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 Krish! (talk | contribs) at 08:57, 14 March 2022 (→Life threat coming from an editor, TrangaBellam: new section). 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

    H2ppyme and Estonian POV

    User:H2ppyme is banned by the community. They are, in addition, banned from all edits concerning pre-1991 Estonia, broadly construed. No consensus for any action against User:Klõps. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Shorter version - editor involved in disruptive editing, edit warring, and clear POV edits.

    Longer version - H2ppyme (talk · contribs) is involved in edits like this, removing reference to the historical Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, and this, adding in clear POV of 'Soviet-occupied Estonia' and very concerning POV edit summaries like "Estonia was illegally occupied at the time". A quick look at their contribs shows that myself and many other editors have been reverted, sometimes multiple times. We need a topic ban or block to prevent ongoing disruption. GiantSnowman 16:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    He also insists on adding information with an Estonian source that doesn't contain the purported information, see [1], [2] and [3]. This is an editor who has been around since 2006, long enough to know about WP policy.--Berig (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They do appear to have a POV, but their edits based on that POV aren't entirely wrong; there appears to be a lack of consensus on whether we should use "Estonia" or "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" for place of birth/death (the only source in that article which provides a place of death uses "Estonia"), while 1940 in art shouldn't use "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" or "Soviet-Occupied Estonia" as both are undue in that article - it should just use "Estonia", in line with the use of "United Kingdom", "United States", and "France". BilledMammal (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of which version should be used (and I am firmly in the 'use the historically accurate name' camp, but this is not really what this issue is about), this editor has a clear POV and has engaged in significant disruptive editing to push the same. GiantSnowman 17:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not very familiar with this editor, my first encounter with them was yesterday when I undid their edit on Geats because it had added content about the Estonian language that did not appear notable enough to warrant being in the article, which I can see that they reverted this morning. Berig then discovered that the source does not even contain what is being added to the article and H2ppy conducted some minor edit warring to keep the content, that in combination with taking a look at the contribution history makes it pretty clear to me there's at least some level of Estonian POV pushing at play here. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be one thing if H2ppyme were involved just in content disputes about Estonia v. Estonian SSR. However, they are also accusing other editors of "pushing age-old Kremlin propaganda", [4][5] and that crosses a different line in my book. —C.Fred (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The tone used here is clearly unhelpful. --Soman (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is wrong with having a "POV" that adheres to facts instead of age-old Kremlin propaganda? Why are you pushing the narrative of a systematically lying dictatorship instead of the narrative accepted in mainstream interpretation of historiography and international law? H2ppyme (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note this editor in question has repeated his nonsensical "pro-Kremlin propaganda" accusations agains other editors in his response here. Very telling. GiantSnowman 18:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, how are they non-sensical if your argument is to copy-paste the narrative of the once Soviet Union and that of modern Russia instead of the mainstream international view and the view of legal scholars and historians? H2ppyme (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Wikipedia is a collaborative environmental, and accusing editors you disagree with of being somehow in cahoots with/supporting a foreign Government you dislike is a) ridiculous and b) WP:UNCIVIL. Are you going to withdraw your accusations and stop your disruptive editing or are we going to have to block you from editing to prevent further disruption? GiantSnowman 10:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanna mention that the editor in question has been engaging in this behavior for years and was already warned and blocked for exactly the same actions. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    State continuity of the Baltic states, please have a read. I'm pretty sure H2ppyme acts in good faith, unless the user broke the 3RR. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry, but I find it very hard to assume good faith from editors who provide sources that don't back up their assertions (see [6], [7] and [8]). If I weren't involved in the article, I would be very tempted to enforce a ban.--Berig (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pelmeen10: - Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, please have a read. GiantSnowman 18:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't covered what's been going on at non-ice hockey articles. But, I do know it's frustrating for us WP:HOCKEY members, to have to continue to revert such PoV edits on ice hockey (particularly player bios) articles, from time to time. Regrettably, if such PoV edits continue to be pushed on those articles-in-question? I fear that eventually, Arbcom may have to step in. This is no longer an issue of content dispute, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously ice hockey was especially important for Soviets, and is now for Putin (to alleviate the inferiority complex). Should his troll factory ever target wiki-topics, then hockey would be a logical one to start with. Of course, hopefully there are no paid trolls participating in the incident here. Nevertheless, in case there are some, let's have some human empathy for them – it's better to work, work hard, and hang on to a nice warm office job instead of being treated as cheap cannon fodder and sent to some seriously snowy, muddy and bloody battle in Ukraine, for example.80.26.203.48 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding on that, WP:HOCKEY has been very consistent on how to list place of birth. This looked, at first glance, like a similar case of not understanding the rules. While there is a muddier situation that Pelmeen10 refers to with the Baltic states, that is a content issue, and I don't think that matter should be resolved at ANI. The matter at hand here is the conduct of H2ppyme and the accusations against other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - and this is conduct which they have been warned about/blocked for before (please see diffs above) - although they have not edited in 2 days so the disruption has technically stopped. I suggest their edits are reverted and we monitor from there? GiantSnowman 09:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Long standing edit consensus on Baltic States related articles have been to use only short name, not full political name, as is standard in WP as also noted above by BilledMammal. Even the hockey does it China is listed as just China, not People's Republic of China. He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc. I noticed that a user with administrator privileges was reverting the edits. So i went to their page and asked few questions, but all I got was smirky sarcastic FO by WP admininistrator saying that Estonia should be removed and just Soviet Union be left. No explanation, no arguments. That's the level of administration in Wikipedia. what about WP:ADMINCOND? Administrators should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. --Klõps (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is because our article is just on China, not People's Republic of China. This is not, despite what you think, a political decision - it is merely reflecting the historical name of the country as confirmed by WP:MOSGEO. GiantSnowman 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you trying to tell me? China is the common name, People's Republic of China is full political name of the state. China covers all the culture and history of China, same as Estonia covers all about Estonia including the Soviet period. --Klõps (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Estonian SSR was commonly known as Estonia btw. --Klõps (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    People's Republic of China and China are the same article, whereas we have separate articles on Estonia and Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic (and Governorate of Estonia) to reflect the changing political nature of the country over time. GiantSnowman 16:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: Per Infobox person Countries should generally not be linked.That's why opening random Chinese hockey players most are China unlinked He Xin (ice hockey), and even Xi Jinping article has Beijing, China (unlinked). That's not a factor, and besides that Article Estonia has section about Estonian SSR. This is not really convincing argument from you. --Klõps (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Klõps: Perceived incivility does not justify obvious incivility. —C.Fred (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on. You have higher authority here as a moderator, but instead of moderating you just answered with a sarcastic insult. Nothing to Percieve here. As a moderator you should lead by example and, like all editors, should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. WP:ADMINCOND, what you did was WP:ADMINACCT failure to communicate.
    It's clear whats is going on here. User H2ppyme (talk · contribs) made some good faith edits restoring the articles with what has been a long standing edit consensus of having only Estonia listed as birth/death place in infobox. As seen it is standard to use common name even in WP:HOCKEY biographies (eg China instead of People's Republic of China) He Xin (ice hockey), Ying Rudi etc to take some random articles. What followed is really toxic, he got attacked by a couple of moderators with highly opinionated opposite POV as you and GiantSnowman have clearly stated to support the opposite POV. WP:ADMINCOND if an administrator cannot adhere to site policies and remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem with poor conduct. administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith. You have both misused the moral highground that you have been given. --Klõps (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea no, I don't think it's that simple at all. As was noted above H2ppyme synthesized ″information″ from a source to include content about Estonia on Geats and then participated in some minor edit warring once that was pointed out, that doesn't seem like good faith editing to me, that seems more like shoehorning Estonian content into where it doesn't belong. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So now @Klõps: is engaged in the exact same edits as H2ppyme was (same article as well!). Disruptive edits, meat puppetry. GiantSnowman 15:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it time for a sockpuppet investigation?--Berig (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored it to the state before the edit war. I do not know H2ppyme. This is my only account. --Klõps (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If so you would not mind a sockpuppet investigation. It would only prove that you are not the same user.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, what do I have to do? --Klõps (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't anything; requests to prove you are not the same user are not accepted. If Berig believes they have sufficient behavioural evidence, they should submit a request at WP:SPI. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is sock puppetry, but definitely a small group of editors closing ranks and covering each other's backs. Offline collusion? I couldn't possibly say. GiantSnowman 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Klõps, why are you removing in-line citations and valid parameters from infoboxes? GiantSnowman 17:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, given the comments here that removing reference to Estonian SSR is disruptive, please can somebody restore the previous version on Friedrich Karm? GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In agreement, that it should be restored. But, if I restore it? members from WP:ESTONIA might disrupt the ice hockey bios again, particularly Leo Komarov. There's a kinda truce between both WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GoodDay: feel free to post at Talk:Friedrich Karm and see if you can persuade @BilledMammal: to change it back... GiantSnowman 18:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't recall ever seeing BilledMammal involved in this topic-in-question, in the past. Would suggest that he back away from it. He seems to have taken the side of the Estonian-POV argument. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic bans for Estonian POV

    There is a very long-standing issue with Estonian editors doing this sort of thing, and when challenged, several of them will turn up to the same discussion to back each other up (exactly as has happened here). Personally I would strongly support a topic ban for anything related to pre-1991 Estonia for these editors, as this has been going on for over a decade. Number 57 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That sounds serious, indeed.--Berig (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits for Klõps and H2ppyme (I am personally unaware of any other editors involved in this behaviour). GiantSnowman 17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. While this is edit warring, the example provided includes edit warring by both "sides" (four reverts by GiantSnowman, three by H2ppyme, two by Klõps, with the status quo being the one supported by H2ppyme and Klõps), and it is not sufficient to warrant a full topic ban, particularly as such a sanction would go far beyond the issues discussed here. Give warnings to all parties, reminding them of WP:BRD and MOS:RETAIN, and if any party attempts to implement a change to the format through edit warring in the future we can return to ANI and consider actual sanctions. BilledMammal (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would also note that so far the only evidence of Klõps "misbehaving" is two reverts to restore the status quo at a single article - it is not clear why they are grouped with this proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are engaged in the exact same disruptive editing and have been for some time (i.e. removing all mention of Estonian SSR/Soviet Union from appropriate historical context - see this and this and this and many, many more). GiantSnowman 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How are those changes disruptive? You obviously are on one "side" of this content dispute, but as there is no global consensus (attempts to find one have always ended in "no consensus") it is appropriate to find local consensuses, and that can include finding such consensuses by editing as it appears they are doing in those examples. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you look at something like Leo Komarov, you will see that H2ppyme was making the same edit (changing Estonian SSR to Estonia) multiple times between 2014 and yesterday, calling their opponents "Kremlin trolls", every time they were reverted back, and they have, as far as I see, zero edits at the talk page, where the topic has been extensively discussed (and there is either no consensus, or possibly even consensus against H2ppyme). This is massive edit-warring for 8 years, mixed with personal attacks. Irrespectively of who is right and who is wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but that doesn't answer why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme - I am not seeing any basis for them being brought here, except for the fact that they are on the same side of the content dispute as H2ppyme.
    H2ppyme does have a case to answer beyond edit warring, but I don't believe that a topic ban is appropriate for them at this point; they've only been blocked once, eight years ago, and aside from this recent discussion no one has attempted to discuss WP:CIVIL with them, or WP:EW since that block eight years ago. In other words, I've seen no evidence that a warning won't work, and I believe we should give it a chance. Specifically, give GiantSnowman, H2ppyme, and maybe Klõps a warning for edit warring, and H2ppyme a warning for personal attacks, and if any of them continue the behaviour we can return here and implement topic bans. BilledMammal (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, Klops has retired. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer the question of "why Klõps is being grouped with H2ppyme", it's because they have been part of the small group of editors doing this for years – see the history of Toivo Suursoo, where they made these edits repeatedly. Number 57 22:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. However, that appears to minor (three reverts over a couple of months) and stale (three years ago) edit warring. It would add weight to the notion that we should warn them alongside GiantSnowman and H2ppyme, but I don't see any reason why we need to jump straight to topic bans, or what the issue would be with trying a warning first.BilledMammal (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great another one who has always has had very strong one sided POV on this question. Yes add random diffs without any discussions that were had then. The pattern has been always like it's with Friedrich Karm, for ten years since 2013 it was one way, then in January 2022 some random user changes it and then you guys appear to defend the change. 90% of Estonian biographies are it the way Friedrich Karm was for a decade, it's a small group of editors who for years have been trying to change it. Always the same, some random user changes ca 10 articles, and then your gang appears to defend them, But yeah having a strong POV on this question won't stop you for demanding a ban for someone who isn not supporting your POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're retired, stop editing while logged out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per above.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There's something kinda odd here, concerning whether one chooses to accept or not, that the Baltic states were a part of the Soviet Union. Why would he or she concentrate on only Estonia? What about Latvia & Lithuania? Are those country names also being pushed in bios, where there's "Latvian SSR" & "Lithuanian SSR"? GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What's odd? We had this discussion already at WP Estonia I said to You that I'm an Estonian, I mostly edit Estonian related content, fix, add sources, update, remove vandalism. Estonian community here is small, there's a lot of really outdated articles, old vandalism from years ago. As I'm a football fan I have created Estonian football league season articles, given them prose content so that their not just tables etc. I have created Kaja Kallas' cabinet, Jüri Ratas' second cabinet, Jüri Ratas' first cabinet, Taavi Rõivas' second cabinet etc all of the existing ones. And as I said, Lithuanian and Latvian community here is much smaller even than Estonian, I have worked on many Latvian articles also if I have seen really low quality articles there that scream for attention, one liners not updated since 2008. --Klõps (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Objection I have tried to have a civil argument and to find a solution, like here, but got slapped without even a hint of effort to give argumented replay, I tried to make sense at the discussion at WP:Estonia, here, but got insulted that I'm nationalist doing historical revisionism. All I have tried to say is that isn't black and white as Gigantsnowman, C.Fred, Soman are taking the problem. There's a huge gray area. I'm saying everywhere that both are right Estonian SSR existed and Republic of Estonia existed as Soviet occupation was never recognized by the international community. For heavens sake there's loads of articles about it State continuity of the Baltic states read about it get to know the backstory and facts. The solution has been to use just Estonia (without political additions ), As is standard with other modern states. As noted above by BilledMammal, as I have noted about only China being used instead of full political state name People's Republic Of China.
    Per WP:ADMINCOND GiantSnowman and C.Fred shouldn't even be judging here as they are very heatedly having really strong one sided POV on this question taking part of the edits. As seen in edits and talk like here Talk:Friedrich Karm. They should leave this for impartial admins. This is really low to hand out bans just because someone has different opinion than you do. --Klõps (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I remember having long discussions about it with you before, you supported really strongly the soviet naming. The long standing issue is that you and I had different opinion. Go on ban my dead account . Thats just bulling to demand someone to be punished because you have different POV. Klõps 46.131.25.212 (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you retired? now you're posting signed out. BTW, you messed up BM's above post. GoodDay (talk) 06:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban for H2ppyme as this appears to be a long term issue, the misrepresentaton of a source seemingly in an attempt to shoehorn Estonian content into where it doesn't belong, edit warring and personal attacks makes this seem warranted. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose topic ban, support warning given how both sides have engaged in edit-warring and Klops in particular does not seem to have done enough to warrant a topic ban. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BurritoQuesadilla (talk • contribs) 01:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you people not understand how you are defending the age-old systematic propaganda of a fundamentally sick warmonger?! To hell with all Russian propagandists on Wikipedia! This is not a neutral encyclopaedia anymore! H2ppyme (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban, broadly construed, for all pre-1991 Estonia related edits, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area, especially with me just reverting an edit of H2ppyme's where his edit summary was "No to Kremlin propaganda, to hell with Russian propagandists!" Obviously this is going to be an especially touchy subject for quite some time to come given Putin's aggression, but we don't need the war played out on Wikipedia: it is plain that H2ppyme is NOTHERE. Enough is bloody enough, and this is coming from someone whose great-grandfather was from Lithuania. Ravenswing 14:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sick Kremlin propagandists should be the ones who get banned. You are the lowest of all human forms, you warmonger apologists! Disgraceful that people like you are even allowed to exist on Wikipedia! This is an encyclopaedia, it should be based on facts, not on the fundamentally sick propaganda of systematically lying hostile dictatorship like Russia! You people make me sick for defending their sick crimes! H2ppyme (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... whereupon H2ppyme immediately reverted [9], with the edit summary "Leave fundamentally sick Russian propaganda out of Wikipedia and stick to international law and mainstream interpretation of history!" At this point, while he isn't (yet) in 3RR territory, given the viciousness of his personal attacks and his plain intent to editwar these changes Wikipedia-wide, I think an immediate block for H2ppyme's in order, and I would willingly support any proposal to indef. Ravenswing 14:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will make a new account, don't worry. Our fight against sick Kremlin propagandists will never end! You are the lowest of all human forms and the entire democratic and developed world is against your sick positions! Facts will win, your propaganda will die, your memory will be disgraced. H2ppyme (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than simply a topic ban, I think a block is now necessary. Mellk (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse community ban or at least a topic ban from all topics related to Estonia, Russia, and the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. They have demonstrated that their personal opinions about Russia have overpowered their ability to constructively and collegially edit the project. (I have no particular love for Russia. No country is perfect, but they've got some pretty atrocious things on their track record, and...they aren't exactly on a PR and goodwill tour right now. But I am able to compartmentalize my opinions and not let them cloud my judgment while editing. If there were a topic where I couldn't maintain neutral point of view, I'd step away from the topic.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked for 1 week due to the above aspersions, which have also spread to other threads on this page. This is a stopgap measure to halt current disruption, and can be superseded by whatever outcome this thread arrives at. signed, Rosguill talk 14:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Incidentally, for anyone who is interested in examining the extent to which Wikipedia has a bias related to Russia, check the relative ratings of Russian state media at WP:RSP and WP:NPPSG, as compared to both independent Russian media and media from other countries. (Spoiler: as a community we don't consider Russian state media to be reliable on anything controversial, and there currently isn't a single Russian source, state-backed or otherwise, that has unequivocally been judged as "generally reliable" by the English Wikipedia community). signed, Rosguill talk 16:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering their latest comments, I support an indef block. Isabelle 🔔 15:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coming here to post this diff and edit summary to one of the disputed articles - please can somebody revert this editor's disruption? Given this response to their block I think we need an indef? GiantSnowman 15:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Austet H2ppyme, Klõps and all honourable wikipedians, make no mistake, during putinist rule the Russian govt and intel agencies have been putting great many technical and human resources into propaganda and modern "hybrid warfare", including aggressive disinformation campaigns on social media channels. What you may have noticed here is just the tip of the iceberg, not only an odd Wikipedia editor or two with a pro-Kremlin-Stalin-USSR-etc-trolling hobby but a whole network of hundreds of editor and admin accounts, in concerted action and manned 24-7-365 by professional staff. For these operatives, inserting "SSR" somewhere, deleting "Estonia" in another article, or reverting another edit somewhere else once every 2-3 minutes is nothing but routine paid work (with getting an honest anti-Soviet editor blocked or banned sometimes as an additional bonus). Just my two kopeks' worth.37.143.124.39 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Half-genuine suggestion - indef ban for any editor who comes here to accuse other good faith editors of being Kremlin/Putin stooges etc. IP should also be blocked. GiantSnowman 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I get it, but tensions are understandably very very high right now. Let's not completely bite the heads off people for it at the current time unless there is genuinely a lot of disruption. We can ignore the odd comment and focus on making sure articles aren't disrupted. Canterbury Tail talk 16:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except articles are being disrupted, with editors such as H2ppyme and Klõps having engaged in long-standing whitewashing (by removing reference to Estonia SSR). GiantSnowman 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should we ignore the comment? It is hate speech.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, tensions are elevated in a number of quarters, but that doesn't mean that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been suspended for the duration. For a Ukrainian IP address, I'd cut some slack ... presuming, of course, that your average Ukrainian had nothing better to think of today than editing Wikipedia. 37.143.124.39, by contrast, is geolocated in Spain. Ravenswing 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Klõps appears to have retired to restrictions against them probably not needed; can an uninvolved admin therefore please review consensus against H2ppyme? GiantSnowman 07:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would advise against closure. What's going on in Ukraine, can still create a potential for attempts at revisionism in the Baltics. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm ... and what does that have to do with whether there is consensus on a ban for H2ppyme? (It's plain there's no consensus for action against Klõps.) The way to deal with further nonsense from H2ppyme is to indef him. The way to deal with nonsense from any other editor is to open a separate complaint, when and as necessary. Ravenswing 21:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of my hands. We'll follow your advise. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Ravenswing - let's indef H2ppyme and deal with Klõps if/when they return... GiantSnowman 18:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--Berig (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, definitely indef for H2ppyme after all these outburts. This little group of editors pushing this Estonia centered POV edit using a lot of different IP's though it seems, several of them are geolocated in Spain like this one I found today that I highly suspect is part of this effort 83.59.57.39 (talk · contribs). They really love to call people Russian bots whenever someone opposes their little campaign. TylerBurden (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So can we get some closure here? H2ppyme's 1 week block expired a few days ago, and he's able to pop right back up. There's solid consensus for an indef, and heaven knows that perps have been indeffed for a good deal less than his atrocious rants here at ANI. Ravenswing 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if the closure is an indef block, I think a topic ban should also be included – if they successful appeal the block, they should still be topic banned if they start editing again. Cheers, Number 57 20:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unarchiving as a close for this (there appears to be clear consensus) is outstanding. Number 57 19:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour

    I would like to appeal against Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Emir of Wikipedia's disruptive behaviour. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Emir of Wikipedia: Just to let you know, you now have a nice clean table for you to lay out your appeal  :) SN54129 16:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for hatting. :) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to start off by saying that I totally admit my actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard and that I should have tried to work on this situation before it ended up getting to here. My actions need to be considered in the full context as reactions too. Firstly it seems a bit of a WP:supervote to classify my behaviour as simply disruptive editing when there was disagreement in the the original case, some think it seems to be behavioural towards another editor and some think it is a content dispute with another editor. If it is either of those then I think a way for the editors to work together should be put in place instead of a blanket ban on a single good-willed editor of the two. With regards to the first point (Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd) these are supported by the source. If another editor thinks the wording is misleading, biased, or unencyclopedic then they should politely offer alternatives. With regards to the second point I have challenged the sentence, which shows it is controversial. It is not for another editor to just discount my challenge and say it is not controversial. The third point shows me trying to engage with the editor on the talkpage. With regards to the sixth point this is clearly a difference of opinion between two editors. Another editor not liking them does not mean I am being disruptive. With regards to the first point (Amber Heard), WP:RSPRIMARY says "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." and WP:SELFSOURCE says to be careful with self-published sources when they are self-serving or exceptional.. The editor admits to this bit leading to constructive moments and then improves the article after realising what I had pointed out. Just because something is sourced it does not mean it is due in the lead. With regards to the third point that is what the source says as per the quote. I admit that the actual information may have ended up being outdated with the information we have now. That is what was available at the time it is not me (whether that be a he or she) misrepresenting what the source says, information can change over time. As can be seen on both article talkpages I have tried to work with the other editor on this. Already pointed out in the original discussion but OK Magazine had not been to RS/N at the time this was brought against me. I can not remember using my edit count to "jerk around" another the editor, especially considering their accounts seems to have been created years before mine. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say at the beginning you acknowledge that your "actions/comments/edits were not up to normal standard", but then don't mention that again; the rest of the appeal is based, if I understand correctly, primarily on the idea that the original page blocks were incorrect because you were right on the underlying content issue. Even though 4 admins independently saw your behavior as problematic, and 3 admins explicitly endorsed the page blocks? That approach seems unlikely to result in a successful appeal. I can't speak for the other admins who commented originally, but my own concerns were about you repeatedly reverting without explanation or discussion, and playing WP:SOUP games on the article talk page to stonewall the discussion. Particularly irksome was seeing you revert with the rationale "my version is better", when your version was not in comprehensible English. It's possible that if I had had more time during the original discussion I would have suggested a stern warning to knock it off rather than partial blocks, but the blocks were certainly reasonable, and now that they've been made, I'd want to see those behavioral issues addressed before I would support an appeal. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not based on the idea that I am correct or incorrect on the "underlying content issue". If there is a content WP:CONTENTDISPUTE there are other avenues to go rather that claiming an editor has allegedly used the edit count to bully an editor who has an account older than them and to say that is "disruptive editing". As shown on the talkpages I have tried to work with editor and I am sorry for not raising this at one of those venues when it seemed to reach a brickwall against each other. xTools shows me as the the editor who has made the most contributions to article 1 and article 2. I am not sure in what world having done around a fifth and a third of the articles respectively and being the biggest contributor after the other editor is disruptive. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: While Emir does show up on that list as #2, it’s because few editors have shown interest in the article. I have not seen Emir add anything substantial to the article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am trying to be polite, but respectfully you are not the sole arbiter who determines if I have added anything substantial or not. If other editors have thanked me for my edits it shows that they must have though there was some good in them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bumping thread for 7 days. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC) --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion re fora

    Hat process wonkery per WP:NOTBURO (non-admin closure) SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    It's a block, partial but still a block. Standard practice is to make an WP:UNBLOCK request on your talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 21:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was blocked because of discussion here. Do I have to use template on my talkpage? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Jayron32, and in answer to the OP's question: No, he doesn't have to use the unblock template. (non-admin closure) SN54129 13:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Yes, blocks - even partial blocks as a result of ANI discussion - would still be a request on the user talk page first. It may be possible that the reviewing admin may bring it here for further consensus or not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To create a unblock request: copy and paste this:
    
{{unblock|reason=your reason here}} ~~~~
    Remove the "your reason here" with your own reason to be unblocked. If it is not adaquately explained, it may be declined, even if it is a partial block request. Severestorm28 21:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That just says it is the preferred way. Will nobody it accept it if I do it here? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do it on your talk page through the template it will be added to the Open Unblock Requests lists that many admins will monitor. It will not get lost as it can do here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In addition to Canterbury Tail, it will probably not, due to the fact that this is a noticeboard, not a page for appealing blocks. Severestorm28 21:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Would there be another page I could appeal my block other than my talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a particular reason that you're reluctant to use your talk page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just that I have not been keeping it tidy and would prefer to sort it before I go adding more to it. It is the like the Wikipedia version of an overflowing email inbox. I did not imagine I would be the first person in the history of this project to have preferred to use somewhere else. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (shrugs) User talk pages are where blocks are appealed. I don't think many admins care all that much how "tidy" the page is, or that its tidiness (or lack thereof) has any material effect on your request. In any event, I've certainly seen many talk pages far less tidy than yours. Ravenswing 21:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) There is no other place to appeal your partial block, there is a block notice, and you can appeal it below the block notice. This is how other blocked or partially blocked users do. Severestorm28 21:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not mean for the admins, but for myself. I am not under any false delusion that how tidy my page is will affect my request. Totally understand that not wanting to do it my talk page will be interpreted by some as selfish or self-centred, but at least I have asked first. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking once is neither selfish nor self-centered. Repeated "But will no one take my request anywhere elses?" is less than helpful. Ravenswing 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asking a question. Someone responded with something I was already of, i.e. the standard way. What I was asking was if there was anything else, i.e. another way. I hold my hands and apologise that I did not explain clearly in my initial request. On a somewhat related note can you request a WP:SELFBLOCK anywhere other than your talkpage? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: just would like to point out that even before Emir has applied for the block to be lifted, he has left a message on the Talk page at Amber Heard (the article which he is currently blocked from editing), and another on the article on Johnny Depp, asking people to contribute to Depp v Newsgroup Newspapers (the other article he is blocked from editing).TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am blocked from the articles (at the moment), not the talkpages. Nice WP:WIKIHOUNDING though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. If a sanction is a COMMUNITY sanction, no single admin has the authority to oveturn it anywhere. It requires a community discussion. I'm quite lost as to how this discussion is going. Doesn't matter if the community sanction is a block, a ban, whatever, it has be appealed to the same authority (or higher) that imposed it. An admin declining or granting an unblock is against policy, the community outranks them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't appear to be a community sanction. To a report, Floquenbeam said it was behavioral, not a content dispute, Mjroots said how about a WP:PBLOCK, and El C said done. Then Jayron32 endorsed. Just a run-of-the-mill admin block, no? Schazjmd (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not really run of of the mill, which wouldn't solicit other input (most of our blocks are completely solo), but it really isn't community either. Not that I thought it had a snowball's chance, but the way it was presented led to mistakenly believe there was more community input. Struck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note since this was hinted above, but not directly stated, any appeal even an appeal to the community and no matter where you do it generally needs to give reasons or an explanation. With very few exceptions, failure to do so is likely to lead to failure of the appeal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Emir of Wikipedia: Adding onto what Nil Einne said above, if you'd like an unblock request to be given serious consideration by an administrator (or the community, assuming broader input is needed), you need to make a point of addressing exactly why you were blocked in the first place, ideally by demonstrating that you understand how your past actions were problematic, and committing yourself to avoiding repetition of the same conduct in the future. Some other things that are generally taken into consideration when an administrator reviews an unblock request include the amount of time that has elapsed since the block was placed, along with your activity in other areas of Wikipedia within that same interval, and your overall editing history. This block was implemented only a few weeks ago, and the main reason for its existence is because your editing of those two articles was tendentious in nature—unencyclopedic wording, misrepresentation of sources (intentional or otherwise), edit warring, and casting aspersions against those with whom you are in a content dispute (e.g. accusations of "censorship" or "trolling"), just to name a few things. Even if this unblock request was made using the proper channels, it is highly unlikely for the block to be lifted by any administrator at this time, as it was in the very recent past and covered a pattern of contributions going back several months. My advice is to continue on as you've been doing, editing other articles for the time being, and then after at least six months or so, you can post an unblock template on your talk page where you make a case for why you should be allowed to resume editing those two articles—or at the very least, why keeping you blocked from editing them is no longer necessary. Kurtis (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion of venue above is entirely incorrect. Everyone commenting is unequivocally wrong that one must use the unblock template to request the removal of a page block/partial block. There are no such requirements, and never have been. Literally, the page WP:PBLOCK states "If editors believe a block has been improperly issued that affects them, they can request a review of that block by following the instructions at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard." It does give them the option of using the unblock template, but the first bit of guidance it tells them to go to AN. Since Emir of Wikipedia can request the review here, he's quite allowed to do so. There is not now, nor has there every been, any rule that says that he has to go through the unblock template. They just invented that. That being said, Emir of Wikipedia has not yet given a rationale for removing the partial block, as Nil Einne notes. Emir: Why do you think the block should be removed? --Jayron32 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To the extent that I was one of the editors who said it should be a talk page template, I agree that was incorrect. I missed the part in WP:UNBLOCK#Routes to unblock that referred to partial blocks. (I would suggest that that be made clearer in the policy page, but that's a different discussion.) Accept full mea culpa on my part. Singularity42 (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all good, we all make mistakes. Honestly, it helps one to avoid making such mistakes if WP:NOTBURO becomes a guiding principle. Following processes and procedures for their own sake, when there's a perfectly good way to do it otherwise, isn't helpful to anyone. --Jayron32 16:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, should we start a new sub-section (or give this its own sub-section) so that Emir of Wikipedia can give reasons for the pblock appeal? :) Singularity42 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done SN54129 16:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    DWC LR monarchism civil push-pov

    DWC LR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The user is moving Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza against sources, since the guy is not a prince, as you can see in pt-wp: pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança. Monarchists are allways trying to push the "prince", but our brave Awikimate stops them in pt-wp. The en-wp page was stable since 2020, but was moved by a sockpuppet and was corrected recently. Now DWC LR start moves with nonsense summaries:

    1. unexplained & undiscussed move

    2. Revert undiscussed POV move

    3. This is controversial, if you think this should be moved please initiate a Wikipedia:Requested moves and present supporting evidence. Thanks.

    After the discussion starts, the civil-push-pov without RS is presented in plain form: [10]. DWC LC states in his user page that he is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, then we can suppose that he knows the sources about the subject, but he not presents them. Please, stop this disruptive behaviour because trying to engage in discussion with this type of user is very tiresome and not productive. Thanks! Ixocactus (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean Monarchism (or possibly Monorchism, though I don't have a source for that...). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks AndyTheGrump for correction of my bad english. I changed it. Cheers! Ixocactus (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ... the Monarchists! --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (No one born in 1941 is a Brazilian prince, for obvious reasons.) --JBL (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain this page, then: Prince of Brazil (Brazil) — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the lead section correctly identifies "Prince of Brazil" as a title that existed (please note the past tense) during the Empire of Brazil. Then (as is common for our articles about royal titles) ridiculous monarchists have larded the body with an uncited list of people who definitely were not princes or princesses of the Empire of Brazil, since they were born after the Empire of Brazil had ceased to exist. Does that help? --JBL (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bloody monarchists! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like, the article about "an imperial title" has a list labeled "post-monarchy" -- that doesn't raise any red flags for you? --JBL (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes—I was calling it out for having misinformation. Hard to convey sarcasm in text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for missing the point! I've gone ahead and removed the uncited list of "post-monarchy" princes from that page. --JBL (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles which misrepresent living individuals as 'royalty' due to descent from a defunct monarchy are quite probably a WP:BLP violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately there are lots of these on WP since the media does like calling such people princes and princesses. As they are pretty much absent in other type of sources, and we have no policy regarding claimants (most of which are AfD material, IMHO) you get stuck with the royal claims.Anonimu (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should delete the bio's as fancruft... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll: can you give us your wisdom to this question. A Hungarian living in Hungary born female then today said they were male. Legally in Hungary you can’t change gender. So Male or Female? Applying the same logic as you have for this “Prince”, female correct? - dwc lr (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I bet this discussion will totally benefit from dragging in a totally unrelated, much more inflammatory topic :eyeroll:. What I can very confidently assure you is that if the person in question was born in 1920 or later, they are not a prince or princess of the Austro-Hungarian empire. —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good politicians answer your obviously good law abiding citizen ;) but your statement is dangerous and could have far reaching unforeseen consequences on Wikipedia if we are guided by National laws only, as I have highlighted with my example. But really I have nothing else to add to this spurious noticeboard posting you’ll no doubt be pleased here. - dwc lr (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He does have a point though: he is reverting a previous undiscussed page move and suggested an RM to resolve, so why not take that option? I don't see why this needs to be at ANI which shouldn't be used for a run-of-the-mill page name dispute. Spike 'em (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the page was not stable without Prince since 2020: it was moved there March 2020 but then moved back in May 2020, having previously had Prince in the title since 2006. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reverted the latest page move and created an RM on this. As above and below, the page has had "Prince" in the title for all but 2 months of its history. It was moved as Ixocactus states above in March 2020, but that was reverted 6 weeks later. The current move warring started a week ago with a move away from the previous stable name. Spike 'em (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this serious? @Ixocactus: if you think the page title should be moved open a WP:RM, present your Reliable Sources where a discussion and consensus can be reached rather than start a war, this article isn’t the country of Ukraine and there many reliable sources with an alternative views to yours which I assume are still allowed in Wikipedia. The article title has had “Prince” in it since 2005 when it was created. - dwc lr (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “this article isn’t the country of Ukraine” Wow, that makes two grossly inappropriate analogies in the length of two short posts —- wtf? —JBL (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am moving away from the discussion. Civil-push-pov/wikilawering is not my beach and english wiriting is very time consuming. Brazil expelled royalty in 1889 and no one takes monarchists seriously. Thanks to fellow wikipedians for the support. To monarchists, enjoy your "prince" because en-wp is your last bastion. Ixocactus (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are just as guilty of POV pushing as the person you are accusing. You were also clearly wrong about the stability of the page name. What happens on pt-wp does not override what is decided here. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "POV-pushing" is not really the problem here: there is (1) the move-war, in which both parties were equally culpable (and that had ended, but that you (Spike 'em) have now extended for no good reason) and (2) the substantive question of what is the right title (and Ixocactus is obviously correct about what the answer is, but now you (Spike 'em) have moved it back to the definitely wrong title). --JBL (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for kind words, Spike 'em. You are invited to rename pt:Bertrand de Orléans e Bragança and fr:Bertrand d'Orléans-Bragance. Ixocactus (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page title was stable for most of its 16 year history, and the approved way to resolve any disputes over the name is the RM process, not move warring : Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. Ixocactus created this farago by making the second move to the princeless title, in contravention of these instructions. If they really are "obviously correct" then someone should state the reasons, including with how it fits into WP:AT at the RM created. (Though I have no idea what this has to do with gender politics in Hungary or the war in Ukraine, so if this is part of some other dispute then it is going over my head). Spike 'em (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what the guidelines are for article titles on other language wikis so I will not be getting involved in either of those. If you want to change article titles on en.wiki then you need to follow the guidelines here. I've started the process off, so make your representations on the move request. Spike 'em (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll this is not new behavior. DWL CR has been making grossly inappropriate comparisons to transgender recognition for years. He even uses the same offensive "example"... JoelleJay (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay: ugh gross; "thanks" I guess :-/. Anyhow hopefully people will mosey on over to the RM that Spike 'em started at Talk:Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza. --JBL (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While this discussion has been going on, the widespread monarchist POV-pushing has continued: see [11] and [12] for example. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    this is harassment now. Completely unrelated to the request move, Luiz of Orleans-Braganza is not up for discussion, his brother is. It may be next but at present it’s not. I added sourced material summarising what *is actually* is the Ottoman article see the list of heirs since 1922 section… - dwc lr (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    DWC LR's repeated edgelord behavior, after warnings

    DWL CR is continuing to equate recognizing defunct titles with recognizing transgender identity, and has made some highly uncivil assertions about support !voters at the RfC. Can an admin please address this? JoelleJay (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @JoelleJay: I have added a section heading because I think this is a sufficiently separate issue to merit it. (Actually I was about to start a separate discussion but luckily I saw your comment first.) To collect the evidence for administrators in one place: in the discussion above, DWC LR made grossly inappropriate comparisons involving their obsessive hobby-horse and transgender identity and the war in Ukraine. As JoelleJay noted above, this uncivil, intentionally offensive behavior has occurred many times in the past (links repeated for convenience: [13] [14] [15] [16]), and it has also continued in the last few days [17] [18], including after explicit warnings above and here that it was offensive and unwelcome. I request an indefinite block to address this chronic nastiness, since it seems likely that DWC LR will ignore anything less. --JBL (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This comparison offends some peoples sensitives because it either exposes 1) hypocrisy or 2) bigotry of one type or another (class, trans etc) but it has profound and far reaching consequences for Wikipedia. On the one hand someone like JoelleJay says we can’t possibly say a member of a deposed royal family is a Prince or Princess because the *law* of the country says so, they are 100% not a Prince/Princess despite the fact they are called such by the majority of Reliable Sources. So following her logic through because the *law* says you can’t change gender then a female citizen of Hungary for example who said they were now male would still *legally* be female. So by JoelleJay’s logic on Wikipedia if we had an article on this person then they would have to be referred to as female still as that is the *legal* reality. But I completely oppose this bigoted logic of JoelleJay and anyone else who follows this logic. - dwc lr (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i support the this proposal. If you don't understand how comparing someones rights to a title or how comparing an article to a country at war is uncivil then you shouldn't be here—blindlynx 17:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never attacked trans people or disparaged them so frankly I have nothing to answer for, if people dislike a comparison I can’t help it they should perhaps stay off the internet, away from newspapers and indoors if they are so easily offended. Anyway as I say below Wikipedia is not about you or me or our views, if you don’t understand that then I’m sorry but should you be here? Wikipedia is about policy, it’s about what Reliable Sources say, not the personal opinions of Wikipedia Editors on any number of topics. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given DWC LR's responses doubling down on the comparison here and at the RfC, I support an indef block for disruption and NOTHERE reasons. Although since he's never received an initial formal warning I suspect that will be the outcome. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s obvious I have not disparaged any groups of people, if you are so easily offended how is that my fault? At the end of the day on the issue at the RM it’s irrelevant what you think, or what I think. Wikipedia is about policy, about what is verifiable WP:Verifiability and presenting different points of view WP:Neutral point of view. So the fact the majority of sources still recognise titles for deposed royals is unbelievably easy to verify so this issue will never go away or be suppressed. Is this the true reason behind this spurious ban attempt, to shut down and suppress view points you disagree with. - dwc lr (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:DWC LR blocked for two weeks, for the totally inappropriate gender comparisons and the pretty blatant violations of WP:AGF in their most recent comments here. The princely behavior is likewise troubling but, for now, beyond the scope of this ANI post--or beyond my scope at this time. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this more of a strained attempt at a metaphor than an insult? I really don't think someone should be blocked for that. I'm not commenting about the AGF stuff, though. But I don't think someone should be punished just for the gender identity comments. Viewing them as equivalent is weird, but not inherently offensive. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 03:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now there is this rant, with further accusations of collusion, besides misrepresentation. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If gender identity isn't comparable to other self-identifications then MOS:IDENTITY shouldn't have "gender identity" as a subheading. If our guidelines say gender identity is a sub-issue of self-identification rather than being in a class of its own then is that not a tangential issue that should be addressed by administrative action? Given that we've established making the comparison is an blockable offence perhaps the heading should be upgraded so we don't have a guideline saying something that goes against the party line. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In keeping with this I've gone ahead and made the change myself. [19] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    “Against the party line” reassuring when trolling comes so well labeled! —JBL (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalking

    I’m a longtime Wikipedian, a retired handyman in New Jersey. I’ve written hundreds of articles for 12+ years. I’ve never taken money for my contributions. I've uploaded 3000+ images and declared almost all of them to be public domain. I edit using my real name. I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. But editor Melcous has been using my past mistakes as an excuse to stalk everything I do here, claiming that I have a conflict of interest on such subjects as RepresentUs (an anti-corruption organization) or Michele McNally (a deceased NY Times photo editor) or undoing my work on Raynard Kington (an educator) or Molly Secours (a filmmaker) or Boryana Straubel (a deceased tech executive) or Xyla Foxlin (a YouTuber) or restoring notability tags on the nonprofit The Oasis Center for Women and Girls. I have no connection with any of these subjects. Melcous didn’t edit these articles until after I edited them. It’s a consistent pattern of stalking behavior. Please cause Melcous to stop this harassment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm also a fairly long term wikipedian, and I'm happy for someone to look into my editing and let me know if I have crossed any lines. When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. I would also note that my greater concern, and encouragement to Tomwsulcer, has been to properly respond to COI concerns raised and disclose them. There have been two threads at WP:COIN (here and here) where concerns have been raised about his edits. As noted by other editors including Wizzito and SVTCobra, both times he has chosen to disappear from editing from a period of time, and reappear after the threads have gone stale and been archived, so the issues have not been resolved. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been stalking me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's stalking imho. I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking', 'it's all sourced' (articles can be sourced but still have tone/grammar issues, etc.), and stuff like that. wizzito | say hello! 05:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nice that you think you need to be "humble" - but in actual fact you were right when you said "I think that you should respond to these issues instead of crying 'stalking'".
    Tomwsulcer needs a block more than help for some imaginary offence. I'm astonished he stuck his head up in this way, but I have confidence in the correct result of this self-destructive posting. Begoon 13:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a very straight forward case of WP:HOUND. @Tomwsulcer: We generally shy away from using the term "stalking" now in reference to editors following each other around onwiki. @Melcous: Don't do what you are doing. If you want to start a new COIN thread, by all means. However, it is very inappropriate to just unilaterally tag all of an editors contributions with COI. WP:HOUNDING is not okay in any situation, and you should instead try to open a dialogue with the respective editors. If that doesn't work, you can escalate to a noticeboard, but don't follow the editor around the project. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to follow this advice and will bow out from here if possible, but it would be good to at least be honest in what we are talking about. I have not "unilaterally tagged all of an editor's contributions with COI". There were exactly two articles here that I tagged for COI, one out of a discussion at WP:COIN after the editor had inserted promotional wording about the subject into multiple unrelated articles, and the other because it was the first article created after he returned to editing after failing to deal with the WP:COIN thread and I noted this on the talk page. I'm reluctant to start a new COIN thread when it seems that all an editor needs to do is "wait it out" and the issue gets ignored. Melcous (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Melcous: If you started another COIN thread, and Tom just waited it out, then that would be WP:GAMING which you could report here.
    Semantics of what you tagged vs. copy-edited aside, these three diffs were all made within minutes of each other. If I was Tom, I'd be rightfully upset about that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A straightforward case of WP:HOUND? Forgive me if I laugh. How much research did you do? Begoon 12:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, more than you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    No one in this thread has said what happened wasn't a case of WP:FOLLOWING. The only disagreement was how justified Melcous was in doing so. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, MJL, WP:HOUNDING/WP:FOLLOWING (same thing) describes hounding as being "...with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." So no, you are wrong - if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and I'll just add that "Nobody denied the accusation I made" is never a valid justification for an accusation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boing! on Tour: Okay, in reverse order: (1) Melcous literally admitted to following Tom around: When I notice certain types of formatting/WP:MOS edits that an editor makes I have tended to check other articles recently contributed to see if they have the same issues that can be easily fixed, which I do not consider "stalking" but am open to being told otherwise. That's a straightforward definition of a pattern of behavoir which can be seen as hounding depending on the circumstance. However, instead of being like "Melcous literally admitted to following." (which would've required I get a diff or provide the exact quote for) I said "No one here has contested following has happened." because it would be absolutely ludicrous for anyone to say otherwise when Melcous literally admitted to following.
    (2) It is amazing to me that I can say how the only disagreement here is whether Melcous was justified in following Tom around, and for you to tell me I'm wrong because if Melcous is justified in their actions, then by definition it is not WP:HOUNDING. Like, yeah.. I know. While I understand that you feel otherwise, I don't think Melcous was justified in this months-long quest to get Tom to answer for things he did eleven years ago - which is what the original COIN thread was about and the thing Melcous thought was important enough to bring up again in the second COIN thread (ignore my choice of diff; COIN was oversighted). Yeah, sorry, but no. We're almost five months out from the original COIN thread which was based off things which happened 8-11 years ago, and we're a month out since the second COIN thread. That Melcous used those events as the excuse to follow Tom around as recently as two days ago, is not only buck wild, it's borderline obsessive.
    (3) Are you really just going to say hounding and following are the same thing? One is negative, and the other is neutral. The policy goes into detail about both. Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. This should always be done with care, and with good cause, to avoid raising the suspicion that an editor's contributions are being followed to cause them distress, or out of revenge for a perceived slight. Make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm obviously not saying that hounding and following (as used in English) are the same thing, I am saying that in Wikispeak WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOLLOWING are links to the same paragraph, which is Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. In this reply you are still using "following" (English) as justification for your accusation of WP:HOUNDING (Wikispeak). And yes, the policy does go into detail as to what is acceptable following and what is not, but that is an explanation of what is and what is not considered hounding. Did you also notice that Melcous got no help in those WP:COIN threads? Melcous did the right thing, but nobody cared, and Tomwsulcer was just allowed to sit it out and carry on his COI editing without hindrance. Is it any wonder Melcous felt alone and saw WP:COIN as a waste of time? That's my big gripe here, that Melcous followed the proper procedures, got absolutely nowhere with them, and then when she tried to address the problems she saw directly (because she was getting no help), she was accused of stalking (and then of WP:HOUNDING and WP:GRUDGE here at ANI where people are supposed to examine issues in a fair and balanced manner). The initial response here was from people piling in without properly examining the whole situtation, the background, and the wider picture. Sadly, that's what ANI is like these days - there are too many here who are ready to jump on any accusation they see without putting in the effort to investigate it properly. And that makes me angry. Thankfully, someone did care enough to investigate properly, and found that the concerns that led Melcous to follow and review Tomwsulcer's edits are well founded. And yes, Melcous was still following and correcting Tomwsulcer's COI violations days ago. That's because they were still happening days ago. It has been going on for years. Frankly, I'm disappointed by your responses and your lack of self-reflection here, MJL, instead just doubling down on your flawed accusations. But I've said enough, and I know I would get nowhere trying to challenge the poisonous atmosphere at ANI. Thank you, at least, for listening. Boing! on Tour (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I hired her to narrate my audiobook. I paid her. She didn't pay me for a Wikipedia article; I did it on my own on a volunteer basis. So there's no financial connection; there's no conflict of interest. But pretty much everything I write about, and every person I put into Wikipedia, I have some kind of connection with, if you'd like to get philosophical about it. I'm a New Jerseyan; so I'm predisposed to write about New Jersey subjects. I'm an American; I tend to write about Americans and American-type issues. I think everybody here is like me in that way -- we write about what we know. I've never accepted money for anything I do in Wikipedia. My policy is to try to get everybody who qualifies for a wiki-article into Wikipedia. If I met you Boing! on Tour, at a coffee shop, and within a few minutes, if we got to talking, I'd be wondering how I could get you into Wikipedia; if you'd qualify, you'd be there. It's just how I am.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about being philosophical (which is the line you took last time, if I remember correctly), it's about direct personal connections with the subjects you write about. And COI is not just about financial connections, or about being paid. It's about any connection that might lean an author to writing favourably or unfavourably about a subject, rather than from a neutral point of view. You *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and when you said "I have no connection with any of these subjects" that was not the truth. I see also that Molly Secours worked at The Oasis Center for Women and Girls, so can you see how there might appear to be an undisclosed connection there too? How your direct personal connection with Molly Secours might lean you towards writing favourably about that organisation? You want to try to get everybody you know who you think might warrant it an entry into Wikipedia, and that's just the way you are? That is *not* the way Wikipedia is - or, at least, doing it without declaring your connections is not the way Wikipedia is. When you have connections with people you write about (like the very blatant connection with Molly Secours), you *must* declare it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I have connections with pretty much everybody. And so do you, and so does everybody. We're all connected. For example, take Boryana Straubel. I read about her death in the NY Times. I felt sorry that she died in a bicycle accident. So I put her in Wikipedia. Are you saying that I should *declare* my 'connection' with this subject? It's a good article. Do you think I need to *declare* my 'relationship' with her, that I felt sorry that she died? If we make that a requirement, then I think everybody here in Wikipedia will spend half of their time declaring their associations, and they won't have any time left to build this great encyclopedia. Straubel belongs in Wikipedia. Or take Molly Secours; everything I wrote is referenced; she belongs here too. Is the article fair? Take a look. I simply said what the sources were saying. I agree about close family members; even though I write using my real name, I should have been more forthcoming that Frederick D. Sulcer was my late father. So I question the assumption that *any* connection that any of us has to anything here in Wikipedia invariably brings about bias or unfair coverage, and that simply is not the case. Why? Because of the requirements for notability and sourcing and the biography guidelines. We can't just say *anything* about anybody we want to. There are rules. I follow the rules. That's why very few, if any, of my hundreds and hundreds of articles I've written here ever been deleted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh come on Tom, don't be so disingenuous. No, if you had no personal connection with Boryana Straubel then of course you don't have to declare any interest. But you *do* have a direct personal connection with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly told us here in this very discussion that you did not. And it has got *nothing to do* with the quality of what you write or whether it is sourced - WP:COI does not have an "unless you write good stuff that's well referenced" clause. The Molly Secours article as you left it was packed with excessive quotes, laced with puffery, and read to me as though it was written to show her in as favourable a light as possible. Melcous improved it considerably with some warranted pruning, and ended up being accused of stalking as a result. You can disagree with WP:COI policy as it is written, but unless you can get it changed then you *must* follow it. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add... WP:COI is not about "Man, I'm at one with the universe, and I have a connection with everything..." waffle. No, it is quite specific, and you should read it. Its very first sentence says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Tom, you have a clear employer/client financial relationship with Molly Secours, and you dishonestly denied it. I can envisage someone suggesting sanctions against you (maybe some sort of BLP restriction) unless you can show you understand and accept that, and that you will adhere carefully to WP:COI policy in the future. Boing! on Tour (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better? Begoon 13:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my previous comment.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which previous comment?
    Is there a reason you can't just answer my question? I didn't think it was hard.
    I'm confused now. Begoon 14:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This almost doesn't need to be said since you already pledged to better adhere to WP:COI for the future, but having any financial relationship with someone (past or present) generally means you have a COI with them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my main issue with Molly Secours is why the opening sentence of "...is a Nashville-based filmmaker, author, and activist" requires six citations after it. Anyway, I haven't investigated the problems with Tomwsulcer, but I just want to mention to Melcous that edits like this that put {{cn}} tags into an article but are disguised by the edit summary "copyedit" are unhelpful. In this instance, I would recommend doing the tagging in a separate edit with a summary like "cannot find a source for this" or "the given source does not state the claim specifically, need another one" or something like that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks like genuinely good copy editing to me - and did you see the peacock drivel it removed? It might indeed be better to do the {{cn}} changes separately with a separate edit summary, but I think suggesting it was "disguised" is a poor choice of words as it implies deliberate obfuscation. Boing! on Tour (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and I did - it was just a suggestion. As for Tomwsulcer, I would suggest they have ownership issues and need to stop giving slippery and evasive answers to questions, or hoping difficult questions will just disappear as it will probably end up with a block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm reluctant to comment here because I've already had one unpleasant encounter with Tomwsulcer but I think my experience may help illustrate the issues. On Raynard S. Kington, I removed a statement that was not supported by the source given. Tomwsulcer re-added it with additional sources but none that supported the specific claim. I started a discussion on the talk page but Tomwsulcer did not participate. Instead, he posted on the talk page of gay men, asking "Do gay men endure discrimination in Wikipedia?" which suggested that I, a gay woman, was removing his edits because I am homophobic. I asked an experienced user for advice and they posted a message to Tomwsulcer's talk page. It was removed unanswered. I assume that Tomwsulcer is trying, in his own way, to improve Wikipedia, but it is frustrating to work with someone who will not communicate and/or is passive aggressively attacking you. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's quite troubling. Tomwsulcer, what was your intention with that edit on an unrelated talk page? Were you canvassing for help or genuinely accusing Polycarpa of being homophobic for removing an unsupported statement? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure @Tomwsulcer will be along to shed light on that shortly, but in case they missed it I've taken the liberty of adding a courtesy 'ping'. I do hope it's received - but I have faith because we're all connected to everyone, after all... Begoon 10:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He has stated that he is no longer editing, so I doubt he will be here. This is not the first time he has cast aspersions on an editor for trying to uphold WP's notability guidelines. This didn't seem to get picked up before. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the first time he's tried to duck repercussions by disappearing either, only to reappear when he thinks the heat might have died down. Just my opinion, but I really think it would be a very good idea, by now, to make that tactic less easy. Begoon 11:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking of proposing a topic ban (probably on BLPs) for Tomwsulcer, but didn't know enough about the situation to suggest which sanction, if any, was appropriate. Do you think we should proceed with suggesting such a thing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd propose a site ban, personally, because I don't think the bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". But I'll leave it to others because I'm loathe to commit the sort of time that would obviously be necessary, given the bizarre, shallow, knee-jerk 'defences' above, and also I'm no longer a "regular" so tend to consider such a proposal a bit outside my current remit. Wikipedia is very bad at removing bad actors like this. That's one of the reasons I don't participate much any more. Begoon 12:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Begoon speaks for me on this matter. SN54129 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of stalking or hounding cannot be a defense against misconduct if Wikipedia is to function, and dealing with another editors' mistakes and issues cannot be considered stalking. There's abundant evidence above and in his contributions Tomwsulcer "doesn't get" COI policies, willfully or deliberately, and if this thread is to be closed it should be with restrictions against him, not Melcous. Simply because this thread is just a repetition of existing patterns and Tom's editing has been problematic for years (his image contributions are promotional at best, copyright violations at worst), I would recommend a site ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Site ban

    BANNED
    There is a clear consensus that Tomwsulcer should be banned from Wikipedia, and he has supported the idea himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Okay, let's formally propose that Tomwsulcer is banned from Wikipedia. They may appeal this ban after six months, and if unsuccessful, every subsequent year thereafter. Comments, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question I'm a bit confused here. I've had my run ins with Tomwsculcer and I'm sure we are both certain the other editor was a civil POV pusher. But Tom has a clean block log and while they were violating COI I can probably see how one might think, absent reading the policy, that they didn't have a COI etc. Is a site block really the least intrusive way we can protect Wikipedia in this case? Would it be better to issue a clear warning with a stated escalation plan? Springee (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Support. I was envisioning a restriction on BLP edits, perhaps with new articles submitted via AFC and a clear commitment to adhere to WP:COI policy (rather than just "I'll try"). But no, Tom is editing in good faith despite his chronic policy failures (and, yes, his original dishonesty in this discussion), and I think a site ban would be excessive at this point. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've changed my mind after seeing the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer. Tom was socking as recently as January 2022 to hide his continued COI editing. Given that the previous COIN discussion had been in November 2021, I can't possibly accept this was a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment. No, I think I'm a soft touch at times, but this has eliminated any possibility in my mind that Tom was acting in good faith here. It was an obviously deliberate attempt to evade the COI policy that he had no excuse for not understanding at that time. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Ban is not warranted in my opinion. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 06:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, not only for the issues pointed out above (including the "original dishonesty") and the disappearing to avoid sanctions tactic, but also because of the worrying discussion with Begoon above: Begoon asks then "Can you tell us now, without fear of contradiction, that you have never used your editing privileges to enhance your family members on wikipedia, or to post stuff that would make your friends look better?", to which they only can answer "Please see my previous comment" (which, as Begoon points out, doesn't seem to be an answer), and then "Fair enough. I'll try to adhere to the WP:COI policy in the future." which again doesn't answer the question, leaving me with the impression that they have used their editing to make friends and family look better here, but that they are not willing to admit it or to indicate where they did this. No thanks, we don't need people here who use these tactics and don't even want to make amends when it is (again and again) pointed out that such editing is not acceptable, but instead attack the ones trying to uphold our policies. Fram (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am puzzled about this because I feel like the opening statement does address the question: I admit I made a few mistakes by editing articles for family members, but I’ve since learned, and have stopped editing those. --JBL (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This was last month. This, admittedly is a little older, but, quite honestly, wtf? Begoon 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I get it, I'm just saying "didn't address the question" doesn't seem to be the problem. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, obviously, given my comments above. I don't believe that "Tom is editing in good faith", Boing, I'm sorry but I just don't. Good faith would be demonstrated by owning the issues, some sadly absent honesty, and showing some real understanding of why they were wrong, with a meaningful, credible commitment to avoid such issues going forwards. None of that is in evidence. An indefinite block, rather than site ban, might serve to enforce that, but limited "Tbans" really don't seem sufficient here. I'd also ask anyone closing this thread to note a couple of the comments above this "formal proposal" which seem to support it (and, of course, those which don't). Begoon 11:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, fair points there. I was thinking good faith in that I think he genuinely wants to write nice stuff about people, whether has has a COI or not. But as for good faith regarding Wikipedia standards, no, he has clearly been deliberately trying to circumvent them. I recall a similar problem with his approach to copyright at Commons, where he essentially argued that we should ignore copyright law because everybody else was doing so. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite. I'm sure Tom's a lovely chap, the type who, if I lent him my lawnmower, would scrupulously clean and oil it before handing it back. We're not discussing that here though - we're considering whether he's a good fit for, or a continual detriment to wikipedia, and whether his bad editing, refusal to respond to criticism, puerile dismissal of concerns and outright "I do what I want" attitude is likely to be solved by a limited "Tban". I don't think it is, but if he turned up and said something that genuinely addressed those concerns in a credible and convincing way I'd rescind my support for a ban in a heartbeat. Begoon 14:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Tom has edited about family members and friends and this has been mentioned in a previous COIN report. These were around ten years ago and I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood COI policy wrt the more recent articles where he had a COI. I believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies. I do have additional concerns about his conduct in defending these articles. I am recusing myself from an actual support or oppose !vote as it occurred to me that I myself had written an article on a family member some time ago... I have reported myself to COIN. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I also "believe a block can be avoided if he takes time to read and understand the relevant policies" - and commits properly to adhere to them in future. I just don't see any evidence of that time being taken, genuine understanding or any commitment. Begoon 11:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/reply: As the initial subject of this report, I will also recuse myself from supporting or opposing. But I would note Catfish Jim and the soapdish that the editing of articles about his family members is not just "about ten years ago", but has continued on as recently as the last few months. See 1 and 2 for some fairly blatant examples. Thanks Melcous (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, yes, looking at those examples (along with the others I've seen), I think the main problem is that Tomwsulcer's writing has been relentlessly hagiographic in style. It might not be a particularly bad human fault to want to pour gushing praise on others, but obviously completely inappropriate here. Boing! on Tour (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is true... it does significantly erode the case for giving him the benefit of doubt. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This seems to be more a case of a user whose writing style isn't a good fit for Wikipedia, not someone who was intentionally violating COIN to promote a third party. Per their talk page, the user has already quit, and I don't see any benefit to a ban here. We've managed to drive them off from the Wiki already, no need to twist the knife. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- mind if I weigh in on this? I'm committed to exiting Wikipedia but my heart has gone out to all of you fine people, that I feel horrible that I've been wasting everybody's time on me and my stupid problems, so I'd like to briefly explain myself. My mistake has been, clearly, that I have not heeded the COI guidelines as rigorously as I should have. I admit it. My flawed thinking has gone along like this: that what's really important in Wikipedia are the three pillars: notability, reliable sources, verifiability. This is what I grew up on, and I really thought, honestly, that if contributions meet these three tests, they're okay. I should have been more forthcoming in my contributions. See, I was writing under my real name, I just didn't think about it after a while, and when I got called on it in the COI noticeboard, I didn't treat it seriously because I thought it was just users wanting to fingerwag me, and I wanted to keep contributing. But it's one of my many problems: I have ADHD (TWO shrinks in my town diagnosed me) so my mind is all over the place, I'm interested in everything, and one way I've learned to moderate my ADHD is by writing (I can cover it up that way -- I've edited my own writing here with several passes, how it's done...). So I'm actually a semi-competent writer with a few self-published books to my name. PLUS maybe I picked this up from my father, an advertising man, but I have this marketing sensibility of wanting to promote everything and everyone I see. I agree -- that's not the best writing sensibility for Wikipedia. I'm also tremendously interested in all sorts of ideas so I've contributed heavily to articles like History of citizenship because I listen to these Teaching Company courses (free from the local library) and want to write about this stuff! I also want to get everybody into Wikipedia if I can (again, not the best mindset, I agree) cause if you're talking to me at a coffee shop, or I read about you in a newspaper, within 5 minutes I can tell if you're wiki-bio ready, and I can write a wikibio in an hour. I can really whip them out. Most stuff, frankly, about people is positive, and I just write what the references say, and it usually comes out sounding positive or sometimes maybe like puffery. Again, one more of my problems. I was frustrated when I was being hounded after the COI revelations so I did write the John Mack Carter article -- again, no pay involved, I used to live near his family in Bronxville years back. So, long story short, my means are flawed, but my goals (I think) were good. I do love this project, I love information, I think Wikipedia is a great project and I urge you all to keep making it great! And the best way for me, at this point, is to bow out. So, again, apologies, please ban me for life (yes my wife would like that!) cause the Internet is a wide new world and there are plenty of other places for me to write. Peace.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the response, Tom. It's good that you seem to (belatedly) accept that wikipedia is not your blog. There are, indeed, better venues for that. It's a bit of a shame though, in my opinion, that you still seem to regard having that pointed out to you as "hounding". I hope that, if you ever do consider a return here, your understanding has evolved beyond that perplexing and inaccurate mindset. I also, sincerely, hope that you continue to get satisfaction and happiness from your writing on other platforms. Begoon 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Tomwsulcer: Much respect for that, Tom. I was always convinced you had the best motives here, and that it was your procedural approach that was problematic. In the light of what you say, I am further convinced that we do not need to apply any sanctions here. If you should wish to resume editing in the future, I would be open to offering what guidance I can. (I might not be active here when you do, as I continue to wind down my Wikipedia activity, but I intend to always keep my Wikipedia email contact active and I would invite you to use it). Boing! on Tour (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (Withdrawn after seeing the lastest SPI, and amending my recommendation above. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]
      I said above that I'd rescind my support for a ban if I saw a response that convinces me Tom truly understands and will not continue to be a problem. I still, honestly, haven't quite seen that yet, but he says he will not continue to edit, and I'm honour-bound to accept that at face value, so I guess sanctions are no longer urgent right now. I'd probably prefer a definitive result from the thread, because "I retire for a while, so you don't need to sanction me" is getting pretty damn old, tired and sadly predictable as a response, but meh... Begoon 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Agree here that good faith has been exhausted in this scenario. Tom's entire editing history is littered with COI editing and utter refusal to understand copyright. Given the issues with the line between outing and determining COI topic bans simply aren't sufficient. We can't figure out every person Tom has a connection to, but we certainly can see from his track record it's not going to be encyclopedic. Frankly, Tom's post above makes me even more strident in my belief that we need a ban here. As long as people are willing to say "oh well they're quitting, there's no need for sanctions", there is no limit to how often editors will claim "ANI flu" to avoid discussions of their bad behavior, or trot out a medical diagnosis as explanation for why we shouldn't deal with their behavior. And frankly good faith should be exhausted as soon as those canards come out. We have plenty of editors with ADHD or autism who can edit constructively without problems. If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't really disagree with any of that, either.
      I was trying to be "nice" above, but at some point we do need to consider whether that "niceness" is just being exploited or manipulated.
      And yes - "If they're really quitting, then them having a block shouldn't matter to them one bit, should it?" Begoon 17:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Please don't give the user a free pass merely because they say they're quitting! It's not that I doubt their sincerity, but surely we all know that editing Wikipedia is addictive (duh), and that most people who sincerely say they quit are likely to come back when the withdrawal bites. Bishonen | tålk 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC). PS: And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟 Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      "And it's depressing to see the unfounded attacks above against Melcous (not just from Tomwsulcer!), who has done nothing wrong and indeed done nothing but attempt to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. ANI at its worst. 😟"
      Amen. Boing put it best, above. Begoon 12:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support per my previous remarks. I found TWS's statement above moving and self-analytical, but unfortunately still ignoring the consequences of their actions rather than the causes of them. SN54129 13:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Changing to strong support per the SPI; while that seems to have attracted lukewarm attention, their blatant admission of socking is clear, despite the details our august colleagues are discussing. SN54129 21:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I have not seen good behavior from Tom, and I doubt the efficiency of not banning him simply because he quit; in the first COI thread, he simply left for a few months and then came back instead of addressing his mistakes; and I feel as if he may do a similar thing if he is not banned here and now. Also, dropping a link to this discussion regarding possible WP:SOCK by Tom: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer. wizzito | say hello! 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - First of all, let's get out of the way that I agree that someone quitting shouldn't let them off the hook. The issue is, to jump straight to a site ban I expect to see pervasive, egregious problems for which no lesser intervention could suffice, and I don't think the case for that position has been sufficiently made. Few things try people's patience like poorly managed COIs, indeed, but looking through a few people's opinions here, you'd think tendentious and COI editing is all that Tom does... but a perusal through a few of his most edited articles doesn't seem to support that picture. That doesn't mean there aren't big problems here, so don't take this oppose as opposing any action at all -- it's just a response to the only proposal on the table, which is the most severe possible action. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to this one where Tomwsulcer adds a name to a long list of people that went to the same school as Dana Delany. Peter Currie (businessman) was created by Tomwsulcer. Julian Hatton was created by Tomwsulcer. Nate Lee was created by Tomwsulcer. Sara Nelson (editor) was created by Tomwsulcer. Priscilla Martel was created by Tomwsulcer. Gar Waterman was created by Tomwsulcer. The dispute that I mentioned above was in regard to Tomwsulcer's edits to Raynard S. Kington, who is now the haed of that school, Phillips Academy. It makes me wonder if perhaps Tomwsulcer is more interested in Phillips Academy than he is in Dana Delany. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you think they are all former classmates of his? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Catfish Jim and the soapdish: They are. (Redacted) wizzito | say hello! 15:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wizzito: I see your evidence was redacted... presumably because of doxing concerns... Tom states that they were on his linked in page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:07, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I stopped looking at Tomwsulcer's edits to Dana Delany's page when I got to - This is sort of my point. Why did you then stop? And why did you not look at the others? The question isn't "has Tom made bad edits" because clearly he has -- a lot of them. The question is whether a site ban is necessary, and evidence of bad edits isn't justification for a site ban. We site ban people when there's no realistic way they can contribute productively. I'm saying there is evidence Tom can contribute productively, as evidenced by the other contributions. But what I'm saying doesn't really matter, I suppose, since Tom is quitting and seems to be... well maybe not making things worse, but certainly not making things better with what he's been writing here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rhododendrites: You seemed to be saying that Tomwsulcer wasn't just editing pages where he had some personal interest that he wanted to advance. That edit showed me what his personal connection was. Since you asked, I went a little further. Tomwsulcer added a quote from Dana Delany, made in an interview with someone named Jonathan Meath. Sure enough, Jonathan Meath has a page created by Tomwsulcer and Meath attended Phillips Academy. My opinion is that quotes don't belong in biographies unless they are historically significant. I definitely don't think quotes should be used just to namedrop one of your friends. Is Tomwsulcer a good editor outside of the conficts of interest? Read his concluding statement at Talk:Dana Delany/GA1. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support due to COI editing, misrepresenting said COI editing (re the Molly Secours article), and socking. GABgab 23:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support There are just too many things wrong here. User:Begoon said it best, but with the (admitted) socking and the inability to understand the problems, I end up here. Black Kite (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand how most others here see me. That I was masqueraded as a ‘real’ contributor so that I could get my friends in here, possibly editing for money (I don’t do that). When I was ‘caught’ after 10+ years with a notice on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard, I refused to address the issues, and 'hid’ for a few months, hoping the hubhub would die down, that users would forget, and go back to my sleazy ways of COI writing. When I got hounded by well-meaning users, who (in good faith) thought I was COI editing, I evaded, didn’t address issues, didn’t come clean about all my nefarious history of COI editing. Then, when I complained about the hounding, and the socking got discovered, well proof positive – this guy’s no good, doesn’t belong here. I can see clearly how most of you think of me and my behavior here. Got it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I realize that most of you won’t trust anything I write here, perhaps you’re suspecting that I’m writing this as a backhanded way to get back into Wikipedia (not the case, trust me – I’m quitting) but I’d still like to state my take on all of this. I’m an old hand here. Been here 13+ years. When I first started out, sure enough I got into wiki-battling, jousting over what went in, and frankly, and I think this is true for most of us here, initially, is that we enjoy the wikibattling. Admit it; it’s kind of fun. We get to play like wiki-lawyers. I was pretty good at the game. So are you guys: hey, don’t believe me, then reread this thread! What happened to me, during my tenure here, is that I learned, slowly, that I really didn’t like how I felt afterwards. So as time passed, I really came to try to avoid it, and to focus on creating good content. So, backtrack to last November, when I got ‘caught’ for COI editing, I figured it was just more wiki-battlers wanting to joust, and I didn’t want any more of that. I had Covid twice in the past two years, the first time quite seriously, and I don’t want to waste my time any more on this stuff. When I tried writing again, I was hounded left and right, with every thing I did being flagged as a COI violation, and the only way I thought I could avoid the wiki-battling was to try to write using another handle. And that from my point of view, having to reveal all of my associations would be more wiki-battling, more waste of time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know; nobody reading this will trust me, but I’m telling you truthfully, how I’ve been thinking.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, again, returning to my earlier question, what’s the problem? I think I’m good and right. Others think they’re right. Yet we have this conflict. What gives?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I did a little thought experiment. Suppose I have a friend who’s a hacker, who has a way to get into Wikimedia’s databases, and can ‘reveal’ who you people are. Doesn’t it strike you as a little odd that most of you, writing under aliases, are fingerwagging me, who writes using his real name? But suppose I could lift the veil on you people, find out who you really are, then google your real names and your past editing history, and what do you think we’d find? I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings. We’d find that some of you edit for money. But then we’d look a little deeper at the particular edits you did, you horrendous COI editors you, and I bet we’d find that almost all of them were imminently reasonable, maybe sometimes with a little puffery, but verifiable with good reliable references, that if I went over all of your collective supposed COI contributions, I wouldn’t delete anything because they were all good.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Think about it this way. I’ve been ‘exposed’ as a COI editor for months now, with numerous smart and sharp contributors going over everything I’ve ever edited here, but none of the articles I’ve written have been deleted. Why not? Because every wiki-bio article I’ve written deserves to belong here. They all meet the tests of notability. I can’t put my friends in here if my friends aren’t notable. But they’re notable. Many times I’ve made friends with people online after putting them in Wikipedia, usually after I’ve tried to beg them for a photo. (But navigating Wikimedia Commons is as some of you know a Kafka-esque pursuit).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what I’m thinking at this point is that we ought to take a more hard-headed look at the COI guideline. Suppose there’s a public relations person who wants to write about their company, here in Wikipedia. Suppose there’s one of you people who want to write about your friends or your church or whatever. Suppose, further, you followed the rules – you were neutral, you referenced, your edits were verifiable. Would your edits be so bad? They’re checkable. You couldn’t just write anything. You had to use secondary sources not primary ones. You couldn’t engage in original research. See. from my viewpoint, these are constructive additions to this magnificent encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider, further, that it is really tough for us contributors here to try to attribute motives of contributors, and then to try to judge whether those motives are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. As I said, most of us here use alias handles so nobody knows who anybody else is. So we can’t even begin to try to track down the motives of anonymous contributors. Consider that I’ve been here 13+ years, using my real name, and it took that long to supposedly catch me and my supposed infractions. Even back in 2011, I declared my association to my late father, but it took more than a decade to have my COI discovered. The way Wikipedia is set up is not conducive to hunting down COI editors. It’s too tough. So it’s kind of like we’re operating on the honor system, as if we’re assuming that others (editing anonymously) will declare their supposed connections.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What the current COI guideline can do, however, is turn us all against each other, to fingerwag, to encourage wiki-battling. In my case, the COI guideline has been abused to turn good contributors like Melcous into hounders. Melcous isn’t at fault here; it’s the COI guideline that is at fault.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, what to do? My recommendation is keep the COI guideline but phrase it more like an encouragement, a request, but use it with greater discretion, and realize that the other guidelines like notability and reliable sources and verifiability and secondary sources and no original research, etc, take precedence. That’s how I see what’s happened here, is that the enforce-the-COI thing got out of hand, that it turned good contributors like Melcous against good contributors such as myself, and in the wiki-battling, painted me as some form of quasi wiki-criminal, even though for years I’ve been a top creator of good content. That’s what I’m saying: rethink the COI guideline. Keep the COI editing flags since they can help readers judge whether the article is fair or not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s my two cents. Trust me, I’m gone. Bye folks. With my reputation in tatters here, I'm not the one to go crusading for such a change. Remember to please ban me. Peace.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your two cents? Bishonen | tålk 20:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    @Tomwsulcer: All you had to do was simply declare that you had connections with the people you wrote about. That's all. The purpose is simply to get others to check what you write, and adjust it for any excessive praise (for example). It's not hounding, it's cooperative editing. And that's all Meclous was doing. No, your articles have not been deleted. But they have been edited for content, with excessive puffery removed. And that is what COI policy is there for. You accept it, or you leave - and it's a shame you chose to refuse to accept it and leave. Boing! on Tour (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tomwsulcer: I would have liked to see you accept responsibility for your actions, help clean up some of the things you have written, and carry on editing with a new understanding of what other users expect from you. What I see is you saying that you are a great person and a great editor and if you broke the rules then the rules must be wrong. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I bet 40% of you will have written about your own company, your organizations, your friends, your siblings - Yikes. This is perhaps the most cynical and/or pessimistic estimate of COI in the active Wikipedia community that I've come across. I can only gauge my estimate by my interactions with people here and Wikipedians whose real identities I know, but my take (and hope) is that it's much lower. But you do make a good point about use of real names. It does, I'm sure, feel quite unfair and perhaps even creepy to have a bunch of pseudonymous people on the internet pointing fingers at your family connections while keeping their own connections secret. It presents an asymmetric field that removes the possibility of exploring tu quoques. Sadly, that people do sometimes use Wikipedia to write about their families at length, and fail to hide it, makes it harder for those of us who want to discourage this sort of personal digging. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such cynicism may perhaps be prompted by encountering Guide to Literary Agents (AfD discussion), a directory for authors to contact publishers edited by Chuck Sambuchino, with the Wikipedia article written by Csambuchino (talk · contribs). There's a parallel to Neguev (talk · contribs) writing about Reedsy (AfD discussion). I touched on the account names thing further down in this discussion. I've gone through some of Tomwsulcer's AFD contributions, and xe does seem to grasp the basic ideas, and would actually find a widespread agreement on some of the things that xe says. Where we differ, I suspect, is that it is my experience that the people with conflicts of interest tend in the main to be single purpose accounts or to edit in little walled gardens, or only edit the "bands, biographies, and businesses" subset of Wikipedia. I'm unconvinced that that such disagreement is something to ban for. I think that people are, however, reacting to the failure to say something simple like "I'm just a satisfied customer. They didn't pay me. If anything, I paid them!". Uncle G (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It would bring him much virtual peace. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If anyone is still in doubt, check out this (and thanks to the individual who alerted me to it). It's a blatant piece of promotional puffery, with a lot of it (including the lead) sounding like it was written by the company's marketing department. Oh, and yes, you can guess who wrote it. I think Tomwsulcer's work needs some serious review and rewriting - I wonder how much more of this promotional garbage there is out there? (I'll start a little pruning on this one myself ...on further examination, I think it's beyond salvage in its current state and I've gone for AFD). Boing! on Tour (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interestingly, at Special:Undelete/Reedsy, at the second (correction: third) creation of the article in 2017, there is an edit summary from Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) claiming no association with Reedsy. Off-wiki evidence leads me to suspect that "I am merely a satisfied customer." would have been better. Moreover, I personally do not fault writing with a non-pseudonymous account when the subject is close to onesself. Although for many years I have offered the advice at User:Uncle G/On sources and content and User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you that one has to be very careful indeed about it and use only independent sources, which press releases and puffery most definitely are not. I think that failure to distinguish which secondary sources are good secondary sources is one cause of the problem here. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is circumstantial evidence that Tomwsulcer had collaboration from the company to write that article, at the time a whole load of its blatantly promotional content was added. I can't be confident that it's any more than Tom asking them to upload photos for him to use, and Tom's "gushing praise" style could account for the promotional content. But in combination with a professional connection with the company (though which Tom received professional services), this all makes it clear that a COI should have been declared so it could be reviewed by other editors under COI policy. There's no way all that puffery would have been acceptable by any review process (eg AFC) had such a review happened. Boing! on Tour (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, and yes, if Tom denied any connection with Reedsy at Special:Undelete/Reedsy (which I can't access), then the off-wiki evidence suggests that was not accurate. But we've already seen in the above discussion how ready he is to deny connections that he really does have. Boing! on Tour (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 7

