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 Skyerise (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 18 March 2022 (→‎Disruptive editing by Skyerise). 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

    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]

    Stalking

    OP has been sitebanned, the rest of the thread seems to have run its course. Girth Summit (blether) 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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.
    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]

    Oh, this LTA abuse one IP range and one IP,

    1. Special:Contributions/124.217.188.128.
    2. Special:Contributions/218.250.24.0/23,only it edit in this IP range after 26 January in last year,zh.wiki blocked.

    Please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Got it. MCC214, if you have time, maybe create an LTA subpage and list everything we've done thus far there, and then ping me to it with any future requests...? (If I'm not around, ANI/AIV in the usual way.) El_C 19:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, this LTA abuse one IP range and one IP,

    1. Special:Contributions/124.217.188.108.
    2. Special:Contributions/42.3.188.0/23,this LTA use this IP range after 30 July in 2020 (only 42.3.189.149 is not).

    Please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:23, 17 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? was 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]

    I don't understand why Dicklyon is allowed to keep carrying out these edits (changing "Strike Rate" to "Strike rate"). When I reverted one of his changes to the tooltip and told him what I wanted (either "strike rate" or the tooltip removed altogether), he stopped making the edits and opened the discussion pointed out above (WT:WikiProject Tennis#Tooltips, too). Now, I was going to reply to the tooltip discussion again, but I see Dicklyon has gone back to making the edits he wants on the tooltips (for example, this one from today) even though it has only been two days since I last commented. There are so many active discussions on tennis related to Dicklyon that I don't have time to reply to all of them every single day. At this point, I don't see the point of replying to the tooltip discussion because Dicklyon has already made the changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Firefangledfeathers commented above "I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion" and Dicklyon replied "Advice received", but he is still doing it. There is no end to this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 14 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]
    And this was my point above: there was no concensus for these mass edits, yet DI continues to make them. Even while this discussion is ongoing. This has become a repeat problem with him. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When you said I implemented mass changes against consensus, you wouldn't say which changes or what consensus you were referring to. You've softened it just a bit to "no concensus for these mass edits", but you still haven't pointed out what mass edits you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break

    • This section is extremely "mucho texto", and I got about halfway through reading it before giving up. But I am going to say some shit anyway: Dicklyon is a smart guy and a great editor, and I've been at odds with him before but I am opposed to him being kicked out of the project over this. That said: @Dicklyon: I really wish you would lay back on the capitalization crusade. I have seen you write stuff that's brilliant and useful, and thousands of words of arguments over capitalization is not really brilliant and useful. Even if you are right, this seems really pointless to me. jp×g 08:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be more specific in what I'm saying, you and I once had an argument about the capitalization of an article I created, which involved both of us typing out several paragraphs of text. Sure, you were probably right about that (and you are quite possibly right about this), but we spent at least a couple combined hours clacking out a bunch of inane dreck about capitalization on a talk page. Meanwhile, we appear to both be software engineers from Silicon Valley who've written multiple articles about landforms in San Francisco Bay -- in fact, one of your rivers (Miguelita Creek) touches one of my islands (Ogilvie Island). Both of these articles are kind of shitty. Surely, we would both be better off if we had spent this time collaborating on expanding them instead, or taking photos, or any damn thing in the world besides arguing about the capitalization of "extremely online". jp×g 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do spend a lot of time fixing capitalization according to the guidelines at MOS:CAPS. Not nearly so much time arguing about it, since most of my edits are readily accepted by most editors (notice that my biggest mass change in tennis, about 17000 edits, took a ton of time and got no pushback or significant discussion, just a bit about what I missed). But when an editor wants to WP:IAR without good reason, yes, I do push back, and yes, it does waste a ridiculous amount of editor time, especially if it gets brought to noticeboards instead of just normal discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • As for Miguelita Creek, I did track down more info on that and other East San Jose creeks, and found a wonderful map created by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. I tracked down the author of the rerport it was in, and talked him into saying OK to use it on Wikipedia, but so far have not been able to get him to send the explicit license statement we need. I haven't given up, though that too has been a big time sink. The map shows the original and rerouted creeks, explaining some of the naming confusion around there. And yes I have spent a ton of time driving around taking pictures of creeks (see User:Dicklyon#Creeks, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, bays); I can tell you who calls that a waste of time. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 15 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. [2] [3] (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]

    Sub-discussion

    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). [4] [5]
      • In the same topic, RogueShanghai has kept removing that the accusation is for harassment to "recant her account" [6] [7]
    • Removing the whole Controversy section from the article. [8]
    • Minaj said it so it must be true, examples: [9] [10] [11]
    • Removing the "swollen testicles" part on the vaccine controversy section without pointing out why. [12]
    • More promotional language [13].
    • Instead of removing one word, removing alot of criticism [14]; also citing 'vandalism' to remove criticism [15]

    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. [16]. 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 [17] 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 [18], 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 [19] 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]

    See? Carrying on like this has completely halted any progress or outsiders from intervening. You'll never get any resolution at this rate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to comment that it's discouraging how the reports above by fellow editors on RogueShanghai's behavior go nowhere for the 7th time, and just archived. In August 2021, it was proposed that they should be topic-banned from editing BLPs in the area of music, but also went nowhere, and here we are again. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While I believe RogueShanghai is the worse offender here, it takes two to tango. If you want intervention, don't run up the section with these massive wall-of-texts responses and back and forth. We're all volunteers here on Wikipedia. I'm sure there's been plenty of admin who look at this, mumble "yikes" to themselves, and keep scrolling because they don't know where to begin, or don't have an hour to wade through all that. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally see why the back-and-forth didn't help anything and just made admins not follow-up. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:32, 17 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 [20], 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]
    So, all of these redirects from old image names to new ones can be deleted? Just checking. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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]
    @Marcelus: It was you who said that Lithuania was simply called Poland and this way tried to deny its existance, not me (YOUR STATEMENT). I never questioned Poland's existence or name. It is not my aim in Wikipedia to deny other countries existence or names. I respect Poland as much as my own country as it is a historical and current ally. Lithuania deserves as much respect as Poland and per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Assume good faith nobody should be allowed to falsely try to deny its existence or name. -- Pofka (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pofka - Look, here is the concern. You have been blocked for personal attacks recently, but you continue to comment on editors and what you think their motives might be. This is not okay per WP:NPA. The last thing I want to see is you being sanctioned, but you need to stop doing that. Do you think you can promise to focus and comment on content and not on the contributors? GizzyCatBella🍁 01:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: put an end to this nonsense

    Withdrawn. Oops, my bad, I didn't realise that these weren't the same editors as last time. Usually, it takes two to tango, but in this case it appears like the only common element between the previous ArbCom case request and this is only one editor [I should have checked more thoroughly]. Not saying that everybody else is blameless, but hopefully the TBAN implemented by El C will solve the issue; and if it doesn't well then nothing prevents coming back here or at AE and sanctioning further disruption. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    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]

    @BD2412: Please pay attention to the fact that this report about me was created by Marcelus when I provided examples (see: 1, 2) at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Language_in_the_former_Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth how he is ignoring the said discussion and is continuing the Polonization of Lithuanian names despite no WP:CONS was reached as of yet there. He presented such warnings as personal attacks. Whaaat? I provided some strong arguments there and it is strongly doubtful that his actions will be according to the upcoming WP:CONS. It is he, not me who is ignoring that discussion and is creating new conflicts, chaos in other articles. I did not removed any Polish names/words and I'm waiting for a WP:CONS at the discussion. And now he even initiated this report in order to censor my counterarguments. I said that he is spreading Polish superiority propaganda because he said that Lithuania was called Poland (see: HERE) and aggressively attempted to defend such obviously false claim. I can't see how such claims of his qualifies as Wikipedia:Assume good faith, WP:NPOV. He literally attempted to deny my home country's name and existence. With all due respect, but such claims about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are a pure propaganda as it existed as a separate country in 1236–1795 and never was Poland. On the contrary, I did not performed any anti-Polish edits and never attempted to discredit Poland or its name. It will be really sad for me if I will be blocked after 11 years in Wikipedia for defending my home country's name, existence and language, but if it will be the final decision – then I will have to respect it. Waiting for your decision, -- Pofka (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not proposing to block you from Wikipedia, but clearly you have an attachment to the subject area that would not impede your editing in other areas. BD2412 T 20:25, 14 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]
    • Comment by Pofka @RandomCanadian: @Jack Sebastian: Marcelus tried to prove "historical" fact that Lithuania was called Poland (Marcelus' statement). So how such claims can be described? It indeed reminds nationalism. I used Putin's manipulation of history as an example because he also said that Ukraine is just Russia. Ukraine never was Russia and Lithuania never was Poland. Straight facts. So Marcelus' wording seemed like a really similar case. I have nothing against Poles and I had successfully collaborated with Poles in the past. We have a glorious history together and we must respect each other instead of trying to prove someone's superiority or attempt to discredit Poland/Lithuania or Lithuanian/Polish languages. Just a reminder: I initiated a discussion at Talk:Partitions of Poland#Requested move 26 February 2022 to rename article Partitions of Poland into Partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in order to include both countries names when Marcelus began dropping "facts" that Lithuania was just called Poland. By doing so, I did not attempted to discredit Poland or its name. I create quality content in Wikipedia for over 11 years and never said such non-senses about other countries and never questioned their existence or names. On the contrary, as far as I checked Marcelus' edits mostly are related with Polonization of Lithuanian noble families names, etc. It was Marcelus who attempted to prove that "historical" fact and dragged me into this dirty discussion that Lithuania is just Poland. I'm sorry, but I simply couldn't ignore it when such false claims are being spread about my country as "historical" fact. -- Pofka (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Really calm down. If you hadn't noticed I agreed with you in this discussion by saying: "Personally, I don't mind renaming articles for consistency, the name "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is generally accepted on Wikipedia to describe this country". I was simply trying to give you a reason why the term "Partitions of Poland" is so popular in English literature. Simply put, the whole of the Commonwealth was often referred to, especially in the 18th century, as "Poland". This does not mean that the GDL ceased to exist, it was simply the result of a long-standing union. That's all. Marcelus (talk) 19:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pofka TBAN

    I've applied an indef WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN on Pofka from Poland or Lithuania. Sorry to have probably derailed the IBAN proposal, but this has been a long term problem which I've been aware of for some time. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like things have improved. El_C 02:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, that was the logical next step, given they seemed to be digging their own WP:HOLE. As far as disputes regarding ethnicity and nationality and all sorts of similar things, it usually is the fact that you need two to tango, but hopefully this does solve the problem. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't disagree with the decision under the circumstances but please consider my plea --> [21] - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to Polish-Lithuanian friendship! No to plea, sorry. El_C 02:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: I received permanent topic ban, but Marcelus did not receive anything for starting this (calling Lithuania as Poland)? I think we should be sanctioned equally then because his actions certainly weren't any better. -- Pofka (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not undertaking to unilaterally Tban anyone, I merely expressed my views to the community. It is the community which would need to act towards this end. BD2412 T 15:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think nationalist identity disputes are among the worst sorts of problems Wiki-EN has to deal with, along with creeping history revisionism and paid writers. I could be wrong, though; I often am. Thanks for being on top of this, @El C: - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Jack Sebastian, I appreciate that. El_C 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just don't let it go to your head. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 16 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]
    I suspected from their name that this editor might be Malaysian, after noticing TNT asked them if they speak Malay I checked out their user page and found out they do they say are from Malaysia. While they didn't seem to respond very clearly to TNT's question and although it's been a while since I've written anything much in Malay, I wrote a comment to them in Malay trying to explain the situation. (To be clear, I wrote this in Malay myself, it isn't a machine translation although I did use dictionary searches and similar to try and help me remember words or find ones I didn't know.) I'm doubtful it will help, but maybe it will and didn't see any harm in trying. And yes I know they've already lost talk page access but they might still be checking it out and if the problem is really an inability to understand what we're telling them it seemed fair to try and get through to them. (Although it's easily possible their level of Malay is below their level of English.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 14 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.

    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]

    Well, I'm lost. El_C 01:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, El C, here's the longer version: Widr blocked the above IP range in September 2020, after seeing some typical User:HarveyCarter edits such as emphasizing lung cancer,[22] closeted gayness,[23] and anything at all about Leif Garrett.[24] HarveyCarter is known for using IPs from Bury St Edmunds but recently the UK reorganized their IP geolocation system, unlinking past IPs to Bury St Edmunds and instead assigning them to Birmingham or London. The above IPs were most certainly connected to Bury St Edmunds at one time—I clearly remember looking them up.
    The recent activity causing me to make this report is this comment pushing to denigrate Winston Churchill, this edit regarding Stalin's antisemitism, and this edit pushing a homosexual controversy. All of these edits are typical of HarveyCarter's behavior.
    Related rangeblocks include Special:Contributions/86.154.234.0/24 and Special:Contributions/86.173.0.0/21 which are both active. Binksternet (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of one year. El_C 02:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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 histheir 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]
    @Jack Sebastian: You used "he" in the quoted sentence above when referring to Horse Eye's Back. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, so I did let an accidental 'his' slip into the post where, at every other point before and since, used their preferred pronoun. I could care less as to the user's gender; my complaint addressed their behavior, not which restroom they used. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    Just FYI but I was the one reverting to the status quo, it had been steady from 2 February [25] to 8 March when it was changed by Edin balgarin [26] (who was indeffed for *related* disruptive editing BTW, the case is above this one) and I partially reverted Edin less than twenty minutes later[27]. 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[28], 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."[29]

    "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."[30]

    "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."[31]

    "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."[32]

    "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."[33]

    "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."[34]

    "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."[35]

