Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Username006 (talk | contribs) at 02:35, 29 January 2022 (→Page moves despite editing restriction.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    WP:NOTHERE editing by Aydın memmedov2000

    TBAN imposed. Will log at WP:RESTRICT. El_C 11:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. Added "We are not iranian, This is nothing but fascism, we are not iranians (persian), we are a modern Turks people. You are carrying out the policy of assimilation of Azerbaijanis here." on the Talk:Iranian Azerbaijanis page.[1]
    2. Added a link published by the government of the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, a country without media freedom, in order to press a historic 15th-century Turkic woman as "the first diplomant woman of Azerbaijan"[2] (See also; Historical_negationism#Azerbaijan)
    3. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th century Turkic figure.[3]
    4. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 14th/15th century Turkic figure.[4]
    5. Added a fictitious flag (per the file description and Commons) to the Meskhetian Turks article.[5]
    6. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 15th century Turkic figure.[6]
    7. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[7]
    8. Added Latin Azerbaijani script, created after 1991 in the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan, to a 18t century Turkic figure.[8]
    9. Warned on numerous occassions.[9]-[10]-[11]-[12]

    Looking at the compelling evidence, it appears that said user is not here to build this encyclopedia. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • from what I've seen personally, I agree that the reported user is a NOTHERE nationalist editor. - Kevo327 (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • this kind of behaviour is hard to treat, a topic ban with an option of applying for a ban lift in 6 months if behaves in other areas perhaps could treat the problem. --Armatura (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The forum comment at Iranian Azerbaijanis is quite bad form. I'd be able to AGF about most of the other edits in this report, but am much more concerned by edits like Special:Diff/1061922934, where it appears that they attempted to pass off a source as saying something it did not. I think Armatura's suggestion of a medium-length tban is sensible, and think that having it apply to "origins of the ethnic groups of the Caucasus and their languages, broadly construed" would address the scope of articles where they've exhibited battleground attitudes. signed, Rosguill talk 06:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • UPDATE: They are now actively involved in WP:CANVAS designating other editors by their supposed ethnic background (in response to another, disruptive account who's now blocked[13]).
    1. "The last article I wrote is being retracted by an Armenian trying to forcibly delete it, please help"[14] (on VisionCurve's talk page)
    2. "The last article I wrote is being retracted by an Armenian trying to forcibly delete it, please help."[15] (on Grandmaster's talk page)
    3. Google translate (Turkish) "Please help me !! In my last article (Azerbaijan old maps) it is constantly being deleted by an Armenian, please do something"[16] (on Beshogur's talk page)
    - LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More proxy editing, on Beshogur's talk page:
    1. Aydin Memmedov2000 (Google translate, Turkish): "Malecomes insults me and deletes my articles I don't know how to report it so I need your help please report this guy"[17]
    2. Beshogur's reply: "I'll do it".[18]
    - LouisAragon (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I reverted a rather weird random copy-paste text (from [19]) he posted on my talk page, which led him to write this afterwards; I understand that you hold a grudge against me. Don't worry, I won't bother you any more. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an absolute mess. He has created several articles with pseudo-history Azeri blogs as sources. See this talk page for example [20]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    More:
    1. "There is no reason to delete this page. An Armenian requested the deletion. It is clear that this is ethnic nationalism."[21]
    Is there a reason why admins are putting a blind eye to this? This case has been open for many days, and the disruption is still ongoing. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic ban proposal

    As per aforementioned discussion, I propose a 3-month topic ban an indefinite topic ban for user "Aydın memmedov2000" on WP:AA2-related articles, broadly construed. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I can't accept admin bullying

    Hi, as according to my two year over experience on Wiki, i can't accept that was copyright violation , it was only one sentence with a few general words. Firstly, I started Chen Jinggu article with one sentence then i added "Legend" section that was copied from Guanyin article. I've explained in the page's edit history for attribution (WP:CWW). I don't know that was original editor's copyvio. Violently admin removed the whole article. Really need to delete the whole article? They should only remove copyvio contents that came from Guanyin's article. Clearly that is not my violation. However, admin Justlettersandnumbers says the original stub version is also a copyright violation. I've shocked and that was only one sentence describe "Chen is a historical shaman priestess. She is one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect. " That tiny sentence was also edited by several editors. See below. Really?

    Our article The source[22]
    ... a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddesses and chief deity of the Lüshan Sect ... one of the most important goddesses in Southeast China (the chief deity of the Lushan sect).... A historical shaman priestess who became ...

    . What a bullying! Sorry, I was angry and fiercely responded. Pls kindly teach me out and want to restore original stub. Tia VocalIndia (talk) 03:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, it's not bullying every time someone disagrees with you. And I don't know how "violently remove" is--but what I really don't understand is the problem. If you, as you claim, copied something from some article, and it turns out to be a copyvio, then what's the problem? The copyvio is removed, and we move on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    but admin deleted the whole article with accusing of my stub is also a copyvio "Chen Jinggu is blah blah". I dont think it is copyvio. VocalIndia (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, As i said above I cant't control my anger. I've removed some PA words before this ANI. VocalIndia (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you cannot control your anger, then you do not belong on Wikipedia. Period. You are required to control your anger here, no matter the provocation, real or imagined. Ravenswing 04:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I frequently have to tell editors, you need to write Wikipedia in your own words. We don't need you (or anyone) just loosely transcribing what's already out there. That can be read at its original location. No one has "bullied" you, and hyperbole like "violently" removing your edits is so silly it's distracting to your whole point. Please just stop all this and take the constructive criticism to heart. Learn from it instead. Sergecross73 msg me 03:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Sergecross73 I can't accept that -- is a historical shaman priestess who became one of the most important Fujian goddessesand chief deity of the Lüshan Sect was copyvio. not eligible for vio criteria. Everyone have to right this writing method. VocalIndia (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I have no opinion on the issue at hand as I am not familiar with it at all, but just noting that there's a big language barrier, it seems, which further complicates things. For example, they may be using the word "violent" for something else, but I don't know. Having said that, as a language barrier obviously doesn't excuse behavior like this, I otherwise agree, broadly speaking, that the aggressive behavior and personal attacks need to stop. Amaury • 03:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As someone who has some experience with copyright violations, I do agree that stating basic facts aren't serious copyright violations, however I do believe that sentence could have been worded better. It is impossible to reword phrases such as "one of the most important ... goddesses" without making the sentence confusing, so it would have been better to reword the structure of the sentence instead, probably something like "Chen Jinggu is regarded as one of the most important Fujian goddesses. Once a shaman priestess, she became the Lushan sect's chief deity" to make it less similar to the source text. If there are any more people who are more experienced with copyvio than I am, please try to make things more clear or correct any errors I may have made. Akbermamps 04:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • OP has thrown up a ragequit statement on his user page: "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of January 18, 2022, Some finding my minor mistake for their grudge and covert to a big mistake. Time to say Bye Bye. Be happy. Wikipedia is a bullying school for guys who has poor English. (His/Her mood is very disgusting." The degree to which we can take this seriously, mind, is that they made 14 edits so far after posting the Retired notice. VocalIndia isn't a newbie, mind, with nearly 5000 edits, but I question whether they're more than a liability with that kind of attitude. Ravenswing 04:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) This very much is a WP:CIR issue. Even some of his most recent edits show a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright in previous occasions, as well as lack of understanding for proper sourcing (re:this edit from 30 mins ago). That's not even getting into this user's conduct at AfDs, which has been less than admirable. The thing that makes this sad is that this user has some genuinely great actions, for example with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hold Nickar. However, even with that AfD, his anger issues clouds over the good edits he does. Like this AfD was successfully litigated between me and the nominator to the point the nominator decided to withdraw, but that didn't stop VocalIndia from getting angry for no reason. This editor has the potential to be good, but consistently falls short of the line with no indication that he will cross it. Curbon7 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it that so often the people who engage in bullying behavior are the same ones who complain that others are bullying them? Anyway, the ability to control one's anger is a non-negotiable essential for participation here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diffs by DanCherek are damning enough—I've blocked VocalIndia for 1 week for personal attacks. Civility is required from all editors on Wikipedia. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 04:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps a copyright investigation needs to be started? I see e.g. Huang Tianhua, which they created in January, vs. this

    Our article The source[31]
    ... was sent away when he was three years old to be trained by the'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He wore golden armour and wielded the Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could take him anywhere in a matter of seconds. After Cheng Tong informed him of his father's death, he eventually abandoned his master's service. Given a flower basket by his master, he went to his father's camp and used the mystical tablets in the flower basket to bring him back to life. After formally introducing himself to his family, he inquired about his mother's whereabouts and, upon learning of her death at the hands of King Zhou, pledged to assist in the overthrow of King Zhou. He battled against the Shang dynasty in several engagements, dying at least once before being resurrected by his master. He was one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most competent generals, dying at the hands of Gao Jineng. His father avenged his death by killing Gao Jineng with a single blow. After his death, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies him as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. ... was sent away at the age of three to be tutored under the 'superiorman' Master Virtue of the Pure Void. He was described as wearing golden armour and wielding the mystical Moye Sword, as well as his master's Fire Dragon Javelin and twin golden-tipped hammers. He rode his master's kirin, which could transport him to any location in mere seconds. He eventually left his master's service after hearing of his father's death by Cheng Tong. Given a flower basket by his master, he rushed to his father's camp, and brought him back to life with magical pills in the flower basket. Formally introducing himself to his family, he asked about his mother's whereabouts and after hearing of her death at the hands of King Zhou of Shang, swore to aid in bringing down King Zhou. He fought in many battles against the Shang Dynasty, dying at least once before being revived by his master. He died a permanent death at the hands of Gao Jineng, becoming one of the first casualties among the Zhou's army's most talented generals. His death was avenged by his father, who killed Gao Jineng with one blow. At the end of the novel, Jiang Ziya posthumously deifies Huang Tianhua as Bing Ling Gong of the Three Sacred Mountains. ...

    Opening a WP:CCI may be necessary. Fram (talk) 08:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the bullying admin, and for all I know also the "Montha fackka!!!". For those who can't see the history: at Chen Jinggu, VocalIndia copied a big chunk of text, with correct attribution, from Guanyin, and can't be blamed for that. Both Primefac and I tried to remove the copyvio before deleting (I'd restored it in the hope of saving it), but found that that wasn't possible. VocalIndia became agitated and fairly incoherent. To the extent that I can follow the user's talk-page posts, he/she seems to show a worrying lack of understanding of what is meant by copyright, both in general and in this project.
    I agree that it may be necessary, Fram, but I'm not yet sure – I looked some contribs yesterday and saw many that seem fine, but found and removed copyvio from Prince Euneon. I think more investigation is needed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Princess Tatiana Alexandrovna Yusupova is an unattributed and poor machine translation of the Russian article (leading to stuff like "This novel was actively discussed in the world" when no novel is being discussed at all), Hong Guk-yeong has text copied without attribution from Royal Noble Consort Wonbin Hong. Heifeng Guai unexplicably has text taken from a 2014 Facebook post about a (Dota2?) game character[32]? Whatever the original source, not new writing but copyvio. Fram (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: the editor correctly pointed out that the "princess" article is not an unattributed translation: I only checked the edit summaries, but the translation is noted on the talk page. Still a very poor machine translation, but not a reason to add incorrect accusations of course. Fram (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't agree that their edits to Hold Nickar are good.
    Hold Nickar Source[33]
    Hold Nickar is a Teutonic malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors. Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs. It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar. It is said that Saint Nicholas's legends were created mainly out of folk tales about the Teutonic god Hold Nickar, a malevolent water spirit who tips over boats and torments sailors, or even about Alte Hoerner [...]

    ("Hold Nickar is the king of the sea nymphs" is also copied from a source, but a different one).

    Hold Nickar Source[34]
    Hold Nickar is a patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon, according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune. In Russia he was Hold Nickar patron of the sailors and in ancient Britain his shrines could be found in seaports where they had to face the seas. He was a descendant of Poseidon or according to the Italians a descendant of Neptune;

    In addition, the first of those sources is shaky to say the least, and so are some of the other sources they proposed in the AfD – but that is a content issue, so not the important point here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah I just meant that it was originally soft deleted and he brought it to a !keep. I didn't actually look at the article. Curbon7 (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not look like this editor is capable of editing productively here. Paul August ☎ 17:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Hold Nickar, I have asked Bloodofox for an evaluation of the sources, since they know more about folklore than I do, but the article as it currently is, after reduction almost entirely by VocalIndia themself, looks like a straightforward candidate for redirecting to Nixie (folklore). However, after originally being closed as soft delete, with only one !vote, delete on exactly those grounds but without mention of redirecting as an option, the AfD was ultimately closed as keep, so I hesitate to boldly override that decision all on my lonesome. After cutting out the non-waterspirit material, VocalIndia made mention at the AfD of foreign-language Wikipedia material; that led me to look at es:Hold Nickar, and I realized that it was similar in spirit to the long version of our article, and found that a passage only loosely supported by the cited source, this archived pagan essay (mainly the weird translation of the names of Thor's goats), was a close translation of the corresponding Spanish passage, which cites the same source. I then found that VocalIndia added a translation attribution template on the talk page back in May, although I can't see any attribution in the history of the article itself, including the April edits creating it. I think VocalIndia has been misled by trusting other Wikipedians too much to have done a good job on topics they themself are unfamiliar with, and has failed to check the sources to see whether they are reliable and support the statements being made (or hasn't known enough about the field to check what reliable sources say). This may relate to their over-close paraphrasing noted above; I think a root cause may be that they are working on topics where they lack the necessary knowledge to make good editorial choices. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, VocalIndia. If you are in any doubt about copyright or how to avoid copyright violation, please ping me on your talk-page. At this point, any further copyright infringement on your part is very likely to result in a block, quite probably an indefinite one. I'm willing to try to help you avoid that outcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How Hillsong Church garnered incivility and SPA edits

    I noticed that Damien Linnane (talk · contribs) called an editor liar. Unfortunately, I deleted a bit too much of the URL when I changed it to a diff and added it to Damien Linnane's talk page. It was only later that I saw a second instance. I was called out for the poor edit and the interaction did not improve. While that transpired, the other editor, L32007 (talk · contribs), wrote that they felt attacked by Damien Linnane on that original talk page, and made it clear that they were discussing a separate topic. Back on Damien Linnane's talk page, the editor wrote, "Of course I called an editor a liar" and continued to explain why that was perfectly acceptable to have done so.

    This is, unfortunately, a mess. L32007 is most clearly a WP:SPA and has edited primarily on the topic of Hillsong Church and associated articles. Do I expect the editor to attempt to minimize the church's (more like a denominiation's) problems? Of course! Do I think the editor is intentionally lying? No, I WP:AGF and assume an error. Do I think that there may be political spin? Probably.

    Damien Linnane, on the other hand, is attacking, unrepentant, aggressive and treating editing like a battleground, at least with this subject, and two separate editors.

