those individuals, but it's certainly a negative comment, implying that those editors aren't interested in progress. That's a personal attack in my book. If it's not one in yours, it must be just outside the definition. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@HiLo48: If we look at the "letter of the law" (in this case Wikipedia policy), one form of a PA would be "[a]ccusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". An accusation is "[a] charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong". Holding up progress is not per se "wrong"; there are (many) ways in which one could legitimately hold up progress. But if we look at the spirit of the policy, I think it is clearer that it is not a PA. The reason we disallow PAs is that they harm the editing environment. This discussion itself is pretty heated, and therefore, it is almost inevitable that accusations regarding conduct will be brought up, some without evidence. I would say that relatively light accusations - like "holding up progress", assuming that is meant as a negative thing per se - do less damage to the environment than calling them out and accusing the other party of making personal attacks. --MrClog (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

When you look at Ashton 29's recent edits there are a number of conclusions that you can come to, the most benign of which was that he doesn't care and expects to be blocked. Persistently adding content that he knows to be controversial, failing to discuss his edits knowing that he needs to discuss them as they've been opposed previously, and more than once, what would you call it? Of course he has now explained his reasons and it's now looking more like he is being deliberately disruptive, in my opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This is why I avoid editing Australian topics like the plague. Classic case of the small group of regular editors on a specific topic who appear to feel ownership over the topic so are extremely difficult to reach a consensus with. This infects every issue, great or extremely trivial. AussieLegend attempting to have an editor sanctioned for calling out this behaviour, in particular for describing HiLo48 as 'holding up progress', is quite frankly disgusting, particularly considering the many, many, many, many reports concerning HiLo48. Cjhard (talk) 04:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

How is the plague an Australian topic? There's coronavirus everywhere. EEng 05:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

There isn't coronavirus everywhere, and I have a four (five, where does the time go?) year old discussion as the sole basis for this assertion. If you think this isn't the most productive way of engaging with other editors, I'll take you to AN/I! Cjhard (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@EEng: You might have been caught by a language issue. I believe that Cjhard meant "I avoid editing Australian topics like [I avoid getting] the plague", not that the plague was an Australian article. I can't find any evidence of Cjhard ever editing Sydney or its talk page and I really don't give anything else he said any credibility, especially the claim that coronavius isn't everywhere given it has affected 195 countries and killed 200,000 people, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, EEng, most Australians do have a sense of humour. --Cjhard (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

No doubt a necessity for survival in that arid and desolate antipodean wasteland. EEng 12:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all, how dare you. Cjhard (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

This Australian had a good chortle. --Blackmane (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

EEng is no doubt aware that Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. You can't trust any of them, me included, I guess. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Ashton 29 continues his problematic editing, this time resorting to blatant canvassing. I found out that he had started a discussion at WP:DRN about the Sydney article. Despite the clear instructions that involved editors must be notified, Ashton 29 only notified 2 of the 9 listed editors and those two just happened to be editors who share his POV. At User talk:Cement4802 the notification was added to a discussion titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" while at User talk:PhilipTerryGraham his notification was I am one of many users who agree with you in that Sydney's page needs a montage. It's a major global city yet it looks like a small town with just one lede montage image. I liked the one you put forward in January. Anyway, I'd like to hear from you here.[22] That is so far from neutral as to be clear and obvious canvassing. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion at WP:DRN has just been closed by an Admin, for the above reason and for some others. How much longer can Ashton 29 continue to waste the time of other editors and make personal attacks without consequence? HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's a good question given there's clear evidence of edit-warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, forum-shopping and canvassing, all recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep this up, and I'll consider proposing a boomerang block for stonewalling discussions. I wonder how many diffs will be found, how many editors will be supportive? Cjhard (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I just looked up WP:Stonewalling. It tells me "When a substantive objection to a change exists, stonewalling is not required". I find that my arguments against change in that article are simply ignored, rather than discussed, so I still regard them as substantive objection. It can't be called stonewalling. HiLo48 (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48False, all of your claims have been refuted time and time again. Repeatedly bringing them up again is unconstructive and disruptive to edits and progress. Please take into consideration that just because you personally believe something is correct, it doesn't actually mean the wider community finds it correct either. - Cement4802 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"... all of your claims have been refuted time and time again." No. They haven't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with HiLo48. The arguments have certainly been argued against but as anyone can see, "refuted" they have not. Please also note that improper use of warning templates, such as the warning that you left on my talk page today for no apparent reason,[23] is highly inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashon 29's problematic editing continues, this time at Talk:Sydney: Ah, Merbabu. Interesting you've come out of the woodwork after a solid (curious) reprieve from editing. Suddenly, you want to stake a claim here and oppose an article you have little interest in? Ridiculous. Cabal doesn't even begin to describe it. It's an orchestrated attempt led by AussieLegend and Merbabu to shut down any changes or progress to the page. AussieLegend, I feel as though you may take this to heart and accuse me of PA again. Which it isn't. It is incredulity at the fact that suddenly all of these editors who I hardly see are suddenly coming out in droves saying they don't want a montage. Where were most of you six months ago? A year? There's no transparency here, it's all shoddy rubbish, because User:Merbabu has even gone and conducted some paltry "Oppose" vs. "Support" list, but very conveniently left off a bunch of users names from the "Support" list. I see what you did, buddy. Sly, scheming behaviour.[24] (Note the edit summary) I won't quote the unsupported allegations of canvassing at Cement4802's talk page.[25] This editor just seems unable to play nicely with others. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed this in the other discussion but it really should be addressed here. Ashton 29's failure to discuss continues. At Newcastle, New South Wales (the area where I live) Ashton 29 replaced an image in the infobox but it's a rather obscure shot and not one that many people see so I replaced it with a better view that actually used to be part of Newcastle's own logo. This was immeditely reverted, rather than discussing.[26] Following that (amongst other things) changed the question at the RfC on Talk:Sydney with the quite uncivil summary "amended for snowflakes like Nick Thorne who find the request 'argumentative' lol". How long do we have to tolerate his incivility, edit-warring, personal attacks and the rest? These problems continue and are unlikely to improve. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend Wikihounding Ashton 29

AussieLegend has begun following Ashton 29 around Wikipedia, specifically targeting Ashton 29's edits in articles AussieLegend has never edited before:

Ashton 29:[27] AussieLegend 17 minutes later: [28]

Ashton 29: [29] AussieLegend 2 hours later: [30]

Ashton 29: [31] AussieLegend 25 minutes later: [32]

It goes on a bit like that, so here's the interaction tool: [33]

Given this whole report, the ongoing content dispute between the two parties, and the warning template spam AussieLegend has left on Ashton 29's page, this is harrassing behaviour. I warned AussieLegend on his page: [34], which he responded to by templating me for improper templating.[35]

Given that, I propose a 24-hour block on AussieLegend for harrassment and wikihounding. Cjhard (talk) 04:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Cjhard (talk) 04:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - AussieLegend has been the agressor of various personal attacks, harassement and edit warring. When warned of edit warring, he proceeded to personally attack, threaten an apology from me and misuse a template, as he has consistently done with his string of attacks and targetting of editors such as Ashton 29. Adding to this, HiLo48 has also been constantly making personal attacks against editors he disagres with, which has been unconstructive and disruptive in discussion and progress. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yet again, you accuse me of personal attacks. I asked you on the article Talk page when you did that earlier where I have made personal attacks, but you didn't respond, just repeating the unsupported claim here. And please try to indent in a way that doesn't make my comment look like it's part of yours, as your last edit did. HiLo48 (talk) 05:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You have labelled my claims as "utter bullshit" which is both uncivil and a personal attack for one. You've also made blatant accusations and assumptions about Ashton's actions and intentions, which are also personal attacks. I refuse to engage with a disruptive editors who only dishes out personal attacks and harassement. Thank you very much - Cement4802 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous comment. My "utter bullshit" comment was very recent, AFTER you accused me of personal attacks. And it was in response to some utter bullshit you wrote about my position here. If you lie about me, I will respond strongly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802, I have asked you not to make baseless allegations several times now. I would supply diffs of your attacks if I thought it was going to be noticed. Here is one of a boldface lie that you made,[36] and its rebuttal.[37] --AussieLegend (✉) 06:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ridiculous. But I'm not surprised. Actually this whole mess is being made worse by a complete lack of attention to the main issue here by any Administrators at all. What's going on? HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the situation at Talk:Sydney has gotten quite out of hand with Cement4802 and Cjhard both becoming increasingly disruptive. Cement4802 is persistently attacking other editors as well as manipulating data in the discussion there and and I've had to warn him several times. Cjhard just seems intent on stirring things up and this starts with his user page where he opens by saying "Wikipedia attracts a lot of people with mental health issues." At Talk:Sydney he claimed to be an uninvolved editor, stating :I'm an uninvolved editor calling it how I see it, friend. My desired outcome is for good editors to stop wasting their time with time-wasters. War and Peace has been written on this talk page about replacing a shitty image with a montage.[38] He was quite rightly called out by HiLo48 who replied Your words "... replacing a shitty image with a montage" is evidence of you being quite the opposite of uninvolved.[39] Today he posted a bogus warning on my talk page.[40] This was after he posted this on Ashton 29's talk page. And how did he get there? He's apparently stalking me. All of the warnings that I've posted on Ashton 29's talk page are warranted, it's why I felt it necessary to file this report in the first pplace. Cjhard would do well to note that I have edited many thousands of articles. Despite this, there are articles that I still haven't edited, like every other editor. I suppose that I should point out that Cjhard entered this discussion for no apparent reason or maybe it was his ongoing beef with HiLo48.[41] --AussieLegend (✉) 05:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please give evidence into where i've made personal attacks against you? You and Hilo are the only ones going around shamelessly making personal attacks against everyone- Cement4802 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you not see the hypocrisy and what you just wrote? I opened this report because of Ashton 29's persistent edit-warring, personal attacks and problematic editing and you took it off-track with the very first response where you falsely claimed that I had singled you out. No doubt no Administrator now wants to touch it because it has turned into a squabble. Congratulations, you have achieved what you wanted to achieve. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. This is an Administrator noticeboard, but the Administrators don't seem to be noticing what's going on. How do we get them to notice? HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I have. The personal attack on Nick Thorn mentioned above is absolutely unacceptable. I've blocked User:Ashton 29 for 72 hours. Doug Weller talk 18:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. As a measure set out to quell the flames. El_C 18:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Probable meatpuppetry, solicitations for paid editing, edit warring by Queenplz

In this ANI, I describe multiple suspicious conduct issues surrounding the Wikipedia editor, "Queenplz".

On 9 April 2020, a discussion thread was created in an Asian nationalist subreddit called "Asian Identity", in which multiple users, including one who claims to have been banned from Wikipedia, solicited help to edit Wikipedia articles, which they said were being edited by white supremacists.

Google archive of suspicious Reddit thread:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2JLU3Pb2MFEJ:https://www.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Removeddit archive of suspicious Reddit thread, in which usernames are visible:

http://removeddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/fxncnk/help_on_wkipedia_articles_dealing_with_white/

^ As we see in the link, the creator of the thread wanted help regarding a dispute between Qiushufang and Gun Powder Ma. And in the comments section, one user solicits help regarding the Genghis Khan article, because he is banned from Wikipedia, and in his opinion, the "physical appearance" section in Genghis Khan's article makes him seem like a "white dude".

A couple of hours after that Reddit thread was created, Qiushufang began making numerous edits on the "physical appearance" Genghis Khan article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200410231336&action=history

On April 11th, YMblanter undid the damage Qiushufang did to the article, and promptly locked it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genghis_Khan&offset=20200422014441&action=history

On April 11th, the account "Queenplz" is created:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/Queenplz

His April 22nd user page reads:

"Hi, I'm from the U.S and I enjoy researching about history and genetics. I promise to make a much more better efforts in contributing to wikipedia by doing extentive research and allowing everyone to review it. My goal is to present research findings to end controversial disputes in the most useful way. One of my dream is to have a source of income from wikipedia, it would mean a lot to me."