    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

    RFC launched at Talk:Kosovo#RFC: Kosovo-Serbia border. (But not just because El C said so! ) Levivich 19:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How dare thou! I am the leader of the BBC, still. 🍔 El_C 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 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]
    • El_C The wording was introduced after a long informal discussion by several editors with a variety of viewpoints in 2015, Talk:Kosovo/Archive_30#Northern border, and has been continuously present in the article ever since. It's as solid consensus as one can get. I was initially opposed to it as well since it reads awkwardly, but unqualified "borders Serbia" is unacceptable from NPOV standpoint. Quoting Future Perfect at Sunrise from that discussion: Whether you like it or not, and whether it reflects the facts on the ground or not, Kosovo is still considered as de jure part of Serbia by a significant number of international actors, so there's no way around the fact that Wikipedia will have to remain neutral about this in its wording, as a matter of principle., and your accusations of irredentism are out of line. Nobody is edit-warring to include that wording; it is Horse Eyes' Back edit-warring to remove it. You're seriously overreaching here. No such user (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why we're tying ourselves in knots trying to find the least convoluted wording for a sentence that probably doesn't need to be there at all. Why not simply replace the sentence with a map? Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will just reuse Fut. Perf's answer from the same discussion: I don't think that would be a good idea. "X borders on Y" sentences are pretty standard in our country articles, for good reason – they provide an easily understandable geographic reference frame for readers unfamiliar with the region (and speaking of maps, the one we are currently showing at the top of the infobox is so small you can hardly see Kosovo anyway, let alone what other countries it borders on). I dislike the idea of sacrificing a piece of plain, uncontroversially useful factual information for our readers just because some entrenched Wikipedia editors keep reading non-existing and quite unrelated POV issues into one bit of wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC). No such user (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, run the RfC nonetheless. The preceding sentence already reads: Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008,[14] and has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 97 member states of the United Nations. It is bordered by Serbia [etc.] Again, get affirmative consensus if you wish to reiterate that distinction in the next sentence, too. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough. As for the map: Abkhazia is about the same size as Kosovo (i.e. half an Israel), and it resolves its tininess on the continental map well enough (like Israel), I think, so have a look-see at those examples. El_C 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No such user, it is not out of line for me to view that addition as irredentism, because it tells the reader the same thing the previous sentence just did. And it reads awkwardly. Edit warring is edit warring, be it on the side of inclusion or exclusion. A major part of WP:ACDS is that it allows uninvolved admins to, sometime, skirt the line between content and conduct (i.e. normally indeed an over-reach). Now, whether that action crosses that line would be subject to appeal in the usual venues. Hope that clears things up. El_C 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not skirting the line, that's a blatant involvement in favor of one side of a content dispute. WP:ACDS#Role of administrators: To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom. While indeed Any uninvolved administrator may impose... prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), your interpretation of "except when consensus exists" amounts to "but I do not like it". What do you consider "usual venue"? AN? Anyway, consider it appealed. No such user (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The venues for appeals are: yes, WP:AN by the community, or WP:AE by a quorum of uninvovled admins, or WP:ARCA by the Committee itself. El_C 13:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I dislike that passage not because I have a content preference. I dislike it because it reads awkwardly and, arguably, restates the sentence that precedes it. I have no opinion on any changes that qualify (or not)... whatever in relation to describing the borders, in text or visually, with a better map. El_C 13:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? Since when are admins supposed to make content choices in their administrative capacity? You're being helpful like a bull in a china shop. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough – since when we need a RfC for every wording, and every single discussion needs to be closed? In that discussion, nobody (except the last poster, Let's keep it neutral supported unqualified "borders Serbia" wording that you're trying to impose now; I announced I'll change it to "uncontested territory" wording, nobody objected, and it was in the article ever since HEB's incursion. I'm not in love with that wording either, but the onus to open a RfC is on the one(s) advocating the change. No such user (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like the ACDS WP:RMfC I mandated for Kiev→Kyiv name change, I will not be closing this RfC. If you want to see that consensus for inclusion realized per WP:ONUS, argue your case on the RfC, not here. El_C 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Content issues aside

    Putting the content issues (on which I’m agnostic) aside, there is still to my mind an issue with HEB’s recent conduct and edit warring on this article in particular. This was an uncivil and unhelpful way to go about something that clearly had pushback at the local level. Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vladimir.copic, I looked at that and had found subpar conduct from multiple parties, but opted against sanctions in the end in favour of the RfC. I suppose you could try to seek admin intervention just against HEB alone, to be carried by a different admin, here, in a new subsection (for some reason). El_C 14:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I was following the discussion on the Kosovo talk page and it brought me here. For transparency, I haven't had any interaction with the users involved and I am somewhat ambivalent regarding the content dispute. However, I do think it's striking that several experienced editors (No such user, JuicyOranges, Coldtrack and Jack Sebastian) have expressed concerns regarding HEB's conduct. To me HB's comments + edit-warring show an uncompromising attitude and arrogance which might be the reason why it rubs other editors the wrong way. This is contrary to the spirit of the encyclopedia which is cooperation, civility and respecting consensus. A warning would be well-deserved here. --Griboski (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review: User:Rokifacet

    Resolved
     – account locked

    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]
    Aww! dang! I get as many comments on my WP "kiwis are shy" shirt as on my RBG as Justice shirt, which in both instances is bizarrely a lot. Come visit here to enhance your compensatory regime! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 07:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

    FWIW, Endorse block. Caltraser5's wholly uninsightfull UTRS ticket has been closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:21, 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]
    @El C: A partial block of that IP range from editing that one article would cause less collateral damage than semi-protecting the article, which also blocks people using other IP ranges and newly registered accounts, as well as that range. Or have I misunderstood something? JBW (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no, sort of. No, because look at the page's history. For a long, long time, the only unconfirmed accounts to edit that page are of that LTA. I think the latest p-block was of 83.168.64.0/18, but they obviously just go on to using another range for that weird idée fixe of theirs. Sort of because it does look like I conflated 5.173.139.129 (Warsaw) with 5.173.17.29 — thanks for calling attention to it! Yes? El_C 23:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Life threat Hostility coming from an editor, TrangaBellam

    I am not a political editor, just a film article editor. I stumbled upon a recently released 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 (positive and negative) 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 pusher (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 their attention on me" like they "have marked me" or something. This is a clear case of Intimidation and possible life danger hostility. I don't feel safe on this site. Administrators need to intervene here.Krish | Talk To Me 08:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, it was a mistake and I have corrected it by striking it. I did not intend to mislead. I have corrected the title too.Krish | Talk To Me 10:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - While I do not want to comment on the hostility between the two editors - the great problem here is with the film article The Kashmir Files, which has been highly unstable over the past few days. TrangaBellam has reverted the article to their own preferred version numerous times, with no consensus and clear opposition on the talk page. That's what should matter here and what I would ask admins to take note of. Shahid • Talk2me 10:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Shshshsh: ANI does not deal with content disputes. – 2.O.Boxing 10:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Squared.Circle.Boxing: No, this isn't contect dispute - it's edit warring and user misconduct, which I believe ANI should deal with. Shahid • Talk2me 10:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      DIFFS are required at ANI esp. since you accuse me of commiting countless reverts, which if true, ought be sufficient grounds for imposing a block.
      I have made two reverts (1 and 2), of which the first one was procedural: it restored the status-quo version to stop an edit-war between Krish! and Tayi Arajakate. Besides these two, I have reverted in one instance of obvious vandalism. That's all. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not true. I was not edit warring, I started a discussion after reverting a version with unsourced claims but was again reverted.Krish | Talk To Me 10:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shshshsh: edit warring can be dealt with at WP:ANEW. As for user conduct, I have yet to see any evidence of anything that requires administrator attention. And just to note, Krish called on you for backup at the article's talk page. So all this "I'm an impartial observer working towards peace and harmony" gig doesn't quite wash. – 2.O.Boxing 10:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously? I always had disagreements with Shahid. I only invited him because he is the only Indian film editor that has been active. So your claim is not true. Like, me, Shahid has also written several film articles and is one the only few editors active whom I know. I invited Kailash too and he did not support me. So this is not true.Krish | Talk To Me 10:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read WP:CANVASS? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: - I have. The first sentence says "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." That's what Krish did. Shahid • Talk2me 10:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Squared.Circle.Boxing: Krish wrote - "Would you like to present your points?" and I put a disclaimer saying that I had been invited to comment. I've had my biggest arguments with Krish (see Talk:Bajirao Mastani). I really am an impartial observer. And "working towards peace and harmony" is not at all my point - I want the article to be in neutral shape, and I let all of them know that I think all opinions should be presented. I honestly do not get your hostility either. Shahid • Talk2me 10:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • TrangBellam has been hostile and intimidating towards us, not ready for consensus, with a "my way or the highway" approach, not ready to listen other POVs, not adhering to MOS of other film articles, constant reverting and to the point even said "take me to ANI - I don't care" and we are accused of being trying to corner him?Krish | Talk To Me 10:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps User:RegentsPark can help. Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boomerang. Krish writes above "How are we supposed to edit film articles with this kind of disregard for Civility and full of toxicity? ... Administrators need to act ASAP." I agree, and have therefore page-blocked Krish for two months from The Kashmir Files for tendentious editing (this edit, removing a line from the lead with a false claim that it is not supported in the article, is a good example, out of quite a few), disregard for civility,[37][38] false claims (I don't know if these statements come from a place of incompetence, or of disingenuousness), and violations of WP:CANVASS. Bishonen | tålk 11:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    So this is why that editor said "TAKE ME TO ANI- IDON'T CARE". Says a lot about behind the scenes CANVASSING. This and Kautilya3 work together with that third editor but are not accused of CANVASSING but I invited the film editors I know of and gets blocked? Nothing more to know about the state of Wikipedia. You claim I am hostile but that user was the one being hostile towards me. He was the one breaking WP guidelines.Squared.Circle.Boxing, 331dot and Mathsci.Krish | Talk To Me 11:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bishonen: you have your reasons, and I find that Krish is too emotional about the subject, but I suggest that you oberve the article's history, particularly on the part of the other users, especially Kautilya3 and TrangaBellam. The former, in particular, added yesterday parts which were downright false (Diff). I wasn't willing to engage in an edit war, but they were later reverted by an admin (1, 2). As I said on the talk page, I personally trust Tayi Arajakate to maintain the article in good shape and neutrality. Shahid • Talk2me 11:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shshshsh Just to be clear, I am not "emotional" about the subject. I just feel the MOS that film articles have on WP is not being applied to this article. I have written so many film articles yet nobody has ganged up like this for such a silly thing. I don't know how the hostile and OWN attitude of Kautilya3 and Trangabellam is not questionable but I am being accused of the things these two editors did. It's bizzare.Krish | Talk To Me 11:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Shshshsh, re "they were later reverted by an admin": administrators put their trousers on one leg at a time just like other people. Bishonen | tålk 11:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: - of course, but what is your point? What about the actual content of what I've said? Did you actually look at the user's edits? Now, I'm not saying you should employ the same course of action here, but can you think of a solution to such problematic behaviour? (if you think you could be available to keep an eye on the article, that will be good enough). Shahid • Talk2me 11:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that, while admins have special tools as admins, they have no special authority when they edit an article. Note also that if they edit a particular article, they're not allowed to act as admins on it. You want to discuss Kautilya's editing now? I'm sorry, I'm not up for researching that at this time, I have some urgent stuff going on in real life. Maybe later. (This page seems to have some updating issues. I know RegentsPark posted before me and before Ravenswing,[39] but it's not showing up. Can somebody fix this, please?) Bishonen | tålk 12:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
    @Bishonen: okay, I get it - no problem. Thank you for the reply, Shahid • Talk2me 12:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Bishonen's page block, the diff of the removal of content (provided by Bishonen) from the lead is concerning (almost the exact words are used in the article body). And then there is the section on Talk:The_Kashmir_Files#Lack_of_NPOV_and_WP:_I_Don't_Like_It that is equally unsupported by diffs as is this complaint. Bottom line, if you're going to charge into a divisive, controversial topic, don't come running to ANI crying about neutrality unless you can back it up with solid evidence. Because, if you don't have the evidence, you end up looking like the POV editor.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an uninvolved editor, I don't care much for TrangaBellam's angry tone. But oh my freaking heavens, Krish's reaction is so far over the top my eyes are popping. Is he trolling us, or does he really, truly think that the edit of "Though this is the last article, that I am editing, before taking a break from S. Asian discourse, I have no intentions of ceding ground to long-idle POV pushers; your edits (1, 2 etc.) across the last few years have not escaped my attention" constitutes a threat against his life, so that -- as he states above -- he no longer feels safe on Wikipedia? Seriously? If it wasn't for Krish's solid contribution history, I'd suggest that someone on that touchy a hair trigger is a poor fit for Wikipedia.

      Beyond that, I really don't care for "When did you stop beating your wife?" type of inquiries. "Take it to ANI, I don't care" does not admit bias. It admits nothing at all, and claiming otherwise is unwarranted and objectionable. Never mind that Krish started this in the first place. It was Krish who first threatened to "raise this concern to the administrators." It was Krish who first claimed bias, and finished with "This is highly suspicious." ("Suspicious" of what, may I ask?) Frankly, I find TrangaBellam's behavior less objectionable than Krish's. Krish is not being "accused of things others did." He's being accused of his own hyperbole and incivility. Bishonen made the right call. Ravenswing 12:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - Funny to see that I have been mentioned multiple times (even sanctions asked), but never pinged even once! This is the ultimate POV attacking I have seen in all my years. For the record, I haven't deleted anybody's content on that page (yet). I just wrote my own content, every word of which was reliably sourced. These people apparently don't like what the reliable sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an uninvolved [to the dispute] editor, from what I read and understand, TrangaBellam never did such a thing as threatening a life!! I was bemused to read this report. Still no idea where they got the idea, but it's good to start that it's stricken off. Perhaps Krish, as you said on your talk page that this whole thing got to you [40] [41] and that you won't appeal the page block, I'd advise taking some time off to clear off your head, and resume working on a different article that interests you. All of us need to recharge at some point. Hope it helps! — DaxServer (t · c · m) 19:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Tsans2 adding back FICTREFs, non-RS, BLOGs, and OR

    @Tsans2: has been adding back information to Russian fascism (ideology) which I have removed for policy or WP:FICTREF reasons without justifying themselves. For examples:

    I could give other examples if necessary, but collecting those takes time. @Jr8825: who seems to have followed this article for a while may be able to provide some more insight into Tsans2's behaviour.
    For the records, Tsans2 has opened an ANM against me recently. Veverve (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the ping. I haven't been keeping the closest eye on this, but I stumbled across Russian fascism (ideology) early after creation and had a brief scan of potential sources, as well as providing relevant clean-up tags. I was contemplating an AfD nomination before another editor initiated it. I've been cautious so far and have refrained from the !voting at the AfD as I think there's scope for a similar article based on academic sources, but having glanced at the AfD and article several times from a distance I agree there are definitely judgement issues which may verge on competency problems, particularly given the edit warring, AN thread and non-WP:AGF accusations of vandalism. Content-wise, the main issues seem to me to be repeated instances of synthesis and non-neutral tone. Most of the current sources are in Cyrillic so I can't verify them, but I do see a lot of Ukrainian web addresses and sites such as Unian, which are unlikely to be appropriate or academic. There were also previously YouTube links. I haven't looked closely enough to check whether named political scientists are supported by the relevant cites. This could be a WP:RGW issue and I see Tsans2 is a relatively new editor. I don't feel I'm in a position to judge the best solution, but navigating our policies can be particularly tricky around emotive topics, so perhaps a talk page reminder/advice/warning of the importance of these policies – and that repeated good-faith mistakes still risk a topic ban – would be helpful? Jr8825 • Talk 11:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jr8825: Thanks for your input. Articles in other languages can be checked using Google translate if needed. Unian is to me a reliable source, but the problem is that the user uses FICTREFs constantly.
    Tsan2 has been reverted numerous times by me with explanations every time; I also have told the user on their talk page about the problem and gave them practical example of their bad editing behaviour in the article's talk page (as I put in my first message). This was to no avail. Therefore, I doubt one more reminder/advice/warning would do anything.
    Most of the article is a mishmash of claims of Putin's governement being Fascist, historical Russian Fascism, and the alleged Raschism ideology; it seems all this confusion relies on the purely OR definition of Russian Fascism/Raschism/Russicism being both allegedly the practical disposition of Russia under Vladimir Putin and an alleged sub-ideology; this is all Tsan2's doings despite my efforts. The user also constantly uses FICTREFs and OR; for example "Term 'rashist' has became widely used by policital and military establishment of Ukraine, as well by journalist, influencers, bloggers, etc." ([58]) has three sources and none contain this information. On WP ru, Tsan2 also tried to spam the Rachism POV on the Russian Fascism article, and was rejected. Veverve (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has once again reinstated some terrible content of the article, once again ignoring all my criticism and not providing any real justification. I think enough is enough. @Drmies: a few days ago you thanked me for an edit on this article. Therefore, my hopes are that by chance you have more or less followed the edit history of this article and can therefore make a decision concerning my complaint. In any case, I would be grateful if any admin was to put an end to Tsan2's vandalism. The user so far has not substantially responded despite my attempts, so I think a sanction is needed. Veverve (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid that user Veverve edit war to remove sourced content about Russian Neo-Nazi, for example here (note edit summary). Yes, many of the sources are on the Ukrainian language. But it does not disqualify them. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @My very best wishes:
      Let us review each of those sources I have removed in this revert. I had provided a rationale in my edit summaries for each of those removals; since you accuse me, I will have to do it again here for those. The subject of the article, while vague, appears to be Russian Fascism/Raschism, an alleged specific form of Fascism, just like Maoism, Stalinism or Marxism-Leninism are a form of Marxism.
      • Рашизм і фашизм: знайдіть дві відмінності: despite the title, no mention of the topic, only numerous Conservative to far-right topics discussed here and there without any coherence between the topics. No mention of what the source is supposed to support in the article: "considered by many to be the political ideology and social practice of the ruling regime of Russian Federation in the 21st century. This interpretation is based on the ideas of the 'special civilizational mission' of the Russians, Moscow as the third Rome"
      • "Fascism and the New Russian Nationalism" : brief mentions of Fascism in Russia, the article is about Russian nationalism; no mention of the "expansionism" in the article, only that "For Ziuganov, Stalinism shorn of its Marxist-Leninist trappings, infused with nationalist and statist sentiments, rendered politically homogeneous, 'organic' in character (Ziuganov, 1997 p. 85), developmental in intent, and expansionist in practice, constitutes a political ideal." (p. 11; my emphasis), and that "What seems evident is that a plausible case can be made for the presence of Fascist elements in the political ideology of some of the major opponents of the Yeltsin administration in post-Soviet Russia. That those elements constitute the grounds for identifying its proponents as 'right-wing extremists' is, at least initially, counterintuitive." (p. 12)
      • "Is Putin's Russia Fascist?": the article states some people have called Russia under Vladimir Putin Fascist; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism, simply that "Fascist regimes have charismatic dictators with hyper-masculine personality cults. These regimes generally evince a hyper-nationalist ethos, a cult of violence, mass mobilization of youth, high levels of repression, powerful propaganda machines, and imperialist projects. Fascist regimes are hugely popular—usually because the charismatic leader appeals to broad sectors of the population. Putin and his Russia fit the bill perfectly."
      • "Is it Time to Drop the F-Bomb on Russia? Why Putin is Almost a Fascist": the article states Russia under Vladimir Putin is almost Fascist; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism
      • "The antisemitism animating Putin’s claim to 'denazify' Ukraine": the article states Russia under Vladimir Putin is Fascist; it does not describe Russian Fascism/Raschism
      • "Ідеологія рашизму має бути засуджена світом, як нацизм і фашизм – історик": copy-paste of an "opinion [...] expressed in a post on Facebook by historian, chairman of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Council Oleksandr Sych", not a notable nor reliable opinion although it does discuss the topic
      • "Amazon sells clothes with Russian military Z symbol", "Автомобили с буквой Z замечены в Уральске и Шымкенте", "Авто с наклейкой Z: водителя оштрафовали в Нур-Султане": absolutely no mention of the topic or anything related to political ideology, it simply describes how the "Z" symbol is used with no mention of Fascism. The Times article states: "Russians around the world have been daubing the white letter on black backgrounds to denote support for their army fighting in Ukraine. The adoption of the 'Z' as a symbolic expression of support is viewed as particularly controversial as it was originally daubed on tanks attacking Ukrainian cities. [...] Police in Kyrgyzstan, a former Soviet republic, said they would fine drivers featuring it on their cars. Czech police will treat the 'Z' symbol in the same way as the swastika." tengrinews.kz reports that in Kazakhstan the symbols "Z" and "O" are forbidden to be displayed on cars. So those source support most of the information in the line they are in front of, but no link is made, either in the WP article or in the newpaper articles, between the "Z" and Russian Fascism/Raschism.
      • I will not check the sources supporting what is written later about the Z symbol, as the symbol's link to the alleged Raschism has no been proved; those parts should simply be removed
      As you can see, I have good reasons for removing those sources along with what they allegedly supported. Veverve (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the place to discuss sources, but anyone can follow your links and see what they are about (I think most of them are on the subject). More important, Russian fascism is a notable subject, and such page has every right to exist, not as a diambing., but as a regular page. Would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You have accused me at an ANI of POV-pushing and WP:AGENDA, so I was forced to justify my edits.
      I agree that Fascism in Russia - the History and tendencies of Fascism in the Russian geographical territory - is a notable subject. Russian Fascism/Raschism - again, the alleged sub-ideology the way e.g. Strasserism is - seems not to be a notable topic, which is the reason why WP ru has been - rightly so in my (Veverve) opinion - refusing the article's creation for 12 years according to one of WP ru's admins. Veverve (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. While "Fascism in Russia" [in general] is a valid subject (agree), many scholarly sources (for example scholarly RS mentioned in this discussion) say specifically that the current Putinist regime in Russia is a variety of fascism, a variety also known as Ruscism (per sources like [59],[60],[61],[62]) or Rashism (per [63],[64]). All these words mean exactly same thing, an allegedly fascist regime under leadership of Vladimir Putin. This is the subject of the page under the AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      See my refutation at the article's AfD. You have not provided any source stating All these words mean exactly same thing, an allegedly fascist regime under leadership of Vladimir Putin. In any case, an ANI is not the place for such debates. Veverve (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you are engaged in sustained edit warring on this page for a week to win a content dispute, and you complain? My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Long-term vandalism by IP since September 2021

    Disruptive IP (new to old order)

    List of IPs

    Articles involved

    I don't see them stopping anytime soon with the latest edits made today consisting of the same nonsense, hence requesting to range block 240F:7A:0:0:0:0:0:0/32 and 106.171.0.0/16 which consists of the above disruptive IP that are active in 2022. If possible, also 106.131.0.0/16 in case they hopped to that range, I'm fine the decision to restrict 106.131.0.0/16 range from editing the articles involved since this range hasn't been used in 2022 yet to disrupt the articles involved. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The IPv4 ranges being used here are 106.171.40.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 106.131.0.0/17 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The IPv6 ranges are 240f:7a:c000::/34 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 2001:268:9000::/38 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). It's not really a /16 or /32. wizzito | say hello! 13:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Wizzito Hi, thanks you for working out the range, my IP knowledge isn't that board, I thought it only works with /16 or /24 or /32 or /48 or /64 since this are the ones I commonly encountered through the red notification box that appear in certain IP contributions if it's within the blocked range. Anyway, thanks again! Regards, — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive WP:SOAPBOX editing by User:ABetterWorld89

    User blocked. (non-admin closure) Viewer719/Contribs! 08:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Over the past week or so, ABetterWorld89 has been repeatedly performing disruptive WP:SOAPBOX edits to articles regarding tennis tournaments, specifically the 2022 BNP Paribas Open. Their aim was to add back flags for Russian and Belarusian players. The reason as to why they were removed, as explained in this thread, was due to a ruling by the governing body of tennis that players from Russia and Belarus were permitted to play, but their tennis organisations had been suspended from membership so players are unable to play with their country's flag by their name. A few editors noted this on their talk page; they simply replied with comments attacking the editors that were warning them. Almost all of ABetterWorld89's edits have been reverted, with some examples of the disruptive editing here, here, and here.

    I am not sure if this qualifies as straight vandalism, which is why I have added it to the noticeboard (please let me know if this is better somewhere else), but am hoping this editor can be looked into more urgently as it is becoming rather tedious having to see hundreds of edits being reverted. Bonoahx (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And they are being abusive see Special:Diff/1077078013 — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Continual re-adding of unsourced material