    Am I perfect? Look at my block log, but I have attempted to stay cool on this topic. If no administrative action is taken on either of these editors, at least a nice discussion about WP:CIVILITY with Damien Linnane would be worthwhile and one about WP:COI with L32007, since my earlier comments on their talk page did not seem to help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I can understand how you could see me as WP:SPA, I have limited interests haha. I understand the COI re: Hillsong Church, but the closest COI I have is that I am a pentecostal Christian. I am not paid, endorsed or otherwise instructed to edit by any church. I appreciate your pushback on some of my edits Walter and your efforts to ensure balance when you have felt my edit has gone too far, as that is also my goal. I will try to broaden my contributions to other topics in future, Cheers. L32007 (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to note Walter Görlitz only started this conversation after I informed him I was drafting a topic at ANI regarding this incident myself [35]. Why he felt the need to get in first when he knew somethign was currently being drafted, is up for you to decide.
    I came across the Hillsong Church article for the first time in July 2021. As I pointed out in my debut contribution to the article's talk page, there are some very biased editors deliberately manipulating sources in favour of the church: [36]. The main one was Adammoore1982, an SPA who was blocked from editing the article for over a year after someone else raised concerns about their behaviour here at ANI last November. However, as my talk page comment pointed out, L32007 has also made similar behaviour. In July 2018, with this edit they used a primary source to make original research comments that a letter from a minister was an apology and refuted any allegations against the church: [37]. As L32007 has just admitted today [38], the letter was not an apology. Nor did it refute the allegations in question, though anyone who actually reads the letter can determine this for themselves. This incident was not isolated.
    L32007 edits infrequently. Prior to today, their last series of edits to the page was in December 2020, when they used a primary source to add original research to the article regarding childhood sexual assault: [39]. The edit was reverted by Zazpot, who clearly explained that the edit was being reverted as it did not back up what L32007 claimed it did: [40]. L32007 then proceeded to reinstate his own original research back into the article the very next day, where he again presented a Hillsong pastor's reasoning for not reporting crimes as a hard fact, whereas the new sources he included only state this is the pastor's interpretation of the law (regardless of whether he was indeed correct, the sources did not say that) [41]. Thankfully, their edit was partially reverted and worded in an appropriate manner by Avatar317 [42]. If that isn't enough evidence for you of their editing behaviour, please let me know as I'm happy to go through more of L32007's edits.
    In addition to their original research, I obviously agree with Walter Görlitz that L32007 is an SPA. The ANI topic I was in the process of drafting was, and still is, going to ask you to take action against them on the grounds they are an SPA making extremely biased original research edits. Walter Görlitz just commented above that they expect L32007 "to attempt to minimize the church's problems", and (correct me if I'm wrong Walter) appears to have no problem with an SPA doing that. I, however, do not think a single purpose account who is only here to defend the church's reputation should be acceptable. I ask ANI administrators to take whatever action they think is appropriate.
    Walter Görlitz is the top contributor to the Hillsong Church article. Despite this, when I pointed out the biased edits from Adammoore1982 and L32007 last year with detailed evidence, also pinging Walter to essentially thank him for reverting one biased edit, Walter made no comment. That's fine, but it's interesting to note, especially considering what has happened since then.
    Yesterday, L32007 made a terse and very late reply to my talk page comment, ignoring the majority of my criticisms and instead claiming the letter I said he was using for original research was a different one that what he had originally used. I went through snapshots of the letter on the Internet Archive, and responded by providing hard evidence that the letter has not changed at all since it was uploaded to the Hillsong Church website in 2012, and is the same version that appeared when L32007 falsely claimed it was a letter of apology in July 2018. My post was 143 words long. 137 words was evidence that L32007 was not being truthful. Six of my words essentially concluded that he was lying. Regardless of this, Walter left this confusing message on the Hillsong Church talk page, saying I should "focus on the content rather than the contributor" [43]. Regardless of whether or not I made a personal attack, I did indeed primarily focus on the content. Walter, however, consistently ignores complaints against anyone accused of protecting the church's reputation, and instead attacks anyone who points out their bias.
    Walter did not respond to my evidence against L32007, and instead his only action was to leave a generic template message on my talk page accusing me of being uncivil for pointing out another editor was not telling the truth. He explicitly stated it is uncivil of me to say another editor is lying "even if [the allegation] were true". If Wikipedia does indeed have a policy against pointing out lying, I haven't heard of it. I don't think there was anything inappropriate about my actions. L32007 has a history of spinning sources with his own original research. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest.
    Walter Görlitz has also responded to my perceived personal attacks with personal attack of his own. In this message on my talk page [44], he states, completely without evidence, "I suspect that you call so many editors liars, whether calmly or not, and whether you feel justified and have supposed proof". In his post above, he accuses me of "attacking, unrepentant [and being] aggressive" against two editors. Firstly, I didn't even start the ANI complaint against the first editor, Adammoore1982, though I note ANI agreed with my opinion that he was an SPA, and took appropriate action in banning him. Walter seems to have a serious problem with me pointing out biased editing at the Hillsong Church, and I'll leave it up to you to decide why. I only came across the Hillsong Church article in passing and clearly spend the majority of my editing time working on completely different topics. I simply left a comment on the talk page pointing out what I saw as biased editing from two editors, and according to Walter, pointing out biased editing is unrepentant aggression. I suggest appropriate action be taken against him as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You have had no previous interactions with me prior to today, so the idea that "Eventually, you have to reach a point where you can only presume someone is intentionally being dishonest." is absurd. I don't really want to defend edits made years ago, but I will say that any edits I've made were NOT done with original research and were made in good faith. From memory the section being talked about here predates my contributions to the article, but I could be wrong. I have contributed lots of good encyclopedic content about the Church, including the majority of Hillsong Conference and TBN Inspire -- yes, I have a special interest. No that isn't WP:SPA. But, if the administrators wish I can 'sequester' myself from making edits on the Controversy section of the page in question. I would prefer not to do that, I like to think I'm acting in good faith to make the page better and more accurate. I do have a view about that page that it's a bit WP:INDISCRIMINATE (it's a lot better than it used to be though, thanks to cooperation between editors), but editors are allowed to disagree. And I'm not engaging in any edit wars on the page. Walter and I have disagreed about my edits, and that's fine, I am committed to respectful discussion in the effort to make any page we're working on better. Cheers L32007 (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact I haven't interacted with you is neither here nor there. I've gone through many of your edits, therefore I feel very justified in saying (and have irrefutable proof) that you have a history of adding original research to the article. Also as you've pointed out yourself, the overwhelming majority of the articles you edit are related to the Hillsong Church, including TBN Inspire. Maybe you're confused about the definition, but an SPA isn't an account who edits only one article, an SPA is an account that edits a "very narrow area or set of articles". You're editing history clearly matches that description. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote, If you want to continue this discussion, WP:ANI may be the correct place to point out that other editor's behaviour. That was before you continued to attack. Other than that, I let my analysis stand, and you made no apologies for your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never attacked anyone, nor did I "continued to attack" anyone after you mentioned ANI discussion as the appropriate place to bring this up, which I responded to by saying that I would indeed do that. Why you didn't tell me you were drafting something yourself, I do not understand, though it's easy to guess. I have nothing to apologise for. L32007 has a history of adding original research which goes back several years. Already knowing this, after he said something else that was clearly untrue, I said he lied. It's that simple. Why you're focusing on me saying he lied in passing, instead of years of his biased editing, is up for admins to decide.
    In closing I would like to note something that appears to have been lost along the way. This all started not because of L32007's original research, but rather because he was adding original research AND then complaining about edits from others that he perceived were biased on the article's talk page, citing several guidelines in the process he is clearly familiar with [45]. It should be noted that he appeared well-versed at recognising bias when it was made by others, which is evidence he was at least aware on some level (if not completely aware) of the biased edits he had made previously, and continued to make afterwards. I have nothing more to add, and await a response from admins. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling an editor a liar is a personal attack. The reason I started this ANI is that it was clear to me, from our brief interaction on your talk page, that you did not understand that, and you still do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a personal attack if there is irrefutable proof they are lying, it's simply a statement of fact. I understand you disagree, however, as you've already stated on my talk page it's uncivil to call someone a liar even if they are lying, which is an absurd belief to hold. But that's my opinion, and unlike you, as I've already mentioned I'm happy to agree to disagree. I still can't believe you've felt the need to make a mountain out of a molehill with something I said in passing that was clearly true. Please just drop the stick and let the admins make a decision. I won't reply to anything further you add. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about we both stop writing and let an uninvolved editor or an admin weigh-in? And for the record, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but not when WP:NPA is being violated with no end to that behaviour in sight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved (occasional) editor here. Damien you need to cool your jets - one of the basic principles here is "assume good faith" - so even if you're sure someone is lying, don't just go around calling them a liar. You're better off working with Walter to improve the article. It doesn't need to have the minutiae of every little scandal gone into in great depth. Walter - it would probably be good for experienced editors and/or admins to keep an eye on this article for the next few months - Hillsong have got themselves involved in Australian politics at very high levels (e.g. https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/09/23/hillsong-brian-houston-scott-morrison/) and there's an election coming up in the next few months, so no doubt there will be occasional bursts of politically-motivated editor-initiated shenanigans. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Daveosaurus: I did ping Walter to the talk page last year for the purpose of addressing concerns at the article, but he didn't reply. Nobody wanted to help fix the issue, which was a shame.
    I put a lot of effort into uncovering the lengths at which SPA editors had manipulated the article, and when one of them finally replied, they ignored all the criticism against them, and instead made a false claim. In retrospect, yes, I was quite triggered that the only reply I got to all my hard work was someone commenting directly underneath my evidence regarding a letter from a minister that I had quoted the wrong letter, which I can clearly prove I did not. Yes, I was very angry. If that person didn't have a several-year history of adding original research to the article, I would have assumed good faith, but considering their history, I could not.
    I completely agree the article should be watched by others, and would happily recuse myself if this happens as I actually have no interest in the Hillsong Church. The sole purpose of my talk page post in the first place was pointing out bias in the hopes others would get involved. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The root issue, however, is not the article but you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change if you go to another article. You keep blaming other editors and refuse to acknowledge the issue at hand. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The root issue is SPA's adding original research and making statements that are not true. It isn't wasted on me that nobody is doubting that untrue statements were made over a period of many years. You keep refusing to acknowledge the cause and instead only address my reaction.
    You and I have interacted once. You're making quite the leap (and are also not assuming good faith), when you say you expect me to call other editors liars in the future. To the best of my recollection, I've never called someone a liar before in 14 years of editing Wikipedia. Until this week, however, I'd never had to deal with an SPA with an editing history this questionable before.
    Rest assured it will not happen again though. I have learned something through this experience, and that is the next time I uncover someone with an editing history like this, instead of saying they lied, I'll say "you have a long history of making statements that are inaccurate". No I'm not being facetious; that's what I will say. Maybe then people will actually pay attention to their editing history, instead of my reaction to it. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never wrote that I expected you to call other editors liars. I posted a link to the article's talk page, and deleted too much of it, yet you know where I was referencing when I stated that you made a personal attack. The sarcasm was misplaced but you clearly did not see that calling an editor a liar because you believed it to be factually true. Whether it was based on fact or not, it is inappropriate to call an editor a liar. For the record, the editor has since written they were referencing a document different than the one you were and so this is a misunderstanding.
    The question is not whether you are or are not good at uncovering problems, it is how you choose to address other editors whom you dislike. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware of the editor's response, and as you already know I responded at the talk page in question indicating what's wrong with their explanation. L32007 choosing to post directly under me commenting about a letter from a minister and saying I got the letter wrong, and expecting me to read their mind and understand they're referring to a completely different letter that was mentioned several months earlier, is either just plain silly, or deliberate dishonesty and a poor attempt to back-pedal. Their explanation also neither addresses the fact that they have completely ignored and refused to discuss the criticism of their behaviour, nor does it change the fact they have made untrue statements elsewhere.
    You explicitly said "[The issue is] you calling an editor a liar. I do not expect that to change ..."[46]. Now you're trying to say you never expected me to do it again. That appears to be gaslighting. I don't have the energy to keep up with how often you seem to change your story, so I'd very much prefer if we stopped talking. One editor has agreed with you that I'm over-reacting, though I note they've given no indication they even looked into the root issue of the SPA's behaviour. The only thing we seem to be able to agree on is that L32007 is an SPA, and us continuing to remonstrate over everything else is just bloating this section and making it less likely for anyone else to weigh in, so once again I won't reply to you again unless someone new comments. And just for the record, when I say I'm not going to reply again until someone else comments [47], you replying by suggesting the exact same thing[48] is redundant. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice to admins. WP:TLDR? I pointed out the behavior of L32007, an SPA editor, who had attributed inaccurate statements to references over a period of at least 3 years. He ignored my criticism and instead only accused me of linking to the wrong document in my argument. Because he has a history of inaccurate statements, because he would not discuss his behaviour, and because I did not make the error it appeared he had accused me of, I lost my temper and called him a liar. In 14 years of editing Wikipedia, to the best of my recollection I have not called someone a liar before. L32007 then stated the error he had accused me of was something different to what I thought; if this is true he did a very poor job of explaining what document he was initially referring to. It was difficult for me to AGF on this, due to his wording and his history of making untrue statements. However, I will accept this and move on. I emphatically reject many of the claims Walter Görlitz, the top contributor of the article, has made against me during this conversation. He was unwilling to discuss the issue of SPA edits on the article's talk page after I pinged him there, which was disappointing, and this inaction contrasted with how quickly he was willing to criticise me over this matter, exacerbating my already tense feelings on the situation. In saying this I am only trying to explain why I continued to lose my temper, which is regrettable. I do agree to not call someone a liar again, even if I am certain they are lying and they have a history of making inaccurate statements. L32007 has already stated he will "try" to broaden his editing outside his current narrow interest. His unwillingness to discuss his behaviour is problematic, though I do not believe he will continue to attribute false statements to references. I see no reason for this discussion to stay open and now hope this issue can be closed swiftly. Damien Linnane (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree it should be closed with a block for Damien Linnane for incivility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Response for admins: As should be indicated by my 14 year editing history, and my last post, me calling someone a liar is an isolated incident with extenuating circumstances. I was willing to let this go and move on, but if you take action against me please also look into L32007's edits. Turns out I was wrong. Since my last comment here they have made another biased edit at the article in question: [49]. I note Walter originally asked for a polite warning against both of us. The fact he's now asking for a block against me when I've agreed to change my behaviour, and no specific action against the SPA COI editor whose behaviour has not changed, should not be wasted on you. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came here from Damien's talk page, but am otherwise uninvolved in this issue. From my perspective, Damien has apologised for his use of emotive language, said he won't do it again, and explained that the incident was an isolated one borne out of frustration. In my experience, it is poorly representative of his general character, so there is no "chronic, intractable behavioral problem" that merits any kind of block.
      Having said that, I believe it would be wise to use this opportunity to examine L32007's edits more closely. They've admitted above that they've been behaving like a single-purpose account. Studying their edits in detail, it comes across – to me at least – that L32007 is not editing from a neutral point of view, and one of their primary reasons for being on Wikipedia is to mitigate any criticism of this church. They've been doing this since at least July 7, 2020, and frequently removed entire sections of reliably sourced content, see this and this. The mess of IPs in article history using similar reasoning and language is also troubling, especially when multiple other users continually revert these additions, example. Coupled with the fact that L32007 cherry-picks content from sources to rephrase negative information in a more positive light for the church (see this), I believe these are "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" which may require some form of action. I'll leave it for others to postulate what form of action that may be.
      Probably shooting myself in the foot with this one: I honestly can't say I would have reacted all that differently to Damien were I in a similar situation. We all err from time to time, and it's good that Damien apologised for and learned from the experience. There are other issues here that still need to be examined though. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I feel I have the right to defend myself here. I am not a "single purpose account", I'm a person who has specific knowledge that contribues to wikipedia in areas where i am most able to. This edit that you say removes "entire sections of reliably sourced content", removes a section of content which references several articles most of which do not mention Hillsong (except for briefly mentioning a rumor that some contestants were Hillsong members, which was refuted by Network 10), but instead mention a church called Shirelive.[1]. Shirelive is not Hillsong. Shirelive (now Horizon Church) is a pentecostal church with no relation except a denominational one to Hillsong. An accurate version of that content would have been something like "There was a rumor that some contestants on Australian Idol were Hillsong Church Members. This was refuted by Network Ten.", That would definitely not be notable and is why I removed the whole section. All the content about vote-stacking related to Shirelive, which is why I removed that section. You are welcome to add that content to the Horizon Church Page
    You again claim that I removed sourced content here, when in truth I added more content about the affair and issues within the church, while removing an irrelevant quote which doesn't add much to the content.
    In this edit, which you also called "removed entire sections of reliably sourced content", in line with discussion on the talk page I was moving this content to Frank Houston (proof) as it was noted that the section on Frank Houston in Hillsong Church was longer than his own page.
    As for your comment that I am "rephras[ing] negative information", in that edit I added more context and removed excessive quotes from that section of the article. I felt this was WP:OVERQUOTING and didn't present any new information for the reader anyway.
    Thank you for examining my edits, please when doing this in future examine them more closely for context before you go ahead and accuse me like this. L32007 (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In defence of my edit history: This article has serious problems with people coming in with bias adding their unsourced opinions and pushing an agenda. Yes, I might personally be biased in favour of Christianity, but I am only making edits to make the article NPOV, not to introduce my POV. There is clear bias/motive in some editors when an unsourced claim that the prime minister of the country is a member of the church can remain unchallenged when it is public knowledge and also listed on a different article of wikipedia that he is a member of Horizon Church. It's also troubling that a pastor of Influencers Church who fakes cancer to hide a pornography addiction gets a section on the wikipedia page for Hillsong Church but isn't mentioned **at all** on the article for the church that he was leading at the time, but because he can be linked to Hillsong Church by fact that he was invited to write a song that was featured on a hillsong church album, it gets added instead to the Hillsong controversy section.[2] From memory the cancer scandal was a big thing that shook the Adelaide Church-sphere, and shook influencers church leading to a huge loss of members -- why it was included on Hillsong's page can only be put down to a POV push. Or how about when Horizon Church and the AOG are linked to alleged vote stacking in a reality TV show, it gets added to this article, and not the AOG's article or Horrizon Churches article -- solely based on the fact that there is a tenous link to Hillsong (a false rumor mentioned in the news articles that Hillsong has a contestant on the show, completely irrelevant to the vote stacking). There are people pushing their POV on this article by strategically inserting content selected to push a negative POV. It's not me, my goal with this article has been to balance it -- that's why I've spent more time on this article than others -- because of the issues I have identified. There are more examples, but I'm on holiday right now. L32007 (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to me that we've gone well into the territory of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Three people have explained to L32007 what the problem is with his edits, and in each case L32007 refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem on any level, and just insists the other person is wrong. As per my first post here, L32007 making factually inaccurate edits to defend the church's reputation goes back at least 3 years, though it's possible it extends many years before that, as I only made the time to do spot checks back till 2018. People reverting their edits clearly explain their reason for doing so, yet L32007 continues to make the same type of edits that have been reverted with explanation time and time again, which is why I stopped AGF in the first place. And lets be reminded this issue only escalated after they refused to respond to criticism of their behaviour on the article's talk page (and, of course, how I reacted to this refusal to discuss the root issue). As I have recently noted on the article's talk page, L32007 appears to have a completely different set of rules for themselves than for everyone else. On January 20 this year, they said they had removed some criticism of the church because it was unsourced (which of course was fine)[50]. Yet only five days later he added an unreferenced statement to defend the church's reputation (no reports of COVID at a church camp)[51]. I have nothing further to add regarding these new commenters and L32007's responses, though I will point out this in closing. Does anyone see something problematic with this comment here? [52] L32007 does not refer to Hillsong critic Tanya Levin by name, and only says we should not listen to her because "it's a woman ... trying to sell a book" (emphasis mine). Why would you mention gender at all (as opposed to just using her name), unless you considered her gender part of the reason why her opinion should not be valued. Damien Linnane (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I unreservedly apologise for my gendered language. I should have done this earlier but I admit my ego got in the way. I was trying to emphasise that a single person trying to sell their wares via their sharing grievences isn't notable and forms a indiscriminate list of grievences. WP:CRIT says "Great care should be taken that the [criticism] section is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of complaints." However, that's no excuse for the way I phrased that and I will do better.
    I have addressed the rest of your comment in the talk page where you brought my edit re: COVID up. People revert and edit other peoples work all the time, it's how we achieve consensus. The only person not willing to participate in discussion to make articles better appears to be you. I have nothing further to add regarding your comments. L32007 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @L32007: Your comments about some info being in a Hillsong article and not in another article depend on who edits which articles; many articles are poorer articles; generally it depends on how much editing each gets, and by whom. It is not valid for you to compare articles like this and conclude that there is bias in Wikipedia against your favorite church. If you feel that some of those news events could also be covered in other articles, you are free to add them to the other article, which would be more appropriate then deleting sourced content. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Idol fans angry at vote bloc | TV | News.com.au". web.archive.org. 21 February 2009. Retrieved 25 January 2022.
    2. ^ "Hillsong Church". Wikipedia. 25 December 2020. Retrieved 25 January 2022.

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

    Solidarityandfreedom created their account with their first edits attempting to make a Wikipedia page for the chairman of the American Solidarity Party, Draft:Patrick Harris (Party Leader). They then used their account to spam the article for the American Solidarity Party with Twitter links to the American Solidarity Party's "Liberation Caucus". Solidarityandfreedom has been cautioned and reverted by many veteran Wikipedia editors for promotion and the deletion of cited material as can be seen here by Avatar317, here by Rediculizer42, here by Goodone121, and here by Anupam. Solidarityandfreedom's conflict of interest agenda is clear here and their misrepresentation of citations has been noted. They have done the same at related political and religious articles too, with others such as Litawor reversing their edits here and Pbritti reverting their edits here where Solidarityandfreedom is citing primary citations. Solidarityandfreedom's talk page is plastered with warnings from users such as ValtteriLahti12 and others who are tired of wasting their time with this editor who clearly does not have the competence to edit here. Goodone121 has noted that they use misleading edit summaries to blank large amounts of content from articles [53][54]. A topic ban from all articles related to religion and politics is the next best step here, but since these are the only topics that they edit, a site ban could only help him now. TolWol56 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Having monitored Solidarityandfreedom's edits from time to time, I agree with TolWol56 insofar as action appears necessary but disagree with a site ban, as the edits are innocuous enough. A topic ban, even a temporary one, seems proportional. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've only seen Solidarityandfreedom's edits on the American Solidarity Party article, but I would classify EVERY edit I saw by that editor as promotional and poorly sourced, with a clear bias of trying to write what they want and then finding "sources" to stick behind their statement (often SELF-sourced to the party itsself - As an easy extreme example, we don't allow white-supremecist groups to characterize their own organizations, we use Independent Sources WP:IS.) Addditionally, Solidarityandfreedom often deleted SOURCED info that doesn't align with what they want the article to say.
    The username seemed to me like a redflag for a potential COI on at least the ASP article, and because of their repeated tendentious editing on that article, I support a topic ban for the ASP article. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Solidarityandfreedom has started to sock as 72.28.3.68 and is pushing their same POV COI cruft.[55][56] Would anyone oppose a site ban at this point? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    In response to the IP editing, I have semi-protected the article for one week. Please inform me if the disruption resumes, and I will semi-protect for a longer period. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Cullen328, but they are now socking with an IP.[57][58] Perhaps an indefinite block and protecting the article would be the next step? --1990'sguy (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above, 1990'sguy, I have already semi-protected the article. I am not going to completely block the editor unless they continue their disruption after my page block. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Without comment on the overall behavior, noting that in consultation with Cullen I've closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solidarityandfreedom with a finding that they are likely not the same person as the IP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:CRS-20 repeatedly changing date formats

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

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

    Diffs showing changes from "mdy" to "dmy"

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

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

    Requests to not change date formats

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

    If an admin looks into this, I would request that they also do something (such as a final warning, ideally) about how CRS-20 simply does not communicate. I have been annoyed off-and-on for over a year by how CRS-20 rarely replies on their talk page. A few times they have replied in French (1, 2, 3), so there might be a language barrier. Here's one particularly bad example of them never replying, even though I consider the issue I brought up to be severe. Here's a more recent case with no reply or change of behavior. Sometimes there is a minimal reply, such as these five sections on the talk page (e.g. see here for a minimal reply that doesn't really address the question). Here's the most recent. Here are the unsorted miscellaneous examples with me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, links copied from here. Just to be fair and present the whole story, a few times, such as here, I have actually gotten an interaction. Leijurv (talk) 03:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation; none of CRS-20's contributions are tagged as mobile, so they are choosing not to communicate. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 16:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example just today of (what I perceive to likely be) a language barrier is here, with It's not his function. reading like something translated from another language, and, on top of that, not really demonstrating any understanding of what Balon is saying and why. Leijurv (talk) 04:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Lugnuts and revenge AfDs

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

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

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

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

    Proposal

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

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

    Comment/oppose Looking at the most recent AfD noms by JPL, I see that half of the most recent ones (from 5th Jan) have targeted articles I created. Being somewhat vexed by this (and no, that's not an excuse), I picked some of JPL's creations at random. Many of them are fine. The ones I came upon were not/are not in the best shape, and would come under the comment of "SIGCOV-less two-sentence sub-stubs", above, sans the sourcing bit, such as this, this and this, for example. I did look for sourcing for all of these, and then logged the AfDs. I think other editors who found those stubs in those states might have done the same. However, I understand the tit-for-tat aproach this could be viewed as, for which I apologise, and for the spam comment too. Infact - @Johnpacklambert: I apologise for that comment about the spam/CoLDS and any offesene it may have caused.
    My AfD data is pretty good overall (if that counts for anything). Good faith works both ways, and I'm happy to not log AfDs for articles created by JPL that would be viewed by any reasonable editor as a "revenge AfD". As for the bit about not letting the article creator know about the AfD, WP:AFD states "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page" (my emp.) - it's not a requirement. Maybe that needs its own discussion/RfC. The outcome of this proposal may already be a fait accompli, but I've responded, held my hands up, promised not to repeat it and apologised. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: And so here we are, yet again. From another editor, I would credit Lugnuts' professing contrition, but he's done that before. Over, and over, and over again. He promised back at ANI in April that he had learned his lesson, and would stop creating sketchy sub-stubs to bolster his creation count; he broke his word there the next day. His block log is studded with exhortations of good faith going forward, apologies, atonements ... leading right into subsequent blocks. After being tbanned from new stub creation, he's turned his attention to new redirect creation, dozens in the last month. JPL's slowly working through the many thousands of unsourced sub-stubs Lugnuts has created, and so all of a sudden Lugnuts is on the one hand screeching BEFORE! at JPL while taking JPL's own article creations to AfD, with such threadbare evidence and rationales that they're being speedy-kept en masse.

