Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    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

    Desertambition's hostile edit history

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


    I hoped this would go away by limiting my interaction with Desertambition, but it hasn't and my original notice got lost in the shuffle[1]. Desertambition continues to be hostile to me and to other editors. It seems this editor's entire[2] edit history is arguing with others in bad faith[3]. My interaction has mainly been on the Flag of Alabama. It hasn't been positive. Desertambition is hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with their edits. I've been accused of over and over of going against Wikipedia guidelines while trying to steer the discussion towards consensus. Desertambition simply cannot work with others in good faith. Given the editors actions it was a mistake to ever lift the original block. The editor hasn't learned from previous mistakes and will continue to be hostile. Nemov (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't know if a new block is needed at this time, but at a minimum I think it is appropriate to topic ban them from making accusations about editors behaviour outside of ANI, with a warning that making accusations at ANI, if found to be baseless, may also result in a block; Desertambition is an editor that rather than understanding that editors may disagree with them in good faith instead accuses those editors of violating behavioural policies. I've presented these examples before in the ANI thread they raised against me on March 29, but they are an excellent example of this; on March 1 they accused three editors who had disagreed with them primarily about article titles of WP:STONEWALLING and WP:HOUNDING, without having presented any evidence before or since; myself, Spekkios, and Toddy1.
    I see that there are also many examples of this at Talk:Flag of Alabama, with Desertambition accusing editors of STONEWALLING, BADFAITHNEG, TAGTEAM, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour - and I expect that I've missed a few other accusations, either on the talk or in edit summaries. I would also note this commentary on their user page, about what they consider a common interaction with editors and admins.BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. I note that they have already been blocked twice for this kind of behavior. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Nemov and Spekkios have been WP:STONEWALLING on the flag of Alabama page for weeks at this point by creating a WP:TAGTEAM. I have barely edited the page and engaged in extensive discussion on the talk page. BilledMammal is another user who has tried to get me blocked repeatedly. I have not made more ANI posts or engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing.
    I have made many efforts to create consensus and discuss the issue without edit warring and Nemov has refused to engage or build consensus: Here [4] and here [5]
    I always try to write very clear edit summaries and discuss disputes on the talk page while following sources and consensus. However, Spekkios and Nemov have exercised complete control over the flag of Alabama article while removing information about Confederate symbolism and writing misleading edit summaries.
    Spekkios writes "ditto here" when removing Confederate flag from the page after this edit removing "controversial content" and telling editors to discuss on the talk page while they continue to implement their own interpretation and wording of sources. [6]: [7]
    Spekkios, prior to removing the Confederate flag, had removed the description of the Confederate flag by saying it was "too long" without elaborating here: [8]
    Nemov falsely claimed the New York Times in 1906 said the flag of Alabama had no historical connection here [9] In fact, another newspaper had published that piece and seemed to be using clear WP:POETIC wording rather than saying "the flag has no history" which is pretty nonsensical as everything has a history.
    Nemov falsely claimed that an understanding connecting the state flag to the Confederate flag only came 20 years after the flag was adopted here: [10]
    After I added a source exactly the same way Nemov did, they remove it and replace the wording with blatant WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations. I added the source here: [11]
    Nemov then said in their edit summary: "Cleaned up the first few sentences for clarity. The link to the Montgomery Advertiser source isn't formatted correctly and I can't find it in another archive. Can you please clip it and source it correctly? Thanks." [12] Then put their own WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy and local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is inconclusive."
    Nemov then "fixes" it by writing "No documentation in the legislative records indicates the flag was intended to commemorate the Confederacy. Local reporting around the time of the flag's adoption is unclear. One newspaper says the flag was a suggestions of the Confederacy and another stating the flag had no historical connections." [13]
    Today, Spekkios scrubbed the word "Confederate" from the image of the Confederate flag without any sort of consensus here [14] and offered their own interpretation. Which I should add was incorrect because the image is not just a "saltire" but rather the actual battle flag of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.
    I have not broken the WP:3RR after my prior block although BilledMammal has here: [15] [16] [17] but I know that's not the focus of this post.
    It is so frustrating to deal with these constant reports and attempts to get me blocked. I continue to engage in good faith discussions with editors about these issues and often they are unwilling to build consensus. Desertambition (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've never called for you to be blocked - above, you will see that I am suggesting a limited topic ban that will allow you to continue contributing to your chosen topic area - and while you haven't opened a new ANI thread since March 29, it has only been a week, and the issue here is your habit of casting aspersions against editors you disagree with. BilledMammal (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I had a conversation about these exact issues at User talk: Cullen328#WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on flag of Alabama on March 27. I, too, am very concerned about this editor's right great wrongs variety of POV pushing. Their attempt here to argue the content case is yet another example. The purpose of this noticeboard is to deal with behavioral issues, not to adjudicate content disputes. This editor consistently argues, in effect, that all the many other highly experienced editors they interact with are in error, and only Desertambition is correct. This editor seems incapable of self-reflection and self-correction. I agree with the succinct assessment by Ad Orientem above: This user does not appear to be temperamentally suited for a collaborative project. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Firstly, I appologise for this block of text but this isn't an accurate summary of my actions. I performed a major reversion because there had been 23 edits and about half of them were reversions. I rolled back to a previous version because there was obviously a dispute about the article content as shown by the number of reversions, hence my edit summary. I would have reverted to an even earlier stage before the flag was added, however I elected not to because another user had performed some article maintenance that I didn't want to revert. Therefore, I selected the version just after said maintenance was performed and manually reverted the remaining content, hence my second edit summary "ditto here". I posted a section in the talk page notifying editors of the rollback I performed. I shortened the description because it was very long, and further discussion occurred about the caption on the talk page. I didn't remove the image entirely because I think it needs to be there, but the caption was very long and could be shortened. I did actually elaborate in the edit summary. Finally, the flag was restored to the article by another user for a valid reason. I adjusted the flag caption, because as I said before the previous was too long, but the current just states what the flag is. The caption I selected linked the flag image to the article. Desertambition reverted that edit. After a little discussion on the talk page I selected a new caption which was again reverted.
    I apologise again for that large explanation of what is essentially a content dispute, but I just wanted to show how wildly different Desertambition's version of events is. They believe that Nemov and I are actively engaged in some sort of conspiracy to "remove confederate symbolism" to the point where a good-faith edit to improve a caption (which was being discussed on the talk page) results in an accusation of "scrubbing" the word confederate from the caption. Desertambition has accused us of engaging in historical revisionism including making an accusation of me "preventing almost any edits about Confederate symbolism". This is blatantly untrue. Anyone can quickly read the article and find an entire section on the origins of the flag, including ties to the confederate flag. The word "confederate" and "confederacy" have been mentioned 8 times each in the (relatively short) article. I have been supportive of including the confederate battle flag in the article. I have been supportive of edits improving the article and adding more context to the time in which the state flag was adopted. To paint me out as a historical revisionist, implying that I'm a confederate sympathiser is absolutely not productive nor in good faith and something the user has been warned about in the past. --Spekkios (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reading through the varying diffs, and having seen prior ANs involving Desertambition, I agree that the editor seems unable to deal in the collaborative fashion Wikipedia requires. He's received multiple blocks in a short time, and has had more than one "This is your wakeup call to straighten up" warning. The warnings seem to be flying over his head. In particular, him flinging the TAGTEAM charge is objectionable -- as if there must needs be something sinister inherent in multiple editors disagreeing with him on a particular point. Unfortunately, this seems to be his default SOP in content disputes: to accuse the other side of collusion, chicanery or immorality when he cannot otherwise build consensus around his POV. At what point is enough enough? Ravenswing 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came across this editor a month or so ago and was distinctly unimpressed with their conduct. The first time I saw them was after they created a couple of completely ridiculous PROD nominations for things that are obviously notable (at least to the level where a PROD would be inappropriate) but which they don't like, one of which I reverted [18][19]. I saw them again a couple of days later when they made this completely ridiculous comment baselessly accusing ymblanter of admin abuse [20]. This seems to be a fairly obvious case of an editor who is simply WP:Not compatible with a collaborative project. They seem to have joined up with the intention of editing with a particular POV [21], while I hope everyone here can agree that racism is bad in this case Desertambition's views seem to be getting in the way of them editing neutrally and making objective judgements about things like notability and common names. They are still acting like everyone who disagrees with them is an abusive rulebreaker or a racist, they are still approaching every discussion here as if it is a battleground and they are still edit warring and being disruptive to try and get their way. They already had an indef block for this behaviour and a last chance unblock on the basis that they would improve their conduct, unfortunately it seems that there has been little to no improvement since the original block. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment From reading the various responses I understand that my conduct is not where it should be. Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith? I really hope that my edits are useful the majority of the time and I would like an opportunity to continue editing. Whether or not what I said is true is clearly not to be decided here. There is no real point to ever posting to ANI again or alleging any kind of bad faith editing. Some admins/editors have said multiple times how much they would prefer I stop editing, "crying wolf", etc. and I really do get the point. I do think that I am WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. I don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point and most of these controversies happen during discussions or on talk pages, not on the articles themselves. I have not, despite multiple comments here saying I have, been calling users "racist" or "Confederate sympathizers". I believe this is largely a response to my user page where I say "racism bad". Some users have accused me of "anti-white racism" or turning articles "into the Mein Kampf of Anti-racism." [22] I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. I will do whatever best resolves this conflict. Desertambition (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is saying that "racism = bad" is an unacceptable stance. Where your behavior is objectionable is that you seem to presume that you're editing on the side of the angels, and therefore those who disagree with you must be doing so out of foul motives. And that just simply is not the case. To put it bluntly, no one elected you the arbiter of what is or is not a "racist" edit. We are all the arbiter, collectively, and we arrive at those decisions through consensus. The nature of a consensus-based encyclopedia is that sometimes you're on the losing side of the argument, and when that is the case, the onus is on you to lose gracefully and move on. What best resolves this conflict is for you to get that. The patience of the community to wait for you to do so is finite, if not already exhausted. Ravenswing 00:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    D received an indefinite block that was lifted with WP:ROPE as justification. Then the editor was blocked a few days later. It's the same pattern. Hostility, accusing everyone, and then begging not to be blocked again. I can understand lifting the block the first time. The editor was given two more chances after the last chance. The editor has proven why they were initially blocked. It's not going to get better. Nemov (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was two months later, not "a few days". The block was for edit warring, I was not paying attention to my reverts and broke the WP:3RR. I readily admitted and accepted that. Desertambition (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time you respond you reinforce the issue. You were blocked 40 days later for reverting edits. After being told that you have one last chance to work with others in good faith. Instead of listening, you accuse others and make excuses. You haven't readily accepted anything. After the block CaptainEek pointed out you were still not accepting what had happened.[23]. I agree the sentiment that You have some good points and editing inclinations. But if you can't follow the rules, you'll find yourself banned again. Not because of some months old accusations, but because of current failure to simply play nice with others. That's exactly been the case. After failing to comply so many times, why should we waste any more time hoping you'll figure it out? Nemov (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't an accurate summary of the situation. Toddy1 warned you that you were at five reverts, but despite being aware of that you chose to make a sixth. Then, when they opened a AN3 report you said Toddy1 keeps falsely accusing me of edit warring. After you were blocked you accepted you were edit warring, but the fact that it took a block for you to come to that conclusion is not good. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not made an allegation of racial bias since I was blocked months ago. I do not think I am perfect and not all of my edits are helpful. I will readily admit that. I have not said anyone is making "racist" edits. I have said repeatedly I will not make allegations of racial bias in any capacity, that was made clear months ago. I am fully aware of the need for consensus and I do not believe two users deciding amongst themselves constitutes WP:CONSENSUS. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to take my concerns to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests. I have a desire to include information on Wikipedia that accurately reflects reliable secondary sources, not push an agenda. Desertambition (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This I accept consensus even when I disagree with it, as has happened on many move requests also is not accurate, as can be seen with your habit of making repeated move requests for articles whose discussions produced a consensus against you with minimal time between them. For example, Mafikeng was moved to its current title after a discussion on 3 December 2021. You disagreed with that consensus and opened a new request on 7 January 2022, and then another on 31 March 2022. While consensus can change, and it is appropriate to open new move requests after a suitable period of time, three move requests in four months is far too many and an example of refusing to get the point. BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not made allegations of racism and do not ever plan to. less than a week ago your talk page contained a list of "Users with clearly problematic/racist/racially biased posting" [24] which was described distinctly less than favourably by the admin who unblocked you [25].
    Here you say that another editor is very attached to pre-apartheid names and only seem to take into account white South Africans and flat out accuse them of "racial bias" [26]
    Here you "completley don't accuse someone of racism" by asking them what their opinion of white nationalism is [27] 192.76.8.70 (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That list was created four months ago and was collapsed by an admin. I have not made allegations of racial bias since the block and do not plan to. No one would be able to tell what was in there without opening it and I didn't think about it. Deleted it the second a user requested me to. Desertambition (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Desertambition wrote above: Would it be reasonable to have a ban on any kind of accusation of bad faith?5 April 2022

    • When he wanted to be unblocked, he/she wrote: I understand why I was blocked due to disruptive editing16 January 2022
    • But after he had been unblocked, he/she wrote: I had an admin make up false reasons to block me when I brought up racism and then I was not given a chance to appeal.19 February 2022

    That is not showing good faith. The second statement is completely untrue. The first statement was from his unblock appeal (the one he/she says that he was not given a chance to make).

    Desertambition habitually accuses other editors of bad faith:

    Maybe he/she cannot help doing it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Proposal?

    There seems to be a fair bit of support here to do something. What should we propose as a path forward? On WP:ROPE basis the editor should be banned, but maybe a topic ban at the very least? Nemov (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor seems to seek conflict. He/she gets it through move discussions, articles where racism is an issue, and ANI. It is not reasonable to ban him/her from ANI, because it would make him/her vulnerable to bullying. But topic banning him/her from (a) undiscussed moves, (b) move discussions, (c) deletion discussions, and (d) racism broadly construed for nine months might bring out a more positive side to this editor. (As far as I know he/she had not misbehaved in deletion discussions, but we do not want to move his/her conflict-seeking behaviour from move discussions to deletion discussions.) I think a year is a bit long, and 6 months too short, so 9 months sounds right to me.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't take pleasure in banning users and D has shown an ability for research. I support your idea. Nemov (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with time-limited bans. I think that if a ban is imposed, whatever it is, then it should be indefinite - otherwise, the editor doesn't need to improve, and instead can just wait the clock out. Further, an indefinite ban might be shorter than a nine month ban; they might demonstrate sufficient improvement in three months for an appeal to be successful.
    I would also suggest something similar to "racial issues broadly construed" rather than "racism broadly construed", as I feel the latter is slightly narrower than the area their behavioural issues exist in. BilledMammal (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Regardless of what sanctions I do or do not deserve, it hardly feels fair for editors I have active conflict and disagreement with to decide on my sanctions. Desertambition (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    I have not had any prior involvement here, and so have not had any active conflict or disagreement with User:Desertambition in the past. So, this should feel fair when I propose this:

    User:Desertambition is topic-banned from undiscussed moves, move discussions, deletion discussions, and racial issues broadly construed (including topics associated with the Confederate States of America). They may appeal these sanctions, in whole or in part, in 3 months. Contravening the topic bans will result in an indefinite block, which must be appealed at this noticeboard. They are also cautioned against polemic conduct, casting aspersions, personal attacks, edit warring, and adopting a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing.

    Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that a significant amount of my edits are concerned with move requests and discussions, that does not feel like an appropriate sanction. It is also unclear what "racial issues, broadly construed" would apply to. Desertambition (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the issues with your editing are also in those areas. Let's just say that you aren't going to be getting out of this without a restriction on your editing of some sort. You can appeal in three months, which is relatively soon, often such bans last at least 6 months or more.
    "Racial issues, broadly construed" would involve any topic related to race and racism, since that is where the issues lie.
    Basically, the advice is, if you aren't sure if a given edit would fall into that category, don't make it, without at least asking an admin if it would contravene your TBAN. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take whatever sanction admins feel is appropriate. It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here. Are the other editors completely faultless in these interactions or am I the sole problem user in your view? Desertambition (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem like I am the only one being discussed here.
    Yes, that's appropriate since you're the editor under discussion. There's also a long list of editors who have provided numerous examples of your conduct. This is why some are not hopeful that any temporary measure is going to work. You are seemingly incapable of acknowledging and taking responsibility for your actions. Nemov (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time I have come to ANI the discussion comes back around to me so it seems frustrating that there is no critical evaluation of other users. What I have done does not excuse this conduct from Nemov: [28] [29]. We are in active disagreement so there is an obvious COI with Nemov recommending sanctions for me. Desertambition (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, well, that's the way ANI works; Nemov is no more debarred from commenting here than you are from commenting here ... surely by your own stance you aren't a neutral party either, right? (And seriously, you think that Nemov asking for a citation to be rendered properly is inexcusable conduct? Really?) With that being said, I support the sanction as Mako001 set it forth. Ravenswing 07:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They were not just asking for a citation. They were 1. Saying I was arguing in bad faith and 2. Refusing to discuss the issue and come to consensus. Seems to be a very uncharitable reading of the diffs I provided. Desertambition (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also worth mentioning the constant WP:BADGERing from BilledMammal.
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Desertambition#Deprived_of_context
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_April#Queenstown,_South_Africa_(closed)
    3. Following me around on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_London_Airport#Requested_move_10_April_2022
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Makhanda,_South_Africa#%22Also_known_as%22
    These are only a few examples of many. Desertambition (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you are saying is that it is OK for Desertambition to reply to BilledMammal's comments, but it is not OK for BilledMammal to answer back? But if BilledMammal does, then Desertambition MUST have the last word. Who is badgering who?-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Desertambition: And that right there is why you are here in the first place. Whenever issues are raised with your editing, you promptly go on the offensive and engage in what-about-ism, casting aspersions, and such. The "it wasn't me it was everyone else" route will not lead anywhere good. I sincerely caution you not to keep pushing your luck on this, as you are lucky to get off with just a TBAN. A siteban wouldn't be completepy unreasonable, given how many times you have been told not to engage in combative behaviour, and still continued to do so.
    Of course, you can always just double down, never admit that you have ever done anything wrong, and keep casting aspersions without substantial basis, but if you do, just let us know that you intend to do so now, as it will save everyone's time. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Support indefinite ban This last exchange has exhausted my faith that this editor will ever learn. Every prolonged exchange ends in hostility. This user will be right back here once a temporary ban is over. The first ban didn't work. The second ban didn't work. A threat of a topic ban hasn't worked either. I see where this is eventually heading. It's just gonna waste other editor's time getting there. Nemov (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    - Edit: Amending vote to support indefinite ban after reviewing the examples below. I don't think a topic ban is going to solve the temperament issue. Nemov (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to repeat again that we are in active disagreement and there is a blatant COI here. Desertambition (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Comment I found this thread after encountering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ora (currency), an AfD that followed this PROD attempt. In both cases, the rationale does not appear to be based on notability, but on the editor's opinions of the topic at hand ("non-currency... non-English sources, and the article seems to exist largely for WP:PROMOTION...one step above monopoly money"). They have also created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council following a similar PROD attempt, the deletion rationale of which appears similarly based on opinion on the topic rather notability. Concurrent edits to first article feel problematic as well, with the user removing sourced text apparently because the source is dead (the text in question is trivially sourceable too, eg.), while adding unsourced text that reflects the AfD rationale. Particularly concerning is that the AfDs and edits occurred after this AN/I discussion was opened, where the PRODs mentioned had already been brought up, which makes it hard to understand Desertambition's assertion above (also before the AfDs) that they "don't vandalize or disrupt to prove a point". If an AfD nomination citing the use of non-English sources is not meant to disrupt to prove a point, then there is a lack of understanding that would appear to warrant a topic ban. CMD (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You should probably wait a bit before making an WP:ANI complaint as the Ora request has been withdrawn and I have added citations to the article. Hardly seems blockable to make an WP:AfD request that may have mistakes. I also stand by the Orania Representative Council nomination. Again, none of this seems to break guidelines by any measure. There is also nothing wrong with creating deletion discussions after a PROD attempt has failed, in fact that is the entire point of deletion discussions. Someone asserting that they disliked my AfD/PROD requests is hardly grounds to stop editing in good faith. You may have misread my request for the Orania Representative Council as it was absolutely based on notability, I'll repost it here for your convenience:
      Article about a non-notable pseudo-governmental body that was created in 2017. Article is replete with false information that is not supported by sources. Many of the sources are misleading, not in English, or just not relevant at all. Nothing about this council necessitates an article of its own. Anything that is of note is mentioned in the Orania, Northern Cape article. Orania has been an integral part of Thembelihle Local Municipality since 2001 from what I can tell. Information on the council was largely added by one user and fails WP:GNG. The article is extremely misleading and filled with WP:WEASEL words that imply Orania is a separate municipality. In fact, residents of Orania vote in local elections along with every South African. Strong suspicion this was created with WP:PROMOTION in mind. Desertambition (talk) 09:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you explain how that rationale relates to WP:Notability? CMD (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      After I posted the above, Desertambition reached out on my talkpage under a section titled "‎Reaching out in good faith". After I replied, they stated they did not feel I was acting in good faith. I find it hard to read the intention behind this, as if it was deliberate trolling given this AN/I it could not be more on point. CMD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Despite everything above, Desertambition is now edit warring their changes I mentioned above into the Ora article, with an edit summary opening with "Stop edit warring" to boot. Given that and the previously mentioned items, I have shifted my comment above to support, as explicit sanctions appear to be needed. CMD (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not breaking any guidelines. This is a weak attempt to get me sanctioned because you personally disagree with my edits. First you recommend I be blocked because you disagreed with two of my deletion discussions (???) then you refuse to discuss article related issues on the article talk page after failing to thoroughly examine what sections of the article were changed/removed and why. Brute forcing your preferred edits with no arguments rooted in existing guidelines/policies is edit warring and "no u" is not a cogent argument rooted in existing guidelines and policies. I have created a section to discuss issues with the article if you would like to begin discussing your specific grievances in depth. Desertambition (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are edit warring, again. You have accused me of bad faith, which seems to be another pattern. There does not appear to be an understanding of notability, along with misunderstandings of sourcing policy. On the content, I have noted issues above, on the AfD page, and on my user talkpage. Your new post on the article talkpage does not appear to have taken any of those into account, and I do not see why raising issues in a fourth location is productive at this point. CMD (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I literally did not accuse you of bad faith, I said "It does feel a bit like you are not assuming WP:GOODFAITH." Very uncharitable way to view what I said. I was trying to WP:BENICE and reach out. Article issues should be raised on the article talk page. I see no reason why I need to track all of our discussions and tie them back to the article talk page. Desertambition (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now, pretty much all recent contribution of the user is edit-warring and removal of the warnings from their talk page. Could we please put them back to the indef block they belong to? I think it is clear that they are incapable of collaborative editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      "All" is a bit of an exaggeration when I have not broken the WP:3RR and am engaging in extensive discussion on the talk page. You have made it extremely clear that you feel like I should have never been unblocked and trust me, I hear you loud and clear. I do not believe I am incapable of collaborative editing and have engaged in discussions extensively that have lead to improved articles and stronger consensus. Clearly users have nothing positive so say about me but I am not vandalizing or editing for the sole purpose of being disruptive. Many times consensus has been opposite my position and I have complied. Desertambition (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am afraid what you believe is irrelevant at this point. What is relevant is what the closing administrator believes. Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Desertambition, you appealed your indefinite block on the basis that you understood why you were blocked, and were sorry. It was NOT on the basis of the block being unjustified. Yet some time after you were unblocked, you posted on your user page to the effect that you were wrongly blocked. That statement on your user page more-or-less says that you were wrongly unblocked. If I were you I would ask that the statement on your user page should be revdeled.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want this topic to get auto archived again. Can we get more comments on this issue so it can be resolved? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support proposed topic ban to address the disruption, neutral on the indef. I am concerned by them making one statement to get unblocked, and then effectively retracting that statement afterwards, but not enough to support the indef at this time - a final last chance could be beneficial to Wikipedia if it turns them into a productive editor who can collaborate with those working in the same space as them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support proposed topic ban (though I would have preferred one limited to 9 months, instead of one he/she had to appeal). Since he/she got blocked on 22 March after making 4 reverts in 24 hours, he/she has mostly restricted him/herself to three reverts when edit-warring, and even self-reverted a 4th revert on 10 April after being reported. So Desertambition is capable of learning. He/she still has not understood why we have to put edit warring notices on his/her talk page after he/she has made 3 reverts to a page in 24 hours.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - looking through the examples (is this the worst we've got), I'm not seeing much that's actionable at a topic ban level. The edit warring seems more serious than hostility. Riot act has been read - move on. Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: If this has been going on for a while, and no lessons are learned after several last chances, I don't see what else there is to do. I have seen some of their activity on this board and the accusations, in fact I was insinuated myself by this user today of wanting to get someone blocked in bad faith, and falsely accused of accusing someone of sockpuppetry when all did was saying I found the timing and circumstances suspiscious not directly accusing anyone in this ″friendly advice″. Support topic ban not indef. --TylerBurden (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you based on what I have seen from Desertambition, but regarding your link to the discussion where you see he accused you of wanting (Me) blocked for my edits, he never actually accused you of that. In addition you did actually call me a sock puppet of Desertambition, by slyly assuming such due to editing in similar times. June Parker (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        How about we keep focus on what it should be on this report, your false accusations have a seperate thread. TylerBurden (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Looking into this there seems to be a repeated and egrigreous violation of the rules here, as well as bad manners. As TylerBurden mentioned, he messaged me on my talk page trying to give me "Friendly" advice just because I so happened to make edits on racial issues and got into a content dispute. He's also shadowed some of my edits. I don't see what he has to do with the dispute I had with those users or what he had to gain from it but it was just really weird. June Parker (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure needed

    Can an admin please close the topic ban proposal one way or another before this gets autoarchived?-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bumping again... There's numerous examples and comments on this issue. Can we get a resolution on the proposal? Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't had much to do with Desertambition and I opposed the AfD nom they made for Orania Representative Council. I considered the topic notable, but wouldn't consider the nomination disruptive. I think the comments on their userpage about racism on Wikipedia are unnecessarily critical. Something that suggests we actually don't tolerate racism was an ANI thread they initiated on 12 April regarding a long-standing, previously respected editor spreading white genocide conspiracy theories. Action was taken and the offending editor indeffed. This suggests we do take racism seriously and also shows Desertambition can bring legitimate concerns to community attention. I would say I disagree with some overly critical comments that have been made above. Desertambition has made some decent contributions and I note in their favour that they behaved appropriately at the AfDs that did not go their way (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orania Representative Council). This doesn't seem to me like an editor unquestionably unable to work with others, even in case of disagreement. I think what we do need is commitments from this editor to remember the importance of civility and keep serious accusations such as racism for when it is deserved. I don't think anything can reasonably come from this discussion now and I'd honestly suggest a close with a clear warning regarding civility. AusLondonder (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing how despite all the evidence, an administrator is let alone to even make a comment about what should be done. Bump indeed. TylerBurden (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating I am sockpuppeting (from the discussion below):
    1. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]
    4. Right before posting on ANI: [33] Desertambition (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice attempt to try and deflect away from your own report, start a seperate thread if you feel I have violated policies by mentioning that I was suspiscious about your relation with June Parker. TylerBurden (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 10

    Special:Contributions/42.3.120.0/24,this LTA use this IP range after 7 October in 2019 (only 42.3.120.242 is not),please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 05:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Djjjjjl. El_C 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i will light you on fire 晚安 (トークページ) 06:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    +Special:Contributions/112.120.179.0/24,only it edit in this IP range after 18 July in last year,please El_C block it,thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Plllllljn. El_C 11:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no 晚安 (トークページ) 11:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    +Special:Contributions/119.236.212.0/22,please El_C block it,also,please protect Bag (Spam and DE after last protect),thanks!--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 09:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mnnnnm. El_C 13:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What if MCC214 could block the IPs? Viewer719/Contribs! 08:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    that would be great, so el_c would stop making these keyboard mashes 晚安 (トークページ) 11:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo bot-like editing

    Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo is a two month old account that is racking up thousands of semi-automated edits at a fairly shocking pace. An editor has complained on their talk page that they were removing infobox parameters that could have been fixed, although I'm not sure on what scale they're making mistakes. Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith, but I'm under the impression that this level of rapid semi-automated editing is enough for the user to be considered an unauthorized bot under WP:BOTPOL. What is the best course of action here? ~Swarm~ {sting} 11:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    hello Swarm!, about the problem on my talk, MB were just reminding me that i have a mistake on editing |postal_code= and also other fixable parameters on "template:infobox settlement". i recently try to avoid those mistakes again and presistently focuses and more carefully fixing them. however i'm not a bot, i know it's shocking, but i actually opened more than 100 tab on Chrome and edit the articles one by one. The general process takes about 1 hour per se. I actually keep an eye on my editing record. And i'm also surprised that i managed to make 2000 edit on a month period. overall, thank you for mentioning me in WP:ANI, and i hope i did not make any awful mistake. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware of WP:MEATBOT? If you are editing rapidly and such editing is producing errors an attentive human would not make then it doesn't matter if you are running a bot, using a script or just editing very quickly. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The pace of editing definitely seems human and is not too rapid. (I mean, for comparison, this board has often refused to take action against established editors who are actually possibly using bots on their account, or at least making so many (debatable) systematic edits that their behaviour is indistinguishable from one.) Different question as to whether or not any of the edits are problematic, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    taken into account the amount of problematic edits that i made, it's only a handful, and mostly on a high-traffic pages, as MB mentioned on my talk that i noticed. however, there are mainly mistakes that i made, for example mentioned above, |Postal_code= or |iso_code= and sometimes map, but luckily some other helpful editors fixed it aferwards. i did fix them as of now though. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not trying to get you in trouble for making mistakes, I just think this scale of bot-like editing means you get treated like a bot under bot policy. Like, you can’t do it without approval. I could be wrong. ~Swarm~ {sting} 11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    if ever, i will try to reduce it to more acceptable pace. but the reason of those quick-paced edits that i made was solely for my intent to reduce backlog for the corresponding template. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that you're making a lot of mistakes in doing it, I just had a peek at a few of the edits you've made and there were issues with over half of them.
    In this edit the parameter needed its name fixing, not deleting [34]. You should have just removed the "Gibbons is home to K.B"
    In this edit [35] the "Parameter" you removed was someone's attempt at adding an image caption, it should have been moved to the caption parameter.
    In this edit [36] the parameter needed the half HTML comment removing to fix the name, it didn't need deleting.
    You've made a load of edits where you've been deleting "pushpin_map1" and related parameters [37] [38] [39]. These are an old obsolete method of adding multiple pushpin maps that was removed a few years ago. These should have been converted to the new format like so:
    |pushpin_map = Map 1#Map 2
    |pushpin_map_caption = Caption 1##Caption 2
    Rather than being deleted.
    I looked at less than 10 edits, The error rate here seems enormous. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this kind of behaviour requires approval under how the bot policy is currently implemented, but the edits do have to be improvements and absent of errors, otherwise it's just disruptive editing.
    On that note, as to the purpose of Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo's edits, afaics I think they're (mostly) removing parameters used in articles that aren't recognised by the infobox template? If this is because the parameters were renamed/removed, then fwiw Primefac has a bot task to clean that up (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 30). If there is a new format to convert them to, such that they will produce an output, then that should be preferred to just removing them. For edits like [40], these are legitimate, because that's not a parameter that's ever existed in the template AFAIK. Others, like this, result in visible improvements to the article by removing bad parameter fields. In general, the removal of non-existent parameters is considered a useful task, since it improves wikitext clarity and reduces confusion (c.f. the PrimeBOT 30 approval). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes exactly!, i was removing parameters that are not recognized by the format. however, there are some mistakes. but i believe it is not as serious as precieved. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 11:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    192.76.8.70 take into consideration that most pages that i actually edited is low-traffic to low-importance but this is not the case. the general intent for me is to reduce the backlog. as i said earlier, i did mistakes. the |pushin_map1= and other parameters that were labeled per se, some of them did not show any changes to the infobox overall. So i flag them as "unknown format" anyway. thoroughly i did fixed some of them, but my focus was to remove the unrecognized format out of the infobox. i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. Take into consideration that this is not simple and short task to do. Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale. moreover, the articles that i got was randomized aswell per Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: I've just been through your last 40 ish edits and at least 10 of them contained mistakes, that's an error rate of 25%. You're making even more questionable edits while this discussion is going on which is probably not a good idea.
    In this edit [41] Why did you delete the latitude and longitude information rather than converting them into proper parameters?
    You need to slow down, double check every edit and make sure that everything you are removing couldn't be placed in another parameter. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you checking the edits you are making at all? Because I find it hard to believe that anyone who was paying even the smallest amount of attention would have made this edit [42]. Why did you delete the parameter rather than fixing the obvious vandalism that was causing the error? 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @192.76.8.70 I did not know which one of them is questionable, i did checked and re-checked. and also my apologize for not updating the parameter. but on what condition does my recent edit is questionable ? They seems to be fine on a sense. i just trying to clean them. And that was actually is a mistake. but on a sense, it isnt. I just reverted a blatant vandalism. why not you fix it ? i did not know why did you talk in an antagonizing manner right now. i try to keep things warm and civil here. I did change and put things where it belong, for example, sometimes |pin_code= was mistaken to be a |postal_code= and vice versa, i did put things where it belong and fixing it if it isnt. but i do make mistake, just so be clear. right now, you talk to me as if i did not recognize there is one. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 12:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've been brought to the administrator's noticeboard because people have concerns about you performing rapid bot like editing it's generally a bad idea to continue performing rapid bot like editing while the discussion is ongoing.
    I have been fixing the errors in your edits when I've come across them, but other people shouldn't be needing to follow you around cleaning up your mistakes. If you're going to be making large scale changes to articles then you need to get them right first time. The issue here isn't specifically "pin code vs post code" or the map edits, it's generally that you don't seem to be making any effort to check what you're doing and are creating a lot of messes for other people to clean up. If we wanted to bulk delete all incorrect parameters we could get a bot to do it trivially, but we don't. We want people to take care, think about what they're doing and fix the issues where possible. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Infact it is a very time-energy consuming task to do. and i doubt there are many people who willing to do it on a large scale." If it (whatever "it" is) was widely viewed as a major issue, though, there probably would be, don't you think?
    " i did recheck and re-preview most of them, except those that i missed. " You should be checking and previewing every edit, don't you think? Begoon 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm not reffering to those pin code errors, i just trying to make a stand here that those mistakes were inevitable as you said about |longtitude= etc, it is really clear that the format detects it to be unrecognized. Where should i put it ? consider it. I did put focus on it. If seen on your POV right now, seems that all my edits were problematic. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have read the documentation at Template:Infobox settlement which clearly explains how to deal with all the different parameters the template can handle and what format they need to be in. You shouldn't be deleting stuff just because an automated tool tells you it's unrecognised, you should be putting some effort into figuring out how to fix it. Yes, there is a parameter for keeping longitude and latitude data in, and it should take you a few seconds of reading the documentation page to figure out which one it is. Yes, your edits are problematic, because you've been making thousands of edits deleting stuff from templates without bothering to read up on how the template works, without bothering to see if the information could be preserved in another parameter and seemingly without bothering to check your edits before you save them. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Begoon yes i did preview it 2 or 3 times before publishing it and as you said, "if it's a major issue". But is it ? No it isnt. But the thing is only a few people would like to do this on a large scale on a "minor issue", on a pretext to minimize the backlogs. and i'm actually happy to see people fixing the errors i made, i feel that they helped me in a certain way. anyhow i did not intend to create any harm to the encyclopaedia. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But your comment, confusingly, says that you previewed most of them, except those you missed. Can you elaborate? Begoon 13:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    take note about my saying above on line 2, i opened more than 100 tabs on chrome, (which now seems to be a bad idea). i did preview most of them as i said above, 2 or 3 times. But there are some i missed. By "some" is not elaborated as many, but infact minority of them. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem? I guess what I'm really asking is whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 13:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note, Doğukeppanochomolungmahokutotenkachōjo: you may notice that many Wikipedians are highly skeptical of anyone making large numbers of edits, and will comb through them to make sure you're not making mistakes. The problem is the amount of work it makes for other people when there are mistakes. Some people (basically everyone at the top of WP:4000) do successfully make large numbers of edits for a long time... others (including some of the people at the top of WP:4000) wind up getting banned because the benefit of lots of small changes doesn't quite make up for a lot of other people's time spent cleaning up when those small changes go wrong. The takeaway here should be: be extra careful when editing rapidly, and maybe even slow down a little. If there's a single large batch of edits you want to make, you can always create a WP:BOT account. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Rhododendrites thank you very much for the advice!, i will be extra careful next time. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a really good idea. I'm sure that slowing down and being more circumspect will be appreciated. If you have time to answer the questions I asked above, which you probably missed, I'd appreciate it, but regardless of that, your greater care, deeper consideration, more thoughtful consideration of options and willingness to engage can only be a good thing. Thank you. Begoon 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Begoon i did and i will re-evaluate my approach, but does that mean i will stop editing ? No, these are critiques and advices that i sought have to accept. i infact still and will keep editing on that topic and try to improve my approach and slowing down a bit. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. Good luck. I hope this discussion has avoided the whole thing becoming a bigger/ongoing issue. Begoon 13:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Begoon it wont!, thank you for the participation and advices on this discussion! -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Indulge me, because I'd like to just ask one of those questions again:
    "So, if, having now seen that people have concerns about the speed and possible inaccuracy/undesirable nature of what you are doing, you were to stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, do you think that would be a problem?"
    I'm particularly interested in "whether you think there is some kind of urgent emergency that means you can't just take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. Begoon 14:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Begoon 1. stop doing it for a little while and re-evaluate your approach, i did not agree on the first half sentence, however, i did agree on to re-evaluate. the thing is, i did not have an intention to stop editing. the secenario that i would be ended up doing is to slow down and carefully fix the parameters on the format per se. in my opinion, it's really unproductive to stop just because you made a mistake. what you must do is that; you must fix it and overcome it much more carefully.
    2. take the feedback on board and adjust your approach to include the better ways of dealing with things described above, applying more thought to how to fix things rather than just removing stuff, for a less disruptive overall result. I'm actually quite having a trouble on comprehensing this one. But if you meant that, will i accept the advices on board above or not? definitely i will accept them. There is no way i'm not gonna accept them. Overall the general reason for me here on the encyclopaedia is to contribute and do the right thing. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 14:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. We'll see how that goes. I'm not entirely optimistic, because it feels like the things you don't want to do - taking more care, slowing down, listening to people who disagree with you rather than plowing on, accepting your path may be flawed, finding better ways to edit, are not really things you seem keen to hear. I somehow don't feel it will be long before we can know for sure though... Begoon 14:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just fixed one of this editor's "delete the parameter instead of fixing it" errors that was made two hours ago. This editor is failing to listen to advice and continuing their disruption. Here's another recent one from less than three hours ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonesey95 that edit was made before this ANI discussion even started, and were already addressed. thank you for fixing it. but this doesn't mean it porhibits me to correct other article's parameters carefully. -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Untrue, AFAICT, based on the time stamps. The discussion was started four hours ago; the disruptive editor responded nine minutes later. Both erroneous edits were made after that response. I just reviewed this editor's most recent 30 edits and had to revert 8 of them. This is a terrible error rate. This editor should take the time to read the template's documentation and commit to stop removing parameters. In general, when the editor fixed a parameter name instead of removing the parameter and value entirely, the fix was valid. The editor should focus on that type of edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps not - but you're not really showing the positive commitment I'd have hoped for here. I'll ask you again: What's the emergency that makes you think you can edit like a bot against very clear consensus? And why haven't you just said "ok, I'll stop doing that because it's not clear that I should" yet?
    You're starting, if I'm honest, to just look like a nuisance. Begoon 15:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked the user for a week, just to reduce damage to the project, since they kept high-rate editing against objections. I leave the discussion here open.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Doesn't seem necessary. After their response to me above, they made nine edits in nine minutes. That's not a particularly high rate of editing. Has anyone identified problems with any of those nine edits? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • AFAICT, all 3 of the edits 192 commented on Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango's talk page were after they replied to you, actually after all replies by them on this thread except that to Jonesy95. They're counting 3 out of 8, you're 3 out of 9, either way assume 192's assessment is fair that's a terrible error rate. Technically, these may have only been specifically identified after the block but IMO it was reasonable enough under the circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I just visited another 50 or so of this editor's edits to settlement infoboxes, and I found that they deleted valuable information instead of fixing the broken parameters at least a quarter of the time. It pains me to say that, unfortunately, all of this editor's infobox settlement edits that are current edits should probably be reverted so that they can be revisited properly via ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pages using infobox settlement with unknown parameters. It appears that there are about 2,000 such edits dating back to March 25. Here's one dating from March 25 that I just had to revert. I don't know how this would be done, or if there is a better way to address these hundreds of errors tucked away amid some valid edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just browsing through ANI and saw this report. It seemed like there was a request here to mass revert this editor many edits but when I checked, this hadn't been done. Is this an action that folks are advocating? Mass revert is most effective to do soon after the edits have been made...in my experience, when another edit has been made to the page in question, the edit can no longer be reverted. It has to be the most current, latest edit to the page. I'm sure if my understanding isn't correct, someone will tell me. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment & Declaration: Thank you very much beforehand for everyone who attend this discussion. These are some of my statements that i made per my talk page since i was blocked. There are 4 points on this to conclude.

    1. It has been a week since @Swarm, @Begoon, @192.76.8.70, @Rhododendrites, @Ymblanter and @Jonesey95 mentioned me on ANI, and on those times, i have made a significant changes in my approach since i'am blocked, but first of all, i'm sorry for what i did, i should have stop editing the template while the ANI discussion is going that night, if only i show restraint on the editing and listen to others, it wont became a bigger issue like this. As @192.76.8.70 said; "what is fixing if it came out even worse?". and i re-thinked about their saying that night, and then i realized for what i did was wrong. i will not do it again in the near future.

    2. My commitment now is clear that i will stop editing on the template format, and will just doing some minor maintenance instead on other articles, ie. adding citations, adding contents per WP:RS. etc, and going back to my non-disruptive pattern prior to 25 march 2022. and i will stay away from the Template Settlements, my intent is that; i wont repeat the same mistake that i did as per my commitment above. And as a reassurance note; notably i'm active on editing such things as minor improvements on other pages before i mede this big erros after 25 march 2022. And as a track record you can check my edits starting from this date (14:39, 25 March 2022 ) to the even older ones to the bottom. And you can see the diffrences between my editing pattern on those times compared to the times where i edited the settlements template. however this did not justify my recent editing actions which is an obvious mistake and problematic.

    3. The statements that i made above is my commitment, and it did teaches me something, As of this times, i already recognizes my mistake. for example, as shown on this revision, it's very obvious that it is my mistake, because i thought those parameters is not usable and is not a valid parameter, but turned up it is a valid parameter and i blindly deleted it just because there is a gibberish vandalism in it, and i blindly do this repeatedly in many settlement articles. and as @192.76.8.70 and Jonesey95 said; i could've fixed it into more proper format and/or convert it into a modern format because some of them used the old format, and also it is better that if i read the documentation template first before making any edits. and as my statement above, i will refrain, to even stop and persistently not do so again. and most importantly I will never do any form of rapid editing again as per WP:MEATBOT since it is ineffective, inaccurate and will reduce an article quality. so because of this; i will slow down & put as much attention as possible to an article when editing them in the near future. and also regarding on the mass revert, please do so if possible.

    4. per points i said above, i accept an administrative actions pointed towards me, because the mistake i did was very obvious. but i hope an indef block is not neccessary, since i will stop this type of editing and will act conscientiously according to wikipedia policy. And thank you for your valued directives given to me that night, i say this is what makes the encyclopaedia a better place. atleast there are people that are willing to help me reach a better productive measure towards editing. Thank you -Hokutobukukaitokukainokukinkinokukango (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I apologize for the delay, I am traveling and on mobile. Without objection, I have converted the user’s temporary block to indefinite pending a CONDUNBLOCK. I am also initiating a mass rollback, again, without objection. In my opinion the standardized unblock negotiation process can handle this from here, and this thread can be closed. I appreciate everyone’s feedback. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The mass rollback has been actioned, and to address Liz’s concern, in spite of the delay, I consider it to have been successful, with over 1,500 edits rolled back, most of them probably never vetted. Sadly this means there are still many changes that were not rolled back, however the majority of them were. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't have the full context and don't know whether you've done more harm than good, but that may not have been a good idea. Before clicking the link in your edit summary that led here, I reverted two of your rollbacks, [43] and [44], at Maso Sahar and Katrathal, because I saw that they consisted of (re-)adding fake parameters to infoboxes. I stopped short when I realized it was a long-established editor (you) making those edits and was wondering whether your account had been hacked. Largoplazo (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      There are 100% going to be good edits that get reverted, that is a full guarantee. The assumption here is that it’s impractical to resolve this user’s errors any other way than a full mass revert, and that such a mass revert would be more of a net positive in the grand scheme of things. Any errors that are noticed should be re-reverted or fixed down the line, and that is an eventualist trust that is placed in the community. However it is in the best interest of the project to run this script. Regardless, I could have done this immediately, and I brought it here for feedback instead, and the feedback was quite clear. It is done now after ample time has been given for feedback, and it cannot be undone. I thank you for fixing some of the mistakes but you should not be wondering if my account has been hacked when I included a diff to this explanation that it is a mass rollback, in the context of the lengthy discussion and evidence above. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that there are bound to be good edits caught up in a mass rollback. I am very leery of using this powerful tool and I think I've only used it with sockpuppets. You can also select individual namespaces and just do mass reverts in particular ones, I'm most familiar with a sockpuppet who disrupts categories so I've used it to revert edits in Category space. Glad to see you back, Swarm. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately, nobody volunteered to scan the 2,000 edits that contained roughly a 25% error rate. I reviewed about 100 edits, but I do not have the patience to review 2,000. As I posted above, a mass revert appeared to be the least bad option available. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    On my DYK contributions

    Summary of DYK process on Wikipedia

    Background: A user (hereafter nominator) nominates an interesting fact from an article. The interesting fact is known as Did You Know (DYK), and is nominated on a template subpage. Another uninvolved user (reviewer) reviews the fact, checks the quality of the article, Points the problems(if any) on the subpage. Nominator gets chance to fix the problem. Once satisfied with improvements the reviewer approves the DYK. Fact is displayed on DYK section that is transcluded on the mainpage. At the end of this, the nominator is said to have earned one successful DYK Credit, and it is noted on the user talk page of the nominator.

    Quote from Wikipedia:Did you know (or WP:DYKRULES) 29 December 2021

    Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination by a user, he must review one other DYK nomination (unrelated to nominators submission) ‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ for DYK nomination.

    Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nominator is exempt from QPQ.

    Below are the dates when I had accumulated the so called "DYK credits".

    Table for Successful DYKs [45]
    Date Successful DYK
    (DYK Credit) Diff
    14 January 2022 1
    22 January 2022 2
    16 February 2022 3
    2 April 2022 4
    14 April 2022 5

    The WP:DYKRULE originally said, "users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt from making DYK reviews" and I have understood it as new users "lacking sufficient expertise of the compliated DYK process to conduct proper reviews". Anyone who looks at the dates on these diffs above, would agree that until 14 April, I was not eligible for making DYK reviews for nominations by others. Yet in the past two-three weeks I have faced continuous harassment and threats for blocks, topic bans etc for allegedly gaming the system. Those users seem to believe that I am against doing reviews, even though I am already doing reviews, as I am expected to do.

    Please review the timeline of events below and let me know if the uninvolved users believe I have erred and liable for sanctions as some are baying for. My expectation in bringing this complicated matter to ANI is to seek an end to this ongoing harassment and denigration by some users.