    Special:Contributions/1.36.236.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 1 August in 2020 (only 1.36.236.68 is not),please block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    MCC214, you didn't ping me this time! I'm trying to get a streak here. El_C 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, this LTA abuse two IP range,

    1. Special:Contributions/42.3.188.0/24, only it edit in this IP range after 17 October in 2016,zh.wiki blocked .
    2. Special:Contributions/112.118.32.0/23, only it edit in this IP range after 29 May in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

    Please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/203.218.225.0/24, only it edit in this IP range after 5 July in 2019,zh.wiki blocked.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 08:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks MCC214, got it. El_C 02:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamkar 99

    User Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the text with sources from the article List of Hazara tribes and continues the edit war. I have added information (on the identity of the Behsud and Besud tribes) verified by reliable sources, including secondary sources. Calls for consensus on talk page were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he described the sources I added as follows: "So the information is poor and needs to be edited and deleted". To a request for a more reasonable argument, I received the following answer: "This is my own conclusion." I suggested that he stop deleting sources and, in order to comply with the WP:NPV I invited him to add his sources. In response, he added a source in Persian (which I can't verify yet) and removed the sources and information I added earlier. Now he reverted (diff) my edit with the following description: incorrect and pan-Mongolism edits. I think such accusations are WP:DE and a violation of the rules prescribed in WP:CONS, WP:NPV. Also the accusation of pan-Mongolism is a direct violation of Godwin's Law (I think such accusations are unacceptable on Wikipedia). I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me add here that previously both users asked me to do something with their opponent, and I really think what is happening in the article is not ok. It can certainly benefit from an administrator looking at it.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon

    Reporting User:Dicklyon for continued disruptive editing on hundreds and hundreds of articles. It took me hours yesterday to undo only some of his 100s of edits, of which he was warned. A discussion was opened about this right here because another editor disagreed with his changing 100s to 1000s of articles. While discussing, of which I see no consensus and where he pinged another editor with the same pet peeve he has, he starts doing it again tonight. After 2+ days of discussion! He has done this multiple times at Tennis Project articles where some of us have to revert all his edits. He never does just one. While a couple of us vehemently disagree with his view, we had discussed changing the header to something different that could work for all. Instead, he goes and claim consensus and 100s more have been changed.

    This has to stop. I'm not sure Tennis Project has ever been busier in fixing these trivial items than we are the past month. We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. If this was the first time he has done this it might be handled differently but this is blatant in our faces disruptive editing and he should absolutely be required to revert all his edits until the Tennis project figures out how best to handle its chart columns and rows. This is urgent because he is changing so many articles even now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The tennis articles are indeed very busy in fixing trivial over-capitalization issues, since there are so many of them and since they're pretty easy to fix with JWB. But you've chosen to pick on one particular fix for reasons that are hard to understand and have been roundly rejected at the discussion you linked at WikiProject Tennis; more days won't change that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get 2+ days of roundly rejected by the same crew that always follows you around. One of which you invited KNOWING how they feel. It is not consensus, you were warned as such, it's under discussion, and yet still you change 1000 articles. The Project will very likely change this to something else like W–L if a heavy consensus ever forms to that odd pairing you want. You are blatantly misusing JWB for the umpteenth time and it must stop. I would be inclined to take that gadget away from you it's gotten so bad. That is why we are here; your disregard for the situation, and the discussion. And this has happened before very recently. You should know better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did ping the editor who had done similar changes there before; his edits were not objected to. As for blatantly misusing JWB, I don't know what you're referring to; are there accusations some place? I generally use it only for uncontroversial simple pattern fixes, such as downcasing per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They have been controversial and you know they have been controversial. This is an item that will affect every single tennis bio in existence. Countless thousands or 10s of thousands. If there is something you don't like about a chart, the TennisProject may change things to make it more palatable. A handful of your buddies should not be able to change every tennis bio.... that requires a massive consensus. And 2+ days of talk and changing a thousand articles after being told not to is DISRUPTIVE EDITING. You should know that in your 16 years of editing as it's been told to you recently. It was also told to you in discussion that it's not clear with W–L|(16–7) and Win–Loss|(16–7) that MOSCAPS applies. You said yourself that W–L is functional, not W–l. But this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss your blatant disruptive editing in the midst of 2+ day discussion that has no consensus, where you went and changed 1000 articles to your way of thinking that now MUST be changed back. That is wrong and will always be wrong and you need to be reprimanded for doing it yet again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Countless thousands or tens of thousands"? No. There are 1397 tennis biographies with the table row header "Win–loss". This is the only recent place where you and Sportsfan have objected to using sentence case and prefer to use title case; but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was about to raise the issue of Dicklyon's recent edits with JWB here at ANI as well. I am the editor that Fyunck(click) refers to above who "disagreed with [Dicklyon] changing 100s to 1000s of articles". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The main issue with their editing is that they are already making hundreds of edits to implement what they voted for in a discussion that is still active. It may very well be the case that their personal preference wins the discussion, but whether or not it does is not the issue here. The issue is that they are basically WP:SNOW-closing their own discussion after three days. Before they made their recent batch of edits, I suggested an alternate option that only Dicklyon is against, but most others haven't commented on yet because it wasn't part of the original post that started the discussion. To me, it's pretty well-accepted at Wikipedia that if there's an active discussion going on (and especially if you have already been reverted), you don't make changes to implement your option until after the discussion is over. That goes against WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Another thing to note is that Dicklyon has been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So my last 6 years or so of good work since being welcomed back is to be ignored in favor of this long memory of a bad time? Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not being blocked in the last 6 years doesn't mean you've been doing good work all that time. It could just mean you've gotten better at avoiding a block. Plus, you were blocked in 2019 as well, so not completely better at it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A third thing to note is that Dicklyon did the exact same thing last month in which they rushed through a change affecting dozens of articles after leaving that discussion open for not even two days (see here). I warned them against doing that earlier in this new discussion here, yet they still ignored it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How is that the exact same thing? Did anyone object? How does your "warning" of March 6 relate to my edits of Feb. 21? Did anyone react negatively to any of those changes? Not that I've seen. What are going on about? Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The TennisProject had the same thing happen several months ago with a different user Ruling party for prematurely changing the names of dozens of Davis Cup articles while a discussion was still going on and they were blocked for it (see here). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Those things from Ruling party are nothing to do with me, and completely unknown to me. I'm sorry if you're having a bad time due to the actions of others, but don't put that on me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's the big thing. This is becoming habitual with Dicklyon. He has admitted having a "Pet Peeve" about capitalization with no room for any other views or flexibility. I can guarantee this will not be the last time he does this unless something is done, and I'm really getting tired of doing 100s of reverts ALL because of him. Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked Dicklyon to make those edits based on what I thought was consensus (all the newest tennis season article use a certain format, so I thought it reasonable to apply the same format to older season articles). User:Wolbo has expressed his preference for the older format and reverted the changes. As those edits by Dicklyon were based on my apparent misapprehension of the consensus, they should not factor into anybody here's conclusions about Dicklyon. Letcord (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wolbo: No, the changes I did at Letcord's request at User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task are not the ones at issue here (not clear why Sportsfan is throwing in this distractor, or why Fy is using it as somehow supporting his issue that he came here about; there was no contention or disruption, but a little reverting since I took your request as representing something the project wanted, which wasn't right). I took those to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task, and undid some of them, but we didn't undo the case fixes; nobody objected to lowercase "draw". Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. Unless there is a discussion showing a consensus for the recent changes, I support an indefinite topic ban for Dicklyon to prevent changing the case of letters and to prevent the discussion of changing the case of letters. A harmonious community is the most important asset we have. If necessary, I'll later dig up a few of the previous battles about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Fy already linked the discussion showing consensus for "Win–loss", and MOS:CAPS has broad consensus. Of my last 20,000 or so case-fixing edits of the last month or so, there's this one little item that he and Sportsfan are the only ones objectig to. They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Are_"Men's_Singles"_and_"Women's_Doubles",_etc.,_proper_names? waw clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a blatant lie. Consensus was not reached in 2+ days. I'm not sure how you figure these things. To change every single tennis bio takes a lot more than a couple of friends agreeing with you. They are always the same couple plus you called one over in canvassing. With discussions like these an alternative may find a place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of Wikipedia having a long consensus about how to capitalize. Article titles, section headings and table headings are in sentence case. A local consensus does not outweigh a Wikipedia wide guideline. Yes, while this is being discussed, such edits should stop, but there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This also happened at New York City Subway, Dicklyon attempted to ram through a page move to "New York City subway", subtly changed section headers of user's responses to the page move, accused the relister of "canvassing" and then immediately opened a move review (also failed) when the outcome wasn't in his favor. As such I also support an Indef topic ban. Cards84664 16:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As for subtly changing the section heading, I was reverting to the original heading that I created in this edit, which someone else had subtly changed without my consent. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the proper RM and MR processes there. How is this "ramming through"? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The closing notes of the review specify that there should be "no rush to renew the discussion". Cards84664 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. It was a 10-year interval before the previous re-opening, and I don't expect to bring it up again in this decade. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the interval between this re-opening and the review. Cards84664 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The move review followed shortly after the RM discussion close. That's standard. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion, but the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. I oppose any warnings/sanctions against Dicklyon based on the evidence so far, which shows a bigger problem of a small group of editors trying to invalidate project-wide consensus at a WikiProject talk page. Bigger, but still not that big, as this issue is barely noticeable by readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you think a strong consensus has been reached in that discussion, then close it and leave an explanation of the outcome. Why is it still open then? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Advice received. I do get impatient when people like Fyunck and Sportsfan throw delays into routine work. It took November through February to fix the overcapitalization in "Men's Singles" and such over their objections, but we got it done, including bot approval for thousands of moves. Sometimes a lot of process is needed, but not in the current case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And we get angry when you skirt the system and implement a thousand changes without consensus that we have to fix. And since this happens over and over your "advice received" rings hollow. You need to change your tactics from now on or this will happen again and again. Have you changed back all your edits... I sure don't see it yet! Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no need to get angry. WP:BRD serves us well. I do a lot of bold changes, and about 99% of them never provoke a comment. For the ones that do, we discuss. Did I jump too soon when I thought the consensus of MOS:CAPS was clearly re-affirmed for "Win–Loss"? Perhaps so. Otherwise, my "tactics" are mostly effective and uncontroversial. I've changed the case of about 200,000 letters in recent months, and you're picking on a tiny slice of that, while others are thanking (including 6 in the last few days) and supporting me in moving WP toward better consistency with our WP:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      As for changing back all my edits, of course not. If you mean particularly the downcasing of "Loss" for row header "Win–loss", I've prepared a JWB settings, preparsed, and counted the 1397 tennis bios that that would apply to. I don't want to undo them without consensus, as I'll probably end up re-fixing them again if I do. It's about an hour in each direction. Let's settle it back at the project discussion if there's more to decide, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Therin lies your problem and one reason we are here today. You are putting the cart before the horse. It's do it my way, then hold it hostage until we agree. No thanks. Change them all back because for sure it won't stay that way. As another tennis editor has stated, we will change them all to W–L before we go to Win–loss in the row header. Change your disruptive edits back so the project can decide. It could likely be that no consensus will be reached and nothing will change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This "tennis is so special" argument gets tiresome. No other area would cap them as "Win–Loss". See for example titles: Win–loss, Win–loss record, Win–loss record (pitching), Win–loss analytics, List of all-time NFL win–loss records, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It not a question of tennis being special. What gets tiresome is you using this silly response over and over and over and over. W–l and Win–loss in the table header would be ridiculous no matter where it is located. But again, that's not why we are here. We are here because of your constant over-and-over again disruptive editing. That must STOP. You change hundreds and thousands of articles with no consensus at your own whim and then refuse, as above, to change them back when challenged. That is not the Wikipedia way. That is not working and playing well with others. Your fixation on the most minute supposed rules is a danger to the cohesiveness of working on Wikipedia articles. Again it has to stop. Revert yourself so the Tennis project can look at things. There are at least three editors right now trying to revert all your damages. You may do it in the blink of an eye but it takes us hours and hours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that "W–l" would be a ridiculous header, but nobody has suggested such a thing. I didn't touch any of the headers "W–L". But sentence case headers are normal, not ridiculous. We are not here for any "constant over-and-over again disruptive editing"; we're here because you won't accept the consensus and MOS:CAPS advice to make this header sentence case. If there's something else that brought you here to complain about that, you haven't clarified what. I've done over 20,000 edits in tennis articles fixing case errors, and while you delayed me a few months with discussions on a few of them such as "Men's Singles", the consensus there was clear, and I got no pushback while or after doing all those. In a later round of case cleanups, you decided to react to this one table header. Why? Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, that is not why we are here. We are here because of your disruptive conduct, and fabricating consensus over 10,000 articles that are managed as best as possible by WikiProject Tennis and others. Win–Loss in a row is not clear and is a minor blip, yet it was being discussed and 2+ days later you puffed up your feathers and changed 100s or articles... which are still not reverted by your disruptive editing by the way. Before making all those changes you should have waited a week or so until an easily seen consensus (or not) appeared. Had we seen some huge Win–loss, tennis project would likely have said to change them all to W–L instead, as we do at the top of the table. That would be the time to do those changes and not before. You work with people and you don't ram things down their throats with 1000 disruptive edits. Your style seems to be with a baseball bat and a shredder as opposed to discussion and compromise. That has grown tiresome and you have been called to the mat on it here.
      At the very least we see that others have the same issue with your disruptive editing style and if it happens again you could be topic banned or blocked. I'd rather you change your ways than have that happen. I'd rather you not sit there with a stopwatch to tick off the days of a discussion. I'd rather you say at the end of a discussion "do we all feel like this has run its course?"; "Do we have any alternate suggestions that could work to get even more editors onboard?"; "Do we allow some more time for those who could be on vacation or could be involved in humanitarian aid?". Those are things that play well with editors. That means you are trying to find the best solution for everyone involved instead of bulldozing the conversation. But right now, your continued actions have me not trusting any of your motives or any of your edits. I feel I have to scrutinize all your tennis edits for fear they have overstepped. I don't want to feel that way, but I do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I do hope you and others will scrutinize my edits and let me know if I get something wrong. But this thing about "Win–loss" being disruptive is nuts. If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a lie. I said I would bring it up a level if you continued without consensus, of which there was none! That is why we are here. Your stated "Per Peeve" on all capitalization issues at Wikipedia, where they become the pinnacle of all issues, where everything else gets pushed aside to the point where you become judge, jury, and prosecution in 2.5 days is a problem. There are so many ways this could have gone where we could have told you to change things to W–L as a compromise. But that was sidestepped by the fervor of that "Pet Peeve." You need to learn to work with people much better than you have been. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't tell what you are saying is a lie. If you're going to make accusations like that, you need to be clear and say what the evidence is. I suggest you retract it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree 100% with the comment by Johnuniq above. I completely understand why people would prefer uniform enforcement of capitalization preferences, and all other things being equal so would I, but there comes a point where the significance of upper- or lower-casing a single letter in a group of thousands of articles is minimal, and fighting an enforcement campaign in that context is not worth the demoralization of other editors that results. (See also my vote comment here.) Deapitalization campaigns, pursued to extremes, have demoralized editors in other topic-areas in the past (the birds project is one example that comes quickly to mind). I see absolutely no value to doing that, and I would urge that editors desist from that sort of behavior. As for Dicklyon specifically, I first recall encountering him in this absurd AfD about 15 years ago. I was unimpressed by his hyper-rules-oriented approach then, and I see little evidence that it has changed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, way to carry a grudge, NYB! Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For goodness sake, over-lowercasing indeed. Can you imagine what the abbreviation would soon look like? "W-l", rather the "W-L". What's next to come? Infobox titles or maybe Article titles? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Initialism type abbreviations use caps. There has been no controversy about "W–L", which is used many times in all the articles in question. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And article titles already use Win–loss. Note that I have not touched that disambig page; it's longstanding consensus to follow our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've often thought (and said) that Dicklyon is a bad advocate for his own case, but absent in all this is any principled justification for not changing the tennis articles to be internally consistent and like the other articles. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS isn't something we generally encourage, and for all that it doesn't seem to be the case that there is a local consensus within the tennis project in favor of the status quo. I'm also not sure what to make of the "W-l" strawman, given that no one appears to have suggested such a thing (and it would be ridiculous). These discussions are difficult enough without wasting people's time attacking things that no one has proposed doing. Mackensen (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Johnuniq, I support a topic ban for Dicklyon (from MOS:CAPS and WP:TENNIS). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's at least a few of the times above where Dicklyon has claimed consensus where there isn't:

    My guess is this is only going to continue. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, with Dicklyon's statement that:They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC), this isn't true. I got what I wanted (e.g. "Men's singles"). Dicklyon did not ("men's singles"). That's why I think Dicklyon is WP:HOUNDING the Tennis Project, and that's why I think a topic ban is warranted. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That RM discussion closed in support of exactly the moves I proposed. You did not participate; at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#More_discussion_about_dashes_in_sporting_event_titles you said the capitalized Men's Singles needed to be kept as a proper name: The sub-titles could always be justified as proper nouns, so MOS:SENTENCECAPS wouldn't apply. Why are you trying to rewrite history about that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted here (I voted for B or E. The winning option was Option B). Dicklyon's vote is clearly for A or D. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sportsfan77777: You seem rather mixed up here. We were speaking about the RM discussion that I started on Jan. 8, and you're now referring back to the RFC that preceded it. I took the result of that RFC into account when proposed the moves in the RM. Rather than pushing my own preference, I proposed moves that looked like they would be more likely to get consensus, based on the rather mixed results in that RFC. So I chose one of the options that you had previously supported. In the RM, you didn't comment. I think I did the right thing here. Was there an issue? Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's exactly what I said. You changed your vote. I didn't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the Tennis Project makes no edits, it cannot be hounded. Your bad-faith assumptions and wild accusations are pretty tiresome. Primergrey (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean no edits? A project can absolutely be hounded. Dicklyon never edited tennis articles before. They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop. If that's not hounding, then what is? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A good faith-assuming version of that history is that he stumbled upon a capitalization issue in one set of tennis articles, fixed it, and then progressively found many more in other types of tennis articles (bios, draws, seasons) over time. I do agree though that he jumped the gun a bit in interpreting the consensus in the "Win–loss" discussion, and should revert himself if consensus ends up being for "Win–Loss". Letcord (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have said that I am prepared to put them back to "Win–Loss" quickly if there's a consensus to do so; but that won't happen, since it's against MOS:CAPS, which says we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a non-zero chance that it will happen. I also think from the limited I've seen of your editing that you've not displayed "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as is required to post about someone here, so this public pillorying of you is undeserved. Letcord (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop.". "Nonstop" must mean something different than I think it does, then. Because his recent editing history is virtually all to NFL team articles and some MLB players. Does that mean he is hounding WP:SPORTS? You continue to be disingenuous in your lathered-up attempt to circumvent WP processes. Primergrey (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If one reads the discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, one thing is immediately apparent to me - the language being used. It is very strongly WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. The "apparent" trigger for this "incident" would appear to be DL concluding and acting upon a consensus from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. If it is simply their volume of edits, there is no incident. As SchreiberBike observes: ... there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. Firefangledfeathers observes: ... the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. While Firefangledfeathers observe (and DL acknowledges), more time might have been given, one should consider the pattern of engagement at WikiProject Tennis. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? petered out in the same timeframe as the current discussion (ie just under 3 days) and, by my count, received 4 comments from card-carrying members of the tennis project. DL has regularly engaged with the project and in notified discussions elsewhere. If one reads the discussion fully, arguments about "W/l" are a red herring and the most recent comments at WikiProject Tennis are (IMHO) at best, novel but are clearly contrary to guidance and clutching at straws. Not even the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines were consistent in capitalising "win-loss" in tables (see this).
    I would remark on these particular comments at WikiProject Tennis: even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization and We would change it to W–L if it came to that. These statements (to me) signal petulance, WP:GAMING (WP:POINTy) and unacceptable intractability. This "threat" has been acted upon with this edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. If Fyunck(click) would ague that: Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do, who is now going to act to address this? If this "incident" is primarily that DL hasn't gained a consensus for their edits or hasn't waited sufficiently for the discussion to evolve, I am at a loss as to how this action (amending the guideline) isn't a case of WP:POT. This is an ill-considered change that doesn't serve our readers since it provides for no guidance (legend) that would now explain this abbreviation where previously it might have been deduced. If we weren't sailing close to WP:BOOMERANG before, I think it should now be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this is a legitimate issue. The discussion linked was not an RfC and did not need to be formally closed to find consensus for a change. I'd advise Dicklyon to be less hasty but leaving this ANI thread open is not likely to improve things; nor has Dicklyon done anything worthy of any sanction. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with Elli. I'll add that what is going on here is that a handful of people (mostly along WP:SSF lines) don't like MOS:CAPS but know they are not likely to get any traction on changing its central message – that WP doesn't capitalize things that are not overwhelmingly capitalized in modern source material, and not just specialized source material but general-audience source material like news, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Instead they attempt to resist implementation of MOS:CAPS (and the derived WP:NCCAPS) at "their" articles (WP:OWN), and to use WP:POVRAILROAD techniques to hassle editors like Dicklyon who just are applying the guidelines correctly. What's especially irritating is that the most frequent "noise" of this sort is coming out of sports and games wikiprojects, after a clear RfC implemented MOS:GAMECAPS specifically to curtail overcapitalization in those topic areas. What we have here is a WP:CONLEVEL failure wherein a handful of wikiprojects refuse to recognize that a site-wide guideline overrules their topic-specific personal preferences. This ANI should close without action other than perhaps WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The attitude that the capitalization conventions in the MOS are a top-level priority, which must be aggressively enforced despite the strong preferences of the editors who actually create and maintain the articles in their fields of expertise, has over the years caused a great deal of damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • SMcCandlish, the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. In most of these situations, even if Dicklyon is correct that it is a MOS:CAPS violation, there are usually multiple options about what to change it to. Dicklyon does not just get to decide which one to go with. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        If I've done something where the Tennis Project comes to a consensus that there's a better solution, let me know and I'll be glad to help get it done (assuming it doesn't go against guidelines). Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" so that is of concern as well. Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) and was told as much before this ANI was brought to bear. But I'll tell you one thing... that boomerang statement tells me all I need to know and is probably a good reason why you failed in your attempt to gain administration level. That is ridiculous bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that it is accurate to say that: There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. I am not seeing any such comment at the tennis project discussion. The objections being made appear to be based on personal preference without any reference to how MOS:CAPS may or may not apply to this case. Also, MOS:CAPS is quite explicit by virtue of a directly comparable analogy at MOS:ENBETWEEN. Also, I don't think that it is quite accurate to say: There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" .... If you are referring to this RM, then the close states: No consensus exists for the secondary proposal that all letters after the dash should be lowercase. It was "no consensus". Also, while both cases use a dash, the grammatical contexts are quite different, as is how the dash is used (spaced or unspaced). When stated: Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) .... This clearly fails to acknowledge that P&G are a representation of broad community consensus. Making a statement: That is a lie. is an allegation. There is no significant difference between saying that and saying "you are lying" or "you are a lier". If one is going to make such assertions, one really needs to ensure that their own statements are scrupulously accurate or risk WP:POT. To the last of the post, we are getting into WP:NPA territory. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much agree with everything Newyorkbrad said above. It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're battles to be won. I'm not surprised to see this ANI report against Dicklyon, and I think an indefinite topic ban (from the MOS, or at least from MOS:CAPS) for the user is warranted. Also, Dicklyon's WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) as linked above is also very concerning, since those sockpuppets' edits involved MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc., and here we are in 2022 with complaints of disruptive editing by Dicklyon regarding those same types of issues. Some1 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a big secret that I oppose the lower-casing push on Wikipedia, that's been happening for roughly 2 years now. I believe that article titles & infobox titles are among the few areas left, that haven't been lower-cased (or at least not entirely). At some point, there's bound to be a push back, whether it's against one editor or a group of editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a lowercasing push so much as a push for congruence with the guidance of MOS:CAPS. Article titles and infobox titles are uniformly done in sentence case. Where there are exceptions, they should be fixed. But yes, it's no big secret that you oppose such fixing. And I've been doing it for over 15 years, so you're a relative newcomer to his area. Do you like to push your own style? Why? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The charges against Dicklyon are spurious. As others have said above, this is just another example of small groups of editors in particular topic areas attempting to assert control over what they perceive as their WP:OWN territory. I am sure their efforts are made in WP:GOODFAITH, but Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopaedia, not a specialist tennis chronicle, and avoids WP:JARGON wherever possible, no matter the field being described. Luckily for us, WP:CONLEVEL explains that our policies and guidelines cannot be overruled by small consensuses of editors in particular topic areas. If these editors have a problem with the guidelines on capitalisation, they should make an effort to change them, or seek some sort of broader community consensus for an exception in the particular case of tennis articles. There are no grounds, however, for 'shooting the messenger' of the MoS that is Dicklyon. Overall community support for MOS:CAPS has been demonstrated time after time. Mr Lyon may sometimes be 'too quick to pull the trigger' when making these kinds of changes, but that doesn't negate the value of his tireless work to ensure our encyclopaedia meets a professional standard of stylisation. A topic ban would be disastrous for Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rarely opine on this board and am myself no expert as to misadventure, but I was active in the 2015? thread when Dicklyon got blocked for sockpuppetry and since this enforcement tool has been mentioned, I am going to narrate boldly for perspective. I don't even remember the specific disagreement (likely similar to this one--MOS vs. local consensus), but I remember User:RGloucester tried lots of ways to get folks to recognize Dicklyon's socking (a very new and unexpected development at the time). My recollection is that RGloucester got himself blocked saying something inexplicable to get folks to listen. I actually remember screaming "noooo!" at the screen, reading RGloucester's words. Later we found out RGloucester was right the whole time. Dicklyon took his punishment, tried very hard to not edit, and re-applied for editing sooner than he probably should have. But IMHO if any editor on Wikipedia has a reason to hold a grudge against Dicklyon, it's RGloucester. If HE says such current charges are spurious, I'm inclined to listen closely to him THIS time. BusterD (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      RGloucester and I reconciled just fine (see his comments just above). My socking was designed to tweak him into accusing me, and it worked great. I'm very sorry I took that route, and I've done my time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the suggestion of a topic ban was made much too hastily. Despite the enthusiastic attempts by a few editors to personally discredit Dicklyon, he is at most guilty of overzealous enforcement of the Manual of Style. It would not be reasonable to impose sanctions here and this matter should have been handled with more AGF and less venom. While I don't think we are in boomerang territory just yet, cheap shots like this one are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I probably should not have written that to be sure. It stems from something in the past where he was reprimanded by administration for hammering on me at Wikipedia. I apologize for bringing it up but his statement about me and my motives is perceived as biased and unfair and I just boiled over in reading it. I'm still angry in reading his post again right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should just be closed with no action needed. Wikiprojects exist to serve wikipedia, not the other way around. An editor enforcing the MOS (even in banal ways like this) is not an issue. Hell it should be appreciated by topic editors as something they don't have to do. If it is demoralising editors as suggested above, it probably says more about those editors than anything else. Aircorn (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How absurd can this get?

    Now Sportsfan7777 is saying that I'm at it again by fixing the over-capitalization of "Strike Rate". See this revert. What crazy theory is behind such picking on routine case fixing? See WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tooltips, too for discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Strike rate refers to two different statistics in the sport of cricket. What does that have to do with tennis? wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know it means in cricket or even in tennis, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be capped. See n-grams. Or book search. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, Dicklyon? You've exhausted all higher-priority tasks for fixing incorrect visible text, and now you're going after tool-tips that are only visible when you hover over them? How do you set your priorities? There's a ton of stuff worse than this lingering around the project that somehow you've missed. wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia editing is my hobby; I don't aim to be as productive or efficient as possible, just work on fixing things I find wrong. Thank you for your concern. But if there are things wrong that you'd like me to help with, let me know; I usually aim to please (which got me into a bit of pickle with Letcord's suggestion as you can see above). Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if editors were generally called upon to explain what they worked on and why the project would disintegrate. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I interest Dicklyon in working on clearing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations? This is something only I have ever worked on for any extended length of time, AFAIK. My time is too oversubscribed to keep it under control. There are over 400 links to Buzzfeed, that should link to BuzzFeed. Hundreds of links to Bachelor of arts that should link to Bachelor of Arts. Same for Bachelor of science and Bachelor of Science. A lot more where those came from, with more added most every day by drive-by biography writers. I don't follow how fixing some tool-tip in a table is higher priority than those. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's fine if you don't follow. No one needs to explain their priorities to you, let alone operate according to your priorities. Primergrey (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to remove the need for fixing Bachelor of science but Chris the speller refused to take it out of the queue. So I think it's reasonable to ask for help. He's not the only editor who keeps piling work on me. wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, yes, I'd be happy to work on more tasks that others think are more important (in addition to what I do organically). Tell me more on my talk page about the nature of the problem and how you go about fixing it. Do you use JWB to generate list of articles linking to wrongly-capitalized redirects to start, and then just do the appropriate replaces? Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chris the speller: so if you two disagree on whether "Bachelor of Science" needs caps or not, did either of you open a discussion on that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, you both had a word in there, I see now. But nobody cited a relevant section of MOS:CAPS, nor linked it at WT:MOSCAPS#Current, so nothing is resolved except that the two of you have different priorities, which is not novel. If we agree it needs fixing, I can whip it out in a few minutes with JWB. So agree first. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    wbm1058, it is categorically impossible for me to pile work on you. Please see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:VOLUNTEER. You are painting me as stubborn for marking a redirect as a miscapitalization 10 months ago. Dictionaries show "Bachelor of Science" as capitalized, as it is a specific, formal distinction. A "bachelor of science" is an unmarried man who plays with test tubes. Your fight is not with me, but with a bunch of lexicographers. Chris the speller yack 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, we three agreed, and I went through and fixed all those links to capped Bachelor of Science. In the process, I accidentally didn't restrict to main space, and ended up editing this conversation as I clicked through too fast. Sorry about that. I also noticed that I need to go and fix Bachelor of Science in Xxx to lowercase xxx. Will work on that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is complete BS. I didn't say the tooltip should be capitalized. I said either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely --- tooltip use is discouraged because tooltips are not very accessible on mobile devices. We moved the explanation of SR to the performance key to explain it there. Many of our articles don't have the tooltips anymore, but as far as I know there was never a discussion about whether to remove them from all articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    True, your edit summary did say either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely as you restored title-case Strike Rate. Sorry if I didn't characterize your revert exactly correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, with clear reason to remove the tooltip template, and make the dispute redundant, Sportsfan77777 chose to revert the edit - an action that keeps the dispute alive. This strikes me as being rather WP:POINTy, since the actions required are rather trivial. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The point is not about MOS:CAPS at all. If you want to make a wide-scale change, you need to start a discussion first. This applies to everyone, but Dicklyon wants some kind of special privilege. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, Why do we still, after all these years since National Football League draft (this discussion was SIX years ago!) need to keep driving (at Talk:Norwegian First Division#Over-capitalization) home that MOS:CAPS does not decide whether a thing is a Thing that has a proper name or just a generic thing that doesn't? wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Some background

    The great majority of my edits in the tennis space (about 20,000 edits) can be understood from the discussion at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Bot for renaming/moving tennis articles. The only comments I got there were about things that I failed to fix, so I kept at collecting over-capitalization patterns and fixing them. All was fine until Sportsfan reverted a change of "Win–Loss" to "Win–loss" in a table header. So we discussed that at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, and appeared to have strong support (only Sportsfan and Fyunck objecting) for following MOS:CAPS instead of Sportsfan's variant style, so I went back to it. This is not at all the picture that he and Fyunck paint above which somehow has me harassing him or the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Some other changes that ended up being partly reverted can be understood from User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task and WT:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task. Please read and you'll see I'm trying my best to be cooperative with the project. Dicklyon (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry but I can't see how implementing a mass-change against consensus is in anyway being "cooperative with the project." — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point out when/where you think I did that? Maybe a diff or two, so I can see what you're accusing me of? As you told some above, That is a very serious accusation. You need to provide evidence, or withdraw this accusation at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: again, if you have evidence that I have been "implementing a mass-change against consensus", please link it here. Otherwise please retract this accusation, which is a wild extrapolation of what brought us here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it is a "wild extrapolation" and will not be withdrawing it. Please do not ping me again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd ask if you will be substantiating your accusation for the benefit of those of us who are trying to wrap their heads about this thread, but I doubt if you'll see my comment. If someone doesn't want to be pinged back to a discussion, they really shouldn't lob an accusation before leaving. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously he will not be substantiating his accusation, since I never did any "implementing a mass-change against consensus"; he just read too much into the complaint and extrapolated to that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the read the discussion above, Lepricavark. Dicklyon "implemented a mass-change against consensus" four times last week alone, including once after this ANI started. All but one of those changes are still being discussed, while the other one was reverted back to what it was before Dicklyon made the changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the massive thread, thank you very much. What I saw was a tantrum by the OP, who acted as if a series of minor stylistic changes was somehow the end of life as we know it. For example: We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. Fyunck unironically stated that reverting stylistic edits had become a higher priority than dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry. Do I agree that Dicklyon carried things a little bit too far and acted a little bit too eagerly? Yes. Did it justify the character assassination perpetrated above? Absolutely not. Also, I see no evidence of Dicklyon violating an existing consensus. He may have been too eager to claim that a consensus existed, but given that he was merely trying to bring articles into compliance with the MOS as he understood it, I'm not sure it was reasonable to expect him to seek consensus in the first place. I really don't think it matters if the tables say 'Win-loss', 'Win-Loss', or 'W-L'. But what I do care about is the manner in which this dispute has been needlessly personalized against one individual. Cooler heads need to prevail. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no horses in this race whatsoever; if anything, I have viewed Dicklyon as a rather charitable editor who was kind to me when I first started editing.
    That said, I think Dicklyon is wrong here, and I am wondering why he has forgotten that Wikipedia is this funky mundane miracle wherein everyone gets together to collate knowledge into an encyclopedia that most get to edit and everyone gets to use. Yes, there are rules in place to govern how we interact with each other, but the overriding unspoken truth is that without that collaborative effort to work together, it all falls apart.
    And Dicklyon, your actions have repeatedly worked to sidestep that collaboration. Never mind why you have done it in the past, or why you continue to do it now. What matters is this single inexcusable truth: your actions - in not genuinely seeking to work with other contributors - have proven to be corrosive to the Project. I totally understand why you do it, but its an arrogance, Dick, and one that distances you from others in Wikipedia; it turns you into a Cabal of One. And that effing sucks, man, because you have a lot to offer the community, if you'd but listen to and work with others.
    You need to cowboy up and change how you approach Wikipedia editing. You may not like some of the changes that new generations of editors have brought about, but you either adapt to those rules or walk away. The third option is you get kicked out, and that would be a shit legacy for you. YOU NEED TO RE-THINK THIS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting aside the fact that your very long comment is just a series of generalizations that fails to address any of the specifics of this dispute, you are at least the second person in this megathread to bring up the importance of collaborative work without acknowledging the very real problem of the OP putting their own personal preferences ahead of the MOS. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lepricavark: You said he may have been "too eager to claim that a consensus existed to change tennis charts" and that he had no reason to realize there may be debate on the issue. Even if true, it looks like his eagerness never abates per all his edits in the last several hours, in spite of this discussion going on. Many of those edits are exactly what is being discussed currently elsewhere and why it was brought here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not ideal. Whether or not these edits should be controversial, they clearly are. It would be prudent for him to refrain from making mass edits related to the 'Win-Loss' display while this discussion is ongoing. This is not a matter that is so urgent that it cannot wait for discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Jussie Smollett

    Sentencing is scheduled to occur today in the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax case. [21] The BLP article concerning Smollett was recently the target of multiple editors who insisted he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence, and were prepared to edit war over it (the article already provides appropriate weight in the lead section and in the body with regard to Smollett's legal issues and status). The article currently is protected to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access. Even so, asking for additional eyes on Jussie Smollett, as today's news, whatever it may be, can be expected to revive this disruptive activity. General Ization Talk 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You've had a grand total of 1 talk page discussion about the appropriateness of including "felon" in the lede sentence. [22] Sounds like you're prejudging what the consensus is and I don't see why anyone should be blocked if they "insist he should be described primarily as a felon in the lead sentence". Just because someone is disagreeing with you doesn't make them disruptive. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 21:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: If you'd like to participate in the talk page discussion at Talk:Jussie Smollett#Convicted felon and contribute to the development of a consensus, you are welcome to do so. Those of us who have participated in that discussion and who have experience with editing BLP articles on Wikipedia have thus far rejected the introduction of the term "convicted felon" in the initial sentence of the lead until and unless there is a consensus to do so. Repeatedly making a disputed change to a BLP after being informed that there is no consensus for that change is disruptive. No one has ever been, nor will anyone be, blocked just for disagreeing with me. General Ization Talk 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Opening an ANI thread because of a pure content dispute that's been resolved is somewhat frowned upon and pre-emptively opening an ANI thread for a content dispute that hasn't really had a firm consensus yet is also questionable. I assumed by "recently" you meant the people discussing on the talk page wanting to get this added in, since at the time you posted this the last time people sought to add this information was over 2 months ago while an IP editor made a reverted edit request a few weeks ago. [23] [24] Since that wasn't the case, I don't really get the point of this ANI thread. ANI is usually when you want someone blocked for doing a bad thing recently. It's not a general noticeboard for "this article may have misguided editors doing things they need a warning for in the near future!" That being said, my opinion on this dispute is you should start the RfC yourself and settle the matter. Sure maybe the editors proposing the change should be doing it but they're all new editors who don't know how to start an RfC. If you really want to curb disruption, starting an RfC yourself means inexperienced editors will have the opportunity to easily comment and give their two cents rather than being told to spend an hour or two learning how to make an RFC and getting frustrated then deciding to just editwar. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess: This was not an AN/I complaint, nor a report of or a request for help resolving a dispute. This was a request to administrators for additional eyes on an article due to a history of disruptive editing there, anticipated to resume because of RL news. If you're not interested in offering yours to the task, no one's twisting your arm. I really don't need to justify my posting here to you. General Ization Talk 03:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Agree with Chess; this discussion should not have been opened here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then a constructive and helpful response would be to point out where it should have been opened, not to write an essay telling me why I'm wrong to mention it. General Ization Talk 03:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe there is a right place. The closest might be WP:AN, but it would be better to wait and see if an issue develops and if it does notify the community about it with a post here. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC on the talk page is a good way to get people to opine on a dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is more so for when the dispute is continuing not a prediction of a dispute coming back. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive WP:POINT editing

    In the past, I've gone to ANI about User:Cornerstonepicker's past canvassing and consistent stonewalling in this previous ANI report here, which may be useful context in this situation. However, another incident of disruptive editing has happened..

