Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User CejeroC disruptively editing

CejeroC (talk · contribs) has been inserting the parameter color_process into the infobox for multiple live-action film articles, and while it is a valid parameter, the documentation explicitly states, in fact in the first sentence of the description of the parameter, "For animated films only." I first notified Cejero of their misuse of the parameter in December of last year. On March 16 I became aware that they were continuing to misuse the parmeter and issued another warning that day. The following day I issued a final warning as they had continued to insert this parameter on live-action films. As far as I'm aware, neither any of my warnings nor any other messages left on their Talk page have been acknowledged, perhaps because they appear to be editing using a mobile device. I understand that as a result of that they may not even be aware that they are receiving notifications at their Talk page. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that leaves any options other than to block them until they acknowledge that they have read and understand that they are misusing the parameter in question. I would be happy to see them unblocked as soon as they indicated that they would stop applying that parameter for non-animated films, and am amenable to other options that will similarly result in their no longer making these disruptive edits.

Examples of misuse of parameter (all from March 17 or later):

• March 21 (after final warning) - [1]
• March 21 (after final warning) - [2]
• March 17 (precipitating final warning) - [3]

Thank you for your time. DonIago (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I have also observed no evidence of acknowledgement, apology or refutation argument from the user. The ability to acknowledge and either explain or apologise for disruptive editing (with merit or not) is essential. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC appears to have always edited on mobile, and almost all their edits are tagged as being made with the WMF mobile app rather than mobile web. They do not appear to have ever edited either a user talk page or an article talk page. It is my understanding (I don't have a smartphone but have seen Iridescent raise this issue) that the mobile app gives editors no indication they have messages other than a number that they may well overlook or misinterpret, and no link to their talk page. This person may well have no idea they have been warned against doing this. Is there a page they have hit repeatedly where a hidden note could be left? I know this came up here concerning another editor recently, and I've seen disbelief expressed on a Wikipedia-criticism site that I should not name on-wiki (by, IIRC, a member of Arbcom), so please excuse me if I have this wrong, but we urgently need to develop heuristics for such situations, because the WMF is apparently not likely to fix this glaring problem that we can't communicate with a very large class of relatively new community members. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The only pattern I saw is that their edits have focused on articles for older films, articles that probably don't have a lot of eyes on them. Unfortunately they appear to go in, make their edits, and then don't revisit the same article for months at a time, likely assisted by the aforementioned limited-oversight on such articles (i.e. if an article on your watchlist never updates, why would you go back to it?). I undid a large number of their erroneous edits last week, which may get their attention, but that's speculation. Unfortunately, in the interests of getting their attention, given their unpredictable editing habits, I'm not sure there's any option other than to block them. It's not what I'd prefer; I just don't know any other way to flag them down at this point. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

They don't have e-mail enabled either, so I took a radical step and plopped a big fat message to them at the top of Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1950–1959), which I saw they'd edited a couple of times recently. I'm not sure whether the app shows hidden messages, so I restricted my WP:IAR to disfiguring a draft. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the Android app (for me at least) gives logged-in users a very jarring and hard-to-ignore system-level alert. No idea how reliable that is, though. It's logged out users (on all apps and the mobile web), and all iOS app users who live in a bubble. See WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

That's interesting, thank you. I'm flying utterly blind here, I know almost nothing about using smartphones, so, a stupid question: after the ding and vibrate, can an Android app user then find the message? Is there a way to get to their talk page? IIRC Iridescent was laying a lot of the blame on the Minerva skin that's forced on mobile users by default? Yngvadottir (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Just tried a few more tests. Even with the app closed and the phone locked, I got a system-level push notification a few minutes after leaving a message on my alt's talk page. In it, there was a link to the talk page. I tried again with notifications for the app blocked (in Android settings), and of course got no push notification, as expected. But there was also no in-app notification, or at least it was so subtle that I missed it. I have no idea how many people block notifications for the app.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T274359

Aside, I tried using the app to reply here. Put "wp:ani" into the search bar and clicked the first result. Got a copy of ANI from August 2020! Going to sign off for tonight. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm use the Wikipedia Beta app for browsing and found that it is showing me "Stayfree76" from 27 August 2020!! Vikram Vincent 14:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits continue. [4]. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible to issue a block to persuade them to look at their talk page? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my thinking. Block them so that they'll read their talk page, acknowledge that they've been misusing the color_process parameter and will stop doing so, and then unblock them unless there are other concerns as well. Some of the film info they've added has been erroneous as well, but I don't have enough examples to make a case for a block on that basis. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

CejeroC is continuing to misuse the color_process parameter, as demonstrated by this edit as of March 28. DonIago (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I propose a WP:CIR block to persuade the user to look at their talk page and actually respond to messages since they do not appear to be aware of this discussion and their talk page in general. It seems to be the only option we have to get them to engage in discussion with the community. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On second thought that might not work either since custom block notices are broken on the mobile app. Does anyone have any other ideas? Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah: dump the mobile apps. EEng 12:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of stopping their disruptive edits, I don't know that any other options are available. I'd certainly prefer an option other than a block, but needing to fix their edits every time they do this is getting old quickly. We can hope that if they couldn't edit via the mobile app then they'd take a look at their PC to try to figure out what was going on. DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I no longer feel so alone and inadequate. I have never been able to make use of the phone for editing or even viewing current content. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried to view my Talk page using my phone and the Wikipedia app, IIRC, and I could see section headers but no text. I have some tricky coding on my page, but still... DonIago (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

User is reintroducing color_process after Doniago removed it. This is honestly getting frustrating at this point. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch! This implies that they either didn't notice that their previous addition had been reverted, or decided to reinsert the parameter regardless, without discussion. Perhaps it should be noted at this juncture that they also don't use edit summaries. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

User is STILL inappropriately adding color_process after numerous attempts at communication and getting them to stop. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Another example of the user adding color_process after repeated warnings. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think, after all this discussion, the only viable option is to block. People can't keep checking/correcting these edits while being unable to communicate with CejeroC. It's a poor solution but it will hopefully get their attention and an inquiry from them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone tried posting to his account on Meta so I did. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

1001st attempt at throwing spaghetti at the wall, Do we have any ability to log an editor out? If so, do we have any ability to alter the "Main Page" they see or any messaging they would get upon logging in? I'm guessing not, but spaghetti meet wall Slywriter (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit mind-blowing to me that he'd be a senior database administrator for WMF but never check his WP-EN Talk page... DonIago (talk) 23:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mark Ironie: What makes you think this case (CejeroC) is connected with JCrespo_(WMF)? Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Crap. At some point I got into the next section here, confused the names. Because there, editors were having difficulty reaching JCrespo_(WMF). I'm really off my game tonight. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I replaced User talk:CejeroC with a simple warning. Their lengthy talk page looked like something that I would ignore if I were a new user so it seemed best to make it clear. I would prefer some uninvolved opinions on whether a block would be appropriate if this continues but I'm prepared to implement a block if needed as the time wasting cannot continue. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  I think a block would be appropriate at this point. Maybe around 48h – they seem to be editing almost daily, so that should be enough to get them to notice –, with a block message that tries to direct them to use their talk page. I only just noticed someone said earlier those aren't displayed. Still, not like there are any other options. 22:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC) – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 22:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have worked- they're STILL doing the same thing! Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• And AGAIN. That old saying about the definition of insanity seems extremely relevant right now. I would hate to block this user since their edits have been generally constructive but I don't want to babysit and patrol their edits for the rest of my Wiki-editing career. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 11:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Relying on WP:IAR, I temporarily replaced Draft:List of Columbia Pictures films (1940–1949) with a message to CejeroC. They edited that page recently and frequently. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your efforts to get their attention! DonIago (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User has either not noticed or just doesn’t care- they’re still adding color_process. I’m afraid that the only viable option here might just be blocking them in the hope that they’ll check their talk page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

They've figured out how to use the revert option now. Padgriffin (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Correction- they did a manual revert. Point still stands. Padgriffin (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked for 48 hours as suggested above, given the evidence of continued disruptive editing. If the behavior continues right after the block expires, an indef will be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Bad Faith accusations by NeutralHomer

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

---

I made a series of edits to List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group to update the list of stations owned by Sinclair. As a source I use Sinclair's most recent 10-K filing which lists every station they own or operate. User:Neutralhomer insists without a source that they operate WDSI-TV. While Sinclair did purchase the assets of that station and transfer them to another station that they do own, they did not purchase the station itself and there is no proof that they operated it at anytime. It is is not part of their 10-K filing. NeutralHomer took the extreme step of reverting my entire series of edits and accusing me of vandalism. After I warned him that his bad faith behavior was borderline harassment, he reverted a second time and has now reported me for vandalism and demanding that I be blocked. His behavior is completely out of control and unacceptable. I made a good faith edit and accusing me of vandalism is straight-up WP:HARASSMENT. Aside from the fact that he is wrong about the disputed material, he is trying to weaponize what is a content dispute by calling my edits vandalism. There is no place for this behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, can we turn down the over-dramatics? Sinclair has a history of making "shell companies". The above user took this literally and shouldn't have. For a user who edits TV station pages, they should know this. Anyway, when I warned the user, I provided the sources needed, especially for WDSI. Their claim they had no proof, is wrong and a lie. It was provided to them before their created the above ANI post. They reverted, claiming "harrassment" (which is hysterical), and I reported them to AIV. Their revert to the WDSI page hilariously included the edit summary "you failed to provide a source", when I provided it on their talk page within the warning. Something I didn't have to do. I provided the source. They have claimed my report at AIV is "bad faith".

What we have here is a user who is wanting to operate within their own rules. 1) Do whatever they want. 2) If they get called out, complain with wild overly dramatic nonsense. Um...no? This isn't the way this works. We all follow the same set of rules. I didn't have to provide those sources (which took a two second Google search), but I did. That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:06 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Over-dramatics????? You're the one who came to my talk page and accused me of vandalism! That's one of the most offensive things you can do here! Not only that, you reverted a whole series of edits not just over the disputed material. I made a good faith edit, you are exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP. Your two sources does not say what you think they say Source #1 does not even mention WDSI. If you read beyond the headline on source #2 it says Sinclair purchased the "purchased the programming and assets of WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV." They did not purchase the broadcast license and there's no mention of them operating the station. Why? Because they moved the Fox affiliate to their own station WTVC. It one thing to have a source, but you actually have to read the sources you're providing (and not just the headline). NeutralHomer is operating within his own rules. If he disagrees with someone's edit, he just accuses them of vandalism. No talk page discussion, nothing! More proof of NeutralHomer's ownership is in this other unpleasant interaction I just had with him. Um, who's been here for almost 16 years, has multiple GAs and an FA under his belt? Yeah, that'd be me....I know what a damned primary source is, ya damned fool! Finally, that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing What has I been sanctioned for? The only sanction imposed on me was quickly rescinded by the community, so please don't make even more false allegations (you've made enough already). I wouldn't have brought it up otherwise, but your own block log is already a mile long.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This just keeps getting worse, now NeutralHomer edited his post to include more "sources" [5]. Problem is that none of these mention WDSI nor prove his allegation that New Age Media (the owner of WDSI) is just a Sinclair "shell company". Zero proof has been provided that WDSI was ever owned or operated by Sinclair. They purchased the programming assets, moved the Fox affiliation to their own station, that's it. They do not own or operate WDSI, never have.--Rusf10 (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That's one of the most offensive things you can do here. = Over-dramatics. Trust me, after 16 years, that's the least offensive thing you can do here.

Now, what you got sanctioned for, no idea, I just can read your talk page. :) 1, 2, 3, and 4. I never said I was an angel. :) In fact, if asked, I would readily admit that I wasn't an angel. :) You don't get to be here for 16 years without going through a few pairs of horns. But I did something right, cause I'm still here. :)

By the way, we are verging on "content dispute" territory and "admins really aren't gonna care" and "take it to talk" territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:42 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Every time someone brings me to ANI is not a sanction. And the actual sanction that was rescinded, I have no obligation to explain that to you, so please do not talk of things that you have no knowledge about. What is important here is that you cannot edit my comments as you did here. Please do not do it again. Yes, this would have otherwise been a content dispute, but in content disputes you don't make bad faith accusations of vandalism which is exactly what you did and why this is now at ANI. And yes it is offensive to have someone like yourself come to my talk page and accuse me of vandalism on a series of edits I made in good faith.--Rusf10 (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You do understand that that is called an edit conflict. It happens. Usually the system catches it and throws an actual edit conflict warning up, but in this case, it actually copy/pasted my edit over yours. Calm down, wasn't intentional.

Now, to once again, show you this and this proving that, yes, indeed, Sinclair owned or at least operated WDSI-TV and has since at least 2015. You've known this for at least 2 hours now, though I suspect much longer....but at least two hours. Stop acting like you have no idea about this. You've known for at least 2 hours.

The bad faith is, and continues to be, entirely yours as long as you continue to act like this is totally unknown to you. You still have not addressed any of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:11 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

Redirect: A "sanction" is not someone taking you to ANI. A sanction is someone placing a punishment against you. Especially when ArbCom is involved or a TopicBan. That's not just "[being] taken to ANI", that's a punishment. You did something wrong and you got punished for it. Also in this post, the "sanction placed on you...is now removed". Now, why would someone say you had a sanction placed on you or had one removeded, if you were just "being taken to ANI". That makes no coherent sense.

In this post, an admin, warns you (they say "you should still consider this a warning") that if you continued to "[file] vexatious requests for admin intervention against ideological opponents and recognize that if you continue to do so any admin is likely to hit you with a standard sanction like a topic ban." So, you have a history of receiving sanctions and being warned about coming damned close to getting them. Getting TopicBans and InteractionBans. Not cool, dude. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:22 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

First of all, don't call me dude. Second, what the hell that that have to do with anything? I am not going to waste time here explaining previous sanctions that were rescinded (and for good reason). None of this concerns you, all you need to know is I'm not under any sanctions currently. Repeatedly bringing up the topic is a WP:PERSONALATTACK and you should be blocked for it. Here is Neutralhomer's block log and you have what seem to be active sanctions, proving that your record is far worse than mine, so cut the crap.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In some Class A hilarity, Rusf10 removed the source with the edit summary removing false information, source provided does not backup claim that Sinclair operates station (or ever did), they simply purchased station's assets and moved them to their own station. No mention of master service agreement either. Just wow! Nowhere in the source does it say that. They just made that up in their heads. Without showing any evidence to back it up...except one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat since Sinclair has a history of shell companies.

Sorry, dude (it's a non-gender conforming "beach" term to mean any human who's gender is unknown...otherwise I would use "Sir" or "Ma'am"), but you have taken out a reliable source (I can add another) because it doesn't confirm to your world view. Just cause you don't like it isn't a personal attack. Oh, and since you bring up my block log (nope, not under any active sanctions) and make accusations about me (yeah, you just did), I can do the same. That's not a personal attack, I have receipts, as the kids like to say.

Let's talk about my block log. The one in July 2018, I earned that, I was dick. The one later that year, that was an overzealous admin and was quickly overturned, still on my record. The one in 2020, definitely earned that one and I'm proud of it. Yes, that came with a topic ban, but a very "unethical" one in my and many other's opinions. I'll leave it up to you to find those discussions. But I'm proud of the issues we raised in that conversation and hopefully, one day, that topic ban will be lifted. If not, I'm OK with it. We did good work in raising attention to a major phobia and erasure here at Wikipedia.

So, yeah, pre-2012, I wasn't an angel....I readily admit it. Post-2018, I had blocks, but with I earned them in one way or another. Since you won't even discuss yours, consider my bringing them up a "personal attack", that says more about you than me. Says you'd rather distract from the real discussion, your actions, and spin it around on me, then actually deal with the problem. I'm not it....it's you. You haven't address multiple issues. Also notice, no admin has posted on this thread.....they don't care. They are letting us deal with this ourselves...or letting us "punch ourselves out". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:10 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I've already explained the content dispute and why you didn't actually read your source.it doesn't confirm to your world view No, this is a simple matter of fact. Either Sinclair owns and/or operates this station (even through a shell company as you allege) or they don't. one SEC filing, which I've proven isn't worth squat Let me try to educate you. The SEC filing is highly reliable since there are legal consequences for putting false or misleading information on such filings. If you actually read it Sinclair not only lists every station it owns or operates (and doesn't own), but discloses its relationships with these other companies you are talking about (and New World, owner of WDSI is not one of them).

It would be a waste of everyone's time to explain my previous sanction which the community rescinded because they found it to be inappropriate. It is also not related to the issue here and your repeated mention of it is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK. The fact that you're proud of your sanctions shows you've learned nothing and I am not going to waste my time trying to research them because quite frankly I don't care.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've explained to you, the fact it is not mentioned in your precious SEC filing is moot (and at this point not even worth mentioning...repeatedly), as Sinclair has shell companies. Shell companies that they operate as completely seperate entities from Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. (SBGI), making that SEC filing...pointless. They give two shits less about FCC consequences (seeing as they have been fined repeatedly), you think they care about the SEC?! Look at the sources, I provided proof on two of those fines. The fact you'd rather overlook that, speaks more to you than I. Also, the fact that an SEC reference is "highly reliable", but FCC sources aren't highly reliable is just hypocritcal...and funny. :)

As for WP:SANCTIONS and WP:BLOCKs, I think you need to read up on those. You seem to have an issue on tell which is which. Yes, I am proud of that 2020 block and TopicBan. It was "unethical", it was against the rules of Wikipedia, should never have been issued, and I will wear it like a badge of honor until it is removed and the articles that were vandalized by the same users are restored. I have a fairly large and vocal community behind me on this one, so we'll keep at it. :) Oh, and your calling everything a "personal attack" is removing all meaning of what a personal attack is. Calling you out on your hypocracy is not a personal attack, it is what it is, calling you out on publically available information. You do it to me, I'll do it to you. You did, I "returned fire". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I never said the FCC was unreliable, I just said it didn't establish notability. That's two completely different things. I don't know what your personal beef is with Sinclair (I have no feeling on the company one way or the other, I just wanted an accurate list), but making the accusation that they are falsifying an SEC filing is very serious and I suggest you retract it. 10-K filings are not only are signed off on by company executives but are also reviewed by an independent registered public accounting firm (In this case Pwc). I have not personally attacked you, but you continue to do it to me. Accusing me of vandalism for a good faith edit and repeatedly bringing up unrelated (and rescinded) past sanctions are personal attacks.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually your words were "They are not even close to be 'highly notable'". I have no "personal beef" and if you wanted an "accurate list" you would use the references given to you instead of using only ONE source. Multiple sources are generally expected under GNG and RS for not only an article, but any sentence. When faced with new sources, you must change the article, not ignore them. Sorry, this is Wikipedia. We include...>EVERYTHING!

As for your harping on "personal attacks" where there aren't any, I'm beginning to feel personally attacked.

As for PricewaterhouseCoopers, Sinclair's Treasurer and Vice President Justin L. Bray, he used to work for them and in fact, still holds a senior management position with PwC. PwC isn't the most ethical company on the planet either (just this side of Deutsche Bank). So, they would definitely overlook Sinclair's shell companies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:05 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer:, please strike this comment. As far as I can see, having looked at this, the SEC 10-K filed by Sinclair *does* capture stations where Sinclair operates (via an LMA) a station that is owned by a shell corporation (or a legitimate third party); those are the ones marked with "(d)" in the filing. I don't have a very high opinion of the truthfulness of executives, myself, but you've just alleged that a named, living person has engaged in a *particular* criminal action without adequate sourcing. This is a clear WP:BLP violation. There's now plenty of discussion on the article talk page that helps reconcile the apparent discrepancies in different sources about WDSI without invoking this sort of conspiracy theory. Please back it up before bad things happen. Choess (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Choess: Thank you for asking nicely. Honestly, in this mess of a discussion, I appreciate it and it's refreshing. :) I looked back on and yeah, you have a point. Never thought of the BLP aspect, so a definite point can be made there for a BLP violation (even though that person doesn't have an article), I'll admit to that. I'll take the ding for that one. So struck. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• ADMINS: Would an admin or three mind putting their 2 cents in and bring this to a final conclusion? It would be appreciated. I'm getting a headache from banging my head against the wall and I'm running out of sticks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:40 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I am not even a particularly knowledgeable or experienced Wikipedian. I do know, however, that you two richly deserve one another. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Dear God no. I'm just trying to beat sense into an already dead horse. I'd personally rather go stand in traffic in the middle of my local interstate, but I have a strong dislike for people who just don't get it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, I am terrified to even ask this, but here we go. I understand Rusf10's logic here (not that I necessarily agree), but I am having trouble following your argument. Certainly shell companies exist, but what sources are you relying on with regard to this particular edit? Apologies if I am being dense, but let me know at your convenience. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Why be terrified? These are the examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" including New Age Media. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:03 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? Apart from the personal vitriol between you (which could lead to both of you being topic-banned from the area) I don't see what ANI can do here. For the purpose of resolution, I will comment on the content dispute: while I'm not sure WDSI-TV even has a website, the co-owned WFLI-TV's website http://chattanoogacw.com/ has "© 2021 Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc.". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: The website would be part of the Master Service Agreement referenced here. As for further content dispute resolution, does the previous source and this one cover the New Age Media sources (like WDSI-TV and WFLI-TV) and these examples of Sinclair's history of "shell companies" further source the edits removed by Rusf10 on List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:35 on March 28, 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, perhaps you should try WP:DRN? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Actually, DRN won't take it. Both on the technicality that this thread is open, and because it appears neither of you have commented on any article talk page on this topic. Please post the sea-of-links on a talk page; if you can't prove your point in 2 links it's too complicated for ANI. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@力:New Age Media owns both WDSI and WFLI and Sinclair operates WFLI for them, that is not in dispute. Sinclair only purchased certain assets (the Fox affiliation, the studios, etc.) of WDSI, not the station itself. Then they moved the Fox affiliation to WTVC (a station they own). They never operated or owned WDSI. NeutralHomer is now pushing a conspiracy theory where Sinclair is able to falsify their 10-K filings with the SEC by exerting control over PriceWaterhouseCooper for the purpose of hiding their ownership in WDSI.
Understand that I wouldn't bring a content dispute to ANI. That's not why this is here. This is here because NeutralHomer asserts that not only am I wrong, but I intentionally vandalized a page. He first asserted this on my talk page and then filed a false report at WP:AIV (links above). We are here because of his unacceptable behavior. I either want an apology from him for accusing me of vandalism or if he refuses, I want a block. The choice is his. --Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rusf10: Aha, we do have something suitable for ANI. Content disputes are not vandalism, and Neutralhomer must refrain from claiming that they are in the future. (An apology might be nice, but I wouldn't expect one while you are arguing.) I must continue to insist that the content dispute be discussed on an article talk page, I will not respond to that part of your comment here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: Yeah, not apologizing. I have no problem taking it to talk (expected and predicted above, also called the "content dispute"), we are going to need a mediator as nothing will get done. I make points, he ignores them and jumps up and down about how I've personally attacked him and all about this SEC filing. This precious SEC filing. We can take it to talk, no problem, but an admin mediator is going to need to be required or this will never be resolved. This was not a content dispuite, especially when the two sources were given within the warning I issued. But it devolved into one when Rusf10 brought it to ANI, spun this into something about me, ignored every source I brought up as if the SEC filing was the end all, be all. What it was and what it is were two totally different things. Talk page, fine. But I request a mediator, I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down, I request the effected pages be temporarily locked during the discussion, else we have nothing to discuss. I have been quite polite, Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this. He brought this to ANI, I issued a warning and it was left at that. He chose to continue the behavior when he reverted. Talk page, mediator, fine. He chills out. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:37 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I've started Talk:List of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group#Dispute regarding WDSI. Please take your content discussions there. Admins might be the same people that mediate content disputes, but that's not part of the "admin" job for ANI purposes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力:I understand, but you've seen how this has gone. If you think this has been a devolved nightmare, I'm fairly certain that will be just as worse. :( But, here we go. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:43 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Continued false allegations

Neutralhomer continues to make false allegations about me. Let's set the facts straight.