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

    • Support tban from AFD, except to defend own creations - This is clearly beyond the pale. Between the aspersions of proxying at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gösta Grandin, these (fairly clear) revenge AFDs, and all of the past history with problems in this area, it's clearly time to nip the problem in the bud and stop the disruption in this area. Past attempts to deal with this have not worked, so in order to stop the disruptive behavior, this looks necessary. Hog Farm Talk 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commentpersonal attacks and well poisoning removedIt is also clear that Lugnuts' AfD's were, as he admits, a "tit-for-tat." We could just ban all three of them from AfD, but I think it would be more productive for all three of them to simply agree to cease the behavior that got us into this mess in the first place, with sanctions to be involved only if they don't. I would strongly oppose any sanctions that don't address all three users involved in this mess, but frankly don't see the need for anything at all if people just move on and don't repeat the behavior that got us here. If they show an unwillingness to do that, so be it, we'll do what we need to to make it stop. But hopefully cooler heads can prevail. Smartyllama (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Smartyllama Unless you are willing to open a separate thread with direct evidence of proxying I suggest you withdraw the personal attack and well poisoning. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is possible JPL was just writing for his own convenience and did not actually expect anyone else to do his bidding, I'll concede that, and if that's the case, apologize to JPL for my lack of WP:AGF. However, if that's the case, it was still unwise given his already-in-place sanctions since it could easily be interpreted as such. If he would simply agree to refrain from suggesting pages for deletion on his talk page beyond the extent that he would be able to nominate them at AfD, that would be sufficient in my mind. As for having this conversation in a separate thread, the issues are related so I think it's best to consolidate them all in one place. But I don't particularly care about the formatting one way or the other, so do whatever is more convenient. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it is worth I am not trying to work through Lugnuts creations at all. I am working through 1912 births, and have been going backwards through the years from 1927 or so. I have since the end of December in part focused on the state of Olympian articles I come across. The fact that a large percentage of those that do not meet our inclusions criteria that I end up taking to AfD are from one creator is a function of who created what percentage of those articles, not from any actual attempt to target the work of one person on my part.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never mentioned either of the articles I was alleged to have been proxying in my post. I mentioned a totally different person. That I have to even point that out is very odd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm convinced that Lugnuts, unfortunately, has become a net negative at AfD. (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commemt — Unfortunately the trio of Fram, Lugnuts and Johnpacklambert are all editors I have high regards for, thus I’d recusing myself from either supporting or opposing this, but I’d make a few statements (off topic) prior addressing anything else. I see that editors time and time again are irate about Lugnuts's article creation to that I’d say they have always created articles that meet/met WP:PSA and satisfy the relevant SNG thus Lugnuts is in the right & if people are left underwhelmed by this then an RFC should be started to that effect as to the bare minimum of paragraphs before an article should be moved to mainspace. Now to the issue on ground, I’d like to state definitively that revenge nom's are tasteless and in the past I have “speedy kept” AFD's I believe were created in bad faith. Infact i speak about this on my Userpage, see; User:Celestina007#True Editor Growth, thus I applaud Eggishorn for doing the needful, In my experience Revenge Noms are disruptive because more often than not they are without merit. Furthermore it is improper to swear at AFD's thus i do not appreciate Lugnuts's choice of words at the AFD. It is also improper to say an editor acts as a proxy without cogent proof & that is seriously an egregious accusation to make if it can’t be corroborated, Having said I appreciate Lugnuts because they are an archetypal example of a “serial article creator” stub or not. it is unfortunate that this has spiraled into this, if there is a possible manner Lugnuts can be warned without any formal community enforced sanctions I’d be happy but as earlier stated I wouldn’t be supporting nor opposing this, I however fully understand the frustration on the part of Fram, JPL, RW & Buidhe. Hopefully this can resolved (amicably) without enforced sanctions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The creator of an article should not have to be contacted, when that article is being nominated for deletion. Such a contact-requirement hints of acknowledging a type of ownership. I wouldn't favour such a requirement. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Contacting the article creator makes sense when the article is new. Perhaps the creator was in the process of adding relevant information regarding notability or knew more about the subject that he/she did not include. The contact will act as a spur to improve the article. Once the article has been around awhile, contacting the creator doesn't seem a necessity. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's acknowledging a kind of ownership so much as acknowledging that there's a good chance they have an opinion on whether the article should be retained. Acknowledging ownership would be to give that opinion additional weight because they're the creator, which we don't do. Theknightwho (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notifying the creator of something when it is sent to deletion seems fair IMHO....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      From the WP:AfD page - While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. -Indy beetle (talk)
      Not to mention that it just feels like common-sense and basic courtesy... Begoon 17:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh. What concerns me is counting article creations (95,525, 95,926, 95,545), being tbanned from making articles under 500 words, and then switching to counting category creations (7,871, 7,872, 7,873). This, combined with the "revenge AFDs", makes me question whether Lugnuts sees Wikipedia as a game, with a PvP component, and is trying to hit the high score. But he's apologized for the AFDs and said he won't do it again, so I don't see why we can't just accept that as resolving the issue; I don't see this AFD problem as so longstanding or widespread that we need a sanction to prevent further disruption. Levivich 01:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. An AFD topic ban does not really focus on, or address, the problem identified here; and allowing Lugnuts to participate in discussions involving their own articles (where much of the problematic behaviour seems to occur) seems to undermine the intent. Lugnuts appears to understand why their actions in targeting JPL's creations were unacceptable, even if it should not have needed pointing out to them, so it's probably best to accept their assertion that it will not happen again. Most concerning are the personal attacks and casting aspersions, which absolutely must stop. Given the volume of database entry-type stubs Lugnuts has created, it should have come as no surprise to them that cleanup efforts included a significant proportion of their creations. It would also be helpful if Lugnuts did not hamper such efforts by reverting bold redirects without appropriate rationale or article improvement, resulting in avoidable AFDs. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support at what point do we notice a user disrupting every area they turn to and realize that it's the user that is the problem here, not the specific area they're popping up in? Since there doesn't seem to be much stomach for the simpler solution, sure, let's keep going and adding more restrictions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @David Fuchs: I'll tell you at what point: at the point at which you're ready to make a site ban proposal. Are we there? If so, go ahead and make the proposal, I'll probably !vote for it. But adding one bespoke sanction after another for what are really limited infractions... meh. Go for it all or it's not worth our time. Levivich 17:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, hence I'm not proposing it. If this restriction passes there is the slightly higher chance either Lugnuts figures out maybe being disruptive isn't a good idea and modifies his behavior, or it's another sanction to throw on the case for the inevitable ban discussion. My experience with wiki disputes is you're better off doing something to roll the boulder rather than waiting for it to come back down the hill. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think such a proposal would go anywhere, either, and maybe you're right about doing something. The way I process this is like this: if I'm at the point where I no longer believe that if Lugnuts says "I won't do it again," he won't actually do it again, then I should support (or maybe even propose) a siteban. Personally I'm not at that point. I've made plenty of criticisms of Lugnuts's editing, but breaking promises isn't among them. So I figure he should be treated like anyone else in this situation: you mess up, you say sorry won't happen again, you're given the chance to make good on it. I fear that editors already under sanctions will feel like they can't afford to make a mistake or else they'll get in serious trouble, and that's a tough way to edit, it's tough to expect reform from someone who feels they're under a microscope. I do see your point of view, though. To each their own? Levivich 19:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I rarely frequent AFDs, as I'm not an overly good judge of what article should or shouldn't exist. Just wasn't one to learn many of Wikipedia's alphabet soup article status rules. I figured leaving AFDs in the hands of those who are familiar with that area of the project, was best. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      While I'm sure we're all deeply fascinated by this little excursion, what does your personal relationship with the AfD process have to do with the proposal at hand? AngryHarpy‍talk 18:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm already aware of the deep fascination by my little excursion has created, which adds up to me being Neutral, on whether Lugnuts should be banned or not from AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for using a bullet point. Levivich 18:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Strong Neutral or Weak Neutral? That could be crucial. Begoon 14:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Bullying never works, it seems... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 17:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - When you look at all the long-term WP:CRIC members who have either driven themselves crazy, gone AWOL, completely raged against the machine, or just given up, it's not really a coincidence. One can name half-a-dozen long-term expanders of the project who have given up over the years. Lugnuts, this isn't just about you, and JPL, this isn't about you, either. Please know, JPL, that I empathize with you over some issues more than anyone here would understand. Use your frustrations that I know you have, to achieve good. Not for raging against the machine. Take a step back just for a while and focus on another area you enjoy. Or just do some Wiki-gnoming, or something that will keep your mind busy.
    At the end of the day, how do you salvage a broken project for the sake of what has become Frankenstein's monster? It's impossible because Frankenstein's monster will come back. Bobo. 18:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So is that a "yes"? Begoon 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with a hope this will end the disruptive editing.--Darwinek (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ban as I said last time a restriction came up, the disruption just moves when you restrict Lugnuts in one arena. While I believe he does indeed have the competence, he lacks the temperament to edit collaboratively. It's time to stop with regular time sinks related to this editor. Star Mississippi 02:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN from AfD as this user really doesn't know how to handle it in a constructive matter. Also would cite WP:CIR. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which particular part of WP:CIR do you think applies here? Begoon 17:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose It has stopped already, so a ban would be punitive - no similar problems with the editor's other AFD participation. As for "views Wikipedia as a zero-sum battleground", if that's true, it looks like Lugnuts is not the only one - other editors describe opponents' contributions as spam([61][62][63]). The likely effect of recent changes to guidelines, and two proposals currently at WP:CENT, is that many articles that satisfied what was the consensus interpretation of guidelines for more than 10 years will be deleted; many of those articles were created by Lugnuts. There is even a recently written essay "Wikipedia is not a gazetteer", but there are printed encyclopedias in which the gazetteer section is the longest, and consists almost entirely of what would be called sub-stubs. Unfortunately ban proposals are made at a noticeboard intended for quick response to incidents, so context is usually missing. A865 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Odd for a new editor with just 17 edits to find this discussion, as well as show familiarity with ANI practice, pick out essays and guidelines, and the like. Ravenswing 19:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The above proposal needs closure, and perhaps someone can also have a word with Lugnuts about his continuing WP:OWN behaviour? This was already raised in the previous discussion about his editing, but simply continues; if someone dares to edit an article Lugnuts has created, he for some reason needs to be on top of the editors list again, even if that means making purely cosmetic, totally unnecessary edits to achieve this. That this needlessly pollutes watchlists and recent changes for other editors seems to be of no importance. All from the last few minutes: [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]. Fram (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose Lugnuts apologised for what he said/did, with this happening the best part of a week ago with no repeat action. If this thread is anything to go by, they are doing their level best to improve their communication skills. If they create a similar issue in the future, and lets hope that doesn't happen, then think of stricter courses of action. StickyWicket (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - that little qualification, "If the last part proves problematical, it can be rescinded", would convince me, if I needed convincing. I accept that he has not behaved sensibly, and until I started looking at the recent AfD nominations, I thought he was over-reacting. But now I see what looks like a campaign to delete every stub he's ever created, I am concerned at the motivation for it. I think there are far more useful things we could be doing. Just because we've amended the guidelines to say that Olympic competitors aren't automatically notable, that doesn't mean we have to delete all relevant articles immediately. Allow some time for improvement, and I'm sure Lugnuts will try to do this himself. Deb (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mm, well, considering that what, less than one thousandth of one percent of Lugnuts' article creations have been brought to AfD post-revision, I really rather think we're in no danger of a bare fraction of those sub-stubs ever being deleted -- if as many as 25 per day were nominated, it'd take over a decade -- never mind "immediately." As far as improvement goes, I've just looked over every one of the couple dozen pertinent deletion discussions filed over the last several weeks. In not a single one of them has Lugnuts advocated deletion. Your surety appears to be based on magical thinking. Ravenswing 21:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Third-party edit interpolates pejorative content to my post

    Matter settled. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Newimpartial edited a discussion page section from what I had initially titled as "Sorry" [78] so that the title now reads "Sorry, not sorry" [79]. The section title now imputes sarcasm and WP:INCIVILITY that I didn't author and gives the equivocal impression, contrary to WP:REFACTORING guidelines (i.e. absent links to the original to clarify what I actually said and without a summary of the changes on a different page), that I titled the section as it now stands. Please offer assistance to ensure no one is misled into thinking the current title is my doing rather than Newimpartial's. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As I noted on their talk page, these edits imply that Kent Dominic states "Sorry, not sorry", rather than "Sorry" - while refactoring headings can be uncontroversial, particularly on a users talk page, this is only the case when it doesn't result in a different meaning being ascribed to the author. I also noted that there is a pattern of this in Newimpartial's talk page edits; they made this ghost edit, which corrected a typo that confused Kent Dominic, and then responded to his confusion as if the typo had never existed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BilledMammal, having reread the exchange, I still don't see any evidence that it was my typo that confused Kent, much less that any kind of pattern on my part was involved. I initially typed nonminary for nonbinary; in their reply, Kent referred to my sentence that includes “nominary identity”, which was neither what I typed nor what I meant. None of the subsequent discussion, visible, e.g. in this diff, leads me to think that the typo played any role in Kent's reaction to my comment. So I have no reason to think I did anything untoward in correcting the typo, much less that it is part of some (nefarious?) "pattern". Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The confusion appears where they say Sorry again, but I can’t make heads or tails of your sentence that includes “nominary identity.”, which is clearly a misreading of the typo "nonminary identity", a confusion that you address in the reply made with your ghost edit. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you understand what Kent's confusion there actually was, and what gave rise to it, you are reading that exchange more successfully than I was then or than I am now. I didn't (and don't) know what had him confused, so I just restated my understanding of things, in my inimitable way. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kent, this really sucks. Is there anything I can do to convince you to withdraw? Firefangledfeathers 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Technically, Newimpartial was wrong to change your heading. However, I gotta say they were provoked by the lengthy, circular, but spiraling downward discussion. You should have put a lid on it way earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23: Provocation? No. Lengthy posts? Yes. Circular? I wish. From where I stood, the goalposts weren't moving, just the rhetoric. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: I would have wished, but the point of the discussion is moot now that Newimpartial has taken remedial action --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN reads Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless of how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more accurately describing the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided - which is what I believe my edit (to my own Talk page) achieved. Newimpartial (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Newimpartial, you should not be adjusting for tone like that. I doubt that's what SECTIONHEADINGOWN suggests. El_C 03:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I have already edited the section heading one more time, to achieve what I for one find to be a truly painful level of clarity and transparency. The current heading cannot reasonably be mistaken for what the editor originally posted and does accurately describe the content of the discussion, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 Like. Sorry you were subjected to that nonsense. El_C 03:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly having read that discussion, I've never seen anyone (Kent) use as many words to try and justify why they will not use a singular they, despite being repeatedly informed that they is the correct pronoun to use for the other party. Frankly, NewImpartial's change to the section header kinda fits the tone of the conversation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to point out that there is Template:They, which if the editor has specified in their preferences a gender will automatically fill in that preference, avoiding cases of accidental misgendering. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th: Is it accurate to write "if the editor has specified"? It appears that a specification will be listed regardless of whether the editor has set one. How is it possible to avoid specifying? Or maybe more specifically, how do I specify in my preferences that I'm fine with either gender-neutral or gendered language? I only see options for "prefer gender-neutral", "prefer masculine", or "prefer feminine", not "don't care what you call me". —David Eppstein (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: Good observations; good questions. I hope someone posts a response with more info. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th: I had missed your post about Template:They until moments ago. If certain editors use it, it would obviate most incidents like the one that ultimately resulted in this thread. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yeah, yeah, we remember. ;) El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that comment really necessary GoodDay? JCW555 talk ♠ 06:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's sage advice. Best to look at every editor as having no gender. Don't bring the town down, over pronouns. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kent Dominic, RE: However, if you, Newimmpartial, represent more than one third-person editor, please let me know and I'll factor that into the equation when referring to you in a mutually agreeable way. Deal? And: If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me. Use singular they, not complicated. You risk a WP:BOOMERANG with these antics. El_C 03:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @GoodDay: I offered to use that same strategy, among numerous others, which Newimpartial graciously accepted. Subsequent argument was wholly unrelated to specific instances of co-referencing editors but rather the manners in which pronouns tend to be construed by various speech participants. It seemed (and still seems) to me that Newimpartial simply didn't want to acknowledge how people in various quarters interpret certain pronouns in ways that depart considerably from ways that comport with sensibilities to the contrary. Long and short: Denying evidenced dynamics doesn't make the dynamics disappear. I don't mind being shot as the messenger, but it became apparent that the message contained historically archaic and linguistic protologisms outside Newimmpartials's comfort range to withstand. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's very clear that you're a writer, Kent Dominic, and more broadly an explainer. Both are generally good traits (to the extent that any trait can be good or bad) and both are traits that I believe the two of us share. I've found that in my case, I'm sometimes so eager to explain my point of view in a conversation that I overlook things the other party has said which render what I'm about to say to them incorrect, irrelevant, unnecessary, or otherwise not worth saying. My advice to you, if you're willing to take it, would be to take advantage of the opportunity Newimpartial has given you by ending the conversation on their talk page. It's a chance to reread what they've said to you, not with the intent to respond, but with the goal of understanding and considering. There are some important points in there that I think I might have missed if I was on your side of the screen. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about everyone tries to be excellent to each other. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Newimpartial: Heeding my edit summaries' requests would have obviated the need to go on record here, right? No need to reply since I'm glad you've subsequently relented and remedied the situation. In the most charitable way I can put this, in case you missed it: It seems that you persist in associating me with rationale that's not part of my thinking. Moreover, it seems you feel more comfortable simply denying rationale that doesn't comport with your own. Obviously, I'm not asserting that as being amenable to objective proof one way or the other, only as how you come off to me. I truly hope I can be proved wrong on both accounts. --Kent Dominic•(talk) 06:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I endorse NinjaRobotPirate's request for excellent behavior. But I feel that something a bit more direct is called for in this situation. I was neutral about this thread until I read the appalling thing that Kent Dominic wrote. Kent Dominic, condider this a formal warning. If you ever refer to a human as "it", I will block you. If you ever deliberately misgender another editor, I will block you. You must read Singular they and all of its references and fully understand the long history of its usage in the English language before you comment again about this issue. If, after reading all of that, you freely choose to engage in disruptive and insulting edits about this issue, then I will block you. I hope that I am being clear. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry User:Cullen328, can you clarify where you are seeing the use of "it" in reference to another human, as I cannot see it? If you're referring to the comment you are responding to, I don't believe either of the two uses of "it" are in reference to a person. Obviously, if Kent Dominic has used the word in such a manner then it is unacceptable, but I am not seeing the reference. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BilledMammal: My best guess is that User:Cullen328 skimmed the first part of the "Sorry" thread and misinterpreted my initial reference to "it," and that the separate discussion of "it" further down (the part you're likely referring to) didn't get read. Rereading the initial part now, I can see how one might interpolate a disrespectful intention. So far, however, no one except Cullen328 has inferred anything untoward. I can only speculate that Cullen328 read, "If currently there's a nonbinary singular third-person pronoun in the English language (i.e. besides "it"), the word hasn't yet made its way to me" and mistakenly presumed I was advocating "it" as a substitute for a singular "they" as a disparagement. Whether construed as a bona fide disparagement or as a joke, I hope continued reading here would clear it up: What does one typically ask when there's a knock at the door? What does one usually say after getting tagged in a game of Tag? (I've never heard, "Tag! You're they.") How do we reply to "who's that in the picture?" More cogently, according to the Oxford English entry for "it" - PRONOUN
    1. [third person singular] Used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified. // ‘a room with two beds in it’
    1.1 Referring to an animal or child of unspecified sex. // ‘she was holding the baby, cradling it and smiling into its face’ (italics not in original)
    2. [third person singular] Used to identify a person. // ‘it's me’ (italics not in original)
    • I can also understand how that huge wall of text in the "Sorry" thread might dissuade a reader from reading every single item. Accordingly, if anyone read the teal comment (i.e., as just reposted above) and construed it quite literally rather than tongue-in-cheek self-effacement re. my familiarity with the topic as presented in excruciating detail later on in the thread, and without knowing all the linguistic (incl semantics, syntax, lexicology, etymology, and phrase structure) work that consumes me during my time offline as well as online, then shame on me for not including a smiley face and a "LMAO" disclaimer. I guess my reputation as linguistics nerd hasn't preceded me as far as I'd imagined. But please, everyone, don't quiz me on phonology or morphology - esp. Old English. And I'm not really up on that. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 10:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kent Dominic, I'll be blunt: it was disrespectful and inappropriate. And if it wasn't clear, mine was also a formal warning. If you do something like that again, I will also block you. And might I also suggest you just speak plainly on this matter, without "excruciating detail" that might come across as filibustering...? It probably has little utility, anyway. El_C 12:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, BilledMammal, I think there could be some justification in reading all references to "it" as a pronoun for persons, in the context of nonbinary people, as potential dogwhistle rhetoric even when - as in this instance - the user is not explicitly referring to any nonbinary person as "it". After all, that is the way dog whistles work, and any sufficiently oblique comment is susceptible to multiple, layered interpretations as to its meaning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of talk page titles that need to be changed, because they are inaccurate: it is false and misleading for the original comment in this discussion to title this as a "Third-party edit" and refer to it vaguely as "a discussion page". In fact, the edit in question involved Newimpartial retitling a section of their own user talk page to indicate what they, the main reader of the talk page, understood the subtext of the post to be. To me, this seems a lot less problematic than someone coming into a discussion between two other parties on a general-audience page and retitling it to cast aspersions on one party. If a Wikipedia editor receives a user-talk message with what they perceive as a hostile title, but don't want to delete or archive the message itself, are they forced to let that title remain on their talk page? WP:OWNTALK doesn't seem to address this possibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Eppstein: I agree that "third-party" is inaccurate and false. I admit not proofreading the title and I bear responsibility for that lapse, but I don't agree the title is per se misleading in the context of the WP:DIFFS and LINKS provided for readers to see for themselves what the issue was. It's a moot point in this case since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction, as the one who initiated this ANI. No comment on the WP:OWNTALK consideration you raised except to say I hope others keep in mind that, often, hard cases make bad law. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Alleged interference in RfC by DePiep

    After multiple warnings were left unheeded, I have blocked DePiep for 2 weeks for repeatedly violating the terms of their editing restrictions (see WP:RESTRICT#DePiep). El_C 09:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I regret the need to be here but this matter concerns a currently open RfC.