Queenplz's first edit was an edit request (again, Ymblanter had locked the Genghis Khan article) in which he casted doubt on reliably sourced information about Genghis Khan's physical appearance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genghis_Khan&diff=prev&oldid=950250931

Ever since then, he has persistently made POV edits to the "physical appearance" section of the Genghis Khan article, all revolving around sources that mention his purported reddish hair and blue-green eyes. It is clear from his edits that Queenplz is disgusted by this info, and desperately wants to make it go away; in spite of the fact that it is reliably sourced.

I propose the following:

1.) Queenplz is the individual in the reddit thread who claimed to be banned from Wikipedia, and solicited help from others to edit the Genghis Khan "physical appearance" section, and has indeed received helped from meatpuppets in attempting to censor the article.

2.) Queenplz may be receiving financial support in order to continue his edits on Wikipedia.

3.) The coincidences of his registration just hours after the reddit thread and the edit war, his obsessive focus on the Genghis Khan article from his inception, and also his solicitation for financial support, are all extremely suspicious. The odds that he is not the individual in the Reddit thread who admitted to being banned are exceedingly low. If we assume he is that individual, Queenplz is an unidentified ban evader. If we assume he is not that individual, we must assume he is one of his meatpuppets.

With such marks against the character of Queenplz, can there really be any doubt that his presence here is contraindicated? - Hunan201p (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others. This time he reported me because I reported him of doing neutral point of view (and original research) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.

Unable to answer the questions I asked of him six times he decides to report me again.

Hunan201p accusations are ridicolous and always over the top, he has a strong history of edit warring and edit dispute with many editors, even against many admins and respected ones (if you want I can show a long list of disputes, arguements, threats, reports he made on admins and respected editors). He has threatened and reported respected editors and admins before but since this is about myself, I would focus only on myself.

The first time was here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Qiushufang/Archive

First time he accused me to be a sockpuppet of Qiushufang , he also accused me of being Huaxia, by using his out-of-nowhere evidence of aznreddits, which I have no idea what he was talking about.

To me is very strange, he claims I was Qiufushang or that I was working for him, if that's the case why my 1st and 2nd post against him is suggesting that removes all the pictures he posted. Qiufushang was blatantly helping Hunan201p by providing evidence of pictures of Mongols with red hair (or redder than typical) with blue eyes, I removed the edits of Qiufushang and than all of sudden he reported me as his sockpuppet ( the disccusion can be seen in sockpuppet investigation ) and past history.

All his accusations about Aznreddit nonsense was already mentioned in the sockpuppet investigation of Qiufushang

Second time, he reported Shinoshijak, accused him of being warriorcreaterfighters, and later tried to link me up with being him (Hunan201, also didn't informed me), result is I'm not related to the user. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WorldCreaterFighter/Archive

This time is the third time, he nows accuses me of being something else ONLY BECAUSE I reported for him for making many neutral points of views (including original research) edits on the Genghis Khan physical appearance. He cannot answer the questions I asked him for 6 times, because he knows what is he is doing is indeed original research and neutral point of view.

Why are you trying to do the same thing in the first sockpuppet inveestigation. You already accused me of being a meatpuppetry/sock puppet of Qiufushang and the others.

There are several articles about being paid to edit for clients, companies. So I edited that on April 22nd, had no idea I wasn't allow to edit it on the user's page, as I now that it encourages editors to compete.

Please stop making false accusations with such a ridicolous claim, your known for reporting everything that opposes your opinion. Queenplz (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"I would like to say Hunan201p had already accused me two times as sockpuppet/meatpupperty of 4 wikipedia accounts and I've been all checked and all cleared. Two times he reported and I've been checked to be unrelated with the others." < - This ia false. Queenplz has never been cleared of meatpuppetry, only of physical proxikitybto Qiushufang. Callanecc [42]| inconclusively closed the SPI investigation] after it received almost no input from any other admins for days, and encouraged me to post more behaviorval evidence.

Another mark on Queenplz's character is that he failed to properly notify me of his noticeboard discussion that he mentions above, but failed to provide an accurate link for. As he admits, he never notified me on my talk page of the complaint he filed against me. Another user actually did that for me, days after it was filed. - Hunan201p (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to look at this, because the talk page of the articles is several screens of mutual bad faith accusations, and all users ping me apparently thinking I am going to take their side. I can not really even understand what all of this is about.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to add, Hunan201p is engaged in an edit war on Genghis Khan. At least five artcle reversions in 24 hours.

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]

I just placed a 3RR warning on their talk page [48]. I have also placed a warning on the article talk page[49]. I also warned another editor that they might have surpassed 3RR in that same paragraph. It is just I am not sure about that at the moment. Hunan201 is also on the edge of once again violating 3RR on the Yellow Emperor page

1. [50],
2. [51]
3. [52]

It looks like El C has now locked down the page (Yellow Emperor) - [53], [54]. I am uninvolved and went over to the Genghis Khan talk page and edit history to check things out based on the opening complaint. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Hunan201p has been blocked twice recently, both times for edit warring - on January 26, and January 29, 2020 [55]. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rangeblock for 107.242.121.XXX or Page Protection needed at Portland International Airport

Blocked user Luis22pdxedu (talk · contribs) has resumed their edit warring behavior at Portland International Airport, which got them indef-blocked almost two years ago. The article recently expired off of a 1-year semi-protection in order to prevent the disruption but it has since continued since the semi-protection recently expired. They have recently used the following IP addresses:

107.242.121.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
107.242.121.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I understand that admins are now able to block certain users/IPs from editing specific pages, so maybe that would be the best solution going forward here, because there are also a lot of constructive IP editors frequently at that page (such as myself).

Also, I would give them an ANI notice as the instructions say to do but since their IP address rotates so often I don't think they would receive the message at all.

172.58.47.3 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment). The listed IPs have made recent good (sometimes very good, including gnomish) edits to other articles. The monomania seems to be that, contrary to evidence (including but not limited to official websites) and consensus, San Jose International Airport is spelled with an "é". A filter specifically designed to prevent this kind of edit anywhere might be an even better solution than a block, with no collateral damage at all. Narky Blert (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I actually hadn't thought about an edit filter, but that may be a good idea to stop this as well. They are continuing the disruption once again: [56]. 172.58.47.59 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The place to ask would be at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. Link there to this discussion to avoid entering the same info twice.

(One anti-trollvandal request of mine started off here and ended up there. Either they gave up or the filter gottem, because I haven't seen them in a couple of months. See Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 14#Excessive and irrelevant linking, even down to syllables of words.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

is This Page Should be Created?

Hey, Admin is this Book Booming Brand Or Author Harsh Pamnani Eligible for Wikipedia Page? References- https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/catalyst/marketing-lessons-from-home-grown-brands/article25509106.ece https://www.forbesindia.com/blog/author/harsh-pamnani/ https://www.afaqs.com/news/guest-article/53479_how-brand-bookmyshow-was-born http://everythingexperiential.businessworld.in/article/Demystifying-how-new-age-Made-in-India-brands-were-created-with-Harsh-Pamnani/24-09-2018-160658/ https://insideiim.com/india-is-not-america-the-way-brands-were-created-in-america-can-t-be-built-in-india-harsh-pamnani-author-of-booming-brands-xlri-alumnus https://www.entrepreneur.com/author/harsh-pamnani https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/be-blogs/author/2105/harsh-pamnani 2405:205:1384:3CF6:9C98:B534:F959:D3C3 (talk) 07:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, 2405:205:1384:3CF6:9C98:B534:F959:D3C3. You're in the wrong place to ask about this, but Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. You might like to start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I can see that the "article" Harsh Pamnani has never been created. I'll have a look, and give you some advice on your "talk page". Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Kbmccune

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

I have blocked Kbmccune from mainspace. This can be lifted by any admin with my blessing once they are satisfied that the user has understood the basics of sourcing. Sample edits: [57], [58], [59], [60]. The user is not here often enough that I can see any other easy way to get their attention. Guy (help!) 18:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I agree the user doesn't seem to be getting how sourcing works, but why a pblock instead of a full block? They're not editing any other namespace, so it's not like this is letting them continue to contribute productively elsewhere. creffett (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, it will stop the problem (weird edits to mainspace), get their attention, but allow them to engage as and when they decide to try again. I think they are actually trying to help, just not working out how. Guy (help!) 19:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff, I suppose I'm just wary of pblocks in general, but I'm not exactly going to undo your block. creffett (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I think a lot of indefs for clueless newbies who disrupted mainspace could have been avoided with pblocks - I think they are a great idea. But time will tell, I guess. Guy (help!) 21:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that this user was warned at all about what they were doing. There are no discussions even started on any of the pages, nor on their page. Based on [their first edit they seem to be new and a researcher. Shouldn't they have been advised how to properly source things on Wikipedia? Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 11:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Trolling

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

---

Why is this joe-jobbing bastard not blocked? --Pudeo (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The account only made edits on 20 January and has not edited since. While the account is clearly WP:NOTHERE, the inactivity makes a block pointless. If they return and continue their behavior, they would almost certainly be blocked indefinitely. funplussmart (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing and POV pushing/point-scoring in a contentious area

I am raising concerns that there has been a significant increase in disruptive and nationalist POV editing across a range of Balkans-related articles, namely in:

1. Republic of Ragusa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. Glina, Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. Konavle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. Pelješac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
5. Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
6. U boj, u boj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
7. Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The editors in question are:

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

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

Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Please note that two or three editors in question are involved in each individual article.

This all happened only in the past few days. In these articles the users in question have made removals of reliably-sourced information, addition of point-scoring/UNDUE text, POV pushing and similar disruptive editing, followed with edit warring. Here are several diffs of some problematic edits:

In the Glina article there was a removal of reliably-sourced information:

• Griboski - 03:28, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 20:33, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Amanuensis Balkanicus - 21:14, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Amanuensis Balkanicus - 21:34, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 21:34, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Republic of Ragusa article:

• WEBDuB - 17:30, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 17:42, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 19:25, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 19:27, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 19:33, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Konavle article:

• Sadko - 19:21, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Pelješac article:

• Sadko - 19:22, 28 April 2020 UTC
• Sadko - 21:39, 28 April 2020 UTC

Edits in the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article:

• WEBDuB - 00:35, 28 April 2020 UTC
• WEBDuB - 00:51, 28 April 2020 UTC --Tuvixer (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I need to add that I have started a discussion on the Republic of Ragusa article Talk page. Unfortunately the discussion goes on and on in circles and the editors in question resort to name calling. The same behavior can be witnessed in the past and currently on other article talk pages. --Tuvixer (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

1. Editing and following a somewhat similar scope of articles is not a crime. This report is close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my book. It’s quite ironic to accuse editors who work hard to bring RS and new material (and have been on Wiki for more than 10 years, having hundreds of articles written) of some sort of bad intent by an editor who has been actually edit-warring all over the place, as seen on [61] [62] [63] [64] On Josip Broz Tito, his/her edit-war has been going on for around 5 years now, as far as I can see.

2. Fellow editor Tuvixier has just recently accused total of 8 editors of some sort of ongoing “anti-Croatian” plot, with remarks that there is probably sock puppetry and "bullying" involved (I believe that this is not per Wiki rules?). [65]

3. Please notice that the issue revolves around 1 source by academic and an expert on Republic of Ragusa dr Svetlana Stipčević. I happen to own a hard copy of her work. Editor Tuvixier went with undo without futher explanation here [66] My questions regarding why the source in question is “partisan” or unreliable was ignored several times. [67] [68] New sources were presented in the dispute (by Arthur Evans), those were ignored as well. I did not make further edits to the article since, and most probably won't because of present toxic attitudes, which are mostly based on my ethnic origin...