• I request Rusf10 calm his accusations of "personal attacks" and demands of blocks down The first person to request a block was Neutralhomer [6] Requesting block
• Rusf10 has been the aggressor in this The first interaction was [7] where I was accused of vandalism. I think that qualifies as an act of aggression.
• I have been quite polite [8]Do NOT attempt another completely moronic amount of vandalism like this again. Repeat this action and I report your account for vandalism and assure it is blocked. I shouldn't have to find the sources for this FOR you. You should find this YOURSELF. DON'T let it happen again. Again, same post to my talk page , sounds real polite.
  

This is why we are here, not the content dispute.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• It's been a little over a year since you were last blocked for this kind of behavior, @Neutralhomer:. I'd kind of assumed you'd re-learned your lesson and put it all behind you. You are really in the wrong here (behavior-wise, I have no opinion on the content). I'm not sure you understand how close you (NH) are to being blocked here. This is not just a content dispute. I know you don't like me, but I've never given you bad advice. I really advise you to stop with the battleground behavior. Doubling down on it is the wrong move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Actually, what I don't like is admins not responding two the actual issues. "I have no opinion on the content" is what I have gotten from 力 and now you. Now, this is what happened last time and that vandal was allowed to run around roughshot for a couple weeks before he was finally shut down. Unless we are talking about 2020 and I don't think anyone wants to bring up the Asexual Erasure discussion that lit ANI/AN and many other pages aflame, leading to me and several other editors getting blocked and topic banned, while the people doing the erasing got nothing. So, have an opinion, either one of you. Cause not having an opinion isn't helpful. Pouncing on me and yelling the ever convenient "content dispute" isn't helpful. There are plenty of topics here, plenty of content, plenty of points. I urge you to have an opinion on those and not like my opinion on you cloud that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I do have an opinion, AND I WILL EXPRESS IT AT THE TALK PAGE. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@力: Actually, that was a reply to Floquenbeam, not you. Perhaps it would be best served if Floquenbeam, unassociated with the discussion, or someone who isn't so, um, hot tempered (?) takes over the moderating. I believe that would be best, because that, my friend, was unnecessary. <_<? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• (1) Power~enwiki is not an admin, nor am I. (Floquenbeam is.) (2) This board is for dealing with behavioral problems. It does not settle content disputes, which must be settled on article talk pages or at WP:Dispute resolution. (3) When an admin tells you that you're close to being blocked for your behavior, it's probably best not to lash out at them. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• An admin will need to respond to the thread at User_talk:Neutralhomer User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Block Neutralhomer

Neutralhomer continues to personally attack me on an article talk page [9] and repeatedly restore the personal attack [10] and [11] after I removed the personal attacks citing WP:TPO. Other users have become involved in the content dispute discussion and it has been productive. Everyone else has been respectful except Neutralhomer. He has attacked my character, misrepresented previous ANI discussions that I have been involved in (saying I was put under sanctions even when it was the other party involved that actually was or the sanction was rescinded), and now called me incompetent. This is unacceptable WP:HARASSMENT. Based on the fact that his last block which was also for harassment occurred only about a year ago and was for 72 hours, I am proposing a one week block--Rusf10 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. This will give myself and other users more than enough time to settle this content dispute peacefully. As I was about to post this proposal Neutralhomer unilaterally tried to close this thread [12]. He is out of control!--Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Response: User has previously reverted my edits for TPO violations, is engaged in an edit war over mysterious "personal attacks", because I dare mention his supposedly long expired "sanctions" (he did bring up my block log first...fair play). Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment.

Since Rusf10 wishes to bring up that block, but Cullen328 was heavily involved in a [Talk:Pauley_Perrette#Coming_out_on_Twitter massive discussion] regarding Pauley Perrette (actress, formerly on NCIS) and whether she came out as Asexual via her Twitter account. I was blocked by Cullen328 and topic-banned from the Pauley Perrette article. ArbCom, somehow, got involved and in a stunning display of Asexual Erasure and blocking, were allowed to place sanctions and topic bans on anyone who basically argued against what they were doing. I was subject to harrassment, both here and on Twitter, and anon's from the community basically demanded to answer their questions about her sexuality. A disgusting display all around. The entire Asexuality Community came together (which I wasn't apart of, but discussed the innerworkings of Wikipedia to that day and have formed friendships with) and fought against Wikipedia.

So, yes, I was blocked for "harrassment". Who I was "harrassing" remains unclear. I am proud of that block because I was on the right side of that block, I did my part, and we fought for what was right that day. We showed that Wikipedia isn't all Sunshines, Rainbows, Happiness, and Inclusion like they might want people to think. It's a LOT of erasure too. We might have lost that battle, but we fought, and they war against erasure sure as hell ain't over (on any platform) and I'll be there (I don't like bullies).

So, yeah, let's talk about my 2020 block. I'm more than happy to. I'm quite open about it. In fact, I share it with everyone. What I don't do is say it's a "personal attack" and "no one's business" and "they should be blocked" for bringing it up. Bring it up....I clearly don't have anything to hide. Does Rusf10? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Oh and Speedy Close and SALT this entire discussion (top to bottom) and BURN IT from space. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

I was not involved in that 2020 matter when I blocked you, Neutralhomer, despite your repeated claims to the contrary. I acted strictly as an administrator enforcing BLP policy rather than as an editor advocating for content. You wrote at the time But since you did give me permission and since you have now violated another rule (WP:NOPUNISH, on top of INVOLVED) by continuing this block as it has now gone into the punitive state (I am topic banned from the page and the block is for "battlefield behavior at Talk:Pauley Perrette"), I will be more than happy to add this to the complaint I will file against you when the block concludes (remember, you did give me permission). I note for the record that you never filed a complaint against me as you said you would at the time. If you were to do so, I would defend myself vigorously. Yes, I gave you permission (not that you needed it) to file a complaint against me because I was fully confident that I had acted correctly and that your complaint would fail. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To summarize the matter in a few words (rare at this noticeboard), your behavior regarding Pauley Perrette was way out of line, and your block and topic ban were entirely appropriate and proper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh please Cullen, we can debate all day whether or not you were involved or not (you were, you know it, you shouldn't have blocked me, you know that too), but it doesn't matter. You all won. You got to erase everything from all those articles. Ned got to have his fun, everyone else got to have their fun.|

Yeah, I could have filed a complaint against you. Would it have done any good? No. Would it have gone anywhere? No. Would I have gotten immediate flack from a couple 3 dozen admin? Yes! But I had bigger fish to fry...microscopic fish.

Look at the timestamps. One year ago just about. What happened a couple weeks after that? Yeah, the world fell apart. I was getting over Bronchitis (and a wicked case of the Flu...we think) and trying to do my job and keep kids and teachers safe (I'm a custodian for a public school). I didn't have time to play pretend world with you and everyone else. I had a job to do and to do something extremely important. Keep everyone safe. That complaint was the last thing on my mind. At that time, we had rising Flu A and Flu B cases and I was trying to keep that entire school clean. We were doing a good job. You didn't factor in. Wikipedia didn't factor in. Personally, I didn't think about any of this for a couple weeks. My edits basically fell off for a month. What do you think I was doing? So, I didn't really care.

But you were involved and that was a year ago. This all has nothing to do with what is going on right now. Rusf10 is trying to deflect from his current behavior. So, focus on me...fine...or focus on the real issue....him. This time, have an opinion, you didn't before either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR? Malarkey! You were. Rusf10 is deflecting. Let's focus on the actual issue. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:09 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

• Neutralhomer does not get to continue to lie about me and attack me! He is the worst type of editor, he created this problem by attacking me and now he wants to be the victim. It doesn't work that way! #1 mysterious "personal attacks" no they're not mysterious, its all right here What we have here is a user, who is borderline CIR, and who has, been, repeatedly, sanctioned or topic/interaction banned (though he will call it a "personal attack" for me to even mention it and ask I be blocked, yet again pushing the rules. #2he did bring up my block log first...fair playNot true at all, its right here on this page. I already quoted it once, let's do it again [13] That's not "bad faith", that's a paddling to a user who has been previously sanctioned and then handed something to continue editing....only to have it thrown back in my face. That's bullshit. Bringing up years old sanctions that were quickly rescinded to attack my character and try to get his way in a content dispute.#3Now, because the user is basically being ignored in the discussion over at the WDSI-TV talk page No, I've been participating there and the others have mostly agreed with me that Sinclair does not own or operate the station with User:Sammi Brie doing an exceptional job with research and I thank her. #4and this ANI thread had been closed (or not), he is now engaging in his own harrassment. He closed the thread himself, he can't do that! (see WP:NACINV) Finally if Neutralhomer wants to re-litigate his dispute with user:Cullen328, he can do it elsewhere. Whether that past block was right or wrong, Neutralhomer still deserves a new block based solely on his unacceptable behavior here.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You brought the block up. You are re-litigating it by bringing it up. If you didn't want it brought up, you shouldn't have brought it up. Dude, project much?!

Actually, no one has agreed with you and Sammi has agreed with neither of us. We were both wrong. New Age Media owns it (you were right) and Sinclair has some programming on the station and has some operating control (probably master control), I was right. No one was 100% correct. We were both wrong. I willing and perfectly able to admit that I am wrong. Yeah, I was wrong. But so were you.

You took all of this way too far. You had the sources in front of you, you were given them within the warning, you were given them in the ANI thread, and yet you turned this into a 2 day WP:ICANTHEARYOU-athon. Yes, it has become borderline CIR when someone is constantly telling you something over and over and over and over and over again ad naseum and you don't seem to get it in a spectacular display I'm not listening and I'm right, you're wrong!

Now, the two main points (the WDSI-TV article and the List of Sinclair stations) have been taken care of by the amazing Sammi Brie....who I owe a big thanks. I think that should end this entire thing and with that we shouldn't have to EVER speak to each other again. Now, I'm going to go over to this other side of the internet. If you want to continue this, that's up to you.

The ball is officially in your court. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:26 on March 29, 2021 (UTC)

Just an uninvolved observer here to say- this is one of the most ridiculous, and yet entertaining threads I've seen in a day or two. You both look silly. My recomendation- walk away for 24-48 hours, then go to the article talk page and have an actual good faith discussion instead of this childish hissy fit. But what do I know.... Nightenbelle (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Support: Yeah this does seem like a case of WP:Harassment. This does not seem like a constructive message Waqob (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: After reading the long thread, Neutralhomer seems to have a point. TBH, there's nothing personal when he warned Rusf10 despite going out of line with his warnings. Rusf10's edits may be in good faith, but he refuses to admit that he's wrong even if Neutralhomer provided the sources are there. Instead, he keeps on throwing hissyfits, making this situation worse. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 18:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

This is misrepresentation of what happened.If my edits were in good faith (as you say), then accusing me of vandalism is completely wrong (in other words, no warning should have been issued at all). He just reverted my edit and immediately accused me of vandalism, no discussion. I already laid out the content dispute above. Further research which was not done by NeutralHomer revealed a technicality where Sinclair provides master control operations, but does not own or program the station. His sources (which were only provided later) did not even show this. So if you're saying I was wrong on a technically, fine, but NeutralHomer was not even aware of that at the time. His argument was the station was being controlled by Sinclair though a shell company, which turned out not to be true.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Superastig Appreciated, but unfortunately, I am not allowed to comment on this further.

Floquenbeam It's been many days since your various "epilogue[s]" and I'm still getting hassled regarding this by Rusf10 (I got pinged). I haven't [[Special:Contributions/Neutralhomer|had any contact with him or issued any warnings (even when they were necessary)], but he sure wants to keep this going.....I'm not allowed to comment on anything per you and Drmies above. I'm not. I would ask you to kindly request Rusf10 to do the same and close this thread and any others. Thank you kindly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26 on April 5, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, you pinged me. I don't know why and I can't say I'm really interested. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, we can just close this thing out now, I don't see this going anywhere. I only responded today because someone called me out and I need to correct the facts. I've already explained the entire situation at length. I have no idea who pinged NeutralHomer, it wasn't me, so not sure how I'm being accused of hassling him. And trying to get Drmies (an admin that has been very hostile towards me in the past) involved is not going to help. Mies, don't think I didn't notice the shot you took at me by inserting a unnecessary second closing into the other thread and implying that I did something wrong. Unfortunately, that kind of behavior from you has become expected.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been asserted that I pinged NeutralHomer without any diff. I am confused as to why he would say such a thing. Maybe he's confused?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support an interaction ban, not a block. It looks like Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) is correct in their reading of the sources, and it looks like Rusf10 (talk · contribs) was operating in good faith. This doesn't really matter, though, because both of their behavior has escalated to an embarrassing point. They should step back and realize that at the end of the day, this is a website and not a life-or-death. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Close with No Action I thought this was already closed with a warning to Neutralhomer several days ago. As Neutralhomer has certainly already been warned at this point, the thread can just be closed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• No Vote - but I think the longer this drones on, the closer it gets to tempting passing admins. to respond. NH can do some good work on the article side of the pie chart (Stephens City, Virginia, WINC (AM)), so if they could be lured back to that area, and away from "teh dramaz" - I suspect this little episode could be closed. (*hint, hint*) — Ched (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Blocked IP is back as Great Khaan

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

---

• Great Khaan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.153.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new IP used in the meantime
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Last time I made a report I was reprimanded for writing it too long, so I will try to put together report as short as possible. Few days ago I reported IP for extreme language and tone on the article Talk page, which resulted in blocking the IP. However, editor behind the IP immediately returned with the username Great Khaan, and resumed with more of the same - walls of ill-formatted text, full of statements like these, with lots of it in all caps:

First post today:

• What you are doing is pointless and will not pass. This is a Wikipedia editing, not a kindergarten.
• and you continue again. you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)
• The only place on the planet where that term does not exist (more precisely - the term has been ignored) is extreme-right historiography in Croatia.
• And isn't it inappropriate for you to behave like a child whose toy has been taken away?
• You mention the Bosnian Wikipedia non-stop, and when someone else mentions that YOU ARE ACCUSED OF VANDALISM THERE (also you are trying to implement it here, on the same article), then it is inappropriate. AGAIN DOUBLE STANDARDS AND CONTRADCTIONS. (Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia)
• Since you started talking about religious affiliation (again without the necessary knowledge) I will list several Orthodox churches and monasteries that Kosače built (Completely misconstrued, off topic, nationalistic)

Second post today:

• I warn you once again - this is not a courtroom. There is no place for lawyer manipulations here.
• (I)n the articles you edited on Wikipedia, you referred to Flavius ​​Biondo (on the article Red Croatia). Despite the fact that he presented the information he copied from Dandolo (and Dandolo copied it from the Chronicle of the priest Dukljanin), you took it as relevant information. However, when the same Flavio Biondo mentions DUCATUS SANCTI SABAE, you ignore it, however, I have never put a comma at that article, nor referred to it in any way - things like these are norm every time editor attributes something to me!
• once again confirms that you do not know what you are talking about.

This is just a fraction from today.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – The following boxed content was deleted in this revision and has been restored per WP:TPO guidelines. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Talk:Duchy of St Sava (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Santasa speaks untruths and half-truths. He took a sharp and intolerant attitude towards anyone who did not want to obey his biased editing. He has been accused of VANDALISM on the Bosnian Wikipedia and is now trying to divert attention from it. Since he made a series of claims based on personal views (which can be seen in the TP discussion "The Duchy of St. Sava"), he tried in this way, by manipulation, to achieve some result. Whoever sees this should first look at the talk pages and see what it is about. Now he is trying to make a trial here and divert attention from his activities and biases. I proved on TP Duchy of Saint Sava that he does not know the topic he wants to write about well enough. And he perceives every correction as enmity despite the fact that they are supported by historical sources of the first and second order, as well as scientific papers. He is not interested in the truth AND approaches editing Wikipedia too personally.

As for the article "Red Croatia", the editors who edit the article Duchy of Saint Sava also edit Red Croatia. I saw the same names on both articles. I explained the whole problem around that article on TP Duchy of Saint Sava pointing out the inadmissible practice of DOUBLE STANDARDS. My desire is to improve Wikipedia as much as possible. With double standards, that is very difficult. BTW What I said can be seen in the article"s editing history. Few of them argue from the same positions on the article Duchy of Saint Sava. I can't always know who I'm talking to. It's like talking to the same person.

What I have noticed is that the same editors always appear on problematic articles. in this regard this stand my remarks on DOUBLE STANDARDS. All this needs to be examined.

If necessary, next time I will quote his inappropriate behavior more thoroughly. It will take more time to prepare it all. It would also be good to observe the TP discussion. Santana will not accept the arguments. The discussion always returns to the starting point trying to make it meaningless which can easily be seen from the very course of the TP discussion. No need to retell it here. Whoever is interested can look there. They are not interested in arguments at all. Even the books they refer to "speak" against their claims. Also, Santasa99 resents me when I quote quotes from Google books (although he does the same) and then he is bothered by photos of paper books.

P.S. One example of not telling the truth. Santasa says: "Needles to say I didn't mention Bosnian wikipedia"

I am quoting his accusation addressed to me (which is incorrect as can be verified by comparing IP addresses). Santasa wrote (14:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)):

"You are probably AnToni, which, if true, means that you are an admin of one of the WMF's project, namely Wikipedia in Bosnian language. That would put you in a position where you should know better how to keep decorum and personal conduct at tolerable minimum."

"since your first sudden appearance in English lang. wikipedia few days ago (after dispute at Bosnian language wikipedia)" (15:09, 29 March 2021 )

On the other hand, I would like to draw your attention to his inappropriate tone and belittling of respected scientists. - Mithad Kozličić, Mateo Bratanić, Sanda Uglešić - they analyzing old cartography in "THE DEMARCATION BETWEEN CROATIA AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA IN THE UNA REGION FROM THE 17th TO THE 20th CENTURY ACCORDING TO ORIGINAL CARTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL"

He quotes books (cheripicking) that he has not read and when those books confirm my claims then he gets angry. And then it starts discrediting writers and scientists. When he receives a warning about his contradictory behavior he pretends that nothing happened.

This is only a small part.

Great Khaan (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I have placed a Discretionary Sanctions Alert for the Balkans and Eastern Europe on the talk page of Great Khan. Santasa99 received one in July 2020. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I really hope that someone is going to put an end to this (latest) kind of abuse of Talk page, aspersions and targeted wp:harassment, (U)ntil I started corresponding with you, I had no idea that people with prejudices could degrade the quality of articles on Wikipedia, so much. I am glad to contribute to solving this problem., commenting on my report with Is that your tactic? Choking discussion with procedural issues, attempting to intimidate by reporting to the administrator?, by a sock 109.165.155.47 (talk · contribs)-Great Khaan (talk · contribs), who has not put a one letter or comma into article space except four initial reverts without explanations as IP. After article got protected on my request same IP continued on TP, but as soon as IP range got blocked on my request (ANI linked above), they appeared as Great Khaan. No editor shouldn’t be put through the ordeal, and I haven't even respond let alone provoked them in any way - I asked once for more consideration with enormous ill-formatted posts, however, of 66 edits on TP as Great Khaan and 19 as IP in last fourteen days almost all came behind my reply-posts to other editors, completely choking my discussions with walls of text containing diatribes that are one step from insults. Actually, some are personal insults (you INSULT US ALL WITH YOUR IGNORANCE)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Santasa99 stifles the debate. He is unable to accept evidence to refute his claims. I am asking for the supervision of that article (more precisely, article and TP discussion) to assess the situation.

He cannot answer me with arguments and tries to make this TP discussion a problematic "case". What he is doing there is an insult to the logic. There is no source, scientific study (not even the ones he quoted and probably didn't even read) that will convince him that he is wrong.

I said in my previous post that he brought out a series of untruths and half-truths. He blames me for no reason for everything (btw he is,also, accused of vandalizing this article in other languages). Administrators must ask themselves why he is behaving this way. This is not about editing Wikipedia. This is obviously not about science, but about personal prejudices that he publishes on Wikipedia. He selectively quotes literature (cherry-picking) and when I prove to him by argument that he is mistaken, he gets angry. I suppose, he expects you to solve a problem he made himself.

He provokes with his ignoring all the facts that speak against his claim. He belittles all dissenters. He is bothered by quoting Google books, he is bothered by photos of ordinary books. This situation must be clarified. I post relevant historical sources and literature. He provoked a slightly sharper discussion by belittling highly esteemed names in the world of science. The reason - their scientific work does not agree with his view of the world.

And now he’s complaining trying to blame me for everything. If you pay attention, he has had conflicts with others before. He presents some conspiracy theories: tells me I'm an editor from another Wikipedia. He mentions various names of these editors, etc. If it’s not an insult and a malicious accusation I don’t know what is?

It is very important to make an assessment of the conversation on the talk page as well as the arguments. In this way (With these complaints to administrators) he is trying to prevent me from giving my contribution because I have started to expose double standards.

He despises all the highly regarded scientists I quote. Only for one reason because they do not support his delusions.This guy talks about things and events that he doesn't know enough about. on the other hand, He is probably trying to play the card - that he is very experienced on Wikipedia and will try to stop me from contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia with procedural issues. Since there are no arguments, he has no choice but to try this. I find it very bad to constantly complain about everything.

I think the misuse of these reports should be prevented.

Great Khaan (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to clear the air, I am not the only editor there who object their persistent abuse of the process and complete disregard for policies. These persistent misconstrue of words or actions is norm in their discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Whoever looks at the debate there will understand what is happening. I'm posting arguments you're insulting scientists. As for the others you mention, the 2-3 editors from the controversial Croatian Wikipedia are participating there. I have pointed out double standards and a selective approach to editing articles. I have posted an abundance of unbiased sources and scientific studies from around the world, I have even quoted the scientific papers you have cited. And after that you started complaint. It is obvious what is happening here. It's your way of trying to censor the truth. I will continue to publish historical sources from all over Europe as well as scientific papers from all over the world.

https://balkaninsight.com/2018/03/26/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018/

Great Khaan (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point Great Khaan trying to solicit support for this ANI on the article Talk page [14]--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on Wikidata by Santasa 99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Duchy_of_St_Sava#Disruption_on_Wikidata Great Khaan (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• This on my talk page appears to be WP:CANVASSING by Great Khaan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken It's not. Didn't I get a message from you to discuss with you on your page? I don't get it. Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

That was part of the DS Alert. I did not write it, it's part of the text of the alert. And, for that matter, you didn't discuss the alert or what Discretionary Sanctions means for you, you just pointed me to the dispute with Santasa99, which is not relevant to why you received the alert. I gave you the alert simply because you have edited in the DS subject area of the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken It would be good to warn the user Santasa99 not to abuse the possibility of appeal. In case there are no arguments, he complains (as far as I have noticed, this is a common case here). In this way he tries to enforce censorship. Doesn't anyone see that? I did not know that there was a possibility of appeal, nor was I interested in that possibility. It's hilarious. But Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand.

P.S. I deal with facts, not complaints. ::Great Khaan (talk) 03:42 01 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, here are some facts:

• (1) Anyone can place a DS Alert on an editor's talk page, not just an admin.
• (2) I am not an admin, never have been, never will be.
• (3) I am not interested in becoming involved in your dispute with Santasa99, so I will not be warning them about anything, even if such a warning was justified, which I'm not sure it is.
• (4) However, that being said, I see no "abuse" of the "possibility of appeal" by Santas99.
• (5) On the other hand, your edits on this page have been very aggressive, which is odd for a brand-new editor with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart.
• (6) That leads me to think that it's possible that Santasa99's complaint about you being a previously blocked IP might have validity.
• (7) I see no "censorship"; please read WP:FREESPEECH, which basically says that you have no right of free speech on Wikipedia, which is a private website.
• (8) Your expressed philosophy "Such people must be answered with the same measure. Only such language do they understand" looks to be to be in violation of our WP:Civility policy, and if not, is certainly contradictory to the Wikipedia philosophy.
• (9) I am asking you not to ping me again. I am aware of this discussion and will come to it when I wish to, not at your beck and call.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken As for ping - like I said, I'm new here. I need time to understand all the wiki terminology.