    I recently initiated an RfC.[80] After the RfC statement section itself, there is a subsection for Votes and a subsection for Talk, notes, questions, suggestions.

    User:DePiep then posted a question to the RfC statement section itself.[81]

    I effectively boldly reverted DePeip’s edit by moving his question to the RfC Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection, and added my answer to his question.[82] I also asked DePiep to, “Please do not edit my rfc statement” adding that the place for questions is the RfC Talk etc. sub-section.

    DePiep has now reverted my revert[83] and added a “serious warning” to my talk page,[84] saying he is surprised to have to tell me, once more, on how to behave in a discussion; that my revert of his edit was unacceptable, including my “misleading” edit summary; that I’ll understand this is tearing his patience with me and my editing behaviour; that there are other paths for me to walk if I have questions or issues “(but not me is gonna point them out to you any more)”. Further, "I will not accept you breaking or spoiling a discussion. So best consider this as a serious warning."

    DePiep has also added a Glossary to the RfC statement section itself, without consulting me as the initiator of the RfC, and ignoring my previous request to please not edit my RfC statement.

    In bringing my allegations here I am only looking to run the RfC free from interference of this kind by DePiep, and to be free from incivil postings to my talk page.

    If this is an inappropriate forum to raise allegations and concerns of this nature I will be happy to raise them via another avenue.

    Thank you. I’ve tried to be polite. If I’m at fault I am happy to be corrected. Sandbh (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I will reply later on. Most clarifying diffs will be from the RfCs history. -DePiep (talk) 11:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, RE: why ask for "votes" instead of comments, in an RfC? Sandbh didn't ask for votes, they asked for !votes. RfC's are structured that way sometimes, which I suppose aims to reduce threaded discussion in the !vote list, largely relegating these to a 'discussion' subsection (personally, I'm not a fan of that format). But that isn't even the point. You sandwiched your "question" inside Sandbh's RfC opening text. I'm a bit surprised that I even need to tell an experienced editor not to do that, yet here we are. Anyway, I have removed the "question." El_C 11:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:
    (1) Sandbh initially, with the RfC opening post, named the section ==Votes== [85], no negating exclamation mark. So I asked "why?" [86]. Then a third editor changed the section title, noting WP:NOVOTE in their editsummary [87]. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (2) From WP:RFC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template" (italics added).
    So, El_C, could you check these two statements, and reply approprately (ie, I expect some form of withdrawal/correction in both). Since this is ANI, I may expect & request carefulness. Your writing, including the quotes, reads like undue reproach. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, prefacing "vote" with an exclamation mark isn't really that decisive, even if I might have started my warning to you with that (as that is what's being displayed atm). The point is that you're not allowed to intrude right onto the middle of an RfC's opening text. That you try to sidestep this crux rather than acknowledge it, is a problem, I find. El_C 12:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "right in the middle of"? It was straight after their signature, and before the "Vote" section [88]. Well, you may differ on the importance of a Vote-On-RfC setup, but I reject your repeated notion of bad faith or disruption. Adding scare-quotes around my question is not appropriate. After my clarifications, you still have not expained what trespassing happened. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, right in the middle of it. The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below. You broke the cohesion of the RfC opening text with your "question." Please don't do that again. If you want to challenge the RfC's formatting, you can create your own subsection, without otherwise hijacking the flow of RfC opening. El_C 12:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls check the edit. Now, I asked questions re your statements (about my edits) here, but did not find answers. And also since you keep using so-called-quotes re my posts ie assuming bad faith, I cannot help you any further. Your conclusions are incorrect. -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even still, it is inside the RfC opening (above the !votes), which isn't really the place for a threaded discussion. That's where the RfC author can elaborate a bit or leave as is. And I don't need your help. I've warned you against inappropriately intruding onto the RfC opening field and I've warned Sandbh against clerking the RfC. There's not much else to say. Yes, I used quotes for "question," because what does it even have to do with the RfC opening (its substance)? You can get the same emphasis from a subsection, without interrupting its flow, remains my point. El_C 13:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfair and incorrect subthread, see my re below. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: DePiep has now added commentary immediately after my vote, rather than adding such comments to the Talk, notes, questions, suggestions subsection.[89]. I thanked him for this edit and then boldly reverted it, saying, “Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section”.[90] DePiep reverted my revert, commenting, “"it is a discussion. Read WP:RFC. Do not change my edits. Stop tit-for-tat."[91]. While I stand ready to be corrected, I regard these alleged actions by DePiep as a form of vandalism, misguided as it may be. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No, Sandbh, you don't get to clerk an RfC you launched like this. You don't get to compel folks against engaging in threaded discussion in the !vote section. It's a recommendation which is ultimately at the discretion of individual contributors. El_C 11:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to the report by DePiep. The interactions in a timeline:
    A. Sandbh initiated the RfC, with section title ===Votes== (not !Votes) [92]. Because of my concerns for a too limited discussion (by vote tallying), I asked to change this sectiontitle to aim for true discussion, with me consulting & linking WP:RFC [93]. As recommended by WP:RFC, I posted this question right below the RfC question & signing, and before the (first, level-===) discussion section. A 3rd and a 4th editor then changed this title [94] [95] (@XOR'easter and YBG:). Answered, case closed, AFAIK. (But: see interactions E below).
    B. I also asked Sandbh for talkflow layout edit re bullet usage [96], which was responded to by a 3rd user, coordinated. Good process, no issue, AFAIK.
    C. Sandbh changed my post, with editsummary saying "revert" [97]. I reverted this manipulation manually [98], citing WP:TALKO: "do not edit other editor's comment". [99] On their talkpage, I wrote a note/warning. For the record: Sandbh is involved in this RfC, and the solution I hinted at is that a 3rd, uninvolved editor could be asked to check and make such edits if considered helpful or needed.
    D. I made two regular contributions to the discussion [100] [101].
    E. To my astonishment, Sandbh reverted (removed) my second contribution [102], es stating Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section. IOW, still a "vote" tallying approach. (I reinstated my post [103]).
    Z. As a short summary: I think that Sandbh, being an involved editor in this RfC, should not make discussion-flow or -restructuring edits. Especially not wrt other editor's posts, or by changing the argumentation flow afterwards. From this I asked twice for structure edit, and boldly reinstated my own posts. Then, in the end Sandbh still stating "Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes [sic, DePiep] section" [104], indicates that my concerns were right.
    -DePiep (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Replies to Sandbh's statements and behaviour, by DePiep
    As described above, I handled by WP:RFC guidance, not blindly but also because it makes sense to me in improving the RfC discussion quality. Let me quote once more: WP:RFC # Responding to an RfC: "If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template". I did so, asking a question, which was acknowledged by two(!) other editors [105] [106]. (When this change was made, already 3 ?Votes were posted i.e., discussion was happening; so it is good practice the Question should stay to clarify late changes to the discussion setup. But alas it was removed [107] for the wrong reasons).
    By that same WP:RFC quote, for example the detail "add ... unbiased statement immediately below", I added a glossary (since !Votes seemed to divert by unclarities). In no way or sense dit Sandbh proposed improvements &tc. the Glossary: instead, they filed an ANI report.
    Sandbh deleted my question. I reverted (manually), citing WP:TALKO: do not change another editor's post. I also notified Sandbh of this obvious error, adding the word warning as it is not the first time they did so [108].
    I added two content contributions. Sandbh deleted one content contribution. The es: Please do not add comments or discussion to the Votes section. Note that this was after Sandbh posted this report, and it repeated their original intention to go WP:VOTE tallying.
    Aggravating circumstances are that (1) This is not a talkpage, but an RfC, and (2) Sandbh is initiator of the RfC and so involved editor.
    My first conclusion is that the Sandbh's OP report here does not show any trespassing by me. Not a guideline, nor re good editing behaviour & intentions.
    My second conclusion is, that Sandbh has posted this ANI report too frivolously, accusing an editor without sound base and without proper reference (such as understanding guidelines, WP:RFC, ...). This is requiring loads of editor's energy, especially mine but not mine alone, to resolve. It also reduces the quality of the actual RfC discussion at hand.
    My third conclusion is that research for this ANI thread shows that Sandbh is disrupting the RFC repeatedly, and into a broken ineffective discussion. They do so by claiming WP:OWNERSHIP (both in approach as in disruptive editing), inclusing the procedural discussion flow (restructuring the discussion, clerking other persons edits), by misforming the discussion setup, and by changing other editors content(!) contributions. Until "now", that is Report time 10:05, 22 Jan 2022 (UTC), this could go as immaterial and solvable by proper talks (eg at right page & place). However, since and when these disruptions reappear, it might be necessary to impose restrictions to Sandbh's editing in this area. -DePiep (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with the above sequence of events as posted by DePeip, but not the interpretation and omissions.

    A. As El_C noted, posting what DePieP posted into the RfC statement before the Vote section was inappropriate.[109]

    C. I did not "change" DePiep’s post, I manually reverted it and moved it into the discussion section and, in response to DePiep’s question/concern about Voting, I replied as follows: "I put the rfc as a question. A "vote" then is an expression of one's wish or choice with respect to the question."[110] DePiep ignores BRD, reverts my revert,[111] and posts an incivil "serious warning" to my talk page.[112]

    D. I reverted DePiep’s contribution to the RfC since it was a commentary on the reasons for my vote, posted straight after my vote.[113] That was my bad, as El_C noted.[114], as ack by me.[115] DePiep ignores BRD and reverts my revert.

    As DePiep noted, I asked him to add comments or discussion to the Votes section, in this edit[116] summary, a request which he has ignored.

    Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: Thank you.
    I acknowledge your advice that an RfC nominator does not have a clerking role in the running of the RfC.
    I was following the example at Separate votes from discussion. In this case I recorded my vote along with a 90-word summary of my reasons. DePeip adds a 240-word commentary[117] to my vote, setting out his multiple disagreements with my vote reasoning as opposed to doing so in the Discussion sub-section of the Rfc. In closing his commentary to my vote, DePiep refers to what "we should choose" and asks people to also see his own vote. I feel this represents less-than-civil, disruptive behaviour on his part. How do you see it?
    Please be further advised El_C that I intend to boldly remove (effectively via reversion) the Glossary that DePiep unilaterally added to the RfC[118], since I allege that it is biased, in breach of WP:RFC Responding_to_an_RfC, and adds content not germane to the RfC. My reversion edit summary will ask DePiep to please follow BRD however I expect he will revert my revert rather than follow WP:BRD (but I live in hope). Respectfully, Sandbh (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandbh, as the filer, the RfC opening is your domain (within reason) and any further additions or adjustments to it should enjoy a rough consensus. So set it as you've originally intended. There really shouldn't be any further issues with the RfC structure. About Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Example_formatting#Separate_votes_from_discussion: I don't really know what that page is. It isn't labeled as a policy or guideline or even an information page or even even an essay. Category:Wikipedia requests for comment is all we get. Was it just split from the main RFC page? Who knows. Regardless, it opens with All of these formats are optional and voluntary (bold in the original), which I think is pretty key.
    To that: my main point was that outside the opening, RfCs are generally free-flowing. In some instances, they'd also have an extended discussion subsection (the Survery/Discussion model), and additional subsections as needed. Also, sometime these will end up being conducted with clearly-defined constraints on what's allowed to be said on what section, even strict constraints. Which tends to be either the product of agreement among those not knowing that that is optional, or those who do know it's optional but still agree to run it this way.
    Either way, as mentioned, I'm not a fan of strict constraints, mysef, which no one participant can decree by fiat. If there's a rough consensus to do anything like that, then, sure, I guess. I still think it's a generally bad idea, but to each their own. Anyway, hope that makes sense and hope it's gonna be smooth sailing from now on. El_C 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Then User:CaptainEek (not an arb at the time) filed a Request for Arbitration: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=990863692#Elements

    I recommended at the time that ArbCom accept the case, and consider whether any of the regular combatants should be topic-banned, and whether DePiep was a net negative to the encyclopedia, but the case was declined. Things then have been quiet for about a year. Now we have this. It appears that DePiep is complicating an effort by Sandbh to address the continuing controversy over the periodic table. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Quite a sloppy approach, User:Robert McClenon, and so damaging by low quality. Except for names reappearing, you have not established any serious connection between the 2020 set and this thread. AFAIK, invoking Arbcom (you propose) is not a sort of extended ANI. It is, well, to Save The Project (ie Wikipedia). You have not pointed out —not even started to— explaining why this ANI would not be sufficient in issue solving. After all, the only issue here is a non-optimal RfC; no mainspace page even affected. On top of this, you started drawing conclusions (calling for Arbcom and including a randomly-targeted, one-sided topicban still without explanation below) with this ANI thread barely having any analysis, and surely not having my response. I suggest to ignore this post, as it does not aim at conflict resolving. -DePiep (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, re El_C

    • User:El_C has posted mistaken claims in this ANI, and my initial replies have not effected into corrections. So I want to set the record straight. I do so outside of the main thread, as it would disturb the regular discussion flow (the El_C subthread should not be part of).
    El_C: [119] Sandbh didn't ask for votes, they asked for !votes— wrong. Here their initial RfC post says: ===Votes===, without exclamation mark. BTW, following my question re this, it was later corrected by a 3rd and 4th editor [120][121] (so: good process). In case one migh consider this minor, I note that Sandbh expressed explicitly that they intended this section to be vote-tallying, by deleting an indented content reply: "Please do not add comments or discussion ...". I am still flabbergasted.
    El_C: You sandwiched your "question" inside Sandbh's RfC opening text— 1-BF, 2-wrong. No reason to put my quesion in ""-quotes, casting explicit a BF accusation. El_C keeps doing this, four times, intentionally then. Next, I added my question between the RfC-signing and the ===Votes=== header i.e. discussion section:
    <RfC header>
Should ... ? [[User:Sandbh|Sandbh]] ([[User talk:Sandbh|talk]]) 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

::{{@Sandbh}} Why ... ? -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 05:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

===Votes===
...
    This placement is fully in compliance with WP:RfC:

    If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template.

    With these wrongs, the paternalistic ... that I even need to tell an experienced editor ... is out of place.
    El_C: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=1067236917&oldid=1067236630&diffmode=source] The brief RfC question was signed (presumably for the bot, which has a word limit), then they elaborated immediately below is incorrect twice: there was no "elaboration immediately below" (see code quote above): what followed was a sectionheader. And I do not see what the bot-remark mean. Is it a non-signing? Should I have researched who signed it? I consider this, eh, irrelevant. In total: "immediately below the RfC question" WP:RFC says, and so I did.
    I elaborate here this extensively because El_C repeated these wrongs and attitude after I pointed out these wrongs, my edit's backgrounds, and the notion that their ""-quotes are expressing BF. Misreading a diff can happen, but repeating so after being informed is inacceptable. Especially since El_C bases their conclusions on these wrongs, these are obviously incorrect and also harmful (for the thread, for editors involved). I propose to collapse that subthread as not relevant, and not use it in any way for this thread. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DePeip, here's what you posted right under the RfC template, and before the Vote subsection, and the Discussion subsection:
    "{@Sandbh}} Why at all do you call for Votes? How does that improve Comments & discussion, as WP:RfC defines & asks for?"
    These questions did not have anything to do with the wording of the RfC which was "Should the periodic table in the lede be an 18-column table or a 32-column table?" Your questions did not ask me to improve the wording of the RfC, nor did they represent an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. In the event, what was immediately below the RfC template was a "Vote" subsection and "Talk, notes, questions, suggestions" subsection. While I have my shortcomings too, which I try to overcome, common courtesy and talk flow considerations would suggest placing the questions into the latter subsection. Sandbh (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    *Sigh* DePiep, were we not past that at this point? Neither one of you should be messing with the RfC's format for whatever reason, them by clerking it, and you with your format question in and any other adjustments to the opening. I've already warned both of you against doing that and other than that, I'm done here. El_C 15:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it's "the opening" (but, what is?)? Why can't you just read & reply to my actual post? Why am I supposed to guess your personal preferences, presented afterward as autoritative? Why should I discard that quote and the whole of WP:RFC? And, maybe relevant, why can't you admit & correct the wrongs I pointed out repeatedly? -DePiep (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it's "the opening" (but, what is?)? That wen't over my head. Anyway, I admitted my errors about the timeline, but my basic warning to you not to mess with the RfC opening, that hasn't changed. It was inappropriate of you in that instance, which I am authorized to determine, and warn you against, as you are to appeal. Which maybe this subsection is...? Hard to tell. Outside of yourself, Sandbh, and Robert McClenon (all of you with some history, it seems), there seems to be little interest in this ANI report atm, anyway. El_C 17:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are talking from authority, so you are supposed to explain your statements. You cannot just ididnthearthat and then throw in your own approach including "warnings" ie threats and then walk away. I have pointed to flaws and wrongs. You started using wording the opening, which is mistifying, and so incidentally evades a point you're expected to reply to. Don't mix or lump together your replies to Sandbh and to me. If you've admitted errors "about the timeline" (huh?) and you still come to the same conclusions, you have not admitted an ounce of essence. Why can't I find a clarification from you for the contradiction between the quote I quoted and your claims? Honest question: did you even read my exposé, check the diffs, sought the reasoning behind it? -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, as far as I'm concerned, you are both responsible for the confused state of the RfC's opening prior to my intervention. I don't know what you mean by you have not admitted an ounce of essence —again, over my head— but I'd admit that I'm unable to tell which of you is more to blame for the disruption to that RfC.
    If you want me to clarify that you've both been equally warned (and that any lumping together is by default), sure. My main purpose was to get the RfC to be not broken and disrupted, so my actions should only be viewed a stop-gap measure to achieve that. ATM, I don't really care to look into any longstanding dispute between you two. El_C 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 1: Topic-Ban DePiep

    I propose that User:DePiep be topic-banned from chemistry-related topics.

    I don't see how this report leads to your proposal. (Could you at least provide diffs for what you think is transgressive?) Above, I have described:
    - I asked a question re discussion setup [122], which was acknowedged by a 3rd [123] and 4th [124] editor.
    - I asked a question about talkpage layout (bullet usage) [125], which was acknowledged by adressee in coordination with 3rd editor [126],
    - I posted two contributions to the discussion, one of which was deleted by involved and complaining editor Sandbh [127] (astonishingly, I add).
    Please reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I've had many interactions with DePiep outside of this topic area, running from cooperative to contentious, and as such I have watched this conflict as a talk-page stalker for several years now. This conflict would not exist in this state without considerable violations of courtesy, policy, and cooperation by Sandbh, and any topic ban that singles out another editor and does not include them is highly problematic. There is a distinct lack of WP:Civility on all sides in this conflict, and Sandbh's conduct with this recent RfC brings up some pretty serious WP:OWN concerns. The RfC doesn't belong to Sandbh, and they have no right to impose their preferred format to the discussion, nor to remove other people's content because they don't follow some arbitrary rule. That having been said, DePiep's adding a glossary was needlessly provocative, and this is unfortunately only one example of this kind of activity. Frankly, both of these editors have been adding a lot more heat than light to this subject area for quite a while now, and neither of them have been putting in the work to resolve their issues with each other. So if you want to bring in a topic ban, you're going to need to cast a much wider net than just DePiep. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I previously acknowledged at WP:ANI that I was wrong to revert one of DePiep's posts to the RfC.[128] It was open to DePiep to observe WP:BRD rather than to revert my revert, and to revert the subsequent reverts I made per WP:BOLD. I previously acknowledged at WP:ANI the warning given to me by El_C that I don't get to clerk the RfC [129]. On heat v light, in this subject area (of the periodic table), and in the past six months, I made one edit—a revert, including giving reasons.[130] My revert was reverted by DePiep[131] (with no supporting comments), rather than following WP:BRD. I've further been active in attempting to bring nonmetal up to FAC status and recently achieved six supports and one oppose. While the oppose was from DePiep I don't regard that as having anything to do with this discussion. Indeed, I took up some of his suggestions and where I didnt, I set out of my reasoning. Thank you for the opportunity to give an account of my actions. Sandbh (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I would suggest that a topic ban from the periodic table would be more in order than one from chemistry in general. While DePiep is with some frequency a corrosive element wherever they edit (pun intended), it's been my observation that this is much more strongly the case when they edit concerning the periodic table. Editing in that subject area would be much less contentious without their participation, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I am going to request closure of this thread as the lead admin has said that he sees no reason to do anything more.[132] However, if things seriously "derail," or there is otherwise significant misconduct, anybody can come back with a concise request for a topic ban or other sanctions for any involved editor. This thread has become sufficiently convoluted that it would be beneficial to have a reset should that be necessary. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Non-Proposals

    I will throw out two bad ideas for how to resolve this dispute, to recommend against them, in case they come up during this thread.