    Background:

    In December, I started an RfC on Nicki Minaj to re-add the honorific nickname "Queen of Rap" to her lead section, because new sources had come out that supported it. Before that, Cornerstonepicker started an RfC months prior to remove the title from Nicki Minaj. When I started my RfC to readd it per the overwhelming sources, predictably, Cornerstonepicker strongly opposed it. However, the RfC had enough support votes from other editors to pass. Then, shortly after that, he started mass-adding the "Queen of Rap" title to the lead of other female rappers, such as Lil' Kim and Queen Latifah directly after Nicki Minaj's RfC passed.

    If you look at his editing history on those articles, he hadn't edited said artictles for months until after the Nicki Minaj RfC passed, and he edited them to add "Queen of Rap" to their leads, once again after "Queen of Rap" was added to Minaj's lead. Is this not clear disruptive WP:POINT behavior, as he had already previously opposed adding it to Minaj's lead?

    Evidence of WP:POINT disruptive editing
    More evidence of this can be found in edit histories, these are just specific diffs that highlight the pattern.

    Note that Cornerstonepicker only added this content after the RfC had passed, afaik not attempting it before on such a wide scale. He had also reverted anyone that questioned this sudden mass adding of "Queen of Rap" to a lot of articles. I'm not even talking about myself here, a different uninvolved editor had gone to his talk page to question why he was edit warring to add this content in almost every female rapper's lead. The editor had commented how Cornerstonepicker adding it to every female rapper's lead is oversaturation, and asked why he was particularly pushing for the "Queen of Rap" title specifically on those leads, not any other title. shanghai.talk to me 16:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • A note - I've given Shanghai a final warning for edit warring, and while it hasn't been broken yet, there's still an awful lot of reverting going on. Additionally, in my observations, I've noticed that virtually every single edit I've spot-checked has been about adding more positive content about Nicki Minaj, or removing negative information about Nicki Minaj. I'm not saying Cornerstone is innocent, but I do believe there's some WP:OWN and WP:NPOV issues here developing with Shanghai. Take that as you will with reviewing this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Sergecross73: If you look at my edit history, I'm not afraid to add negative information / remove positive information about Minaj when needed. [25] [26] (I can provide more diffs) I've been very open and transparent about being a fan of Minaj, something that Cornerstonepicker himself has attacked me for many times. This is the same person who's been called out for bias against Nicki Minaj by other editors, with seemingly no accountability so far. Meanwhile, I've gotten countless attacks about my transparency to others... shanghai.talk to me 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true that RogueShanghai has not been neutral with regard to Nicki Minaj, adding far too much positive material, and arguing strenuously for more. There's definitely room for a boomerang with this report. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    100% agree with a boomerang - this editor has been here a frankly absurd number of times for the amount of productive edits they have actually made. For those unfamiliar with the history, here's the list of previous ANI and ANEW threads for this editor, in no particular order:
    Given the persistent, long term issues with edit warring, ownership of articles and biased/POV editing I am convinced that a boomerang is needed here. For someone with a total of 1850 article edits the amount of time that has been wasted on this editor is absurd, I cannot see how allowing them to continue editing here would be anything other than a timesink. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't really ping this IP so I'll just normally reply. I'm also concerned that an IP address with only 150 edits that only started editing a lot last month, knows so much about disputes that happened several months ago. Would I be crazy to call sock?
    Three of those ANI reports were by people who had thrown multiple personal attacks at me, which you did not mentioned at all here. One of the reporters even openly misgendered me in the thread. One of those reports is literally by me about the person who had been throwing me personal attacks, and another of those reports was filed by the same person who went to Cornerstonepicker's talk page above.
    I'll say this about my Wikipedia behavior previously in 2021: I'm not proud of it at all and I wish there were so many things I could've done differently. I had only started editing a lot in 2021- I didn't know a lot of the policies, I didn't know how serious edit warring was, and I'm sorry for being stubborn. In my experience, Wikipedia had a very steep learning curve, and there's still stuff that I don't know or that I'm not sure of. I'm really trying here and I feel like I'm getting stonewalled and gaslit continously, to the point where a global steward had noticed it. shanghai.talk to me 22:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP editor who commented above is an incredibly valued long-term contributor to many parts of the project. Please retract your socking accusations. DanCherek (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DanCherek: My bad, I was just suspicious. I'm sorry if this person is actually notable around these parts. shanghai.talk to me 23:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the comments from the admins and the uninvolved editors who have been responding to those threads the exact same issues are showing up over and over and over again: 1) you adding promotional and positive material to articles and generally writing from a fan's POV. 2) You displaying WP:OWNERSHIP behaviour over the article and being unable to accept other people's opinions. 3) You edit warring and being disruptive to try and get your way. I'm not proposing a ban for your benefit, it's for the benefit of everyone else. If you cannot edit articles about Nicki Minaj without us having to have monthly ANI threads about "RogueShanghai and Nicki Minaj" then you should be topic banned. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll address all of these one by one:
    • I've always tried to include reliable notable sources for all of the "promotional" material I add: for example, the "Queen of Rap" title is very well sources, using sources from Billboard, NME, Time Magazine, NBC News. I've already noted below how the previous lead, before I started editing Nicki Minaj, makes note of some achievements like her debut album being certified triple platinum, that aren't in her current lead at all today because while they are notable achievements, they're not due for her lead.
    • What other opinions are being talked about here? Provided the discussion is about content and not other editors, I'm always happy to take it to the talk page.
    • I've avoided edit warring (afaik at least 3RR) as much as possible and have opened multiple discussions on the talk page instead of edit warring. And this is with my edits being stonewalled and removed for no reason for months. That's the entire reason I started editing Katy Perry, as I was sick of the hostile environment on Nicki Minaj.
    No one's managed to point out that I've been doing work on other articles such as Perrys, with no one from that article taking such issue with my edits saying they are "promoting positive material" or "trying to get my way." I've discussed plenty of content on that talk page, and even found the current new image. shanghai.talk to me 03:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: Far too much? All I've been trying to do is to get the article to WP:FA, which I've been working on since last February. I have been transparent about being a fan, yes, but I've always tried to balance it out. Since January, I've literally been cutting down on accomplishments in her lead, minimizing it from four paragraphs to three paragraphs. shanghai.talk to me 22:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of paragraphs in the lead section? People aren't worried so much about that. They are worried about the overly promotional tone that you bring. And your three lead paragraphs are beefier than the previous four paragraphs, almost the same size in total characters, so it's not really much of a reduction. As your older example, you ought to have picked the version of the article as it stood right before you first touched it in November 2020; that version was more succinct, with fewer words in the lead section and also fewer words in the article body. The tone of that version was much more neutral. Back when the bio was listed as a Good Article, it was a decent balance of media observations. Now, it's far too promotional. Binksternet (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Binksternet: If you want to make it about article content "then vs now", let's talk about that.
    Compare the "2014-2017 The Pinkprint" section now vs "when I first touched it". The section previously had a bad flow, had ten paragraphs, and had very poor sources such as "elitedaily.com". Now look at the section that I had recently put a lot of work into cleaning up a couple of days ago. I cut the entire thing down to five paragraphs, kept the relevant stuff (for example, having the entire critical reception in the article body isn't due and instead should be kept for the actual album article), I replaced bad sources, fixed referencing to properly cite magazines instead of "websites", etc.
    This also applies to the Queen section. Before I "touched it", the Queen section had twelve breaks/paragraphs, poor sources, and original research. I cleaned up the bad flow and unnecessary sentences, again fixed references, and cleaned it up. Please tell me that the career section before with its messy sentences and bad flow is better than the version that I had fixed. shanghai.talk to me 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, there's so much positive information / achievements in the previous lead that isn't even noted in the current 2022 lead at all, such as the top five/top ten positions of Starships, Anaconda, Turn Me On, and Chun Li, the triple platinum RIAA status of Pink Friday, the lead sentence calling her an "actress" and a "model", Minaj being cited as one of the most influential female rap artists of all time that Cornerstone has been trying to prevent being readded to Minaj's article. There's actually so much stuff that I purposefully didn't include in Minaj's lead because it wasn't due weight for the lead. I'd even say that the previous sounds more promotional, because of consistent mentioning of U.S. chart positions for a lot of her singles. shanghai.talk to me 00:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These things are not mutually exclusive though. You can be generally be improving the article in some ways, while also skewing things too positively. You can be holding back on adding positive content...and still be adding too much positive content. Sergecross73 msg me 00:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sergecross73:, but Binksternet's entire point was that the article was "worse" off and had a "more promotional tone" when I'm just showing that it's in an arguably better quality. To quote Binksternet, he literally said "that version was more succinct with fewer words in the article body" and a "decent balance." A really long 2018 section isn't a decent balance at all... shanghai.talk to me 02:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to 192.76.8.70 that listed all the reports against RogueShanghai and such behavior on the Nicki Minaj article. The most recent suspicious behavior was:

    • Removing over and over again the reason given by SA victim Jennifer Hough for moving her lawsuit against Minaj and her husband to another state, leaving it at "voluntarily dropped", only quoting Minaj and Minaj's lawyer. RogueShanghai cited "original research" twice for deleting it (when it is explicitly written in the reference). [27] [28]
      • In the same topic, RogueShanghai has kept removing that the accusation is for harassment to "recant her account" [29] [30]
    • Removing the whole Controversy section from the article. [31]
    • Minaj said it so it must be true, examples: [32] [33] [34]
    • Removing the "swollen testicles" part on the vaccine controversy section without pointing out why. [35]
    • More promotional language [36].
    • Instead of removing one word, removing alot of criticism [37]; also citing 'vandalism' to remove criticism [38]

    This account, RogueShanghai, is here with a single purpose. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll respond to a lot of this later- you've taken it a lot of my diffs purposefully out of context, many IPs had in fact vandalized the Boyz article to the point where several admins had to protect it several times. I removed the Controversy section following the advice of an editor who has brought multiple BLPs to Wikipedia. Those controversies were not actually controversies, they were And you've still failed to acknowledge your disruptive WP:POINT editing.
    That being said, Cornerstonepicker, I'm sick and tired of you misgendering me since January, I have made it very clear on multiple occasions what pronouns I use yet you've been doing this for weeks. Please explain why you've been misgendering me for months w/o no reason? shanghai.talk to me 02:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is anybody suppose to know or remember? please write they/them/pref pronoun in your signature. I randomly remembered you wrote the word misgendering once last year so I made the previous post genderless before you replied. [39]. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The onus shouldn't be on me for you to do basic civil behavior by using the proper pronouns that I've made clear many times, but even so, you literally said yourself that I've confronted you about your misgendering last year.. and yet you are still doing it """by mistake""" all these months later, It is highly irritating and uncivil every time you misgender me because you've done it multiple times. Why do you continue with such an uncollaborative environment... I'm sick of misgendering being treated like it's literally nothing when it is very insulting. shanghai.talk to me 02:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please use your signature, nobody is keeping that in their minds, we have lives outside of this discussion. As I said, I barely remembered that (was not many times, that's not true) and changed it before you replied. It's sad that you're accusing me of misgendering you on purpose, and yesterday you acussed another user of misogynist on the Nicki Minaj talk page#RFC. don't use a serious social issue to redirect the topic. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be the one changing the topic from your WP:POINT disruptive editing pattern on female rappers articles... which you still haven't addressed, I asked you to address it on Minaj's talk page and here as well, but there is still no addressing of the "Queen of Rap" edits on every female rapper after the RfC for it on Minaj's article passed.
    I didn't even accuse anyone of misogyny on Nicki's talk page, I said that someone's implication came across as possibly misogynist. I told you straight up on that talk page "tell me where I called this editor a misogynist." As for the misgendering, if you truly misremembered, then all I ask from you is a genuine apology for using the wrong pronouns. That's it. shanghai.talk to me 03:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Wikipedia:Editors'_pronouns#..._can't_I_just_say_their_username_instead? applies here, as you only changed the misgendered pronoun "he" to "RogueShanghai".... shanghai.talk to me 03:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Already addressed this: I changed my post to genderless before you replied. Then, you accused me of misgendering you on purpose. This conversation is offtopic, the other editors involved pointing out stuff do not have to read all of this. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still not the pronouns that I'm asking for (you changed the he pronouns to my username) and now you're accusing me of using a "social issue" to redirect the topic when I am literally nonbinary and part of that social issue. I'm just noticing a pattern of calling me "he" from editors that have directed personal attacks at me before... shanghai.talk to me 03:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, already addressed this; you're still deflecting the topic. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you misgender me, I have the full right to call it out... it's extremely offensive. You're insisting it was a "genuine mistake" but at the same time I've never seen you apologize, which is all I'm asking for when anyone misgenders me.
    Additionally, you keep saying "I'm deflecting" for calling out offensive misgendering but you haven't even acknowledged the reason that this thread was created in the first place, your WP:POINT editing pattern across female rapper articles.... shanghai.talk to me 03:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like you're not reading my replies at all, and going deep in a serious social issue to deflect the ownership behavior pointed out here in the Nicki Minaj article. this back and forth is not helping anything here. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Misgendering is not a "social issue", it is an insult. You've been stonewalling all of my edits since March 2021, for months now, consistently, I would prefer you actually address that because that's the root of the dispute here, while I'm trying to move on to productively improving other sections of the article that need it, like her Career section, you seem to be still attempting to get "lyricism" and "most influential female rapper" removed from her lead... even though the former has seventeen sources that make note of it...
    and again, I've pointed out that you keep deflecting from explaining your WP:POINT mass editing because of the passed "Queen of Rap" RfC on Minaj. shanghai.talk to me 04:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed you have used the same argument [40] against Ronherry when called out for your behavior. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cornerstonepicker: your explanation might be fine if this was an editor you rarely interact with. But it's clear from your own comments RogueShanghai is an editor you regularly interact with to the extent you remember the alleged problems with their editing behaviour. That being the case, you need to make much more of an effort to remember the editor's preferred pronouns and avoiding misgendering an editor, even temporarily. Notably, if you can remember that an editor finds misgendering particularly offensive you should be able to remember their preference and if you really can't, then make the small effort to check before posting. While avoiding gender pronouns may be fine in some cases, doing it when you know the editor has clearly expressed a preference and you are avoiding using that preference is not acceptable and is the sort of think which has lead to blocks before. If you do that or misgender this particular editor again, I'll fully support a site ban of you. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne:, I would never misgender somebody on purpose. I'm fully aware of what that means and how it is used to harm, I've educated myself on the topic. I used the name of the editor here to be specific of who I'm mentioning. I also support that anybody that does that on purpose should be banned. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of these diffs are straight up out of context, and don't paint the full picture at all.. here's the necessary context for all of it:
    1. Actually, I cited "original research" because the article makes it clear that the whole jurisdictional laws thing (I'm not American) is only her lawyers claim, which you didn't note at all in your edit. That's one of the reasons I removed it, plus, it's not due weight. Hough's lawyer only statement is "Stay tuned! The lawsuit will be refiled in California!" which is already noted in the section.. and I removed "recant her account" because "recant her account" falls under alleged intimidation.
    2. The entire "controversy" section does not have any actual controversy besides the COVID vaccine tweets. In fact, I didn't actually remove the Controversies header itself at all, I kept it, it was another editor who removed the section heading. I removed the feuds from her article, because none of these feuds with other rappers were key to Minaj's notability at all and didn't need their own section. They were moved to the "diss track" song articles by Minaj such as Roman's Revenge and No Frauds, as they have more due weight there. In fact, the same editor who brought Katy Perry and Lady Gaga to featured article remarked that the "feuds and controversies section" was undue negative weight.
    3a. The UK officer's comments are still undue weight because the controversy revolves around someone based in Trinidad, not England. However, in retrospect Fauci specifcially being the one that Minaj was supposed to call with was a claim that needed better sourcing than Instagram Live. I'll admit fault there.
    3b & 3c. This directly deals with songwriting credits, where Minaj revealed that she wrote the entirety of "Chun Li" herself, and that Jeremy Reid was only added to the songwriting credit for his production. This is a comment from the musicians mouth herself about her own music, wouldn't it make sense to use her own words as a source in this situation per WP:BLPSELFPUB?
    4. Because "swollen balls" is seemingly quite vulgar, although if there is proof that notable sources did use these words specifically and consistently, then it would be acceptable.
    5. How is this even promotional language when it has already been in the article way before I started even editing Minaj's article? Minaj being noted for her influence by TNYT even dates back to when the article was originally given GA status in 2012, so your framing of this as a "new edit" that "contains promotional language" is confusing..
    6. As I showed above, the article WAS getting lots of IP vandalism, where several admins had to protect the page because of the amount of vandalism it was getting.. it wasn't a shield for criticism, those edits were actually being made by vandals. shanghai.talk to me 04:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I did... then only add the quotation marks, instead of removing the reason given by the lawyer of Jennifer Hough (Minaj's husband's sexual assault victim). If you had space to quote what both Minaj and Kenneth Petty's lawyer said, you can also add that. Here you gave a paragraph to Minaj's defense not using quotation marks (this: The filing also alleged that Hough's story was inconsistent and had multiple discrepancies.), so that wasn't a problem for you there. And "Harassment" does not imply "to recant her account" at all.
      And look at the language in your contribution here: It is a common misconception that Minaj had helped Jelani, however, Minaj did not post her brother's bail [41], with the source being gossip blog Bossip (context for non-involved editors: Jelani Maraj was sentenced for SA minors and was bailed out; that it was not by Nicki Minaj is pushing a narrative). Yet you removed the interview that Jennifer Hough gave to The Daily Beast [42] beause it is a 'tabloid'. why does it feel you are taking sides on Hough's lawsuit?
    2. SNUGGUMS, whose contributions I've fully appreciated through the years and whose message made me come back, was clear: after removing the rest, you only left the COVID vaccine controversy in the section, then that topic becomes the header.
    3. Your argument is still basically Minaj said it so is true.
    4. The quotation (from the subject) was "swollen testicles" caused by the vaccine, and wikipedia is not censored; yet you removed it.
    5. In the diff, that's you adding the promotional language.
    6. It was one bad word to be removed: yet you removed paragraphs of criticism of the Minaj song.

    In my opinion, and I think I'm not the only that perceives it, you are using wikipedia as a tool for promotional language and to push narratives that benefit Minaj's image. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Replying to the original comment, it's not necessarily a point violation to add the term to other articles after it was added to the one article due to an RfC. It really depends on the strength of the sources and how the editor engaged in discussion afterwards which isn't something I'm willing to look in to. It seems reasonable to me that an editor may feel adding terms like queen of rap to the lead of any article isn't supported by our policies and guidelines. When consensus develops to add it to one article, they may feel since the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in that earlier case is clearly against them, perhaps the communities views of the situation is different from theirs and so it's reasonable to add it to others. Any editor opposing such a change in other articles needs to explain their support in that one article but opposition in the other, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not withstanding. There may very well be reasons relating to the strength of the sources etc for why it belongs in one article but not the other, but if there isn't this does suggest their editing maybe unacceptably biased. Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne:, the consensus in that specific matter was that, if is backed by many sources, it is ok to add the nickname. I opened a conversation on Missy Elliott's talk page to make sure everything is ok about the topic, and a third-party editor opined the same. All three that had the nickname added were backed by numerous sources. Those three, at the same time, are not random articles that I never clicked on, I fully created and implemented their "Legacy" sections. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Break

    So, I'm pretty certain this discussion is an example of why we keep having ANI discussions about this without resolutions. They get so long-winded and spiraling that you're just going to scare away anyone from intervening. And that's not a great approach - eventually you're going to exhaust the community's patience and irritate some admin into doling out blocks. I'm often told I give people too many chances before blocking editors, and even I'm starting to get exhausted by all this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently registered user has username issues

    INDEFFED
    User indefinitely hard blocked by Orangemike for an egregious violation of the username policy. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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



    So, there was a user that was recently registered. Their username is Mothafaker. The username itself is inappropriate and considered to be profanity. Should we do something? Meltdown reverter (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:UAA is the place for such reports. I've already filed it. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just about to post that very same thing. Even though I'm an admin, I don't really work with usernames, so even I just report it to them, and let the regular admins with experience handle it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I do a lot of work at WP:UAA these days. Normally, we do not block an editor for a dubious or problematic username unless there has been at least one obviously bad edit and no good edits. However, all rules have exceptions and I see this username as such an egregious violation that I think that an immediate hard block is correct. That is just what Orangemike has done, and I agree with him. Cullen328 (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Walter Görlitz, incivility and OWNership

    Walter Görlitz has made several incivil and rude comments to myself and other editors over the past few days while edit warring at Charlotte FC and New England Revolution, two articles in their "territory".