4. On Glina, Croatia I went with undo because the information lacked WP:RS - local tabloid was used as a source for an old statement made by the current President of Serbia, A. Vucic. That was in my diff as well. The claim is true, of course, but sourcing was terrible and not RS. The other edit was made in regard to lack of WP:NPOV because the wording was not neutral and used weasel words, like that territory was "liberated" (for 100s of older civilians killed in the aftermath of Operation Storm, there was no liberation taking place). Such wording should not be a part of articles within the scope of terrible Yugoslav wars (this was, for some unknown reason, removed again here [69]). U boj, u boj was vandalised by IPs and several fellow editors restored the sourced material, me included. I have not edited Yugoslav Partisans that much, what seems to be the problem there? I have added some sourced material a while back. Things did get heated a bit on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia (it is a very emotional topic for most people from the region, as numerous citizens lost family members and relative, and the subject remains an open wound because it was never addressed fully by politicians from modern-day Croatia and several other countries as well), therefore I removed myself from further editing of the same page, per WP:Staying cool when the editing gets hot & WP:No angry mastodons.

5. Rather than taking it to the talk page, as I did on Republic of Ragusa or WEBDuB did on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, fellow editor Tuvixier has not been involved in any discussion so far. Therefore I think that this is an attempt to remove several editors who do not agree with his viewpoints, in one stroke. Republic of Ragusa and related subject are a bit complicated; academia in Croatia claims that Ragusan culture (an independent Slavic state, with an identity of its own) is and can be only a part of Croatian culture, other countries think otherwise, and Ragusans or parts of their culture are claimed by Italy, Serbia and sometimes Bosnia. Considering that I am one of only few active editors who reads and knows a thing or two about the topic, I am targeted because of my edits on this topic. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I object to this assessment and being lumped in here, because of one edit I made. As I pointed out in this thread, the edit was made for legitimate reasons concerning an unreliable source and a paragraph that was nearly completely unsourced. --Griboski (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The paragraph/statement in question remains poorly sourced and lacking NPOV. I do not see why this issue wasn't brought on dispute resolution page? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You really cannot help going on a nationalist rant huh? Croatia does recognize the genocide and Presidents have apologized and acknowledged it happened. Can’t say the same about the Chetniks and Milan Nedic in some other countries. Civilians of all ethnic groups were killed (Most were Serbs) in the Balkans WWII. So yes a very sensitive topic for all. Most of them innocent on all sides. Also lets not even get started in claims on Ragusan culture as a number of figures are automatically claimed to be Serbian with little RS to show. For point number 4, so much wrong here. My edit was reverted in that article because including Vucic’s quote was apparently “not balanced”??? according to Amanuensis Balkanicus. I took it to the talk page and no one could explain what the problem was. I even added strong sources that in them even include the video of him saying what he said. You never reverted Amanuensis. Also Sadko claims that the town was “acquired” by Croatia which is ridiculous. Multiple RS state it was returned to Croatia as it was occupied territory by an unrecognized government set up in the 90s. Not to mention the hundreds of Croatian civilians that were killed there. Others cleansed. They definitely were liberated. This is precisely the issue with POVs like this. Sadko another editor not even from the Balkans with much experience on Wikipedia stated and observed your POV nationalist edits. His own words. Not mine. The only editor that should not be on the list of 4 is Griboski. Who got caught in the crossfire of the edit wars. That does not delegitimize the other three called out. As you had tried to do, Sadko. Your edit history before you suddenly went archive happy clearly showed your type of edits that aren’t as productive as you claim them to be. But rather agenda driven. A typical problem with Balkan articles. For example removing the “Croatian” ethnicity from leads of historical figures pages due to Wiki:Ethnicity yet while editing Serbian figure pages, you did not do the same. I saw this wether you want to claim “hounding” or not. Doesn’t matter how “new” I am to Wikipedia or how old you are. That doesn’t excuse what you do. PortalTwo (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

1. Repeating again and gain the same argument of WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any evidence is not going to make it any more valid. The fact that user Sadko has "been on Wiki for more than 10 years" is even more troubling. Why are long time user engaging in such disruptive editing as seen in the articles above? I need to say that I am not happy that it has come to this. I am not happy that I need to witness constant disruptive editing. The edit warring goes on and on, users in question do not try to seek consensus when reverted, only do they stop after being warned or when a administrator intervenes - Ad Orientem - 00:45, 29 April 2020 UTC. After all the disruptive edits, user Sadko "engages in a discussion" by asking this question "What seems to be wrong?..." I think that everything that was done was wrong. From edit warring, not trying to start a discussion and reach a consensus to POV pushing and point-scoring/UNDUE text. This is just an example on how, when a discussion is started, it is doomed from the beginning, when user Sadko is involved.

2. It is completely false that I have "accused total of 8 editors". As can be seen above there are 4 editors mentioned. User Sadko is intentionally leaving out this: [70] This attempt to distort the facts is another example of disruptive behavior and bad faith. If I have accused someone of some "“anti-Croatian” plot", can user Sadko provide any evidence to back his claim?

3. It is not true that "the issue revolves around 1 source". The edits on Republic of Ragusa article started with this WEBDuB - 17:30, 28 April 2020 UTC - the source provided is from the year 1875. Then this WEBDuB - 17:42, 28 April 2020 UTC - adding the following sentence "The documents were also written in Cyrillic script." This is misleading because the source provided states that a linguist "...made a handwritten copy..." of a "Lectionary in Cyrillic characters", giving no connection to the Ragusan state. I have no problem with adding such content, if the provided sources are reliable. The fact is, as I have explained, that user WEBDuB clearly made and edit that is misleading and made false interpretation of the source, which seems to be intentional. This goes on and I can explain in detail if needed. Trying to place me in a "box", in which, if I would found myself in, even by accident, I would be ashamed for the rest of my life, is insulting.

4. Now on the subject of Glina. The users in question claim that the source is a "tabloid" when in fact, dnevnik.hr is the portal/website of NOVA TV. How is dnevnik.hr a "local tabloid" was never explained. This is another example how user Sadko superficially, without giving any explanation dismisses a source that she/he does not like. The same content is present and sourced in the article about Aleksandar Vučić. Now user Sadko claims the following: "The claim is true, of course, but sourcing was terrible and not RS." Why did she/he then remove everything from the article? Sadko - 20:33, 28 April 2020 UTC Does a user who has "been on Wiki for more than 10 years" know about "[citation needed]". Or just google "Vučić Glina", there is plenty of sources for example: [71] from N1, a CNN International partner and affiliate in Croatia, and more [72], [73], [74] and even one in English [75]. All this in just one quick Google search. Not to mention that the Wikipedia article about Aleksandar Vučić has already two sources in it. About the allegedly neutral edit removing "liberated", I have to say that respecting internationally recognized borders, that were first established in 1945 and 1946 and later approved when the constituent republics of former Yugoslavia became independent, is neutral and stating something different is a clear POV. I have mentioned articles U boj, u boj, Yugoslav Partisans and Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia because also in them there are/were disruptive edits, in the last few days, involving the same users. Like in the other articles that are in this report.

5. "Rather than taking it to the talk page, as I did on Republic of Ragusa or WEBDuB did on Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, fellow editor Tuvixier has not been involved in any discussion so far." This is untrue, I have started the discussion on the Republic of Ragusa Talk page [76] as explained above, in my last comment here. User Sadko went on calling names "You have no idea what you are talking about." and tried to falsely present the provided source. Another example of the same behavior.

6. I have to point out that, regarding user Griboski, I have not observed the same disruptive behavior with him, as with the other three users in question. There is only one edit in the Glina article, still it was made. I see now that she/he still claims "unreliable source" argument.

You are free to express your opinion (and do try to add more fuel to the fire), this is the free Encyclopedia, but, alas, you have presented little evidence. I do not think that you understand how WP:NPOV works; if there is a disputed territory and 2 parties are engaged in a terrible civil war over it, there is no "liberation" and such wording is not appropriate because it leans towards one of parties involved, and we should not take sides, but try to be neutral. The statement "They were definetely liberated" only shows textbook POV. Do not try to twist my words and work here; I am backing this edit (maybe "modern-day" is not needed). [77] Glina article is not that interesting for me, but I have it on my watchlist; I sincerly believe that other editors had no baid faith in mind. What is wrong with following WP:ETHNICITY on numerous articles? I did so, regardless of someone's ethnicity, as you would like to wrongly imply in order to paint a dark picture.[78] [79] Accusing me of something like that is simply weird. This comment and general writing style seems like some sort of "face off" and I am responding out of mere politeness, as before. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 03:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I used the term “liberated” in context to your sarcastic use of it when referring to civilians killed. Which is very pov to do that. As if there were not deaths on both sides. However people die in wars fought over land, no matter the setting. Saying that means it could’ve have been territory belonging to another government is strange by that criteria. It’s not “textbook POV” when I can back up a claim. As an “experienced” editor you should know. As Instated, multiple RS sources state it was reintegrated/returned to Croatia. Implying it was part of Croatia before. Saying Croatia “acquired” it after Operation Storm is so POV it’s preposterous to go further on this. You are implying as if it were annexed newly. Please don't twist the context of what I say. I have multiple sources to back up my point. Your opinion does not defeat that. RSK was not a widely recognized sovereign territory despite what you would like to believe. PortalTwo (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko has just removed the whole comment/reply that I have made here Sadko - 03:25, 1 May 2020 UTC. How to deal with this? --Tuvixer (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid Tuvixer is being too cute by half here. There has been a significant uptick in contestation and edit-warring on Balkan-related articles in the last month of so for some reason, and Tuvixer has been part of that. Tuvixer has been edit-warring on Balkans-related pages too, notably on my Yugoslavia in WWII-related watchlist on the Josip Broz Tito page over descriptions of Tito's rule and the trial of Archbishop Stepinac [80][81][82][83] [84]. There has been some poor behaviour by a number of editors on some Balkans pages recently, with quite a bit of POV-pushing, but nothing to yet trigger admin action or ArbCom discretionary sanctions. I don't suggest a boomerang here, as some of the listed editors have not been doing the right thing either, but people coming here need to be aware that unclean hands will undermine their reports on others. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User Peacemaker67 did not mention that the user that made those edit is User Nbanic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has being blocked for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts and topic banned from all Yugoslavia-related articles for a period of six months. I don't know if I should mention this, but user Peacemaker67 has also been involved [85][86]. I don't understand if user Peacemaker67 is saying that this kind of editing by the users in this report should be allowed? Again to be fair, user Griboski made only the edit in the Glina article, and other disruptive edits were not observed, but still he made that edit. I have to point out that this edits in the articles in question are only few days old. There have been many edits of this nature in the past months. I have only included in this report the edits made in the last few days, so this is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. --Tuvixer (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:SOCKSTRIKE, which says "It isn't necessary or desirable to try to revert every single article edit the sock puppet has ever made", and says "do not edit war over this". In this case, Nbanic made a valid edit, citing a reliable academic source, and I used my experience and judgement to restore it myself because it was a good edit. Blind reverting of sock edits is not WP policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Tabloid might not be the appropriate term but you haven't demonstrated that dnevnik.hr is a reliable source either. A television station isn't precluded from broadcasting or publishing false information. For instance, this occurred on a Croatian television station and not just any station but on HRT, quite possibly the country's biggest public broadcaster. I am only using this as an example, not to generalize. Like I said, I admit I might have erred in that edit. If that is the case, then it was a genuine mistake, not done in bad faith. Admittedly, I am not all that familiar with the various media in the Balkans. I might not be happy you've mentioned me but I also assume that you're doing this out of genuine concern and in good faith. --Griboski (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvixier 1) First off, I have fully restored your comment, which was removed by some weird accidence (believe it or not; it's not in my best interest to make moves such as that one). Do check if everything is fine. 2) I did state "You have no idea what you are talking about." because of ignorance of some of the most basic facts and lack of most fundamental informations on the topic, per WP:Competence is required + I have provided several WP:RS on the same page to confirm it. [87] 2) Nobody is here to do your job of providing WP:RS, that is yours per WP:BURDEN. Local news and tabloids are still not okay for statement of such importance and scale. Other users have pointed out the same thing several times by now. WP:WHATABOUTX ("tabloids are used on other pages") is not an argument. 3) Only after being called out [88] instead of reporting 8 people, only 4 came to pass as a part of an "ongoing plot" [89]. 4) Fellow user Tuvixer has removed sourced content on Republic of Ragusa, started a debate [90] and not responded for ~3 days now (while generally active on Wiki), and for some reason, myself and the other involved editor, who has also provided sources on the MP and TP both, are somehow not able to discuss with? You got to be kidding me.