    • Interaction ban between DePiep and Sandbh. These are two editors who do not like each other, but I think that an interaction ban is a bad idea because they frequently edit in the same areas, the elements and the periodic table, so that an interaction ban could be gamed to acquire a first mover advantage. It might seem like a good idea, but is a bad idea.
    • Closing this thread with no action. These editors have been quarreling over the formatting of the periodic table for too long, and will continue to come back here if this thread is just closed.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I will also comment that these editors are quarreling over a matter of formatting. There is no underlying scientific difference between different formats of the periodic table. Some chemists recognize that any form of the periodic table is useful for teaching, and that the periodic table is not used for research. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What to do, what to do?? One editor has a block log that is quite long and illustrious. The other has never been blocked, in more than a decade. This does point to the possibility of the first editor getting banned if they persist. In addition, the RFC appears to be working. To help it be hospitable for new arrivals, I have collapse two long, unhelpful walls of text. If the litigants agree to leave it that way and let more editors comment freely, I think the RFC will reach a clear resolution. I think we should keep this thread open and see if the litigants agree to let the RFC run its course. If that happens, no action will be needed. If they prove that they can't restrain themselves, I recommend renewing the request for arbitration. It was moving towards acceptance last time until the involved parties decided to back down and be more collegial. Should we need to go back a second time, I don't think that strategy will work again. We will get a case, and editor #1 with the long block log is likely to get banned. Also, attacking El C [133] for trying to mediate this dispute is not a good look, DePiep. I hope you follow my advice to curtail the hostility and put down the WP:CUDGEL.[134] Jehochman Talk 19:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly oppose you collapsing my contribution at the RfC. You have not even clarified why or how that has to do with this ANI thread. You are directly interfering and judging in an ongoing RfC? I object your "no good look" qualification: I may expect my points to be addressed. -DePiep (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    btw User talk:Jehochman I think your opening line here is incorrect. Pls check you claims. -DePiep (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized that Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep exists. I was unaware of this until now. El_C 19:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good find, Mr. C. DePiep, what's wrong with One editor has a block log that is quite long and illustrious.[135] Most of these blocks are from Wikipedia A-listers, and the only one of the dozen was overturned. Talk 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, your editing restriction gives me wide latitude in which to sanction you. Now, because I got a lot of the original details wrong, though as I keep mentioning, not the crux, I'm not gonna do that at this point. About the crux and about your objection to being "lumped" together with your opponent wrt the RfC disruption, I'll quote what Vanisaac said (in part, though I recommend reading his comment in full):
    Frankly, both of these editors have been adding a lot more heat than light to this subject area for quite a while now, and neither of them have been putting in the work to resolve their issues with each other (diff).

    So in light of that, I'd submit to you that it's in your best interest to de-escalate rather than keep throwing more fuel to the fire. Because rightly or not, sooner or later that's gonna catch up with you (again). And, if your opponent (longstanding opponent, as Vanisaac notes) stays relatively calm when you do not, you're greatly disadvantaged. Rightly or wrongly. Good to keep in mind. El_C 01:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: I am free to explain and defend myself, especially in an ANI report I was dragged in to. Anyone making judgements is supposed to digest my replies. I note that in your very first post here, you added ""-quotes to my question. -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • DePiep, please understand their faults don’t excuse you. You and they are two independent people. If you get riled up by some other editor who acts badly, stay away from them. If they are indeed up to no good, others will notice and do something about it. When you get into the action, it draws attention from them towards you. I know from my own recent experience that it can be hard or impossible to disengage when you see somebody ruining an article (in your view). You must still disengage or you will risk getting the sanction. The powers here are often humorless, and unforgiving. Enough of this. Just don’t post to any of these pages further. Go edit something else and avoid your nemesis. Jehochman Talk 06:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not claim any excuse. At all. Apparently it was necessary to completify the record, since you missed this information. Because this is new & relevant, I asked you to reconsider your own statements conclusions, for starters in your 19:05 What to do post opening (now shown to be incorrect as we have seen). BTW Do we know why this did not show up? Tech glitch?
    I am surprised you are forbidding me to add this information. Why should I not fix missing information? You missed it, so I added it, at your own request. Worrying is, that you did cheer one find, and reject-with-admonishing another one. I expect unbiased approach. Please stop the "does not look good" blanket replies. If there are mistakes, I can point them out and ask for a rethink. -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I add: it was you not me who introduced the logs here. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: bizzy in RL from now, will reply later today. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, again, I do not require you to reply. I'm busy in IRL too, which is why I'm unlikely to do anything else here unless things seriously derail. Your editing restriction wasn't seen, at least by me, until your block log was mentioned (where I clicked on the link). Your opponent past TBANs weren't seen, at least by me, because no one had pointed them out (I don't think), and omniscience is otherwise hard to come by. El_C 14:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason for the omission is not that relevant, I assume tech. Point is that when I add it to complete the set, I do not expect to be reproached. Instead, I expect Jehochman to reconsider and redact their conclusions. -DePiep (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My recap. @El C and Jehochman:I will give an overview of the main points as I see them. I have replied to the OP report in two paragraphs. No other editor replied nor did questions follow. Earlier, El_C had made posts that contained wrongs like factual errors. I pointed these out, most comprehensively in § For the record, re El C. I got no response (no correction, no change of conclusions & judgements). Then Jehochman entered, latching onto a late state of affairs (ie, not from OP report onwards). In their opening sentence re the logs, there was an omission. In second note I filled it, expecting a change of text and of judgement. After all, their basic facts had changed. This did not happen. Still later, El_C introduced the log history as an argument to maintain their judgements. I object once again: their statements and judgements on recent edits based on wrong facts, cannot be made correct by referring to earlier history. The facts are still wrong so conclusions wrong. With all this, I have read (correct me if I'm wrong) personal attitudes by both editors like making judgements personal (individual) and unbalanced. With this, I see an explicit unwillingness to respond to the issues and objections I made. I do not see how one can make a balanced, fair and helpful judgement based on this. At this time, there were reproaches that I should not post, not react to other editors posts, should not fill in an factual relevant omission. I find this strange, as being the reported and accused editor here, I see it as a right to explain and defend myself. If texts are too long, one could propose cooperated reduction like collapse. I don't see why all this could "look bad". Of course one cannot be forced to digest posts, but there is no argument for underinformed, prejudiced or biased conclusions. To me it looks that, while mostly discussing circumstances, actual trespassings & diffs have not or scarcely been thoroughly or convincingly established. -DePiep (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note a remarkable lack of diffs. Hard to defend against gossip. -DePiep (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    • It pains and saddens me to report that DePiep has once again re-reverted,[139] this time a revert of mine,[140] without observing the civility of WP:BRD. The page in question is the nonmetal article that is the subject of the RfC was subject to a recent FAC.  [amendment by Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)][reply]
    • My WP:BOLD revert was of an edit by YBG; the two of us have been working together on the nonmetal article for some time, including during its FAC nomination. I received a civility barnstar for this work.
    • As User:Jehochman noted, the RfC itself has been proceeding relatively smoothly since I posted my complaint here.
    • I have twice acknowledged here at ANI that I was wrong to revert two of DePiep's edits. While I actioned these reverts in good faith they showed ignorance on my part of the applicable policy. @DePiep: I apologise to you for revering your edits.
    • As noted, DePiep and I sometimes edit in the same areas. In my experience this has usually occurred without fuss. When I ask questions of DePiep his responses are usually civil.
    • I make no claim to be angelic and I strive to observe WP policy, and to learn from my mistakes
    • My general impression of DePiep's responses here are that they are hostile in tone; disrespectful of this forum and other editors involved in this thread including User:El_C and User:Jehochman; exemplary of WP:BLUDGEON-like behavior; and inconsistent with the indefinite editing restrictions he is under. Sandbh (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not nice to facilitate the downfall of another editor. Please stop reverting and use the talk page as it is meant to be. Make an earnest effort to consider each other’s opinions. Show respect and extend the Olive branch. If it gets thrown back in your face, somebody will notice and do something about it. There is no need to come here wringing your hands, looking tearful. Jehochman Talk 02:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your advice, which I intend to observe. I revert in good faith in accordance with WP:BRD. Consistent with that practice, and civility, I do not revert reverts. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Supposed "legal issues"

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

    The section concerned is badly sourced, or unsourced entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A look at the deletion log shows at least half a dozen deletion on CSD grounds for G11, A7, and G12 issues. I've nominated for deletion so we'll see what happens when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plintron closes. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I chopped bits of the promotional content, but what is left does seem like the output of a PR department. The IPs were right to remove that legal blather though. Zaathras (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Plintrongroup

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

    Reported to WP:UAA. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 10:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Plintrongroup blocked per WP:CORPNAME Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dawit S Gondaria ignoring information within source materials and resorting to personal attacks

    Dawit removed properly cited information (and citations), leaving other information uncited, broke a citation because the way I did it was supposedly wrong, changed another citation's parameters so that the information it provided was incorrect (again, because I supposedly did it wrong, and removed information without providing a source to the contrary. His behaviour at his talk page and that of the article in question is getting to be uncivil, attacking my intelligence here, and insulting the work I did at Qene here. I've had to clean up his edits, which are often grammatically confusing, if not outright wrong, and strangely formatted, which kind of brings WP:COMPETENCE into the equation as well. I'm not saying he isn't a competent person per se, just that it's quite tedious to clean up after him. Thiqq (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thiqq needs self reflection regarding WP:COMPETENCE. The article Qene user wrote gives undue weight to Geez composition, including in the lead. There's no mention of Amharic composition. Most published Qene are above and beyond in Amharic. Spoken/performed Qene are almost always in Amharic not Geez which is a vernacularly extinct language. Just like the French and Italian poets perform mostly in their spoken languages (French/Italian) and not Latin, the same applies to Qene. There's nothing on the contemporary process, which doesn't involve Geez, you can directly write poems using Amharic fidal.● Thiqq needs to learn to add ISBN/OCLC to avoid confusion when citing sources as she did with Molvaer.● As for Bete Amhara [[141]] i don't have to provide squat, the sources are very clear on the locations of Qene schools which are discussed at [[142]], which extends beyond the geography of Bete Amhara, a term Thiqq choose, not mentioned in the sources. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    More (not undue) weight was given to Ge'ez because I had only written about the origin of qene. You can write about its development and contemporary practice by adding more information, but there's no reason to remove that regarding Ge'ez. As for your ISBN comment, I included the LCCN for Levine's book, so it's clearly not something I need to learn. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean I don't know how to do something, not to mention the fact that the ISBN wouldn't have changed the mistake you made in assuming Molvaer was the editor, so don't be snarky. Bete Amhara is the region that Levine discusses. When I said you didn't provide a source, I meant that you didn't provide a source that defines Bete Amhara as not including Gojjam, Gondar, and Begemder. I only included a link to it so anyone who reads the article can go there for further reading on the region. Also, I'm a man, not a woman. Thiqq (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to the Princeton source not Levine, which you didn't provide any OCLC or ISBN [[143]] nor the names editors of the cited encyclopedia itself. ●The term Bete Amhara was your misinterpretation of Levine, which doesn't refer ‘‘Amhara country’’ as Bete Amhara, but Amhara provinces/areas as he elaborates the locations of Qene schools. I don't have to include a source that defines Bete Amhara, you shouldn't have gone with that term in the first place. Come with a sound argument why you chose a term not cited by the sources? Apologies on assumption of gender. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update Levine book Greater Ethiopia [[144]] page 72: Quote: ‘‘Situated in what is today the southwestern part of Wello Province, the historical Amhara region was bounded on the west by the Abbai (Blue Nile) and its tributary the Bashilo river; on the north the regions of Angot and Lasta; on the east by the escarpment leading down to the Danakil Desert; and on the south by the Wanchet river’’ In this book Levine is talking historically before expansions and where Amhara first emerged. In Wax and Gold, it's easy to understand that he refers Amhara country as Amhara Provinces/Amharic speaking areas at the locations of the Qene schools, Gonj(google search Gonj) in Gojjam is west of Bashilo river. Lasta(beyond geographic range of Bete Amhara as source indicate), Bounded by Abbai to the West, Gondar is north of Abbai. Princeton further underscores locations of Qene schools. Bete Amhara doesn't encompass all the areas Levine refer to as Amhara country, the term Bete Amhara is not mentioned in the sources. The reference to Bete Amhara is historically and geographically inaccurate. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it would fall under ANI because I was also concerned about conduct, not just content. But at this point I'm fine to just leave the issue alone if no one else has a problem. Thiqq (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous statement by @Thiqq: You can easily conclude my edits without a doubt improves the article by verifying claims and removing Thiqs errors, from demanding a page number, adding isbn, introducing subsections, [[145]],[[146]] to objection to removal of basic facts that Qene in practice is not performed in a vernacular dead language[[147]], to removing Thiqqs persistent reference to a geographical limit not expressed in the sources.[[148]]. Also responding to this [[149]] which i was about to include page 9 of Levine, which supports this edits [[150]] Scrutiny should go to Thiqqs edits and annoying conduct in the article and on my talk page, including false accusations of disruptive edits and improper use of warning templates [[151]].
    Btw soon to be added in the article, medieval Amharic Qene. Process of Geez to Amharic and performed Qene in Amharic in earlier times. Contemporary process Amharic > Amharic Qene without Geez. Thiqqs assumption of Qene bet originally in Geez is only true in oral tradition, while the early verifiable documentation/extants of the 15/16/17 century extants were both in Geez and Amharic. I will be improving the article in the next few days with reliable sources, i'm also awaiting additional sources from Resource Exchange, from which i only partially can read texts from Google book. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I don't see this going anywhere at this point. I withdraw my complaint. Thiqq (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk

    I have noticed that one editor, User:Don L Gates has made many contributions all relevant to vehicle driving in Britain. In all the cases I checked (about 10 recent edits) the contribution essentially involved adding a link to https://www.ukdrivingskills.co.uk , sometimes (e.g. The Highway Code, section "Access") at the top of a list of other links. The links weren't to blatant advertising, usually linking to relevant information, but the pattern seems odd, and the site is a commercial site selling subscriptions. Consequently I post the information here so that it can be considered. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Don L Gates owns and operates ukdrivingskills.co.uk, which makes this a COI issue. Beyond that, I wouldn't consider this site a reliable source. No author by-lines, no editorial policy, no author/editor backgrounds, not cited by reliable sources, etc. Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems abundantly clear that this user is only here to promote their website. Canterbury Tail talk 14:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User has been given a first and only warning and has not edited since; let's see if he picks up where he left off. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wasn't suggesting a block right now, they definitely need a warning and an opportunity to alter their editing patterns. Canterbury Tail talk 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same have duly been given :) Stifle (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Regular disruptive editing from PhilLiberty

    SOCK
    Indefblocked by GeneralNotability as a sock of Hogeye, after 16 years of block evasion. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hogeye. If anyone thinks there's any business left to be taken care of here (noting that I've removed a CBAN tag from Hogeye's userpage as apparently incorrect), they can feel free to reopen or start a new subsection. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Some of the articles affected:

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

    I looked at some of the recent history and what I see includes accusing other editors who revert them of vandalism, while restoring their edits against consensus (reverts are sometimes by other editors than BeZet). Also text alterations without updating the sources, resulting in material that sometimes deviate from them. An example is here with the vandalism edit summary and the sources having no mention of "free market". Occasionally I see an attempt to discuss at article talk pages but not systematically. I'm not sure about the merits of the promoted diagram, I've not studied anarchism in a while and political science is not my field. As for its copyright status, it's ambigious, the comment has an apparent author name and "license" assertion: "Hogeye Bill use at will" but no link to the original source. "Use at will" may perhaps mean in the public domain but if so, that too is not ideal (WP:PD). —PaleoNeonate – 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The diagram is complete WP:SYNTH in that it was created by the user himself (according to him). ANd as someone who has studied anarchism heavily, it is a load of tripe. The user is a blatant POV pusher trying to push a fringe ideology. 2A01:388:3F5:161:0:0:1:7A (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, does this mean that Phil is also Bill? If so, was there a successful appeal by Special:Contributions/Hogeye? Interesting links:
    Maybe it's time to file Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hogeye... —PaleoNeonate – 16:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding: here they are arguing in support of the diagram's conclusions but without providing sources. —PaleoNeonate – 14:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this apparent WP:POVFORK really first introduced here? Some edit warring to restore it happened when 5 other editors were restoring the redirect. But this was in 2019 and there were some blocks that year already. —PaleoNeonate – 14:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Just saw they'd made a bunch of disruptive edits and reverted them. What caught my eye was the placing of an apparently self-created image directly in the middle of a lede, then noticed they have also been changing the wording in articles, even removing sourced information, to the point that it appears to be POV pushing. This seems to be just another day in a week-long cycle of attempting to push these kinds of changes to the above-mentioned articles. And going through their user talk page, this seems to be incredibly persistent behavior, with 3RR violations and disruption warnings stretching back 15 years. I certainly think a TBAN is appropriate, at minimum, but I have to wonder if they won't simply take such behavior to other sections of Wikipedia. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Vandalism on Indian constituency pages

    TEMPORARY BLOCK
    Range blocked by JBW for six months (non-admin closure) hemantha (brief) 18:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The range 2402:8100:2039:0:0:0:0:0/44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to cover most of this - contribs have an exclusive focus on Indian constituency/politician pages; a very large percentage appear vandal-like and have been reverted. The rest of the IPs have only <10 edits each (
    ) hemantha (brief) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Passive-Aggressiveness from editor

    user:DublinDilettante added an unsourced statement to 2009 Cuban government dismissals which I immediately reverted, then he reverted my revert and quote "anon vandalism by politically motivated troll". This is ludicrous behavior from an editor on WikiPedia. 2A02:1205:5000:9C00:B0F7:7BE7:16BF:8435 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reworked that bit based on the source to hopefully have something everyone is happy with. BeŻet (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Whistleblower101 clearly WP:NOTHERE

    User:Whistleblower101 has had quite a few chances to do something other than "whistleblowing" and soapboxing, but hasn't taken any of them up. Even the most cursory glance at their contributions shows that they are definitely not here to build an encyclopedia, however just their cause might be. They've been warned plenty of times, with exactly zero result or engagement. It's time for the inevitable. Time to blow the indefinite block whistle. Mako001 (C)  (T)  15:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked Whistleblower101. Cullen328 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jmurphy914

    Jmurphy914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s user page is pretty much a self-indictment of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, yea, but they haven't actually done anything untowards in recent edits, the problematic stuff was 9+ years ago. Having a subpar opinion of the Wikipedia on one's userpage isn't actionable. ValarianB (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Socks + POV-pusher

    An user under four differnt IPs - User:148.77.37.122, User:162.83.236.163, and User:2603:7080:140:f600:e06d:657c:f4f4:580e, User:69.123.237.31 - has been adding the same unrelated content to the same article, despite being reverted every time and having the consensus clearly against him/her. Compare [152] vs [153] vs [154] vs [155]. Veverve (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Veverve, I don't see a note on the talk page or much explanation in the history, besides this. I can't see the whole article from La Croix--if you can confirm that Grillo is not mentioned there at all, that would be a step forward. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: The article does mention Grillo who gives his opinion. However, the issue is not whether or not Grillo criticised Benedict XVI; the problem is that adding that "Andrea Grillo, an Italian theologian and outspoken critic of Pope Benedict XVI's liberalization of the Traditional Latin Mass who has campaigned in favor of imposing an institutional silence on the pope emeritus (Benedict XVI), also taught at the institute" is neither due nor relevant, and that it is the consensus not to put this information, on top of being clear sockpuppetting.
    Numerous people from Sant'Anselmo are mentioned in the Catholic News Agency article, but only Vittorio Francesco Viola and Aurelio García Macías are considered relevant as they are bishops directly involved with the Vatican department on liturgy and the CNA article says as much, while Grillo is an unknown academic. Furthermore, the La Croix article is from 2017 - 4 years before the subject of the article - and as far as Grillo is concerns only contains a short interview with Grillo which would be WP:SYNTH. Veverve (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Veverve, that makes sense--if you would, please post this on the article talk page real quick, and then admins like me will have something to point at if this happens again. And I'll make sure it won't happen in the same way again for the next three months. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: done. Thanks for your work! Veverve (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And thank you for this, Veverve. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Cherry Benji

    Cherry Benji (talk · contribs) Continues to upload non-free media (such as this and this) in full resolution taken directly from other websites, despite being warned many times on their talk page not to do so. They have also refused to attach any sort of copyright information or fair-use rationale to their uploads, which is part of the reason many of them have been deleted.