    My entire DYK contributions timeline
    My entire DYK contributions timeline
    Diff
    No.    		 Date Event Notes DYK
    Credits    		 QPQ expected from
    the DYK Nominator?    		 Is user expected
    to review Other DYKs ?
    [46] 16 Dec 1st DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unseccessful as improvements were not done in one month time 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [47] 17 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [48] 22 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 10 April) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [49] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 18 Jan) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [50] 27 Dec DYK nomination submitted for review, succeeded later (on 11 Feb) 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [51] 11 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, later closed as unsuccessful by Narutolovehinata5 as timely improvements were not made 0 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    1 14 Jan First DYK credit successful 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [52] 15 Jan DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 1 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    2 22 Jan 2nd DYK credit successful 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [53] 10 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review. later closed as unsuccessful on 10 Feb 2 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    Diff
    No.    		 Date Event Notes DYK
    Credits    		 QPQ expected from
    the DYK Nominator?    		 Is user expected
    to review Other DYKs ?
    3 16 Feb 3rd DYK credit successful 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [54] 23 Feb DYK nomination submitted for review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [55] 22 Mar DYK closed Narutolovehinata5 did an involved closure of the discussed he participated in, as unsuccessful. I requested for a review, but was ignored by Narutolovehinata5. Other users pointed involved closure, I asked to re-open, my request ignored By Narutolovehinata5 who did not undo the close. I gave up pursuing this. 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [56] 23 Mar DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 3 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    4 2 Apr 4th DYK credit successful 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [57] 4 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [58] 6 Apr DYK Rules changed the WP:DYKRULES werr changed by Theleekycauldron from checking for DYK Credits, to check for "nominations" (successful or unsuccessful or whatever)
    [59] 7 Apr DYK nomination submitted for review, at the time of writing, the DYK nomination is awaiting a review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs
    [60] 7 Apr DYK Rules restored I objected to the change as no new RfC had been done and the change required an RfC. I asked the proposer to conduct an RfC for the proposed change. My request ignored. No RfC started.
    Diff
    No.    		 Date Event Notes DYK
    Credits    		 QPQ expected from
    the DYK Nominator?    		 Is user expected
    to review Other DYKs ?    		 Reviews done
    [61] 19:28,
    7 Apr    		 DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 1
    [62] 22:31
    7 Apr    		 Harassment New thread started by Schwede66 to attack me over my objections saying that I am a newbie with strong opinions. Schwede66 Made several inaccurate statements, admonished me for not reviewing DYKs and at the same time admittedly conveniently ignoring that 3 hours ago, I had already done my first review following the changed rules. Schwede66 started a thread claiming that I was not reviewing DYKs and yet calls the fact that I had already started reviewing, as "irrelevant" and not worth commenting. In this comment Schwede66 wrongly accuses me of saying "I don't need to do QPQs" he gave no diffs and I never said that. Schwede66 continued later, [63] [64] 1
    [65] 8 Apr Rfc Started to discuss
    DYK Rule change     		No RfC was started for a day, So I go ahead and start the RfC linking the diff and seeking opinion for the new change of WP:DYKRULES, and I note my objections as oppose !vote. The new rules essentially demanded new users without successful DYK credits to review other nominations 1
    [66] 8 Apr Rfc closed in 12 hours Several users voted as support and oppose, yet the RfC was inappropriately closed within 12 hours of starting. I did not object to this closure, even though I believed the closure was not appropriate. Essentially I WP:DROPped the WP:STICK 1
    [67] 12 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk even though not expected to review 4 QPQ not expected Nominator not expected to review DYKs 2
    5 14 Apr 5th DYK credit successful 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 2
    [68] 14 Apr DYK reviewed Reviewed another dyk 5 QPQ expected Nominator expected to review DYKs 3

    At the time of writing, I have 5 Successful DYK nominations, 3 unsuccessful and 4 are awaiting review.

    Policy disagreement on a recent change of rule

    DYK rule were changed on 6 April without seeking wider consensus for a big and controversial change. The question due to the change was "Should users without successful DYK Nominations be asked to judge other DYK Nominations?"
    Until 6 April, users who submitted DYK nominations were asked to judge a DYK Nomination if the nominator had 5 or more 'successful DYK Credits' (aka 'DYK credits' checked using this tool). A proposal to change this rule was made on 4 April , where it was proposed that users with 5 or more DYK nominations (Successful or unsuccessful or pending) be asked to start judging DYK noms that others have filed. The change demanded users with 5 unsuccessful nominations, to start judging DYK nominations. Asking people with failed nominations to judge is a major change in WP:DYKRULES and deserved wider community consensus before implementation. In my opinion I noted that nominating a DYK is mostly just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the old rule demands. This change in rule was significant watering down of the requirements without considering the ill effects.

    So clearly there was a policy disagreement between users on WT:DYK. Accordingly I tried to follow Dispute resolution. I let the RfC lead the policy disagreement to a conclusion, but my efforts for a consensus via RfC were thwarted and the RfC was closed within 12 hours. (diffs in the table above)

    Harassment

    After my RfC was closed 10 days ago, I yielded and did not continue my objections on DYKRULE any changes further, also started reviewing DYKs as per the changed rules. Since I have given up and complied with the new rules, this inappropriate harassment against me should have ended. Yet the scheming against me and attacks on WT:DYK continued as of today (since 4 April). And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI.

    To conclude, there is no ongoing (or ever) disruption by me on Wikipedia, nor have I expressed intentions to start any, there are no grounds for attacking me and this ongoing witch hunt being pursued by some of these users against me, must end. Venkat TL (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you add diffs for the scheming, harassment, and attacks on you? Schazjmd (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd It is in the collapsed table on row 7 April. I will add some more in next 5-10 mins. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; from the collapse header, I thought it was just your DYK work. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added few more diffs in the table row 7 April, Some attacks with factually inaccurate statements and slander are these [69] [70] [71] [72], in the last thread Joseph2302 attacks me and claims I have started tonnes of QPQ discussion threads when they were started by Narutoloveninata5 or Theleekycauldron. The only thread I started was RfC for seeking dispute resolution. Venkat TL (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "I was criticized" ≠ factual inaccuracy, let alone slander. Stop whining and arguing and go do something productive instead. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone wanting the context of this thread should look at the two discussion threads Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#QPQ_freebies and especially Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Article nominators and other editors removing comments by others on a DYK nomination. The idea of a topic ban for Venkat TL has been floated there by several editors. --JBL (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In Venkat's table above, labeled as "harassment", are Schwede66's comments at Special:Diff/1081517890 and Special:Diff/1081535891. I'm more concerned by Venkat's comments at Special:Diff/1081527663 and Special:Diff/1081539768.

    The content/policy discussion at WT:DYK can handle the WP:DYKRULES issue; that's not an ANI issue.

    I am as concerned at others about Venkat's intense focus on the QPQs, and whether he does or does not have to complete them. That is such a strange thing for someone to focus this much attention on. Even stranger for a new editor, whose account was created in August 2021. But then Venkat's made over 20,000 edits in these last nine months (that's about 75 edits a day, every day) [73], of which only about 4,000 are semi-automated [74]. That leaves me wondering if this is a continuation of some older dispute. Anyone who can put out 16,000 non-automated edits in 9 months (that's about 60 non-automated edits every day!) would not be trying to delay doing a QPQ for DYK.

    I think a TBAN, if the DYK regulars want it, would help reduce the disruption they have to deal with. Levivich 17:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Levivich, There is no ongoing dispute, as I have given already given up 2 weeks ago. There is no ongoing disruption at WT:DYK, I have never ever said that I did not want to do QPQs, The WP:DYKRULES before it was changed said users without 5 Successful DYKs were exempt and I understood it as "lacking sufficient expertise to conduct proper reviews". As noted in the collapsed table, at the time of writing of this comment, I have already done 3 QPQ reviews of nomination by others. Accordingly I have considered myself not eligibile to review DYKs of others and Some users are a conflating this as "Hostility in doing reviews" and while doing this they keep ignoring the fact that I have already done 3 reviews and listed them as QPQs. The policy disagreement is over, and I see no reason why these users even after 2 weeks continue to pursue that against me. Venkat TL (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a classic case of "Self-governing area of the 'pedia makes a minor change to its internal rules, user refuses to accept the consensus for that change, others in that area get frustrated, and the user runs to ANI." The "harassment" diff does not look like harassment, or even really incivility. If there's something I'm missing there, please point it out; otherwise you should rescind your accusation.
      DYK is an entirely optional area of Wikipedia. (Well, all areas are optional, but DYK is particularly optional.) It's also an invaluable area for encouraging content creation, and time spent arguing over procedural minutiae there is time taken away from its maintainers' work reviewing, promoting, and enqueueing hooks. If a significant portion of your time on-wiki is being devoted to arguing over meta-level things at DYK, you may need to reconsider how you're spending your time. If you've reached the point of thinking that a wiki-wide consensus was needed to change "fewer than five DYK credits" to "previously nominated fewer than five articles", you may be in too deep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please notice carefully and you find that none of those meta discussions on QPQ (you are talking about) were started by me. Others started those thread naming me in the original post and enforcing their own unwritten rule, clearly different than what was written in WP:DYKRULES of the time. You may have your opinion on the policy disagreement, it is more than what you claim it is, my position on it is explained at the RFC thread. In any case I have moved from past, and not pursuing any point from the two week old threads/issues and I expect that others should also move on. Venkat TL (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Tamzin is correct here. DYK is supposed to be an enjoyable area of Wikipedia, where editors can get credit for their work, but is not so important as to be a topic for such wikilawyering, a word which, if it hadn't already been invented, we would need to invent for such behaviour. Just get on with editing the encyclopedia, Venkat TL. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      ... And I have already moved on. My last comment on WT:DYK was a week ago, so I am not responding there anymore, I even unwatched WT:DYK page, to stay awy until I was pinged yesterday on a plan to escalate it to ANI. Even now, in this thread I am not pursuing any of those past issues, Pray tell me @Phil Bridger how am I supposed to advertise that I have moved on? Venkat TL (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You started this thread today. If that's moving on, then I'm a banana. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Why have you started this thread? It advertises that you have not moved on. —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict with the two above) Not to be snide, but it would be a poor advertisement an editor has "moved on" to introduce a thread claiming harassment by DYK volunteers. This is gaming, and exactly the sort of behavior which has plagued this editor's DYK nomination templates. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Phil Bridger Kusma This thread coming to ANI was a forgone conclusion, Please check the thread linked below BusterD. The ANI posting was ready. The thread created by folks at WT:DYK uses a table with twisted timelines to build a false case against me. In this thread I have shared a clear timeline of the events so that folks can see that certain events I am being accused of happened in a certain sequence, when the rules were something else than what they are right now. If it helps you, I am willing to close this thread, since I am not pursing anything other than peace for myself and others. But all signs at WT:DYK show that the post "shooting for topic bans" was imminent, and if it does, then I would rather that this thread remains open. Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It seems likely that User:Venkat TL has seen this topic ban being drafted by DYK regulars and is trying to make their case before such a ban is discussed. I have had little direct contact with the user, but have seen sufficient to think a DYK topic ban is becoming necessary. DYK (like everywhere else on Wikipedia) is staffed by volunteers; if those individual volunteers were to choose to simply ignore any further DYK submissions from this troublesome contributor, it might be POINTY, but not totally out of line. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I was pinged on that draft thread. In my original post I have said "And now I see another attack thread based on misleading timelines and changed rules to confuse the readers and to seek sanctions against me on ANI." The diffs are in the table. Yes I am referring to it. Venkat TL (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG

    • Proposal: Topic ban, of duration to be decided, from all things WP:DYK, until Venkat TL can demonstrate proficiency elsewhere on the 'pedia, preferably mainspace, and a willingness to drop both the issue with DYK and their less than collegial approach to other editors in such a small corner of the project. Let them adjust to a project-wide perspective before returning to procedural minutaie. SN54129 19:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      [75][76] You are proposing a topic ban without any ongoing disruption or evidence of disruption. In the last 6 days I have not posted 'anything' on WT:DYK. How is that for a demonstration? In my opening post above also I have noted that I am not pursuing either of the said issues. Those issues and incidents from 2 weeks ago and earlier, were only posted here to give a context, not to re-litigate anything. I have moved on. . So please clarify what "ongoing disruption" do you seek to contain by proposing this topic ban? If any type of BAN is imposed without clear evidence of ongoing disruption, then I assure I will abandon editing altogether. I am not contributing here for any sort of winning or defeats. Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. I believe a retirement would be ultimate demonstration of WP:DROPping the WP:STICK. --Venkat TL (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally when I move on from things I do it by not opening threads at ANI, and then not responding to every critical comment. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Shouldn't you ask folks who are building up ANI case at WT:DYK (using events that happened 2 weeks ago) to move on like me? This ANI thread would never have happened if I had not been pinged yesterday at WT:DYK. Venkat TL (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Notice that those people aren't here making absolute fools of themselves trumpeting how they've "moved on" while responding to every single comment critical of them? Here's how you can prove me wrong: by writing "You know, you're right, my behavior here is the exact opposite of what the phrase 'moving on' denotes; I'm going to stop now and let this thread run its course without any more input from me." (And then doing that.) --JBL (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support a topic ban of limited duration as suggested above (ALL things WP:DYK, including new content submissions). Gaming and battleground behaviors are undercutting the energy and industry of this otherwise promising new editor. I want to encourage Venkat TL to think less of winning, and more of helping. BusterD (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Venkat TL displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick (while hilariously proclaiming to have done so). I think BusterD is spot on with his comment about "winning". I'm not sure a DYK topic ban is the best possible remedy for this, but I can't think of anything better right now. —Kusma (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You can count me as a supporter of the developing consensus for an indefinite topic ban with appeal no earlier than six months. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I also support (and agree with both of the above that a time-limited ban might be appropriate in this case). Venkat TL seems to need some assistance with moving on. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) *I have to note that the editor's civility issues on DYK were not just limited to the diffs link above. For example, on one of his DYK nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/Mann ministry, he removed comments I made on the nomination regarding QPQ as well as a concern unrelated to QPQs (in this case, me noting that his preferred term at the time, "greenhorn", was jargon and probably needed to be replaced by a more easily understandable phrase). In another of his nominations, Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka, he accused DYK editors of having, quote sadistic pleasure in closing the DYKs and trimming the DYK list after it was noted by me and other editors that the article was unstable at the time and was unlikely to pass DYK. After I closed said nomination due to stability concerns, he started Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185#DYK closed without proper review, where he continued making bad faith comments against me and others. To be fair, in said discussion, other editors did note that my closure was perhaps out of process as I had previously commented in the nomination and thus may have been too involved to make a proper closure, to which I apologize for. Nevertheless, other editors, including those same aforementioned other editors, noted that Venkat had engaged in bad faith and/or personal attacks throughout the proceedings, with quotes such as Please do not make this an ego issue and all you did was close the DYK with prejudice based on past interactions or my comment on DYK. In addition, during said discussion, the editor referred to all comments regarding their behavior as "off-topic" rather than addressing them.
    To me, what is shocking about the editor is their lack of good faith when discussing with other editors, not to mention making personal attacks over disagreements. At the very least I'd support some kind of restriction such as a topic ban from DYK, mainly for the incivility shown and how it appeared that they continued to engage in such incivility and problematic behavior despite multiple warnings. As for the length, I don't know if indefinite would be advisable given that the editor had nominated some nominations that largely followed the processes and he has even started providing QPQs. I'm actually leaning more towards a temporary ban (perhaps at least six months), but my concern is that this limited topic ban would not address the wider attitude issues the editor has expressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized that just on this very thread he has been expressing the behavior that other DYK regulars had expressed concerns above, as seen by the above comment Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. For the record, his retirement from DYK was never our intention, and the only reason ANI was ever considered on WT:DYK was due to the aforementioned battleground behavior that multiple editors, including several admins, had observed. If anything surprises me, it's that this wasn't brought up at ANI sooner. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would have wanted resolution you would have opened threads on my User talk and not on WT:DYK which is sort of noticeboard for all things DYK. From my perspective, there was never ever any battle to fight. There was a Procedure disagreement that I had clearly WP:DROPed 2 weeks ago. Venkat TL (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the point here. The reason you ended up in this situation wasn't your opposition to the QPQ rule or even your disagreement of the Hijab nomination being closed. It was your attitude and lack of good faith, as seen by your multiple comments accusing editors of "pushing" you to retire from DYK, or accusing DYK editors of having an "ego" and failing nominations for "sadistic pleasure". Indeed, multiple editors had requested you to apologize for your comments, something you have repeatedly declined to do. Had you made an effort to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment and made an effort to have a less accusatory behavior, as well as heeded the advice of multiple editors regarding your attitude, I don't think Schwede66 and the others would have considered a topic ban in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the stuff you commented here are recent. I am not revisiting month old comments. If there is something that 'I had done' and you found disruptive and worth BLOCKS and TOPIC BANs in the last 2 weeks, I will be happy to discuss. Venkat TL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, even when those comments were new you declined to acknowledge them or apologize for them, even going as far as calling the requests for apology "off-topic". For example, Schwede66 and BlueMoonset both asked you to apologize for the "sadistic pleasure" comment (and may I add that both requests for apology were made less than a week after the comment was made). The "sadistic pleasure" comment was most certainly not a "month old" when it was brought up by those two editors and yet you didn't apologize for it even then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As for actions comments that can be considered disruptive or worth blocks within the last two weeks, your comment removal from the Mann ministry nomination (which was done on April 8th, so within the last 14 days) could at the very least warrant a warning, not to mention the battleground behavior and assumptions of bad faith in this very thread, notably with comments such as Perhaps my retirement is what Narutolovehinata5 and friends intend to achieve from all this targeting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted in my edit summary, the comment was 'moved' to Article talk page, you raised this diff, by starting a thread on the WT:DYK noticeboard (instead of my user talk) and I replied there. I did not contest it when it was restored. If you would have asked this on my user talk, then also I would have self reverted. I have nothing new to add here than what I already said in that thread. Venkat TL (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not have moved the comment in the first place, even if you disagreed with it. The comment was on-topic to the DYK and raised concerns about the hook wording. Why did you move the comment in the first place? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I replied in the diff, I linked above. At that time, I (wrongly) assumed that thread to be offtopic from DYK as it was about QPQ and you explicitly noted that you were not reviewing the DYK. QPQ was being discussed at WT:DYK. Article talk page is the place to discuss article improvements, so I had moved it to article talk page. When others restored it and disagreed with my wrong assumption. I agreed with the restoration. I apologize if my moving of comment caused you any trouble. Would I do it again? No. Venkat TL (talk) 22:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    there was a context to my comment you quoted, that is being ignored in this thread. My observations for which you are taking an offence were made more than a month ago, in that thread, I was upset that my DYKs were being closed without getting proper 'review-and-fix-cycles' as is expected with DYK nominations. Looking at the hindsight, I think I shouldn't have made it, I have not made any such comments since, and I will never make such comments again. Your objections about moving the comment to the article-talk-page, is valid, and I have agreed, but I believe it is probably an over reaction to use that incident to ask for blocks and bans on what admin Maile66 called "a prolific editor". In summary, I have moved on from what has happened in past. Neither have I repeated, nor do I don't expect those things that you found offensive to be repeated. --Venkat TL (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In regards to where Venkat_TL has linked my calling him a "prolific editor". What he links that to, the reader needs to scroll up to where Schwede66 says "It does not usually happen that we have a newby with so many active nominations just as the QPQ requirement is about to kick in." My comment was in reference to her statement. — Maile (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I generally think "indefinite with appeal no sooner than six months" is better than a six-month topic ban but I support either per mine and others comments above. Levivich 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef DYK topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. It was me who drafted the ANI notice at DYK but Venkat has beaten me to it by posting something themselves. Schwede66 22:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like Kusma said in this subsection, Venkat TL "displays a combative attitude, wikilawyering, refusal to drop the stick", I can confirm this with my first-hand experience with them. From that experience I can also say that they either look down on other editors, or consider themselves superior than others. Because of such attitude, they had taken me to ANI not so long ago, where Abecedare had mediated. I support indefinite topic ban with appeal no sooner than six months. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, it's this doofus! Makes it seem less likely that a topic ban will be sufficient, unfortunately. -- JBL (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jet Bropulsion Laboratory then there was this encore special:permalink/1077702496. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      also, this doofus who chastized me for using plain texts and not links...by doing the same. I'm not active at DYK, but I concur that a topic ban will just move the problem elsewhere vs. solving it. Would support one though based on evidence here. Star Mississippi 01:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to point out in conjunction with what JBL said above, this is clearly a user whose battleground behavior extends far beyond DYK. Just on these noticeboards, there are numerous examples ([77] [78] [79] [80]) displaying clear battleground behavior, bludgeoning discussions, and making everything personal; all of this can even be seen in this thread. Curbon7 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any kind of topic ban although I generally favor indefinite to be lifted on an appeal showing clue. DYK is a very important part of Wikipedia and should be protected from people who devote too much time and energy to arguments. Whether the details of Venkat TL's statement are correct is not relevant—life is not always smooth and we have to live with what happens. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban from DYK, to be appealed no sooner than six months. Venkat TL is warned that taking this type of behavior to other areas of the encyclopedia is likely to lead to an indefinite sitewide block. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban. Venkat TL seems entirely unable to grasp that DYK is supposed to have a collegial atmosphere and is completely incompatible with their battleground attitude. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite topic ban/appeal in 6 months possible. Evidence is clear that Venkat TL's battleground mentality and incessant wiki-lawyering over what is supposed to be a light-hearted part of the encyclopedia is creating a hostile working environment over there. --Jayron32 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commnet I do not support an outright ban. A limited ban is appropriate. I also think that if Venkat TL agrees to abide by the rules and stop being argumentative, it would go to greatly shorten the ban. --evrik (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as above. I already suggested this on the DYK talk boards, but I had been leaning towards the thought that maybe the discussion there might have convinced Venkat TL that their battleground approach was unproductive and to back down, making this step unnecessary. Unfortunately, Venkat TL's behavior in bringing this to ANI preemptively before someone else brought them there makes it clear that the battleground behavior is still ongoing. That is incompatible with the cooperative process needed to make DYK (or really any of the rest of the encyclopedia editing) work. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef topic ban from DYK or Support topic ban from South Asia per diffs provided by Curbon7. The battleground mentality and comprehension problems with the user extend beyond DYK. I don't think that letting him off with a topic ban from mere DYK will do enough good given the continued display of WP:IDHT and battleground mentality in this sub-thread alone. GenuineArt (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I have made a recent reply hereVenkat TL (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      and before that comment, there was this. It looks like Venkat TL is using words of Vice regent. It also looks like they are under impression that this thread is about only the incident of comment removal. From their comment, and Maile's response, it looks like either: Venkat TL is taking the comment out of context, or: they still have mentality "admins are above everything, and everyone, rest of the editors are worthles and/or idiots". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that their apology only talked about the Hijab nom closure discussion but not about their attitude in other places, including this very discussion, I think the comment is a case of too little, too late. Had he realized it earlier and apologized for all his words, I don't think this discussion would have happened in the first place. In addition, I would note that although he mentioned that "I have not made any such comments since", he continued showing battleground behavior in comments made after that discussion, including in this very thread. At the very least I am inclined to support the topic ban with the possibility of appeal; if Venkat is sincere that he has learned from his experiences and has vowed to change his on-wiki attitude, he can prove so in other areas of the Wikipedia, then when he has successfully proven it in practice, he can always appeal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    yup. I think they are failing to understand the difference between incivility and battleground behavior, or the reason for topic ban proposal (this subsection, and the discussion on DYK talk). —usernamekiran (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope the admins reading the 'entire' thread are able to see this slander campaign being run using over exaggerated recycled old stuff by users having an axe to grind. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Battleground mentality unabated, I note. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Despite the comments above claiming that they have moved on or have learned from their experience, their comment above still showing the incivility and lack of good faith that got them into trouble in the first place only further makes me feel that a topic ban is necessary. In fact, given their attitude in this discussion despite the promise to change and improve their behavior, not to mention the diffs raised by other editors, I'm wondering if a DYK-only topic ban is sufficient or if a topic ban from Indian politics broadly construed is also necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Venkat TL: Do you know what a topic ban is? Or what this particular proposal is about? Your recent comment confused me. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as above. Their inability to AGF and refusal to apologize for their negative characterizations of others even when their uncivil behavior has been pointed out shows no sign of abating. Since "retirement" can end at any time, the ban should go forward. It can always be lifted a significant period of collegial behavior. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came here from Venkat TL's talk page. I oppose a topic ban since they have apologized and said they would move on. Considering their successful DYK nominations, I would recommend giving them second chance. - SUN EYE 1 05:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering they made a comment above claiming that editors had "an axe to grind" and accused them of "slander", and said comment was made after their apology, I have some doubts if their apology and desire to move on are sincere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suneye1: the topic ban is not proposed because of one incident, it was proposed, and is supported by other editors because of their overall behavior, like comments "sadistic pleasure", and battleground behavior. It is a topic ban, a very narrow one at that. They are free to edit rest of the Wikipedia which is around 99%. Nobody is stopping them from that. Like BlueMoonset said right before your comment, [the ban] can always be lifted [after] a significant period of collegial behavior. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs is not pertinent to QPQ

    I see this list used in error at the top of this whole thread. Please be advised, that this is not a list used to calculate who is eligible for QPQ. This list is compiled by individual editors of how many DYKs they have already had on the Main Page, and the list is used to award the editors according to the numbers they have there. On the far right-hand side is a column where the editors link to their user space pages where they've done their own list of what they have created.

    The tool used to calculate QPQ can be found by opening any nomination, and selecting "QPQ Check' from the upper right-hand corner toolbox. Then input the user's name, and it returns the number of DYK's they have been given credit for. I believe there is also another tool, but someone else will have to list that. The one for Venkat TL says he has five credits already. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The new tool, which counts nominations rather than credits, is at [81], although it's still a work in progress. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maile66 I have copied the quote about WP:DYKRULES as it is, from the link I indicated in the original post. this is the link I copied the quote from. I have already shared the link of the tool to check successful DYK Credits. That link can be found as a diff on top of the table of successful DYKs. Venkat TL (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Venkat TL: Understood. Just so you know, that list that Wikipedians update themselves is not the gospel of stats. I haven't updated my own stats there for a while. Some of those people listed haven't participated at DYK for years. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Venkat TL has retired from Wikipedia

    Venkat put a retirement template on his talk page and appears to have retired from Wikipedia. I do not know if this makes the topic ban proposal moot or if it will continue regardless, I am just mentioning this here out of transparency. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI flu. Star Mississippi 01:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If somebody compiled a list of Wikipedia editors who posted a retirement banner and then came roaring back, it would be a very long list. Nobody should place much credence in a retirement notice by a Wikipedia editor or a rock and roll band. Cullen328 (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    or an NFL QB with five letters in their last name? Star Mississippi 01:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: I would have chastised you harshly for using plain links and not WP:ANI flu, but the only reason I am using soft words is that you are an admin. /end rhetorical sarcasm. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah! Had no idea about the actual page. Well done @Ritchie333 @EEng et al and thanks for flagging it @Usernamekiran. Back to my corner for me. :) Star Mississippi 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nixon loses 1962 election: "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more." → Richard Nixon 1968 presidential campaign — Maile (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it will get closed soon. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baseball Bugs

    Both involved editors have agreed to avoid doing the things that grieve the other. —173.79.38.2 (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I've asked this editor multiple times to leave me alone. The editor continues to stalk my edits, either undoing my edits or by editing pages the user has never edited prior to my edit, or by leaving messages on my talk page about my own edits.

    This stems from several months ago during an issue at a television show article. Since then, the user continues to leave messages on my talk page following edits I've made and undoes edits where I've removed content that does not meet WP guidelines. The user then labels my edits "ownership" in edit summaries.

    The user has been blocked six times for personal harassment and personal attacks, and has other topic bans based upon disruptive behavior. [82]

    Earlier, the user made this edit to Talk:List of The Mary Tyler Moore Show episodes—a page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit. The user made this edit to The Mary Tyler Moore Show—another page never edited by the user—immediately after my edit.

    I edited The Beverly Hillbillies on 11 and 15 April, removing cruft about character "abilities" and in-universe details about a fictional house. [83] Later on 15 April the user left a message on my talk page about a person I removed from the "guest stars" list of The Beverly Hillbillies. [84]. The user had not previously edited The Beverly Hillbillies article.

    I asked the user to leave me alone and stop stalking me on the same day. [85]. On 17 April, the user undid my edits to The Beverly Hillbillies with the edit summary "Reverting attempts to own the article." [86] The user then left a message on my talk page stating "Every editor, me included, has the right to read your edits and comment on them." [87] After I again posted on the user's talk page asking him to leave me alone, the editor made another edit to my talk page "warning" me of ownership. [88]

    AldezD (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


    There is some history here [89][90][91][92]. There is a lot of incivilty in that from both sides. On the 13 August 2021 Bugs asked Aldez not to post on their talk page[93]. Since then Aldez has posted five times that I can work out with two of them ANI notices. Over the same time Bugs has posted 17 times on Aldez's page (Excluding Aldez there are only 6 other non automated posts during that time). Yes I guess asking someone not to post on your talk page does not mean you can't post on theirs, but this is taking the piss a bit. And seriously both of your archiving systems are terrible. This seems to fall within the scope of WP:Hounding. And some of the other edits clearly show following. Maybe just 2-way iBan both and be done with it. Aircorn (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, so Bugs has posted 17 times on my talk page despite my repeated asks to leave me alone. And the user continues to WP:HOUND and WP:STALK me. I want this editor to stop this behavior. It's Wikipedia—a free encyclopedia/#hashtag repository of minutia. This editor is going out of their way to bother me, revert edits, and labeling my removal of cruft as "owning" an article. It's a long-term pattern of behavior that the editor has been previously been blocked multiple times. I'm responding on the editor's talk page when they confront me. I'm not stalking the editor's revisions. Now the editor labels my edits to a page I've never edited previously as "ownership", and continues to harass me. Nonsense, stalking, obsession. AldezD (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the spirit of full disclosure as an administrator, I have a very peripheral involvement in this content dispute, as the primary author of Sierra Railway 3, the actual operating steam locomotive that portrayed the fictional Hooterville Cannonball in the related sitcom, Petticoat Junction. So, I am curious why a beat up fictional pickup truck is described as a "character" in the article about one 60 year old situation comedy, while a fictional steam locomotive is excluded from the character list in another 1960s sitcom. That is perhaps worthy of debate elsewhere. "Should mechanical machines be included in character lists for works of fiction?" So, the solution is to discuss the content issues at the articles about the various American 1960s situation comedy shows mentioned here, informed by an awareness and an understanding that this is an argument about obscure trivialities, and that disruptive editing about trivialities is especially unacceptable. The OP should, of course, take to heart the advice at WP:OWNERSHIP, and Baseball Bugs should back off, and instead ask for input from other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) AldezD is correct that Baseball Bugs never touched The Beverly Hillbillies until AldezD edited it and only found this by going through AldezD's edits. Baseball Bugs continued to hound AldezD ([94]) after AldezD told him to stop ([95]). Most of the hostility (from what I can see) is being perpetuated by Baseball Bugs. Given the history, Baseball Bugs should not have been going through and reverting AldezD's edits, and seems to be carrying on a dispute with AldezD from months ago. I see in the previous ANI thread, user:Ched suggested that Baseball Bugs and AldezD avoid each other, but that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it (or forced to abide by it). That being said, I agree with Ched that both users are better off avoiding each other, but I also think there should be a discussion about whether Baseball Bugs is baiting AldezD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mythdon: I have avoided this user. The interactions are one-sided. I've repeatedly asked the user to leave me alone. The solution from Ched is ineffective since Baseball Bugs continues to harass me. I haven't interacted with the user outside of asking the user to leave me alone. Re: "that sort of suggestion is ineffective unless both users are willing to abide by it", one of us is abiding by it. Baseball Bugs continues to stalk my edits, post to my talk page, and revert edits to articles the user has never touched. It's a long-term evidenced pattern of harassment and personal attacks, previous behavior that has led to multiple blocks for the user. AldezD (talk) 13:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • simply noting that I've seen the ping. However, I'm not up to speed on this particular .... debate. I'm also not active enough, nor inclined enough, to get up to speed. Therefore I can't offer any substance of value. — Ched (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe both would be happier with a no-fault 2 way tban with autoexpire in a year. I was once a victim of stalking when I was new and it was really harmful. Easily disguised as "just following the rules" where it reality it was going far beyond the norm. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @North8000: I don't feel this should be a two-way ban since I am explicitly going out of my way to avoid interacting with this user. The only time I communicate with the user is when the user stalks me and posts warning messages on my talk page. Banning both of us from editing each other's talk page doesn't stop the user from continuing to stalk me. AldezD (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalking your edits would definitely be in violation of an interaction ban. --JBL (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Circling back to the Beverly Hillbilly edits - AldezD's first edits to remove the trivia are on 4/11, (MOS:TVCAST, unsourced nonsense), then more on 4/15, (A prop is not a member of the cast. recurring/MOS:TVCAST). 2 days later Baseball Bugs reverts all that, citing "Reverting attempts to own the article". How is this possibly an issue of WP:OWN when the person has only ever edited the article twice over 4 days? 4 minutes before B. Bugs reversion, they posted this. I have certainly looked at an editor's history to see what they're up to, but it invariably stems from an actionable reason, like they made a bad edit on a page I'm on, an untowards talk page entry, and so on. I'm not getting any "this guy is sus" vibes from AldezD's edits that'd call for a combing. On its face this is kind of coming across as stalking. Zaathras (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It is definitely hounding, but Bugs has over 100k edits, so we should allow it like we would for other experienced editors. 2600:387:F:4011:0:0:0:4 (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Experienced editors get sanctioned too for hounding. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is an IP editor who has not edited since 29 September 2021 now randomly finding this specific ANI and commenting, supporting Baseball Bugs? Similar edits were made by 174.244.243.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in August 2021 supporting Baseball Bugs. AldezD (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It's one of my "fans" trying to dupe you into (again) falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. I've been stalked for over a decade. You have no idea what real "stalking" is. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is trolling and is not supporting Baseball Bugs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Baseball Bugs: Could you please respond here to the substance of this thread? Unless I've missed it, you've commented about the IP, but not about the original concern that was raised. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The OP's complaint has no substance. To use one of his favorite terms, it's "nonsense". The general issue is the same one as last summer: The OP wants to take ownership of articles and resents any scrutiny of his efforts. What started this particular one is his mass deletion in an article,[96] which he termed "unsourced nonsense". First, the specific episodes were listed. But if he had said simply "unsourced", that could be a reasonable argument. The problem is the "nonsense" part. The first item on the list happened to be Leo Durocher. I posted 3 examples of Durocher's appearances on TV sitcoms of the early 1960s, including the one from the Hillbillies. He also called those items "nonsense". Considering he doesn't seem to know what real stalking and real sockpuppetry are, it's possible his definition of "nonsense" is similarly warped. But even forgetting that, too often he reverts stuff without giving any rationale at all. To me, that's article ownership. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What I removed in this edit does not make sense and is mostly ungrammatical fancruft.