I would like you to read this carefully but not to misunderstand. I don't know if I'm asking a lot? Aggr. are biased claims and accusations (5 and 6 + Canv.). You have an a priori hostile attitude towards me even though I am new here. You need to look at Santana99 aggressiveness on the TP . A whole new level of aggression.

I post the facts and when he saw that he was wrong, he started with "wiki-data disruption" →→(it was not me who noticed it but other editors)and he is trying to divert attention from his illegal activities with unfounded complaints←← (i.e. tries to make a "case" here). I have already proved that he is lying (this is the right word) when he said that he never mentioned the Bosnian Wikipedia (there are quotes above) which he tried to vandalize. And no, no one ever blocked me. I don't know what you're talking about. And as far as I can see, Santana99 blocks opponents when he has no other arguments. He acts from covert extremist positions (this is the right word). And he deals with some conspiracy theories while at the same time accusing others of it. I see that he has already had conflicts with other editors and that he even accused me (at the above-mentioned TP ) of being two or three of those editors. Hilarious. It's all easy to check. Conspiracy theories are always easier than thinking with your own head. And if aggression is →→insisting on scientifically based facts←← - wouldn't it be better for all of us to be more aggressive because those who place various conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and wider false news (like Santana99 and co.) do so very aggressively? We get tired of unimportant things and procedures while the world disappears in a sea of false news and claims. Pseudo-science, charlatans and extremists (left and right) are taking over the world.

→→Important NOTE←←

If I am ag., as you say, because I am →→fighting for scientifically based facts←← and I do not allow myself to be intimidated by any threats then I do not know where this world is going. Are sycophants a desirable type of person? I have never been and never will be like that. I am not able to pretend and act like Santasa99.

The CONCLUSION would be (and you correct me if I'm wrong): is it enough for someone to understand the procedure well (and abuse it) and to be right regardless of the fact that his claims have nothing to do with the truth? Aside from the fact that he is very, very aggressive (Santasa99 and co.).

As for you personally, if it's easier for you to block me by uncritically accepting Santana99 claims - feel free to do so. I will not be at a loss. I will save myself a lot of time that I have dedicated to editing Wikipedia.

→→Important NOTE←←

As for my "way of writing", I speak several languages ​​(and I use few classical ones). English is just one of them. And not the first language. Language determines the way we think and act. In my native language, things are called by their real names. I probably pass (subconsciously) those habits on to the foreign languages ​​I use. Besides, this is not malicious. I think it can be healing for everyone to understand that the world will be a much better place if people stop being hypocrites and sycophants.

If I'm not "suitable" for you (EW), then aggressive manipulators like Santana99 (and his co.) are the right guys for EW. In that case, this is not the place for me. So I have no problem with that. Wikipedia has a problem. Santasa99 has been editing Wikipedia from covert extremist positions for several years (with the support of editors who switched from the very NOTORIOUS Croatian Wikipedia to EW and none of you /administrators/ have noticed.

THEN, HE IS A CHAMPION. He can laugh in our faces. I can only tell him - well done master. Great Khaan (talk) 14:02 01 April 2021 (UTC)

Users latest ping, following my attempt to communicate with other editors (I refused to communicate with them from the beginning) is to inform me that: You will not pass falsification and aggression (practice from the Croatian Wikipedia). Just one look at the →→historical sources and literature that I publish is enough for any impartial observer to see that you are wrong←←. You are acting from an extreme right-wing position., and that they are going to continue "to publish the source" on TP, which is at this point almost unusable, as being completely overwhelmed by long posts with diatribes, such as here on ANI above, and even longer lists of irrelevant links of scraped key-words and key-phrases from the Internet and Google Books, which they believe are exactly what RS are all about.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sycophant?! A frikin hypocrite and sycophant?!? I just read all the way through, and is there any slur that you somehow accidentally forgot and left-out when referring to me in the last 2+ weeks?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Just read through this thread. Didn’t know anything about the users/issues beforehand. Very puzzled by how Great khaan hasn’t been blocked already. I must be missing something. DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't play victim Santasa 99. For 3 weeks, you have been insulting all the world's scientists and historians who are not to your liking. BTW I will refrain from all comments until the situation around Santasa99 "Wiki distruption" is resolved. Only then can we talk.

P.S. A sycophant is a general description of some people. When I wrote that, I had in mind the general picture. I didn't mention you. If you recognized yourself in those words - it's not my problem but yours. Great Khaan (talk) 22:17 03 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Great Khaan for block evasion and for personal attacks and bludgeoning here and at Talk:Duchy of St Sava. Woodroar (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef per Woodroar. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• NOT Support any block of Great Khaan. It seems that the Santasa99 was the first to start insulting everyone who does not think like him. It seems that the Santasa99 himself started the conflict and "stretches" the debate indefinitely despite the arguments. On this occasion, I have to ask myself why is he doing this? Clementine2015.2015 (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• I have indef'ed Great Khaan, and the user above boldly, as this is rather obvious sockpuppetry going on. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good call! Although Clementine2015.2015 posting here 6 minutes after creation wasn’t subtle! DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have  Confirmed Great Khaan (talk · contribs) to Clementine2015.2015 (talk · contribs) and MireyaThePrincess (talk · contribs) per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan. No comment on any IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse block - You coulda knocked me over with a feather. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: As far as I am concerned this case can be closed now. I find its epilogue satisfactory as it solves the problem at TP, caused by the reported user, although it came as a consequence of their socking, not examination of their rather extreme conduct in TP discussions. Thanks to all and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Acousmana uncivil, rude, and not WP:AGF

Hi there. The user in question has used uncivil language when talking with others. They have also been accused of personal attacks and I believe they have been rude to others. Here is evidence:

On the user's talk page:

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Techno, gentlecollapse6 in good faith leaves a warning message to which they reply with It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually when referring to gentlecollapse's actions.

• Actual quote - "stop leaving silly warning messages on user pages in lieu of consulting citations you have been provided with. It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually".

• Under User talk:Acousmana#May 2020, they reply with the somewhat rude comment You do know the English speaking world is not just America, right? to the good faith MrX.
• Under User talk:Acousmana#January 2021, they reply with the uncivil comment using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something? to the good faith Walrus Ji.

• Actual quote -"bombarding folk with notices like this rather than using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something?" Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Under User talk:Acousmana#Cultural Marxism Conspiracy Theory they reply with the sarcastic and uncivil comment of welcome to the circle jerk: you agree, go you. which I believe refers to the sexual act of circle jerk (reading the article it appears to have metaphorical connotations but I was still unsure as to the exact meaning so I thought best to point this out).
• Under User talk:Acousmana#Personal attacks, they are accused of WP:NPA by Springee ([15])
• Under User talk:Acousmana#March 2021, most recently, they reply to VQuakr with are you aroused now after that display of authority?, which I find to be quite rude.

Elsewhere:

• [16] here, they use the terms plain stupid and Dumb. Uncivil language that doesn't help a discussion.
• At Talk:PragerU, the user was questioned by a number of users for their response to a good faith statement from Hipal. The user said don't be so dramatic, a comment which they later put a line through.

• Misrepresentation, the entire contribution to the discussion was struck to withdraw a content proposal, it was also in response to an accusation that "hand-waving and goal-post-moving going on here to push content" which is clearly not AGF. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Later at this talk page, under Talk:PragerU#Uneccisary Credits, they made the comments laughable, complaining it's a "hit-piece," gee, let me see, a nutty right-wing organization funded by fracking billionaires and old rich white folk who want to pay less tax while trying to indoctrinate gen-z's with their Judaeo-Christian zealotry - while attacking climate science, minority groups, women's rights, academia, etc. - and run by some dude who complains because "the left have made it impossible to say the n-word any longer." ROFL at the level the apologists are prepared to sink here. and so some old white dude is railing against the injustice of not being able to use a word... the injustice of it eh? the injustice of having to do something about racism, global warming, police brutality, women's rights, LGBT rights, [insert unjust cause here], that's some BS right there. And editors are happy to roll up here and defend this stuff. Speaks volumes.. While not uncivil or rude towards a particular editor, these comments aren't appropriate for a talk page and don't help the discussion in the slightest. EytanMelech then replies with Thank you for injecting these unrelated arguments into a conversation that didn't even need them.

• again, misrepresentation, an editor characterized a WP:RSP source as a "hit-piece," this reply summarizes substantive issues highlighted by source. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• More a note to self, but also feel free to discuss (I know the more appropriate place is RFD), the redirects of Post-modern conservatism and Postmodern conservatism seem inappropriate. striked as not place to discuss. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Inappropriate? see The Rise of Post-Modern Conservatism Neoliberalism, Post-Modern Culture, and Reactionary Politics, Palgrave Studies in Classical Liberalism, 2020. Acousmana (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope this is sufficient evidence for you to see a pattern of behaviour. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse a warning here: With the caveat that some of the content here is fairly stale, there is a pattern here that needs addressing. Acousmana, at a minimum these recurrent denigrating allusions to your rhetorical opposition feeling aroused need to stop absolutely immediately, as this sort of thing is easily taken to fall under the umbrella of harassment--and just plain weird and uncomfortable, to be frank. There are other additional notes of less than collaborative or respectful tone in the diffs as well. You seem to engage of largely contentious areas here, and if you are going to do so, I think you are going to run into problems if you can't moderate the heat-to-light ratio of some of your input. I wouldn't support a sanction at this juncture, but I think you're likely to end up back here if you can't augment your adoption of the considerations of WP:CIV a bit. Snow ^{let's rap} 02:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Something should be done. A warning is probably sufficient but I wouldn't object to a tban. That said, I am involved in a number of topics where Acousmana has become active and we typically do not agree on content questions. Willbb234 noted an attack against me at one of those. "the extent of your willingness to delude yourself knows no bounds," Perhaps such a comment was said in frustration but on their talk page they denied it was a personal attack [[17]]. Perhaps Acousmana's view was changed when another editor called it a clear NPA violation. Such incivility makes constructive edits on challenging topics that much more difficult. Springee (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• • OK, fair enough, an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. But I find it odd that this editor has clearly gone out of their way to string together out of context material, and actually misquote and misrepresent in the process, this is in itself not AGF. The motivation here is to my mind questionable. But, if the community sees it fit to place a ban, so be it. Acousmana (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • I never misquoted you. As for misrepresentation, it would be inappropriate to copy and paste a whole comment or discussion onto ANI and the links to the discussions will suffice. This isn't misrepresentation. As for why I reported you here: I don't like seeing editors being uncivil and I will investigate even when it isn't directed at me and so I decided to gather some evidence. I don't see why this should be a problem. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • You say an editor has a problem with my tone, so I'll dial it down. No, I have a real issue with the language you are using not just a problem with your tone. I also wouldn't like you to "dial it down"; I'd like you to stop altogether with being rude and uncivil. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I apologise if were offended by my language, I can you assure that going forward you, or the community, will not be troubled by this. But, can I ask, and this is a genuine query, do you regularly report editors here for language usage you find disturbing?
• I also have to ask, what is it you find particularly problematic about this re-direct when it is sourced to academic literature? Acousmana (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• (non-admin comment) "I apologise if [you] were offended" is the classic non-apology apology. Narky Blert (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• not sure how casting aspersions helps any here, AGF. Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'll strike my comment regarding the redirect as this isn't the place to discuss this. The reason I had concern was because a search for "postmodern conservatism" shows up nothing about the right-wing or right-wing populism. Also, simply put, conservatism isn't the right-wing. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• The community is fortunate enough to have users and administrators who are quick and effective at dealing with language that is disturbing and the policies have little tolerance for this. This means that I don't regularly report users for this behaviour although I do recall having done so in the past. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Are you willing to accept my assurances on this matter? Acousmana (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Acousmana has said they are going to avoid the editor focused comments in the future. I think this should be acceptable. Could we get an admin to close this as editor acknowledged. Springee (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate that there are editors here willing to offer a second chance, left scratching my head as to why the listing editor - who I've never, to my knowledge, previously engaged with - didn't simply raise their concerns on my talk page first. And, why they have refused to acknowledge an apology? Left with the impression that this was someone with an ideological bone to pick. But that's for others to assess. Acousmana (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Issues about your conduct were already raised on your talk page. These comments were not acted upon as you continued to act inappropriately as evidenced above. If you believe I started this thread because of some ideological differences, then you will need to present some more evidence other than a page I recently created were I list some hoaxes and lies from mainstream media. I also don't see how that changes anything.

As for this supposed apology, it felt empty as another editor pointed out. It wasn't "sorry for the comments" or "sorry, I'll be better in the future", but rather "I'll continue to do it in the future and you can piss off if you feel offended".

As for "ideological" conflicts, it might backfire: [18][19] considering your past comments.

Also what the fuck is this? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Having already provided a sincere assurance, I would ask that you observe WP:AGF. Is there any particular reason you speedily deleted your user page before the conclusion of this ANI? Acousmana (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you need to know why I speedily deleted my userpage. I thought this discussion was on your actions, not mine. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Willbb234, could you delete User:Willbb234/Mainstream media lies? It borders on WP:POLEMIC, especially the comments on race. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree. That being said, I'll delete it as, on second thought, perhaps it isn't the best place to compile such a list. Kind regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User disallowing others' edits performed during their vacation

User Yaakov Wa. has been on a wikibreak (per this announcement). Upon return today, editor reverted to the last revision before this break, effectively rolling back all edits by other users during their absence. Following my reversion of this action, user repeated the rollback. I have attempted to discuss this with the editor at Talk:Messiah in Judaism#Suggestion and am unable to intervene further due to 3RR.

For context, this page has since 19 February been the venue for a high volume of tendentious editing by Yaakov Wa., largely without consensus or substantial discussion (notwithstanding Yaakov's attempts to contact other users via email and video conference). Exasperated attempts by Warshy at discussion in more appropriate venues led to one prior ANI report. Attempts by myself and Editor2020 to at least improve the quality of Yaakov's edits have led to the incident I am reporting here. Ibadibam (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted. Seems to be a bit of a WP:OWN situation going on here. — Czello 07:58, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is a fairly new editor. Ibadibam did mention why it wasn't a great idea, but there hasn't been real discussion of it. Technically, WP:BRD still applies and this is really a content issue, although his reverting twice in 24 hours isn't good. This really needs to be on the article talk page, with an attempt to resolve it there. Hopefully it won't have to have admin intervention, but at this time, it really isn't ripe for sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Ibadibam, and any other editors,

Firstly, in regards to discussions where communication is paramount, I believe it is preferable to use verbal and visual communication. I am available for approximately 4 more hours from posted time. If any editor wishes to set up zoom meeting, please put message on User_talk:Yaakov_Wa. and this meeting will be open to all editors. Up until verbal/visual communication is achieved, I will do my best to understand and respond via non-verbal communication.

Now, in regards to situation:

I will lay out response in three parts. a)will lay out general background of editing Messiah in Judaism, b) then discuss edits over break. c) will discuss rational for keeping proposed structure until discussion at talk page.

a) In regards to general background, started editing feb 19. Was advised to discuss at talk page. I discussed proposal at talk page feb 21. Was given feedback on this proposal as well as support. and feedback discussed. After feedback was inputted and WP:consensus achieved, began overhaul on feb 23. With lots of discussion about content in edit history.

b) Up until the break, the page had the organization[20] along proposed overhaul, with exception of etymology which was discussed. Ibadibam, and other Editors chose to keep organization mainly along proposed overhaul.

Then, during the announced break, as Ibadibam mentioned above, major changes in organization were done. I found this peculiar because these changes in organization started during week when I announced I would not be editing. There were ample opportunity for editors to request changes in organization before the break.

c) Based on the above, I believe that the article should be temporarily kept according to prior consensus of overhaul (with exception of etymology). I am very open to discussion and feedback. Ibadibam appears competent(I have probably asked at least 10 users to give assistance and feedback to this article). I welcome Ibadibam's future discussions and contributions. I encourage any editors (preferably with hebrew and technical skills) to make proposals and edits to this article. However, as Dennis mentioned, we must go according to WP:BRD, which in this case requires us to temporarily have Messiah in Judaism at prior consensus.

Blessings,

Yaakov W. Yaakov Wa. (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

• the response above rather than alleviate concerns only increases them in particular that the editor is not familiar with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV. The editor is attempting to over-represent a one-sided accounting of the issue according to a particular religious sect. They also claim a consensus for an overhaul when really, one lightly active editor gave a message of support. Maybe this can be solved at the talk page but if nothing else, they should be warned that they are not to revert edits because they need time to personally review the edits before restoring the ones they find acceptable. This isn't a pending changes queue and they are not the sole arbitrator of what readers can see. Even now, they are expressing opinions on which editors are competent (and what skills sets are preferred to edit the article) and I am concerned that point c is a belief that WP:BRD gets their version restored and other editors will have to negotiate consensus around their preferences. Slywriter (talk) 22:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• BRD isn’t about giving an editor time to review edits before the public is *allowed* to see them. Reverts should be only for when an editor has a reason to disagree with an edit. (Never thought I would have to write that.) That and their tone in the above post seems to suggest they think they are the editor-in-chief for this article. But, given their newness, I suspect it’s more WP:NOCLUE than WP:OWN. Probably of greater concern is what appears to be their POV editing that’s already been referred to. DeCausa (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• I completely agree with Slywriter and DeCausa's comments above, and I would like to fill in some other details, if I can. Ibadibam, Editor2020 and myself have been so far the only regular, veteran editors who have edited the page since this completely biased, one-sided religious POV so-called "overhaul" was one-sidedly 'declared,' pretty much out-of-the-blue. I want to be on the record again here, as I have been consistently on the article's talk-page discussions, that the new one-sided declaration above, that a supposed "consensus" for this so-called "overhaul" was ever achieved with me is completely false and misleading. I continued to consistently oppose the "overhaul" up to the user's one-sidedly declared "break," and I am still opposed to it at this moment. I posted several more in-depth arguments against the basic motivation and the completely biased religious POV that this new user brings to the task, based on all the primary sources he is singularly using for the proposed task, and I also declared there that I was still considering going back to the article's last stable version, before this so-called one-sided "overhaul" started. I still have this version specified in the article's talk-page. My suggestion at this point would be to go back to that stable version, and allow the new editor to re-start his attempts at changing certain paragraphs or sections by proposing localized, limited changes on the talk-page first, and have this proposed localized, limited changes discussed and approved. Once every new localized, limited change is proposed, discussed, and approved by all involved editors, then it can be implemented. That is how I had originally suggested the new user goes about his intended task. He gave me a short reply at that point, which I did not bother to reply to, and he took it then one-sidedly to mean I was withdrawing my explicitly stated reservations about the entire "task." Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Warshy: Starting over seems like a good idea. I suggest you propose a revert to the stable version on the talk page and see what the other involved editors think. M.Bitton (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe it will be preferable for anyone with questions to join zoom meeting on my talk page. Non-verbal communication is not-very-effective communication.Yaakov Wa. (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This isn't how we handle things on Wikipedia. We discuss articles on their talk page, not through a Zoom meeting. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I remember already explaining to Yaakov Wa that relevant talk pages should be used, so that WP:CONSENSUS can be assessed, not only by the article's history, but also by the talk archives. That is also where RFCs take place, etc. Wikipedia editors are free to refuse invitations to off-WP venues and the state of the article should not depend on their presence (or absence) there. Some editors may even consider such invitations suspicious. —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that Yaakov Wa has a habit of posting invites to multiple editors’ talk pages asking them to edit Messiah in Judaism. It’s been claimed on the article talk page that Yaakov Wa is editing to push a Chabad POV, and a cursory look at their edits seems to justify that claim. It’s not clear to me how he’s selecting these editors he contacts (he usually refers to seeing relevant ‘skills’ in their edits elsewhere) but what he said here, and this post to an editor with a Chabad user box, raises a question of an attempt at WP:CANVASSING. DeCausa (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• There is a branch of Chabad who does not acknowledge the existence of streams of thought different from their own regarding moshiach. NPOV is literally against their religion. if Yaakov Wa is part of that sect, he should probably be topic-banned until he gets a sense of how Wikipedia works and decides whether it's for him. 207.172.174.5 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yaakov Wa., you talk of non-verbal communication being ineffective, but that is what we use at Wikipedia. If it isn't effective for you, then this is the wrong hobby for you. I'm not going to Zoom with you (or anyone), and most other's aren't either. Besides, all discussion about an article are supposed to take place here so everyone can participate. Reverting to your favored version is still edit warring and WILL get you blocked. Read that last line twice, please. Read WP:BRD. Twice. You don't seem to understand how things work here. They don't work according to your preferences, there is an established set of guidelines and policies that you are expected to follow. Reading your replies, I don't have high hopes for your future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal (Yaakov Wa.)