I have previously turned a blind eye to THIS [91] as a sign of good faith on my side, but this whole report/narrative is getting far too personal. WP:No personal attacks & WP:Casting aspersions Count me out of this particular tirade. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You vandalized parts of my reply [1] , again...., which were not even personal attacks but counter arguments against your personal attacks as well as false claims about a country. Again, follow your own supposed principles. I never vandalized yours despite the insults material. Good job demonstrating your edit style that is of issue in the first place. Bravo. PortalTwo (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you honestly think I did that? Nonetheless, repost those parts, if you will. I have no idea how it got deleted and edited in that way, there must be some sort of technical explanation which makes sense. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 04:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It’s the third time today. And I am not the only editor it is done to. I hope it is a browser or app glitch and not done insidiously.PortalTwo (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To vouch for Sadko, I made a few small minor edits to my post, which were erased after he made a post. I doubt it was intentional. It does appear like a technical glitch. --Griboski (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment My experience from editing wikipedia is that editor Sadko and editor Amanuensis Balkanicus are somehow connected in their actions. I agree that lately they promote their view of history through questionable theses and RS in article of Konavle and Pelješac, Amanuensis Balkanicus does not want put some historical facts about today president of Serbia on wikipedia(Glina article and public nationalist statements that Croatian town of Glina will never be part of Croatia etc). In the article of Andrija Zmajević[92] they promote that he comes from a Serbian family and they proves this with some internet portals in which stating that "Croatians are stealing someone's origin" ie with political pamphlets. When I warned editor Sadko that there are some forgeries in articles about the history of Serbs he didn't want to change that for the benefit of wikipedia. When I wanted to change conception consistent with historical data of the Statuta Valachorum article he called me a follower of the Nazis and he was not punished for this although he was reported for personal insults. Obviously they seeing history from one angle where it is not allowed changes for the better. Why they do it i don't know, we should all work together for the benefit of wikipedia but they don't want it.Mikola22 (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Connected, huh? Care to explain? This is WP:Casting aspersions. I did not call you that way at all - do not present something which is simply untrue. Surprise me with presenting a diff in which I'm using such wording/comment. As for everything else, a quick look at your fringe viewpoints and editing history... [93][94] Not to mention basic lack of WP:Forgive and forget and WP:Wikipedia is not about winning, which someone under 1RR and related sanctions must know by now. That source title is poor, but the content is okay, and there is another Montenegrin source which is claiming the same. This whole comment was pretty much an attempt to "even the score". Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

My edits on wikipedia is I quote: "This is another popular narrative in Croatia, mostly in right-wing and modern Ustaše circles". Who are Ustaše? Wikipedia source: "Croatian fascist, ultranationalist and terrorist organization", "They were known for their particularly brutal and sadistic methods of execution", "Much of the ideology of the Ustaše was based on Nazi racial theory", "Like the Nazis, the Ustaše deemed Jews". And you have not been punished for this personal attack, you can now thanks publicly for wikipedia protectors. I have no protectors and that is why I am blocked several times. Connection between you and editor Amanuensis Balkanicus is visible in the present articles which you edit together in good faith. Mikola22 (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko is again making superficial statements without any evidence. Because User Sadko had removed my reply, now I have to check, word by word, if a word or a letter is missing/was removed in this "accident", but I will show good faith and leave it behind. User Sadko stated in the reply above that he "did state "You have no idea what you are talking about." because of ignorance of some of the most basic facts and lack of most fundamental informations on the topic". So user Sadko to justify or explain his past name calling uses again name calling and ad hominem. Observers can see how the discussion is starting to go in circles. User Sadko has ignored to explain why dnevnik.hr and other sources are "tabloids". No one said that "tabloids are used on other pages". This statement was not explained, again. User Sadko has stated that "Only after (I) being called out instead of reporting 8 people, only 4 came to pass...". Observers can see how, by completely misinterpreting the facts the discussion is starting to go in circles. For the sake that it does not seem that I acknowledge that in any way, I will reply. Anyone who looks at that discussion will see that it was a honest mistake/oversight and that I immediately apologized for it and corrected it. What this has to do with this discussion, user Sadko does not explain. The reason why I have not "responded for ~3 days" on the talk page of Republic of Ragusa is because I started to write a longer reply and in doing so realized that, only in the past few days, there has been a big amount of disruptive and POV editing across a range of Balkans-related articles, made by the same users. So I looked into that. As there is a discussion here I will post that reply is so instructed. I have presented here evidence of the disruptive behavior and have given reasonable explanations, but it can be explained in even more details. Please explain how "this whole report/narrative is getting far too personal"? --Tuvixer (talk) 05:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Three editors have stated so far that there were no RS presented, neatpickng and ignoring clear lack of WP:CONSENSUS and ignoring WP:BURDEN is not good. Absolutely, you stated the whole case with a bunch of editors allegedly involved in a vast plot, after replies by check users - the tune was instantly changed. It is clear from the diffs, and so are attempts tor rectify that mistake later on. Rather than reporting a dispute there is a Character assassination attempt taking place, in which editors who hold grudges because they have not "won" prior debates are joining in. This is even more evident by comments on those technical glitches, even after I have reported that it's not due to human error or bad attempt, there was(no good faith, it's just "kill or be killed" stance. No further comments, after all, it's not about me only, even though there is a notion of singling me out, because of severe dislikes of my edits. This is WP:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

User Sadko has again removed my last comment/reply. Again an "accident"? --Tuvixer (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is some sort of insane glitch, dunno why. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 06:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Ceha The "insane glitch" does probably stem from edit conflicts. They happen frequently in heated discussions with many participants, and they can be very annoying. See H:EC about how to avoid them. --T*U (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Did you mean to ping me? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 13:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: Yeah, sorry, that is what happens when one tries to have two thoughts in the head at the same time... Yes, the ping was meant for you. I have had some bad experiences myself with erasing other people's edits through edit conflicts, so I thought I should mention it. --T*U (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: No problem, thank you for your comment and have a happy International Workers' Day. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I'm literally shocked by this overreacting. I responsibly claim that no rule has been violated. Talking about my changes, they were always backed up by sources. This edit was merely a shortening of the too long section that did not directly relate to the topic. Basically, I did't remove any information. I deleted the sourced information here, because no single reference was related to the main topic.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with reorganising pages

Hi,

As discussed at Talk:Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer)#Dave_Stewart_(English_musician), one user argued that the article should have been moved to Dave Stewart but was unable to do so due to being unable to move the existing Dave Stewart page (currently a dab) to Dave Stewart (disambiguation), since the latter already exists.

(I've had similar problems before that were solved by an admin, so I assume this is a moderately common situation).

The page was then moved to Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer) to get round this- which I didn't agree with, since the whole point that had just been argued was that"Dave Stewart" was the most appropriate title.

Any help in solving this (and input into the discussion at the talk page) would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I marked the disambiguation page for deletion and it was declined; the admin (EurekaLott) suggested I use the WP:RM process because it was a potentially controversial move. I thought of it as housekeeping, but I get it. So I was WP:BOLD and moved the page to Dave_Stewart_(musician_and_producer) because it is more appropriate than its previous title, which was David A. Stewart. That said, Dave Stewart without the dab makes the most sense, and I will seek consensus on the talk page. JSFarman (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment). The proposed move needs to be advertised through the Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial procedure for full discussion. It is a proposal to declare a WP:PTOPIC and could be controversial.

A (disambiguation) page generally should not be deleted as part of a move, because its history needs to be preserved for licensing reasons. Narky Blert (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Narky Blert. Another learning experience for me. JSFarman (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@JSFarman: No worries, I too keep coming across bits of WP I'd never knowingly seen before. Narky Blert (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If this was a WP:RM/TR, deleting Dave Stewart (disambiguation) wouldn't have been a problem, because the page has no substantial history. I declined the request because of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC concerns. Since Dave Stewart (musician and producer) and Dave Stewart (baseball) are both well-known figures, I don't know if there's a primary topic, and thought community input would be valuable. - Eureka Lott 13:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Narky Blert and EurekaLott:; Thank you for your input. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Zakawer: 2013 Egyptian coup

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

I'm raising concerns about the editor User:Zakawer's editing on the subject of Egyptian politics. During 2016, this editor systemically and against consensus sought to remove any and all references to the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état as being a "coup". There is a clear consensus on major pages related to Egyptian politics and coups that the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état was in fact a "coup" (and there is no disagreement among academics and RS that it was a coup). There are two relevant previous admin actions regarding this editor on this exact topic:

• Early July 2016: Blocked by the admin User:Darkwind who said Zakawer's "disregard of the consensus(es) in this topic area is both blatant and willful". [95]
• Late July 2016: After repeated edit-warring on this subject, Zakawer took a voluntarily absence when he was brought to the admin noticeboard, and was warned at the time by the admin User:EdJohnston that he "may be blocked if they make any further reverts on the topic of the 2013 political events in Egypt (revolution, protests, coup d'état or whatever) without a prior talk page consensus."[96]

From late July 2016 to Feb 2020, Zskawer kept low-key and appears to have largely avoided the subject matter. However, in February 2020, he started to edit prolifically again on the topic that got him in trouble. He is again POV pushing and editing against consensus on any and all articles that make any reference whatsoever to a coup in Egypt. This is an incomplete list of edits from 7 March 2020 to today where the editor removes "coup" or related language:

• Canada–Egypt relations[97]
• Public opinion of the 2006 Thai coup d'état[98]
• Post-coup unrest in Egypt (2013–2014)[99]
• Martial law[100]
• Police state[101]
• Capital punishment in Egypt [102]
• Emergency law in Egypt[103]
• Coup d'état[104]
• List of coups d'état and coup attempts since 2010[105][106]
• Egypt[107]
• 2018 Egyptian presidential election[108]
• Third Square[109]
• Mada Masr[110]

There are more problematic edits in the edit history but that should be sufficient to show that there is again a serious systematic problem. It's not feasible for other editors to have to follow him around across dozens of pages to make sure that the language is compliant with already-established consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• That they went several years without significant incident is a positive. However, checking both consensus and my own sweep of RS on the issue, this is definitely firm counter-consensus editing. Notwithstanding rebuttal by Zakawer, I'd be inclined to support TBAN on events in Egypt from 2012 onwards. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: There are no arbitrary sanctions on Egypt topics, and the current consensus regarding what to label the overthrow of Morsi is extremely outdated, dating all the way back to 2013. Removing references to it being a "coup" is not POV-pushing as you claim, but rather an honest attempt at NPOV. The overthrow of Morsi is frequently characterized as a "coup d'état", but unlike most known coups d'état, calling it such is actually controversial. Protesters who partook in the mass protests against him (who alongside the military and the interim government do not offer a fringe viewpoint in this case), as well as people who supported the protests, refused to call his July 3rd overthrow a "coup d'état"; the same applies to the military, as well as the interim government. Even some commentators refused to call it by that label as well (). There's also this one article () that compares how Egyptian (and specifically Egyptian) media outlets and foreign, non-Arab ones (in this case, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian, although the coverage isn't too different from other Western media outlets), noticing a substantial difference in coverage between Egyptian and Western outlets. I would personally recommend that we first find a consensus on what to call it on Wikipedia before you accuse me of "POV-pushing." Zakawer (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