    This edit removed content that fails MOS:TVCAST ("Try to avoid using the section as a repository for further "in-universe" information that belongs in the plot summary") nor Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):

    Extended content
    ====Other Well Known Guest Stars===
    • Leo Durocher – in Series 1 Episode 29, the coach of the LA Dodgers appears as himself.
    • Jim Backus – in Series 1 Episode 31, the Gilligan's Island and Mr. Magoo star appears as Mr. Drysdale's boss, the chairman of the bank board. He ends up at the Clampetts for dinner and a hoe-down, something he really enjoys.
    • Natalie Schafer – Backus's Gilligan Island co-star appears in Series 2 Episode 29 as a dress store owner.
    • Kathleen Freeman – She appears in Series 1 Episode 32 as the wife of a conman who both try to get $100,000 off Jed in a court action claiming they were injured when Jethro ran into them outside the bank. She also appears in Series 4 Episode 9 as a new neighbour's maid. She also appears in six episodes in Series 8 and 9 as Flo, the wife of Honest John Shafer (Phil Silvers – see above).
    • Roy Roberts – He appears in the same episode as Kathleen Freeman as the judge. Later he appeared in a number of episodes as John Cushing, President of the Merchants Bank, a rival to Mr Drysdale's Commerce Bank.
    • Rob Reiner – played a college protester in the first two episodes of season 8, "The Hills of Home" and "Back to the Hills" (1969).
    • Henry Gibson – plays the part of Granny's television idol, Quirt Manly. He is supposed to be a big western star but is revealed to be short and very unmanly.
    • Mel Blanc – the cartoon voice appears in Series 2 Episode 33 as a taxi driver.
    • Sheila James – later a star in The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis and a politician, she was in Series 2 Episode as bank employee Ginny Jennings. She also appears in Series 5 Episode 19 as the same character, but this time she is a college student.
    • Don Rickles – appears in Series 3 Episode 20 as Fred who gets Granny into gambling.
    • John Carradine – appears in Series 4 Episode 23 as Marvo the Magnificent, a magician.
    • Julie Newmar – appears in Series 4 Episode 27 as actress Ulla Bergstrom.
    • Wally Cox – appears in Series 4 Episode 28 as Miss Jane's date, birdwatcher Professor Biddle.
    • Gloria Swanson – appears as herself in Series 5 Episode 12, she is selling her house and some possessions and donating proceeds to charity.
    • Edy Williams – appears in "Luke's Boy" (season 3, episode 31) and "Jethro's Pad" (season 4, episode 28) along with Phyllis Davis.
    • John Wayne – appears as himself in Series 5 Episode 20 when Granny thinks Indians have attacked Bug Tussle. Two come to Beverly Hills to make peace with Jed. Mr Drysdale gets some actors to attack the house so Granny can fight them off and not go back to the hills.
    • Ted Cassidy – former cast member of The Addams Family, he appears in "The Dahlia Feud" (season 5, episode 30), as Mr Ted, a celebrity gardener. Granny thinks he is a hitman.
    • Paul Lynde – appears in Series 6 Episode 1 as an immigration agent as the Clampetts leave LA for London to visit their castle.
    • Alan Napier – best known as Alfred from Batman, appears as a chemist in "The Clampetts in London" (season 6, episode 2).
    • Dave Draper – Mr. Universe in 1966, he appears as himself in Series 6 Episode 8. Granny thinks his muscles are some sort of disease.
    • Richard Deacon – appears in Series 6 Episode 9 as a cemetery plot salesman and Series 9 Episode 6 as Dr Klingner.
    • Mike Mazurki – appears in Series 6 Episode 23 as the father of a TV wrestler, The Boston Strong Girl. Granny beats her and her parents in a tag team wrestling match.
    • Hans Conreid – appears in Series 6 Episode 25 as famed classical violonist Stromboli.
    • John Denher – appears in Series 6 Episode 26 as a soap opera character, Dr Rex Goodbody.
    • Pat Boone – the singer appears in Series 6 Episode 26 looking to buy a house. The Clampetts think he is a down and out singer.
    • Sammy Davis Jr. – appears as an Irish New York cop in Series 8 Episode 8.
    • Charles Lane – appears in Series 9 Episode 20 as landlord.
    • Mike Minor – as well as appearing as his Petticoat Junction character, he appeared in Series 9 Episodes 22–25 as Dick Bremerkamp, a penniless actor.

    ...and removed in-universe fancrucft and non-sensical descriptions such as "*Owl Soup – made from owls obviously", "Features of the Clampetts' House", "Clampetts' Abilities", "Misunderstandings", "Clampetts' Food" and "Granny's moonshine"...

    Extended content
    ==Features of the Clampetts' House==
    • Cement Pond – this is what the Clampetts' call their swimming pool. They pronounce it "SEE-mint".
    • Root Cellar – this is where Granny keeps her "vittles" and moonshine. Jed and Jethro dug it early in the first series.
    • Fancy Eat'n Room – this is actually the room that the Clampetts eat meals on special occasions and with valued guests. They eat on the fancy eat'n table, actually the billiard table (pronounced billyard). They use "pot passers" (billiard cues) to pass various pots across the table. On the wall is the head of a rhinoceros which they think is a "billyard", hence the name of the room. For some reason, the billiard table has no pockets for the balls. The balls are thought to be huge eggs.
    • Oven – in the first few episodes, Granny tries to light a fire in the gas oven using wood. She is not impressed by the lack of a flu.
    • Water Taps – in the first few episodes Granny and Pearl are unimpressed that the water pump does not work. The "pump" is actually the water outlet in the sink.
    • Refrigerator – when they first move in they cannot understand why there is frozen food in the cupboard. This turns out to be the "cooler box".
    • Tennis Court – in Series 1 Episode 5 Jed buys some stock and puts them inside the tennis court as he thinks it is a stockyard. He is not happy with the middle fence though (the net).
    • Chandelier – the chandelier in the main lobby is thought to be a broken object; they do not appear to be aware it is a light.
    • Television – Mr Drysdale gives the Clampetts a TV for Christmas. Granny thinks it is a washing machine.
    • Telephone – at first the Clampetts do not understand how a telephone works, they eventually realise you have to "spin the dial" and someone will answer. They pick up how to use it pretty quickly.

    ==Clampetts' Abilities==

    • Shooting – All the Clampetts are excellent shots, being able to light matches at 200 feet (60 metres), even shooting over their shoulder and using a mirror. They can shoot clay pigeons using rifles and sling-shots (Elly May).
    • Throwing – Jethro and Elly May are expert throwers of rocks and other things. Jethro impresses the LA Dodger coach, Leo Durocher by throwing a baseball at a golf ball caught in a tree hundreds of feet away and then putting a baseball into a tree trunk knot at the same distance. Jethro later throws a ball at Mr Durocher who is knocked into the cement pond by the force of it. Elly May also knocks him into the cement pond by doing the same thing.

    ==Misunderstandings==

    • Civil War – Granny believes that the South did not lose the war and it is still going. She does not believe that Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant or that General Grant later became President.
    • Confederate Money – Granny thinks this money is still valid for use in the USA.
    • Film Stars – the Clampetts believe that film stars from the silent era of the 1920s and 1930s are still the current stars. They also do not know about talking movies till the series are well advanced.
    • Golf – In Series 1 Episode 29, Jed and Jethro are invited to "shoot" a round of golf with Mr Drysdale and Leo Durocher the coach of the LA Dodgers. They surmise that "golfs" are some animal that lives in the holes and can fly (since Mr Durocher shot four birdies one day) and lays eggs (golf balls). Golf bags are used to carry the dead golfs and golf clubs are used to club the golfs after they are shot.
    • Skeet Shooting – The Clampetts are roped into an interbank skeet shooting competition by Mr Drysdale. They think that the skeets are some sort of bird or animal. Once they see them, they think they are not worth shooting to eat. Of course all four of them are experts, Jed and Jethro using a rifle, Granny a shotgun and Elly May with a sling-shot.
    • Door Bell – In the first two series, whenever someone comes to the front door and presses the doorbell, a chime plays throughout the house. At first they do not know why it is playing, but eventually they declare that whenever the music plays, someone comes to the front door stopping them from finding the source of the music.
    • MD – Whenever anyone talks about an MD or Doctor, Granny says she is an MD as she is a "Mountain Doctor". Jethro thinks "MD" means "Mr. Doctor".
    • Mrs Drysdale – In the first series, the Clampetts think that she is a drunk but really she is a hypochondriac. Granny tries to treat her to stop her drinking.
    • Buy Good Stock – In Series 1 Episode 5, Jed buys cows, pigs, chickens and goats when he misunderstands Mr Drysdale's advice to "buy good stock". He puts them in the tennis court which he thinks is a stockyard.
    • Halloween – At Halloween they see some children with masks on and think they are the homeliest children they have ever seen. They are also mistaken as being in Holloween costume when they go visiting their neighbours and return with lots of "presents".
    • Double Barrel Sling Shot – Elly May is given a bra to wear with good city clothes. She thinks it is the best "double barrel sling shot" she has ever seen.
    • Flamingo – They mistake a flamingo in their grounds as a strange chicken.
    • Topless Restaurant – The Clampetts think that this must refer to restaurants where the staff do not wear hats. They open one to serve mountain food.
    • Parking Tickets – Jethro gets a $5 parking ticket from a Police officer for parking in front of the bank. He tells Jed it lets him park there now.
    • Aircraft – when the Clampetts go back to the hills by plane, they think they are on a bus. When it goes very fast Granny says if it goes any faster, it will take off.
    • Possum Day – the Clampetts believe that LA celebrates Possum Day but a day later than they do back in Tennessee after Mr Drysdale puts on a Possum Day Parade for them.
    • Kangaroo – a kangaroo escapes from a zoo and Granny thinks it is an over-sized jack rabbit. The others think she has been drinking moonshine.
    • Frogman – Granny believes that Mark Templeton who is courting Elly May is half frog, half man. He is really a Navy frogman.

    ==Jethro's Professions and Inventions== Over the series Jethro Bodine decided to use his "sixth-grade education" to take up various professions.

    • Double Naught Spy – he decides that as 007 James Bond is so successful with women, he will become a "double naught" spy. This is in Series 2 Episode 21 and Series 4 Episode 4.
    • Brain Surgeon – another of Jethro's short term profession aims.
    • Car Telephone – Jethro decides to add a phone to his truck. The only trouble is the wires that run from the phone pole he mounts in the truck run out just after leaving their property.
    • Talent agent – from Series 7 Episode 17 to Episode 19 Jethro runs JB Enterprises on the 5th Floor of the bank building. As usual, he is not successful.

    ==Clampetts' Food==

    • Owl Soup – made from owls obviously
    • Grits and Jowels – Grits are made from ground corn, typically from less sweet, starchy varieties often referred to as dent corn. Grits were originally consumed by Native Americans and have been a long-standing staple across the American South.

    Jowels - Pork jowl is nearly identical to belly bacon in terms of look, texture, and flavor profile. Similar to pork belly.

    • Possum Pie/Baked Possum – one of their favorites
    • Collard Greens – Collards have dark green, fan like leaves with tough stems. They're a member of the same group of plants that includes kale, turnips, and mustard greens.

    ==Granny's Moonshine==

    Granny makes her moonshine in a wood-fired still next to the cement pond. Two sips will cure you of whatever ails you, although she says it will not cure you of rheumatiz, but it will make having it pleasurable. She is forever afraid of the "revenuers" coming and catching her at it. She has dozens of names for moonshine. The following are some: moonshine, mountain dew, rheumatiz medicine, Tennessee tranquiliser, white lightning and more.

    ...and an entire section of crossover episodes left unreferenced for six years, and which should be in the article:

    Extended content
    == Crossovers ==

    Season seven (1968–69) was packed with strategically placed, multiple-episode crossover stories in which the fictional worlds of all three Paul Henning series overlap. The Clampett family makes several trips to Hooterville (which was first mentioned in season one episode six when Jazzbo Depew attempts to sweet talk Jethrine Bodine), Sam Drucker visits Beverly Hills, and Granny does two guest appearances on Petticoat Junction. In season eight (1969–70), the Clampett family visits Hooterville one last time for a two-part episode.

    • "Granny Goes to Hooterville" (season seven, episode six) – Granny leaves for Hooterville upon hearing distant cousin Betty Jo Bradley (Linda Henning) just had a baby. The only Petticoat Junction cast members in this episode are Sam Drucker (Frank Cady) and Uncle Joe (Edgar Buchanan), seen talking to Granny on the phone. (The story continues on the Petticoat Junction episode "Granny, the Baby Expert".) "The Italian Cook" (7:7) wraps up the three-episode Hooterville story arc featuring Betty Jo, her husband Steve Elliott (Mike Minor), and Sam Drucker.
    • "The Thanksgiving Story" (7:10) – The Clampetts visit Hooterville and mingle with the Petticoat Junction cast. This includes a silent, split-second insert of Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor of Green Acres. Jethro pretends to be a Hollywood producer and tries to romance Billie Jo (Meredith MacRae) and Bobbie Jo (Lori Saunders) Bradley. This arc continues in the next episode, "The Courtship of Homer Noodleman" (7:11), with the Clampetts leaving for home following Eb Dawson's (from Green Acres) falling for Elly May.
    • "The Week Before Christmas" (7:13) – The crossover aspect is limited to two scenes in Sam Drucker's general store with the Bradley sisters and Drucker talking to Granny over the phone. The same broadcast week, Petticoat Junction aired "A Cake from Granny" with shots of Granny and Jane Hathaway (Nancy Kulp) in Beverly Hills baking a cake. "Christmas in Hooterville" (7:14) reunites the Clampett family with the Petticoat Junction cast. The follow-up episode, "Drysdale and Friend" (7:15), has appearances by Sam Drucker and Green Acres regular Fred Ziffel (Hank Patterson).
    • "Sam Drucker's Visit" (7:23) – The final season seven crossover with Sam Drucker dropping in on the Clampetts in Beverly Hills. Drucker and Betty Jo share one scene set in his Hooterville General Store.
    • In season eight, "Buzz Bodine, Boy General" (8:15) and "The Clampett-Hewes Empire" (8:16) comprise the last two-part crossover of the series. The Clampetts return to Petticoat Junction in a story featuring Steve Elliott, Betty Jo, Sam Drucker, and a rare Hooterville visit by Miss Hathaway and Mr. Drysdale (Raymond Bailey).
    • During season nine, after the cancellation of Petticoat Junction, Lori Saunders appeared in three episodes playing a new recurring character, Elizabeth Gordon.