    I've alerted User:Kurisumasen of both WP:BURDEN and WP:DDE, and they continue to simply re-add uncited material. Normally, you might see this type of behavior from someone with 30-100 edits, but this user has almost 10,000. Now as per WP:DDE, I'm asking action be taken against this editor. Not sure what type of action, perhaps a week block to get the point across? Here's the edit history of the page in question. First I moved it to draft, in the hopes that referencing would be provided. It was moved back the same day without improvement. So I removed the uncited material. It was added back. I again removed the uncited material, this time citing BURDEN and DDE. I should have taken this to ANI days ago, but I keep hoping that they will get it. Onel5969 TT me 23:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait; so you've been edit warring on an article for the past few days and you want the other guy to be blocked?? If I'm looking at the edit history right you've made almost the same removal five times in a row in the past 3 days. [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] You have not engaged in any discussion on the talk page at Talk:List of Mixels characters. Normally, I might see this type of behaviour from someone with 30-100 edits, but you have more than 500,000. I'd like to see a WP:BOOMERANG block on Onel5969.
    Also, you're not allowed to draftify articles that have already been draftified.[109] Take it to AfD or go home. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to say that "but unsourced content!!" is not a listed exception to WP:EDITWAR unless it's BLP related and you nuked a whole lot of non-BLP stuff in the diffs I had to post for you. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Onel5969 was also just here last month in a thread about edit warring. [110] Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost as if when the community enables a policy violator's policy violations, that person will continue to violate policy. Who would've thought? I expect this thread will similarly end with everyone encouraging Onel to continue edit warring. Mlb96 (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about you self-important bunch stop trying to put the blame on the person who spends all their time shoveling crap at the dark end of the NPP queue? There is a fundamental difference between "reverted too often to add unsourced material" and "reverted too often to remove said unsourced material" - that difference being that one of these is harming the encyclopedia and the other is protecting it. A bit of perspective please, and less stentorian "pox on both of their houses" blather. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with you, Elmidae - I was just at his UTP mentioning the time sink that article has become, and mentioned a potential redirect to the company. I look up, and see this block against one of our hardest working reviewers - it's a thankless job as it is. Atsme 💬 📧 12:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I saw your note on Onel's talk page, recommending a redirect. Had they taken your advice and done that, or put a note on the talk page, or filed an AfD, or otherwise made an attempt to cement a consensus and resolve the issue, then that would have been fine. But they edit-warred repeatedly over the issue, and given Onel's been at ANI for this sort of thing recently, I don't think we've got any choice. I agree that Onel does a lot of work on NPP, and on the occasion we've disagreed (usually over the application of a CSD criteria), it's been polite and fruitful. I think occasionally they just get carried away, and that's why we are where we are in this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From my end, I appreciate your double page block as an impartial admin's sensible compromise between acknowledging the impetus for multi-reverting this stuff, shutting down the unsourced additions at the page, and upholding basic editing rules. (Sorry, Onel - I've been there too :p) Thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't just exempt people from policies because they're productive in other ways. Every single time we've done this we end up with editors who feel they are WP:UNBLOCKABLE and get indeffed by Arbcom after really crossing the line. All we're doing by exempting someone from WP:EDITWAR because they're right is creating someone that feels it's OK to editwar when they're right. We've had this conversation before at ANI dozens of times but with different people on each side. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 14:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked Onel5969 and Kurisumasen from List of Mixels characters for 72 hours after repeated edit-warring between the pair of them. I have no idea what to do with the article, but if anyone thinks it should go to AfD, I won't object. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unconvinced about blocking someone for removing unsourced crap from an article, but it's only a partial, so whatever. I do notice that User:Kurisumasen seems to have a WP:CIR issue here in that despite 10K edits they clearly have no idea of the concept of sourcing the trivia they shovel into items, so I've given them a heavier warning for that. Meanwhile, This was the original List of Mixels page they created (sources: two fandom pages) and this was the state of it when they moved it back into mainspace from the draft that Onel5969 had placed it (Only source: an online Mixels game on the Lego website - I wish I was joking). Black Kite (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't unsourced, and if it was, then what was left behind wasn't sourced either. Onel's version is no better than Kuri's. How does that video game "source" Onel's version? The source for a list of characters in a fictional work is the fictional work itself. Pretty much every relevant policy and guideline says (a) it doesn't need an inline reference, (b) don't edit war, and (c) even if it needs an inline reference, don't edit war unless it's a BLP. An NPP should know this, especially one who was just at ANI. A non-disruptive editor would have taken this to AfD for notability reasons, or started a merge discussion, not edit war to remove content that didn't have an inline citation (because it doesn't need an inline citation, because the source is the fictional work itself). This is like edit warring to remove an unsourced plot summary only to leave a shorter, still-unsourced plot summary behind. It's a pure content dispute that has nothing to do with verifiability. Levivich 13:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to this diff, the link failed verification. When you click on it, you're taken to a game. Atsme 💬 📧 13:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Adding: the curation tool shows: Possible issues – Blocked user - This page was created by a blocked user. Previously deleted - This page was previously deleted. Copyvio - This page may contain copyright violations. 13:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
          Here are Onel's changes. Onel removed every entry that didn't have an inline citation while leaving the single entry that did have an inline citation. But the inline citation is worthless, it's a video game, it doesn't source anything. Meanwhile, the actual source, for a list of Mixels characters, is the Mixels cartoon series itself. Onel was removing uncited information, not unsourced information, and edit warring to remove uncited-but-verifiable information is against several policies. An inline cite after every paragraph is not required; a general reference is fine; and lists of characters in a fictional work can be verified by the primary source of the fictional work itself. NPP should know better than than to edit war to remove uncited (but not unsourced or unverifiable) paragraphs while leaving in an obvious non-RS source. There are many better options: remove the bad source, reduce the level of detail, add a general reference to the Mixels series, actually find a secondary source and add that, tag it, merge it (which, thanks for doing that), take it to AFD, etc., anything other than edit war to remove uncited paragraphs while leaving behind what's basically a far worse list article than what was there before. BTW you can see in Kumi's edit summary here, "Mesmo is not the only Mixel", where they basically address the issue: Onel removed a bunch of list entries even though those list entries met WP:V, and what was left behind (listing just one character), actually didn't meet V, because there are, indeed, more than one Mixels character (and no source is needed for that beyond Mixels itself). Levivich 14:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I would have just redirected it or draftified it, as Onel actually did, only for Kurisumanen to resurrect it with even worse sources than it had in the first place. I do have some sympathy for Onel here, but they should have simply done the obvious and sent it to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notice that Onel5969 has appealed the block. While any admin is free to unblock without consulting me, I am concerned that the unblock request is basically accusing Kurisumasen ‎of vandalism without evidence. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, calling it vandalism isn't going to fly I'm afraid, and there's no exemption to 3RR for simply removing unsourced material (unless it's a BLP issue or similar). Ironically, it was the IP whose edits are indistinguishable from Kurisumanen's who actually called Onel a vandal [111]. Black Kite (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also add on that I don't see Kurisumasen's edits as vandalism. Since the 4th exemption criterion under which Onel5969 is citing says "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism" are not covered under WP:EDITWAR, well-intentioned users disagreeing would be pertinent information to a reviewing admin. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’m Kurisumasen’s guardian (he is disabled, which is about as much detail as I want to go into here). I’m not asking for special treatment, but you’ll notice from his record that if a consensus on revisions is reached first, these kinds of reverting problems don’t come up. I appreciate that editors doing cleanup are busy, but there is a tendency to swoop in and make a big change, then post a note after. He finds that difficult because he gets very invested; when there’s a discussion beforehand it’s easier to assimilate. It might be worth bearing that in mind. I don’t need a response, but I wanted to add the information to the discussion in case others have similar issues. (PS I don’t think the IP edits are his by the way, he hates to be logged out.) BantamBird (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "if a consensus on revisions is reached first, these kinds of reverting problems don’t come up" is and should be the default. I don't see why Onel5969 should be exempt from WP:STATUSQUO, which is that in cases of edit warring, the older version should be preferred until a discussion can commence and be finished (although if there's no consensus the material can be removed per WP:BURDEN). Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi BantamBird. I think the main problem is that Kurisumasen doesn't realise that when they add material to an article, they need to source it. This isn't something that consensus should be reached on, it is simply something that they shouldn't be doing. If you could help us out here by helping them to understand that, I'm sure the issue won't arise in the future. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:PLOTCITE: "Citations about the plot summary itself, however, may refer to the primary source—the work of fiction itself." Had Kurisumasen added, at the end of every list entry, <ref>"Mixels" (2014-2016). Cartoon Network.</ref>, that would have been sufficient. But it also is unnecessary, because per WP:MINREF, an inline citation is only required for four types of statements, and plot summaries (and lists of characters in fictional works) are not one of the four types (MINREF says "Our sourcing policies do not require an inline citation for any other type of material, although it is typical for editors to voluntarily exceed these minimum standards."). Levivich 19:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're suggesting sourcing an article entirely to a primary source? Don't get me wrong, what you're saying is completely correct for plot summaries as part of larger articles that pass GNG. This one doesn't, because there are no sources apart from primary ones. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If the article is a list of characters in a fictional work, then yes. Now I'm not saying such a list should exist for every fictional work (it wouldn't pass WP:N or WP:PAGEDECIDE), but to the extent you make a list of characters in a cartoon, you don't need a source for that, because the cartoon is the source. Similarly, if we had an article that was a stand-alone plot summary, it probably wouldn't pass WP:N or PAGEDECIDE, but it would pass WP:V, with no sources other than the fictional work itself. There is no rule against a list sourced entirely to a primary source. (Compare navigation lists, which don't require sources at all, primary or otherwise.) Levivich 19:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Remember: the condition in which Onel left the article was still sourced to the same sources as the article before Onel's edits. So this isn't about GNG, it's not about notability, this is about Onel wrongfully removing content because the content didn't have an inline citation (not because it was unsourced), and then edit-warring to keep that uncited content out. What's makes it worse is that the cited content was cited to a bad source anyway, so Onel in no way improved this list through their edits. Levivich 19:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this edit summary from Onel: Special:Diff/1076683343, it's "remove uncited material", not "remove unsourced material". The mistake here is in believing that uncited material must be removed. Levivich 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are lists of characters with no references apart from primary ones even tolerated? They violate WP:PLOT and WP:WAF badly. If there is nothing you can say about a character from any reliable, secondary source, then is it really necessary to have a section about that character? And if there is nothing you can say about any of these characters from secondary sources, then don't create the article in the first place. That the in-universe information can be cited from the work of fiction itself is not an excuse to not have any secondary sources about a character. Fram (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • It seems as if the consensus is moving towards deleting the article. If so, I will suggest that he recreates it in his userspace, where he can edit it to his heart’s content. There are primary sources (the cartoons; the mobile apps; ‘making-of’ documentaries), and some secondaries like news and fan sites, which can be cited, but if the article is going to be removed anyway I shan’t bother putting them in. I will also talk to him about sources again (I am a doctor in research methodology, believe it or not). Apologies for the disturbance. BantamBird (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate behavior of Axxxion

    User:Axxxion reverted me on Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: [112], [113]. For some reason, he thinks he gets to decide what's important or not.

    I decided to not revert him more so there isn't an edit war, but he left an insultive comment against American officials, all because I added their assessment of Russia's campaign [114]. When I warned him about his behavior, he rudely told me to bugger off.

    I ask the admins that they at least tell him to be civil, because my words won't have any affect on him. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Axxxion, RE: an american moron′s opinion is of no relevance here (diff) — who? You know unnamed official? Also, American always in uppercase. Please don't make it weird. Eep. El_C 01:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I never get to have any fun!. (Endorse block oop) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    American moron says what? El_C 02:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "badda-bing, badda-bang" --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, I'm trying to get to the snacks. El_C 03:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    you both are mad. 晚安 (トークページ) 06:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Ladapo BLP

    Wikipedia unfavorable to the truth on this article? It would seem the fake news editors here are busy trying to spin the truth and the cited article itself by misrepresenting it in this BLP. I have tried a few times to correct this article from the fake news editors with this edit in () (In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation "healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC" in Florida.) It just doesn't say what the pro vaccine editors want it to say... Hmm that would seem to be a violation of Wikipedia's rules and quite frankly intellectual dishonesty. Wiki is supposed to rely on creditable sources and taking and quoting the headline of the cited sources obviously cannot be allowed by the pro vaccine folks who wish to perpetrate fake news. And to that, I must ask why?

    Editors here refuse to allow the word "healthy" to be included here and I must ask why? The cited source says "healthy children" and whenever those two words appear, it is immediately edited to delete the word "healthy" and carry water for the fake news editors.

    Any one want to chime in and answer the question? 2600:1700:7610:41E0:D54A:165:F3E5:33C2 (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please work on resolving the dispute on the article talk page, IP. Also, please spare everyone the usual buzzwords of "fake news" and so on. While you might have a valid content argument, that kind of rhetoric is inappropriate, so please refrain, review WP:BATTLEGROUND. El_C 02:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While we don't resolve content disputes here I actually agree with you that if Ladapo restricted his recommendation to healthy children the article needs to make this clear in some way. However the first time you said anything on the talk page was after you'd been reverted three times (I think) and was the same or at least a very similar hyperbolic statement as you made here. If you want to resolve WP:content disputes you need to calmly discuss the dispute on the talk page rather than simply complaining about other editors or ranting about Wikipedia. If you are having problems resolving a dispute or feel the problem is urgent and you need help, do so at some appropriate place for WP:Dispute resolution probably WP:BLPN in this case. ANI is never a place to resolve content disputes as I indicated in my first sentence. I'd also note that while you were trying to do this, you also tried adding disputed tags to the article [115] [116] again without discussion [117]. When you make good or partly good edits interspersed with bad ones, it's very easy for your good edits to be missed especially when you make no attempt at discussion for any of them. I'd also note another IP who I initially thought was you but looking more carefully may not have been added some similarly questionable edits [118] after your second attempt at effecting the healthy thing and I think there's a good chance others thought and still think the other IP is you and so it's affected their perceptions of you as an editor. If that IP is not you, unfortunately you have to accept that when you chose to edit without an account it can be easy to mistake you for another editor. I'd say especially with IPv6. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for honestly stating the BLP needs to reflect what the source is stating. While it is true I did not use the talk page until just prior to posting here, neither did the reverting editor check what the source actually says before reverting the constructive edit. Does every constructive edit need to be defended on a talk page to stop the reverting of constructive edits? I am also surprised nearly everyone else ignores the talk page even when my edit summary plainly states see talk page. I do not wish to defend some poor choices. I have sworn off Wikipedia many times and when I see blatantly inaccurate information in some article I try to be constructive and are once again rebuffed by some editors who, without checking the source, revert my edit and issue warnings or accusations about vandalism while they themselves are vandalizing a good edit and article. Thank you for your replies I realize that for every editor that reverts constructive edits there are countless more who allow the constructive edit to stand. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:C16D:29A3:38C5:ECC7 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP 33C2, you said I have tried a few times to correct this article. I see one time, by IP D674, that I assume is you: [119]. The only other IP I see having done that is IP 3FIF [120]. I also note that in that edit, 3FIF removed the sourced sentence The recommendation was contrary to that of the CDC while only leaving an edit comment mentioning the part they added. (Note that, when 3FIF put back [121] the "healthy" part without removing the CDC part, that edit was not challenged until it was reverted three days later by another editor.) 3FIF also removed sourced content from another article [122] with no explanation beyond a bizarre non-sequitur about pajamas, and then decided it would be a good idea to do this ([123] [124]) in response to being asked to stop removing sourced content. If the editor using the 3FIF IP expressed concerns about the intellectual dishonesty of others, I would have some doubts they were doing so in good faith. Would you know anything about that, IP? Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Egsan Bacon: because of the way IPv6 works, you can generally take any IPs within the /64 to be the same device and the dynamicness is intentionally built into OSes for privacy reasons. Sometimes the /64 could cover a whole house (so multiple devices and theoretically possible multiple people just like a single IPv4), it's a lot rarer that it will cover something like a large educational, commercial or residential building. This means all the contributions from Special:Contributions/2600:1700:7610:41E0:D54A:165:F3E5:33C2/64 can be taken to originate from the same editor barring evidence to the contrary or someone who knows more about AT&T's current allocation policies. That being the case, I count 4 times that the IP tried to change this detail [125], [126], [127], [128]. The last time was just before they came here [129]) and also finally went to the talk page [130] (as I noted above), and it is now semi stuck due to the protection (not complaining). As I noted above, the IPs other edits to that article were generally questionable so I can understand why their good edits were missed. However, while they should not have removed the CDC thing, even their first correction should not have been simply reverted like that, instead the bad part of their edit removed and the good part kept. Likewise, the other 2 edits which were reverted really shouldn't have been, and it doesn't matter that much how long it took for them to be reverted if they were. These edits could have been improved but since we are dealing with a BLP here, we really need to do our best to ensure BLP violations are corrected and attempts to do so aren't lost just because of badness in between or during by the same editor. I'd note even if this had been a banned editor, while I'm a strongly believer in WP:DENY, when it comes to BLP we cannot allow deny to outweigh our responsibilities (actually WP:BANEXEMPT means technically they aren't wrong to make an edit if all they're doing it correcting a BLP violation). Although I'm not saying anyone needs to check each edit from a banned editor carefully before reverting. In this case the editor isn't banned AFAWK, and the number of edits is fairly limited so while I can understand why the good edits were missed, and as I said above, if the IP had simply handled this better there's a good chance this would have already been resolved, and of course none of this excuses the terrible way they handled this including the silly comment above and on the talk page, you can't deny that we also seem to have failed here since we unfortunately kept a BLP violation for longer than we should have. (I haven't checked the sources but so far no one has challenged the IPs on the talk page so I assume their basic premise is correct.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    McdonaldsWifiAccount

    Refusing to respect consensus, referring to multiple editor's reverts as a "frightening" "concerted attack"

    I'm filing this due to false accusations of conspiracy, and hostility from User:Onceinawhile at Rachel's Tomb. Earlier today Onceinawhile wrote that the multiple editors who reverted the user's uploaded image had been "Edit warring the image out of the article without consensus", and falsely described this as a "concerted attack" that was "frightening".

    Some background, roughly four years ago, Onceinawhile replaced the main image at Rachel's Tomb (the third holiest site in Judaism) with an image that shows barbed wire, plastic bottles, and cinder blocks lying on the ground. The cinderblocks, barbed wire, and debris being more prominent and in focus than the actual subject of the article, which is almost entirely invisible and out of focus. This was then updated to a cropped version of the image, that was still out of focus, and still contained a bottle of garbage in the frame. There was unanimous consensus on the talk page that the images were unsuitable (the conversation in its entirety is viewable here). Due to this consensus, the original/preceding image of the tomb was kept, and it had remained stable since that time.

    Recently, Onceinawhile restored the cropped version of the image, falsely claiming that this was "in the absence of any solution here" and bizarrely claiming that there was consensus for, alternately, "a photo from outside" and "a modern image" (there wasn't). Now, this is merely annoying, I'm aware that "consensus can change" and would have no problem opening an RFC and requesting opinions. But, being accused of partaking in a "frightening" "concerted attack" made me feel that the editor wasn't interested in engaging constructively.