Given the ongoing issues with Yaakov Wa.'s editing evidenced above and in prior ANI discussions, and taking into account this very recent response that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy concerning original research, I think that a topic ban from Jewish theology, broadly construed, for 1 month is appropriate. I also think that they should be formally warned against inviting editors to resolve editing disputes through off-Wikipedia venues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Given the tone-deaf response, I would agree but would opt for 90 days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support But could his return (whether 30 or 90 days) be conditional on satisfying an admin of his understanding of WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NPOV and, well, basically what’s expected in writing full grammatical sentences when adding content? I’m not sure what’s going to change just through a period of absence. (Btw, I wasn’t even sure if he was replying to me (in Rosguill’s diff) or just carrying on with his original post as if my post was invisible. I think the latter. Either way I could see there was no point in saying anything else.) DeCausa (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv

I'm a little concerned here by behavior I've seen from this user concerning edits to the page Northwest Post-Grunge. The article was deleted via afd and then recreated at very nearly the same level less than four days later with no attempt to address any of the raised issues in any meaningful capacity, which has forced the community into a fifth deletion discussion for the article but the editor appears to insinuate in posts on the article's talk page and at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2021_March_21 that they will recreate the article again and again until the community gives up and lets it stay. Moreover, the editor appears to be engaging in a campaign of personal attacks against anyone who appears to threaten the article's existence. As the article has been relisted for the 5th time at afd, I'm posting this here to see if the community feels the editor's failure to abide by CONSENSUS and the personal attacks justify an admin intervention at the user level. Notifying editors who have participated in the AFD and DRV leading up to this post: @Doomsdayer520, TimothyBlue, Lennart97, S Marshall, Jclemens, Robert McClenon, Lard Almighty, Hobit, and SportingFlyer: If you have something to add, now is the time. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mandatory notification delivered. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Tempest in a teapot. First, Northwest Post Grunge (NWP) was deleted. But your argument is unsupported by the consensus at the deletion discussion page. When you mention it was "recreated at very nearly the same level" and that I "didn't address" the concerns. To reiterate the deletion discussion page which you summarily ignore: I recreated the article with 400% more content than it originally had from scratch. The original AfD concern is that it didn't have a non-trivial source, but it does now. Since that time I've added 2 more sources, one of them also non-trivial. It's pure hyperbole on your part to argue I haven't made a genuine attempt to address the concerns at those discussions. Secondly, the nominator admitted they never compared the current article to the original that got deleted, and you're misrepresenting the argument to make you look better. In essence, it was a kneejerk deletion without doing their due diligence of review. The nominator complained "how are they supposed to review a deleted article for comparison?" and I rebut "why are you in charge of nominating articles for deletion if you can't confirm?" Personal attacks is overstated in my opinion, I feel like I'm defending from poor wikipedia editing and calling it out - people just can't stand criticism of their poor wiki-editing. Additionally, some editors just plain refused to discuss on the talk page (probably because they couldn't defend their actions with wikipolicy). I didn't disagree with the original AfD, but I did alter the article from the original and addressed the concerns from the AfD, and that means the nomination for deletion was in error and the consensus at the deletion discussion appears to agree with me. If there are any new concerns, a new AfD has to be raised. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

  Tempest in a teapot. first, Northwest Post Grunge was deleted, but you argument is unsupported by the consensus at the deletion discussion page. To reiterate the deletion discussion page which ‘’you’’ summarily ignored, the article fails the general nobility guideline and makes no credible claim of significance. Adding 400% more material doesn’t do anything for the article, it merely demonstrates how desperate you are to keep this thing here. Additionally, you failed to provide any meaningful reason why an article recreated in blatant violation of community standards for inclusion on the talk page (probably because you couldn’t defend the action with wikipolicy). I didn’t disagree with the case rational, but I did see no effort on your part to adhere to community stands nor any attempt to address the concerns from afd beyond a pathetically misguided attempt at pretending that two paragraphs and a non notable source would somehow else rather spare the article from the axe. That means you deletion review was in error, as the prevailing consensus at the afd’s on either side of this pathetically misguided attempt to keep the article have thus far been powerfully in favor of deletion - and with you or demonstrated failure to abide by our rules concerning deletion and consensus the article will end up locked on re-deletion to prevent further disruption to the project. In hindsight, we should have done that right out of the gate, but lessons learned the hardest are those remembered the longest. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue here is mostly WP:CONSENSUS. As seen at the multiple AfDs and contested deletion nominations for Northwest Post-Grunge, and at that article's talk page, User:Leitmotiv appears functionally unable to accept community consensus and probably does not understand how it works. Leitmotiv accuses others of offenses like "red herring" and "inquisition" but clearly does not understand what those terms mean. I have voted in the AfDs and would like to point out the bizarre semi-argument that Leitmotiv started with me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge, with Leitmotiv obsessing over one half-sentence of colorful background prose, ignoring the policy discussion in the other 95% of my vote, and concluding that the vote was invalid. I don't consider that a personal attack, but it is definitely a sign of someone unable to debate and lacking knowledge of how Wikipedia works. A personal conflict of interest with that album might be worth investigating too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I address some ofthe misrepresented concerns in my comment above. I didn't ignore the remaining 95% of the AfD discussion. Perhaps I wasn't in disagreement and had nothing to add, much in the same way your initial argument started out not adding much to the conversation? Which you know is my real complaint about your post. I did converse with more than just you, so I feel you're misrepresenting reality... just a smidge. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If that were true we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI user in question is creating articles on the more-obscure bands in the compilation, link. May need review. ValarianB (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've used as many non-trivial sources as I can find. Each article has non-trivial sources. I'd review them before speculating. To get to the reason why I'm creating articles for these bands... Because I'm addressing one of the concerns at the original AfD by Doomsdayer who essentially said "too many redlinks" as one of their arguments. Even though that is not a valid argument, I've tried to appease @Doomsdayer520: and started creating articles for those redlinks as I have time. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

it’s not about sources, it’s about proving why we should care, and your failing that in spades. Quit while your ahead, or go through afc. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I recommend reviewing those bands on their own merits during a separate process. Some may have achieved some notability outside of their appearance on that non-notable compilation album that is the focus of this dispute (for now, at least). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The "non-notable" album now has two non-trivial sources, plus a couple sources I like to describe as inbetween non-trivial and trivial, as well as the still useful trivial sources. The article has greatly changed from when it appeared in AfD. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

it’s hasn’t changed at all: no notability, no credible claim of significance, no consensus to retain the article, and no effort on your part to address any of those concerns beyond sweeping them under the rug and pretending this time will be different. The fact that you can’t see that favors my intervention here, I think a topic ban would do you some good. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's a problem yes, but it's a relatively minor problem from an overzealous editor. I don't think any intervention is necessary, just, perhaps, a warning, and a reminder that if an article gets deleted, the problems can be sorted out through draftspace instead of warring over whether a deleted article belongs in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I am confused. User:TomStar81 says that there have been five deletion discussions. I count three, the first AFD, the DRV in which I took part, and the second AFD, which is currently in progress. Also, is there a reason why community or admin action is needed, other to let the second AFD run? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Added Comment - I will count four deletion discussions if we count the 2018 PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Prod, afd 1, speedy deletion, deletion review, afd 2. I should have clarified that, my apologies. 2600:1011:B125:2D5B:21BF:EE1E:AED6:5B3C (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Question I'd like to ask a sincere question. Everyone is saying this article is non-notable. To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right? And the main argument before, if I understand correctly (and explains my actions up to now) is that an album must have multiple, non-trivial sources. And I guess there-in lies the rub. How do you define non-trivial? I added Gavin Report which a couple folks have acknowledged as non-trivial. Even Doomsdayer has acknowledged the other NW Music News source may be non-trivial because they can't verify it one way or the other. Wouldn't two non-trivial sources qualify as multiple? I'm honestly looking for an instructional moment here, because my actions up to now are based on this premise. 2+ is multiple, right? But all I see are editors claiming non-notable as a whole. What am I missing? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Lets start with this link: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Deleting an article. Have a read through and lets see what that addresses and what you're still unclear about, after which we (by which I mean the community) will start taking questions. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Leitmotiv is stating a good-faith but serious misunderstanding of the relationship between verifiability and notability, and I think that is the whole problem. They say: "To determine it's non-notable it basically has to have no notable sources (at least on the current grounds of argument), right?" Wrong. If it has no notable sources, it is non-notable. But the existence of sources does not establish notability in themselves. The sources verify the content of the article. If what the text of the article says is not notable, the sources will not change that. Sources are a necessary but not sufficient condition. The idea that sources are THE key to acceptance or retention of an article is a common myth in Wikipedia. In this case, the problem is the album doesn't satisfy the album notability criteria. At least, that is what is being argued in the AFD. And the place to discuss the notability of the album is in the AFD. User:Leitmotiv is not acting in bad faith, only mistaken as to policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Hey thanks for trying to help. People often think that because I've been on Wikipedia for 10+ years that I know all the ropes, and I just don't. If people see my silver editing star they will see they are not in synch with my time as an editor. I do this for love when I have free time. Anyhoo...@Robert McClenon: I still don't think I'm getting it, but bare with me. I'm going to go through the WP:GNG checklist here. Of all the content I've written on NWP, 100% is derived from the sources listed. The article is not a stub. No original research involved. Significant coverage, as I understand it, has been supplied with two non-trivial sources, which as I interpret it is the "multiple sources" needed. The trivial sources are used to flesh out the remainder of the article. As for reliable, editors have been able to verify one non-trivial source in Gavin Report, and I've offered to supply the other non-trivial source for verifiability but no one has taken me up on that. All sources provided are secondary sources and none are primary, and they are independent of the subject. Nothing else, as far as I can tell, at WP:GNG appears to related to the subject at hand. So to my understanding, that covers your comment on notability - and everyone else's comments that it doesn't qualify per WP:GNG. But again, correct me where I'm wrong or presume something in error. You mention that the AfD is discussing WP:NALBUM as the main reason it fails. So let's delve into that. It mentions only 1 criteria is needed to pass WP:NALBUM. Point 1 says it has to have multiple, non-trivial sources that are reliable, not self-published, and independent. The article has 2 of these. Does 2 qualify as multiple? Wikipolicy is not clear on that. The end of WP:NALBUM notes that a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a detailed article. Well... the article as it stands now has 5 paragraphs of material, most of which has come from the two non-trivial sources, that presumably pass criteria number 1. Again, I'm not trying to be obstinate here. I feel like I understand what is required, even if wikipolicy is not 100% clear on what "multiple" means. If I am missing something, please inform me, my aim is to learn. I recreated this article trying to satisfy the original AfD by adding two non-trivial sources and to eliminate redlinks per Doomsdayer520's observations at the original AfD. There was never a bad faith attempt on my part. I feel the only bad faith that occurred is the original nominator nominating it for speedy deletion claiming it was identical, when they admitted on the talk page that they couldn't verify it was identical, and despite their admission, they still wouldn't retract or replace it with an AfD like the deletion discussion concluded with. I could understand taking it to another AfD, but the article was never identical to the one before which is why I staunchly opposed the speedy deletion nomination. At that time the article had roughly 300-400% new content. Perhaps the misconception is of scale? That's all I can glean from the discussion. Does significant mean a book needs to be written about the album? A chapter in a book? An article spread? Gavin Report has a half column devoted to the album review, and the NWI Music News has a whole album review as well. Are those not significant? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: Speaking for myself - and only myself - I consider anything that has a very notable impact on culture (IE the "bullet time" sequence in the matrix, Eminem's hip hop, donald trumps books, superman's comics, etc), anything thats won an oscar/emmy/tony/grammy, or anything that has been nominated for appearances in halls of fame to be ipso facto notable. Below that are glass ceiling moments and record setting things, which I take as proof of significance (ie: Will chambers 100 point game, Secretariat's 39.5 length win for the triple crown, Don Haskins decision to start 5 black guys in the NCA tournment in 1966, Barrack Obama's election to the presidency, etc). Below that, it's taken on the strength (or lack there of) of citations, sources, and information present weighed against the relevant guidelines for notability and significance as the subject matter determines relevance and significance (HMS Vanguard was the last battleship built and had a small career, but enough to eak out an article; Apollo 25, by contrast, never got past the planning stage and I see no significance to its mission to moon other than a few people were probably considered to crew the flight). Most article clearly satisfy the first or second points, for the third point articles are hit and miss. Most of the old C&C stuff I wrote got the axe for non notable content, USS Illinois (BB-65) by contrast has remained despite having no real anchor to the first two points because we developed just enough material for the article that it was thought better to keep it spun out - and even then it took an afd to establish that point. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Needs more rope.—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to Close

This is a dispute over whether to delete an article, and it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge (2nd nomination). I do not see any conduct issues that require administrative action. Can we close this as a content (deletion) dispute, with a reminder to all editors to be civil and concise? The above 597-word statement by User:Leitmotiv and 277-word statement by User:TomStar81 have two problems. They are too long, and shorter statements should be in the AFD rather than here. Can we close this as a deletion discussion to be decided by AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northwest Post-Grunge (2nd nomination) it looks like the consensus will be to delete yet again. Will Leitmotiv accept consensus this time? The above discussion indicates that we will be doing this again sometime soon. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Frank6292010 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r

Personal attack at User:BlueboyLINY on my talk page. User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#File:KAVU_25_News_Now.png_creation_announcement Keeps spamming Blueboy's talk page with nonsense. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• This diff-free parties-not-notified incident centres around Special:Diff/1015550156 apparently. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent reports involving the same editors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1062#User:Frank6292010; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1056#Ownership_problem_at_articles_about_TV_stations. Ping Acroterion and MelanieN. Fences&Windows 20:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack at User:BlueboyLINY on our talk page after messing up WXTV-DT, User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#April_2021 Keeps spamming Blueboy's talk page with nonsense. Frank6292010 (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And then there's this bit of nonsense. – ².O.^Boxing 21:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

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

This user is persistently engaging in disruptive editing against consensus; has not taken part in discussions about this; and has similarly used quite often uncivil edit summaries. See also Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Rural_municipality_edit_warring_against_consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comments: IP70 had been IP-hopping for sometime but seems to have settled on a single one for now. Please see the edit histories for List of municipal districts in Alberta, List of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan, CFB Cold Lake, and Census geographic units of Canada. For the first two, see the consensus for the former here and extrapolation of such to the latter here. The editor reached out to me on my talk page here but disregarded my reply that articulated the consensus and then proceeded to continue edit warring against that consensus. At CFB Cold Lake the editor is now deliberately introducing factual errors. The editor appears to have since had run-ins at Canadian political-related articles and has resorted to being uncivil (see [21] and [22]). With three additional fourth-level warnings in thirteen days since the first one, the editor is evidently WP:NOTHERE. A complaint was registered at AIV two days ago but the incident was archived with no action for some reason. 07:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Other suspected IPs and account:

2604:3D09:37F:E110:C192:9FB0:C2A7:E75C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:C43A:A1BB:25C9:F0D3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:CC09:48B3:8053:8F41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:B570:DAB6:8E60:8595 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:75EE:3CF9:7252:DCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:A46C:760A:DECC:32DF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2604:3D09:37F:E110:E103:FD6A:BA03:545A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

If any of the above require an SPI, I can do so after this incident is closed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Editor Alansohn

Came to my talk page today[23] to complain about my recent edits to Montclair State University where I removed multiple entries to the Notable alumni section because they were either not linked to WP articles and in the same post to my talk page, Alansohn also complained about a recent edit I made to Alpine, New Jersey where I removed a person from the NP section who had been citation needed tag on it for over 9 years.

Alansohn is both being a hypocrite and harassing me.

First, Montclair State College he has edited[24] to in the past with the edit summary 'remove individual from list of notables, who needs both a Wikipedia article **AND** independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing connection here, as specified by WP:NLIST' So he says a entry needs to have both and then criticizes me for taking out entries that fit his own criteria for removal.

Note- He has used that same edit summary many times at New Jersey articles. At Piscataway, New Jersey for example[25]

Second, the citation added tag was added[26] by Alansohn and allowed to remain for over 9 years on that page and with making approximately 85 edits[27] to the page since its addition. He has a clear history of requiring an entry have a reference and then complains when an editor removes just such an entry.

That's clearly hypocritical.

I want to point out two other things.

Alansohn was recently made to apologize to me after his making this ANI complaint[28] against me. Some of his complaining today about my editing closely parallels what he wrote then.

Recently in an edit[29] to 1966 World Series he restored descriptions to the article because I had removed them[30] due to them being unreferenced. He restored it with references that DIDN'T support what was being written. This is the kind of bogus edits that are seen far too much around here. A referenced sentence with a fact or statement in it that the reference doesn't corroborate.

Alansohn is harassing me. So I came here....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• We could deal with the very uncollegial exchange here, but I think that's treating the symptom rather than the problem. In fact, when I compare your talk page with Alansohn's, what I see is that your talk page is an incredibly hostile place from the passive-aggressive notices at the top right the way down to the bottom. I think that you're both highly active editors with long sanctions logs for edit warring and battlegrounding and this is going to smoulder on forever without a two-way iban.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Two-way iban between Alansohn and WilliamJE.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Both seem deficient in the willingness-to-drop-the-stick department. I suggest this is time-limited though. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • • WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    • Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Support - As the above links show, these are both editors with very long block logs going back approximately a decade. They appear to be two editors who do not like each other. An interaction ban would be the least disruptive way of minimizing the disruption from these two editors. I respectfully disagree with Guy, in that it should not be limited as to time. Alternatives, such as one-month blocks, or topic bans, would be harsher, and so unnecessary. These editors should both be cautioned by this interaction ban that any further disruption may require an ArbCom case. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Herostratus and Nathan Larson (politician)

Herostratus seems to have a bee in their bonnet about Nathan Larson (politician). Months ago, when Larson was arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl, I started a discussion on the biographies of living persons noticeboard about whether this should be added to the article. (I did not consider Larson a public figure and believed the arrest should be left out.) Herostratus redacted my question and put the article up for deletion with a wall of text rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Larson (politician). When Herostratus refused to stop redacting my BLPN comments, I ended up starting an ANI discussion. The consensus was that the redactions were contrary to our BLP policy. Since then, Herostratus has tried to have the article renamed despite a similar proposal failing a couple of months ago.

Today Herostratus redacted the word "pedophile" from the artcile's talk page ([31], [32]). His argument seems to be that despite multiple reliable sources used in the article referring to Larson as a "pedophile" based on Larson's own statements, the talk page is a different place and WP:BLP prevents us from using the word pedophile without sourcing. At least I think that's what he is saying. Herostratus needs to be blocked from this article, including the talk page, and be told to stop redacting other people's comments. Mo Billings (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm kind of worried when I read I absolutely and in all seriousness think that Nathan Larson (person who has a Wikipedia article) really is the best title. on a talk page. That said, there's clearly enough sourcing [33] [34] that discussing on the talk page whether he should be described as a pedophile is not a BLP issue. (as it involves an ongoing trial, it's not at all clear that the article should say that, but the meta-discussion on the talk page is certainly fine). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Mo Billings: I don't understand how you could think that a guy who has put himself up to the public numerous times as a candidate for various offices could not be a "public figure"? That boat sailed a long time ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Defendant here. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about Nathan Larson, I have a bee in my bonnet about WP:BLP. I've been the breath of hell on BLP stuff for private citizens (Nathan Larson is quite obscure) since the B____ P______ incident in I think 2004 before there was a WP:BLP. It's not a question of banning me from from Nathan Larson article, I've done this elsewhere and intend to continue, so you'll want a much broader topic ban (site ban, whatever) if you want me to stop.

WP:BLP says "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). I consider "oh the source is on another page somewhere" to be a poor source. We don't ref even anodyne facts in an article to a source in another article, we copy them over. Also note that there's no exemption for "unless a lot of people hate the guy" which in Nathan Larson's case appears to be in play.

Complainant's text above, which is now far removed from the refs (which need to be vetted anyway) and is liable to float around the internet on its own (I know it's not indexed, but anyone can copy and paste it or point to it) is egregious WP:BLP violation. This page is in the class "any Wikipedia page" and the first sentence of WP:BLP is "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original) and then it talks about the need for proximate inline refs. I'll leave it an exercise for the reader to decide if complainan text looks like a dare-you-to-stop-me thing to make a point.

The complainant seems to be really determined to assert his and other editors' right to say extremely inflammatory things about obscure citizens based on refs that exist somewhere else in the Wikipedia. If the complainant's text above is allowed to stand, that pushes the de facto norms in a certain direction. I don't think its a path we want to go down. I'm pretty sure that the Foundation takes a keen interest in this subject, so we had better police ourselves lest we be policed.

I also think that rather than an ANI thread this'd better be taken up a much higher level, like a CENT RfC to modify WP:BLP.

I'd actually prefer that instead of sanctioning me, complainant himself was advised not do this sort of stuff. And I mean it's not necessary. It's easy enough to use vague language on stuff like this. It's not a question of "We really need to talk about such-and-so, should we put it in the article?" The thread complainant is exercised about (Talk:Nathan Larson (politician)#The short description) does not require the word "pedophile" to be used. I changed to [redacted] and complainant changed it back. Complainant just wants to say it, I guess. Whether that has to with complainant just really not liking the guy or he aims to do this wherever he goes, I don't know, but neither one is a good look I don't think. Anyway it's all in y'alls court and do what you think best. Sorry about this. Herostratus (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus You were told before that your redactions were against policy. You are going to be told again. You are not enforcing Wikipedia's policy on living people - you are enforcing your own views on what we should be doing. Those are not the same thing. I really don't want to be having this discussion and having to defend myself against your accusations that I hate Nathan Larson or that I am trying to push some agenda. You need to stop. Mo Billings (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: At the time, I was not aware that failed political candidates who have never held office are considered to be politicians. I am now. Mo Billings (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• This frankly strikes me as a difference of opinion on an editorial matter. I would suggest WP:DR of some form or a post at WP:BLPN rather than the sort of result expected from ANI.Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a difference of opinion about policy and conduct based on that policy. It is not a content dispute. Herostratus did this redacting act before with the arrest (which made it very difficult to talk about the issue) and he's doing it again with the word pedophile on teh article talk page. Add to that his walls of text on the talk page and his attempts to move the or delete the page. This isn't an easy article - there's no reason to make it more problematic. Mo Billings (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright. So here's a couple solutions that might be in play, I think:

1. A clarification at WP:BLP. I have opened a request for one at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Proposal (not a formal RfC) re need for citations outside article space. As per my usual practice, I mostly described the case in favor of plaintiff's position, so hopefully no objection there. It's my guess that plaintiff's position will be widely popular, and problem solved. I'll abide by that -- have to. But if it goes against plaintiff, he'll abide by it. On this basis you consider closing this thread here, I guess.
2. Or, you could topic ban me from editing or talking about stuff related to WP:BLP. Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. Maybe plaintiff is right -- you decide. I'm not requesting a topic ban. I don't want it (even tho it'd be a relief -- you think I enjoy doing this, and being an unpopular scold to boot? I hate it.) You decide.
3. Or something else, or punt, whatever, your call. Herostratus (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Your interpretation of WP:BLP is contrary to common application of it. The policy does not need to be changed - your interpretation of it needs to be changed. Mo Billings (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Mo Billings, OK I hear you. That's a content dispute. ANI is behavioral issues. You brought one, and you have a reasonable point (I don't agree, and I think you're maybe kind of making drama on purpose and could take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction here, but maybe I'm wrong). Maybe you'll get request (right now, I'm not seeing a lot of activity here, so I dunno). But anyway all this is pushing us over to the BLP talk page where I think the real action is going to be. We should have gone there first, but I didn't think of it either, so this whole thread has served a purpose, and that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus Please stop saying things like "take a chill pill instead of standing on your right to push the envelope in a kind of unhealthy direction". I'm perfectly chill, I'm not standing on my right to do anything except abide by policy without interference from you, and I am not "pushing the envelope" by objecting to your out-of-policy redactions to otherwise reasonable discussions. I understand that you object to people applying the word pedophile to someone who reliable sources literally call a pedophile in their headlines, but that "unhealthy direction" seems to be your issue, not mine or anyone else's. Please stop ascribing unpleasant motivations to my editing and focus on the actual issue. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think both Mo Billings and Herostratus are overlooking something. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder, not a criminal charge. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles: "Articles on medical conditions sometimes include lists of notable cases of the disease. For the person to be included in such a list there must be significant coverage of them having the condition, not simply a mention in passing or them self disclosing on social media."

• We can't call him a pedophile in Wikipedia's voice, unless he has been diagnosed as such by a competent authority.
• Pedophilia is not a synonym for child rape: "In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided, because although some people who commit child sexual abuse are pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children." Dimadick (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Dimadick I don't know why you think it is helpful to drop a bunch of references here about "child rape", which is not what we are discussing. No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children. As far as calling Larson a pedophile, I think there is a common, non-medical use of the term "pedophile" to mean someone with a sexual interest in children. That usage does not rely on a clinical diagnosis. Headlines such as "Congressional Candidate In Virginia Admits He's A Pedophile". "Nathan Larson is a pedophile and a white supremacist. And he's running for Congress". "Alleged pedophile, white supremacist arrested in kidnapping of 12-yr-old girl", "Virginia congressional candidate Nathan Larson admits he's a pedophile", "Pedophile And Hitler Fan Running For Congress Makes Ballot", and "This Hitler-loving Proud Pedophile Was Too Much of a Troll for Wikipedia, but Not for a Congressional Run" are using this less formal but most common usage. I'd be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere, but none of this has anything to do with Herostratus' redacting of the literal word "pedophile" in talk page discussions. Mo Billings (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I added the definition Wikipedia uses for pedophilia and the sources it uses, not the definition for child rape. "No one has said that Nathan Larson rapes children." His arrest is over sexual exploitation of a 12-year-old. Dimadick (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you want to debate content issues here? Larson was indicted for, among other things, sexual exploitation of a minor. That is not "child rape", to use your phrase. No one has accused Larson of raping children. Mo Billings (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Everyone here seems to have missed the comments in the previous discussion referring to WP:BLPTALK, which reads: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." (emphasis added) Whether or not to describe Larson as a pedophile is clearly a content matter, and the posts should not have been redacted. In my opinion this is a settled argument anyway: Larson describes himself as a pedophile and reliable sources agree. Removing this information from his biography is not enforcing any policy, it's plain censorship. Maybe "self-described pedophile" would be slightly more appropriate, but that's about it. We describe things how reliable sources describe them, not how we would like them to be described, nor do we hide information just because some readers might be offended. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• What Ivanvector said. WP:BLPTALK has specific criteria on what talk page comments should be redacted, and they obviously don't apply here. The accusations against Nathan Larson are well-sourced, and it is appropriate to discuss them on the talk page to determine whether or how they should be included in the article. Herostratus needs to stop redacting and editing other users' comments, as it is a violation of WP:TPO. If they cannot agree to that willingly, they should be forced to stop. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• The redactions are probably OTT but I'm not sure "pedophile" is well sourced. Per WP:HEADLINES the USA Today source doesn't support. Which leaves HuffPost, which is also what The Independent (and USA Today) are admittedly basing from. All the sourcing stems from the following: It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top, there’s a grain of truth to what they say. I don't think this is sufficient for saying he likes being described as a paedophile, or uses that term on himself. Probably fails WP:BLPSTYLE + MOS:LABEL imo. Not to mention the pending court case which only compounds these concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's completely a content discussion, but if one wanted to know that "pedophile" was well sourced, one would have to look at the actual sources instead of just the headlines which I cherry-picked from the references used in the article. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page. Be careful not to use the word "pedophile", though, because Herostratus may redact it. That is why I started the discussion here, not content issues. Mo Billings (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

    Let me link my comment back to this discussion: I think it's not a clear-cut case of inclusion (as some comments above say), and Hero's content concerns have some merit. A discussion should happen, and there's no grounds to redact such a discussion from happening. Ideally Hero can acknowledge that (Or, you could topic ban me ... Because otherwise I'm going to carry on, absent a clear decision per #1 above. does not seem like an acknowledgement) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Reywas92

Reywas92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps reverting edits I am making to aviation pages (airports in particular) solely because he does not like the edits. I have been trying to clean up airport pages for some time. WP:NOTEVERYTHING states A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Unfortunately, many airport articles in particular have been overloaded with massive details through the years, some of which violate WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:USEFUL. They also can contain outdated and irrelevant information that has little to do with the airport itself. The goal of my edits is to remove excess and outdated/irrelevant content and get to the point on things. Frankly, there is even more than could be done than I am not doing (such as in the history sections).