    @Baseball Bugs: Removing this unsourced cruft and content that does not follow WP guidelines is not taking "ownership of articles". If you have an issue with something removed, WP:BOLD, revert and discuss. Instead, you revert, post messages on my talk page that you're watching me, and then continue in the same evidenced pattern of behavior. You only first responded here after I pointed to the similarities of your edits to unregistered IP users. Your lack of response to Newyorkbrad's request that you respond here to your WP:HOUNDing and stalking further demonstrates WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:GETOVERIT, and that you will likely continue this long-term evidenced pattern of behavior. AldezD (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bugs you cannot claim that WP:OWN applies based on a single edit, is applies to a pattern of behavior, this is a strange misreading of a policy page. Also, the defense against stalking the users' edits seems to be "it can't be called that since I've endured much worse". Bad behavior isn't a win-or-lose footrace, there can be degrees of badness. Zaathras (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Going back to where I first ran across this character last summer, in List of Jeopardy! contestants and the debate over Matt Amodio, if someone were to add current champion Mattea Roach, who has now won 12 straight games [now 16] and is in 11th [now 10th] place in regular game play, I can imagine the OP would fight it on whatever grounds he can think of that day: that Mattea is a nobody, that it's uncited, that the citation is not properly constructed, that her run isn't over yet (because he is the sole arbiter of what criteria can be used)... or that it's "nonsense". --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the talk page there looks like ownership, as multiple editors seemed to agree to hold back including Amodio until the run was complete, as well as making sure a minimal attempt at MOS standards were met (BB apparently not knowing how to format citation templates seems very odd). I'd argue from that view, BB is being obstinate here and seems to have a chip on their shoulder rather than reviewing the merits of the changes. --Masem (t) 14:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I have a chip on my shoulder about this user, maybe it's because he accused me (twice, now) of sockpuppetry, and never apologizec for it or acknowledged his error, despite being told by other users that it was a false accusation. (Like the one a few lines above.) If there's to be any sort of Iban, it should be two-way. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Going back to where I first ran [this] this character", BB is stalking my edits following Talk:Jeopardy!#Inclusion of Mike Richards in infobox and Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants#Matt Amodio. The user has WP:HOUNDed me, newly edits pages following my edits, and threatens me on my talk page. I've repeatedly asked this editor to leave me alone, yet the editor continues to post messages to my talk page and revert my edits labeling them as "WP:OWN". Editor has been blocked six times for the same behavior. AldezD (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Where's your apology for your false accusations of sockpuppetry? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, I like you, but the best time to stop arguing about this is now. You did well, for a while, to a degree, by not responding, but all you're doing now is confirming the accusations. Ask me? The OP has a point and you should stop being a dick. Regardless of that you should be clever enough by now to know that mud-fighting won't end well... Begoon 13:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How is he allowed to get away with false accusations of sockpuppetry? As I recall, I told him last summer that if he apologized for that, he would never hear from me again. He was advised by an admin to open an SPI. He never did. And he didn't learn from it, either, as he repeated the same accusation earlier this week. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Baseball Bugs For the benefit of others in this space, can you put the diffs where sock puppetry was alleged. Techie3 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Last week there was this: [97] Eight months ago there was this: [98] --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the are many components to this. Maybe overly high-handed editing by AldezD mis-identified as ownership, some two way history. Baseball Bugs somewhat admitted that such may be fueling whatever they are doing now. And yes I think Baseball Bugs is hounding which IMO is a very harmful thing. But probably nobody here has the hours to totally learn the history. I think a two way voluntary no-fault 90% Iban for a year or an official no-fault-determined one autoexpiring in a year would be a good move. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No comment on the specifics of this case (I've had too many run-ins with one of the participants to be impartial), but as a general principle, I don't think that 'voluntary Ibans' are appropriate solutions for such situations in general. Since they are voluntary, all too often they tend to get ignored as soon as a participant finds it convenient, leading to a recurrence of the original problem, only with added drama as people argue about whether the 'voluntary ban' has been breached etc. If an Iban is necessary, it should be imposed, and enforced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A one way IBAN would probably be preferable, seeing as Baseball Bugs is the only one (still) going out of his way to follow AldezD around and that he's the one not willing to drop this and let all of this go. Insofar, all of the evidence provided shows that AldezD did not interact with Baseball Bugs again until after Baseball Bugs started reverting AldezD's edits and posting on AldezD's talk page and all of the interaction by AldezD (leading up to this thread) was AldezD telling Baseball Bugs "leave me alone". I fail to see why AldezD should be banned from anything regarding Baseball Bugs when Baseball Bugs is the one not letting months-old events go and continues to hound and follow AldezD around. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree with @AndyTheGrump that if such a ban is proposed, it should be a forced measure, not voluntary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that nothing actionable by AldezD has been established or even hinted. That's why I said a "no fault" one, and the only reason I brought it up is hints there might be some type of two way battle going on and possible complexities from dropping a one way ban into that situation. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you figure that false accusations of sockpuppetry are not actionable? --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have not included "or hinted" in my post, I should have said "Agree that nothing actionable by AldezD has been established" And what I meant by that at this point there has been no sufficient process / discussion here to even conceivably support/justify an "at fault" finding/restriction. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cullen328: @Newyorkbrad: @Masem: Where are we headed in terms of a resolution? The ANI has been open for seven days. Other than obfuscating the user's hounding/stalking by referencing a current game show champion, the user's only response is demanding an apology for pointing out two IP users who have only posted support for Baseball Bugs in a dispute. The user still has not addressed the basis of this ANI. AldezD (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @AldezD: Have there been any more problematic edits in the past few days? Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have been pinged, I will say that I think that it would be a "really" good idea for Baseball Bugs to stop insisting on an apology and stop following AldezD around. If Bugs has, then that's good. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be instructive to count the total number of edits I've made to either the user's talk page or to his articles within the last month. By my count, it's 4. Also, the OP continues to refer to the IP trolls as if they were anything; and to refer to my block log, the last egregious event having been 8 years ago. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Baseball Bugs: Outside of my own edits, you are the top editor to my talk page. Stop stalking me and leave me alone. AldezD (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop bringing content disputes to ANI. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cullen328: @Newyorkbrad: @Masem: The above response further demonstrates WP:IDHT and WP:COMPETENT. The user is carrying on a grievance by stalking me and is calling a request for this behavior to stop a "content dispute". Counting the number of edits to my talk page or editing an article after I've made an edit does not address the stalking behavior. It's a long-term evidenced pattern of activity. AldezD (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) They probably meant for you to provide diffs of Baseball Bugs continuing to hound you since this complaint was filed. As Newyorkbrad said, "Have there been any more problematic edits in the past few days?". This complaint was filed 8 days ago, so unless you can provide diffs of Baseball Bugs continuing to revert your edits and post to your talk page since April 17, it's more likely now any suggested action would get seen as punitive rather than preventative, given from what I've seen, admins don't tend to issue blocks over stuff that happened a week or so prior. If nothing else this complaint has pretty much gone stale and it could very well be the case that Baseball Bugs will continue to hound you once this complaint gets closed, but the way ANI is (and the community in general), diffs have to be from closer to 1-2 days ago (not a week or more) for action to actually be taken. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the possibilities discussed go all the way from "absolutely no action" to "must be a mandatory restriction". Maybe something in between like both sides saying that they will avoid any rough / pointy contact between each other for a year. Debates purely / only about content are fine. And it's OK for them to send each other wiki-beers and move on and have some fun. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While I think a 2-way would be easier to enforce and less trouble further down the line, considering Bugs thinks this is a content dispute (there is clear evidence of hounding) I am more inclined to a one-way ban at his stage. Hounding is serious enough that I don't think asking for more evidence of it happening over a few days, during an open ANI no less, is very relevant when it has been shown to have occurred over months. Especially as there has been no indication that the person accused of hounding is willing to voluntarily stop. Aircorn (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the OP acknowledges he was wrong about his sockpuppetry allegations, he'll never hear from me again. If he's not willing to do that, make the Iban a two-way and our paths need never cross again. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    He should never hear from you again no matter what. Do that voluntarily or the rest of us will make it a requirement. He suggested twice you were a sock: get over it, and stop hounding him from here on out. Hounding is harassment (while two false socking allegations is not), and your statement above makes it sound like you're doing it on purpose to punish him for calling you a sock, and that you intend to continue doing it until he apologizes. I'm gonna AGF that was just a poorly drafted statement on your part and you didn't really mean that. But I mean this: hounding is harassment and it has to stop, even if--and I want to be absolutely clear here--even if he twice called you a sock and hasn't apologized for it. Levivich 20:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add that BBugs still being hung up on page ownership claims (the "his articles" comment from 24 Apr above) when there is agreement no page ownership is happening is also concerning, and this should be a warning to BBugs: someone going in to an article to make large changes is not the same as page ownership, where the editor general refuses to work with other editors. Aldez seems to have been very open and cooperating with others on these other pages, and so definitely not owning them. --Masem (t) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should probably make a proposal, seeing as how much the discussion has continued on and the consensus seems to be favoring some sort of IBAN anyway—seeing as Baseball Bugs still as of yet has not demonstrated that he'll leave AldezD be and continues to defend hounding AldezD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    4 edits since August. 4. Some harassment. But to be safe... before I edit any article, I should be sure the OP has not edited it, so I won't get schlepped back here again. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I see an allegation of hounding, and a balanced one of casting aspersions (regarding the sockpuppet claims). If BB agrees to avoid AldezD, and AldezD agrees not to make claims against BB that they can't back up, can this be put to bed?
    Would that be fair, @Baseball Bugs and @AldezD? Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Soytenly. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me. AldezD (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User talk:BobNesh impersonates admin to libel, threaten, intimidate

    User talk:BobNesh left realistic-looking warning complete with stop symbol Stop icon and false libelous accusations of policy violations on my talk page threatening I will be "blocked from editing without further notice" if I do not obey. The user is not an admin. I never interacted with user before. BobNesh made his first edit of article he mentions to remove content he personally did not like, then left message appearing to impersonate admin to intimidate me from editing with threats of administrative actions he has no authority to make. Some people might fall for such deceit and be intimidated into silence out of fear of being blocked, when user has no right to engage in such bullying and deceptive threats over any apparent personal content dispute. (To be honest, based on user's past, and due to my edits pertaining to Ukraine/Russia current events—like merely creating the article in question: this seems to fit a recent pattern of being ganged up on and targeted by politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users trying to game system using technicalities to harass and intimidate as part of Kremlin information war to shape message on Wikipedia...) Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Inqvisitor (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't yet examined this matter but I can say that one need not be an admin to issue warnings. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided the required notice for you; it appears you placed it on this page by mistake, instead of the editors talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think libel means what you think it means. I recommend the op heed warnings and get a big ol' trout. This is a pointless thread. CUPIDICAE💕 15:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in our guidelines prohibits non-admins from using user warnings, not even the highest level 4 and 4im ones. To paraphrase a comment I made from yesterday time, writing what you don't want to hear ≠ libel. If you really do have any valid complaint of that, you're free to take it to court (since libel is actually criminal); just don't expect to be able to edit Wikipedia if you do. As demonstrated, aspersions such as accusing editors against you of being Kremilin POV-pushing without evidence is incompatible with how we work here. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 01:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BOOMERANG for Inqvisitor. I've looked into what led the OP to get warned, and discovered the following:

    • Between April 11 and 14, Inqvisitor got into a bit of a content dispute at Denys Prokopenko. I haven't looked too much at the content dispute itself, it's the behaviour afterwards that is concerning.
    • On April 14, the other editor in the content dispute started a discussion on the talk page about their content dispute with Inqvisitor. In an initial reply, Inqvisitor called the the other editor a "Kremilin POV-pushing" editor, a "biased Russian imperialist", and concluded his reply with "And don't give me orders, I ain't your serf.".
    • The other editor raised WP:NPA and said they were politely asking Inqvisitor to strike out their personal attacks. Inqvistitor replied by continuing to infer the other editor was pushing a POV, without addressing the personal attacks.
    • It turns out the subject of the article's grandfather fought for Finland Soviet-Finnish Winter War. So over the next few days after the above discussion, Inqvisitor decided to add a very lengthy content about the history of that war even though that has nothing do with the subject of the article.
    • BobNesh reverted those edits, noting in the edit summary that it had nothing to do with the subject of the article, and placed the warning on Inqvisitor's talk page.

    All in all, not great behaviour from Inqvisitor here. Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Only reason I made edits to add sourced historical details (which I had always thought should just be referenced by links to articles about the subjects, e.g. Winter War) was because it was demanded by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject (Denys Prokopenko) alluded to in referenced quote. It's not so widely known history what happened during and after Winter War, and I assumed the critique was made in good faith even though it wouldn't apply in most other cases where history is referenced. It would be like if an article subject who had relatives killed in Nazi Holocaust says in a quote they are angry at what Nazis did to their grandparents—and some editor comes along demanding sources proving what did Nazis do.
    But in any event this was not about any article edits—I did even not revert Bob's edit or anything. Bob never said anything to me; we never interacted. Bob just dropped warning on my page of being blocked without further notice, while making false accusations of violations (which Bob did not even explain) broadcast on my talk page. I do not want controversy. I rarely even create pages outside of Wiktionary. I just don't see how Bob's conduct was meritorious—user could have left normal talk message. Other younger editors might get scared away by such ominous warnings dropped out of the blue with no explanation on their talk page by someone with whom they had never even interacted—having a chilling intimidating effect. That's all. Thanks. Inqvisitor (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Inqvisitor, invoking a Think of the children argument does you no favors. To avoid a WP:BOOMERANG I suggest that you withdraw this complaint. Now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting also that your deletion of the warning message (plus another editor's helpful comment) with an edit summary that reads, in part, removing deceptive "only warning", further undermines your position. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chiming in to clarify something: I believe what Inqvisitor is referring to by other editors disputing the historical events which the article's subject [...] alluded to in referenced quote is when I put a {{fact}} tag on a sentence referring to the Winter War. That seems like an unfair characterization of my actions, given that I actually made sure to specify in my edit summary that I wasn't disputing the historical veracity of the events, and was just putting the maintenance tag on there so that an editor more knowledgeable about the event could patch up the text-source integrity. If I had been less busy, I probably would have found a source myself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • BobNesh left Template:Uw-biog4im on your page, Inqvisitor. Anyone who feels that a template warning is needed can utilize that template, not just administrators, and I've done it many times with the other templates at WP:WARN and WP:WARN2. So no, there was no 'administrator impersonation', 'Kremlin information warring', or 'libel' from what is a common warning template, and like JJA said, you need to withdraw this complaint, because this is an extreme overreaction to a template warning. Nate • (chatter) 21:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned, in the talk page of that article Denys Prokopenko a few days ago, I explained to Inqvisitor why I removed some of their edits. In response they resorted to personal attacks against me and even though I asked them not to do that and very clearly reminded them of WP:NPA, they continued with this. Now I see that this behavior has not changed by still calling other editors politically-motivated pro-Putin/Moscow-biased users who are part of the Kremlin information war... instead on ANI. Mellk (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think it's better when warnings are issued by someone who isn't actively involved in the dispute with the editor so the fact there was allegedly no previous interactions between Inqvisitor and BobNesh is probably not the bad thing Inqvisitor is making it out to be. As others have said, anyone is free to leave warnings, it's not something restricted to admins. And if an admin is involved in the dispute most of the time they shouldn't block the editor themselves anyway. So warnings should not be taken as a threat to personally block the editor, unless the editor makes it clear this is what they are saying. Even if the are, it's IMO mostly moot. The warning is either justified and the behaviour may lead to a block if continued or it's not, who will do the blocking doesn't matter. I have not looked into the content dispute but BLP is a serious issue and I personally often issue 3im or 4im warnings when people make serious BLP violations. Especially if they've done it more than once but not been warned yet or at least not warned in a clear way. So if Inqvisitor did violate BLP and to be clear I'm not saying they did, they should not be surprised to receive such a strong warning. Nil Einne (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Inqvisitor once again refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing. In my eyes, this aggressive behavior including personal attacks will only continue since this editor refuses to take responsibility. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole thing needs to be read in the context of the diffs at Denys Prokopenko. First direct attacks were by Mellk, characterising Inqvisitor's language choices as "propagandaistic" in edit summaries here and here and as "puffery" in an edit summary here. Mellk then opens a talk page discussion with this and I invite you to read it for yourselves. Inqvisitor, who's clearly new to Wikipedia, proceeds to respond with a similar level of hostility that he's been shown by those he's met and I think that's understandable.—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I described the language that was in the article as "propagandistic". For pushing a POV that discards internationally recognized and undisputed borders in favor of "ongoing occupation", it can definitely be described as propagandistic language. And there was definitely puffery in the article about "heroic" leadership role. No personal attacks there. Only Inqvisitor made personal attacks and doubled down on them when asked to stop. Using insults such as biased Russian imperialist, Moscow Kremlin chauvinist and casting aspersions here is completely uncalled for. Inqvisitor began editing in 2008 so this is definitely not a "new" user. Mellk (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, he definitely raised the temperature. It was already pretty hot when he did, though. I think it's fair to call him "new" because his behaviour, edits and complaints show deep unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia works. What's needed here is for a sysop to provide support and direction and restore order on the page. I don't currently see grounds for any use of the block button.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that I could have been better with my edit summaries there and I do not think that a block is needed here, but I think that Inqvisitor needs to recognize that any personal attacks are inappropriate and it is disappointing that he still has not, or even recognized that this complaint was unnecessary. So I am concerned that he may just continue on with this. Mellk (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    BoMadsen88

    BoMadsen88 has been conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against me, with the most recent case being here. As you can see, the account does this via Talk pages that I frequent: Special:Contributions/BoMadsen88. There was an ANI raised about the account previously and the following was stated: "Other than that I don't think there's need for blocks or bans provided that the harassment stops. signed, Rosguill."