    It is also worth noting that Onceinawhile was warned roughly a year ago at Arbitration Enforcement that "Their general conduct as depicted by the complainant's evidence is simply beyond the pale. Myself, it has been years and years since I've seen discourse in the ARBPIA topic area degenerate to such an extent. Not at all a good sign, which ought to be nipped in the bud." It doesn't seem to me that anything has changed whatsoever. And personally, I'm not sure how to proceed constructively with a user who falsely accuses those who revert their edits of conspiracy, and describes those edits as a "frightening" "concerted attack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree the usage of such terms create a toxic atmosphere in such fragile and contentious area especially the user was warned multiple times already Shrike (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was me. Probably time for an WP:ARBPIA WP:TBAN...? I mean, I did issue Onceinawhile a final warning on Feb 2021 (permalink, I did indef TBAN their opponent later on, though), which followed the AE complaint linked to above (direct link), closed by Awilley on Jan 2021. The problem with issuing a TBAN to an established ARBPIA editor, is that their camp will come to their defense (like in that final warning I linked to), then the opposing side will counter-offence, and downhill it goes from there.
    It pretty much never fails to happen. And the worse forum for that inevitable spectacle is this freeform, word-limitless AN/ANI, where threads quickly become impenetrable to nearly all but the most ARBPIA dedicated. I'm inclined to go with no action (on my part, at least) just by virtue of Drsmoo's lack of clue about choosing this forum. Granted, a much easier forum to draft a complaint such as this (a diff-light complaint), but wrt enforcement, usually accompanied by meager results (i.e. much heat, little light).
    Sure, one is technically allowed to post complex ARBPIA complaints at AN/ANI, but that doesn't mean I or others will act on em if we find the process at WP:AE less disruptive for these sort of entrenched ARBPIA matters. Might as well nip that practice in the bud, I'd say. Or, rather, have been saying, for years and years. (edit conflict) As I write this, of course! El_C 10:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I got that out of my system: Blocked – for a period of one week, but am still holding off on the TBAN per my above rant. El_C 10:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a staunch proponent of the "AN is deliberately listed as the primary conduct forum, and listed as an alternate forum within AE for various aspects, not accidentally" wing, I've chuckled at El C's position (more valid than normal given that the warning was done over at AE), but I'll endorse arbpia-scope tban given a breach of a final warning (I should note that had it been a really mild incursion I'd have just reissued a warning given the more than a year since Feb 2021) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nosebagbear, you keep missing my point all through the years, about freeform, word-limitless AN/ANI, where threads quickly become impenetrable to nearly all but the most [topic] dedicated. I've never seen you provide a convincing counter and, at this point, I've pretty much given up trying to reason with you about this. So I suppose till next time we rinse and repeat this once more. El_C 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Vs the longer dispute where this isn't the place for it (and sorry to both OP and you for doing so - mea culpa), in this case, it was more of the quickform "so long as policy permits them to raise the request here, I'll engage in the process" Nosebagbear (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What does Vs mean? Anyway, you're gonna chuckle per usual in response to my stance, I'm gonna do my your-position-is-unresponsive/unsubstantive thing. We've been through this how many times now? What's the point? El_C 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the apology, sorry. Withdrawn. El_C 12:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not how it works. Not when others are grouped with them without distinction. El_C 12:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of Snow Close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry

    Wrong venue. Please take this to WP:DELREV. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would like to request a review of the SNOW close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry by RandomCanadian. As I mentioned on their talk page, I see their close as inappropriate for the following reasons:

    • Their close rationale cited WP:CSK and they quoted #3: The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. For this nomination to be completely erroneous, it would have to be so ridiculous that it either doesn't make sense or is gibberish. Second, I obviously provided an accurate deletion rationale (per WP:GNG). They may disagree with the rationale, but no one can claim that I didn't provide an accurate rationale. This also completely ignores Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargers–Rams rivalry, an ongoing WP:AFD on a same type of article I nominated with the same rationale (that is going to close as a delete). I say this not to cite WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST, but to show that my rationale was not ridiculous.
    • They also cited WP:SNOW, but they failed to give even a reasonable amount of time for editors to comment on the deletion discussion. They only allowed 7 hours to elapse from start to close, a time that is shorter than a normal work day! If this happened on day 3 or 4, I wouldn't bat an eye, but after only 7 hours?
    • Lastly, in their talk page, they cite SNOW as being necessary to avoid drama and WP:NOTBURO, but neither of those were an issue. Keeping a good faith deletion discussion open a few days to allow all editors to participate is not a bureaucracy, and rather is a common courtesy.

    I get it, the discussion was definitely headed in one direction. But I have been party to many deletion discussions where a flurry of comments comes initially that advocates for one side, and then later as more editors take part the other side comes forward. This type of close would be appropriate for clearly bad faith nominations, for nominations from new editors who obviously don't know where they are doing, or for nominations that are clearly ridiculous (i.e. if I nominated Bears-Packers rivalry). But in this case, my nomination was legitimate, it had a valid rationale (as shown by the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargers–Rams rivalry) and it would not cause any harm to keep it open for a few days to give others an opportunity to participate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse - Honestly I don't know where to begin with that deletion rationale, which explains that it's a decades-old sibling rivalry (two teams in the same city, even in the same stadium) that is widely covered (as are all major sport sibling rivalries, by virtue of their rarity and the fact that they basically only happen in large markets with tons of media coverage, thus ensuring widespread in-depth coverage). "only comprised 14 total games, with only 2 games in the last 10 years", is, in the context of inter-conference NFL, a nonsensical rationale, as explained by several !voters (and in the lead of the article, for that matter, 14 games is a lot). The nomination rationale is actually a "keep" vote. Levivich 14:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse (uninvolved): I think RC's close is saving the community time. The nominator's rationale appears to be based on a reasonable belief about what constitutes a "true rivalry" and an analysis of the sources that shows they do not prove the existence of one. I think RC's characterization of that rationale as an inaccurate one is also reasonable, as there's no expectation in our notability policy that sources meet a certain editors definition of the term. Inter-league rivalries between teams that play in the same city are more of the rule than the exception. I also see it as likely that the Bears-Packers rivalry page will be deleted, but many of the Delete voters are viewing it as "too soon" and calling for draftification, as the teams have been co-located for a relatively short period. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonzo fan I have no idea why you reverted Ad Orientem's close of this as it quite clearly should be at WP:DRV. I would like to request a review of the SNOW close - that's exactly the type of thing Deletion Review handles. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad. Feel free to archive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had this in the edit window when I edit conflicted a while back, and well, might as well include it since I had bothered writing it:
    • Closer comment The OP's characterisation of CSK no. 3 seems to be overly restrictive, and their reasoning that a similar rationale is correct for another article on a similar topic does not mean it is accurate for this one. I've explained CSK no. 3 on my talk, but just for everyone's convenience, the gist of it is that I could find WP:THREE just by looking at the article. Also, it doesn't require nor imply any malfeasance from the nominator [otherwise it would be CSK no. 2]. As for the similar articles on a similar topic, that is simply a false comparison: if one were to make the argument that Cashion London fails GNG, they'd probably be correct. However, make the same argument for Trayon Bobb - who plays the same sport in the same country - and you'd correctly get called out on it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Per WP:LEGALTHREAT, notifying admins here about a perceived legal threat by the user @JamesA.Blatt posted on my Talk page, Special:Diff/1077283019 over a decision to decline their draft, Draft:Prince Pius. – robertsky (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Not really a legal threat, so much as JamesA.Blatt screwing around, making others clean up after him. Blocking them indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam thanks! – robertsky (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hajrakhala blindly reverting

    Hajrakhala (talk · contribs)

    Today IAmAtHome (talk · contribs) let me know on his talk page that this user was reverting external links for further readings additions on certain historical personages. [131] here, he puts 4 time warning. Hajrakhala claims İslâm Ansiklopedisi links are spam, as if IAmAtHome is promoting his own website or something. I personally use [132] this website as a source here as well on various articles. It isn't spam and has various credible authors. Beshogur (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Shāntián Tàiláng

    User:Shāntián Tàiláng keeps harassing English Wiktionary administrators, including (but not limited to) myself, Justinrleung and Fytcha with talk-page hounding (1 2 3 4 5...) and constant pings, in a (futile) attempt to get his indefinite block overturned despite disruptive editing and near daily block evasion. Is there anything that can be done about this? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    So, SO terribly sorry for harassing you guys (I didn't really mean to do so, I just didn't know who to contact and how to do so). 🤦‍♂️😢😳😭😧
    But! Could you all please tell me how to successfully get my indefinite block overturned? 🥺🥺 I already asked Fytcha, but I would love to hear what the rest of you have to say. Whatever you do, don't block me from Wikipedia as well; I have never made any disruptive edits here AFAIK.
    Also, Surjection, I'm sorry about what happened here yesterday. 😢😳🤦‍♂️ Can you please show me a table of all the CheckUser info correlating the actual block-evasions I've done so far? I'd really love to have my account unblocked from Wiktionary, so I would also appreciate a table of all the disruptive edits I've made that weren't Chinese/Japanese entry creations or {{etyl}}-related foolishness. Seriously, you don't think I feel ANY remorse for any of my bad actions?! 😫😧 And if it seems that I don't feel remorse for yesterday's block evasion, trust me—there are some genuine categorization edits that need to be made to a lot of entries, and blocking my account from WT won't make those edits happen any faster. I'll gladly add Chinese redlinks to WT:RE:zh, as RcAlex36 requested, if you unblock me from WT. 🥺🥺🥺🥺 Shāntián Tàiláng (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To provide context for anyone looking at this thread, Shantian was indeffed for "Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion: using IPs to evade block" after they were blocked for 1 week for adding inaccurate Chinese entries to Wiktionary. [133] Then they got their talk page access revoked for "continuing to ping other users to ask them make edits for them after request to stop pinging other editors". Here's their user talk page thread that goes into the evidence against them: [134] Meta:Global bans also exists if Shantian keeps up their behaviour. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 18:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shāntián Tàiláng: I'll choose being clear over being overly polite. We do not care if you are blocked on Wiktionary. if you use English Wikipedia to make one more comment, question, criticism, ping, or any other post that is related to your block on Wiktionary, you will be indefinitely blocked here. We have enough internal disputes of our own, we do not need to import them from other wikis. You will have to follow whatever process Wiktionary has to appeal your block. I am confident posting here is not a part of Wiktionary's process. If Wiktionary's processes do not work, then you won't ever be able to edit there. You are close to making it so you cannot edit here either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into their editing here, but if you think that they have crossed the line into cross-wiki harassment you can request that stewards lock their account globally at Steward requests on meta. Best Girth Summit (blether) 09:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Paramount Global Content Licensing

    The article refers to the division as Paramount Global Content Licensing, even though the official website refers to it as Paramount Global Distribution Group [135]. So I tried updating it like many people have before, but it keeps getting undone. I tried bringing it up on the Talk page, but that got undone and I was told to "SHUT UP". I would like some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averyfunkydude23 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You should both stop edit warring, but I see that you did try to discuss, and AdhiOK has reverted your section twice, which is no good.[136][137] They've also removed an earlier sections, mislabeling it vandalism.[138] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it does appear that Averyfunydude23 tried to take the issue to a talk page discussion and AdhiOK has tried to revert that talk page discussion. I have notified AdhiOK of this discussion (which should have been done at the outset). 20:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singularity42 (talk • contribs)

    With AdhiOK not answering direct questions about their edits, the disturbing compilation of diffs above (some of which indicate they are not clear on exactly what vandalism is), and their apparent reluctance to actually discuss disputed information on the article talk page (which started this discussion), I question their competence to edit collegially. Schazjmd (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    At a minimum they are very much not aware of the contents of WP:VANDALISM. But yes I'm leaning on WP:CIR. Canterbury Tail talk 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm they're still editing and showing no indication of wanting to respond to any of the concerns in this thread. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, maybe a short mainspace block to force some discussion, to make sure they're capable of it? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I see something immediately disruptive in their current edits, I'd like an uninvolved admin to handle that. Canterbury Tail talk 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest I just took a look at the edit filter logs for AdhiOK. um yes an explanation is needed here. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    CX Zoom Bot

    Today, while searching for myself at the move log, I realised that an account User:CX Zoom Bot was created on 10th March that has since been blocked because of username policy, i.e., "bot" suffix in a not-bot account, by 331dot. But I also wanted to let administrators know that I'm in no way related to, neither did I know of this "CX Zoom Bot" account before today. Thus, I request an administrator to note in CX Zoom Bot's block log that it is an unauthorised impersonation/doppelganger of mine, as if I had a bot. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Taken care of. Thanks for the notice, on the off chance said account makes an appeal you've saved unblock reviewers a lot on the back end. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING and violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary policy by User:Archives908

    OP blocked 48 hours after increasingly aggressive accusations of "hate speech" and vandalism against editors who disagree with them. We will probably end up revisiting this. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hi dear admin people. I would like to address the unpleasant behaviours I've faced recently. Thank you in advance.

    1. The user has recently engaged in the act of persistently reverting my edits (6 times on List of European countries by population between 7-10 March 2022 and once on Tunceli Province on 15 March 2022).

    2. I've addressed the issue and tried to reach a consensus on talk page 1 and talk page 2. I've also tried to clearly explain the reasoning behind my corrections while making edits. The user insisted on their same claims and reverted my corrections, even without reading them in some occassions.

    3. Example diffs of their reversions: [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169]

    4. On the same list, they have made another automatic reversion to the correction of another user here: [170]

    5. Here are the main points I've corrected to contribute to Wikipedia:

    5a. The first sentence of List of European countries by population creates confusion by lumping together an arbitrary set of Transcontinental countries with two countries completely in Asia (as also indicated in the table by different colors). I've corrected the lead to separate the countries within two different categories. My claim is that the user kept WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING in an attempt to present his country, together with countries that have territories in Europe.

    5b. The second paragraph contains unnecessary information (Why is here special attention only on Turkey [1 of the 6 countries in its category]?), wrong information (Not only a "small" amount of Turkey's population is in Europe), a meaningless term without a proper citation to it (What is an intermediate region?). I've proposed a paragraph that reflects two different opinions together. My claim is that the user kept WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING in an attempt to present another country misleadingly.

    5c. A country in the list was listed in the wrong category. I've corrected this.

    6. On Tunceli Province, they have made another WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING.

    6a. They have added an unsourced (and pretty weird) claim that the official army of a country had invaded its own lands.

    6b. The death toll given there is biased (see: Dersim Rebellion for a neutral list of sources containing death toll).

    6c. For no reason, they have deleted the information I've added from the corresponding source indicating similarities between Armenians and Zazas.

    6d. The last sentence is very misleading (by also giving a biased death toll). When I first read the sentence I had the impression that thousands of Armenians were massacred. However, the reality is that there were only 359 Armenians (0.48% of the population) a decade before the rebellion and a pro-Armenian newspaper (another source I've shared and they have removed for no reason) writes that Armenians were converted to Alevism.

    To sum up, the user

    1. persistently completely reverted my edits without providing sufficient explanation, as you may see in the diffs, while I was trying to converge a solution,

    2. did not try to approach to consensus by repeating the same arguments while I was patiently explaining my argumentation, as you may see in the talk.