    Some of their other edits are disruptive as well and have been reverted (such as this and this). Misceditor1000 (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've been concerned about this user for a while, not least the repeated copyright violations, despite warnings and deletions. Their lack of communication is worrying. They also seem to demonstrate WP:OWN behaviour at Jason Aldean (see here). I'm also concerned with WP:CIR as they keep creating really poor articles like Draft:Trouble With a Heartbreak (Jason Aldean song), Draft:Trouble With a Heartbreak. Is this someone who is willing to collaborate and build an encyclopaedia? At the moment, they seem to be a net negative but maybe they'll turn it around eventually. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is, the lack of communication from them makes it look like they're just outright ignoring warnings, especially with as many copyright violation uploads of theirs being deleted as there are. Thing is, they'd probably be accepted and used in an article if they'd attach a non-free rationale to them and shrink the image to something like 300x300, as is pretty much required with those. They don't even want to do that though, hence the deletions. Misceditor1000 (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They've just restored the copyright content again here. Not sure if this is an attempt at trolling at this stage or just pure stubbornness... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've just seen that. Under WP:3RR I can't do any more reverts right now, but it'll be something else if this user breaks that rule just to restore an image which, as I explained to them, can't be hosted on Wikipedia as it's copyrighted and contains no fair-use rationale. Misceditor1000 (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    @Misceditor1000: Under WP:3RRNO point 5 removing content that is an obvious copyright violation or unquestionably violates NFCC policy is exempt from edit waring restrictions. I imagine that any reasonable administrator would say that uploading the same image over and over at nonsense titles to try to avoid it being downsized is an obvious violation of the NFCC policy. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked them indefinitely. GiantSnowman 19:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Appreciate it, thanks! Misceditor1000 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring on People v. Turner

    Contentious link removed from article, should be discussed on talk. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Bkatcher (talk · contribs) continues to add "Affluenza" under "see also" on People v. Turner. I am aware that that is the narrative that Michele Dauber (Stanford Law Professor, noted sexual assault activist, wife of a Google engineer and family friend of the victim) wants to push. That she has tried to paint a picture of Turner as being like the affluenza kid. But some quick Googling establishes that Turner and his family were solidly middle class, with his father being an engineer and his mother being a nurse. In the meantime, the victim is the daughter of one of the most renowned psychologists in Santa Clara county. I understand how petty/asinine such an edit war may sound, but I feel that getting a mod/admin involved might be warranted. 98.176.148.115 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would expect there to be a source, i.e. that the perpetrator had actually been described as "suffering" from affluenza in reliable sources. i don't see that in the article, and so absent that, I would say that the "See also" should be removed. This isn't a noticeboard for resolving content disputes, but this may cross the line into a BLP issue, so I think it's fine. Incidentally, you are required to inform Bkatcher of this report - I am about to do so. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have suggested you place this information in the article's talk page or at least include a reason in your edit summary. As it were, 'nope' didn't tell me why you were removing it. Bkatcher (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that the first time I removed it and you simply reverted my edit with no reason given. 98.176.148.115 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean back in November? You've still yet to provide a source. 'Some quick googling' isn't a source. Seriously, we could have easily hashed this out in the article's talk page. Bkatcher (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. From https://www.romper.com/p/what-does-brock-turners-dad-do-dan-turner-has-been-vocal-about-his-sons-case-12206 "Dan Turner, who urged the sentencing judge to reconsider his son’s jail time for probation, comes from a military background and used to work as a civilian contractor for the United States Air Force, according to military documents. Turner was charged with assisting on technology projects needed to help build weaponry." As for his mom, I found her Linkedin. https://www.linkedin.com/in/carleen-turner-75a610198/. Salary for an air force contractor is here https://www.indeed.com/cmp/U.S.-Air-Force/salaries/Contract-Specialist. Salary for a RN is here https://nursinglicensemap.com/resources/nurse-salary/. So basically middle class as I said. You also have yet to provide a source (even a not-so-reliable one) that says the perpetrator had actually been described as "suffering" from affluenza as our mutual friend Black Kite suggested. 98.176.148.115 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since no source for "affluenza" exists in the article and has not been provided on the talkpage, since this is a BLP issue I have edited through the protection and removed it. Further discussion can take place from that starting point. Black Kite (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Blackmanniger/sandbox

    INDEFINITE BLOCK
    Blackmanniger blocked indefinitely for vandalism by RickinBaltimore. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Simple. WP:RBI. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:Ahecht cross-wiki disruption to make a WP:POINT

    Withdrawn by complainant, who is cautioned to not use ANI as a means of settling disagreements or making accusations that cannot be supported. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has recently complained about the top image on Zettai ryōiki for reasons amounting to WP:IDONTLIKEIT:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zettai_ry%C5%8Diki#Top_image

    And nominated https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zettai_ry%C5%8Diki_-_Bologna_Motorshow_2012.jpg as a “creep shot” (which it isn’t) in bad faith seemingly to bolster their WP:POINT. Dronebogus (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If you really feel that a picture of an Italian model scratching her butt is the best image to put at the top of an article about a Japanese fashion term for exposed thighs, more power to you. Even if it isn't a creep shot, it unnecessarily gives off that vibe (most women at car shows don't pose for zoomed in pictures of them scratching themselves), and this dogmatic "it's fine because it's always been there" approach is one of the reasons this project has trouble attracting female volunteers. There are much better images on Commons to illustrate the concept of zettai ryōiki, and I'm having a hard time finding a good-faith explanation for why so many editors are insisting on leading the article with that image. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the comment above. Plus, I think this is possibly made only to highlight her butt and nothing else as the upper part of her body is cropped off. This rightfully deserve to be called a "creep shot". MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reported this because I wanted an admin to review this, not drag the argument out to a third venue. I don’t have a problem with you suggesting a better image (which you didn’t), I have a problem with you nominating a file that’s in use for deletion seemingly to make a WP:POINT Dronebogus (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am having trouble understanding how this is a "urgent incident" or "chronic, intractable behavioral problem". The most concerning thing in the entire discussion is that one of its participants has made an AN/I thread to bring administrative action against someone who disagreed with them on a talk page (about a photograph of an ass, of all things). jp×g 07:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree this seems way unnecessary escalation when an editor has simply expressed their concerns with something in a reasonable fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Crosswiki abuse.

    Handled by NinjaRobotPirate. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    This is a good place to report disruption. I moved the pages back and warned the editor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Repeat hounding by editor

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

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

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

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

    Adding: the editor I met as Aesthetic Writer (their talk and my archive) was problematic as not understanding enough English to grasp objections. Just look at their disruption on Talk:Mozart and Leopold Mozart on 9 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I defend my claims against me, so recently I was modifying Thrakkx's actions for some short descriptions and infoboxes which they violates any Wikipedia policy. I did not harass Thrakkx, but recently I removed birth dates for Mason Gamble and Mason Ramsey without sources which they violated WP:BLPPRIVACY. While Denniss replied this message about unsourced date of birth and full name of Mason Gamble which about to take part of WP:BLPDS. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For requirements to file an arbitration enforcement request, by investigating a conduct dispute for Thrakkx's actions by editing short descriptions and infoboxes. If nationality parameter is included (e.g. Bertrand Russell, Audrey Hepburn) if necessary for consensus. If flags in military personnel infoboxes could neither required or optional if needed for dual/multiple (by current or former) countries (e.g. Marquis de Lafayette). If short descriptions in lists by using "Wikipedia/Wikimedia list article" to "none". --49.150.100.127 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lastly, hatnotes are optionally used, but not to link for trivial uses (e.g. Timeline of the far future). --49.150.100.127 (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the global lock log of the account this is User:SwissArmyGuy, the "unique" understanding of English and policy seems to match their typical behaviour quite well. Given that they were arbcom blocked due to some deeply unpleasant stuff these IP ranges should probably be given a long range block. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But I recently reported Mike Novikoff for misuse of navboxes, because it's my first incident to report via administrators' noticeboard. --49.150.100.127 (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, since they mention me... There is an unanimous consensus at WT:MOS that most images, and in particular flags and coats of arms, should be removed from the navboxes per MOS:DECOR. That's exactly what I've been doing for some years now. Then, all of a sudden, 49.150.112.127 comes down like a ton of bricks on me: he reverts my edits at about ten of navboxes at once on 27 December, and again on 30 December. Furthermore, instead of trying to discuss the content questions, he immediately proceeds to some weird complaints and accusations against me, which looks like a real nightmare. I've started the discussion at WT:MOS exactly because of this, and even now, when the consensus is crystal clear there, the IP still calls it a "misuse". In the past few days I thought of asking for either a semi-protection of the templates in question or for a block of the IP user, so thanks a lot for doing the latter. — Mike Novikoff 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird Spammy posts by DarrylRMarsh

    INDEFINITE BLOCK
    DarrylRMarsh blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE by Paul Erik. Revdels completed by Ymblanter. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Looks like they're either a troll or mentally unwell. Either way, they're obviously WP:NOTHERE. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 02:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speak for yourself. He promised me and 7.9 billion other people five grand. I’m waiting for my check. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So very NOTHERE. Ravenswing 03:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be hard to judge which of their last two edits are less tethered to reality. Editors like this should be indefinitely blocked very promptly, as there is zero chance that such people will make positive contributions to a neutral, well referenced encyclopedia. I sincerely hope that this person finds personal peace and effective treatment. Cullen328 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of their edits contain personal information, presumably their own but possibly someone else's. Revdel might be appropriate here? Mlb96 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Draftify request

    Cricket sudda21 (talk · contribs) has created 2021–22 SLC National Super League a short while ago. I am afraid, it is a copy/paste of 2021 SLC Invitational T20 League. Seems like it is not ready for the main space just yet. Can some helpful page mover could move it to draft space until Cricket sudda finishes the article. Regards--Chanaka L (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is a stub, still, but I think it's okay for mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Quick note that Cricket sudda21 tried to remove this section here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy/pasting should be done in accordance with WP: COPYWITHIN, isn't it? Using main space as a place to draft an article is something I have never done. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 185.113.63.109 is a single purpose troll account

    TEMPORARY BLOCK
    IP blocked for 3 days 2 hours 6 minutes (oddly specific amount of time) for trolling by The Blade of the Northern Lights. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Baxter 329 WP:GREATWRONGS WP:NOTFORUM

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


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

    @Dronebogus: You must notify users if they are brought up on this forum. I'll notify that user now. As for the user's behavior, I'd warned them "one last time". If they continue, I was planning to bring them to WP:AE. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I forgot Dronebogus (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Although they violated WP:FORUM last week, they haven't edited much lately, I'm curious what prompted this report today. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dronebogus, I count 5 or 6 complaints you have brought to ANI in the past day or two. You know, you don't get a barnstar for the most complaints posted to noticeboards. I'd try to be more selective and only bring serious, intractable problems here. You don't want to get a reputation as a drama board regular. Believe me, it can be hard to shake off. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reminded of an MfD where Dronebogus voted "delete" and tried to rebut every user that voted keep. Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 13:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    TBAN violation

    TEMPORARY BLOCK
    Aydın memmedov2000 blocked for 48 hours for immediate TBAN violation by El_C. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. See ANI discussion, RESTRICT log, TBAN notice, block notice. El_C 15:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Disruptive editing by 71.114.58.144

    I and another editor have reverted some of 71.114.58.144 (talk · contribs)'s recent edits, which in my opinion were BLP violations.[156][157][158] They're all on WP:ARBPIA articles, one of which was subsequently put under extended-confirmed protection. This user has received plenty of warnings so I'm wondering if a block is in order. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    PAGE PROTECTED
    Tram 11 semi-protected for 1 week by Ymblanter. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I semi-protected the page for a week.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter:, thank you! Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Edward Colston

    PAGE PROTECTED
    Edward Colston full-protected for 1 week by El_C. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    The swearing - two uses of the word fucking - was used for emphasis and was not directed at any editor. The rest of the discussion, whilst bad tempered in places, is a content dispute and of no interest to ANI. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 00:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would almost certainly have been in Govvy's best interests to read up on Wikipedia's policies (e.g. on copyright and plagiarism, and on identifying reliable sources, if nothing else) instead of starting a thread here, in my opinion. But here we are anyway. With a complaint entirely lacking the diffs required. To save time though, I'll repeat what I said on Talk:Edward Colston. "When I see a Wikipedia article attempting to whitewash slavery, I will swear all I fucking like". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we really going to start an ANI over someone saying a bad word, OP? Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing to see here, however I would advise Govvy to take care to follow Wiipedia's Reliable Sources and Copyright violation policies. - Nick Thorne talk 01:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the talk-page, AndyTheGrump wrote And I've no idea what the heck you are trying to prove here, but I'd have to suggest that it is singularly ill-advised. You might do well to consider how this vacuous stonewalling in apparent defence of a major slave-trader might look if it were brought to the attention of WP:ANI. I am inclined to agree with this description of the situation. --JBL (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those who know me also know that I am not inclined to drop the F bomb here on Wikipedia. But in this case, it was not gratuitous and not part of a personal attack. Instead, it was directed at any attempt to "soften" the horrific nature of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. I understand and agree, although I probably would have chosen different words to express my indignation. Each of us has our own style. As a side note, I am quite impressed with the straightforward language from the museum in Liverpool. Well done, AndyTheGrump. Cullen328 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Closed already? @Nick Thorne: My post here was more in the hopes of looking for a strong willed person who can help give the article some oversight and help keep peoples emotions down. When AndyTheGrump swears like that on a talk page, that to me is emotional writing, when I see that, I don't think he has a clear head. As for the issue of copyright, the citation it was linked too, it wasn't even pointing to the correct page on that website. I actually tried to rewrite that bit he removed to avoid copyright ages ago, that edit here, which also at the same time, was the citation for the previous sentence, went and left that sentence without the citation. :/ As far as I am concerned liverpoolmuseums.org.uk is a reliable source as is David Hughson an author, [159]. So you have to forgive me why you feel the need to post that I am not following RS sources... :/
    I also believe some of this editing is off the back of having pushed the article for GA which I felt was in a good enough position for GA. I don't know whether or not the conversation at User talk:AndyTheGrump#Colston, is concerning or not. Govvy (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are concerned that I questioned the 'GA' status of an article that cites anecdotal commentary made in passing in a (possibly pseudonymous) historical travel guide to London written 87 years after Colston's death as an authority for Coulson's 'expenditure' on charity? Fascinating... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote: As for the specifics of this particular article, we'll see, though I suspect that Govvy may regret posting at WP:ANI, which will no doubt attract more eyes to the article, and to Govvy's self-evident lack of understanding of several Wikipedia policies
    John Maynard Friedman wrote Govvy has a lot to learn, but could start with wp:cherrypicking.
    I've been around wikipedia a long time, a few of the admins around here have known me a long time. If I am posting at ANI it's for a reason, you really should have a look at yourself before judging me. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, we both have block logs indicating that admins have known us for a long time. Though I'll note that they seem to have renewed their acquaintance with you rather more recently. Or isn't that what you mean? Are you suggesting that admins should show preferential treatment to their acquaintances? Human nature being what it is, I'm sure it happens sometimes, but I don't think that drawing attention to the fact is tactically wise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone around a long time, Govvvy, I might also expect you to have understood WP:POV and WP:GA. Given your responses at User talk:Vacant0#Edward Colston, I took you to be a relatively recent editor. [ Vacant0 just did the GA review and is largely an innocent bystander in this case.]
    Since Govvy is persisting with this complaint after its closure as a content dispute, I suggest that a WP:BOOMERANG case should be opened. Is there a Wikipedia equivalent to "wasting police time"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with JMF that the decision to re-open this was poor and that a boomerang should be considered. I think the description of Govvy's engagement on the talk-page as "vacuous stonewalling in apparent defence of a major slave-trader" was accurate, and Govvy's failure to change course concerning. --JBL (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I agree with you, JBL. Look, Govvy, you can't prohibit folks from speaking emphatically or from calling a WP:SPADE a spade — even if that spade amounts to a harsh critique. Criticism is allowed, including criticism of the criticism (for extra meta), but that's not really what you're doing here. I don't know if you've been formally warned about this yet, so this is a formal warning: you need to observe WP:ONUS better and to not file frivolous ANI reports. And read the room. There's an acute lack of clue in you re-opening this thread, in light of pretty much every single comment in it. El_C 13:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C:, I've never seen WP:SPADE before, I am not sure I quite understand it, all I wanted to do was reply to Nick Thorne, I thought the first conversation would have remained open when I woke back up. :/ I am still unclear what course I am suppose to change too either, per JBL's comment above. All I know is that the article seems a sensitive subject and all I wanted was a non-partisan player to help steady the ship. Too me it seems certain editors want to unbalance the information on the article and that to me is concerning. From my experience on the article, from my point of view, information was wiped out then when I reverted, then they goto the talk page. Surely that should be done the other way around! I am not trying to play the victim, I find it very strange that people want to bury me with policies and what not. Govvy (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, again, per my warning to you, you need to observe WP:ONUS better. If at an impasse on the article talk, there are dispute resolution requests you can avail yourself of, like running an WP:RFC and/or posting to WP:RSN. El_C 14:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Storm598