    • Deciding to skip the last step in BRD, Walter Görlitz decides to double down on a claimed ENGVAR convention that is not present in other American English articles on soccer. They later self-revert.
    • Following a routine cleanup of disruptive edits by an uninvolved user warned several times for making mass changes, my talk page is graced with a "reminder".
    • After reverting the message on my talk page, in line with policies on page blanking within one's own userspace, Walter Görlitz decides to post a longer message that begins with belittlement ("You either do not understand what a revert is").
    • After asking them to back off, I'm pinged inappropriately at Talk:Charlotte FC by a message that includes "so, yes, you do need an instructional session on WP:3RR". Again, a belittling statement.
    • After I asked them not to message me again, they respond with "I'll message you until i feel you get the message", which is textbook hounding.
    • Walter Görlitz then reverts an addition by Oluwasegu to New England Revolution that was made in good faith, starting another edit war.
    • They then return to Charlotte FC to remove an entire section without discussion, which I revert and they revert back.

    The basis of the new content dispute is whether mentioning previous soccer teams in a given city is appropriate for an article on a modern soccer team. Given that this hasn't been an issue in existing FAs (such as Seattle Sounders FC) and not brought up in the two years that Charlotte FC has had the section, it seems to have be a personal opinion.

    What I take issue with is the clearly combative manner in which these comments are made, as if questioning the competence of every other user. I'll note that Walter Görlitz had been blocked previously for edit warring and personal attacks (including the same brand of incivil comments) and has not learned their lesson. I'm seeking guidance while I try to find some enjoyment while editing, which has hard to find in the past few days. SounderBruce 06:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I erred. I was reverted by another editor and did not notice it was the same e4ditor. I opened a discussion and am happy to self-revert. No ownership implied. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am not returning to the article, it, and all MLS articles, are on my watch list. These are not edit wars, they are an application of previous seen actions as I mentioned on the talk page of the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin move a leftover local description of Wikimedia Commons file?

    When a file is moved on Wikimedia Commons, a local description for it on Wikipedia is not moved as well and is left orphan. I have identified such local descriptions and tagged them for renaming, but it looks like file movers cannot move them. Can admins move them? So that they would be in sync with name on Wikimedia Commons again? So that their content is displayed? BTW, you have to add redirect=no to see local descriptions instead of Wikimedia Commons page. Mitar (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mitar, why is this on WP:ANI instead of WP:AN? For the redirect thing, there's User:Alexis Jazz/RedirectCommonsRedirects. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When I started adding it to WP:AN, I read: "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead. Thank you." Because this is about concrete list of files to be fixed I saw it as a help request. Mitar (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Mitar, hmm, I think you could be right. On the other hand, this isn't a true one-time issue as this will just keep happening. May need a bot operator for this.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fastily: or any other admin reading this: can you go to [43], press "Move page" and tell us if you get the dreaded "The filename chosen is already in use on a shared repository. Please choose another name." or not? I could probably help with recreation if moving is impossible, but I want to know first if moving is impossible. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:25, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried completing the rename request but MediaWiki won't let me proceed. Sure would be nice if the devs gave admins an option to override. The current solution/workaround is to R4 the redirect and recreate the content page at the target title, provided that the redirect has no substantial history. This was the case here, so I've gone ahead and done that. The DYK template also exists at Commons, so I've copied it over to the Commons description page. -FASTILY 23:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fastily, content pages recreated. Can you or another admin dump the contents of Category:Redundant or conflicting file renaming requests (partially NSFW)? (be careful not to delete the newly recreated pages, use RedirectCommonsRedirects if needed) There are like 172 local description pages there, 155 I recreated using User:Alexis Reggae/redirected DYK and my script, the remaining 17 are mostly/all vandalism-sensitive pics like File:Adipomastia 001.jpg (page history) for which the bad image template page had already been recreated at the target by Cyberbot I. (not sure if there was anything else in there. probably not. the collection made me hurl so I didn't examine it that closely) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Σύμμαχος

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

    I recently reported this user for constantly altering (sourced) information [44]. He was blocked for his conduct on the talk page of the article, but now has resumed his disruption of the article [45]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by Eastern Australian geography and BLP IP user

    1.144.107.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Long term disruption, edit warring, maintenance template removal without explanation or resolving the problem, failure to use any meaningful edit summaries, failure to engage. Currently evading a block on Special:Contributions/1.145.0.0/17 @JBW: Did you want to take a look at this? May need a new rangeblock. (moved from AIV) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mako001: Can you explain what shows that this is the same person evading the block? It isn't obvious from a quick look. JBW (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably should have mentioned that they are active on the /17 quite a bit more, which makes the pattern much more apparent. The behavioural similarities are quite clear: never uses any sort of meaningful edit summary, edits the same sort of articles (Eastern Australian named places (towns, cities and suburbs) and railway stations, also adds unsourced information, removes maintenance templates without fixing the problem or explaining why they aren't needed, and finally, is the only Australian based editor that I know of who changes Australian English to American English on articles clearly about Australian topics, even when there is a "use Australian English" template at the top. I will give some diffs in an hour of two if that would be more helpful? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @JBW: Here are some diffs, note the addition of distances and elevation to the infobox as well, that is their most common edit. However, they never provide sources for it, and sometimes also change the existing distances and elevation without giving sources. They also replace non-breaking spaces with regular ones, and remove hidden comments.
    Does this make it clearer? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mako001: Yes, that does make it much clearer. Thank you. In fact the range 1.144.0.0/17 is much bigger than is needed, as all the editing from that range is actually in the smaller range 144.96.0/20. Almost all of the editing from that range in recent months is clearly from this editor, and the small number of other edits are divided between harmful edits (vandalism etc) and trivial edits, so risk of collateral damage is very small. I don't like blocking large IP ranges where there is likely to be any collateral damage at all, but on this occasion the risk of losing a few very minor non-disruptive edits seems to be overwhelming outweighed by the benefit, so I have blocked the range for a while. JBW (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that a smaller range would do this time around, but hadn't actually had a look at which exactly. Thanks for figuring that one out. I don't think that this will be the last we see of them though. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Edin balgarin

    USER BLOCKED.
    Blocked by Girth Summit. ––FormalDude talk 17:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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


    Note: I tweaked the header from it's original Edin balgarin and "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick"; that's what some people are specifically referring to below. If anyone disagrees I'll defer to them, but my thought is, especially now that this has run its course, there's no need for that obnoxiousness to show up on watchlists and archive tables of contents. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

    Edin balgarin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Most days this stuff doesn't bother me and but at this moment I am emotionally taxed and not in a mood to tolerate this bullshit. On my user talk page, Edin balgarin and Horse Eye's Back were discussing WP:ARBEE after being notified of WP:1RR restrictions and discretionary sanctions on Kosovo. Edin balgarin took exception to being referred to as "they". This was the most recent post I found when I logged in:

    We haven't cleared anything up. "They/them/theirs" is most definitely not some "general concepion". It is a new-fangled brain fart. When they taught me English in Bulgaria, they said "they" is for plural, and we were not to even generalise when the sex wasn't known. Instead we continued the longstanding convention of "he" until it is known otherwise. I previously referred to you as "he", and if you are a biological female then I wholeheartedly apologise for having ascribed the wrong sex. If you indeed came into this world with a Y chromosome then there is nothing to apologise for simply because you choose to identify as something else. I have seen the Wikipedia practice of referring to some individuals as "they" and I am likely not to touch those articles, because I stand by the adage that "if it's born with a dick, then it ain't no chick". Yes people like me are considered dinosaurs, and I know that here in the west where I live, it demonstrates a major chasm between older and younger generations. In Bulgaria where I am from, it has not regressed to that phoniness. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are one of these. You are simply one person who is well within your right on this otherwise anonymous project to conceal every aspect of your life story - and what's more, I support and protect that right. I am also a realist and accept that some people come into this world, are believed at birth to be one thing and later on discover that internally, they have some properties of the other sex. I refer to intersex which I think applies to about 0.5% (1 in 200) of people who come into this world. But not even they get to use this discrepancy to go from "he" to "she", let alone "they" depending how they feel at the time of day. It's a scientific phenomenon, and it presents language problems because tongues developed over millennia to see male and female without thinking that some configurations are a mash-up of the two despite the individual being perfectly healthy in every way. "They" however is reserved for where we know there is more than one. The word will never be ambiguous, i.e. "when you say 'they', do you mean there was more than one person, or were you referring to an individual that denies the biological sex and denies identifying as the opposite sex"? That's never going to happen. I take care to write this language in accordance with the prescriptive tradition, and the style guides I use (such as Simon Heffer whom you won't like) don't even recommend saying "he or she". I see no problem with saying, "he or she was driving too fast" when a car shoots passed at a dangerous speed, but the guidance is that until we know different, "he" extends meaning. Saying "they were driving too fast" because I couldn't see if it were a man or a woman is plain asinine. I'm sorry Horse Eye's Back. It is one or the other.

    Given that I'm not able to be neutral about this right now, I'm bring this incident it here for review. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I can definitely say it’s absolutely beyond a conduct violation to address a pronoun misunderstanding with that virulently transphobic wall of text. Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's interesting that he claims to be very very very concerned about the proper use of pronouns, but is still of the opinion that it is OK to refer to a transgender person as "it" (as long he thinks it's hilarious, I guess?). I take this as definite proof that he is not actually a strict grammarian, but instead a garden variety bigot. While pronoun use is still in flux, and I'm not interested in sanctioning people who are just confused or still on a learning curve, I am inclined to block people who demonstrate that they are actual bigots hiding behind the fig leaf of grammar. At this point, I'm inclined to block indef, the same as we would do with a racist or misogynist. Any objection? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, there's no way of reading this as someone who is innocently confused; it's blatant transphobia and we would never accept equally blatant sexism or racism. I would support an indef block. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Indef block this kind of bigotry is inexcusable, and even “learning curve” isn’t a justification (not that’d be anyway) because they’ve been here since 2015. Dronebogus (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indef block. Either they truly don't understand the basics of English, in which case they should not be editing here anyways, or they are choosing to apply a fundamental misunderstanding of English in order to push an anti-trans POV. ––FormalDude talk 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least a warning as noted, this goes beyond mere translation issues. Also, as a self-described prescriptivist, I am a bit surprised this editor considers himself a greater authority than one William Shakespeare, who had no problem with singular "they." Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Too late. Blonked. Dronebogus (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes - I have blocked. I tried to post here but kept getting edit conflicts. In short, even when wearing my extra-thick rose-tinted AGF goggles, I think that this was someone being willfully offensive towards someone he disagreed with, which just isn't acceptable. Girth Summit (blether) 17:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Checking needed

    Ngancheekean has been warned for both their editorial practices and behavioral issues; "as for the complaint about Onel5969, it is obvious that it has no merit whatsoever". (non-admin closure) SN54129 17:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Onel5969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He is a long time wikipedia editor. He didn't improve the article and keeps moving my page. Finally, he wanted to delete it. 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    {{Expand Chinese}} I think is a good tool, so any action next that i can do?
    I have pages hung, coz i cant undid it, or im blocked. I dont know what to do next. I think is very serious acting almighty or start a civil war.

    Yan Han (Jin Dynasty) Restored revision 1076526187 by Onel5969 (talk): As per WP:BURDEN, do not readd uncited material, and as per WP:DDE, it could get you blocked. You also might want to cool it with vandalism claims, which also could get you blocked.

    Yan Zhiyi Undid revision 1076543612 by Ngancheekean (talk)You do not appear to get it, as per WP:BURDEN. The next time I'll be forced to go to ANI about this, as well as the vandal comments. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Onel5969's reverts. The english was very poor, and when the prose was (rarely) sourced, the sources were mostly unreliable. Also, you have to notify editors when you start a discussion about them. I've done so for you, as well as moved your post from the top of the page where you placed it directly under the instructions NEW ENTRIES GO AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE NOT HERE. It seems likely that you lack the english language skills to edit this Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Checking needed, where they brought up the same thing (and missed the same instruction to add to the bottom of the page). — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 17:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to add on that there's nothing stopping you from going to the Chinese Wikipedia and editing there. To be polite, your English is not good enough to write Wikipedia articles if this is the best you can do. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chess While not intended, that is a little rude to tell someone their edits are not welcome here. SoyokoAnis - talk 06:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So it went missing again. Thats just so poor. Ngancheekean (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that Ngancheekean copied previous versions of the associated articles that had been removed/reverted/changed by Onel5969 at Talk:Yan Han (Jin Dynasty) and Talk:Yan Jianyuan. I mentioned on their talk page that "the talk page is designed for discussion of the page". Gusfriend (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I’m concerned, after reviewing Ngancheekean’s talk page, that they have WP:CIR issues along with WP:IDHT, a potent combination.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I copied some of his text.I think what he said learning to use vandalism, might hurt wiki.
    1. I dont wish to be so outspoken but Asian hate has been rising in America.
    2. Since when American help vandalism
    3. Dont move my page. No American will ever helped again.
    4. I dont intend to be an idiot arguing with dont know what. You have move the article again which intended for english readers. I'm learning to use vandalism so you should watch out. Rastinition (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There are numerous problems with Ngancheekean's editing, with WP:CIR, WP:IDHT, and WP:BATTLEGROUND combining together to prevent attempts by other editors to help from succeeding. I have posted a message to their talk page, warning that a block is likely if their editing doesn't change. As for the complaint about Onel5969, it is obvious that it has no merit whatsoever. JBW (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    telephone number needs attention

    OVERSIGHTED
    Content and revisions oversighted at WP:TH (non-admin closure) — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 20:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could someone revdel the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse item "FREE Renarldo Cartagena at fishkill correctional BY Maria cartagena ...." as it contains what looks like a telephone number Elemimele (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The editnotice here specifically states, If the issue or concern involves a privacy-related matter, or [...], do not post it here. This should be oversighted as it's personal information, so I've already emailed the oversighter team. — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 19:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bsoyka:, sorry, I'll remember next time. Thank you for sorting it; I see it's been redacted appropriately. Elemimele (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, everyone misses things sometimes. — {{u|Bsoyka}} talk 19:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Help me create a talk page?

    Done by Shirt58. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 04:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Would an admin create User talk:Nehakhanworks with {{welcome-COI}}? Titles involving this person's name are currently blacklisted because of long-term abuse, but I'm not convinced that this person is a sockpuppet (although I am not personally familiar with the relevant LTAs, Arshifakhan61 and Wefffrrr); I think he's legitimately clueless. Once an admin creates the page, everyone should be able to interact with this editor normally. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Jack Sebastian

    And on that tone, let's end it here, while the going's good. Nothing more needs to be said. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Disagreement over content on Talk:Rump state gradually morphed into open mockery[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] (edit summary:"jeez, what a putz"). Not sure if this is because consensus was overwhelmingly against them or if its a personal distaste for me. The latest and what puts it over the line into an ANI issue for me:

    "Wrong again, horsey. I disagree with some viewpoints, which is very different from dismissing them. I get why you might make that mistake, as both of them start out being spelled the same before making a series of sharp turns into different meanings. Here's a link to an actual dictionary, so you can avoid getting all confused again. You're welcome. Now, do you want to simply go away, or shall I taunt you some more?"[64]

    I don't believe that such false civility, taunting, or name calling is appropriate and Jack Sebastian seems fully aware of what they are doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Didn't you kind of start that here? Yes we understand that is *your personal opinion* but to be brutally blunt we do not give a flying f*ck what your personal opinion is... By sharing it you're wasting both our time and your own. It looks like the discussion was civil until that point. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The incivility began with this false accusation "Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be a problem with -re-adding, without correction, text that you yourself know to be worded so as to be actively false." against user:Furius before I even offered a 3rd opinion. There appears to be a pattern here of feigning confusion in order to insult or belittle. We also have "It is your contention that Salo is currently a remnant of and a rump of nazi Germany, yes?" which by that point in the conversation could not possibly be taken as Farius's contention. Not saying my conduct was angelic, but there are important lines I didn't cross. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that things got progressively worse here, and HEB is not blameless, but JS's last comment was way over the line, and JS's behavior in that whole thread was poor. I've removed the last comment as it was not related to the content of the article, and will block if it is reinstated. It appears that the actual content issue is settled, so hopefully neither one of you needs to continue talking in that section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I admit that HEB managed to push every single one of my buttons in alphabetical order from the get go, and I responded poorly. Though I did make continued attempts at civility and de-escalation, they were unsucessful with this particular user.
      I'm not going to go into the content issues, as a consensus was found, and I agreed to follow it. That should have been the end of it, but HEB felt the throbbing need to take cheap shots at me. It was pretty much the final straw; I fucking despise bullies, as they are toxic to a collaborative editing environment. It begs the question as to why someone with so little good faith in both parties requiring 3O would be rendering Third Opinions at all.
      But it is what it is; I went too far, and I apologize for my part in it. I have zero plans to interact with HEB wherever he pops up again. I would ask that he do me the same favor. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not consenting to an interaction ban. I also think you need to take a long look in the mirror, "Now, do you want to simply go away, or shall I taunt you some more?" is bullying on an almost comical english boarding school level... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      HEB, with all due respect (and I do indeed respect you), there's no need to prolong this. Have a nice weekend. Dumuzid (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the advice and its good, but I'm not walking off someone viciously bullying me and then turning around and calling me a bully. "but HEB felt the throbbing need to take cheap shots at me. It was pretty much the final straw; I fucking despise bullies, as they are toxic to a collaborative editing environment. It begs the question as to why someone with so little good faith in both parties requiring 3O would be rendering Third Opinions at all." is over the line as far as WP:NPA is concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "I left the woman at the riverbank, so why are you still carrying her?" learn - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Sebastian (talk • contribs) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to offer some perspective: You people and your what-the-history-books-say arguments have got it easy. Over on Client state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) editors were citing Julian Assange's mother. See its talk page. One editor found a 23 page conference paper by two political science professors modelling the various ways in which the United States has historically formed client states of various kinds, from which one would have thought one could get sourced analysis of a complex thing, and used it at Special:Diff/1021643410 to support the content "▪  Spain". So be kind to each other. You history book readers could be having it a lot worse. You could be up against a mass of editors who do things like take 2 words of headlinese and think it to be enough. Or Julian Assange's mother. Uncle G (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oof. You win, Uncle G. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks by Pofka

    It's the second time I am reporting this user, first time was in October. He continues his behavior. Basically, every discussion with him is problematic. As I said in October he is accusing me of the lowest motives. Here he accused me of "desire to spread false Polish superiority propaganda", although I was merely explaining to him why the term "Partitions of Poland" are more popular in English literature than "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania", other than some "Polish historians' conspiracy". I warned him to stop insulting me or I will report his behavior. Nonetheless, he did it again and accused me of "hatred towards Lithuanian language". I don't think I deserve such treatment.Marcelus (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind. I see that you did and I just missed it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: Marcelus is actively performing Polonization activity in Wikipedia. There is ongoing discussion (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Language_in_the_former_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth), but he is not waiting for the WP:CONS there and is performing the questioned actions by himself alone. He created this report as an act of revenge for me when I stressed his recent activity at the same WP:NPOV discussion (see: my explanation here on 11 March). In the article "Partitions of Poland" he basically said that Lithuania (Grand Duchy of Lithuania) was called Poland (see this Marcelus' statement), thus falsely presuming that Lithuania was annexed by Poland or didn't exist at all (similar to Putin's propaganda that Ukraine have no statehood traditions). Just by looking at the name of the article Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth it is evident that such claims are absolutely false. Such anti-Lithuanian claim and actions of Marcelus reminds nationalism which is strictly prohibited here. And he is still accusing me of anything... -- Pofka (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And the slander continues, now I am compared with Putin. I insist administrators take action in order to stop Pofka from these constant personal attacks. Marcelus (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: put an end to this nonsense

    These two users seem to have a mutual problem - I remember when this previously went to ArbCom back in June last year (where it was correctly declined as premature and already covered by the Eastern Europe DS area), but the situation hasn't really improved since then. Since Pofka and Marcelus don't seem to be able to collaborate with each other without having a mandatory visit to the dramaboard every while and then, then the simple solution is to impose a mutual interaction ban (see WP:IBAN) so that hopefully both editors can find something else to edit without stepping on each other's toes. It takes two to dance, and the prolonged duration of this doesn't inspire any confidence that this can be resolved otherwise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)
    • Support. I might go one step further and topic-ban them from the area entirely. There are millions of articles in other areas that either of them can edit without being stirred to such discord. BD2412 T 17:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - What are you talking about @RandomCanadian? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RandomCanadian Please explain this to me, because I do not understand something. According to what you are proposing, I should not report constant insults and harassment by another user because I could be blocked from editing articles in which I have knowledge and interest? In addition, you have linked a discussion in ArbCom in which I did not participate, but in which Pofka participated. I only commented in the thread about the merger of the two articles. It seems to me that there is a place on Wikipedia to discuss articles and these discussions can get heated, but we should refrain from personal attacks. I just wish Pofka would stop referring to me as a "Polish nationalist" etc. And can you explain what you understand by "dramaboard" and "this nonsense"? Marcelus (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think that by the use of the term 'dramaboard', the user is referring to the way that some people use this board to argue over some content issue so as to then argue in the article that the 'sdmins agreed with me not you' in a way that is reminiscent of children running to Mama to tattle on the other. It is not a complimentary comparison. I think it is important to point out that you have possible been far too passionate about this particular topic, which is not a Good Thing. You are internalizing the edits, but that is to be expected; people edit what they care about. And to be fair, Marcelus has been goaded and manipulated into appearing to be the one who needs a break.
    I think it should be pointed out that Pofka has been casting those sorts of aspersions that both last a while after they are said and particularly sting. If indeed Marcelus is a "Polish nationalist" (and I am not suggesting he is), then comparing him to a Russian is a particularly nasty comparison; the majority of Poles loathe Russia, and being compared to who is currently not only the leader of that country but a leader who is currently viewed quite negatively by the world1 seems a particularly manipulative move on the part of Pofka. I've seen other users do this before (hell, even I have in the past), and its always about thinking you're smarter than the other guy. That doesn't work in Wikipedia - not at all. We lose scores of honest contributors because of this type of behavior.
    It is because of this that I feel this is indeed a behavioral issue regarding Pofka's poor interactions regarding dissent, and not the typical - albeit sticky - content issue. Pofka needs a formal warning about this sort of attack-y behavior; it's corrosive to the idea of collaboration - the centerpiece of Wikipedia's strengths. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Does this fall under WP:NONAZIS?