There is zero dispute among RS and recognized experts that it was a coup. The claim that the "coup" label is "extremely outdated" and only sourced to 2013 coverage is a complete falsehood. Two gold-standard coup datasets clearly identify it as a coup[111][112], as do all RS, whether they are from 2013 or later. The fact that supporters of the coup, an op-ed in the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian, and a paper by a non-expert in an unranked 5-year old journal say it may not be a coup does not mean that existing consensus no longer applies and that you have carte blanche to continue with your POV pushing from 2016. These are exact same things that were rehashed with you again and again in 2016. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Western mainstream media outlets (mostly CNN) and people who relied on them for news on Egypt, as well as some uninvolved individuals, mainly non-Egyptians, like to label the incident as a coup d'état, and still do so. Besides, I think Ahram Online and Daily News Egypt are indeed reliable sources (or at least close to being so), yet they don't use that label. With other coups d'état, even supporters would call them that—but this incident is very different. The current consensus here on the English Wikipedia regarding the incident is still officially valid at the time, but I want it changed completely. Zakawer (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Just as a general note, although The Guardian is a reliable source, when you see the commentisfree in a Guardian URL it means it's on the user-generated section of their website, and is no more reliable than Wikipedia; although it's moderated in that they vet material before they post it, anyone can submit anything to it. ‑&nbsp Iridescent 19:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it's not the official opinion of The Guardian, but it's definitely the opinion of the people who revolted against Morsi, which we here on Wikipedia absolutely cannot exclude under the NPOV policy. Zakawer (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware NPOV required us to use bad sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment if we could keep this on conduct, not content. @Zakawer:, is there a discussion or RfC you started to update that consensus if it's no longer viewed as valid? Nosebagbear (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Here I attempted to implement my draft page on the topic (which still exists), but unfortunately didn't succeed. However, this was over three years ago. Apparently, the old consensus is still valid. Zakawer (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • The consensus is valid until it changes. The way to change it is to discuss the issue on the relevant talk page(s) with evidence from reliable sources that it should be changed, rather than to edit against consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Resolved

user:Reliable guy69 has placed insulting personal attacks against me on his user page, I have since replaces them with Template:RPA, has also been engaged in vandalism. dmartin969 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Indefblocked the user. Materialscientist (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The user has created a new account User:Reliable guy420, left a message on my talk page admitting to sockpuppeting, and has continued the personal attacks. –DMartin 07:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring, disruptive behaviour, misuse of templates and harassment from User:AussieLegend

AussieLegend has become increasingly disruptive in his edits on the Sydney page as well as in his behaviour in general towards other well meaning editors. Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29. This started when Ashton 29 made some good faith edits on the page, to which AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring.[113][114][115][116][117] From this, AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence, which was disruptive in proper discussion and a direct misuse of templates[118][119][120][121][122]. This also fell under harrassement and stalking, as pointed out by Cjhard where AussieLegend stalked all of Ashton 29's edits including on pages he was not previously involved in and critiqued his edits and sent notice templates without any evidence to back his claims [123].

Furthermore, when I warned AussieLegend of his edit warring and behaviour on his talk page, he retaliated and once again misued a warning template, this time against me [124] without backing any of his false allegations and accusations. He then tried to threaten an apology from me [125][126] before once again retaliating and becoming disruptive in behaviour towards proper discussion by misusing a warning template against me [127]

Additionally, AussieLegend along with another editor have also been directing personal attacks against Ashton 29 and any other editor they disagree with. AussieLegend is noted for falsely and mockingly describing Ashton 29 as having "a temper tantrum" and that "he doesn't care" [128] as well as a personal attack against me by making false allegations without any evidence [129] [130]

To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage[131], to which he once again made another personal attack against me when i responded to this, by making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him [132]. - Cement4802 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised at Cement4802's actions. He has constantly been accusing other editors of making personal attacks while doing so himself. No doubt he has seen this edit by me where, at his own request, I started compiling a list of his various attacks on other editors, mostly HiLo48 and I. I earlier raised this discussion on this very page and notified Cement4802 even though he was only tangentially associated with the Ashton 42 problems at the time. His response was to set upon me in that discussion,[133] making baseless allegations that he continues to this day. Under the assumption that this discussion is going to be given as much attention as the other one, this is all I am going to say for now. If anyone wants more, I'm happy to post a lot more. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This incident is here on this noticeboard for one reason alone - the total absence of any effective Administrator response to the thread up near the top of this page titled - User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks. If an Admin has the energy to look through that discussion, and the one it was about in the first place at Talk:Sydney, they will see the mess this has come from. It needed much earlier Admin intervention, and that didn't happen. What's happening? Are the Admins all in quarantine? HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the issues with AussieLegend on the Sydney article need to be in two AN/I threads, especially considering the block proposal already contained in the top thread. However, AussieLegend's behaviour recently has gone so far beyond the usual wikilawyering and stonewalling and descended into full-blown battleground behaviour, wikistalking and harassment. It might be best to close the dumpsterfire report up top and find a resolution here. At the least, AussieLegend should be banned from interacting with Ashton 29. Cjhard 11:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, Aussie Legend has a tendency of edit warring, but then accusing others of edit warring. Anyone who accuses, him is apparantly a harassier or wiki-stalker. In my opinion, egos like his should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:B99C:AC00:D17B:1AE4:C986:C0B3 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that this is anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend That's a blatant false accusation to make mind you. Going by you and HiLo's definition, that's a personal attack - Cement4802 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What is false? Should I open an SPI case? --AussieLegend (✉) 13:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems that I don't need to open an SPI case. The range has been blocked. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend's full response; see summarized response below

AussieLegend's response part 1 I wasn't going to bother this but given Cement4802's persistent attacks I may as well, even if nobody reads it: Most notably, he has been targetting and harassing Ashton 29 - All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend retaliated by constantly reverting his edits (as well as the edits of other editors as well) to how he believed the page should be, which is classified as edit warring - Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a {{citation needed}} tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently. Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#1) - He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary "The caption is about the war memorial, not the park or the buildings around it. The bigger image of the war memorial is therefore preferred".[134] Instead of then discussing the proposed image on the talk page, he did as he normally does when something he adds is reverted, he reverted with the summary "But AussieLegend, you can still clearly see the memorial. Those who live in Sydney or who are familiar with the city will make no mistake in recognising what the image depicts, and it also gives an indication of the size of the Park and the memorial's proximity to the city centre".[135] To this day he has not attempted to discuss the image. He believes that he does not have to justify his additions and instead that others have to justify their opposition to his additions, as he demonstrated at Hobart when HappyWaldo opposed his addition of a montage.[136] Ashton 29 made some good faith edits (#2) - This was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed. If anything, it was rather WP:POINTy in intent, as explained in the discussion above. AussieLegend then proceeded to spam warning templates on Ashton 29's talk page without substantiated evidence - There is evidence for all the warnings added to Ashton 29's talk page. His various actions have been discussed above. without any evidence to back his claims - This one is actually a bit funny. If you look at Special:Contributions/Ashton 29 you'll see that he marks the vast majority of his edits as minor regardless of how extensive his changes are, so this warning was quite appropriate. He then tried to threaten an apology from me - The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines. misusing a warning template against me - The diff presented shows the clear indication I gave to not make a retaliatory warning. The warning that I gave was as the result of Cement4802 refusing to withdraw the personal attacks that he made on his talk page in the section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!" To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information so that it supports his own agenda, most notably by deleting editors from a list of people who support a photomontage on the Sydney talk page in his own opposition to the photomontage - Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[137] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[138] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. Involvement in selection of images does not constitute support, as has previously been explained."[139] Cement4802 then chose to further manipulate the data by going back over 15 months and adding other names (one editor was added twice!) prompting me to post this, demonstrating his inappropriate manipulation. making false accusations that I was manipulating the information, when it was in fact him - The diffs clearly show the opposite to what Cement4802 claims. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC) AussieLegend's response part 2 Now, in the interest of transparency, since Cement4802 has made some pretty silly claims, I present several diffs demonstrating his actions. He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29 (not that Ashton 29 isn't a problematic editor) 07:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC) Claimed that he not attacked anyone and then threatened me [140] Accuse me of singling him and a few other editors out (?) when in fact nothing like that had happened at all [141] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[142] [143] Accused me of making a personal attack (again). [144] Posted "Several editors that i've been having disputes with over seperate unrelated articles, especially those political in nature, have decided that they'll use their personal grudge against me to come on over to the page to likewise target and harass me." on his talk page in response to Ashton 29. There's some level of paranoia there. If he's having disputes with other editors then maybe the problem is him, not all of them. He then made a false statement about an admin at WP:DRN - There was no admin and the volunteer said nothing about personal attacks. After that, he wrote "I've seen the constant harassement and attacks on your page coming from (talk), and all of his claims have been rightly refuted. It seems he also has a history of harrasement and sending out false, unsubstantiated claims if you look through the archives on his talk page, and i'd suggest that he himself is actually in violation of several wikipedia policies." More baseless allegations along with an indication that he has been wikistalking, in this case by searching through my talk page archives. That though is fairly minor. [145] Improper warning on my talk page. [146] More attacks and threats [147] Another accusation of personal attacks [148] Refusal to withdraw baseless allegations [149] Yet another allegation of making personal attacks [150] Manipulation of data to support his POV [151] Bold face lies rebutted here claiming that I had repeatedly removed names, when I did it precisely once because the inclusion was invalid, and accused me of edit-warring for reverting his initial, incorrect addition in the middle of someone elses post [152] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO. [153] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage. HiLo48 was quite correct in saying that is not true. As evidence I posted the following quite a while ago, That brings me to Cement4802's list, which does at least contain two possibilities, File:Sydney skyline from the north August 2016 (29009142591).jpg and File:Sydney skyline and harbour.jpg. The subjects of these are both instantly recognisable worldwide, although the second is probably only recognisable because of the opera house. File:Sydney Opera House At Night 2.jpg is nice, but it's more suited to the opera house's article and might be misunderstood by the average reader.[154] [155] This is actually quite hypocritical as diffs show that Cement4802 is quite adept at attacking editors. [156] And we're back to the first diff where Cement4802 claimed he hadn't attacked anyone and then threatened me in the very same breath I do understand if editors think "TLDR". It's far more than I thought would be necessary. Sorry. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't commit to reading this lengthy report (or the other one pertaining to this dispute), but I would ask participants here to keep it tempered. Also, do we really need two reports about the same dispute? El_C 13:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No, we don't need two reports, which was partly the point of my War and Peace addition. The first report has been sidetracked with squabbling since the very first reply, ironically by the editor who opened this section. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This has become absolutely absurd in its extensiveness and ongoing unresolved discussion. Yes, AussieLegend too frequently claims ownership on articles. He rapidly pounces on edits, as if he lays in the wait ready to undo your progress. It's frustrating, it's unwelcome and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I, and Cement4802 (and I guess other people now) will take this everywhere possible for mediation and resolution.Ashton 29 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