Until now, there has been little objection to my edits. I have even received thanks on a few occasions for cleaning up pages. Then this user comes along and simply reverts edits, saying no consensus has been reached and WP:STATUSQUO applies. Alternatively, he attempts to get me on technicalities in my edit summaries, saying I was lying or wasn't specific enough. I'll admit I didn't always have the best edit summaries, but once again, he has been the only major objection to these edits up to this point. It is extremely difficult to get clear consensus on a lot of things aviation related because of the different motivations the editors of those articles have. I tried to talk with him on his talk page, but he ignored me and instead communicates through the edit summaries. While I'm not always perfect, I see no problems with the overall edits I make. It appears this user is at times (unintentionally?) WP:STONEWALLING. I am asking for some mediation here. Blissfield101 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Blissfield's edits are almost entirely to airports and airlines, most of which deletions of vast swaths of material. His edit summaries are often "consolidation" or "reorganization" but are actually often huge overhauls with much content deleted, both sourced and unsourced. While a lot of it is in fact outdated or extraneous – I would thank him for some of it too! – a lot may be reasonable content that I object to his cutting in bulk. Never once has he gone to the talk page to discuss his changes, it's just an imposition of his own restrictive format that excludes what he doesn't like. If I object to your removals, then YES you should have a consensus to reinstate such removals. There is no need for administrative involvement, rather Blissfield should take his case to WT:AIRPORTS and stop saying things should be removed because we're a vague "NOTEVERYTHING". In isolation many edits and portions of edits are fine, but with such large changes to dozens of airport articles at once, it seems like a crusade keep them formulaic and free of individual details. Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92: But instead of simply adding back in certain content, you usually revert all the edits, which comes pretty close to WP:STONEWALLING. Again, you are the only one seriously objecting, there were no issues until you started reverting. You should know how difficult it is to get consensus at WT:AIRPORTS is, given the lack of response to my latest RFC. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not pages that satisfy airliners.net users. Blissfield101 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Because your many edits that are sometimes in the tens of thousands of characters removed and much more moved around are a pain in the ass to target just specific portions to change back. No previous issues does not mean no issues, plenty of big edits go under the radar. A but more information about terminals than the number of gates in a concourse does not make us an avgeek discussion page, nor "a complete exposition of all possible details". Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the solution here is to draft a neutrally worded and clear RfC on the matter (of what to retain/remove, not of who did what), and host it somewhere much more watchlisted than WT:AIRPORTS, like WP:VPPOL. However, given that Reywas92 concedes that some of Blissfield101's work was good and desirable, "it's hard" is no excuse for blanket revert-warring. If Blissfield101 can do the hard work to weed out all this outdated and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE-failing claptrap, then Reywas92 is not in a position to avoid work and just mass-revert all of it to get at a handful of things they object to or have a question about (see WP:FIXFIRST in particular, as well as WP:SATISFY and WP:REVERT#BEFORE). Remember that WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and proposals to make it a guideline have failed specifically because it sometimes is not appropriately applicable. Remember also that, per WP:EDITING policy, no one has to get permission beforehand to edit. Also that, per WP:V, incorrect or unverifiable information is presumptively removable; the burden of proof is on those who would retain it. That said, it would be better at this point for Blissfield101 to ensure there is consensus for these changes moving forward, and perhaps divide them into types of change (e.g. removal of errors and verification failures first, as essentially incontrovertible changes, then more subjective changes as separate matters). This would also reduce the likelihood of improper blanket-revert stonewalling.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• I make no determination of the rights and wrongs of anyone's past actions, but would say that in the future Blissfield101 should break up the large edits into revertible-sized chunks and Reywas92 can then revert only those edits that he thinks should be reverted. Then we can know where the content disagreement is, and you can talk to each other about it on the article talk pages. I don't see any need for administrator action here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• It looks like some of Blissfield101's edits are good and some are really, really bad - they've basically removed all of the information we have about airport terminals on specific airports without discussion, in spite of the fact airport terminals actually are an encyclopaedic topic (I've myself read through/contributed to the history of airport terminals at different airports.) WP:NOTEVERYTHING doesn't apply to things you don't like. I don't see any issues with Reywas92's reverts - I would have reverted on sight as well. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanking spam by German people

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

---

German people (talk · contribs) has thanked me 55 times for edits on my userpage, and has been randomly thanking other editors too. Can an admin give their thoughts about this? --BlueCrabRedCrab 13:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

BlueCrabRedCrab, Sorry, my computer has a problem, I just thanked you once but got back to it German people (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Uh huh. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't buy it either. –Fredddie™ 14:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h for spamming the thank feature, which I interpret as DE or trolling at best, or a form of harassment at worst. It does not make sense that a a user's computer would somehow spend nearly 20 minutes going through a user's userpage history, systematically clicking the "thanks" button, and the secondary confirmation button due to some sort of "glitch". You can see from the user's thanks log that this is not some random occurance, this user spams the thanks button to an extreme degree, and has issued many rapid-fire "thanks" to many other users. In at least one instance, the user issued multiple "thanks" to an abandoned account with 3 edits that had not edited since 2007. This bizarre behavior borders on CIR-blocking in my opinion, and I went with the more lenient option here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Swarm: If Google Translate isn't failing me, this suggests viwiki admins think they are a sockpuppet of of Nguyễn Phúc Vy. They're indeffed there, at least. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef, good catch. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the history, I've taken the liberty of requesting a global lock at Meta. Jack Frost (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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

User:BorisTheBulgar

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

---

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

User has several times attempted to remove well-sourced information on Afghan–Sikh Wars [35] [36] [37] [38], when trying to discuss with him, he resorts to personal attacks/aspersions and forum-like behaviour, as seen here:

The sources information is not relevant to the battle, when reviewing this page. I see that you tend to remove a large amount of information without actually adding anything to this article. Do you have a reason of why you only remove information from this article instead of adding any?

Please stop cyber bullying me. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

Again HistoryofIran adds nothing to the article just adds information relevant to himself. Explain your actions. Since you do not add information at your own behest on this article. I do not appreciate censoring of information.

Oh, more aspersions here, just in another place;

I put a lot of effort into it and he only keeps information relevent to himself, and does not make any contribution towards the article.

Have some compassion please. Very hurtful comments. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

When told he will reported for his actions if he continues, he said this; Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless.

You think you are better than me because of the amount of rewards you have. You have said so before. HistoryofIran -BorisTheBulgar

--HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

talk There is nothing personal. I spoke facts and in a normal manner. Please add the article if you feel like making changing. These are not personal attacks. I am sincerely sorry for my words or if I hurt your feelings with my words. Kind regards - BorisTheBulgar

Could you please add to the article if you are so concerned about it. I have spent hours of my time making the article look good with maps and other additions. You have also hurt me feelings. -BorisTheBulgar

I am a less experienced editor on wikipedia. Fylindfotberserk I hope my friend can help me out on this matter. -BorisTheBulgar

• Looking at the compelling evidence, the persistent attempts at changing/adding (unsourced) content, and replying to ANI notices as being part of a "cyber bully" campaign,[39] it can be concluded that user:BorisTheBulgar is here on a single purpose mission and not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In response to this post. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject matter. In my opinion, it should be discussed extensively in the talk page first, then perhaps WP:RFC and WP:DRN if no WP:CONSENSUS is reached. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocking now; this is a topic area where disruption like this needs to be cut off as quickly as possible, and the linked comment immediately above makes quite a case for blocking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

"Feel free to report me. I will make another account and still edit regardless." Oh here we go again. Narky Blert (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I get the feeling that BorisTheBulgar was already a sock. The mere threat of making another account seems like the user has been blocked already with a previous account. Based on the article history of Afghan–Sikh Wars, CapChecker123 frequently edited the article as BorisTheBulgar. Jerm (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Controversial "genus" moves by Estopedist1

Recently, Estopedist1 has moved lots of "genus" articles citing their own user subpage as the reason. However, as the WP:RM/TR permalink to revision 1015788879 and Talk:Bellerophon (genus)#Requested move 1 April 2021 (also from a contested WP:RM/TR request) show, those moves are controversial and should be reverted. We should then ask that user to start an RfC on whether "(genus)" and other disambiguators are discouraged in article titles. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: could you help here and say that these moves are not controversial --Estopedist1 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• It does seem that User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions already pointed you to several years of prior WikiProject discussion of this. Uncle G (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) As a DABfixer with scientific training who is not a biologist but who frequently comes across genus disambiguation problems (7 today by my count; an unusually high number), I understand where Estopedist1 is coming from. However: (1) a WP:RMTR with the rationale "disambiguator qualifier "(genus)" is generally not allowed. See explanation here: User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation" is hopelessly inadequate, and (2) this is a content dispute not an ANI matter. Botanists and zoologists have different rules for naming genera and species, and there may be no one-size-fits-all WP:CONSENSUS. Should a WP:RFC be opened, I would welcome a {{ping}} for the opportunity to comment. Narky Blert (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment, responding to ping). Is this really something that needs to be addressed via ANI? I had advised Estopedist1 that I thought it would be worthwhile to make the disambiguation terms used for animal genera more WP:CONSISTENT. I wasn't expecting him to move quite so quickly in doing so. I haven't to respond to some of his pings in recent days seeking further feedback. The rationale ""(genus)" is generally not allowed" overstates the outcome of previous discussions on disambiguating with (genus) that had input from more than ~3 editors. However, Wikipedia has absolutely been increasingly move away from (genus) disambiguators. The single biggest source of ambiguity with the name of a plant/animal genus is a animal/plant genus with the same name. Plant and animal genus names are constructed in similar ways; sometimes they are named after people, so are a lot of genera of the form "SURNAME+ia"; genera are often named by creating compound Greek/Latin words that didn't necessarily exist as words in classical Greek/Latin. As Wikipedia adds more articles on genera over time, more cases of ambiguity between genera come up; (genus) simply isn't sustainable as consistent way to disambiguate articles on genera. Suggest Estopediast1 open an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life to get consensus on the suggestion compiled on his subpage (I don't think there's any question at present that a majority of subject editors will not want to encourage (genus) going forward, but there hasn't been any discussion to establish what disambiguators should be used instead (particularly for some insects and various "worms")). Plantdrew (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Instead I'd recommend listing in batches (around 5–10 related articles) on WP:RM and seeing if there is opposition. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• There's nothing controversial about moving away from "(genus)" as a disambiguator for a genus article; Plantdrew has explained fully above why this term doesn't work (in short because the nomenclature codes allow the use of the same genus name for a plant and an animal). There is an issue about what to use instead for different groups of animals (plant genera use "(plant)"), but this is not an ANI matter. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • After reading some of the WikiProject discussions hyperlinked on that explanation page it does seem that yours is an accurate description of the state of affairs and that you've been roughly agreeing with one another about moving away for about 8 years now. It would be better to say "is problematic for the reasons given in the past 8 years of WikiProject discussions hyperlinked at User:Estopedist1/Taxons and disambiguation#Related discussions" rather than "is not allowed". Better still, one could make that page actually explain things, rather than making people unfamiliar with what one is doing, at whom one has waved this as a rationale, wade through broken lists and apparent gibberish to the actual explanations right at the bottom. Uncle G (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a list of articles proposed to be moved where comments can be added? Peter James (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I noticed the user is doing a mass redirect for Acantocephala genera that I have been working on bringing up to Featured Article. Since this field is so poorly represented (and little information exists at all for most species) it makes sense to group at a higher level than normal. I can give you an example. Should a reader see this stub? [40] with each link redirecting to the link you broke? Or should they see this Moniliformidae. Which is more useful for the reader? I feel that it is important not to apply policies without thinking critically about them. If in the future more information is gained, then for sure separate out specific genera. But I don't see the use of making a bunch of stub articles as the user has been doing. At the very least it's worth discussing before making more changes. Mattximus (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

IP keeps bothering me

Apparently upset over the Minecraft page.

• 174.255.130.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 174.255.128.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Both geolocate to Texas, and the edit filter log for 174.255.130.113 shows them trying to blank User talk:174.255.128.131. They also posted to User talk:EDG 543 and tried to post to User:Yamla -- no idea why. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Simple solution. Blocked the current IP. They were already warned this harassment on talk pages was disruptive. Whether a range block is needed can wait till next occurrence. -- ferret (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Superastig

I did some edits on a draft for an article about an upcoming series which will be airing this week. I specifically followed the guide on WP:MOSTV on the lead and succeeding sections. I included a short summary of the plot because the lead is supposed to provide a summary of the entire article. However, User:Superastig has reverted my edits, removing the short plot summary on the lead. In the talk page (diff here), he explained that he "honestly found it much neater to follow" without the short plot summary. He ended conversations with other users with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh." twice which means "Okay. If you said so.". It comes off a bit rude. This specific edit summary (diff) in the draft article even says "Fix listing style due to whininess in the talk page.", which I believe is uncivil behavior towards other editors.

I stand by my edits because I believe this is the right thing to do per WP:MOSTV guidelines as it will be under WP:TV once it is published. HiwilmsTalk 14:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like there is enough blame to go around with both of you arguing. I'm not inclined to throw sanctions at someone for saying "ok if you say so". You both are making points on the talk page, but you are talking past each other, treating it like a battle. At this point, it is purely a content dispute and I don't see any reason to get involved. I would also add, you need to have thick skin to work around here, and be able to look past little comments. No need to tolerate personal attacks, but this is miles from that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not looking for an argument and I'm not interested in arguing with any editor. However, I tend to blow up whenever an editor whines over my edits. This has happened a few times before. I was just fixing parts of the draft. It would've been better if Hiwilms was bold enough to fix it rather than to bring his complaints to the draft's talk page (or my talk page). It's. That. Simple. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Superastig: First of all, I have explained all my edits via the edit summary yet you kept reverting it, hence the notice on the draft talk page. You have did 2 reverts already on my edits and was heading towards WP:3RR so I stopped pushing my edits. Despite explaining on the talk page why my edits should be kept (with basis on the WP:MOSTV guidelines), you said that you "honestly found [your own edit without a plot summary in the lead] much neater to follow. So, BE IT." You even ended your conversation with two editors with "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh" which comes off as rude. HiwilmsTalk 11:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Hiwilms, had you just left a longer explanation in the first place instead of complaining in the draft's talk page, I wouldn't have meddled with that "part" at all and we wouldn't have this heated argument. Sheesh. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on nationality issues

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

---

There are a couple of editors - Voice4People and Wiki1Voice2 - who are actively on a campaign to change the nationalities of sportspeople and entertainers born in one country but long established in, and sometimes representing, other countries. The examples I've picked up are John Barnes, Raheem Sterling, and Nicki Minaj, but looking through their edit histories there are many more. The editors have a very clear and shared agenda, and in some cases go to great lengths on talk pages to "explain" why they are right and everyone else is wrong. It's all pretty tedious, and I'd be grateful if someone could take a look, and hopefully take some action to resolve this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Surely this is a case of sockpuppetry. Similar names, same type of editing on the same type of biographical articles. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Both use the term "Correct" in their edit summaries, such as "Correct terms" (by Wiki1Voice2) and "Correct update" (by Voice4People), while marking their major edits as "minor". M.Bitton (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

They could have tried being a bit less obvious. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've also just been accused of racism, which is nice... Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The cover story varies slightly: Special:Diff/1007878756, Special:Diff/1012073818, Special:Diff/1007897755. It certainly looks like sockpuppetry, and that would make the edit warring at John Barnes and Raheem Sterling using both accounts a problem. I suggest getting this checkusered. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also use of @ when addressing users in the edit summary: Special:Diff/1016024014, Special:Diff/1016030777. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Both are now CU blocked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Please protect the current TFA due to ongoing vandalism

Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz thanks in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Callanecc.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Born on leap day in 1996 does NOT make a person 6 years old!

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

---

Hello, could somebody please take a look at [this edit] and inform the editor that his reasoning is incorrect. It took me a couple of reverts to realize that he was actually making a good-faith edit and truly believes that a person born on February 29, 1996 is six years old today! Thank you! Johnnie Bob (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but with a username of NoBLOCKplease (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I assume they know that they are trolling. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In addition to that the user now has found a love for personal attacks. Was blocked two days ago as Ripple346 and today as OiramMario1 already. – NJD-DE (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"User:Ripple346 - The correct title of this page is User:Ripple345. It appears incorrectly here due to technical restrictions.". Not their first rodeo. Narky Blert (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Please block User:Deus omnipotens sum

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

---

Please block Deus omnipotens sum (talk · contribs) per WP:OM, WP:GRATUITOUS and WP:NPA. He is vulgarry insulting me (in Czech language, though; you can translate it) and adding vulgar Czech word to Voiced glottal fricative. + I would agree to global ban from him, because his behaviour in his entire time on Wikipedia is very abusive, see [41] for example. Moson81 (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Specific diffs appear to be Special:Diff/996387707 and Special:Diff/1016020832, but also Special:Diff/1016080849. So xe has called you a dick and put the word " hovno" into article space and you've told xem that xe hasn't the IQ of a pumpkin. Other recent edits from that account appear to be copyediting, the only thing wrong about which I can find is that the editor wrongly believes that split infinitives are a bad thing in English. Uncle G (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I blocked for 31h, since the edit summary was a clear personal attack, and they knew what they were doing. Note however @Moson81: that you failed to inform them of this thread despite the requiremewnts. Please do so.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I will welcome opinions whether Moson81 needs to be blocked as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry for personaly attacking User:Deus omnipotens sum and not letting him know about this thread. This is not my home wiki (those are cswiki and hrwiki), and I have not much ideas about rules you have here. As of the personal attack, I got angry at him insulting me for absolutely no reason – I decently wrote about that vandalism and vulgarisms are not allowed on Wikipedia, when other words with voiced glottal fricative can be listed as they exist and as of WP:GRATUITOUS, and he just went on nothing than calling me vulgar words, so I couldn't maintain my emotions; I'm sorry for that. Please forgive me, this will not repeat in the future. Moson81 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn’t see anything untoward in Moson81’s contribs other than Deus has the IQ of a pumpkin which is, as PA’s go, rather quaint. Maybe it sounds worse in Czech. They’ve apologised. Probably just warn Moson not to make derogatory comments about other editor’s IQ. DeCausa (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks like we are done here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not quite @Ymblanter:. Considering that I was not informed of this thread, and then temporarily banned (perhaps rightly so), I didn't have the opportunity to defend myself, and I'd like to take the opportunity to do so now, for the record.

I thought hovno sounded more euphonious than hospoda on that page, so I changed it; hovno isn't even as vulgar as @Moson81: tries to make it sound, anyway. Yes, it can refer to the digestive by-product of man or animal, but it can also mean, quite simply, nothing or the concept of zero. If he thought it was gratuitous per WP:GRATUITOUS, he could have taken the initiative and silently reverted it, or asked me to do so, or informed me that he believed my edit not to be constructive, and that would be it, water under the bridge.

Instead, he imputed mens rea to me that I did not have, calling me out-and-out a vandal. I do not appreciate having my inner motivations "explained" to me, with no evidence (as you said, all my edits are copyediting, pretty much). There's a very important difference as you well know between "you killed that man" and "you MURDERER!" At that point I considered it a matter of honour and my temper did not permit me to refrain from calling him a nasty word. I'm willing to apologise to him and "take back" my comment, if he apologises as well for calling me a vandal without evidence of any kind, not even circumstantial, and serves out a ban for an equal length of time to myself. I think it's only fair. V opačném případě, není prostě kokot, ale kokot koňský. --Deus omnipotens sum (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me, I don't speak Czech so I have to use Google translate. Does that last part really translate to "Otherwise, it's not just a dick, but a horse dick"? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Yes, it is. He's insulting me again for no reason. Moson81 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I can only assume that making rude insults in this thread is a request to be blocked from editing here for good. Wish granted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Uncivil and tendentious editing by User:Magnovvig

Hi, I think Magnovvig needs a good reminder (at the very least) of the basics of WP:CIV and WP:NPOV. The following is what I could observe in pages that I am interested in, and I have not reviewed the rest of their contributions.

1. Personal attacks in edit summaries

When I arrived to Archegos Capital Management, the article was tagged with WP:TONE maintenance template and had numerous issues [42]. At this point, the article had mostly been written by Magnovvig. I took it upon myself to fix the problems, mostly by removing the problematic content [43][44][45]. In response, Magnovvig started to attack me, writing stuff like a If the careless editor who deleted the sentence had read the article [46] and Maybe s/he confused this with her professional resume writing service [47].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Did JBchrch read the article? JBchrch summarized the edit thus: "it is not customary to quote unnamed business executives" But the article does in fact name the source as Charles Delingpole:

“ Charles Delingpole, the chief executive of technology company ComplyAdvantage, believes that family office relationships with Wall Street "need to be revisited and further interrogated". "To have premier tier Wall Street investment banks acting as prime brokers to entities that have exhibited adverse behaviour in the past demonstrates that 'know your customer' policies are either becoming too lax or being improperly enforced," he said. Hwang was charged with illegal trading in 2012. ”

At what point does one assume bad faith? If anything, my edit summary "actually, he (Charles Delingpole) is named but I omitted his name because I thought it irrelevant. If the careless editor who deleted the sentence had read the article he would have seen the name." errs on the side of WP:CIV.

2. Attempt at intimidation through user warnings

Just after these attacks, Magnovigg went to my talk page and served me a {{uw-coi}} warning [48], prompting me to disclose whether I had an external relationship with FINMA, other regulators, Credit Suisse, Nomura, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, as well as private individuals linked to recent events.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• What "attacks"? Is JBchrch careless, or is JBchrch not careless? At this point, I thought it best that s/he identify possible WP:COI, because of the egregious false edit summary to which I advert above. This is in no way an "Attempt at intimidation through user warnings". How else does one verify, if one cannot ask the question? Here JBchrch attempts to distort reality. It is extremely distasteful to need to answer this type of slur.

3. Refusal to engage in constructive dialogue

Following our interactions at Archegos Capital Management, Magnovvig decided that it was a good idea to add to the leads of 27 articles about banks the information they they qualified as "G-SIBs". [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] I thought that this language was confusing, so I left a message on Magnovvig’s talk page explaining why and suggesting that we use the term "systematically important bank" instead [76]. Not only did Magnovvig not answer me at all (despite a reminder [77]), he continued to add the term "G-SIB" to the rest of the 27 articles without engaging in any form of dialogue.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• If s/he dislikes my edits s/he is free to change them. What does s/he misunderstand about Wikipedia:About?