    No action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsztajn (talk • contribs) 11:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Malformed close fixed. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP, 86.58.92.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has made edits that are consistent with far-right ideologies, such as the removal of Cultural Marxism as being a anti-semitic canard and accusing well-sourced academics such as Azar Gat and Christian Fuchs as being "Communist propaganda". 14.38.24.214 (talk) 08:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure I'd instantly label it as pro-Nazi edits, but it's certainly disruptive. Normal disruptive edit warnings would be appropriate here. — Czello 08:13, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, tiresome POV pushing but not enough evidence to say that the editor is singing Springtime for Hitler.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And singing Springtime for Hitler is not in itself sufficient evidence of anti-semitism. Some musical comedy is just... musical comedy. BusterD (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I would go further. Throwing around NONAZIS allegations like that is in itself disruptive. IP86 seems to be engaged in general right-wing POV. What’s it got to do with NONAZIS? In fact, this edit summary suggests the IP is not a fan of Fascist economic policy at least. DeCausa (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends a lot on who's doing the singing. "Cultural Marxism" is not a "general" right-wing view; decrying Nazi Germany as not capitalist is not a "general" right-wing view. Angela Merkel is "general" right wing. I don't see the OP's comment as a wild aspersion, but as an editor showing welcome caution. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Both edits have been reverted (one actually reverted, the other re-added) and a Level 1 warning left. As there have been no further edits from that IP in 48 hours, this can probably be closed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that OP's IP is a proxy; I have blocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Editor(s) refactoring articles

    Pages edited are various language versions of Your Face Sounds Familiar. A lot of editing and page history added. Winners being changed, dates altered. IPs geolocate around Pulilan, Province of Bulacan, Philippines. Editor(s) often edit the sandbox after their edits are reverted. I first noticed the problem when the event date was set to after the citation date.
    Is there any method to correlate IPs from that area editing the other language versions? e.g. for vandalism? What to do about this? A range/article series block?
    The IPs I've logged:

    I wonder if there is more, but I'm overwhelmed at the moment. Adakiko (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ordinary Person - Original research and disruption in the topic of historical wealth.

    Ordinary Person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I recently looked at a few articles on historical wealthy figures and noticed that a number of them were making completely ridiculous claims about the value of their net worth adjusted to modern money. Looking at the article histories it seems that this account has been performing a combination of their own original reasearch and calculations and blindly converting articles to use the {{inflation}} template, regardless of what actual sources say.

    Blindly using the inflation template in this manner is not an appropriate way of converting historic net worth's to modern net worth's, inflation is a measure of the change in price of consumer goods and the cost of living, it does not work when applied to sums of money making up significant proportions of a national economy.

    For a typical example of a problematic edit look at this edit to John D. Rockefeller [65]. The edit replaces an estimate of 400 billion with an inflation template, despite inflation being a meaningless measure when applied to 2-3% of the US's GDP. Their edit directly contradicts the sources in the article - the sources directly following the inflation template give an estimate of 300 - 400 billion dollars calculated as a proportion of GDP and certainly do not support the 23 billion calculated using inflation now present in the article. On the talk page they explain how they have calculated this figure [66], which drew criticism from another IP editor for being "bad original research".

    Here's a few more examples of problem edits. Ripping out sourced information to replace it with a application of the inflation template with no sources supporting 300 million dollars us equivalent [67]. This utterly ridiculous calculation where they convert one historical currency to another, then convert to USD, then chuck into an inflation template, replacing properly sourced information with an estimate 1000 times smaller [68]. Ripping out sourced information to replace it with application of an inflation template and an edit summary assertion that their net worth was x [69] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is that the source material is not saying what the article editors seem to think it is saying. It might be interesting to compare different historical figures on the basis of what percentage of the national economy their wealth made up, but this is not the same as comparing them on the basis of their actual wealth. . Sir James Ratcliffe is not just wealthier than anyone who lived in the 11th century AD: he has more wealth than the entire economy of Great Britain in the 11th century AD. I've no objection to the existence of an article on the topic of a list of historical figures' wealth by percentage of national economy, but it is simply erroneous to purport that such a list would be a list of wealthiest historical figures. Ordinary Person (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ordinary Person, I'm concerned that you might be carrying out novel calculations that reach conclusions which aren't found in the sources.—S Marshall T/C 14:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ellinewilliams231 and editing behavior

    Ellinewilliams231 has been repeatedly warned about unsourced edits, original research, not providing edit summaries, and addition of wrong edits to articles, but there seems no changes to their editing patterns and no acknowledgment to the warnings. The main article where this user is problematic is at 2021 PBA 3x3 season – Second conference. They are mainly the one adding the scores, and there is a official source that is already linked in the article, but this user seems to be adding their own calculations, instead of the official ones. Some of their edits are also just wrong as well, and it's a burden to check their edits and clean up the wrong one every time. Another editing behavior that this user has is providing information ever if it is not yet assured or confirmed, such as this and this. This user also seems to not know what they're doing, as shown here where they made an unblock request, even if they're not blocked. Warnings are of no use so I decided to bring it up here. Engr. Smitty Werben 12:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I erred. I was reverted by another editor. I opened a discussion and am happy to self-revert. I also make sure that I add the links to the scores. User:Ellinewilliams231 (talk) 1:12, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    Update: Despite this ANI report and this user's "acknowledgment" of their mistakes, they keep on continuing their editing behavior. This user made this edit, which violates WP:OR, as the source did not support their edits, and WP:CRYSTAL, as it turns out that the final standings is very different from their edit, as shown here in my edit. Engr. Smitty Werben 02:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor 174.20.131.248 engaging in rants on Talk:Lauren Southern

    Not sure if this is the correct noticeboard for this, or if it's AIV. As this is talk page related and not mainspace, I think here might be better? I'm happy to move it to AIV if that is the place for this however.

    I'm reporting 174.20.131.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This IP has been going on a bit of a rant over at Talk:Lauren Southern in the last ten minutes, see [70], [71], [72], as well as on Talk:Margaret Sanger three days ago [73]. All of the posts contain aspersions that Wikipedia has been captured by leftists. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of ANI notice. I tried to link the thread but it kept breaking the subst template. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the now-closed thread up the page, this is a garden-variety troll who is using Wikipedia to soapbox. I'd just ignore them unless this becomes a longer-term issue. Acroterion (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked for 36 hours for too much trolling. Bishonen | tålk 22:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    Nelveto and continued POV edits

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

    The user made, as of now, 24 edits. They have been warned at least twice, last time in November, that some of their edits are inappropriate, specifically, they push what the see as pro-Ukrainian POV against consensus (replacing Odessa with Odesa etc). I gave them a Ds alert and said that if they continue a block becomes an option. Today, they have chosen to continue [74] [75]. I guess the option needs to be discussed seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also this one, the current consensus is both Chernobyl and Zelenskyy.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Eastern Europe POV pushers don't need to be humored here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ngancheekean

    Please see the currently closed discussion above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checking needed. I purposely did not participate in the discussion in the hopes that the editor would learn from that discussion. Alas, they appear not to have. With this edit and this one too, they have once again inserted uncited information into the article after repeated warnings not to, and being warned as per WP:BURDEN and WP:DDE. Then there is this edit, once again removing an AfD notice after being warned on their talk page (and I see there is yet another one). In addition, there is this bizarre editing on Yang Liang. Finally, this edit leaving incorrect template warnings on a user's talkpage. They do not appear to show any willingness to understand English WP's rules and guidelines. I think at this point some type of block is warranted. Onel5969 TT me 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You dont seem to understand it that it is not my problem, User:Ngancheekean, that you keep talking. Why keep involving me, in wikipedia discussion. Now ANI has to answer. Ngancheekean (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ngancheekean: when do you mean it's not you're problem? You're responsible for all edits from your account. If someone else is using your account, it will be blocked as WP:Compromised. Sharing accounts it not allowed. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I mostly on chinese history. Ngancheekean (talk) 05:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My talkpages is full with his comments. Btw I started writing in wikipedia because there is a page about my surname (owned by wikipedia), which created by User:Prisencolin in (25 June 2020)‎‎. I mostly write about historical person of Yan surname since the page information is insufficient. The problem, the pages was vandalised from page to page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngancheekean (talk • contribs) 05:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them indefinitely. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Revoke TPA

    Done. (non-admin closure) SN54129 22:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Could someone—anyone—look into this timesink and come to the completely independent conclusion that their TPA needs revoking? They can hardly write intelligible English—so a CIR problem—or it's deliberate, in which case we're being trolled. Either way, some of our finest, etc., are having their time completely and utterly wasted. SN54129 16:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done DMacks (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    CreecregofLife

    Nothing to see here. Report relates to events that happened a month ago. —C.Fred (talk) 05:37, 13 March 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 pattern of behavior you folks should really take a look at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs? All I see is repair and updating of references. —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They’re upset about the discussion over at Star Trek: Discovery's talkpage and does not understand WP:NPOV. Basically trying to steamroll over perceived ideological opponents to get their way. CreecregofLife (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Actually, it has less to do with STD and more to do with a pattern of disruptive behavior that keep happening with this specific person. It’s clearly evident by the users own talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block evasion by User:Commonedits

    Commonedits was blocked by 331dot at 12:08, 11 March. Since then, they have made multiple edits whilst logged out to evade the block, per the evidence below.

    Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mako001: I've blocked the IP for 72 hours for block evasion, and increased Commonedits's block to one week. Courtesy ping to @331dot: as I've modified their block -- TNT (talk • she/her) 11:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the hostile remarks by Commonedits at Draft talk:Chahat Pandey, where they allege a conspiracy of incompetent and corrupt administrators, I have my doubts that they will refrain from disruptive editing when that block expires. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    HANDLED
    TPA revoked by Orangemike. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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




    WP:NLT has told me to report legal threats here, so I will.

    Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inukishu, the banned user has been listing everything that has happened to them "for legal counsel later on.", which I think constitutes a legal threat. They have been indefinitely banned except for on their talk page, so someone should remove their talk page privileges. I don't see the point of notifying them though since they won't be able to edit here anyway. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Inukishu&oldid=1076887898 is the link in case anything changes since making this post. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ban evasion by HarveyCarter

    Can we re-block the range Special:Contributions/86.150.120.0/21? Banned User:HarveyCarter has been active there. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    OP blocked indef by Bbb23. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can you please review the last comment on my Talk page left by an administrator who is calling me "rude" for describing a user's attempt to edit war by "indoctrination"? The user has reversed my edits three times although I provided three sources. The admin described my sources as unreliable when there is no source at all to support the version that the other user reverted to. This has been a constant struggle on Wikipedia that certain users want to enforce a certain narrative without the use of any sources and admins still allow them to get away with it citing "consensus" when it is a very difficult thing to gauge and also should not overrule the use of sources. Back to my initial point, the admin's comment is a retaliation for the perceived "attack" that I made which I think is biased and unprofessional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayo890 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    According to https://simshomekitchen.com/about/ , Jen Sim is a "foodie from London, United Kingdom." Could you explain why her blog is considered by you as a reliable source to talk about non-recipes content? (CC) Tbhotch™ 18:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The underlying content dispute seems to concern Shakshouka. It would be best discussed at Talk:Shakshouka, and if anyone wants to contest the reliability of cherry-picked online recipes, at WP:RSN. I see no personal attack, or anything that needs to be brought here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Horse Eye's Back on Kosovo

    As every admin is probably aware, topics surrounding the former Communist bloc region are a subject of WP:ACDS, and Horse Eye's Back was made aware of this. Just in case any admin is unaware of the scenario: Kosovo declared independence from Serbia in 2008, which Serbia has not recognised, and international recognition is almost right down the middle. In summary, one has to be extremely careful how one writes about this topic because to tip the balance even slightly is a clear WP:NPOV violation. There are tools in place to help facilitate writing about the subject, and to my knowledge, the most prodigious example is the helpful Template:Kosovo-note. Back in 2015 (so before I created my account) the subject was discussed by multiple editors. It was decided that the best way to treat the awkward northern frontier of Kosovo was neither to satisfy the Serbian claim of an internal contour (i.e. Kosovo bordering Central Serbia) nor to satisfy the independent Kosovo claim (directly bordering Serbia), but to present "bordering the uncontested territory of Serbia" which allows readers to draw their own conclusions without coming down on either side. An early example of its attempted removal came here (see partisan summary), but save for the occasional short-lived reversal by some editors, it has more or less been stable in this condition since this revert fully seven years ago. On 8 March 2022, Horse Eye's Back dismissed the caption as "blatant POV pushing" although this was a clear compromise, and blasted the wording right down one of the extreme ends of the POV spectrum. User:Edin balgarin objected here, then got reverted with uncivil language. On 12 March, User:No such user advised Horse Eye's back of that discussion here whereby he drew Horse Eye's Back's attention to the 2015 discussion, but not before Horse Eye's Back had pushed again without a semblance of support from other editors. And finally, Horse Eye's Back has done it again here, and that is how the article stands as I make this complaint. I personally engaged in some discussion with Horse Eye's Back, and I particularly invited replies on how to handle the WP:WEIGHT problem and how it should be worded, to which the question was dodged several times behind an "WP:RS" smokescreen. My last post was a few hours ago advising that if Horse Eye's back keep going round in circles, then I am finished. A few hours later, and we have the latest restoration of the NPOV breach. I believe this entire chapter requires administrator attention and action. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not used to this. I don't think I have been on this page before. I thought it was a behavioural issue for two reasons, the relentlessness with abandon, and the ACDS factor. Are you sure it is definitely Dispute Resolution? --Coldtrack (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Remarkably bad behaviour by HEB who certainly knows there are proper channels to handle a content dispute rather than edit warring. Quite unbelievable to edit away from the status quo, have this questioned by three editors and then suggest other editors need to prove consensus. I also thought this edit was quite sneaky. It was made shortly after Edin balgarin, the main editor disputing HEB's edit, was indeffed (for unrelated disruptive editing) with a handwave to the talk page which in no way showed support for the edit. The attempt at a boomerang below is not a good sign either. On the heels of this incident, I think a good trouting and a topic ban might be in order. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While I was aware of this discussion, I had little interest in getting involved in it, as I had the aforementioned negative interaction with HEB. I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address his unnecessarily confrontational behavior. The user sees dissent as a personal attack; and this retaliatory 'Request boomerang' subsection below is highly indicative of that. Note that HEB cherry-picks comments of others but in no way apologizes for their own, "suboptimal" comments and behavior (to quote @Floquenbeam:). One such instance is coincidence; twice is enemy action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to "cherry-pick" comments of mine from Talk:Kosovo which you feel are suboptimal you can do so, I would appreciate knowing what there you think I can improve on. Also please use the singular "they" when referring to me, my gender is undisclosed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, not playing your game of distraction, HEB. However, please feel free to point out where I have, in this conversation, applied a gender to you. Additionally, others have fully addressed your 'suboptimal' interactions with them. I've only pointed out where your comments in our previous interaction triggered an unconstructive interaction. Just like this completely different situation with an entirely different group of people. What's the common factor in the friction from both conversations?
    The answer you might be struggling with is facing you in the mirror, pal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address his unnecessarily confrontational behavior." The common thread seems to be editors completely ignoring WP:RS in favor of their own opinions and then escalating to WP:ANI when they can't win a policy based argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just FYI but I was the one reverting to the status quo, it had been steady from 2 February [78] to 8 March when it was changed by Edin balgarin [79] (who was indeffed for *related* disruptive editing BTW, the case is above this one) and I partially reverted Edin less than twenty minutes later[80]. Not really sure why Coldtrack is omitting that part of the narrative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Edin was blocked following a bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage (admins feel free to correct me). Unless I am completely misunderstanding the content dispute here, this is not related to Kosovo's borders. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage in a conversation discussing this exact issue at Kosovo, the conversation can be found at User talk:EvergreenFir#‎Kosovo and 1RR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone commits a murder in a post office it doesn't make them guilty of mail fraud. This is a good opportunity to show some contrition and self-reflection...just some friendly advice. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Their rant was a two-parter, half was posted on a personal talk page and half was posted on the article talk page[81], if they hadn't been indeffed for the one they probably would have been sanctioned for the other. If someone commits a murder in a post office but is killed by responding officers and were also committing mail fraud they will never be charged for mail fraud, but that doesn't make them innocent. You can either advocate for a topic ban (what topic exactly?) or you can offer friendly advice, its kind of hard to do both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request boomerang

    "Kosovo is not Serbian irredentism because it has never recognised the breakaway of this region, and as such, Serbia's claim over Kosovo extends beyond nationalists to the whole of ethnic Serb society."[82]

    "Nobody is interested in your unauthenticated appraisal of what is a "puppet state" and what you decree to be "sovereign", and while you are unable to corroborate any form of "puppetry" outside of your Russophobic mainstream media, everybody that knows Kosovo, famous for Camp Bonsteel, knows that it is nothing more than a western outstation. Its streets and squares shamefully honour contemporary US political figures in a way not even known in the US, and where the Kosovo "flag" flies, so too does the US flag."[83]

    "You don't get to appropriate this policy to violate delicate NPOV matters. That would firstly be in breach of WP:PARITY and of WP:GAME."[84]

    "The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border" as a consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate. Al Jazeera did not waste time here as within three days of the declaration of independence, they put out a report titled "Europe's Newest Country", filled with the usual vexed anti-Serbian rhetoric."[85]

    "No. You have had this explained to you a gazillion times now. NPOV is about reflecting conflicting viewpoints. You need to know what RS is and is not. RS is about choosing which of two diametrically opposed claims to treat as factual (e.g. round earth, supported by science vs flat earth, supported by pseudo-science). RS is not a trump card to oust NPOV. If it were, then there would be no such policy as NPOV."[86]

    "If you wish to dodge questions then this conversation is finished ... You are basically saying "RS says this so we should discard MNPOV". That is appropriating one policy to conceal the elephant in the room, which is not how this project works. Any more WEIGHT violations to the article and sidestepping of longstanding consensus, and you will be reported. Bye."[87]

    "The conversation with Horse Eye's Back has gone as far as it can go. Three editors including you have now spoken to him and he clings onto the tassels of "Reliable Sources" out of sheer desperation to push a slanted viewpoint. So if he removes "uncontested territory" again, I will report him and in doing so, will alert you to the discussion."[88]

    When someone is trying to dismiss all contemporary reliable sources as unreliable for a given space I think its pretty clear that they shouldn't be editing in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Boomerang for what? I haven't touched the article since God knows when. I can revert you right now and lock you out of restoring your partisan revision for almost 24 hours, except I haven't. So where does Boomerang come into play? You've argued with three editors. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should specify, the request is either for a topic ban regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans or a general WP:NOTHERE ban given your complete dismissal of mainstream WP:RS as "Russophobic" and for "pre-existing advocacy." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll allow the admins to deal with it. Your singular point you raised after it was debunked time after time after time did not mean you had to play around with the article. I've kept off it, and nothing has prevented you from doing so while seeking a third opinion or making a request for comment inter alia. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the boomerang took a while to double back (see WP:ANI#Unusually_nasty_and_unfair_personal_attack). El_C 04:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: How are these two incidents related? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say they were, but the OP is indef blocked all the same. El_C 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies if I am being obtuse here but Coldtrack is the OP of this discussion. It appears you blocked a user called Caltraser5 as a result of the discussion you linked to. I just don't see the connection. It doesn't appear Coldtrack has been blocked? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh shit. I can't read. Sorry! El_C 04:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is indeed a content dispute, but I am concerned by edits like this one which basically state that Kosovo (a state recognised by over half the UN) has the same position as Somaliland or Transnistria (states recognised by precisely zero other countries). That's obviously a POV issue, but I'd say it's even more a competence one (and I agree that someone whose worldview is that skewed should probably keep away from editing in that area). Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC time

    • I'll mandate an RfC as an WP:ACDS action, with the burden being on the side of inclusion. I don't care if it's longstanding, it reads awkwardly because of its irredentism. So, if you can gain the consensus to include: It is bordered by the uncontested part of the territory of Serbia to the north [etc.], well, I'd be surprised, but okay. Will Log. To clarify: until an RfC is closed with consensus to include, that passage is prohibited. El_C 02:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review: User:Rokifacet

    Rokifacet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I've blocked without tags and not notifying to avoid feeding the trolls, but they're clearly not here. Anyone know whose sock this might be? First edit is to critique a Jimmy Wales edit, and second set is edit warring to Russia/Ukraine Talk as a forum. Happy to have my block overturned if consensus is it's inappropriate, but nothing rang as a new editor here, or one who is going to edit collaboratively. Star Mississippi 23:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That looks like WP:LTA/GRP. DanCherek (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Now obviously socking as an IP which hopefully helps. Star Mississippi 01:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Unusually nasty and unfair personal attack

    I would appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would take a look at recent discussion at User talk:Caltraser5 and act accordingly. As I sit watching the horrors of the Russian attack on Ukraine and figuratively yelling at the TV in disgust, I am being accused of supporting Russian war crimes for acting to prevent vandalism of Moscow. Cullen328 (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • (shakes his head) Not the first time some editor has decided that Putin's war is an excuse to unleash nasty personal attacks at anyone thwarting their vandalizing of Russian articles. I wonder if there just needs to be blocks of these people for the duration of the war. Ravenswing 04:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yikes! Blocked indef with TPA disabled. El_C 04:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, El C. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you had to go through that bizarre toxic insanity. El_C 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, prompt service here is part of my generous compensation package. More correctly, it is the only significant part of my compensation package, except for an occasional barnstar, and my own sense of self-esteem. There have also been a couple of t-shirts that I no longer wear in public, since nobody ever says anything about them. Cullen328 (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    5.173.0.0/16

    Persistent cross wiki vandalism targeting Cugowski family – a well known family of Polish musicians. The range belongs to a mobile operator so I suggest a long-term partial block of possibility of editing of Piotr Cugowski. --jdx Re: 06:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 2 years, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Too much collateral for that range. El_C 06:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Life threat coming from an editor, TrangaBellam

    I am not a political editor but just a film article editor. I stumbled upon a recently film article on Wikipedia and saw several biased and "unusual edits" for a film article. So I thought to correct the bias by adding NPOV and balancing it out especially the reception section which had several problems but was reverted and then I started a discussion. Several other film editors have noticed this bias in that article but two editors have been reverting everyone as if they WP: OWN, calling names to others. See the discussion here. When I removed an unsourced claim in the article, and started a discussion to discuss the bias, TrangaBellam replies with Go to ANI or wherever - I do not care. - clearly accepting their bias. When I opened a thread on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, they attacked me calling me POV pushers (I write film articles for god sakes) and a political stooge of current government (equalizing me with a Nazi) with a threat saying "they have there attention on me" like they "have marked me" or something. This is a clear case of Intimidation and possible life danger. I don't feel safe on this site. Administrators need to intervene here.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077051787"