This latest post by Ashton 29, who is still marking all of his edits as minor, is clearly a reaction to this edit where I changed an image in Newcastle, New South Wales (where I happen to live) to one that better represented Nobbys Head. The image I changed to was actually part of the city's logo at one stage while the other is a somewhat obscure view. Instead of discussing, as always Ashton 29 reverted so I have now invited him to discuss this on the talk page. Ashton 29's reaction is also likely the result of me making this edit that removed a significantly outdated image of the former Newcastle Railway station from a section already crowded with relevant images. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Folks, might I suggest making use of dispute resolution requests (like RfCs), while at the same time letting status quo ante versions remain in place in the meantime? Also, Ashton 29, AussieLegend is right about not marking significant additions as minor edits. El_C 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are getting at but after I opened the original discussion here Ashton 29 opened a discussion at WP:DRN, but it was closed because Ashton 29 chose to notify only two of nine listed editors and those two just happened to share his POV and which was WP:CANVASSING. The volunteer at DRN said in his close "moderated dispute resolution with ten editors is likely to be like trying to herd four cats, four sheep, a border collie, and a llama. The way to resolve this dispute that is most likely to be effective will be a Request for Comments."[157] Ashton 29 subsequently opened an RfC but with a very biased, non-neutral question that has resulted in editors supporting a close. I know what the problem is, but I'm not going to say it. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, in such a fraught dispute, it's always best to agree on what the RfC question says in advance. I'm not saying run an RfC about what the RfC should say, but a cursory gauging of consensus about that could be a way forward. El_C 17:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. Unfortunately, Ashton 29 chose to skip that and just barrelled ahead with the RfC. It went from me saying "Forming the RfC question would be a problem in itself. It can't simply be "Should this article have a montage?" to this. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

AussieLegend, yes, I agree that that RfC question is problematic. It certainly should not be editorializing the author's position. El_C 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

So what are you going to do about it El_C? The fundamental reason for there being two out-of-control threads here on the one dispute is a complete absence of any earlier action by ANY Administrator. And this IS an Administrator noticeboard. Please take some action. HiLo48 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the matter of the RfC question has been resolved. El_C 00:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hardly. And the problem is much bigger than the RfC question. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a volunteer. I help when I can. But I am not read in to this dispute and cannot commit to investigate it without a condensed summary. If there is already one, please point it to me, I may have just missed it. El_C 00:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no summary. It's a complete mess. And that's because it's all gone on far too long WITHOUT Admin intervention, DESPITE it having been brought to this page twice and to another Admin page I can't track down at the moment. And if you fail to do anything now, it will just get worse. HiLo48 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, if no summary is provided and none is forthcoming, my involvement is likely to be limited, I'm afraid. If there is an immediate violation that is particularly egregious, however, please feel free to report, here, or to me personally. El_C 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Why do we have Administrator noticeboards? Aren't they for Admins to notice things? Why has no Admin been near the two massive threads on this matter here before you? HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know, HiLo48. I presume everyone is busy elsewhere. Sometimes there is an acute backlog, especially when —not to belabour the point— it involves a lengthy report/s that lacks a concise summary. El_C 01:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I repeat, they only became long BECAUSE there was no Admin intervention. And you're not ever going to get an agreed concise summary on matters like this. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not looking for agreement, necessarily. Any party may summarize. But this, for example, is obviously not concise enough. I'm looking for the broad strokes, with a few diffs attached for the most noteworthy items. El_C 01:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend a look at the first three posts in the other relevant thread above - "User:Ashton 29 - Increasingly problematic editing and personal attacks". It's right near the top of the page. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HiLo48, okay, I'll give those a read maybe tomorrow sometime. I just would have wished for a summary that takes the recent block into account. I mean, what else is there to do for the moment? But, sure, will do. El_C 02:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out the background. Ashton 20 was apparently blocked for this edit summary in an edit which adjusted the question in an RfC. I suggest that Talk:Sydney#Request for comment - 30 April 2020 and the following "Support/Oppose for a photomontage" section should be closed to allow a new RfC to be discussed—one with a clear proposal. It's not clear to me what support in the current RfC means, and it certainly would not be clear to an outsider (which is the point of an RfC) what the proposal is. It appears to concern whether this edit at Sydney should be retained (it was reverted). The edit changed the infobox from showing a single image to a montage of seven images. It's not reasonable to continue with the current RfC because someone supporting a montage might want two images, while another wants four, and others want all seven. An RfC requires a concrete proposal ("Should the article display the montage in this edit?") and a neutral question. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I did ask for the RfC to be closed at WP:ANRFC but the request was denied.[158] The RfC is not about this edit specifically. That was a bad faith edit by Ashton 29 who knew that there was an open discussion about a montage and that there was still no consensus to add one. The RfC is about adding any montage and whether appropriate images should be included. Of course, the problem then is determining what is an appropriate image. MOS:LEADIMAGE has been cited but generally ignored. Some of the images that have been proposed have been a hilltop, what appears to be a random building, a church etc, images that don't comply with the intent stated at MOS:LEADIMAGE. In all of the previous discussions (I think it's up to 7) when we get to the question of what images to include, the discussions go silent, which is why I recently raised WP:DEADHORSE. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If there remains problems with the RfC wording, I would suggest you discuss them on the talk page and work towards rewording them. You should not need an admin for that. You shouldn't even need a neutral third party for it. If you all cannot even come up with a suitable RfC wording by yourselves, I'm not sure if any of you should be editing that article or talk page. Clearly something has gone badly wrong. It's not like there are extremely complicated BLP affecting wording issues at play or this is something like that drug pricing mess. If most of you work towards coming up with a suitable RfC wording and 1 or 2 editors refuse to participate or are preventing any path forward, providing evidence of this when it happens will be more useful than simply highlighting that a flawed RfC was opened. Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reply to post above

• "All of the warnings left on Ashton 29's talk page were warranted and are explained in the discussion above." - You didn't use any evidence on the talk page to back your claims as to how Ashtono 29 was edit warring. If he indeed WAS edit warring (just as much as you were), a single warning would have sufficed. Possibly a second final warning at the extremes (which didn't really happen anyway). However, you felt the need to spam out an excessive number of warnings, to the point where you were posting warnings on his talk page for every edit he was making. You made no effort whatsoever to discuss this on his talk page, but rather you used your method of posting excessive warning templates in the hopes that it would stop all edits from him completely and leave the page in the way YOU believed it should have been.
• "Let's look at what actually happened shall we? An IP made a number of changes including this which was unsourced. Further it's completely misleading as there has been a lot of building in Sydney recently, especially in the western areas where multiple suburbs continue to be built and expanded. For that reason I reverted the change when I noticed it. Along came Okerefalls 11 minutes later and reverted with the summary "Own research" which made absolutely no sense. After I removed the unsourced content again, Okerefells returned two days later and restored the edit, this time with the summary "The original change by Aussie legend was based on a personal view - 'misleading without any source. Reversion doesnt require a source You are" which again doesn't make sense as the original change wasn't made by me. Yes, I did revert again but that was because the content still failed WP:V. Eventually, Okerefells provided a source for the claim, from over 6 years ago. Had I left it in the article, even with a tag attached, in all likelihood it would never be sourced. The IP has not returned and Okerefells edits far too infrequently." - again, you made no effort to discuss these issues with the user on their talk page. It becomes an edit war when you constantly revert edits without consulting them on the talk page and carrying on making reverts regardless if you personally believe the user's edits were wrong or correct.
• "He made some edits, one of which replaced an image of a building with an image of the building in the middle of the surrounding grounds with unrelated buildings surrounding that. I reverted with the summary..."
• "was not a good faith edit and the summary "tell me any of those landmarks in any of those images isn't a Sydney icon, recognisable to any Sydneysider...I'll wait." confirms it. Ashton 29 is well aware that there has been no consensus to add a montage and indeed that some of the images that he included have already been opposed." - once again, you made no efforts to work with Ashton 29 on his talk page and discuss these issues personally with him. Your edits were no more justified than Ashton 29's, and you were just as much in the wrong of making edits without a consensus.
• "The diffs presented elsewhere show that the warning left for Cement4802 was entirely justified given his refusal to retract his attacks. He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines." - my edit warring template was entirely justified, your actions directly fell under the definition of edit warring, and your behaviour was disruptive to proper discourse and diplomacy with other editors. Also in contrast to your behaviour of spamming unsubstantiated warning templates, I posted a single, justified warning template in response to your behaviour, to which you retaliated out of spite by misusing another template on my talk page and making threats for an apology or retraction. This is not in line with Wikipedia's community guidelines.
• "Let's talk about manipulation. Merbabu posted a list of editors who supported or opposed a montage on Talk:Sydney.[144] Cement4802 then decided to manipulate the list by editing Merbabu's post.[145] I removed two of these stating in my edit summary "Neither of these editors have expressly indicated support for a montage on this page. " - I simply added editors who were in support of the photomontage to the list, with evidence and backed up claims, to which you responded by manipulating the data and denying all evidence that was presented, in order to support your own agenda. You then proceeded to move the goalposts about who was allowed to be included in this list, which was never laid out initially, and was an action once again done out of spite in your disagreement with the facts presented and your desire to manipulate data so that it supported your agenda
  

Yet more personal attacks from AussieLegend I've decided to stay relatively quiet in this thread to minimise things from blowing up too much. However, in the several hours since this report was posted, here are a list of personal attacks AussieLegend, on this thread alone:

• "He has his own definitions that don't seem to match our policies or guidelines" - another false accusation that falsely diminishes the credibility of my actions, without any evidence. This falls under the definition of a personal attack
• "He has actually become more of a problem than Ashton 29" - I'm not sure if it can get more personal than this. Saying that an editor is "a problem" is way out of line
• "this is (the) anonymous troll who has posted to my talk page previously. Mind you, I am suspicious that it could also be one of two editors who have posted here recently (in reference to me or another editor who has replied to his comment)" - blatant name calling, referring to me or the other editor as a "troll" and blatantly making false allegations that I was indeed the IP address, with again no evidence whatsoever to back his claims.
• "This one is actually a bit funny" (in reference to my actions) - describing my actions in a mocking manner

To add to this, there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence. - Cement4802 (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Section Break

It should be noted that this is a fairly succinct report, it's just been bludgeoned to death by the subject of the report. I have issue with TParis's closure of the previous report describing my report as 'failed boomerang attempt only supported by those close to Ashton 29'. I have no relationship with Ashton 29, I have never seen Ashton 29 on Wikipedia. The report, replicated in part here, concerned AussieLegend stalking Ashton 29's contributions and making reversions or tiny, unnecessary edits to Ashton 29's contributions on articles AussieLegend has never edited before. It's a serious issue of harassment, with clear, easy to see evidence. Cjhard (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If that's true, that would indeed be disconcerting. El_C 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Reads more like a personal attack to me. I have been lied about many times in these discussions, but there's no point going into detail any more. That should have been addressed long ago. I'm still disturbed by the lack of Admin actions on things written on this Administrator noticeboard. Not the fault of the one Admin who has now responded, of course, but the whole Admin system. it's seriously failing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Accusing someone of a personal attack without any evidence, is in itself a personal attack. You claim to be the target of various personal attacks yet here you are dishing it out. - Cement4802 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the edits by Ashton 29 on 30 April 2020 at Historic preservation shows three edits, each marked minor, and each adding a couple of thousand bytes. People who have persisted doing that (misusing WP:MINOR) have been indeffed. It's not reasonable to justify "stalked all of Ashton 29's edits" by presenting a diff of AussieLegend informing Ashton 29 that minor should not be misused. There is too much stuff above. Can someone please present three reasonable diffs showing that AussieLegend has stalked Ashton 29. If not, would anyone making that claim please strike it. Let's deal with one thing at a time and sort out the next issue after clearing up the stalking claim. Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

On pages AussieLegend had never edited before:

• Ashton 29 edits Queen Victoria Market:[159] AussieLegend 17 minutes later: [160]
• Ashton 29 edits Geography of Sydney: [161] AussieLegend 2 hours later: [162]
• Ashton 29 edits Wales House, Sydney: [163] AussieLegend 25 minutes later: [164]

Cjhard (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I formatted the above post. It's clear that AussieLegend is checking Ashton 29's edits—that is obvious from the former's comments at User talk:Ashton 29. The question is whether that is WP:HOUNDING or justifiable checking given the overall picture—the reason contributions pages exist is to allow others to check someone's edits. I don't know the answer to that—those three diffs could be seen as an overreach. However, the solution for that would be for someone (not an opponent) to discuss the issue with AussieLegend. I'm prepared to do that except that on the couple of diffs I've checked, AussieLegend seems to be correct. For example, I just searched User talk:Ashton 29 to see the first three sections where AussieLegend commented. I have not yet examined the background, but looking at the issues suggests a problem that fully justifies checking Ashton 29's edits. The sections are March 2020 (claim of attacking other editors); Disruptive image editing (claim of slow edit war against consensus); and April 2020 (claim of attacking other editors). Given that Ashton 29 has been blocked for 72 hours "for making personal attacks", the first and third claims may be valid. The second claim is very detailed—it really looks as if investigation would confirm the claim. Are you aware of that background and whether that claim is valid? Sooner or later, people have to engage with the underlying issue (article content or talk page behavior that might disrupt article development). Johnuniq (talk) 05:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind; I have definitely been checking Ashton 29's edits. Whether I'm compiling a report for WP:AN3, WP:SPI, WP:ANI, or anywhere else for that matter, I like to be thorough so as to ensure that the case is completely covered and the person is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I was too thorough here for some people then I'm sorry, but I've never been a fan of the Salem Witch Trials type of prosecution:

She's a witch!