    Storm598 (talk · contribs) has undertaken to stop editing for an extended period (see below). Please let me know about any further editing along the lines described in this report and I will handle it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I have never edited Wikipedia through South Korean blogs. You keep distorting my remarks, but in the California Democratic Party's Talk session, I said I don't think the political position of the CDP is "Centre to Centre-left". I mentioned DPK, a liberal party generally considered "Centre to Centre-left" in the debate. In South Korea, DPK is judged to have a social conservative character, but I just told you the popular view of South Koreans that the U.S. Democratic Party often sees it as social democracy, and I didn't use it as a basis. And it's a Korean wiki, not a blog. I was saying that CDP is a clear "Centre-left" in the context of American politics and never a "Centrist". It also mentioned South Koreans' perception of the political position of the Democratic Party of the United States as a rebuttal to the fact that the Democratic Party of the United States is "Centre to Centre-left" in international political standards. Of course, I have never edited Wikipedia based on Namuwiki.--Storm598 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I mentioned Namuwiki only once in the Talk of the California Democratic Party article, I think it's an excessive leap to claim that I'm being influenced by Korean blogs when editing articles on European politics. I'm not a user of Namuwiki, and I'm not very interested in Namuwiki. --Storm598 (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Beyond My Ken may not agree with the existence of a template called Liberal Conservatism. But this is a term that is used very often in European politics, and I really don't know European politics. In Europe, the term liberal is used in a completely different context from the United States. And Liberal conservatism is one of the main ideologies of conservative politics in Europe. I think that's too much if you say I need a measure to ban the editing of all political articles. Obviously, the template consists of topics related to general liberal conservatism. --Storm598 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Liberal conservatism is a term often used in European conservative politics. In particular, it is a key ideology in European mainstream centre-right conservative politics. And have I ever edited to the level of being banned in European political Articles? --Storm598 (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Support topic ban against editing articles about politics worldwide, broadly construed. This editor is obsessed (colloquially) with adding their own highly idiosyncratic South Korean interpretations of how to describe the political ideologies of various political parties in various countries. In theory, every one of this editor's edits should be fact checked by another editor who is familiar with the literature about the political party in question. In practice, that is simply not possible. A broad topic ban is needed to prevent further disruption in this topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When editing European politics, I didn't edit it by referring to the South Korean wiki or site. Let me refute all the edits that BMK has returned.--Storm598 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Conservative liberalism# : Conservative liberalism and right-liberalism are often used synonyms. However, in some regions, such as Germany, right-liberalism also means national liberalism. Please refer to the German Wikipedia. #--Storm598 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Ordoliberalism# I admit that this article is controversial. Ordoliberalism is the core of the social market economy. But in German political standards, it is economic liberalism. The problem is that as you can see from the history of the article, many editors have made false edits that regard "ordoliberalism" as part of "social liberalism" because it is related to the social market economy. So I found data that classified Ordoliberalism as conservative liberalism and classified the article as conservative liberalism. Ordoliberalism is clearly related to Germany's center-right Christian democracy or liberal conservative political forces.--Storm598 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Christian democracy# : In European and Latin American politics, Christian democracy is usually a centrist or center-right ideology. Christian democracy usually appears much more in the form of right than left. For example, Gremialismo is also a clear Christian democratic ideology, which has an economic liberal nature. Especially in the Spanish Wikipedia, Gremialismo clearly states that it is an extreme right-wing (extrema derecha) ideology. # --Storm598 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Berlusconism# Berlusconism is a centre-right liberal and liberal-conservative ideology. Liberalism here is, of course, not that liberalism in the United States, but (classical) liberalism in Europe. Of course, Berlusconi has a right-wing populist personality, which is often compared to Trump, but that doesn't mean his political tendencies are the same as those of far-right politicians like Trump. Berlusconi has said a lot of rude things, but he has rarely taken a far-right view on internal affairs, and is in solidarity with the centre-right European People's Party.--Storm598 (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Just to state the obvious, Storm598 didn't receive a ban from American Politics because of "wrong editing I showed you in an article related to American politics", they got it because of a continuing pattern of disruptive edits in multiple articles on American politics. The discussion in which this community ban was placed can be found here. Note that the closer commented that there was also "some support for banning from the topic of all politics", so the problem of their editing in political articles in general is an issue which has come up before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there were user who expressed the view that all political articles needed a topic van when I made disruptive edits in American political articles. But you haven't been able to provide an accurate basis for what wrong editing I made in a recent European political article. You are arguing that all political editing should be banned just because my editing is suspicious. I can provide much more evidence in detail that you have made disruptive edits in some articles related to politics in Europe and Asia. --Storm598 (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I am making a different argument. I am saying that you make a lot of edits to political articles, so I haven't been able to check them all, but that those recent ones I have checked have been almost uniformly wrong, unsourced, and based on your opinions and not on generally accepted ideas about political theory. I have undone edits of this type, but I don't have the energy or the time to examine all of your many other edits, so I am asking other editors to take a look at them to determine if -- as I suspect -- they are equally as bad, unsourced, and ungrounded in fact. If they are, then there is a case for a topic ban from politics in general or, since those are pretty much the only edits you make, and you have not shown any respect in your editing for Wikipedia requirements such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, a ban from editing the site on any topic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's just your view. You have reviewed a total of 4 articles today. I fully explained in those four articles that my editing was not wrong. On the other hand, you have made edits that violate WP:V and WP:NPOV in articles related to political parties in various countries, including India, Russia, UK, South Korea, etc.--Storm598 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course it's my view, whose view would you expect me to have? That's why I'm asking for other editors to examine your editing. I have wasted many hours of my life dealing with your disruptive editing and your WP:BLUDGEONing of discussions. I have no intention of wasting any more than is necessary this time around. I will just say, in short, that your "explanations" are, in and of themselves, prima facie examples of why your editing is disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Don't waste your time, just manage your life and save time. After all, you can't provide any evidence why my editing is a problem. It's just your very, very subjective judgment that it's likely to be.--Storm598 (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • Shall we talk again about the Indian National Congress article, Conservative Party article, Liberal Party article, Fatah article, various political party articles in South Korea, Soviet Communist Party articles, and numerous editorials that violate and even destroy NPOV and V? Because American politics is exceptional, you are an expert only in American political articles. In particular, it was very annoying that you forced the Liberal Party to mark its political position as "Centre" without considering the political situation of the time, or to describe the Conservative Party as classical liberalism. Surely you don't know much more European politics than I do. So you don't have the capacity to talk about the ban on European politics. Before criticizing others, first look back on the devastating editing you did in articles on European and Asian politics.--Storm598 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made comments in the previous two discussions, which I have not yet re-evaluated. However, I note that my previous mentions of edit summaries were not taken to heart. I would explicitly advise Storm598, whatever the outcome of this discussion, to greatly increase their use of edit summaries. This is general good practice, but feels specifically important for these sort of political edits, especially those in areas such as the template and category space where sources are not usually used. CMD (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, one diff that I think sums up the problem is Special:Diff/1068249567. They do not understand WP:BLUE and assume their own personal knowledge is sufficient to dispense with proper sourcing.Slywriter (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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


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

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

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    TEMPORARY BLOCK
    IP blocked for 6 months for a lot by Acroterion. (Non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I was within a hair of bringing IP 68 to ANI, but not for the threat (which I only just saw now) but for IP 68's insistence on repeatedly adding allegations of pedophilia against a living person to the article Bernard Kouchner. I left details and diffs at IP's talk page, here: User talk:68.132.114.72#Unwarranted accusations of pedophilia against a living person, nearly simultaneously with the required ANI notice by PohranicniStraze at IP 68's Talk page. I've reverted IP 68 twice at the article for their pedophilia allegations, and explained at their UTP as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP blocked for six months. The pattern of personal abuse, BLP violations, bad sourcing and Jew-tagging goes back several months tgo their first block, which was for one month. The silly legal threats and edit-warring to include obvious BLP violations are just extras. I've deleted the recent edits and summaries, but someone might want to go farther back, since this kind of behavior appears to be a habit..Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    2600:8800:200B:1900::/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
    Black and white cookie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    It started on January 7 when a user from Mesa, Arizona, removed a section at Black and white cookie about the cookie as a racial metaphor, arguing that it had zero relevance to the topic. I objected to this revert, but got reverted twice more, including ignoring directions to discuss this at the talk page ([160] [161]). Then they did, at Talk:Black_and_white_cookie#Racial_metaphor_section.. At this point, I went on to explain why the section is relevant to the topic and amounts to due weight.

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

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

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

    I've warned the user of violating 3RR now. After the last edit listed above, they did the following:
    1. Changed header to "Racism of cookie" and added a demeaning remark about a BLP
    2. Changed header to "tThis is a racist cookie"
    3. Changed header once again to "In popular culture"

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

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

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

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

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

    Blocked – for a period of 3 months. El_C 12:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, with MCC214#ex umbra in solem above and LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) above above, I'm tripping balls over here! El_C 12:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MCC214: Hint: it is possible to blacklist individual pages on youtube.com globally so they cannot be used ({{BLRequestRegex|youtube.*?<videocode>}} (or similar) in your request makes getting rid of this only 2 clicks away). Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good idea,but also this LTA DE (revert edit after he/she add youtube links quickly,delete blank after he/she add blank quickly),also,in zh.wiki,I find his/her sock account GAME (do 50 meaningless edit (zh.wiki autoconfirmed user should create account one weeks and do 50 or above edits) to need to get autoconfirmed user,after he/she can edit in related page when page have been semi-protected),so this problem should decided too.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    +Special:Contributions/42.2.168.0/24,only this LTA edit in this IP range after 24 April in last year,zh.wiki blocked,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Insisting on false information on Spanish-language television blocks

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

    Well actually, bot saying I didn't do it nothing. Angel Arreguin Hernandez (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What bot?--CreecregofLife (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Content removal by IP

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

    As I have pointed out to you, both on your talk page and the article's talk page, the information is not supported by any citations. You have ignored WP:BURDEN in reverting my edit; to reiterate, BURDEN is a WP:POLICY. As the page is also Featured, WP:FAOWN is also relevant. As you have said you intend to add citations, the please feel free to re-add the information with citations when you can. It's absence is no loss to the article, and much of it is of questionable use and standard for a decent article (when you add citations, please consider just what is being re-added and whether it is relevant).
    As I pointed out to you on your own talk page, my former account (to which I do not have access) was named SchroCat. I do not know why you think I am someone else, but as your first post to me (based on no previous interaction at all) was the accusation that "it is obvious from your knowledge of the site that you are evading a block", it's nice to see a variation in the false accusations. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 14:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V says: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. "May" does not mean "must" and this article is not a WP:BLP. It is wrong to remove recently added content, bearing in mind that this followed a WP:MERGE, because that effectively hides it and it could thereby be lost to the article, albeit still in the history. If, however, the content is tagged for citations, it remains visible (for, I stress, a reasonable length of time) and the tag invites citations. As on the article talk page, you have again ignored the bulk of WP:BURDEN and the whole of WP:CONSENSUS. The proposed merger achieved consensus and the material was added to this article by consensus. If an IP can come along and remove the content without consensus only a fortnight later, then the site is leaving itself wide open to abuse.
    WP:PRESERVE is relevant as it is part of WP:EDIT, another policy. It includes:
    Instead of removing content from an article, consider:
    So, this content was moved by consensus from its former article (now a redirect) and, because no one has yet been able to fix the citation issues, a cleanup banner was added to request citations. The converse of PRESERVE is WP:CANTFIX which talks about "situations when it might be more appropriate to remove information from an article rather than preserve it". The only one of these that could apply here is WP:V re "handling unsourced and contentious material". There is nothing obviously contentious about the material so we are left only with material that has not yet been sourced with no good reason to suppose that it is not verifiable. If you read the content, it has credibility and so we come back to that part of BURDEN which says: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. As there was a clear consensus to merge the content into this article only a couple of weeks ago, an objection to early removal is completely valid and citation needed tags are the sensible solution until a reasonable time has elapsed. As a challenge has been made, I would say one month from now is a reasonable time for citations to be provided and, if that time elapses without provision, I will withdraw my objection.
    I have done considerable work on the Churchill articles which are a prime target for IP vandals and so I am entitled to be suspicious when yet another IP appears who deletes content and demonstrates a wide knowledge of site functionality. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    TL;DR. The bottom line, as Dumuzid has pointed out to you, is to add citations. You may have "done considerable work on the Churchill articles", but that give you no excuse to ignore policy and re-add material challenged for being unsourced. I did "considerable work" on the Churchill as a writer article, taking it through the FL process when I did so, but I don't claim that gives me any special status as far as this or any other Churchill article goes. What I do know is that unsourced content shouldn't be on any article, let alone something featured that is supposed to represent our best work. Spend less time building up a spurious Wiki-lawyer approach and more time adding citations and ensuring the information is well-written and well-supported. I don't see what is so difficult about that. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E5F5:136:21C0:A3AB (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No Great Shaker, this should be easy. If you have citations, simply include them. No matter who the IP is (I have no reason to doubt they are who they claim), they are behaving completely reasonably given the applicable policies, in my opinion. Sure, sometimes large sections are added pending citations, but when challenged, the solution is to add the sources. Cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No Great Shaker, I am replying here so as not to confuse the threading, forgive me for that. The fundamental rule of Wikipedia is to cite your sources. Any of the steps you outline might well have been taken, but removal strikes me as perfectly reasonable in this situation. One way or another, the section needs citations. I fundamentally agree with the IP here, and so far as I know, I am, like you, an editor in good standing. I do not see the harm in saying "add the citations before publishing." It has to happen eventually one way or the other. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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


    Johnpacklambert violates his topic ban yet again

    Editors don't file at AN/I for their second edit. Any seasoned editor in good standing can re-file against JPL if they have legitimate, good-faith, concerns regarding JPL. These are not them. (non-admin closure)
    Update: Filer blocked by Bbb23 for obvious reasons. Great minds think alike? SN54129 16:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    • Block Sock/Ignore And don't keep open for 3 days. If no other editor is noticing than it's a stretch to say these edits are disruptive and it's time to stop allowing this sock to consume our most valuable resource, time.Slywriter (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She was a keen advocate of women's ordination in the Church of England is not a "religious figure." She was at various times a member of Dorset Education Committee, the Independent Television Authority, the councils of the National Youth Orchestra and the Outward Bound Trust, the Church Missionary Society, where as its first woman president she brought it to espouse the 1980 Brandt Report on bridging the North-South divide, and Christian Aid, where she was also chairman in 1978–1983. She joined the council of the Royal Society of Arts in 1975 and chaired it in 1979–1981. is not a religious figure. Being religious and involved in some religious groups does not make the article focused on a religious figure, nor were the edits related to anything religion related. You're stretching further and further each time you make a new sock to report these "violations." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? How is someone so involved in the Church not a religious figure? The topic ban is from religion or religious figures broadly construed. Would editing an article about a Serbian Orthodox priest count, or is that too much of a stretch, too? Reasonable Funk (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nableezy allegations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    I have made no such insinuation, and I leave it to the reader to consider how a new editor finds ANI and AE threads with such ease. As far as that warning in the AE thread, where I said "I am directly saying that Inf-inMD is a sock of NoCal100, who'da thunk it? Well besides me. But as to the point, I have made and make no insinuation that this editor is a sock, just that they do not have the required number of edits to participate in discussions in project space related to the ARBPIA topic area. And they do not. And it would marvelous if somebody would enforce the ARBPIA requirements on that RFC. nableezy - 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That contribution history insinuates sock all by itself. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have always wondered about the editors who make a blank user talk page. Sure it makes the red link blue, but anybody who later looks at it the history is gonna think hmmmmm. Short term vs long term cost/benefit analysis I guess. nableezy - 17:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a WP:SPI report open, or should a new one be started? Best to discuss socking at WP:SPI, rather than elsewhere. Here's some background music to play while you work. [162] I think WP:SPADE and WP:DUCK may be relevant, and that we should close this, per WP:DENY. Jehochman Talk 17:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW I agree with the more robust interpretation of Nableezy's remarks, although I respect that that's not how he intended them; it is clearly a case of being correct "all be it" accidentally so. This means I also agree with Only in Death. This means I disagree vehemently with the OP, that the OP has any case whatsoever, or indeed, standing. This also means I agree with Jehochman: close with no action. SN54129 18:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • People should either raise an SPI or strike accusations of socking - otherwise the accusations are casting aspersions and/or personal attacks. Cut it out - there is already one open Arbcom case at least partly about editors accusing any new editor entering the field of being a sock - we don't want that sort of behaviour to spread to other areas. And no - this should not be brushed under the carpet.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah. "New" users who show up in contentious topic areas, showing a familiarity with editors there and with project processes are immediately suspect. Their goal is to sealion regulars into mucking through bureaucracy to get rid of them. ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly did I accuse this editor of being a sock? This diff is a response to a user saying that the RFC is not in the ARBPIA topic area, and says that evidence of that includes the heavy socking, established, in the past RFC by Icewhiz. This diff says that the user, at the time of their first !vote, had 9 edits and that their prior edits, such as their first ever, show their interest in the topic area. And that, as an aside, the edit immediately prior at RSN to their 9th ever edit and first ever contribution to RSN was an Icewhiz sock. "An aside" is something that is not directly related to the topic under discussion. Not an accusation directly related to the topic under discussion. So what exactly do I need to cut out here? And for the record, Ive already directly said I do not know if this user is a sock. And tbh, I dont actually give a shit if he or she is a sock or not. Either way, fewer than 500 edits and should be restricted from editing that RFC. nableezy - 19:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)User: Only in Death and User:Serial Number 54129 have certainly accused the OP of being a sock, and your comment about blank talk pages is hardly civil.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You dont think it is curious when an editor knows that having a red-linked user talk page draws attention and so creates a blank one? Well I do, and I dont find making a remark on the merits of the near term benefit of appearing not to be a new user vs the long term scrutiny such behavior draws to be uncivil in any way. I also find it curious when an editor's first ever edit includes a well formatted, named, and re-referenced reference (eg here). There are all sorts of explanations for that, but a common one is sockpuppetry. I am however aware that SPI is not for fishing, and since I am unable to connect these curiosities to a named editor, yet at least, I have not accused this editor of being a sock, here or anywhere else. And the two diffs used to show me making such an accusation do not do so. nableezy - 19:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I said their contribution history insinuates a sock. In much the same way an editor's contribution history of removing unflattering material from extreme right-wing US politicians insinuates the editor is a republican.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Edit warring user

    Indeffed by Ponyo as a checkuser block nableezy - 17:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Could someone please check this report: [163] This user continues edit warring, despite multiple warnings, and has made already 6 rvs on a single page. Grandmaster 17:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata

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

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

    • great puffery (all the diffs in the SPIs, some: [164], [165], [166], [167], [168])
    • tactics to throw off the sock smell ([169])
    • editing elsewhere unrelated to the topic (perhaps good contributions [170]) and coming back ([171], [172])
    • misrepresentation of sources ([173]),
    • OR/unsourced with misrepresentation of sources ([174], [175])
    • edit warring between each other ([176], another sock master was also suspected at SPI)
    • one user adds and self-reverts followed by another user reverting it projecting a reinstatement of valid content ([177] next two edits, [178] next 4 edits)
    • some single-purpose accounts with less than 10 edits with all of their edits mirroring a previous sock, or a future sock mirroring them ([179], [180])

    Some users reported in the SPI were blocked as CheckUser confirmed, some by duck, some by disruptive editing, some by behaviour, some open pending [behavioural] investigation, some suspected of meat puppetry. This most probably is a paid editing ([181]). Some pages are semi-protected with very few ECP protected. Note: the diffs I linked here are just a sample among hundreds of edits in the whole racket. Digging thru them is difficult, but if requested, I can provide more. I'll be notifying these non-blocked users of this ANI (from SPI). Some more accounts might also be discovered, post which I'd add and notify them.

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

    I'm familiar with this situation. This almost certainly is a gang of sockpuppets and meatpuppets, probably being organized somewhere offline, since they do identical edits but CU to multiple countries. But I’m not so sure about User:Ilyadante being a part of this sock/meat farm. I’ve seen only a few edits from them on the subject of Karna. They do quite a lot of other work, here and especially on the Russian Wiki. (An unrelated issue: they used to have a disclosure on their user page here that they are a paid editor. Their initial disclosure was about Stephie Theodora, and they then created two drafts about her, which were rejected at AFC. They later disclosed several other employers.[182] On January 25 they removed all the disclosures.[183] They recently created an article about Kozlovsky Evgeny Alexandrovich, putting it in mainspace but it was moved to a draft; it makes me wonder if that was paid but not disclosed.) In any case, I do not regard them as part of this gang. The rest almost certainly are. Several, not listed here, have been blocked already. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    DaxServer, just a basic question because I don't have time right now to look at every diff and editor, how many pages are involved here? Is it a focus on one article? A half-dozen? Several dozen? Or more? I'm just trying to get a sense of the scale of disruption here. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz Several dozen. I compiled a short list here: User:DaxServer/Karna disruption (anyone is welcome to expand) This list is from just a few users. I would dig thru some more users to see which pages are affected and update the list when I have time.
    Also, this is a cross-wiki abuse. One user uploads images in Commons [184] (SUL) which are in turn used by other users here [185] [186] [187] and other wikis [188]. There could be other uploads by other accounts.
    I'll be notifying of ANI to these users as well. Some of them seem to be SPA. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaxServer: You may also note another kind of disruption that is being done. That is, the sock-puppets are adding citations whose actual content is exactly opposite to what they are adding in the Wiki article. Like in Jaya article here [189]. To explain the background here to the admins, there's a huge offline tussle between Karna fans and Arjuna fans going on since ages (much similar to Shahrukh vs Salmaan, Federer vs Nadal, Achilles vs Hector, etc). There are rabid members in both sides but the former group is much larger in number and more problematic, as we can see already. The popular image of Karna, courtesy televised serials and literature is actually a much more glorified (and inverted) version of what is actually there in the primary sources of Vyasa's Mahabharata. This is the main bone of contention. Added to that is the problem that many fans have heard the names of the primary sources, translators, etc and have probably read them in bits and portions for confirmational bias. And now they are throwing in these names as citations to validate their puffery. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Panchalidraupadi Yes, it is a deliberate error, the citation verifies the opposite like you said. I've already put this in my original post as "OR/unsourced with misrepresentation of sources", perhaps I should have worded it as "deliberate errors with sources saying opposite".
    In my further investigation, I see edits going as far as 10 July 2021. During that time, the edits were made by IPs. Some edits were reverted, while some haven't as they articles are relatively unknown, I've reverted them. I keep finding even more accounts/IPs. Here's my now-updated [still-]short compilation User:DaxServer/Karna disruption — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DaxServer: Thanks for all your efforts. - Panchalidraupadi (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven Crowder YouTube video

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

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

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

    1. LandausBatteringRam (talk · contribs)
    2. Kkeeran (talk · contribs)
    3. SDFausta (talk · contribs)
    Using user template for ease of access. BilledMammal (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads up. I've added those that have seen recent vandalism to my watchlist. Would it be a case to block the main account (which appears to be Kkeeran, from the snippets of the video I've seen) for WP:POINTy behavior and WP:NOTHERE? Isabelle 🔔 00:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On obvious COI grounds at the very least... Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But have his edits been uber-disruptive? Although I can't see him staying here for long, maybe a warning first would suffice Kingoflettuce (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't this still qualify for blocking as sockpuppetry? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of those account should be blocked as sockpuppets. I could have sworn there was an essay or a rule about not using Wikipedia to do social experiments. But in any case, they should be blocked as the community does not (or at least, I don't) appreciate being treated as lab rats. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 06:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and the project is not a laboratory for experiments on our processes. I see more than enough justification for a block without needing to trot out more links to policy. Let's not spend any more time on this. AlexEng(TALK) 07:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently, this video is an hour long, and it looks boring as hell. On the other hand, it was uploaded today and has almost half a million views. From what I can gather, the general theme is that some guy makes controversial edits on WP:AP2 stuff, waits for someone to revert him, and then concludes we are full of shit because we reverted a sourced edit. Based on the contributions for these accounts, it seems that a lot of them have already been reverted, presumably for being bad edits. Is there a benefit that we would gain from reverting the rest or blocking the accounts? I really don't see the benefit of capriciously removing a bunch of otherwise-acceptable edits, in a way that's extremely visible because our actions regarding these edits are being actively used as evidence that we are capricious.