    As I am new on Wikipedia, my humble opinion is that they may have also violated WP:3RR as they have done the same reversions 3 times in 24 hours, and made their fourth reversion a few hours after the 24-hour period.

    Thank you for your attention. (I hope this is the correct place to raise this issue.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meurglys8 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    You’ve been 9 days here and already making an ANI report. You’re the one doing tendentious edits and edit-warring over them like in Tunceli Province. So far, you didn’t get consensus or create any talk discussions for your edits in the article. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ZaniGiovanni. I'm confident the Admins will see right through this baseless accusation. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Is there a time limit to make an ANI report ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I would love to learn from you.
    2. Archives908 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I've presented my base above. :) You might prefer to read first before opposing an argument (something you haven't done before your neverending reversions, unfortunately).
    All the best and hope to have a Wikipedia full of easy consensuses, and free from nationalist manipulation. Meurglys8 (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you may be upset/frustrated that your edits are not being accepted. But that's not how Wikipedia works. I am aware that you have only been here for 9 days- but to present false information and continue to make personal comments about me is not acceptable. The Admins will see that I have been more than polite to you at every point of our dialogue. I have taken time to explain and refer you to policy and I have initiated conversations with you on your talk page and on the respective article's talk page. Nonetheless, you continue to edit disruptively (as seen in your own edit history), before reaching a consensus and while having an on-going conversation. ZaniGiovanni, Kevo327, and I have all had to restore articles based on your disruptive editing tactics in the past 9 days. You have also (more then once) made personal and negative remarks about myself after I have asked you to stop with such remarks and keep focused on the subject matter/topic. Admins- please review the talk pages diligently to see that I have tried engaging with this new editor, tried to encourage conversation, and explain policy...sadly, to no avail. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have time to review in detail, but I've placed a couple of overdue DS notices on Muerglys8's talkpage. I am unimpressed with this attempt by them to use ANI to complain that they're being disagreed with. I see no edits to Talk:Tunceli Province, and I see a lot of assumption of bad faith from them. Mueglys8's first edit [171], removing sourced content to "correct flawed content" seems to have been the beginning of a trend. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your reply, dear User:Acroterion. Let me clarify a misunderstanding.
    1. My first edit was my first ever edit on Wikipedia. I managed to finish it in several steps, so it is not limited to what you have seen at a first glance. Then, I learned swiftly how edits work here. I wasn't even aware of how to use the talk page. Then, I moved to the talk page and encountered with this user preventing to replace unsourced phrases with "facts".
    2. The user has clearly violated the policies/recommendations listed here: Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary#Bad reasons to revert I have listed their violations above.
    3. a. I have done the following, written on Wikipedia:Editing: Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit nearly any page and improve articles immediately. b. Later on, I have done the following, written on Wikipedia:Editing#Talk pages: If you ever make a change that gets reverted by another editor, discuss the change on the talk page! The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a popular method of reaching consensus. c. Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary lists the examples of good and bad reverts. Unfortunately, I have faced with complete reversions to my replacements when I included A. facts with sources and B. phrases that represent different points of view. Do we have to wait until someone who automatically reverts clear facts (such as a country having lands on both Europe and Asia) starts seeking for consensus, while no one else writes on the talk page?
    Please swiftly check [172][173][174][175][176][177][178] to see how the user insistingly prevent the page to grow. Thanks! Meurglys8 (talk) 08:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please allow me to correct a misunderstanding; after fifteen years as an editor of this project I have seen a lot of new users try to quote policy to justify their disruptive insistence on their own point of view at the expense of other editors and the encyclopedia. The term is Wikilawyering, and it's what you're doing now. Please stop, it annoys people. Complainants are subject to scrutiny of their own conduct, and should approach ANI with clean hands.
    I mentioned the arbitration enforcement regime because I would likely have placed you under a topic ban of about six months on subjects relating to Armenia, Armenians, Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, which appear to be motivating much of your editing interest. This would allow you to become better acquainted with the editing ethos of Wikipedia before jumping into contentious topics that have seen similar disruption in the past. I have not done so because policy, which I can read perfectly well, does not allow me to until after you have been notified, and after you return to the behavior that brought about the warning.
    Wikipedia is founded on consensus, which you do not appear to understand. and which is fundamental to participating here. Aggressive edit summaries in lieu of talkpage discussions are not a helpful approach to finding consensus. Attempting to weaponize policy at ANI to win an argument against consensus is a very poor strategy. Accusing others of tendentious editing while doing precisely that is worse. Please be aware that the community can enact editing retrictions without reference to arbitration enforcement, and that individual admins can do so if you continue to be disruptive in those areas. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Acroterion for your fair review of this. It's appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Coloring Greece with an appropriate coloring (green color that indicates being in Europe and Asia) is not disruptive. Reverting this with no explanations is disruptive.
    2. Objecting to lumping together two different categories of countries (a. those who have lands in Europe and Asia, b. those who have lands only in Asia) is not disruptive. Reverting this with no explanations is disruptive.
    With all my regards Meurglys8 (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    After 10 days, with multiple editors advising/warning you, unfortunately you still appear to not understand why your editing tactics are disruptive. For this reason, I do not believe you are here to genuinely WP:BUILDWP. Archives908 (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request REVDEL and block of User:Chitagbig for highly inappropriate content added to talk page

    I'm a talk page stalker of the admin User:Redrose64 and just noticed a highly inappropriate and abusive posting. Asking for a REVDEL and block of that account - this is the only entry in this user's contributions history. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 02:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    See also ANI history for additional REVDEL needs for edits by the same user on the same basis. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 03:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanisaac -  Done. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You got the block, but I still see the abusive post in history. This should qualify for WP:REVDEL under criterion #2 - Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Revdel applied, I went with RD3 but either one fit just fine. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also three diffs to ANI; [179], [180], and [181], that you may also wish to revdel or otherwise hide. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. El_C 07:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:The Kashmir Files

    I think someone has to get in there and calm everything down. There are 50 topics added in the last two days alone. I have never seen anything like that, and from the outside looking in it seems like a lot of shouting and arguing about biases rooted in the Hindu-Muslim conflicts, and then they look to tear page protection down to let loose the actual biased pouncing. And then they wonder why the page protections are there. By god. Anyway, whether my interpretation is off base or not, I do think someone needs to clear out the madhouse--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @CreecregofLife: you may be looking for WP:DR. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BANEVASION by 124.104.57.209

    Clear WP:BANEVASION by 124.104.57.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the form of 2001:4451:12EA:AE00:D119:6E62:13EE:D524, 2001:4451:12EA:AE00:98D2:41DC:A18A:3865 and 2001:4451:12EA:AE00:494C:DEF3:27FD:94F3. They all have the same location after looking it up at geolocate.

    The user is evading a ban by using alts created yesterday. It is pretty easy to spot as the articles vandalized by him have been calm until yesterday when these two accounts were created. He also uses exactly the same reasons as his banned account. The only edits done with this acocunt have been reverting the article date to his banned accounts version which was one of his ban reasons. Finally geolocate confirms it.

    Reverting to his old account edits: [182] -> [183] [184] ->[185] [186] -> [187], [188] -> [189] [190] -> [191]

    As his ban is only a month, and he could not even respect that, by creating 3 alts, I do advise a longer ban for the banned account too. BastianMAT (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The redirection of Japan bashing

    I am not so sure if this is the right page but this might be a potential vandalism. So there was a page called "Japan bashing" which existed for more than a decade at this point and pretty well sourced. There are at least 5 more different languages verson of this topic. However, a user called Chipmunkdavis redirect the whole page to the page of Anti-Japanese sentiment instead recently. While "Japan bashing" is indeed an anti-japanese sentiment in the US but many agreed this topic is important enough to have its own page. Moverover, when the page got redirected, there were little new content added in the page of "Anti-Japanese sentiment". Also, I didnt found any discussion about redirecting the post, at least not the talk page of "Japan bashing". User Chipmunkdavis also reverted those changes who disagreed with his action without any explaination. You can see that in the history page of the topic --Someone97816 (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone97816: when starting a thread on ANI, you are required to notify involved parties by leaving a message on their talk page. I've done so for you. Isabelle 🔔 13:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh thx. Someone97816 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As can be seen on the history page of the topic, the page had existed for about two months, not a decade. It can also be seen that the page was created by block evasion using IP proxies, which I did give as an explanation. To add further, this particular user has a habit of faking sources, so I take "pretty well sourced" with a grain of salt. CMD (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify the timeline of Japan bashing:
    • Page was created as an article on January 12, 2006 by Sir Edgar. It cited no sources, but that wasn't uncommon in 2006.
    • The page existed as an article until March 23, 2014 at which point it was turned into a redirect by Jamesx12345 with the edit summary, "Not worth keeping". It cited 3 sources at the time it was turned into a redirect.
    • It remained a redirect until January 4, 2022, at which time an IP removed the redirect and improved the sourcing. I imagine this is what @Chipmunkdavis means by "the page was created by block evasion using IP proxies". However, the IP did not create the page - they restored the previous content from prior to 2014 and added additional sources. By the end of that day the article cited 7 sources.
    • On March 4, 2022 @Chipmunkdavis restored the redirect. Since then there have been several attempts by IPs to restore the content, and CMD to keep the redirect. The most recent article version cites 14 sources.
    • I do not see where @Someone97816 has ever edited the article at all.
    Just for clarification - I have not analyzed any of the sources to see if they support the content, meet RS standards, or anything. I can see both @Someone97816's point that the page "existed for more than a decade" and also @Chipmunkdavis's point that "the [article - not page] had existed for about two months". I wanted to clarify that both are correct in their own way. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah thx for clarification. I came across this article couple week ago as I was doing a project about anti japanese sentiment in US. I see some people dont think this article is well sourced enough. Well fine but I did found plenty of new sources about this topic in the internet and it can be used to improve the article. My biggest concern is that he redirected the whole page without any discussion at all. Someone97816 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Skyerise

    User reported - Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I usually don't document users on first wrong but since Skyerise has been recently blocked for WP:POINT editing. - [192] I am regrettably reporting that this is recurring again. After opposing deletion of this article (see discussion - [193]) Skyerise proceeds to nominate another matching article for deletion [194], presenting the same rationale:

    • The article is about Königsberg which already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Königsberg. [195]

    Please note that the article that has been proposed to be deleted by Skyerise is about the existing town in Russia.

    The rationale from another originally proposed deletion:[196]

    • The article is about Kaliningrad and already exists. Why do we have two articles about the same town? This one should be deleted or merged to Kaliningrad.


    Such behaviour is highly disruptive per Examples at WP:POINT.

    User has been notified --> [197] GizzyCatBella🍁 13:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest WP:BOOMARANG is appropriate here. If my nomination is 'disruptive', then so is the nomination of Königsberg. There was clearly an editorial decision to divide the history into pre- and post-1945, indicated clearly in the hatnotes on the respective articles. There is a distinct divide here: the city was not just renamed. It's entire culture was changed from German to Russian. We don't merge Ancient Egypt and Egypt for the same reason. One was a polytheistic culture, the other an Islamic culture. Skyerise (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skyerise: where is this editorial decision you speak of? 晚安 (トークページ) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lettherebedarklight:: the articles are pretty cleanly divided between pre-1945 and post-1945 and tagged with hatnotes. I don't need to see a discussion to understand that that was done by consensus. Skyerise (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lettherebedarklight:: In any case, it's been discussed multiple time which anyone can see by glancing at the indexed archives (cute trick, I'll have to learn how to do that). For example, [198], [199], [200], [201], [202], [203], [204]. The article is where it is because Kaliningrad is basically a new city built on the rubble of Königsberg. This is a longstanding position of the majority of editors of the article. Skyerise (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A couple of things. I note that Skyerise was recently warned by Oshwah - essentially, that there is absolutely no need to respond to vandals, trolls and sockpuppets with abuse and vitriol. Indeed, I would class THIS as vandalism itself. However, that doesn't seem to be directly relevant to this thread. I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaliningrad as "speedy keep" since the nomination was withdrawn, while I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Königsberg is worth keeping open to see what consensus develops (cf. Danzig / Gdansk). And that, I believe, is that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean, I was about to ask the same thing though - Skyrise, what is the meaning of this edit?? Sergecross73 msg me 13:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The meaning of that edit is that I've been targeted by a sock for eight months and nobody seems to be able to stop them, even though they are clearly taking advantage of having an employer with a large IP range (AT&T?). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Raxythecat/Archive. My requests that their Internet provider or employer be contacted have been ignored. So I lost it. You would too. Skyerise (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry you are being harassed. I hope it's resolved soon. But, I can say, with 100% certainty, that I would not, in fact, resort to posting a picture of a penis, in any circumstance on Wikipedia (or anywhere for that matter.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Sergecross73. Have you tried contacting Trust & Safety - it's what they're there for. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I wasn't aware that there was a separate team for that. I thought all that would be handled by the sockpuppet team. In my defense, the sock was responding at 2 to 3 minute intervals. I left it up for 3 minutes then took it down. It wasn't my intent that anyone other than the culprit be exposed to it. Skyerise (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I look at that page and how to submit a request for action. When I clicked on the action for harassment, it sent me back to the English Wikipedia harrassment page. None of the reasons for action seem to apply, as they are not attempting to out me or make physical threats. There is a section strictly about harassment, but apparently it only applies to protecting administrators from harassment. Is there some other way to address this without applying for adminship? Skyerise (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The harassment pages don't really describe your situation - sustained attacks from an obvious long-term vandal. As an alternative, you could email Arbcom (arbcom-en@wikimedia.org) giving as much information as you can - they'll know what to do with it and get T&S involved if necessary. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Perhaps the section that applies only to admins could be broadened to apply to all users? Skyerise (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the number of LTAs whose modus operandi is relentless harassment (one of which is in an area that's already hellish) it absolutely should. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't that harassment link you provided say that outing an editors employer is harassment? Revdel please. Cup Spill (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Raxythecat: There is nothing to revdel above. --MuZemike 11:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cup Spill: Don't want the owner of the network you use apprised of your activities? Stop harassing me and vandalizing Wikipedia. Arbcom has been notified and may very well talk to your employer shortly if you continue. Skyerise (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination of Kaliningrad at AfD was simple WP:POINT disruption, which is exactly what Skyerise was blocked for less than two months ago. I don't think it matters how many edits you've got, if you are continuing to disrupt Wikipedia, there's going to be a point where you're not going to be allowed to do it any more. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny, as certain editors seem to be specially protected by admins from reaping the results of their actions, even allowed to make multiple name changes to avoid consequences. Skyerise (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Skyerise Making snarky comments about Wikipedians who aren't even part of this discussion will win you no friends. I do not want to confuse the issue of having a harassing LTA with the issue of your conduct - they are two separate issues. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If I can offer a thought here: I stumbled across Skyerise and the sock sparring a couple days ago while doing some RC patrol, made a couple of reversions, and suggested that Skyerise take a breather after seeing the contentious edit noted above. Looking at further issues pointed out above, it really seems like what we have here is a good and quite prolific editor who does a lot of positive work, but has some issues when stress builds up, sometimes ending in blocks. Might it be a good idea for admins here to issue a clear and firm warning, encourage reporting egregious problems like sock attacks to the appropriate noticeboards rather than engaging, and a reminder to step back and think about edits, edit summaries, etc., for tone and appropriateness before hitting the save button? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I did receive a warning, and yes, being targeted by an IP is extremely stressful for me. I had a previous IP target for a similar length of time previously and had to have my talk page protected and my username changed to evade them (somehow they didn't manage to figure out my new username). I've left whole topic areas due to the behavior of one editor with an account who would stalk me to other articles if I unknowingly touched one of "theirs" to make an improvement.
    And I have received a stern warning, archived to my 2022 archive and acknowledge that I went too far. Normally I don't engage the socks but he was twice as abusive as usual this time around. So yes, I will make more use of noticeboards and ignore the sock from now on if they come back.
    I don't seem to get the same respect other prolific editors get, presumably because I edit occult topics as well as more respectable ones. Some of those articles are quite the mess. Yesterday I discovered that Church of Satan had been hijacked since 2016 - made to look extremely well-cited when it was not. None of the apparently cited sources were actually listed (it probably set a record for sfn errors) and instead of listing the actual sources, a promotional book list which I'm sure was intended to convert readers to Satanism was in their place. I'm not sure how such a state of affairs goes on six years w/o another editor noticing it. I only stumbled on it b/c I was expanding Magical organization.
    Anyway that was a digression but I acknowledge my faults and will try not to repeat them. Skyerise (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ripomobo11