How do you know she's a witch?

She turned me into a newt!

A newt!?

I got better.

Ashton 29 has been editing problematically for a long time (several years!), refusing to respect the opinions of anyone else. I've detailed all of it in the first report so I won't restate it all here. The final straw that broke the camel's back was this bad faith edit, adding his montage to Sydney while there was an open discussion that he knew full well was active. His intent for this as disruptive was evident in the edit summary where he goaded other editors into reacting. That's why I went back through his edits, to compile evidence of his actions to present here, like this sneaky edit against consensus when he added an image that had previously been discussed and opposed on the talk page. He later justified the edit with ""that was an old vote, I highly doubt anybody cares enough know...plus, this image is more populated with people". So yes, I did check his posts to gather evidence that apparently was too much for some people to read. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A summary

My initial post in this section has been deemed too long so I have broken it into two parts. The first is a rebuttal of Cement4802's claims and the second is a list of diffs demonstrating his inappropriate editing and attacks (the attacks he claims that he never makes!).

A summary of the current situation is that, for a number of years, editors like Ashton 29 have been trying to get a montage added to the Sydney. The article is already top-heavy with images. Right now the article has 14,707 words of readable prose and 55 images including the infobox, or 1 image for every 267.4 words. For this reason, and that the images don't really add anything, a montage has almost always been opposed. When there has been some support for a montage, those supporting a montage have pushed for inclusion images that are generally obscure to anyone who is not intimately associated with Sydney, like File:Sydney (AU), Coastal Cliff Walk -- 2019 -- 2335.jpg. All of the discussions "fizzled out" at some point. In July 2019 Cement4802 started a discussion about a montage. That discussion fizzled out in August and restarted in December before going quiet in early January. A few days later, after some convassing,[165] discussion was restarted. The discussion has been on again-off again since then with virtually no progress being made. The pro-montage side has not attempted to provide any alternate images for use in the montage to replace those that have been ooposed and have discounted arguments citing MOS:LEADIMAGE, WP:TOURISTGUIDE etc without providing justification. At the same time, they have become increasingly aggressive in their attitude to other editors. Most of this has come from Ashton 29 but Cement4802 has been increasingly aggressive and this is where we are at now. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cement4802

• Cement4802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At the beginning of this report, Cement4802 made a number of claims, all of which I rebutted in the section titled AussieLegend's response part 1. I believe that Johnuniq's discussion above has adequately dealt with the lack of credibility in the claims made by Cement4802 (as defended by Cjhard) but I'd like to address two:

• He then tried to threaten an apology from me - On his talkpage Cement4802 wrote , in a section titled "Sydney infobox montage...cabal of editors with the same tiresome excuses!", "In fact, you have quite a long history of harassement, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and blatantly accusing other editors of actions without any substantiated evidence."[166] This claim, rather ironically, was made without any evidence to back it up. My response was "The warning that you left on my page was completely inappropriate as there was no edit-warring. If you believe there was, then by all means submit a report at WP:AN3. Either do that or remove the baseless allegations that you have made in the above post." No report was ever made at AN3, nor were the allegations removed. Instead, he responded with "please be mindful of the fact that you and another editor have been just as guilty of using personal attacks when you disagree with someone."[167] Again, Cement4802 has provided no evidence of these attacks.
• To add to all of this, AussieLegend has also been manipulating information - I've rebutted this above but if you check the diffs, you'll see how Cement4802 manipulated the list, adding editors who made no explicit claim of support.[168] He even included one editor twice.[169]

Cement4802 has persistently maintained that he has not attacked anyone, however this is not supported by the evidence. He even claimed it in his latest response here: there are also countless occassions where AussieLegend shamelessly accuses me of personal attacks without any substantiated evidence.[170] Clearly he did not bother to look at the diffs presented in AussieLegend's response part 2.

2. [171] " I could just as easily label any comment that you two have made as a personal attack on me, but I don't think I'll sink to that low." This was responded to by Doug Weller who said "when you say "I don't think I'll sink to that low" about an editor, that's a personal attack.".[172]

10. [173] Attacking HiLo48 by alleging HiLo48 made personal attacks

13. [174] Accusing me of personal attacks and more, per his MO.

14. [175] Accuses HiLo48 of attacking him this time after HiLo48 responded to his baseless claim that editors opposing a montage have always voiced that they're not happy or in support with any of the images being used in the photomontage.

16. [176] Attacks me and then claims he makes no attacks.

Of course, at no time has he actually provided evidence to support his claims and has actually tried to avoid doing so,[177] something I felt compelled to comment upon.[178]

I hope this was not too much information. I can address Cjhard later. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Cjhard

Cjhard's motivation for involving himself in this matter seems to have been a dislike for HiLo48 as evidenced by his first post.[179] Prior to that there was no involvement in the discussion at Talk:Sydney and he seems to have focussed on me because I share Hilo48's opinion on a montage. One of his earliest edits at the discussion was to support a montage,[180] but then he claimed to be uninvolved.[181] After that he attacked me on Ashton 29's talk page, after I'd warned Ashton 29 about marking all his edits as minor,[182] and then warned me on my talkpage.[183] After that he posted the "failed boomerang attempt" here,[184] all within the period of 1 hour. After that he suggested hatting a section at Talk:Sydney,[185] which I suggested he should do,[186] but he hasn't. He did attack me here, without any evidence, twice. (That's 142 words. Is that still too long?) --AussieLegend (✉) 17:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

A wall of test

-EEng

• The reason neither side is gaining traction in this dispute is because you all keep posting walls of test. Seriously, I wrote WP:ANI Advice for a reason.--v/r - TP 14:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Seriously? The summary that was asked for was only 241 words and the section on Cement4802 was only 472 words. By comparison, WP:ANI Advice is over 1,400 words. You do realise that you don't have to read both sections if you don't want to? If you think that's a wall of text I'll summarise it for you in a length that might suit you better: "Nobody can agree on a montage, pretty much everything Cement4802 has said can best be described as utter bullshit and the diffs prove that he attacks people!" That's only 26 words. Is that short enough? Should I include some pictures? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm giving you advice on how this board works. But, go ahead, mouth off at me. Let's see how effective that makes you.--v/r - TP 15:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • If what I wrote is too long then you need to rewrite WP:ANI Advice because a lot of the advice there is effectively pointless. For example: Only include some diffs - including all relevant diffs is a waste of time, don't explain anything, but if you do make it short enough so that nobody will be able to understand the context. And so on. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @AussieLegend: Should I include some pictures?...How about a montage?  ;) ——SN54129 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
      • That would probably be too many images. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

From TP "...you all keep posting walls of test" Firstly, I'll assume you meant "text". Secondly, that's a completely provocative and pointless comment, of the kind that leads me to respond with "BULLSHIT!!!!", but this time I'll just say, that's a lie. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

These outbursts will only lead to a no-action pox-on-both-their-houses close. In fact it's probably at that stage now. Participants can earn points for the future by constructively working at Talk:Sydney to close the current RfC as unhelpful (a support or close outcome would not give a clear outcome) and devise wording for a new proposal (see my suggestion above). I suggest also keeping evidence (off-wiki please) for a future report. Feel free to ping me if any of the significant issues raised above by either side are repeated (for example, flagrant abuse of WP:MINOR after a warning will get action). Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Does lying about the behaviour of others count? That's what my immediate preceding comment says. Do you call mine an outburst? Or should I let a blatant lie stand without defending myself? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Enix150 reported by HalJor

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Enix150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Repeated insertion of false entries at List of portmanteaus, warned several times (and dismissed those warnings as "petty nonesense" here and here) HalJor (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Enix150, while you are allowed to remove messages from your talk page, the reason given for doing so might have unnecessarily fueled the conflict. The easiest way to resolve the concerns is to provide reliable inline citations when adding content to Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued unsourced edits

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

---

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

Could I ask an admin to please look into the edits of Tobystewart. Their talk page is a xmas tree of warnings and requests that they obviously don't give a toss about as there has been no attempt at replying to any of the concerns raised by other editors. As such, I didn't bother to leave a warning for their latest dose of original research as I can see it will have zero effect. Here, here and here are just some of their most recent unsourced additions, happy to provide more if need be. Thanks. Robvanvee 16:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm very comfortable, after reviewing their contribs, that they aren't going to change and they'll continue to add unsourced BLP information into articles without a block.--v/r - TP 18:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviewing TParis. Robvanvee 18:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

IP editor stalking

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

---

It appears as though 151.20.106.206 is Stalking Nikkimaria and reverting all of his recent edits for no reason. Can We get an admin to look at this? Tknifton (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for a week by User:Vsmith Tknifton (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Historymatters007

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

---

• Historymatters007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jomark bene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Got a real great cocktail here: legal threat [187], possible sock, and a big 'ol COI. User has a bee in their bonnet regarding Angelique Monet, and a likely undisclosed COI (see their talk page and contribs, they are basically an SPA, most of their contribs were to the now deleted page). Today they blanked [188] a deletion discussion about the page. That came shortly after it was also blanked by Jomark bene [189]. Its possible that Jomark bene is a sock of Historymatters given the odd timing of the blanking of the same page. Though it could be unrelated: the Jomark bene account might be a troll account, as it was Jo-Jo Eumerus who closed who closed the discussion. Regardless, I tried to explain the situation to Historymatters, they weren't having none of it, and finished their discussion with the above linked legal threat. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

They're not the same person unless they're using proxies, which seems unlikely. I guess that could be a legal threat, but it's difficult to understand what it means. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Both accounts are blocked. Clearly WP:NOTHERE--v/r - TP 00:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Roxy the dog long-term incivility

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

---

Can an admin enforce the Wikipedia:Civility policy?

The last thread about Roxy the dog (talk · contribs)'s incivility was closed by Primefac because the events were 'not connected'. There is, however, a long-term pattern of shocking incivility. I posted some diffs to the last thread from mid-2019. I also commented on Bishonen's talkpage that while Roxy the dog might be stressed, the people who these insults are hurled at are real people with feelings, too.