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

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

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

    Proposed community ban

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

    • Support as nominator. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 09:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per DENY. Just block or warn the accounts and move on, an official ban will only be grist for his "liberal bias" mill and cause further attention and thus disruption. Pinguinn 🐧 11:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like an overreaction. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't seem like an overreaction to me, but I'm inclined to agree with Pinguinn's reasoning. A no fuss block by an uninvolved administrator would be more than enough. We don't need to devote so much time to this. AlexEng(TALK) 13:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just blocking the main account is sufficient. If they violate the block by creating sockpuppet accounts, we'll block those too; there's no need to formally ban them to do so. --Jayron32 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Let me get this straight -- some shock jock (or pundit, or whatever this guy is) has made an account here for the purpose of showing his followers that Wikipedia blocks people for no reason... and that, itself, is the proposed rationale for blocking it? This seems like the goofiest possible reasoning, and it doesn't look to me like the accounts have done a whole lot that would warrant blocking (indeed, they weren't, until it was revealed they were being run by some political talking-head). I understand that it seems like something should be done, and this is certainly something, but I don't think it should be done. jp×g 16:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The only reason why we're having this discussion is because of the YouTube video. When random accounts disrupt Wikipedia in a vain attempt to prove a WP:POINT we warn a few times before blocking. If we're actually trying to uphold our principles here, then we need to treat these accounts in the same way as any other disruptive account. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CIVIL issues at AFD

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

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

    Noting that the editor takes issue with the required notification being placed on their talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- Funny thing about AfD culture, isn't it. If someone says "User:Example is an obsessive asshat" that would be a personal attack. But if they say "Keep- nominator is an obsessive asshat" that's all fine and dandy. Reyk YO! 00:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @BilledMammal:, there seems to be a contradiction in what you've written above. You say "the most problematic example being" and then "As a single example", so which is it? Either there are multiple examples or one. Also, can you please quote me the section of WP:PA you feel I have violated. As I previously said, I do not feel I have infringed upon your character, lifestyle etc. nor did I dismiss any of the comments you made on the AfD – I addressed them. IMO, this doesn't constitute a personal attack. Users must be free to criticise general conduct and patterns of behaviour especially if they feel it's non-constructive. Even if my choice phrasing was rather strong, I do not personally believe I crossed a line. I said that we should agree to disagree. My intent was not to offend, therefore I cannot offer you an apology. Thank you --Jkaharper (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does seem clear to me @BilledMammal:, is that even if you consider this a "personal attack" you've ignored two of the specific directions under section 4 on appropriate response – isolated incidents come under Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks and only if something can be deemed "particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults)" should you raise it here. --Jkaharper (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the second part of the quoted statement is pretty dickish (Jkaharper, that's playing the ball, not the man--right?), but as far as personal attacks go, meh, I don't think it's ANI-worthy. I don't quite see why BilledMammal wasn't happy with just leaving a warning, but had to get a pound of flesh at ANI. Editors, you're not always going to get it. Leave a templated warning, second or third level, for personal attacks/harassment. Do it again if it happens again, and/or report at AIV. Much simpler, much less self-incriminating--in this case, with less attention drawn to what really amounts to badgering at the AfD. And Jkaharper, you can always try to say "sorry, I'll do better next time", and walk away with your reputation intact. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies: did you intend to say AIV? I thought that was only for extremely blatant ongoing cases of vandalism or spam. AlexEng(TALK) 05:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:AlexEng, the templated warnings for personal attacks are in the same pull-down menu as those for vandalism, and as far as I'm concerned, personal attacks, harassment, hounding, etc. all fall under the broader definition of vandalism, "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose". So if someone were to warn an editor a few times for that and then report them to that board, and I were to see it, I would take it seriously and consider blocking, yes. I know it's not the most common thing to do, and much later on in Wikipedia:Vandalism it says "harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently", but I think admins should consider that not all editors know exactly all parts of the policy and take reports as they come. "Wrong board" should not be the easy way out, as a kind of dismissal. Consider also that if an editor gets a level-3 warning for a PA, and then a level-4 warning for more straight-up vandalism--and there's a bit of a borderline anyway: "While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article..." Consider how many ANI posts are actually "simple" cases of vandalism--I'd be a lazy admin if I said "that's not for here" and do nothing about the situation. Drmies (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The only issue I see with that is there's probably a 50% chance of hitting a PA feedback loop. Editor A makes what Editor B considers a personal attack. Editor B templates Editor A with the PA template. Editor A responds to that template poorly. Editor B templates again for that response. Then it goes to AIV and you get "Well, is it really that bad? I've seen worse." Going the template to AIV route would have to be some pretty clear cut personal attacks, especially for an established editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an interesting point, Drmies. When I posted the above question, I thought you had mad a typo in writing AIV instead of ANI, but now that I see your reasoning, I understand what you meant. Thanks for clarifying! AlexEng(TALK) 16:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • User:AlexEng it's a very valid question and I'm glad you asked it--you certainly had a point and I realize (now) that I'm kind of molding various aspects of WP:Vandalism. Another grey area, BTW, is "disruptive editing"--they're all overlapping terms in some ways. You gave me cause to look over that entire page and that was useful--thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The comments are not so extreme that I would have brought this to ANI, unless the user was not otherwise receptive to discussion. That being said, Jkaharper, the wikilawyering in this thread is not helping. ANI is an appropriate place to discuss user conduct; an AfD !vote is not. If you have some concrete problem with a user's behavior, you could address it with them personally in a civil manner, on their talk page. If the problem is serious, you can seek dispute resolution options and community review at ANI. In any case, your analysis of a user's motivations and edit history do not belong at an AfD page. Without demanding quotations from policy and without picking apart individual sentences to misconstrue meaning, can you at least agree that the above {{tq}}ed quote is not particularly civil? If you can't, then we may actually have an issue that merits community review. Otherwise, I suggest dropping the stick and walking away from this thread. AlexEng(TALK) 04:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I felt the same way and hadn't originally planned to bring this to WP:ANI, except that when I attempted to discuss this with them on their talk page they insisted on using the definition of "personal attack" from Wiktionary to determine whether their comments were appropriate, rather than WP:PA, and declined to continue the conversation. Given this unusual definition of PA I felt it was likely that issues would continue, and decided it was better to correct the issue now, while it is sufficient to correct their misunderstanding rather than anything more serious - although if there are more appropriate forums for such a correction, I would appreciate being pointed towards them. BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi @AlexEng:, I wanted this conversation to end about 4 hours ago frankly. I told the respective user that we should agree to disagree and that I no longer wanted to speak about it, so where their new charge of they “thought issues would continue” comes from, I’m not particularly sure. I do not intend to interact with said user again. Whilst I do not take back anything I said, I can see how the particular wording/phrasing comes off a bit strong, and how some can be sensitive to such language. In future, I will be more wary of this so as not to appear “dickish”, as User:Drmies poetically put it. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    46.177.143.114

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

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

    Bludgeons for Deletion Episode 2: The Indonesian Connexion

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

    I just went to the user's talkpage to warn them after I'd seen the AfD, and noticed your alert about this discussion. Likely enough I'm being too soft, but I merely warned. No prejudice to another admin blocking directly. The user's repeated invocation of WP:HIGHMAINT as an argument in discussions is one of the more ridiculous things I've seen on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 08:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    Noting for the record arguable cavanssing at my userpage here. I accepted their article Dance to Survive at AfC as borderline notable, and they contacted me to ask for help keeping Sarah Azhari, though since it was phrased as request for advice rather than a keep !vote I wasn't too worried about it. Rusalkii (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amoeba69th has not participated here but did open up a query in reliable sources in an attempt to continue the argument in another venue. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Publicly apologize if my statements sounded angry and/or limiting to another user's logic and opinion. Amoeba69th (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Page moves despite editing restriction.

    User with editing restriction preventing them from moving pages....[190] is moving pages [191]. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

    Username006 also appears to be using multiple accounts [192] which seems problematic at best and I'm not sure the reasons given there for the multiple accounts are acceptable. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrewgprout: There is no harm in using multiple accounts as there have been no edits which are abusive in any means. See here: [193]. You seem to be WP:POINTY here. Username006 (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, Username006. If you have an alternative account(s), you must disclose them on your User page. I see you disclose the relationship at User:NeatArena91 but please also do so with your primary account. . Liz Read! Talk! 07:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: Will do. Username006 (talk) 07:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is factually incorrect, Liz. There are valid reasons for not disclosing alternative accounts per WP:SOCKLEGIT. It's unclear if those reasons are relevant here, but your use of the term must is improper. In fact, the guideline uses should and recommended rather than levying a strict prohibition like the one you implied. In any case, it's a moot point, because that account has been used a handful of times and has only one edit outside of userspace; it's clearly not being used to WP:GAME the system. No violation exists, which leads me to my next point. @Andrewgprout: note that users are not required to publicly justify why they have an alternate account, so your opinion on their reasoning is not germane to this discussion and appears from my outside, uninvolved perspective to be some kind of attempt to score additional points against the user. You started this discussion regarding the user's WP:PAGEMOVE, which looks like a violation of their editing restriction, but now we are drifting into other topics. Can you please explain what you're trying to get out of this ANI report? I'll answer your above questions in a separate edit to maintain readability. AlexEng(TALK) 07:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: Sorry, that's an error, that is not my image, it is one of my family members' images which I'm advertising as myself on their behalf so I'll correct that if that brings up confusion. That's all. Also, I suspect that Andrewgprout's reason of making this section is not correcting me, but moreover, just a tit for tat edit as I made an edit reporting them:[195] and only hours later did they make the "tit" edit by creating this section. His rationale for making this section also seems to change. Username006 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Back to the original issue at hand. Username006 is banned from moving pages, and there is no exception for, and I quote, a "valid and suitable reason". This ban was worded in unambiguous language and contains no wiggle room. You may not move pages. @Username006: Do you understand this and do you agree to avoid moving articles in the future? --Jayron32 13:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just closed the AN3 report Username006 made against Andrewgprout as no violation and vexatious - Username006 was trying to make an edit war out of three reverts on three separate articles. I've previously blocked them twice for disruptive moves against consensus. With that bad-faith AN3 report, the violation of their move restriction, and the general inability to listen or work with other editors or to profit from experience, I think a one-month block is in order, and that it will be a last chance. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Acroterion: Okay, so I made a move, but I am doubtful on your rationale as there your assumption of bad-faith and edit war is plain incorrect. If you see the edits, Andrewgprout is being the disruptive one as he doesn't respond and doesn't seem to even see the summary of the edit per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS by ignoring consensus. Me having a bad history doesn't mean you pin up all arguments at my fault. If you could, can you explain these reverts Andrewgprout is making? And an exception to bad-faith is when there is a clear justification with diff's mentioned at WP:GOODFAITH. Therefore, I would like you yourself to provide an explanation to Andrewgprout's edits if you think my edits are disruptive instead of blaming everything on me if I get into a conflict with Andrew. Moreover, I don't have a problem to work with every editor. It's Andrew who is behaving so and that's where the problem possibly originates from. A good example would be a person who actually replies and discusses conflicts with me. For instance, I was with an edit conflict with User:Nigel Ish at Convair 990 Coronado here:[196] but, I took the discussion to the talk page and the user replied to me in a civil format and the argument was settled. Here though, that's not the case because Andrew doesn't seem to reply to me, even after Andrew himself promoting WP:BRD and that is a clear-cut disruptive sign per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.Username006 (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are outright banned from moving pages, do you acknowledge that? It's not open to interpretation. And also the WP:POLEMIC you just wrote on youser user page is not helping your case, and in fact will likely be counted against you here. Stop blaming others for your edits. Your edits are the responsibility of you and you alone, no one else forces you to do anything. You're not steering this conversation in a way that looks good on you. Canterbury Tail talk 14:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: Yes, I do acknowledge that, and I removed that message on my user page also due to WP:POLEMIC but the problem is "stop blaming others for your edits" is what I hear everytime. Does this mean I have to accept everything and always think that I'm wrong? I believe that's not the case. Also, there has been no justification given to explain Andrewgporuts reverts and not responding to me. If a reasonable answer can be given. I may as well stop this. Otherwise, we will really not proceed anywhere with this argument. Also I suggest you too stay WP:COOL. I can agree with editors as long as they communicate with me which Andrew is clearly not doing. Trying to prove me wrong everytime is (hopefully) not some form of goal here. Username006 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No communication is needed for you not to move pages. You did so when banned from doing so. How is that anyone's fault but your own? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let me make this clear, I agree that I made a bold move and I acknowledge it and I'm not calling it anyone else's fault as I never intended to and I never did but everyone is just turning the tables against me by not answering my question as to, what explains Andrewgprout's reverts and his inability to discuss with me at the talk page even after he himself promotes WP:BRD, please satisfy this instead of trying to flip the situation again and again. Username006 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's be more clear: you have been told to not move pages whatsoever in the past. Your competence is required. Period. No pointing fingers on who did what. – The Grid (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the same pattern of deflection and refusal to listen that got you blocked the first two times. Your report at AN3 was wholly inappropriate, as was the obvious violation of your page move ban. Your demands that other editors conform to your wishes with little reciprocation on your part is familiar ground. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note The earlier statement by Username006 in this thread ("I myself was unaware about the edit restriction as I took a break in between a block but I have no intentions to do disruptive stuff anymore") (my emphasis added) is factually untrue. Username006 acknowledged the edit restriction at the time he was placed on it here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you should re-read that and try to understand the user's meaning. It's not a claim that they were unaware of the restriction at any time. It's clearly a claim that they forgot about it, after having taken a break from Wikipedia after their block. Saying that it's factually untrue may itself be untrue, because you may have misinterpreted the statement. AlexEng(TALK) 18:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point. Singularity42 (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    First things first, I admit it that I made a bold move and that I'm at fault. Let's get that out of the way. Now could you explain Andrewgprout's edits. I'm not trying to deflect any of my edits whatsoever. That's my question. And also, for the first two blocks, I did not use any such tactic and I'm not using it here either. Instead of pushing this question over to the side and taking the easy way out, let's have a discussion to this move. Also, for the unawareness bit of it, I myself was indeed unaware of my move restriction while I was making page moves because I have been pretty busy lately on some other real-life work. I did acknowledge it then but then later, I forgot about it. For the proof: [197], [198], [199]etc. edits. For this edit: [200], a consensus was made on not to make the change but Andrewgprout made no effort into indulge in a conversation with me.Username006 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You moving pages in violation of your topic ban is something that is worth of attention at ANI. Possibly a clear warning is sufficient resolution, but someone opening a thread to discuss you violating your topic ban is not doing anything wrong unless they're socking, the issue is covered by an iban or topic ban or they're otherwise forbidden from opening such threads. OTOH, you've provided no evidence to suggest what Andrewgprout did is worthy of ANI attention so there's no reason for us to discuss it here. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm inclined to sympathize with this editor, because it's not fun to feel like you're being backed into a corner from all sides. Their page move was correct and constructive, but it was a technical violation of their editing restriction, because a revert of a page move is itself a page move. The editor appears to be inadvertently conflating or policy on Edit warring with WP:HOUNDING. I don't explicitly endorse the accusation of hounding, but I am reasonably sure that's what they are intending to communicate. Let's try to be kind and not rush headlong into sanctions over what looks like an honest mistake. Last time I checked, assuming good faith was still a cornerstone of Wikipedia's culture. AlexEng(TALK) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree at this point. They're aware of their restriction now and nothing else going on is ANI worthy to my mind now. They're free to ask for their page move restriction to be lifted if they can address the reasonings behind it being put in place, though I'd advise to wait a while before putting in such a request due to the recent inadvertent violation. Just get some air and move on I think is best. Canterbury Tail talk 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: I'm ready to request it but where shall I do it? Username006 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be strongly opposed to any request that the ban be lifted. The pattern of blaming others for their troubles, the return to the behavior that got the ban imposed in the first place, and the misuse of AN3 to try to win arguments is more than I'm willing to overlook. They can always ask that something be moved. Acroterion (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you elaborate on the behavior that got the ban imposed in the first place? That was a rather brief ANI thread. Though, as the responding administrator, I'm sure you have more context than I do. I'm willing to believe that the AN3 report was a misunderstanding of our EW policy rather than an attempt to win an argument. Are you confident that your previous interactions with this editor did not color your assessment of their motives? I mean that question earnestly and not as an accusation. AlexEng(TALK) 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        To be blunt, why are commenting on something you really do not know the full details about? This is not a first offense. – The Grid (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No accusation read. Of course it's based on my previous interactions, and I'm following up on the continuing pattern of conduct by this editor.
        • Response to an edit-warring notice inb December: I was about to collaborate after the 2nd revert. But I got busy in some other work. [201]
        • Self-closure of a move request, pre-ban: The move request has been stretching on for too long. Nothing much is going to happen anymore. It is evident that it should be renamed to the proposed title. [202] (moving was appropriate, but not the closure), which was preceded by I'm sorry, I was irritated, because I have a lot of work pending to do. [203]
        • An early move comment directed at Andrewgprout in May: Because I asked earlier and no one was responding so I had to forcefully make you respond. Also, you have answered nothing in the talk page where I'm continuously asking again and again. [204]
        • More move discussion Asking such stupid questions for a request is not ideal. [ [205]] You, William and acroterion are annoying me to my limits. [206]. And many more incidences of petulance over moves, demanding that everybody else conform to their expectations for snappy response to their demands. Acroterion (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I've looked through this again. September 15, 2021 was when the edit restriction was imposed and acknowledged. Since then Username006 has violated the edit restriction quite a bit:
    The fact that one of these moves was was only approximately 6 weeks after the imposition of the edit restriction, and the second block was for a related disruption after the imposition of the restriction, makes it very difficult to accept assume good faith here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Singularity42: That first move, was not even a page move, it was a mere redirect move. I think that it is totally safe to move it as in the end, the function that it serves is identical. It's just creating a new page but moving one, and changing the target of another. I don't know what that second one really is as it is more of a glitch than anything else as in the description, neither the original page, nor the target page match up with the title and I recall doing that move on the correct page, that move was done because of a consensus to revert a bold move I had conducted: [207]. and the third one was a very small modification to the year hyphen for consistency with other articles. The fourth one was to fix the red link at the talk page of it. I have no clue, why the diffs don't show it but it was a red-link and I relocated the page for better readability. The fifth, sixth and seventh ones, are the only ones I really consider bold. The first four were limited in how they were modified. Username006 (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mralrayz999

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

    Charming. Indeffed. Acroterion (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've revision deleted the most egregious edit summaries as well. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    False accusations

    OP has been CU-indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Pri2000 is accusing and threatening me because I filed Sockpuppet investigation on her. She is personally attacking me [208], [209]. Princepratap1234 (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For desktop users: [210], [211] Minkai (rawr!/contribs/ANI Hall of Fame) 13:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've solid reason to file sockpuppetry against hi. He used to harass me through different IPs. And falsely booked me under Sockpuppetry just because an unknown new user commented somewhat similar to me on Paras Kalnawat's deletion discussion page. I created that user's talk page because I often creates talk pages of new editors. You can see my whole editing history from my day 1 that is 24 June 2021 to till now. Even I warned some users who exactly copied text from my user page. I'm totally against sockpuppetry. But you can see the whole similarities in the behaviour pattern of the accused in the link to sockpuppetry investigation below. How he harrassed me exactly in the same manner by his original account also and IPs also that it lead my talk page to be semi-protected for 2 times. [212]. Administrators can see whole prooves there which I provided through my talk page editing history. Administrators are free to scroll my whole editing history. I doesn't know who that Gari is. Pri2000 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    She just keep harrasing me because i don't let her do fan activities on Wikipedia.Princepratap1234 (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Repetitive unsubstantiated CoI edits to Open Garden article by an SPA

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

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

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

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

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

    Just a clarification: I did substantial edits to the article recently, trimming down unsourced claims and things that don't seem to be relevant to the business the company now seems to be in. I looked through the Internet Archive and it seems like the company has pivoted substantially a couple of times, and nearly all the text in the article was dedicated to stuff that happened in one era, with little to no attention to either earlier work or recent work. That may well be appropriate, I don't know, I have no attachment to any of the edits, and would be perfectly happy to see them reverted if someone has a reason and a citation to support it. Also, I realize that I made the assumption that Taylor Ongoro was a "guy," which I actually don't have any reason to think. So, my apologies if I've mis-gendered. I'll edit the above into gender-neutral form. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just my POV but the editor hasn't edited since being given the recent COI warnings. I'm not optimistic about their future as a productive Wikipedia editor but I'd like to see how they behave should they return. I think the next step, if they continue to be disruptive, is to receive a partial block from the article page so they can still make use of the talk page to make any suggestions or if they have access to any useful sources. Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1068553559"