    User:Ripomobo11 registered an account in mid-January and since then has made close to 200 edits. A very high percentage - approaching 90% - have been reverted. As is clear on the editor's talk page User talk:Ripomobo11, many other editors have tried to engage and instruct Ripomobo11, to little effect. The editor is contentious and obtuse. Competency is an issue. For examples, Ripomobo11 repeatedly inserted hyperlinks rather than references, makes subjective statements (_____ is the greatest _____ of all time), edit-wars, moves content away from verifying references, adds unreference content, etc. Ripomobo11 claims to be an expert on cricket, but has shown no progress in understanding Wikipedia rules and guidelines. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    from their comments, it seems that they do not have a good grasp on english and that could be one of the problems. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem combines disruptive and competency is required. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have offered to help mentor them. Their talk page doesn't look like editors have "tried to engage and instruct" them so much as editors have used templates to warn and correct them. We'll see if they are responsive to me at all. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted to help them out, however them not having a good grasp on English is a bit of an issue as it creates issues for me when trying to understand what they are saying. I might ask them what their first language is to see if they usually speak something besides English. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did see that you were trying to help them. I also see that most (all?) of their edits are on the mobile web browser, mostly using the visual editor. I don't think that helps their cause any. It makes it hard to cite sources properly, and people are yelling at them for just dropping a link in the middle of the text. Now they're confused as to if they can link sources at all.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That does indeed complicate things. I would be able to help them easier knowing that, however I've never made an edit from the mobile web browser version of Wikipedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a few and I absolutely detest the mobile web version, so I normally use the desktop version even if I'm on mobile. The problem is the quick citation tool just isn't there in mobile. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ONUnicorn: Mobile-using cretin here. The quick citation tool is available in the visual editing mode (unavailable in source editing mode), represented by a quotation mark icon (") at the top of the screen. – 2.O.Boxing 18:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Timesink and/or WP:CIR issues. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Blaze Wolf: I think the problem is @Ripomobo11: wants to praise his fav Cricketers in lead by writing statment .... is greatest player., he mostly do edits in lead. Whe we reverted his this kind of edits, warned to doing so without refrences, he started asking questions like - Why Sachin Tendulkar, Viv Richards articles have this kind of statements, and he gone on spree to remove these statements from these articles, which caus further problem. He said this and this Cricket personality said during a match ... Is best, gret player. I want to tell you in India, all these paid Cricket TV commentators call nearly every Cricket playe great, 1 of the all time greats, these folks are unreliable, this kind of statements confused 'Ripomobo 11'. He also don't have grasp on Eng, he also says that he is "Cricket expert".Success think (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Success think: Ah alright. From what I understand, cricket is similar to baseball here in the US. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blaze Wolf:, Yeah Cricket is little similar to Base ball, Cricket is a British Sport. In base ball we call 'Home run' in Cricket it called as 'Six'. India and Indians are crazy about this game and its most watched game on TV. British ruled India for 200 years and have them this Bat and ball sport. Here Cricketers enjoy celebrity status like Tom cruise, Serena Williams Mike Trout. For most of the Indians, Sport is Cricket is Sport, they absolutely don't know anything else except it. And Indian national team is one of the top team in the world ( have won 1983, 2011 world). I hope I gave you proper overview of Cricket and it's status in India.Success think (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIR block is needed. The attempt to make this problem go away by deleting this discussion was amusing... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ripomobo11 continues to make ~15 edits per day to cricket player biographies, mostly reverted. Problems include deleting referenced content. David notMD (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    IP won't stop adding non-free image

    178.121.32.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) persists in adding non-free image File:Flag of Athens, Greece.svg to Flags of Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FDW777 (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of repeatedly edit-warring, couldn't you just add an FUR? Or at least explain why it's not free? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of non-free content violations isn't edit-warring, see WP:3RRNO. There can be no fair-use rationale for that image in that article. FDW777 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's why you aren't blocked or warned - for that reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a valid fair use to use a copyrighted image in that article table, as per WP:NFTABLE. Although this should be explained to the user on their talkpage, rather than a confusing template being placed and taken as them being expected to understand how non free content works on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation, Joseph2302. I don't often do galleries (and certainly not with non-free files). Still, I don't get why the image is non-free when all the others are? Anyway, since the IP saw "An image or media file has been removed from your user page, user talk page, or other page because it is licensed as non-free", they might well have thought, "well I'm not adding to a user page or user talk page, I'm adding it to an article .... why isn't this thing working .... GRRRR!" Still, they seemed to have stopped now, so maybe the matter can be closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly a valid question, I'm often puzzled as to why one flag is free whereas another is non-free. However this particular flag has been deleted from Commons following the discussuon at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Athens.svg, so it does appear for whatever reason that the flag of Athens is not a free image. FDW777 (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two factors. First we have to know if works of the country's government are free or not. In the U.S. this true, but in many other countries (including Greece it seems) it is not. Even then, if the flag design was simple enough, it could qualify as PDTEXTLOGO on en wiki due to being under the threshold of originality. However that flag is definitely more complex and passes that threshold, so remains copyrighted. --Masem (t) 18:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    119.73.112.206 IP reported

    Some of his disruptive edits, edit-warring and likely vandalism, I tracked down across various articles:

    ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 )

    shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    usernamekiran is making unnecessary closure with disparaging remarks about the common sense of Wikipedians

    RESOLVED BY ABECEDARE
    Let's just wrap this up before it can really go sideways. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

    Anupamaa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    There was a dispute that was discussed properly and resolved Talk:Anupamaa#Updates_based_on_OTT as it should be. The thread was even marked as resolved.[205] The participants had already disenagaged after satisfactory consensus was achieved.

    Several hours later, a user uninvoled in the dispute, usernamekiran then decided to act smart and closed the resolved thread with a sagacious comment questioning the commonsense of the participants.[206] I objected to the unnecessary closure of the thread, and moved his comments as a comment like everyone one else had commented.[207] I tried to reason with usernamekiran on why he is trying to forcefully close a thread when it was unnecessary and uncalled for.[208] He again moved his comments to the top and closed it a second time[209] usernamekiran continued his comments repeatedly questioning the common sense of the editors linking WP:COMMONSENSE in every reply and then made a personal attack on me and claimed that I lacked common sense. [210] [211] All this on an article talk page.

    He accuses me of ownership issues, "Authoritarian behavior" while assuming that he has rights to unnecessary interfere in resolved matters with disparaging remarks. My attempts to discuss and resolve this on his user talk page have been reverted twice and he asked me to approach admin boards diff.

    I believe his conduct on this talk page is incendiary and inappropriate. usernamekiran should be asked to redo his comments without telling other contributors that they lack common sense, calling them authoritarians or any other disparaging remarks.Venkat TL (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a beautiful day out here, I'm going to go for a walk. Maybe you should do the same; or read a novel, catch up with a friend, go watch a movie, .... --JBL (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For viewers at home, this is the diff of the closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The recent history of the talk page is perhaps more informative. --JBL (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update Admin Abecedare has removed the off topic, disparaging comments and closed the threadwith a neutral comment. In my opinion this issue is resolved with his intervention. This ANI can be closed. Thanks for your help. Venkat TL (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Note: I have closed the talkpage thread since the point of original discussion was resolved and have refactored the heated meta-discussion that followed since that was not helpful. To editors Venkat TL and Usernamekiran: I know both of you to be experienced and productive editors. Even in the linked discussion you are on the same side of the substantive issue. Lets just chalk the unfriendly exchange to an aberration, drop the issue, and move on. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:PerryPerryD

    The reporting editor is reminded that WP:Spoilers is a content guideline and WP:Civility is policy. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    He Recently have been disrespectful to me because I said to not spoil the new Batman Film before the release to another user & can you ban this user called as PerryPerryD & He should have been nice to me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tambaram97 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tambaram97: Diffs? I don't immediately see where you've interacted at a talk page or on a Batman film article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, wait, this? That's hardly disrespectful at all. I'd certainly say it's more respectful than your comment that led to their reply. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred I would like to mention @Tambaram97's block history in this situation. I feel as maybe a block should be issued to Tambaram, i've noticed them being highly disrespectful, and absolutely not assuming good faith. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 21:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: BaldiBasicsFan

    CLOSED BY C.FRED
    I'm going to assume good faith that both editors here can take a little time, maybe have a nice cuppa, and then have a nice civil chat about the merits of their respective sources at the article's talk page. If they're still at loggerheads, they can call for a third opinion. But I don't think either party really wants to head down the path of administrative action here, since neither will like where it has a good chance of leading. —C.Fred (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    BaldiBasicsFan is using intimidation tactics to keep their disruptive edits up. They refuse to use any article talkpage, They're accusing me of attention seeking, and put qualifiers up that their edits must violate a rule to be reverted. They are not editing in good faith, labeling me as a disruptive editor to justify reverting me. They made up their own personal, nonsensical rules to force people to use cancellation terminology for The Owl House. They told me to "shut up" and stop reverting their edits and if I didn't they threatened to report me. Then, when I removed their "disruptive editing" warning on my talk page, they replaced it by bumping it up a level. They continued to condescend to me, and as the conversation went on it became clear they're trying to drive me off the platform for simply telling them they're wrong. I can't stand it--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @BaldiBasicsFan: And why have you come straight here instead of opening discussion at the article talk page yourself? —C.Fred (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred: Had some hard focus. I don't have the best intentions. Besides, NO ONE IS PERFECT! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ip disrupting Scott Baio

    WP:BATTLE, WP:POVPUSH, WP:DE and WP:NPA (see ip's article and user talk page comments). If there's work to be done developing new consensus in this BLP, and I think there is, this ip is creating a disruptive environment that prevents it.

    As this is an ip, and the dispute is over a decade old, I requested the article be protected, which was declined [212] with instructions to warn the user and take it to AIV if it continues. The AIV request was declined as a content dispute [213]. --Hipal (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well it is a content dispute, and framing the person who disagrees with you as "BATTLE" doesn't help win it. It seems a fairly straightforward request to show that this is anything other than an error in an article in TIME that has been addressed, and I can understand the frustration of an editor who finds that responded to with a blocking threat and "Let's get you blocked", bizzarre assertions that "splitting discussion isn't helpful" when it was you that split it. It takes two to tango, and in this case you have been doing some fair dancing around for 2 years, too. You could start by looking at the dates on the sources, and stop pointing to an inconclusive discussion between 2 people back in 2013 as if it solved the problem and should silence further discussion. TIME stated 1961 in 2008, Baio said that "the media has always had it wrong" in 2010. It seems quite reasonable to propound the view that this is an old error now corrected, as the editor without an account is doing. But responding to this with requests for page protection, and going to an anti-vandalism noticeboard is exactly why you aren't getting further and are getting another person's back up.

      People trying to settle the facts of an age based upon the idea that a magazine article simply got it wrong (and no doubt the person who runs the Baio website got an earful behind the scenes, too) are not vandals. And there is a wealth of difference between someone arguing a case with sources, and asking for evidence against the idea that TIME was simply wrong about this, and the actual biography vandals that haunt Wikipedia. Go and look at the edit history of Heera Rajagopal some time.

      Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I posted here because of the behavior.
    If you want to address the content dispute, spend some time looking at the talk page. From what I see, the best references prior to Baio's reality shows give 1961, but all four years from '59 to '62 are verified by other references. Baio fairly consistently said '61 in interviews, but '62 in at least one.
    The ip's original research and hostility to anyone that he mistakenly assumes has a different point of view are the problems here, but if you want to dig up better refs, that certainly would help. Along the way we are required to enforce the content policy that we have to consider all quality references, not just the ones that favors a certain pov. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be much easier to work out what you take issue with if you provided relevant diffs. As it is, I don't see how the IP is guilty of OR; evaluating which set of sources to trust when apparently reliable sources say contradictory things is not Original Research. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first diff above shows the ip's approach: From the ip's perspective, Baio's recent statements that he was born in '60 are to be given priority, any other statement from any other source is to be eliminated (as he did in his this first diff) or downplayed as he's shown in his subsequent edits to the article:
    • [214] "restore reliable sources which Hipal inappropriately removed without explanation, which includes Baio in his own voice verifying the 1960 birth year on his official Twitter ("My birthday is September 22, 1960"). If you want to continue this silly debate and restore both years, do it without removing reliable sources."
    • [215] Adds additional self-published source
    • [216] "Do not remove clearly reliable sources simply to hide evidence from readers that counters your argument that he was born in 1961. A statement on a celeb's official Twitter account, from that celebrity, is indeed reliable, particuarly with regard to a personal issue such as DOB. You are the only editor (also as Ronz) who has been fighting this issue for years and have tried to control it. Baio stated on Twitter he was born in 1960, end of story."
    • [217] adds a relatively poor ref that contains no new content
    • [218] "Hipal (formerly Ronz) continues to remove reliable sources which provide clear evidence to support the relevant content. The editor has been warned several times now not to remove reliable sources."
    • [219] "revert Hipal (aka Ronz), restore/continued inappropriate removal of reliable sources that support content with which he disagrees, which he apparently has been fighting for year. Also refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion on the talk page and continues to stand by his claim that Baio is a poor source for his own date of birth ---> https://twitter.com/scottbaio/status/512433275407990784"
    • [220] "After hours of searching for and requesting any reliable sources for a DOB of 1961 __in Baio's own voice__, I finally found a solid one. It's from 20 years ago, which is yet more evidence that Baio portrayed himself as a year young many years ago for whatever reason, but then subsequently stopped doing it. I only want accurate content and in a dispute like this, the subject's own voice supersedes all." (Note that we have a ref for Baio stating '62 that this ip chooses to ignore [221])
    This is not someone cooperating with other editors, assuming good faith of others, nor following behavioral or content policy. All in a BLP where sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • [222] "rev Hipal. Tag misuse. Slapping on a tag questioning entire article's neutrality bc of your upset over a single issue (DOB refs) is inappropriate, disruptive & damages credibility of entire article. You seized control of article & talk page in 2018. Let go so others can improve. Uncle G addressed your complaint and summed up situation beautifully. You read but ignored it & are now fighting to "win". --> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077692619#Ip_disrupting_Scott_Baio}}
    • The one "fighting to win" is the ip. If it's time to readdress the content, the only way to do so is follow our behavioral and content policies to create a new consensus. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yeah, I'm struggling to see "an IP made BOLD edits and added sources" as a behavioural problem. When you are citing the IP adding a reference to an interview in which Baio says he was born in 1961 in support of your claim that the IP is inappropriately removing any source contradicting the 1960 birthdate, you've lost me. When I look at the article history and find you making unexplained reversions (in apparent contravention of WP:ROLLBACKUSE) or removing a citation to Baio's own statement on his birth date with a summary that "Baio in not reliable" (despite WP:ABOUTSELF, and your own acknowledgement six minutes later on the talkpage that a statement from Baio might be a reliable source), I'm not convinced that it's the IP who is behaving badly here. Looking at both the article history and the talkpage, I don't see any evidence of you trying to come to any compromise with the IP. I don't see you really engaging with the IP at all – you point back to an inconclusive discussion in 2013, and then dismiss the IP's concerns with "no consensus" despite failing to engage with any sort of consensus building. (Cf. the essay Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A statement from Baio might be reliable. Perhaps not. It was my attempt to direct the ip in a direction that might be helpful. The bottom line is that for most his life, Baio said he was born in '61, and reliable sources published the same information. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The ip removed sourced information, then proceeded to add poor sources to promote his viewpoint based upon his original research. There's no starting point there for compromise when behavioral and content policy aren't being followed. Policy should not be compromised, especially when sanctions apply. Consensus is required per BLP, and consensus is not created by attacking editors, but by cooperating. --Hipal (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing: --Hipal (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • [223] "This dispute over DOB started 8+ years ago (!) and therefore the number and type of sources is not only appropriate, but necessary. If you felt it was excessive, why did you wait until until now -- while in the midst of fighting other editors on the noticeboard complaint you filed -- to add it? With the inappropriate article-neutrality tag and now this bogus one, you are becoming a significant problem w/ regard to the integrity of the article, so please stop and cool off."
    • [224] "per WP:ABOUTSELF -- another unequivocal statement from Baio about his DOB being 1960. It's vital info for readers bc of the dispute. The only source I could find for 1961 that was close to being in Baio's own voice was the AP one from 20 years ago about his 40th birthday, which I added yesterday; if I could find any others for 1961, I'd add them too. All the evidence we have over the past 10+ years that comes directly from Baio says makes clear, according to him, that he was born in 1960.

    Disruptive editing by Chesapeake77

    User:Chesapeake77 has been engaging in disruptive editing on Siege of Mariupol and baselessly accusing me of vandalism.

    I had removed and modified some of his edits because they looked repetitive and unnecessary to me, especially as it contained single-para sub-sections and statements of various people directly copied from articles, or describing who a company has worked for.

    One of his article concerning the death toll in Mariupol being 20,000 [225] was already mentioned under the "Siege" section. I removed this because of it being repetitive, along with other repetitive text [226].

    He later re-added it by moving the civilian death toll [227]. I didn't realize he had simply moved it so I removed it as repeated info again [228].

    Regardless it doesn't mean someone is being a vandal. And the information still should be up there in "Siege" section with other civilian death tolls to give more context. Even if mentioning it in "Humanitarian situation and alleged war crimes", it should be brief and doesn't deserve its own whole sub-section.

    He also added about the destruction of the city and that company taking pictures of it has worked for US intelligence and military [229].

    I removed it but very soon re-inserted part of his statement, because a separate sub-section for a single para and mentioning who the company works for seems irrelevant [230]. Regardless we have been using other sources like Ukrainian state-run Ukrinform that have potential for bias, I don't see a point in singling out one source. And it's not like those satellite images are faked.

    I also removed and then re-added Cheaspake77's addition of ICRC statements by modifying them [231] because he had verbatim copied statements from its officials and he decided to create a separate section for it on his own [232], [233].

    User:EkoGraf had previously told him it was not needed too. Chesapeake77 reverted him as well.

    Plus his section titles seem unencyclopaedic and too descriptive like "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol" and "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis" which was a further incentive to modify his edits.

    He reverted my edits as vandalism [234] despite none of it being so. And also removed the small additions I made in that revert. Afterwards he left a warning to have me blocked and accused me of repeated vandalism on my talk page.

    I removed his warning because it wasn't vandalism. Although I had initially reverted him partly, I later self-reverted until the situation was resolved.

    And I also left a message at his talk page about his accusations [235]. He didn't bother to discuss and just removed my message [236], in addition to threatening me again despite me not reverting him [237].

    I've taken my issues to the article talk page but he hasn't bothered replying despite me even linking his name, please see [238]. He also removed templates I had added to the page about the content being too long and irrelevant without discussing it first [239]. He certainly noticed what I said because he has restored part of additions I made as I asked on the talk page.

    This shows he is deliberately making unilateral edits and ignoring discussions. He has been warned for his disruptive behavior multiple times in past too as visible from his talk page. I request a ban or a block for him for his behavior. He's also been unilaterally deciding what goes where without bothering for a dicussion. Also sorry I couldn't make this shorter. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just noting that I've fully protected the article to enforce more discussion and less reverting each other -- TNT (talk • she/her) 07:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I made some reverts too but I've self-reverted to avoid an edit war. I hope there can be some discussion now. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw you can temporarily close this. If he refuses to discuss and/or is disruptive I'll open another complain and this can be used as an evidence. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AbsolutelyFiring:
    Your noted edits have been added back in.
    You wrote (on the article "Talk Page")--
    "[You]...are needlessly creating sub-sections for every single thing you can find...".
    That's a personal attack. Refrain from any further or you will be reported for harassment.
    @The Admin Here and @AbsolutleyFiring:
    As to the two subsection titles in the article-- 1) "ICRC announcement of major humanitarian crisis" and 2) "Intelligence satellite photos show "extensive damage" to civilian residential areas in Mariupol"
    Those subsections (and their titles) are appropriate because they are highly notable.
    1) Reducing the article to a run-on chronology, while making no distinction for an extremely important major event-- like the ICRC warning of an immenent mass-catastrophe that could soon kill tens of thousands of people, lacks due perspective.
    Similarly, satellite images that show extensive damage to apartments and homes in Mariupol also document mass-shelling (and massive targeting) of residential areas-- with casualties potentially in the tens of thousands.
    In both cases, these extremely notable events warrant their own subsections, rather being buried in run-on chronologies with no distinction from far smaller alleged events.
    Therefore your persistent removal of such extremely important subsection titles constitutes serious vandalism.
    Chesapeake77 (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop falsely accusing me of vandalism. Disagreement on something or removal is not vandalism. WP:VANDALISM says "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Even the general definition of vandalism isn't something I'm doing. If you don't stop with the accusations I'll be forced to report you again.
    And this is asides from you initially not bothering to discuss this. Also please don't make the same comments. Keep it to the article talk page Talk:Siege of Mariupol. Plus you only restored part of my additions, not all of it. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Admins, TNT, please also note that Cheseapeak77 has engaged in censorship of an image claiming multiple people have complained about it. [240] That too over it just showing some blood. And he is also berating an admin for locking an article now. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Chesapeake77 has also been making a mess moving articles without understanding disambiguation and without opening a move discussion. We're still dealing with the mess they made by moving Holly Williams to Holly Williams (American singer-songwriter) when there are no other musicians of the same name to distinguish her from. The article should be either where it started or at Holly Williams (musician) per WP:SINGERDAB. To quote C77 "just because something has a "WP" in front of it does not always mean that it is a good idea. I ask everyone to think for themselves-- who searches for "musician" on Google when they are looking for a "Singer" or "songwriter"??" (Talk:Holly Williams (American singer-songwriter)) (overemphasis in original). I am beginning to wonder whether they may have a conflict of interest with respect to one of the three Holly Williams they have been moving w/o discussion and are trying to get better SEO placement for their client? Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DeltaSquad833 has created more than 1,000 articles over the last 2 1/2 years. In September 2020, User:Diannaa warned them about the need to add attribution when copying within Wikipedia[241]. Further warnings by multiple editors for the same issue in October 2020, December 2020, June 2021, July 2021, again July 2021, and December 2021.

    Warnings for copying text from websites with an acceptable license in November 2020, February 2022, and again a few days later[242].

    Actual copyright violation warning by Diannaa in August 2021.

    On 4 March 2022 I gave them a final warning because, after all the above, they were creating articles with unattributed poor machine translations from copyrighted texts (see also this from User:Kusma). Because this was found in multiple articles, a CCI was opened by User:Moneytrees.

    So what do they do today, after all this? Create ORP Iskra (1982), an unattributed machine translation from the Polish article on the same ship. Not a one-off incident, they also created ORP Wodnik as an unattributed translation of this, and ORP Odważny, and ORP Hutnik, and ORP Metalowiec, and so on and so on.

    Warnings haven't changed anything here, a CCI hasn't changed anything, 2 years patience haven't changed anything, so I guess it is time for a block. Fram (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure the user understands what the problem is; they have never replied to any of the copyright-related issues. As in my comment Fram mentioned above, in addition to not adhering to copyright and licensing issues, they also insert factual errors into the encyclopaedia by machine translating from languages they do not understand well enough to know the limits of the translation (my example is that Google turned "year 民國54", which is 1965, into 1954, and DeltaSquad followed). I have not checked their other translations, but I am certain that DeltaSquad does not have the competence to vouch for these. The user does not engage with criticism, and so the issues do not improve going forward. I agree with Fram that it is time to block to prevent further copyright violations and misinformation. I deeply regret that the user does not seem to be willing or able to stay within the rules and within their competencies when they edit here. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird editing behaviour


    Pédjy (talk · contribs) (also using their alt account Pédaja (talk · contribs)) displays some really weird editing patterns which effectively amounts to good-faith vandalism. They seem to be obsessed with Space diving and, more recently, the Seventh-day Adventist Church Pioneers, editing them with sequences of sometimes 10s of test edits. They seem to pretty much only add images, often leaving the page's formatting broken or out of keeping with the general style of English Wikipedia articles.

    I tried to talk to them on their talk page, leaving a message in French as well as English (since they first registered on French Wikipedia), but they don't seem to have read this, and if they have, they have not responded.

    I'm not sure what to do about this. It's not particularly urgent, but it seems that they won't stop their campaign of 'improvement' by request. — Jthistle38 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They have made no further edits since 12:45 on 8 March so I wouldn't block yet. If you see this continuing it can be reported again with a link to this post. Their usage of two accounts to edit the same article appears to be WP:ILLEGIT. Many of their uploads to Commons are tagged as 'own work' even with photos from the 19th century. (Hiram Edson died in 1882). I'll notify them of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    24rhhtr7 and the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

    Can someone please pry this user out of the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory talk page, or at least issue a stern warning? Post after post after post is just dripping with piss & vinegar making an already-contentious discussion even worse.

    The latter is a tacit admission that they're here to argue the topic, not contribute meaningfully to the project. ValarianB (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This comment also confirms we're dealing with a fringe editor (defined as one who believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources). They create problems as they constantly oppose reliably-sourced content, denigrate RS, vandalize articles, and waste the time of mainstream editors. Also, they don't know how to vet sources, a primary requirement for all editors. -- Valjean (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference being excluding someone for espousing wrongthink and banning someone for using talkpages to WP:SOAPBOX. Arguing that this person needs to be "removed" because they're an editor who "believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources" and decides to "waste the time of mainstream editors" pretty much turns them into a martyr and proves their point. If an admin takes action they should make it clear it's not because of this editor's opinions but because of their habit of going onto talk pages for the sole purpose of debating them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Curbon7, coarse language and personal attack in edit summary

    Diff: [243] Viewsridge (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll echo them. Why in the fuck did you think that title was a good idea? —Cryptic 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For the record, I'm very careful to ensure that I don't engage in personal attacks in edit summaries, particularly when I'm fixing a major fuck-up, like that case, where an editor less-than-wisely chose very WP:LOADED language. That diff very clearly isn't a personal attack, by the way. However, I probably was a bit too crass, so sorry about that; I've been leading the charge on making sure these Ukraine war articles are up to tip-top shape over the past 3 weeks, so having to constantly clean-up poor work from some editors who may not necessarily have the skill to edit such a controversial topic (which is not a knock, it is very challenging to edit these articles, and I still give major credit those who make good-faith attempts but fall short) has been very exasperating. Apologies, I'll try to keep my frustration in check. (I still curse a lot though lol, I just have a sailor's mouth) Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pcarbonn topic ban violation

    User:Pcarbonn edited the Cold Fusion page in direct violation of his topic ban. --Noren (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hard to believe they forgot about a topic ban that led to their absence here for 12 years, but in the interests of kindness, I'll assume it was a momentary forgetfulness. @Pcarbonn:, your topic ban is still in force. Don't edit Cold Fusion or other fringe science articles, whether the content is controversial or not. If you want to edit in that topic area, you'll have to get the topic ban undone first (which, due to almost no editing since it was imposed, is very unlikely right now). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1077758860"