“ Anyone is allowed to add or edit words, references, images, and other media here. What is contributed is more important than who contributes it. To remain, the content must be free of copyright restrictions and contentious material about living people. It must fit within Wikipedia's policies, including being verifiable against a published reliable source. Editors' opinions and beliefs and unreviewed research will not remain. Contributions cannot damage Wikipedia because the software allows easy reversal of mistakes, and many experienced editors are watching to ensure that edits are improvements. ”

• S/he is sore that I zigged when s/he thought I ought to have zagged. No, JBchrch, you do not have a monopoly on my time. It is clear that you have been in a position of power of your subordinates. Here at wiki everyone is equal. Instead of looking to see what you wrote on my talk page, I went ahead and added facts to wiki. That's all there was to it.

A similar attitude was displayed on the article List of systemically important banks. While reviewing the article, I made a bold edit [78][79], and Magnovvig reverted me, arguing that I needed to build consensus on the talk page. But he then refused to take part in the talk page discussion [80], despite me sending him - once again - a reminder [81].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Here JBchrch dislikes the fact that I have priorities other than wiki.

4. General pattern of tendentious editing

From what I could see over the last few days (I haven't reviewed all of his contributions), Magnovvig is generally negligent of WP:NPOV and WP:WIKIVOICE and pushes an "anti-finance" POV. A few examples:

• On Archegos Capital Management

• Writing that the "Swiss financial watchdog" named FINMA had been called in to mop up the mess at Credit Suisse [82], which is obviously not what the source says.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Why did a reputable source mention FINMA if the reporter and editor and publisher didn't think it important?
• JBchrch is free to alter my language but s/he might be a little more careful about wholesale deletions. Has it occurred to JBchrch that I sought to attract help by purposefully using provocative language? I was surprised that I was able to write an entire 2,116 character article without help of any sort whatsoever on a topic to which hundreds of thousands of readers were attracted in the last week.

• On List of systematically important banks

• Writing that the notion of "systematically important financial institutions" was replaced for unknown reasons by the notion of "systematically important banks", without citing any source or, really, doing any research [83].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• Actually, I did read the 2011 and 2012 FSB reports. They failed to identify the reasons for their shift in language. So I did do research and I wrote what I found. Will JBchrch retract this unfounded slur? It is clear from the above that JBchrch seeks to manipulate others with his or her choice to employ emotive language, which is a pity, really.

• On Family office:

• Calling the Family Office Council a lobby group without adding a reliable source… and summarizing the edit as "ce" (!!!) [84].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• What is the Family Office Council if not for a lobby group?

• Adding a report linking Leon Black to Jeffrey Epstein, which is completely irrelevant to the article [85].

Answer by Magnovvig:

• I disagree that it is irrelevant, and "ref name pleon" a Bloomberg reporter agrees with me. Who is JBchrch to disagree with a reputable source like Bloomberg?

• On GFG Alliance

• calling Credit Suisse the Swiss, saying they are on the hook and have been thwarted. Also, using words like evidently etc. [86] In this particular case, the edit is even factually wrong: as the WSJ article cited clearly explains, Greensill Capital did the "double trust" structure and not GFG Alliance.

Answer by Magnovvig:

• The "double trust" structure was no mystery to GFG. In fact, that is why Greensill was the only lender to GFG, or else GFG would have dealt with investment banks prima facie. This is in the reputable sources! Has JBchrch taken the time to read them?
• If s/he disagrees with my usage, s/he is free to change it. But then s/he would need to answer why the Financial Times reported "Credit Suisse thwarted in effort to access Gupta accounts". What part of thwarted does JBchrch not understand?

JBchrch (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Magnovvig (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think the above indicates that Magnovvig is not willing to conform to the most basic Wikipedia policies and to collaborate with other editors.

• She/he claims to have been purposefully using provocative language on the mainspace.
  
• She/he adds information that is not in the sources.
  • On List of systemically important banks: Reasoning = They failed to identify the reasons for their shift in language --> Content = for unknown reasons.
  • On GFG Alliance: Reasoning = The "double trust" structure was no mystery to GFG. In fact, that is why Greensill was the only lender to GFG --> Content = The next day it came to light that GFG had split up... the loans into [a]... double trust structure.
• She/he ignores talk page messages (Instead of looking to see what you wrote on my talk page, I went ahead and added facts to wiki).
• When asked nicely and politely - including with reminders! - to discuss his edits on talk pages, she/he answers you do not have a monopoly on my time. It is clear that you have been in a position of power of your subordinates.
• She/he adds original research to articles (What is the Family Office Council if not for a lobby group?).

Finally, let me make it very clear that I do not have a COI regarding the institutions implicated in Archegos Capital Management.

Please let me know if I need to answer to her/his other comments. JBchrch (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Non admin comment here, but this sounds like POV and/or potential COI problems. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I think that the behavior demonstrated in point #3 is tendentious editing. Continuing a pattern of edits after other editors have raised reasonable concerns about them without engaging in discussion is not ok. When it comes to reviewing the accusations in point #4, I'm honestly more concerned by Magnovig's responses in this thread than the original edits themselves. Has it occurred to JBchrch that I sought to attract help by purposefully using provocative language? turns what could be dismissed as accidentally using the wrong tone into a violation of WP:POINT. I've reread this section multiple times now and I can't see how It is clear from the above that JBchrch seeks to manipulate others with his or her choice to employ emotive language is anything other than an unfounded personal attack. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

162.83.185.45

162.83.185.45 keeps on resubmitting Universal Kids to Saturday-morning cartoon when It's not widely used as a Successor, So give me the link to the rules of edit warring. It will teach the unregistered user a lesson, and So as me and Trivialist. 13:53, 5 April 2021 LooneyTraceYT (talk)

WP:3RR is that way. Just a heads up, your signature definitely violates WP:CUSTOMSIG/P since it can easily cause confusion with User:Trace. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree. Thank you for your care, Padgriffin! Trace (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we blocked someone who was here to 'teach someone a lesson' a couple years back. LooneyTraceYT, please declare if you have had past accounts here; we do not 'teach users' a lesson here when their edits are wrong, we guide them towards making proper edits. Nate • (chatter) 18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

OP's behavior above matches up to MechMaster Katzenstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has used this same type of 'warning language' in the past against IPs; it makes sense why their editing patterns felt familiar to me. Pinging @Boing! said Zebedee: and @Yunshui:, who dealt with MMK's block in the past. If this is MMK, I'm very disappointed you haven't improved your editing behavior in the least. And please fix your signature; now it leads to Trace's page, not yours. Nate • (chatter) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Yunshui has since retired/hung up the mop, so someone else will have to check contribs over) Nate • (chatter) 18:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, Nate and Padgriffin, I see that LooneyTraceYT has modified his signature. Thanks to you all! Trace (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Barrow1965

• Barrow1965 (talk · contribs)

I strongly suspect that this user previously edited as 81.101.15.25, which has been blocked more than once for disruptive editing, in addition to 2a00:23c6:5496:8800:e511:94b3:1350:8afa and, most recently, 2.96.102.189. Based on the common areas of interest (mainly Thunderbirds and other Gerry Anderson TV/film productions), similar use of edit summaries and all-round similar editing styles, I am convinced that Barrow1965 and these IPs are all the same person.

Barrow1965 is continuing the disruption for which they were blocked as an IP, appearing at various Anderson articles and changing in-universe dates to reflect what they consider to be the "correct" time setting. This typically involves swapping secondary sources for their own interpretation based on primary sources (example), accompanied by unhelpful or misleading edit summaries as well as edit‑warring to restore their POV when the changes are reverted ([87] and [88]; [89] and [90]).

Rather than follow the WP:BRD cycle and continue the talk page discussion here, they have gone back to making these disruptive mass changes without consensus, à la WP:IDHT. Given their prior disruption as an IP, I believe that Barrow1965 should be blocked indefinitely. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• This user continues to edit-war in their POV on multiple pages and has now extended their disruptive WP:OR tendency to article categories. Please could someone uninvolved issue a block? SuperMarioMan (Talk) 19:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is very likely that the IPs and Barrow1965 are the same based on behavior, which is different in some way I admit, but the overlap is pretty obvious. I've blocked 72 hours for now, hoping that will get his attention. I don't feel like I can indef without trying at least one or two steps in between first, although that is where it is heading if he doesn't take notice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits by Semsûrî

• Semsûrî (talk · contribs)

This user keeps removing Laks/Lurs and adding Kurds instead on the article of Lorestan Province. People of this province in Iran speak Luri by 91.5% based on Iran's official claims.

Kurdish is almost non-existent in this province(0.5%) based on official survey in 2010.

Lurs in Iran, Lorestan province is 91.5% Lurish.

Kurds in Iran, Lorestan province is 0.5% Kurdish.

These images are from an official resource from Iran in 2010, Luri is majority of this province by 91.5%.

Based on this book from Erik John Anonby, It's says there's three theory on how Laki should be described, Luri, Kurdish or independent. But he changed Lak article many times to keep only Kurdish theory on the article. Also Britanica describes Laki as one of Lur people languages.

There was a long discussion on the talk page between him and Rizorius (talk · contribs) and Valereee (talk · contribs).

After this discussion, he stopped his disruptive edits for a while but he came back and continues to do the same edits.

Setenly (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion at Talk:Lorestan_Province#Survey, it looks like other editors were told to find reliable, secondary sources, not primary sources. These maps were made from primary sources and aren't used anywhere on the English Wikipedia, because their sources aren't reliable. Woodroar (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The OP seems to be giving a less than honest readout of the talkpage discussion to which he linked, given that it backed the edits by Semsûrî as appropriate and determined that inclusion of the sources the OP is bringing up is inappropriate. Grandpallama (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this survey... as I argued on the talkpage; 1) it is published by Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance thus a primary source and not reliable. Secondly, since it considers a Kurdish dialect (Laki) as part of the Luri language, the results of the survey become unreliable. The reliable Iranica Online puts the Kurdish-% in the province at 65% (a reference Setenly removed, why?), so why should we use a reference that puts the Kurdish-% at 0.5?%(!!!!!!) This is incredibly absurd and dishonest. Regarding, Britannica, it was deemed a non-RS on the Reliable Sources noticeboard. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comparing first Semsûrî's edit on Lak article from 26 May 2019 to his last edit in 4th April(This is complete different article!!). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lak_%28tribe%29&type=revision&diff=1015947891&oldid=898872483

This is what Lak article was like on his first edit:

Laks are an Iranian group in southwestern Iran. They speak Laki (or Leki), an independent Iranian language, or a dialect of Kurdish or Luri languages.

Why did he removed all the sources and replaced it with what he liked??! Setenly (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The page Laki language needed a full revamp back in 2019 because of now-blocked Shadegan and his POV-push. --Semsûrî (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is your edit not his. this change was a POV-push by Semsûrî over time.

There's three theories on the Laki language. Laki should be called Laki. and in the article Lorestan province it should be Laki not Kurdish since it's representing only one POV. Setenly (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

In his works, Anonby puts Laki in the Kurdish group.(page 176)("Laki, a second major variety, is also part of the larger Kurdish language family. "). Sure, he gives three theories but he ultimately picks one himself. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Setenly, ANI is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. We don't decide content issues here. If Semsûrî has behavioral issues, then you need to prove that with diffs.

I don't know Semsûrî. I'm not Lurish or Kurdish or Iranian and I've never been to that region. I don't have a dog in this fight. But I do know that every year or so, someone shows up accusing Semsûrî of POV pushing without any evidence. And when we look into it, that person has usually been POV pushing themselves or they turn out to be a sockpuppet, often both. So excuse us for not taking your word for it here.

As far as I can tell, Semsûrî appears to be editing based on reliable, secondary sources. I see 10 other editors working on Laki language in that same ~2-year timeframe, but you're blaming only Semsûrî. Why is that? Woodroar (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

He's been adding Kurdish to many articles with vague references in other languages.

These are a few of them:

File:Screencapture-en-wikipedia-org-w-index-Semsûrî edits.png

Lorestan province is only one of these nationalistic edit campaigns he's been doing. some edits in the same minutes!! Who can confirm if the references are correct? Setenly (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Source have been given for these edits. Adding info on these settlements is suddenly a nationalistic edit? C'mon. Aşiretler raporu is a gem on this subject and you're more than welcome to check the book yourself. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why this spam-like behavior should be tolerated?!! Who can confirm these references? He's doing these on many articles.Woodroar

Setenly (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Setenly, It looks like Semsûrî is adding sources and categories to articles, which is a normal part of the editing process. But it's impossible to tell from a screenshot. Again, if there is a behavioral problem, you need to provide diffs. Woodroar (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is adding info on the ethnic composition spam? This is going nowhere... Are you going to question all info on Wikipedia sourced with a reference not available online? --Semsûrî (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

He keeps removing texts from other ethnicities like Lurs and Assyrians! Why is that?! is it based on your POV those people should have weaker articles??!

I want admins to look at these diffs, Isn't this POV-pushing?:

Assyrian culture

Assyrians in Iraq

Assyrian cuisine

Abdanan Removes a lot of text about Lurs, Laks and Arabs. and just calls it "clean up!!"

Lurs

Ilam Province Yet another "clean up"! a clean up that removes Lurs from the article!!

Setenly (talk) 19:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I do frequently remove unsourced info and info based on bad references like blogs – also on Kurdish-related articles. Moreover, info that is off-topic. These reasons encompasses all of the links above. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

And this removes include half of a page and removing an ethnic altogether from that article?!Setenly (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Its that time of year again...someone accusing Semsuri of POV pushing while blatantly doing it themselves. There must be some forum out there dedicated to harassing Semsuri...this is just absurd at this point. Can't we let the fellow edit in peace? AdmiralEek (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A random user bulit in 2020 says this time of the year?? how many years you have been here? are you Semsûrî's sockpuppet??! Setenly (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, given that their userpage declares that they are an alternative account of User:CaptainEek, who first edited in February 2014, let's call it seven years and change. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the reason adding such a comment under this section, and taking side. Setenly (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked AdmiralEek how many years you have been here?. I'm answering your question. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know!Setenly (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• The long term harassment of Semsûrî is both obvious and pointless. +1 to letting Semsûrî edit in peace. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Setenly, I looked at those diffs. First one - removes unsourced material. Second one - removes contentious material sourced only to a POV blog. Third and fourth one - removes unsourced material. Fifth one - removes unsourced material (there is a source, but it apparently only cites the definition of Greater Iran, not the rest of the paragraph). The sixth one simply moves 99% of the material around the article. Feel free to let me know if Ive made any errors there. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Just search Lur on these articles, Abdanan and Ilam province.

Do you see any Lur in Semsuri's edit?? Why is it removed altogether and just called it clean-up?! Setenly (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

What info on Lurs did I remove in Abdanan? All I removed was the unsourced 'Geograhy', 'attractions', 'economy' and 'famous persons' sections. The only thing I changed on Lurs was making clear that the group was the minority in the city. --Semsûrî (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's Ilam province. Why is that Lur was completely removed from article?Setenly (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Info on Lurs in Ilam Province has not been 'completely removed'. The info "For around a thousand years, Ilam was controlled by Kurds and Lurs: From 961 to 1140 CE, Kurds such as Hasanwayhid and Annazids dynasties ruled;..." was unsourced. The reference '=Sustainable Urban Development "Case Study of Ilam City"' had nothing about this subject. --Semsûrî (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Setenly, you have brought a content dispute to a behavior noticeboard, and you're the one behaving badly here by making unsupported accusations, which is not likely to help your case. Because you are very new here, others are trying to be patient with you, but you should stop now. I suggest you withdraw this case, and I also very strongly suggest you go edit in noncontentious areas until you understand Wikipedia's policies a lot better than you currently do. —valereee (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A lot of references
References

User ignoring warnings about adding unsourced material

User:Chadply doesn't seem to have discovered talk pages, including their own. In the last couple of months User:RenatUK, User:M.boli and User:BilCat have warned them about adding unsourced material. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like classic WP:RADARbehavior. Blocking is usually the only thing that gets the attention of a user doing this, but I'll hold offf a minute in case they reply here. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Took another look today. This user has never, ever used a talk page of any kind. Their very first edit is the only time they have ever used an edit summary. They've been getting talk page messages about their editing for years and have simply ignored them. This shows both an apparent refusal to communicate and a refusal to adjust their editing to meet expected standards. Experience has shown that short blocks are usually just waited out by accounts like this, then they just go back to what they were doing, and this user often has months-long gaps between edits anyway. For all those reasons I have gone ahead and issued an indefinite block. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: thanks. I concur with your reasoning. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Still disruptive editor

47.16.81.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Previous reports here and here, problems are the same: Virtually every edit consists of changing formal wording to informal and adding unneeded hyperlinking of commonly understood words and phrases, previous reports have lots of examples listed. They were banned for a few months, now they're back doing the same thing. Eik Corell (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Also WP:DONTFIXIT edits like this one, which replaced a direct link to an article with a redirect. (I've left it alone, per WP:NOTBROKEN.) Narky Blert (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptively WP:TAGBOMBING North Carolina Town articles

Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) has been adding {{Use American English}} and {{Use mdy dates}} banners to quite a few articles about North Carolina towns where those issues have not been present and then edit warring when they were reverted:

1. [91], [92]
2. [93], [94]
3. [95], [96],
4. [97], [98]
5. [99], [100]
6. [101], [102]
7. [103], [104]
8. [105], [106]
9. [107], [108]
10. [109], [110]
11. [111], [112]
12. [113], [114]
13. [115], [116]
14. [117], [118]
15. [119], , [120]
16. [121], [122]
17. [123], [124]
18. [125], [126]
19. [127], [128]
20. [129], [130]
21. [131], [132]

Since those issues have not been present in the articles, I'm not sure what WP:POINT the dude is trying to make. If this was a recurring problem in the article, putting that info in an WP:EDNO might be useful to prevent it from recurring but that is not the case. The discussion on the dude's talk page when nowhere fast even when @Magnolia677: chimed in wondering what the dude was up to. Instead the dude proceeded to the edit warring. Given the scope of the bombing and edit warring, I think some intervention is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As I've mentioned before, don't see how this falls under WP:TAGBOMB, an essay that says using several tags on the same subject (such as various "citation needed" tags) is disruptive when one template on the subject (ex. one "refimprove" tag) is enough. Along with another essay (WP:RESPTAG) Toddst1 led me to, he hasn't given me an actual link to a rule saying adding "Use ___" are disruptive only because there's no evidence of disruptive behavior. As I've pointed out and said in my own talk page, "one of the purposes to the "Use American English" tag are for future reference for new users, who might not know why type of English to use. The addition of the "Use mdy dates" tag is for consistency with the article, to fix sources, and again, for future reference so disruptive good faith edits don't occur. I don't see a problem with adding the tags to American articles using mdy dates, and there's no clear rule (not an essay) stating that they can't be added. If you guys find it disruptive, make a discussion, or send me to a rule that says I'm in the wrong. I don't see how you guys are helping by reverting edits that do more good, than whatever you guys find to be bad." Don't see what Toddst1 is looking for in "some intervention", when all he has to counter my argument are two essays and not any actual rules on Wikipedia. Some Dude From North Carolina 20:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see any urgent issue arising from adding these templates that remain unseen in read mode; they're not intrusive. As someone who primarily copyedits on here, I don't mind seeing these templates, as new users do not generally peruse the entire Manual of Style and may not be aware of MOS:ENGVAR or MOS:DATETIES. It's a non-issue that's being fought over. I'll note that the documentation for both {{use dmy dates}} and {{use mdy dates}} have the following bolded paragraph:

Use of this template is part of a continuing effort to monitor the date formats used in articles, to assist in maintaining consistent formatting within an article. It is not a temporary "cleanup" template. Therefore, do not remove the template without valid reason, such as a determination the article uses or should use a different date format.

—Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

These aren't cleanup tags, so I don't see what the issue is. The metadata should be ideally stored in a separate place - I've suggested this - but the tags are what we have. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• While I admit I find it mildly annoying when my watchlist lights up with one user making the same more-or-less-invisible edit to a bunch of related articles, I don't see an actual violation of any policy or guideline here. I'm certainly not inclined to block the Dude over it. Edit warring is another matter and I'm very willing to block over that,but as of now I've ot seen evidence this user is engaging in blockable edit warring. I'd advise all parties to just chill, to someone looking in on this from the outside it looks like much ado about nothing. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• It isn't tagbombing, but it does seem unnecessary and is still an edit that is subject to getting you blocked for edit warring, AND it is subject to WP:BRD (yes, an essay, but it is treated as policy for all intents and purposes). If someone reverts you, you do NOT add it back. You go to the talk page and explain why it should be included. If there isn't a consensus to add it back after say a week, then you don't add it back. This is no different than any other content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• Articles about North Carolina towns should obviously use American English and American date formats per the subject matter, so I'm not sure why the reported editor feels the need to tag the articles, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with doing so. Yes, as Beeblebrox says, there's the watchlist annoyance factor, and, as Dennis says, edit warring is a problem if it occurs, but, then again, if some editor is removing those justified tags en masse, that is a bigger problem, in my opinion. It ought to merit a "knock it off" warning from an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  And, no, it's not TAGBOMBING, nor is it disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with a number of others. This clearly isn't TAGBOMBING. While these tags technically belong, an argument could be made that they're fairly unnecessary on articles where it's so obvious, or especially that it pointlessly fills up watchlists and so they should stop from making it to new articles if that's the only thing they're doing, similar to concerns over making mass WP:cosmetic fixes. Clearly reverting them doesn't help with this aspect, it just makes it worse so the OP needs to stop that. If Toddst1 had asked Some Dude From North Carolina to stop adding it to new articles pending further discussion and Some Dude From North Carolina just continued, I could see a plausible argument to blocking Some Dude From North Carolina if they continued. As things stand, I can't see any solution involving blocks that doesn't block both Toddst1 and Some Dude From North Carolina. Nil Einne (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• I get that spamming unnecessary edits is a nuisance 100% of the time, and I sympathize with the complaint, but the tags are not necessarily incorrect and don't visually change the articles in any sort of way, much less a contentious way, so I wouldn't jump right to disruptive editing. It's a content dispute, not an admin issue. I don't see guidance from either of the template docs that the tags should not be added without good reason, nor am I aware of any consensus regarding this that exists. Host a discussion and get a consensus, but as of now this is not actionable. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Misquoting Office Action page on Meta

I do not know what is wrong with this user. (EDIT: Their name is Guy Macon. This person keeps changing my title [133][134] and I'm not here for a fight.) First they accuse me of being an LTA with no evidence, then they double down on their claims and then spews some more nonsense. All I have done was improve something per WP:BOLD and I have multiple users including them coming after me and I have done nothing wrong. I even asked some other person who accused me of block evasion for evidence and I have received no response. Could someone please do something? 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Guy Macon. A IP editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia:Office actions, and adding a {{blockquote}} for something that isn't actually a quote is problematic. You certainly sound like a WP:LTA, why else would you be complaining about rollback abuse when your problematic changes were rightly reverted? Also, Special:Contributions/2603:301D:22B2:4000:280A:11C3:33ED:D3E9/64 shows a history of problematic actions, maybe you're not "a sock" and are just a problematic an IP editor. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you not see the quotation marks on the second and third paragraphs? It was most certainly quoted. If that's all you got to call my edits "problematic", you are very mistaken. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why I'm bothering to respond to you, but sure. Part of it is a quote, but "Office actions are official changes ..." does not appear in the linked page. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"Part of it is a quote" is a lie. It's quite clear you're biased for this person to support them calling me a long-term abuser. Just wow. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Now you're calling me a liar and biased. Are you saying that none of the material is a quote? Or are you saying the material I note is not in the cited source is in fact a quote? Or are you just trolling? I'm not going to reply further; if you make further personal attacks I must respond to I will simply delete your comment. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sigh. More and more accusations against an IP editor in good faith. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Re: "It's quite clear you're biased for this person", I would like to take a moment to thank the many editors who have worked so hard to support my persecution of this poor, innocent IP editor. I couldn't have done it without you. You can all expect a little something extra in your Wikipedia paycheck this week. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(←) The entire text is copied from the office actions page, but it's from two separate sections and should technically not be presented as a single quote. Also, yes, technically you inserted a small bit of new text that isn't present in the quote, as part of the quote. This may seem nitpicky, but no more nitpicky than you changing it for no reason in the first place. I'm not making any assumptions about you; I support the right of IPs to edit here, but an IP user has a snowball's chance in hell of being able to make arbitrary changes to policy pages, so this is really on you. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You say that as if I should of expected this. I didn't. I was just trying to improve something I felt needed improving without performing anything major, but it seems I'm made to look like the bad guy. 2603:301D:22B2:4000:6077:DC40:801A:D27D (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonesense. I just compared [135] with [136] The alleged quote does not match the page it was supposedly quoted from.