Roxy the dog responded there:

• Sure, and sometimes people cherrypick (from the suspects Talk page for goodness sake) in order to stir the muck. I'll not use a bad word on Bish's page, but your post was kind of indicative of the sneaky unpleasant low lifes that exist around here. 19:06, 1 May 2020 [190]

I asked him to not use language like that on his talkpage. His response:

• Dont be so stupid. Unclench your arse, then go away. thanks. 22:21, 1 May 2020 [191]

I went through his talkpage's history from late 2018 when he was blocked for personal attacks the last time. This stuff is hard to believe:

• Good grief, they have unblocked the tosser. 07:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC) [192]
• Fuck off Boing, you and your colleagues are enabling a complete tosspot here. You should all be fucking ashamed. 09:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC) [193]
• Fuck off. 09:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC) [194]
• Alex Shih asked Roxy the dog to be more mindful on January 3, 2019. On the next day, Roxy told another user to "fuck off" through a word game.
• Seriously? Don’t be a plonker all your life. 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [195]
• Fuck off. 13:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [196]
• Arsehole. Did it ever occur to you that "Naughty" is an admonishment used gently, for children, and here you are, panties in a bunch, all over my Talk page like a rash. 20:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [197]
• Really fuck off. 05:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [198]
• Go away and learn WP:PAG 4 July 2019 (UTC) [199]
• Doubleplus fuck off. 05:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [200]
• Fuck off from this page. 16:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC) [201]
• Haha, that's hilarious, you little shit. 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC) [202]
• Learn to format your posts on Talk pages using colons, this is only polite. Now fuck off from this page. 07:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC) [203]
• Fuck off. Do not return. 16:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC) [204]
• A plonker gave me a warning, so I should give you one too, to balance the fates. 16:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC) [205]
• Wankers. 16:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC) [206]
• Arcturus Go fuck yourself. 12:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [207]

Clearly previous attempts at persuading him to treat other editors with respect have failed. Can someone say, with a straight face, that this is acceptable behavior or a good look for the community? An ANI thread from June 2019 was closed with the statement: "Unfortunately, incivility has been acceptable at Wikipedia for a very long time". So that is it? ANI is unable to deal even with the obvious patterns of egregious incivility? Is this a matter for WP:RFAR then? --Pudeo (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• There's not a single word I could use to express what I think of your actions here in opening this thread and what that says about you, personally, without likely being immediately blocked myself. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • You don't know me. All I will say is that Roxy the dog is not the only person who has had to grieve during the COVID-19 pandemic. Isn't this time a good reason to be more respectful towards each other, not less? This is long-term pattern and has not changed, and there is no excuse on hurling insults like this. --Pudeo (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • You're correct, I don't know you; all I have to go on are your actions here (Wikipedia in general, and your current focus on Roxy the dog as the current subset of that). I know as an admin I'm supposed to couch my response using platitudes and phrases such as "consideration of others" and  "inappropriate timing", but I'm not going to serve up a bowl of tepid oatmeal when only pasta arrabiata will hit the spot. I'll go hungry rather than indulge my cravings, because that's what years of Wikipedia indoctrination has trained me to do. Enjoy your pound of flesh, should it be on the menu at AN/I tonight.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponyo (talk • contribs)
• I fully agree with Pudeo that the time has come to deal with this editor. The list of personal attacks Pudeo cites are patent violations of WP:5P, specifically the core requirement that "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility." This is a clearcut case of an editor who has been warned and blocked, yet continues with a pattern of toxic attacks. Again, the Wikipedia-en community needs to deal with this editor here and now, and I commend Pudeo for filing this report. Jusdafax (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The timing of this thread... does not reflect well on the filer. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 23:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Please will some admin give a short block to Roxy the Dog with a sensible block rationale? Nobody benefits from this situation right now. Absconded Northerner (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Toxic behaviour comes in various forms, certainly telling people to fuck off (even if they ultimately do deserve it) is toxic, but equally toxic is the the sort of behaviour which sees someone filing a complaint given the current circumstances. Nick (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing the long-term pattern of shocking incivility here. Roxy the dog is clearly a fan of emotive and colorful language, and 7 actual insults is approximately 7 more than I'd care to use in the course of my editing. However, I don't see a block as a constructive outcome here. Please may I refer you, Pudeo, to the decision given in the case of Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I was also reminded of a legal case, but I considered the response from Private Eye in the Arkell v. Pressdram case to be more fitting here. Nick (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked at this editor's talk page and was appalled. What does it take to muzzle an editor who types such stuff? If we are taking a survey, I say to put a stop to such rudeness. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thats actually part of the evidence Nick (if you didnt click all the links. Of course if you did and that was the point of your post nevermind) I did take an in-depth look, but I got bored. Describing someone as a tosspot who (and the consensus was pretty firm on this point) was acting like an idiot and actively irritating other people? Telling an IP to fuck off - who was vandalising an article and showed up at their talkpage to complain about being reverted? Is that even a thing? Are we nice to vandals trying to win arguments now?. I am also not impressed with the timing. In a good month this would not be a good idea given the circumstances. When everyone is kettled inside and has short tempers already? I mean, there is not a lot of good going to come of this. If I were in the same situation, fuck off would be the least of the language you would hear from me. It would have more C's and probably involved the legitimacy of the filers birth. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• These profane delights have profane ends but I'm not seeing this case as a big deal. According to xtools, Roxy made 961 edits to the user talk namespace last year, and above I count 7 "fuck off"s (counting the "doubleplus fuck off" as two), putting Roxy's 2019 User talk FOPE rate (fuck offs per edit) at 0.7284%. This year, Roxy has made 309 user talk namespace edits, and above I count Roxy giving two "fuck off"s (counting the "go fuck yourself" as a "fuck off"), a 2020 FOPE of 0.64724%. This decrease in FOPE is an improvement, and rather remarkable given the loss they are grieving. (I remember when my dad died, I was more of a jerk than usual for a while, and I got to go to his funeral.) Now this reads like a polite message, and this a very impolite response, but when I read other relevant edits like this, and this, and this, it doesn't strike me as actionable any more. Roxy, sorry for your loss, I hope you keep your chin up and your FOPE down. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• About the most uncivil thing about this thread is Pudeo's filing of the complaint. The word "callous" comes to mind. I recommend closing this thread quickly, just like the previous one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• This report is reprehensible. El_C 00:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Questionable edits by admin user

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

---

The following page, [208], was moved from draft to article space by User:Zanimum. Almost all citations listed are self-published and none are reliable, independent sources. Please take a look at this article, when possible. HSE001 (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You may indeed be right, but I declined your prod and am referring you to AfD, instead. That should be it as far as any immediate administrative intervention is concerned. El_C 02:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

El_C, the admin user has added semi-protection to the page. Unable to add an AfD tag. Please take another look, very questionable behavior of User:Zanimum. HSE001 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

HSE001, that was me. I accidentally protected the wrong page. So sorry. Please feel free to add the AfD now. El_C 02:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I slipped, it happens. I got dazzled by the audited circulation of 450,000, which is significant in era of plummeting reach of print publications, and didn't full examine the sources. I'm not sure why this is being raised here? -- Zanimum (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You and me both. I'm going to close this report now as matters are in the WP:DR stage. El_C 06:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User 114.141.54.139 inserting the number 75 on multiple articles contrary to citations

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

---

114.141.54.139 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying to insert the number 75 on multiple BLP articles. They're trying to give it the appearance of legitamacy by occassionally including a cite.

diff1 - Cite without info posted

diff2

diff3 - cite without info posted

Changing to 75 contradicting existing source: diff4 diff5 diff6 diff7

diff8 - Cite given by user has 70 not the 75 placed into article

ToeFungii (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

User: 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A/High Speed 2

Clear case of incredibly disruptive editing, accusing editors that are trying to maintain the neutrality of an article regarding a politically controversial topic of being astroturfed. The anon doubling down on the accusations after being warned shows a complete lack of respect for the rules of civility. Sceptre (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor 'Sceptre' changes referenced text giving no reason why. He also deletes text in the open forum talk page he does not like. He should be banned ASAP. He is not conforming to the ethos of Wiki at the best. I suspect he is a paid astroturfer - HS2 Ltd released figures of many £100,000 for internet activity. He has an agenda for sure. This form of behaviour cannot be tolerated in Wiki, giving Wikipedia a bad name. Irrespective he has to banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m still chasing up money from Ferring Pharmaceutical after they gave Jo Swinson a time machine and told her to change her party’s policy four years ago, you think I have the time to do another astroturfing job? </sarcasm> (also, not for nothing, but of the three common singular third person pronouns, you go for the worst one…) Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I have done NOTHING wrong, you are making out I have. Sceptre is changing the article, deleting text with refs, giving no reason whatsoever. Also he is deleting sections of the talk page. Deleting open discussion because it does not follow an agenda? This is totally unacceptable contrary to what Wikipedia is about. Sceptre is clearly at fault, not me. he must be banned. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4D66:2954:F346:A75A (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sceptre: Is there is a reason it seems you're reverting the IP unambiguously? Their 400kph seems to be supported by a source and many of the other edits seem to just be editorial choice of language. @2A01...A754: Quit with the accusations of being a shill. That will get you blocked. Sceptre is not a paid shill. They are personal attacks and personal attacks may be removed from talk pages.--v/r - TP 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

  (ec w/TParis) IP, you would be better off taking the discussion about the merits of Sceptre's edits (or any others) to Talk:High Speed 2, but please don't accuse people of astroturfing. We have a guideline called Assume Good Faith, which editors are expected to follow. It's also worth pointing out that Sceptre has a very long track record in this community; it's unlikely in my opinion that somebody would make 75,000 edits over 15 years in a variety of subject areas just to cover up an agenda regarding a railway line which hadn't even been proposed when they started editing. I respectfully suggest that you're more likely to get a result if you calmly and concisely explain on the talk page what content you feel should be added or restored along with the relevant references. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

It is also worth pointing out that this IP range has a track record in incivility and disruptive editing which earned a 72-hour block, and is without doubt the same anonymous editor moving between IP addresses. I have no particular feeling either way about these recent edits, but the accusations of "astroturfing" and generally insulting language ("salivating train spotters") should be noted. Cnbrb (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Doc Jamester

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

---

Given the context, the edit[209] and the username, I suspect this "new" user is WP:NOTHERE or at least that an admin is going to want to keep an eye. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Confirmed sock of Milesaway0 (talk · contribs), who is also obviously someone's sock and now indeffed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate Article creation by Onceinawhile

On 22 March 2020, Onceinawhile moved (without any discussion) the article Well of Harod to 'Ain Jalut. At that time, he was apparently quite ok with the content of Well of Harod under the name of 'Ain Jalut. This undiscussed moved was contested and undone by Shrike on 7 April 2020‎ , and subsequently, a discussion ensued on that article's talk page regarding the common name, the result of which was to keep the name Well of Harod. Unable to get his way in that discussion, Onceinawhile came to an existing article - Ain Jalut - which was a redirect, and created what is essentially a duplicate of the Well of Harod article there, moving much of that article's content to the former redirect. when I objected, he edit warred his version back in. This is a blatant attempt to get around the result of the previous discussion. Onceinawhie should be sanctioned for this, and this article returned to a redirect. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Ain Jalut. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There was quite disruptive creation of article by Onceinawhile it was pretty clear that he will have no majority to move the article to his preferred tittle so he created this WP:POVFORK --Shrike (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Meh, use AFD, will be deleted shortly. Use AE if you really think sanctions are in order. Looks more silly than malicious though. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Continued disruption of upcoming election

• 74.196.78.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP user has repeatedly disrupted (if not vandalized) pages regarding an upcoming by-election, as seen:

1. here
2. here
3. many times here
4. and here a few times. Woko Sapien (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Declaring that someone has lost an election before it took place is clearly inappropriate behaviour.--69.157.252.96 (talk) 03:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)