"The office actions policy is a set of guidelines and procedures regarding official changes to or removals of content on the Wikimedia projects, or actions against specific individuals..."

"Office actions are official changes to or removals of content on the Wikimedia projects, or actions against specific individuals..."

If you are going to quote the W?F, the quote has to be 100% accurate, not a paraphrase. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

By "the W?F" do you mean the WMF or do you mean the WTF? – or are they one and the same? EEng 11:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I took it as being some ambiguity about whether it's still the "Wikimedia Foundation" or if it had gone ahead (as threatened) and changed its name to the "Wikipedia Foundation", but I like yours ("WTF") better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving On With Brit

• Moving On With Brit (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User_Moving_On_With_Brit - admits to using her own website as a reference multiple times but sees no COI violation
• Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move
• Albert Goldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit-warring to include the source she's added that's a copy of Lenny Bruce
• After asking that all her edits be removed [137], she's mostly done so (see her edits 02:14, 6 April 2021 through 03:07, 6 April 2021, other than at Albert Goldman.
• Threatening to involve a lawyer [138] I expect my account to be shut down - totally fine, but I will be getting a lawyer - I've done nothing wrong at all.

Though the COIN and SPI discussions are both still open, I think there's enough for a block at this point. --Hipal (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Moving On With Brit (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Of course, there is... In Hipal/Ronz' opinion, that would be perfect. Hipal/Ronz retaliates against me for my outing their disgusting behavior - the bully tactics (and fake profiles).

1. Did not admit to using her own website as a reference multiple times but sees no COI violation

I said I have an affiliation with a site that I linked to 3 times out of 70 PLUS edits. The verbiage was chosen by Hipal/Ronz - the multi-named user who is inaccurate and misleading. Throughout (he/she/it's) witch hunt of me, it's been apparent that the sole issue here is "do I have any affiliation to any site I ever linked to"? I do, and I clearly stated that when asked. However, I have also cited the policies numerous times to Hipal/Ronz that does not preclude me from doing such. If there is an error on my part, it was a lack of disclosure before the fact- AND I've been adequately schooled on since then.

2. Sockpuppet investigations/Brit On the Move

All initiated by Hipal/Ronz - a known spamming editor! SEE BELOW - a small sample.

REFERENCES: https://www.wikizero.com/en/User:Ronz

Advertisements up the wazo: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists/Archive_10#/should_everything_in_a_list_be_referenced

Ronz – aka Hipla https://nofelizz.com/2014/08/13/the-dark-side-of-wikipedia/ https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#top

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hipal#A_Script_You_Might_Find_Useful

We’ll take wrong info from a credible source vs. correct info?

Janet Dubois[edit] The sources may differ on the year of her birth, but if she had a child (Raj) who died in 1987 at age 36, Raj was born around 1951. So most likely, 1932 is the correct year because the odds of her giving birth at 19 is more realistic than at 13 or 6. Also, Raj must not have been the youngest of 4 kids (as listed) unless Janet had 4 kids by the age of 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6A48:9700:1828:C6F4:CEE7:CB63 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC) The place for this discussion is the article talk page, where you will see the same argument and the response that, as far as we know, he could have been adopted. But, yes, primary sources, which we should not be used alone, suggest 1932. Too bad the New York Times punted on her year of birth. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Personal Bias and personal “opinion.”

Andy Gross[edit] • Andy Gross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs | views) I am confused why you decided to revert my edit of this article to a misquoted and incomplete older edit. The page, as it currently stands, is not only far less informative of the events that transpired and made national media headlines but is also blatantly false, a fact you would have been able to determine by actually reviewing the sources I added. Everything on the page was properly cited and factual, again qualities that are not shared by your edits. I wish to settle this dispute in a civil of a manner as possible, which is why I am writing to you rather than simply reverting your edits.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Hi Nucleartaco123. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for following up with me on this. To me, it seemed like far too much coverage and detail for a single event that has apparently no lasting impact.

Can we agree to disengage mutually?[edit] Can we both please agree to mutually disengage? And take a break from each other? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC) If you need to take a break, go ahead. I suggested WP:COOL already. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can you consider disengaging from articles I have worked to improve and/or new articles I have created from scratch? Can we both do that together, please? Right cite (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can you? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Can we both? As a show of mutual good faith? Together? Right cite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Please identify what articles you will disengage from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Sure. These three -- Al Seckel, List of think tanks in the United States, List of hunger strikes. I created Paul Seckel from scratch -- you appeared there 4 minutes later before it was linked to anything on Wikipedia. I saved Casey Calvert and Alexis Texas from deletion at AFD. I would like for you to disengage from those 3. Agreed? Thanks, Right cite (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC) While I appreciate the offer, I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Why? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC) I hope you will respect my request that we end this discussion at this point. Thank you again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC

That said, it certainly could be written better and the references formatted. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC) User: Ronz/Doubtful sources[edit] Nice list. We have been doing some other work about dubious reference material and its coordinated use at WP, some discussion about how we can work with this at User talk:Praxidicae/fakenews, and noting that I can do some of that configuration for COIBot reports. Let me ping @Vexations, Praxidicae, and ThatMontrealIP: to your build. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Thanks. I've been meaning to link any RSN discussion for each entry, but the list grew too fast. It's mostly scraping or publicity sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC) Moving comments out of an RfC

Hipal??[edit] What the t¿≠}{\¶‰¢¥”, Ronz? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC). "Hip Al"? "Hi pal"? Does someone have a script to auto-rename renamed accounts so they look like the old account - all this account renaming is too confusing :-) ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC) I'm with Bish, fwiw. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC) LOL. Yes. I put this off way too long. I'm sure there's much more fun and confusion to come. X^P --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

MY PERSONAL COMMENT TO HIPAL - AKA Ronz: Hipal/Ronz (whatever you call yourself these days). How many claims do you have open? Is it that people don't typically challenge you? Or is it your change of name and consistent assertion of authority similar to that of Northern Korea that intimidates the average person from challenging you? I've stated MULTIPLE times - I have done nothing wrong, violated no rules as "legally written out here" and yet you continue to harass me. When will you stop? Seriously, this is enough...... You are a spam editor - let's investigate that.

3. After asking that all her edits be removed [139], she's mostly done so (see her edits)

Yes, I did. I've been attacked by Hipal/Ronz and harassed. I spent hours - hours cleaning up pages. Hipal/Ronz undid all that work along with one other editor and many of the undo's post this debate - see the timeline. I returned the gesture as taught and cleaned up the remaining citations. If my edits are unacceptable, then they are unacceptable. Hipal/Ronz do not get to wipe out TONS of edits and keep a small fraction. Let's not use double standards. And, let's be clear here. Hipal/Ronz initiated this claim upon undoing edits.

4. 02:14, 6 April 2021 through 03:07, 6 April 2021, other than at Albert Goldman.

And?

5. Threatening to involve a lawyer [140] I expect my account to be shut down - totally fine, but I will be getting a lawyer - I've done nothing wrong at all.

Not threatening, simply stating my next step. Hipal/Ronz have bullied and badgered me and many users with bias. Unless Wikipedia does something to stop Hipal/Ronz this is what is needed. One person, Hipal/Ronz, operating under personas who violate freedom of speech, facts, accuracy, and operates with bias needs to be challenged, period!

I am disgusted by the witch hunt - but be as it will.

Nikki - SIGNED Moving On With Brit (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NLT, if you want to file a legal dispute, that's up to you. But you will be blocked while it or the threat of it is ongoing. I didn't read your long response in detail, but suffice to say if you evidence includes Conservapedia and some random person's blog you aren't likely to get anywhere. In that vein, please provide proper evidence for your accusations against Ronz or withdraw them, as they are personal attacks otherwise. Also whether you've added your website 3 times or 70 times, just stop doing it. Instead propose changes on article on the talk page making clear your connection to the website. Finally you have no freedom of speech on Wikipedia, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. If you want freedom of speech, please go somewhere else. You already have a website so you could stick with that. Nil Einne (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Get a grip... That's exactly what is wrong with this moderate and highly biased platform. I know I will be blocked - so what? Some random person's blog? Comical....I've provided several sources of evidence - you chose not to read it. To quote you "I didn't read your long response in detail" - perhaps you should - then get back to me. And, if I personally have no freedom of speech or opinion then neither do you - nor the other editors that censor FACTS. Moving On With Brit (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moving On With Brit: You're entirely right and that was my point. None of us have free speech here. I understand that, and I'm fairly sure Hipal does as well. And yes, I have no idea who runs nofelizz, but a quick check showed it is some random person's blog. Please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. That's what we need. No one gives a fuck about what Conservapedia of Nofelizz says. Until and unless you provide diffs, you have no evidence. It would be far better to provide one diff than 100 links to Conservapedia and Nofelizz. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Moving On With Brit as an obvious sock of Brit On the Move and closed the SPI. FWIW, I believe that the legal threads were also blockable, particularly since they have been given a number of opportunities to retract them but have instead doubled down on them. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Moving On With Brit: You're entirely right and that was my point. None of us have free speech here. I understand that, and I'm fairly sure Hipal does as well. The problem is you don't seem to since you explicitly mentioned "who violate freedom of speech", which is completely irrelevant since no one, not me, not Hipal, not Jimbo Wales, not Katherine Maher and of course not you, has any rights to freedom of speech here. So no one can violate freedom of speech here. And yes, I have no idea who runs nofelizz, but a quick check showed it is some random person's blog. (Even if it was the personal blog of António Guterres, it's still a random person's blog from my POV.) Please provide evidence in the form of WP:DIFFs. That's what we need. No one gives a fuck about what Conservapedia of Nofelizz says. Until and unless you provide diffs, you have no evidence. It would be far better to provide one diff than 100 links to Conservapedia and Nofelizz. Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Conservapedia??? I'm proud to be able to say that I got indefinitely rangeblocked after a single edit to that site, adding an incontrovertible fact (the definitions of two scientific units specified by IUPAC). I confess I was trolling. Narky Blert (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I've now revoked TPA since they have continued to persist with the legal threats on talk; they have acknowledged that the earlier account was theirs. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hizubiki25

• Hizubiki25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is very keen on getting any version possible of Naver Matome into mainspace, where it actually is at the moment, as Naver Matome (Service). But it's been deleted astonishing number of times today (7 times? Maybe more) and two versions were protected. As far as I can see, the editor does not understand that the article is quite poor and looks like an ad. On top of that, they have left messages about how I don't understand fu**ing this and fu**ing that, four times today on my talk page (1,2,3,4) and a couple times on other talk pages. Some of the creations and deletions were kindly compiled by Alistair McMillan here, where you can also see some good faith attempts to explain things to Hizubiki25.

• 19:11, June 19, 2020 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome
• 22:30, June 19, 2020 Seraphimblade deleted Naver Matome
• 00:55, June 20, 2020 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome
• 11:33, June 20, 2020 Athaenara deleted Naver Matome
• 22:35, April 1, 2021 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome
• 14:50, April 4, 2021 Deb deleted Naver Matome
• 00:06, April 5, 2021 Hizubiki25 created Naver matome
• 04:22, April 5, 2021 Neel.arunabh moved to draft leaving redirect
• 08:27, April 5, 2021 Deb deleted Draft:Naver matome
• 13:20, April 5, 2021‎ Hizubiki25 created Naver matome (service)
• 13:48, April 5, 2021‎ Eostrix moved to draft leaving redirect
• 14:35, April 5, 2021 Liz deleted Naver matome
• 19:52, April 5, 2021 Hizubiki25 created Naver Matome (service)
• 21:28, April 5, 2021 Stwalkerster deleted Naver Matome (service)
• 21:30, April 5, 2021‎ Hizubiki25 created Naver matome
• 21:44, April 5, 2021 Fastily deleted Naver matome (service)
• 22:27, April 5, 2021 Anthony Bradbury deleted Naver matome

I did report this to AIV but they opted not to take action, since at the time the page had been deleted. But in this case, it's sort of an interstitial moment, as it comes back. I've also just been pinged that an SPI was opened.--- Possibly (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think a block is now necessary given the socking and personal attacks in addition to the outright refusal to stop creating a page that multiple admins have deemed worthy of speedy deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Blocked both indefinitely at the SPI. No objection to the master appealing, but they do need to engage constructively with the wiki first rather than being unblocked automatically. Cabayi (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note: I protected Naver Matome a couple of days ago because it kept being recreated, but of course they will still try to recreate it under other names. There's no way round that, I'm afraid. Deb (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW, Naver Matome is probably notable (though it could be part of Naver Corporation, and some coverage is due to a hoax). It is unlikely this is an ad, as it is too poorly written and formatted and the service is defunct. I agree the creations, at the least the version I saw and draftified, are very poorly written and formatted and in no way ready for mainspace. The real problem is Hizubiki25 not communicating, and not responding to feedback here.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Racism, personal attacks and edit warring by user:Springfühler

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

---

Springpfühler has engaged in an extraordinary outburst of racist attacks and personal attacks recently, here are just some examples:

• "u kiss my ass, you are from a no country, a fake one, gypsy land, you are gypsy king, ti si CIGAN i tvoja majka takođe, she's being jebela in your gypsy camp," [141]
• "I come from Western Europe, it is you who are an analphabet poor immigrant coming from a fake country where not even their people want to live. They are mostly immigrants, everywhere. The "country" is parted. You and your friends are either fake Serbs or fake Croats. You are not just "fucking retard", as you say, you are also an analphabet, and an ANONIMOUS one." [142]
• "Jeo ti coddo a mama, sorre e fiza tua, fiz' e bagassa, su cunn'e mama tua àliga de muntonarzu. I am NOT from Balkan, cozone tontu, fiz'e coga" [143]

This is just completely unacceptable. It goes hand in hand with very extensive edit warring at Miroslav Stevanović [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153] and declaring they'll go on edit warring "I will always revert you until u'll be blocked," [154] We considered banning Springfühler in 2019 for the same pattern of constant edit warning and they were warned [155]. Unfortunately, their behavior has only deteriorated from that, this latest round of extreme edit warring, racism and personal abuse is just the latest example. In light of this, I move that this user be indeffed. Jeppiz (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

MowgliDm

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

---

I was originally going to post this to WP:EWN but the addition of an obvious sockpuppet has made me bring it here instead.

MowgliDm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA who has been edit-warring non stop on the Michael Farmer, Baron Farmer article. As was noted in his WP:EWN report, he has a possible COI on this subject. Nonetheless, he continued edit warring with a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, as he has a total refusal to engage on the talk page. Consequently, he was blocked from editing. His first edit back has been to resume the exact same pattern. I reverted him and left a note on his talk page warning that this was a bad course of action. 20 minutes later a new account was made, Mate8888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has resumed the edit warring[156][157]. This is such an obvious case of WP:QUACK that I request both accounts be indeffed as this guy is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. — Czello 11:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

having engaged on this, agree with above, have requested temp page protection. Acousmana 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Maltese football and User:Onel5969

I am deeply concerned that Onel5969 isn't helping out in a good way. He has firstly removed a load of content first and not even bothered to tag the content concerned for notability, this is followed by redirects. On Dingli Swallows F.C. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dingli_Swallows_F.C.&offset=&limit=500&action=history page history) he removed and redirected only to end up edit-warring with Apple20674. this somewhat disruptive edit-warring happened with Ta' Xbiex S.C., St. Venera Lightnings F.C., Birżebbuġa St. Peter's F.C. and Marsaskala F.C..

This was followed by sending the articles to AfD, now I am running through them having a good look for sources and I can find them, I feel I can show that Onel5969 has been wrong in his process and on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dingli Swallows F.C., that AfD, I don't feel he hasn't done a good job on WP:BEFORE, but I feel whats worse, is that he has bullied Apple20674 in this editing pattern, hasn't explained clear enough on that users talk page, instead just tagging it with templates, and that needs to be addressed the most. This process of his, it's concerning too me and felt it needed a broader look. Govvy (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969 is entirely correct in removing/redirecting uncited material; at Dingli Swallows F.C., the fault was in trying to restore this stuff without providing sources. The single source finally coughed up does not reference a fraction of the text. Onel5969 then had a choice of leaving unsourced material sitting in mainspace (since the author clearly wasn't going to bother about WP:ONUS), or kicking it up for a formal deletion discussion, and sensibly took the latter route. There's nothing to criticize in that. - As for the other clubs, my presumption would also have been that they don't meet WP:NFOOTY as being in the amateur league, but when unsure, open up discussion at AFD. Personally I avoid the sports club notability minefield whenever possible, but let's please not make it extra perilous for those reviewers who do dare to tangle with it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Having participated in all/most of the AFDs in question (some where I agree with deletion, others where I oppose) my view is as follows: yes, Onel5969 could have been more thorough in conducting WP:BEFORE searches, but that's about as far as it goes, and I am shocked that this is now at ANI with no prior attempt (as far as I can see) to discuss any concerns elsewhere? GiantSnowman 16:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Elmidae and GiantSnowman, I am sorry, and I do realize I was wrong in immediately restoring the content, however, I am at the moment rewriting the articles to be completely sourced, and Onel5969 is immediately readding a deletion request. Dingli Swallows F.C. is completely sourced at the moment as I have removed most of the currently unciteable material (for now, I am re adding more cited material later), however a deletion request has been put on it even though it does pass WP:FOOTYN, which is the user's claim to deletion. Sorry for wasting your time on this, Apple20674 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

This is more about Onel5969 process and felt he bullied and edit-warred with Apple20674, that's not right for an experienced editor in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm really not seeing a process issue here. On the articles I've checked, it's gone something like:

1. Onel5969 redirects an article that is of questionable notability and is wholly uncited. This is fine under WP:V and WP:BOLD.
2. Apple20674 reverts the redirect, asserting that it's notable and in some cases providing some sourcing. This is also fine under WP:BRD.
3. Onel5969, apparently disagreeing with this, nominates the article at AfD. This is also fine, as that's beginning the "discuss" part of BRD.

Beyond that, there have been a few further reverts due to Apple20674 removing the AfD tag and being reverted - this is a minor process mistake, but not by Onel5969, and has already been acknowledged as a mistake by Apple20674. This is a notability dispute that has already been taken to the correct forum. Sure, I think Onel5969 could have been more personal in dealing with a new editor, but I'm just not sure what admin intervention you're expecting that warrants going straight to ANI with this. ~ mazca ^talk 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have found Onel5969 to be rather quick to nominate articles for deletion rather than look for sources, but I don't think that there's any fault in this instance that comes near to needing administrator intervention. I know that this is anecdotal WP:OR, but it's quite telling that someone close to me played in Division 3 of the Maltese League (very much as an amateur) and then, on returning to the UK in his twenties, joined a team in Division 3 of the South-West Hertfordshire League. The level of play was comparable. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Onel is a very experienced and responsive editor. I'm sure that he would respond positively to anyone approaching him in a constructive way to discuss issues around notability in particular areas. A report here, in the absence of such an approach, seems disproportionate. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, you want to defend a guy who couldn't be bothered to verify the content, do a bit of research, actually read the article content he was deleting. Understand the policy he was deleting under. These are simply steps any editor can do to help build wikipedia content, wikipedia should be about the promotion of information, not eradication of it. Onel5969 has done everything wrong from my perspective. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ppdallo and the Hausa people

Ppdallo has been constantly trying to insert a source that requires registration to validate from ethnologue[158] into the Hausa people article to support the claim that the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken.

I, and another editor (Esiymbro) have reverted him on this, but to no avail. Up front - and as is plainly visible from the history - I've reverted him most, but I maintain that based on the unreliability of the source, and the failure to address concerns raised on the talk page it falls into disruptive editing.

Article history is here.

Points to note - Ppdallo requested page protection of the article here, citing "Persistent vandalism – Edit war by other editors." - whilst neglecting to mention that by this point he had reverted six times on the article in question. Although I've just noticed that I was also at 4RR, so bad mark there for myself - I thought I'd stopped cleanly at 3RR, and said as much here.

I've tried to make the point that ethnologue requires registration, and when checked with wayback machine the available data didn't support the claim of second place - only the number of people who spoke it with no comment as to rankings.

Ppdallo has made mild accusations of bad faith, which I'm not concerned with in content, only in attitude - "Then you obviously are up to some mischief" - which he's brought up a few times on the talk page.

There is also the issue of communication - I was so puzzled by his behaviour I even went to the helpdesk to see if his lack of user page may be stopping him from receiving pings -Pinging a user page redlink? as he ignored invitations to join in discussion, then said he would join in - but didn't - and finally created his own talk page section inviting discussion - directly underneath the one I had created that pinged him in the first place: Hausa Language as Afroasiatic.

During all this, all I've really asked is that Ppdallo finds a reliable, verifiable source to support the language ranking claim (exactly as he did here] for the religious claim,) and finally he did so with this edit which was exactly as requested, albeit as an external link. I cleaned it up into a Cite, and then he promptly re-added the ethnologue reference again.

Looking back, I'm prepared to be trouted and humbled for my behaviour - it seems evident I should have stopped reverting sooner, but can somebody please have a word with Ppdallo about what is a reliable source, that can be verified without spending $480 a year - especially when he's finally provided one that serves exactly the required purpose?

I'm done with it now, I see no way of removing the reference without yet more reversions, and I'm not stoking the fire anymore there, it's just tit-for-tat which helps nobody in the end.

Final comment - Ppdallo has asked that I don't contact him, but as per policy I'll leave him a talk page message informing him of this discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Taking a look at some of the discussion regarding Ethnologue at the WP:RSN, it seems like it is considered a reliable source; WP:PAYWALL is a thing that can be overcome with Resource Request.

That being said, the edit summary does appear to be casting aspersions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens. Have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access to sources? In part it says "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." So the cost of access to Ethnologue is just a red herring. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

References

CambridgeBayWeather, yes, I'm aware of that, but there is also the fact that ethnologue even when accessed doesn't support the claim that Hausa is the second most used language. All it does it state that x number of people speak it. Whether ethnologue is reliable or not doesn't matter if the claim isn't supported. As Ppdallo has finally supplied a source that completely supports his claim the inclusion of ethnologue is moot and unnecessary.

Also, it's not just about the source - it's about Ppdallo's behaviour and battleground mentality. Claims that I'm up to mischief, misleading edit summaries (when requesting PP - "Persistent vandalism – Edit war by other editors." & "see talk page for rationale" with no discussion until 24 hours later), disregard for BRD, and templating editors for unconstructive edits. They seems to have decided on a bulldozer method of editing with little attempt at real discussion or rationale. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you knew then why did you go on about it? The main point of your complaint seemed to be about the cost of Ethnologue. If you can't see Ethnologue then how do you know the source in't valid? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens I did not claim that the "the Hausa language is the second most popular afroasiatic language spoken". Please read again the very text that you have reverted me several times on. that was the claim and is well sourced.Ppdallo (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Bob drobbs flooding discussions

On March 5, Bob drobbs (talk · contribs) started a discussion on Talk:List of Middle Eastern superheroes claiming that all superheroes should be included if they are "ethnic Jews" (diff). Afterwards he started three more discussions on the same talk page: this one, this one, and this one, the latter two marked as RfCs. He also started this discussion at Talk:Middle Eastern Americans and took the issue to editor assistance, NPOVN, and DRN (where it was immeadiately rejected by a volunteer[159] who called it "forum shopping"). In total, he made about 60 (sic) edits in promotion of or related to the idea that Jews should be called Middle Eastern, mostly on talk pages. I tried to ignore him, but he threatens and executes small scale edit warring: Help come up with a fair, non-biased standard, that will be applied to people of all religions or I'll keep reverting[160]. After this edit, I put an uw-ew on his talk page. He then added a POV template (diff and again after I removed it, diff). In the hope to stop his flooding of talk pages, I started this FTN discussion. He got very little support there, but still carries on, his latest related action in main space being the addition of the POV-tag to Middle Eastern Americans on April 5, diff. He accused me of "bias" about ten times, and once of not acting in good faith[161]. Currently he stresses the difference between "all" Jews and "ethnic" Jews, but I don't think that's relevant to the question, since all contributions to the discussions apply to both concepts. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The List of Middle Eastern superheroes is almost certainly going to get deleted with overwhelming concensus, with the support of both you and Bob drobbs, which should settle the issue at least for that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: put forth a Straw man proposition in FTN. Of course not ALL Jews are Middle Eastern; religious converts aren't. Congratulations, he's mostly successfully knocking down his own straw man. But the much more nuanced question whether or not ethnic Jews are Middle Eastern or of Middle Eastern ancestry. I'm not saying definitively either way, but RS support that the idea that they are. 1 2. And contrary to Rsk6400's comment, this is an important distinction. A Jew without any additional qualifiers isn't necessarily of Middle Eastern ancestry (like a random Muslim). But RS indicate that a Sephardic Jew does have Middle Eastern ancestry.

The vast majority of my recent edits have been on talk pages with the intent of trying to get inclusion criteria defined along with adding a couple of POV tags. My only motivation is that clear, non-biased, inclusion criteria needs to be used instead of individual editors applying their subjective bias, some of whom seem to be specifically targeting Jews. If Middle Eastern means "born in the Middle East", perfect. If Middle Eastern means "having ancestors from the Middle East", or being "ethnically from the Middle East" then there needs to be agreement about the definitions of these terms.

Meanwhile, in addition to heavily promoting (flooding?) his views all over wikipedia, and with no agreement on inclusion criteria, rsk6400 has been editing pages heavily in order to exclude Jews. Here's a change he made to a page's lede, with no consensus, where it seems clear his sole intent was to make sure Jews are not included. On the same page, he's made at least 9 different edits in order to remove Jews. So yes, I have questioned his bias.

While these pages remain in such a state, I believe the POV tags are absolutely appropriate, and I ask who's the problem here?

On a constructive note, I once again welcome rsk6400 to join me in defining clear inclusion criteria for "Middle East" pages which will be applied equally to people of all races, religions, and ethnicities. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by users Lithopsian and Narky Blert

I've been trying to eliminate the page Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) due to there being only one person of that name, but these two are very keen on not allowing me to do that. Up til recently the disambiguation page had two articles, several redirects and several redlinks, and I got rid of all but one of those via prod. The two like to consistently edit-war without properly stating their reasons or clarifying their position; it's not even clear what they want.

First, it took a while (1, 2) for Blert to even realize that the page was full of redirects masking as articles. He then suggested I might've still been wrong, that there still was more than one person that would justify the disamb page's continued existence, and offered a source which, turns out, supported my position. I provided another source (here and here) to confirm. Blert then seemingly abandoned the cause and there was a lull in the discussion, during which the prod expired and one of the outstanding articles was deleted. Lithopsian then came out of nowhere and began laboring to undo everything I did, without offering any specific reason other than there still was a discussion (an abeyant one) ongoing. I reiterated my previous point, to which both Lithopsian and Blert responded by moving the goalposts and making this about disambiguating plausible search terms, however incorrect they are. I gave a similar reply to both Lithopsian and Narky Blert. The former, instead of answering, went on to claim to an administrator that my original prod was made under 'false premises' and demand its restitution. Blert said some nonsense which had nothing to do with the matter and then proceeded to undo a stop-gap compromise of mine and threaten me with 4RR.

To this moment, my last comments, both in the disambiguation page and in Blert's talk page, are not responded to. It's not clear what their grievances even are, but it doesn't look like the two will accept any reasoning whatsoever, it's clear they have no relevant knowledge of classical antiquity (or desire to obtain it) which would help resolve the problem, and my edit count for the day is expired. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

All the relevant discussions I know of can be found (in chronological order) at Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#Name, User talk:Narky Blert#Claudia Pulchra and Talk:Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)#The purpose of a disambiguation page (which I've only just seen, and haven't taken part in). For completeness, I add my {{uw-3rr}} notice}} at User talk:Avilich#6 April 2021 and my advisory post at User talk:Lithopsian#Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation)

Courtesy ping to Graeme Bartlett, who reverted a near-blanking edit by Avilich to the page in question on 4 April 2021.

For now, I will let those discussions speak for themselves. I will simply remark that (1) failure to respond instanter does not mean acceptance, (2) my WP:ES "One more revert by Avilich will be WP:4RR" was not a threat but a statement of fact, and (3) the original inhabitants of Australia are famed for their ingenious missile weapons. Narky Blert (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You intentionally avoided responding the question which would have decided the issue, you didn't simply 'fail to respond instanter'. Avilich (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

No 3RR violations by my count, but right up to the line. Both sides should have been talking instead, of course. I looked at the request for undeletion. It is worth clarifying that Lithopsian asserts that speedy deletion of "redirects", not the prod, were made under "false premises". Lithopsian, what redirects do you mean? Dishonesty is a rather hurtful allegation if exaggerated or untrue. I have made some suggestions about how to move progress forward on the disambiguation page talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects are all the other entries on the disamb page, whose deletion I requested under the same reasoning as the prod. Avilich (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, they were deleted as speedy deletion criterion G8. Of course, I can't see your original request and the criterion you selected. But presumably it's not the same as the article you put the prod on since, if it were, you would have similarly requested speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

They were all dependent on a single article, so that when one was gone the rest followed. The prod justification seemed technically valid for all of them as search terms, though I can understand that Lithopsian would have preferred that I nominated each of the redirects indicvidually, so I apologize if such a bold move was unwarranted. Avilich (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The redirects referred to were all pointing to the PROD'd article (Claudia Pulchra Major), which has since been recreated by Avilich. A PROD is of course an entirely legitimate process, but using it as a mechanism to remove redirects without discussion seems over the line to me. For clarity, I have requested a refund of the PROD'd article (request outstanding as I write this), if only for its history, and recreated the redirects with hopefully better targets in existing articles. Lithopsian (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the article with the PROD was deleted, and then the redirects to that deleted page were tagged G8 and deleted? Do I have that right? If so, what's the supposed false premise in deleting the redirects? That seems entirely legitimate. --Bsherr (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And then recreating the PROD'd article that the redirects depended on, albeit now as a redirect but still concerning the same subject? So back to square one, but the offending redirects are now gone. Might have looked good at every step along the way, but I don't think that's how redirects are supposed to be deleted. Lithopsian (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an adnin, so I can't see the histories; but when I by chance fell across what is now Claudia Pulchra (disambiguation) a week or so ago, almost all of those redlinks were bluelinks. Narky Blert (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You were also interested in the search history of a prod'd article of all things, for some reason. I wonder what is your interest in that, or in recovering incorrect stray search terms in general. From what I gather you only entered this dispute to begin with because you sensed some editwarring going on, which caused you to adopt a reactionary position by default, that is, returning to the status quo ante no matter the cost. Avilich (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lithopsian: But you weren't talking about the PROD or whatever was created in its place after it was deleted. You wrote that the redirects were speedily deleted "under false premises". That apparently was a false statement, WP:Casting aspersions on Avilich. Very unimpressed with that conduct. --Bsherr (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notification posted at WT:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome#An ANI case. Narky Blert (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any opinion on the claims of disruptive editing or the like, but on the substantive matter of whether anyone other than the wife of Varus was called Claudia Pulchra or is so-called in current scholarship, User:Avilich has provided a substantial range of sources and a search for "Claudia Pulchra" on Google Books seems to confirm: no one uses "Claudia Pulchra" for any other individual. Furius (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So the one person actually referred by that name is the last line of a long list of non-notable maybe,possibly named the same who require a re-direct to establish them at that name and then in most cases re-direct to a single mention in an article about their husband? Certainly not doing a reader any favors there. Slywriter (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I will note that Avilich has been very argumentative. And Avilich has cause most of the disruption here. I have also restored one redirect that should not have been deleted as it was created due to renaming of a page that had been there for over 6 years. So that was not a "recently created" name. Disambiguation pages can contain many redlinks, and do not need to be deleted just because they do! There just needs to be a proper civil discussion about what is real, what is duplicate, and what will never be notable. That is not for this venue though. The prod can be reversed on request. So this is an administrator that someone can take. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO this didn't need to be referred to ANI. This is an argument over how best to apply Wikipedia policy to a disambiguation page, and should have been resolved there or with community input at Classical Greece and Rome. With respect to the issue, I disagree with Avilich's interpretation of old and new scholarship: the DGRBM is dated, but still a vital source; I'm not going to argue that at length here, except to say that if important scholarship once did support a particular name—especially a plausible one like the one at issue here—then it makes perfect sense to have a disambiguation page, redirects, and hatnotes, even if current scholarship does not use that name (which, I point out, is not the same as refuting it). I think that was the principle upon which Narky Blert was standing, and what Lithopsian was getting at. But more importantly, skimming Narky Blert's arguments I don't see anything disruptive or provocative, and having interacted with him before I wouldn't expect to. I don't see disruptive editing. P Aculeius (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I only argued the DGRBM is unreliable before finding out it actually supports (pp. 761–62) my original point. Apparently believing the other party would read his own source is to expect too much. I couldn't find any instance in older scholarship of the name being used in the manner you speak, and the whole stash seems to be a mess created by a single editor 5 years ago. Avilich (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You may not have noticed but there was persistent editwarring and a very low willingness by the opposing party to actually engage in conversation. They ignored comments of mine, shamelessly gave some misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer, and kept mass reverting my edits based on nothing else than the other having already done so previously. They felt zero need to give an actual, substantial reason why there should be a disambiguation page dedicated to listing redirects with invented names, and, judging by Lithopsian's final answer in the disamb talk page, WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to have been the limit of their repertoire. Avilich (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: Mostly what I see in the discussions is good faith disagreement about how to apply our policies and guidelines to the specifics of this case. I do not see any real evidence of "misdirecting or misleading reply to avoid having to provide a straight answer" etc, not any real reluctance to engage in conversation beyond the apparent frustration with what they feel is the wrong way you went about this. As always, it's easily possible that both sides will continue to believe their preferred outcome is best supported by our policies and guidelines. And with so few participants achieving WP:consensus may be impossible. Therefore using some form of WP:Dispute resolution such as asking for feedback from a relevant Wikiproject may be necessary as recommended by others. But for this to properly succeed, it would require both side to accept there is good faith disagreement, and so frankly I agree with others that you Avilich seem to be the bigger problem since you don't seem to accept that per you comments I'm replying to. While Lithopsian and Narky Blert may be unhappy with how you went about this, and I make no comments on whether their views are fair, at least that's a process dispute unlike your complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're making my point for me, though. The reliability of a source isn't determined by whether its conclusions agree with or disagree with the current scholarly majority on a particular issue. It's not reliable when it supports your position and unreliable when it doesn't. You may be right about the name, although frankly I suspect that "Claudia Pulchra" was a perfectly acceptable way for Romans to refer to any of the Claudiae in this family when distinguishing them from other women of the Claudia gens. It doesn't take a lot of examples to know that this was a logical construction for the Romans, even if they used it only when necessary. But I digress. As I skimmed the argument, I didn't see disruptive editing; I saw two editors refusing to consider each other's points, and admit that they could both be correct. And in my opinion you tend to be a bit inflexible when it comes to the "truth" (and I'm not trying to be mean; I know that I have a tendency to be stubborn about things myself). Since you must have seen that Narky Blert regularly consults with CGR when there are questions of disambiguation beyond his knowledge, and that he's always quite courteous in doing so, I'm surprised you aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt; reporting him to ANI seems extreme, when you could simply have asked the members of CGR for some input. This doesn't seem to be a situation requiring administrator intervention or some kind of formal reprimands or warnings. My advice is to take a deep breath, and look for ways to compromise, or determine a solution that will be satisfactory to each of you. P Aculeius (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Avilich: (EC) BTW, I assume you didn't intend to say that a source/DGRBM is unreliable if it does not support your PoV, but if it does then it's reliable. However this is what your comment says to me, and it's definitely not an argument supported by any policy or guideline. Indeed putting aside alignment with someone's personal PoV, it's generally a poor argument to say I though source X said A so it was unreliable but I found it says B so it's reliable. Sources being wrong about basic facts is a sign of unreliability but since a lot of the time basic facts are not easily established, it's generally better to concentrate on whether the author or publisher has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy on the subject matter etc. Nil Einne (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:2950:3CD0:4477:7C16:B95C:5054

Four times now, this IP editor has attempted to force this content onto the Lock Martin article. I've removed the material several times as unsourced, and placed appropriate warnings on the IP editor's talk page. The IP editor has accused me of censorship despite my explanations on their talk page, and has refused to supply a source to support their claim. He's also accused me of being the "reason few people contribute anything worthwhile to Wikipedia!" As I noted on the article's talk page and on the IP editor's talk page, I've tried to find reliable sourcing for this claim and have not found it. Nevertheless, the IP editor has once again added the material without providing a source [162]. I'm not going to act as an administrator. Another set of eyes, please. The IP editor has been informed of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• All of their edits are unsourced and they've run through the warnings. I've given them a short block. Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

M-Mustapha

M-Mustapha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been using his rollback without warning users, see their contributions, trying to misrepresent user scripts, see this. I propose removal of rollback rights, as they do have prior warnings for misuse of rollback, upon other types of warnings from other users, and administrators. They may be hat collecting as well, see 1 and 2. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 02:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix, I'm not aware of any requirement that an rollbacker needs to warn the offending editor, although the RedWarn thing was a little strange. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Zppix please provide your diffs regarding the misuse and the other types of warnings, I can provide a valid defence of all my revert actions here. Twinkle is not mobile friendly that's why I don't often warn users as it's a bit tedious to do it manually whenever I'm using my mobile phone to edit, I hope you know that twinkle doesn't work on mobile view. Thank God that's all you have seen from all the work I have been doing in fighting vandalism to keep Wikipedia safe. The Living love ^talk 04:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Zppix: as others have said, there's zero requirement to warn people when using WP:Rollback. As the guideline says, due to the lack of a proper edit summary rollback should generally only be used for clear cut vandalism or other cases when the reason is clear, for blocked or banned editors, or when a reason is provided somewhere else (and 2 other cases not relevant for general usage). But I had a look at M-Mustapha's recent use and most of them seem clearly appropriate e.g. 1 was reverting an edit calling someone Nazi man, one was reverting an edit saying someone's little brother was a pain in the ass, and the third was an edit changing someone's name to Ritzcracker. The other 2 weren't so obvious with just the preview but if there is a problem you're the one who needs to provide evidence. Please remember that there's also zero requirement to warn vandals when reverting their vandalism. While I understand it can be frustrating for some since editor's often can't be blocked without a prior warning, for a variety of reasons plenty of editors do not warn. Nil Einne (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

IP user 2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB repeatedly breaking WP:V and WP:BIO

2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeatedly adding information to articles, including biographical articles, without citing sources, breaking WP:V and WP:BIO. I engaged them on their talk page which ended with them saying they were marking Carl Hodges as dead because "I'm sick and tired of Carl Hodges living." This user has used at least one other IP to tedit List of Thomas & Friends voice actors: 2601:240:4180:6A50:608C:C7C8:F32E:315C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - this IP was warned multiple times on their talk page before they switched to 2601:240:4180:6A50:4443:DBC7:C2FC:DCDB, where they were warned multiple times again. They clearly have no intention to follow WP:V which is especially problematic as they are editing a lot of biographical articles. Laplorfill (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

All unsourced wrestling content, all the time

Kingabyan91 (talk · contribs). A final warning days ago had no impact. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's helpful if you provide more context and diff links so we know what the actual complaint is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring on Panthera pardus saxicolor

The user @LPFCW: has repeatedly changed the page Panthera pardus tulliana to that of an old synonym, citing several outdated sources [163], and then going on a rant on their talk page (User talk:LPFCW) about how the editors of the page were censoring the information on the article. They have reverted edits more than 4 times in less than a day, and seemingly tried to edit the page in the same way before without an account: [164], [165], [166]. Also has no qualms with edit-warring when warned [167] and has even admitted to it [168]. I have done my best to correct their wrong edits without reverting, as I am currently on a no-revert period. I believe this user's talk page and edit history speaks for itself. I also hope @SilverTiger12: does not get blamed for edit-warring, they are trying their best to revert the user's edit warring. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I gave you scientific references while I knew you are not looking for that! You are the real warring editors! So, I will be back to you with my IT team! You are purposefully spreading false information and you do not have the right to do that! Change the title of the page otherwise this edit war will be forever!--LPFCW (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)LPFCW

^ I believe that should be enough for you, admins. He even changed the title of this complaint. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If I come back tomorrow and I see tulliana is still instead of Persian leopard, I will hack this page! Now as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: Your threats are meaningless, all this means is that you will get blocked faster. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Their edit history [169] reveals that they are only here to edit war surrounding this subspecies. Their suggestion that "this edit war will be forever" unless other editors accept their edits show that they are not here to build an encyclopedia. I recommend at least a temporary block, preferably an indef NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Before you come to talk Hemiauchenia I gave several references why these editors purposefully spread wrong information using Wikipedia. You can read it before you say something! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LPFCW: You've threatened to "be back to you with my IT team" and "hack this page" (whatever the hell that means), you clearly don't care about the opinions of other editors, so why should we care about yours? Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Ddum. I tried to type out a longer paragraph but it was removed due to edit conflicts. Basically, the talk page and edit history of the article show what is happening clearly enough and the problem editor has poor hearing. I already warned them on their talk page. Also, the edit conflicts I have run into while trying to comment hear are really something. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

SilverTiger12 Your behavior is also obviously warring! That was not a threat! That was a real fact I will be back with IT team and will hack this page unless you correct the title! You should learn you do not have the right to change the historical names! Hemiauchenia I do not really care what you think! You are actually wasting my time! The reason that I am alone now s because here was midnight! But today is another day! For your information I was block all yesterday! I do not care about Wikipedia and you guys at all! I know your behaviors! You think you have all the rights to do anything! By the way, I said the word! If you are referencing to that newsletter should change the scientific name only from saxicolor to tulliana. Why did you change the Persian leopard in the page title?!! Change the title to Persian leopard and leave the tulliana while you are referencing to that newsletter! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LPFCW (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Your block record is clean. As are all the other accounts and IPs that have been recently edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

LPFCW has now reverted 10 times in a 24 four period, blowing right past the 3RR. Silvertiger12 has also gone way over the 3RR, but I don't think that they were familiar with the concept of the 3RR, so I've let them know on their talkpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Hemiachenia, I admit to knowing what 3RR is, but was busy irl and forgot to keep track of how many times I was reverting him- a few were manual reverts which made counting doubly difficult. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't edit war! There is no point continuing in a situation like that—do you think one more revert is going to change their mind? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:∞RR. Actually, I suppose that could be a redirect to the 3RR exemptions. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked LPFCW for a short period due to the extreme edit warring. I had issued a polite warning at User talk:LPFCW#Procedures but then noticed the battle was continuing. Please let me know (perhaps with a ping from talk) if problems persist. If needed, the next block will be indefinite. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnuniq: Considering the talk of "hacking" and IT teams, I guess we shouldn't be surprised with block evasion [170] Nil Einne (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  Call me a wimp but I just semi-protected Panthera pardus tulliana so we don't have to waste more time in the next three days. An indef looks inevitable and if someone wants to do that now, fine by me. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  When they are unblocked, they'll just go back to the same thing. I'd recommend indefing them now (but I'm not an admin :-) ). What a silly edit war. --Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  A candidate for WP:HALLOFLAME, perhaps? Narky Blert (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi Community, The user:Nearlyevil665 is inappropriately flagging notable articles for deletion at a high speed. He sends email to the entity demanding for money to fix the articles back. Let’s check this asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎154.160.2.168 (talk)

You must notify users that you report here(see the top of this page). I'd suggest that you quickly provide the evidence you have of your accusation, or withdraw it. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The preposterous accusation aside, this anonymous user has no edits other than a 'poorly substantiated keep vote' for one of the dozens of Ghana-related articles I had tagged for deletion. To me, this smells of retaliation for tagging dozens of non-notable Ghanaian musicians and performers (all primarily authored by a single user) for deletion. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Notice: To add, the user Nearlyevil665 joined the community 8 months ago. Thanks 154.160.2.89 (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'd be interested to see what evidence, if any, the IP editor is able to provide to support this accusation. Having said that, I do see a lot of AfD nominations and G11 CSD tags in Nearlyevil665's recent contribution history, almost all relating to Ghanaian entertainment industry, for example: Djsky, Ajeezay, Stay Jay, Sista Afia, Afia Amankwaah Tamakloe, Mizter Okyere, Nu Afrika Records, Dead Peepol and Benedicta Gafah. None of these are new articles, so this has not come about through regular new page patrolling - without making any accusations of wrong-doing, I'd be interested to hear how Nearlyevil665 came across these articles, and what inspired what appears to be a sudden very intense interest in nominating articles in this subject area for deletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'll add that I've just reviewed the history of the articles I've linked to; I see that most, but not all of them, were either originally written by, or have been editing by, Geezygee. I will notify them of this discussion; also pinging Deb, who I see has been in touch with both of these users recently, perhaps she can shed some light on what's going on here. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I clarified on that point earlier here. I will copy it here: "For what it's worth, I did nominate a couple of Ghana-related articles for G11 deletion, but I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as malicious intent. Upon stumbling on a non-notable Ghana-related entry I filtered the author's contributions to page creations and found that an absolute majority were a complete mess. Namely there was a pattern of creating pages for non-notable Ghanaian musicians and performers. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the author of those pages is anyhow involved with this slanderous accusation against me. I'm just saying you can confirm the pattern of deletion tags as they were restricted to one particular user's page contributions. See Special:Contributions/Geezygee for more. Or to rephrase: If I stumble upon on what seems like a promotional article I check the author's contributions for any other articles that are not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. This approach works well to swiftly identify other non-notable subjects. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of nominations, but this seems not unreasonable given Geezygee's level of activity in this area. I have turned some of them down and actioned others. Possibly we don't need to look too far for the anon. Deb (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil language

I have warned user PRFAN13, because he keeps vandalasing List of Power Rangers Dino Fury episodes page. See what was his answer - User_talk:PRFAN13#Vandalism. Lado85 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Lado85, that is clearly an uncivil response, but let's start at the beginning. You have accused them of vandalism - this isn't obvious to me, why do you say that their edits are vandalism? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Notability and lack of knowledge of User:Onel5969

On the page of Latgalian ceramicist Jānis Limans, this user Onel5969 marked the article like it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Since when an American knows and decides what is notable or what is not for the foreign countries and its regions? Ceramics is one of the historical trademarks for the Latgale region and its ceramicists have a special role in the region's culture. If you don't know the topic, explore it first, before you doubt its notability. - Januszjan88 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)