    Also, the timing is almost too coincidental between this post on Reddit and the above mentioned Talk page edit. QRep2020 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do tell me how I am harassing you. Did I contact you? I am pointing out what might potentially be a very big problem. With your edit history and behaviour there is unfortunately a very great risk of a strong COI. This has to be addressed asap. BoMadsen88 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BoMadsen88, please don't use article talk pages to post conduct reports, those belong on a conduct board such as this one. Beyond that, QRep2020, this report provides a poor summary. You don't link to WP:DIFFs but rather to entire discussion threads. You're expecting quite a bit from a reviewer here in that sense (WP:VOLUNTARY). And maybe someone will do it (delve deep), but if this thread goes stale, that'd probably be the reason why. Also, I don't know what you expect us to tell from linking BoMadsen88 contribs. At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA. El_C 19:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What may also need addressing 'asap' is your continued use of an article talk page to engage in the harassment of a contributor, after being formally warned to stop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff of warning? I must have missed it. El_C 19:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, never mind, a year ago, I see it. El_C 19:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely: User_talk:BoMadsen88#Indefinite_block. El_C 19:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BoMadsen88 sitewide block converted to a p-block, the exact same one as QRep2020's. See my notes at the unblock request. While it doesn't negate some of the problems mentioned above, I'm inclined to give them the option of participating in this thread. El_C 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at their edit history. Their "purpose" was to get me banned and, hey, they did it. Only a matter before they come to my Talk page and gloat again. QRep2020 (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not banned. WP:BLOCK ≠ WP:BAN. El_C 22:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C Hello, as stated above my sitewide block has been converted to a p-block for the Elon Musk Article only. However, this should be removed as well.
    I was banned because of “conducting an ongoing harassment campaign against QRep2020” (Qreps2020 quote). But the only thing I did was pointing out my observation that the behaviour of was QRep2020 had been very problematic. QRep2020 has now been p-blocked by the exact same reasons that my work and research unraveled. It is therefore fair to say that QRep2020s problematic behaviour has only been uncovered and stopped now thanks to my observations and persistence. The reason that I have was p-blocked in the first place is now not valid anymore.
    I only tried to make one of the most visited articles on Wikipedia less biased because of very problematic behavior I had witnessed for a long time. I accomplished that and I believe that is what every good Wikipedia editor should strive to do - don’t you too?
    QRep2020 had a lot of edits on Elon Musk which gave him an authority on the page - this meant that other Wikipedia editors did not dare push the matter whenever anyone tried to point out the obviously biased sections in the article. And there has been many editors throughout the last 2 years that has tried in vain to make the article less negatively biased - each and every time QRep2020 has immediately shot the attempts down.
    I am sorry I had to post my observations on the Elon Musk page, but I did not know where else to go. That will not happen again. BoMadsen88 (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "The bridge crew remark sadly on their unwillingness to give up their hate"... Begoon 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "At a glance, they just seem to be an Elon Musk WP:SPA"

    Refactored from my talk page. El_C 19:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The same applies to QRep2020. Their top ten most edited articles are all Musk and Tesla related. This editor's purpose here on Wikipedia seems to be to make Musk and his businesses look as bad as possible. Cullen328 (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well shit, so the good and the bad. Symmetry? I'm gonna re-open that ANI thread and refactor this, as they might need to be shown the door, too. El_C 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absurd. If you look at my edits, they are not all negative. I've contributed 10 entries of my own. Please do no feed into this castigation. QRep2020 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    QRep2020, if by "entries" you mean articles, isn't it true that all the articles that you have created are related to Elon Musk and Tesla? Isn't it true that in the past 24 hours, you supported keeping the poorly referenced quote calling Musk a "total and complete pathological sociopath" in the article? Do you deny that your main activity on Wikipedia is to add negative content about Musk? Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I deny it. Hindenberg Research has nothing to do with Musk. I've contributed extensively to the Fraud "article" (I was a little upset when I replied before and used the wrong word) and to the Trevor Milton article. Ken Klippenstein rubbed up against Musk but he is important reporter in his own right - same goes for Lora Kolodny. I can be obsessive sometimes, yes, but I always try to follow the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    QRep2020, Hindenburg Research is an aggressive short selling operation involved with the electric vehicle sector, and Tesla is the market leader. You also wrote and are the main author of TSLAQ, an aggressive short selling operation focused on criticizing Musk and Tesla. Cullen328 (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my limited interactions with QRep2020 I think they are a good faith editor who clearly has an interest in Musk/Tesla but also tries to follow the rules. Springee (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps QRep2020 should be advised (not instructed, advised...) that expanding their editing to a broader range of topics might be of benefit. It should make claims of SPA editing seem less credible, and maybe help build a sense of perspective. As fascinating/annoying Musk is, he isn't the centre of the universe (yet ), and I'm sure QRep2020 can find other topics of interest, if editing Wikipedia is their thing (which it need not be...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Strike that, per El_C below - I'd missed that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    On closer review, I've p-blocked QRep2020 indef from Elon Musk and Talk:Elon Musk (see block notice). There are so many other topics to write about besides just negatively, about Elon Musk and his companies. Too many red flags, like, in the edit (diff) about and header titled "total and complete pathological sociopath" (link) and the one that states [E]veryone in Tesla is in an abusive relationship with Elon (diff — quoting WIRED, but still). And these are just edits from April 18 and April 20, respectively! El_C 20:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't add the sociopath remark, merely defended that it was used in accordance with the rules. QRep2020 (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't. See WP:BLP, and in particular the section on tone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My initial impression is that this block was too hasty. ‎The "sociopathy" language went through a whole RfC and was present in the Good article pass version. Speaking of which, QRep appears to be one of the two main shepherds of the article through the GA process. There's been a lot of critical coverage of Musk over the past two years in reliable sources. I can't say I've reviewed QRep's editing pattern enough to say if they've outpaced the RS or not. I can say they've been quick to accept consensus and admit an error. I wouldn't be surprised if a warning sufficed to stem even the perception of disruptive editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's just negative material, though, isn't it more wolf than shepherd? I realize there are a lot cheerleaders, too, but is doing the opposite really any better? I'll keep an open mind, though, sure. El_C 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't all negative material. It's a balancing act. I have stayed out of plenty of matters concerning Elon Musk that I could have "fomented" if I wanted to turn the article into a hit piece.
    Look, I got heated these past few days because I discovered people talking about me offfsite. And I shouldn't have focused on the stupid line about sociopathy - I just saw people coming out of the woodwork and was reactionary. I am a grownup, I can admit that.
    Please give me a chance to show that I am not who you think I am. QRep2020 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw the protection request yesterday, which I declined (RfPP diff), and which is partly why this thread peeked my interest. In any case, these are only two pages you are restricted from, out of millions and millions. Indefinite does not necessarily mean infinite, but could just be undetermined length. El_C 21:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that one page and its Talk page are visited by hundreds of thousands of people each day, that is why balance is so important. And yes I stepped over the line, like I said, but when the subject of the article tells people to modify the said, there is a constant need to maintain some semblance of critical ratio.
    I would also like to point out the irony here that, regardless of what I am "answering to" here, I do not deserve to be libeled on a Talk page that is viewed by said thousands and now I cannot even answer to it because I elected not to give into a baser instinct. Given my status, can someone please remove the BoMadsen88 text from the Elon Musk Talk page about me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Elon Musk can say whatever (he can maybe even buy Twatter to make sure that it's his hivemind friend), but the fact is, as I mentioned in my decline of the RfPP request, that most of the users involved in recent disputes were extended confirmed, so it's unlikely they came from unReaddit. El_C 21:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Firefangledfeathers; I believe the block should be lifted, with encouragement for the editor to spend a little less time editing Musk-related articles and a little more time editing other articles. BilledMammal (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, new comments go at the bottom. Weird placement. Had I not looked at the revision history in passing, I'd have not seen it. Anyway, I'm not unblocking either user. They both can appeal their block in the usual way. Appeals which I'm unlikely to comment on, either way (because because). El_C 01:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just chiming in to add that I also believe QRep2020 is a good faith editor and valuable contributor to the project. When I started editing a few years back, all articles on Wikipedia related to Musk were extremely biased and promotional, failing to mention almost all of the well-documented criticism and controversies surrounding Musk and his companies. The number of trolls who still to this day try to change Musk's article to call him a business magnet is indicative of the "reality distortion field" surrounding Musk[99][100][101], and QRep has been one of the few active contributors pushing back to maintain neutrality. So while they may have been overly zealous at times, and a warning could certainly be warranted, I believe that the block was premature as they have made a very valuable contribution by providing some much needed balance in this subject area. Stonkaments (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted on QRep2020's talk page, they should probably substantively address the possible WP:COI raised by Cullen328 (diff), who unlike me fumbling about, actually seems to have done his research. El_C 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen328, were you raising the possibility of COI there? I just read that comment as an elaboration on the SPA point, tying all the articles back to Musk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firefangledfeathers, I have not had the opportunity to read those more recent links so will respond based on what I knew at the time. I have seen no evidence of a clearcut conflict of interest though I am aware that some editors have accused this editor of being a Tesla short seller. I literally have no idea and even no hunch whether or not this is true. But following my criticism, they posted a denial on their user page. What I do know that this is a highly skilled SPA editor who seems to think that Elon Musk is a "very bad person" and is determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to negatively impact Musk's reputation. In the spirit of full disclosure, speaking personally, I think that Musk is a bizarre person who has received a lot of legitimate criticism. I am not a fan. He is obviously also a highly successful person with major accomplishments. He can deploy a troll army to have the Wikipedia biography say that he is a "magnet" instead of a "magnate" and I have opposed such baloney when it has come to my attention. But what I see is that this is an editor who by all evidence is here only to add content that reflects negatively on this living person and his businesses. Yes, there are a lot of negatives about Musk. But accounts focused on praising or discrediting Musk are equally disruptive. The Neutral point of view is a core content policy and editors who are here to push a negative point of view about a living person are inherently disruptive even if they try, on the surface, to comply with policies and guidelines. Contrition when an editor is sanctioned should be evaluated with a certain degree of skepticism, and the "I blew my stack" defense is not too persuasive, unless accompanied by persuasive assurances thst the disruption will not resume. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for responding. I was mostly asking for clarification on COI, but I also appreciate your thoughts on the SPA-ness of it all. My angle is: could we have prompted similar levels of contrition and (hopefully soon to come) assurances against future disruption with a warning or temp block (though I know El C is allergic). I've said my piece, and I'd like to leave space for the opinions of others. So, I'd appreciate your contemplative thought on the matter, but please don't feel compelled to reply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was planning to take a few days off of Wikipedia before appealing and making assurances, but I do not want to invite a COI over my head too so I will say the following in hopes that it shows where my mind is at the moment:
    Though I do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia - often narrow, yes, but not exclusive - I have no doubt grown obsessive about getting in front of what I came to perceive as a bend in the encyclopedia towards promoting Musk and his endeavors. In recognizing this, I promise to reread NPOV immediately during my small break from the site and assure that, if granted clemency, I will not make any updates to Elon Musk for a period of a month and will not push for any changes via discussions on Talk:Elon Musk as well. I also promise to not make any updates on other Musk-related articles during this time besides reverting obvious acts of vandalism or disruptive editing as a way of forcing myself to try and upend these assumptions I have cemented. Finally, I will force myself to spend time contributing to relatively distant topics on Wikipedia like @El C hinted at and will figure out a way to record any such non-Musk related updates I make on my Talk page as a testament to what I am doing to fix my behaviors.
    Thank you. QRep2020 (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is difficult to assume good faith with your statement given that you do not agree that I have exercised a "special purpose" here on Wikipedia, given that your past 1,000 edits (dating back to April 2021) exclusively deal with Tesla and Elon Musk-related articles. Obsessive is one way to put it. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they don't. Look harder. QRep2020 (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You're going to flat out lie about your edit history now? See for yourself: here and here. You're really going to still maintain that you are not obsessed with Tesla-Musk-related articles? What a farce. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Exclusively" has meaning to some. QRep2020 (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not lying. "Exclusively" means all. Not all of them are. QRep2020 (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I found two whole edits out of your previous 1,000 edits, my bad. 998995 edits out of your past 1,000 edits pertain to Musk in some shape or form pretty much constitutes exclusivity. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if anyone can explain User_talk:QRep2020#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion and User_talk:QRep2020#Tesla_short-selling_group_WP:COI_username, I'm all ears. El_C 02:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Might as well link the COIN discussion itself too. Still reading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure El_C. Maybe SPA-like activity coupled with the letter Q is enough to say "this is a clear COI"? I think the COIN discussion came to no consensus on that point. QRep2020 clearly denies having a COI and has an explanation for their username. I get some real "small world" vibes from the cast of characters there, that's for sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not sure I follow, Firefangledfeathers (RE: "cast of characters"). But just to clear things up: I am Q. Tremble before my stromzezes. El_C 03:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El_C, you messed up your link. I think you meant Q. Springee (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my God! He admit it!
    I just meant that I see a lot of usernames in common between that January 2021 COIN discussion and recent discussions in the QRep2020-sphere, this one included. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Springee: dude, I've already been called a god (fondly, I'm sure) once tonight. Or was it not-a-god? Anyway, I'm not tempting fate!
    @Firefangledfeathers: that's right, I have QR clearance. Erm, I mean, you suck, Paul! El_C 03:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there was a serious part: I dunno, at a gleence, it seems like it had fairly limited participation, either way. Not sure what prompted what by whom when. Mind you, like with the ANI report that QRep2020 provided in their OP, I see HAL's sig and my eyes sort of glaze over. No offense to him, nice guy and good content editor, and hopefully he returns to the project soon, but I just find it visually jarring. Damn, I'm terrible. El_C 03:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It is always either amusing or disconcerting to see such highly experienced editors stray so far from the substance of the matter being discussed. Is that the norm these days? Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    i mean, have you read the responses on long anis? 晚安 (トークページ) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328: for my part at least, notwithstanding the undoubtedly excessive levity (though hopefully not too tone deaf), I hope you know that I always give serious comments, from you or anyone, serious consideration. El_C 13:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Woah, this case is really testing the breaking point of WP:CANVASS. See my list of evidence: Post at reddit of QRep2020 got partially banned; and r/EnoughMuskSpam where the pinned comment is featuring Criticism of Tesla, Inc. article. All I can say (as an editor mainly edit about SpaceX articles) that both User:Stonkaments and User:QRep2020 has been civil to me, and I think they are either from the most to least likely: simply growing obsessive at the topic, an activist, or a SPI/LTA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this your first day at ANI? ;-) Levivich 19:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a reasonable compromise is QRep2020 agrees that no more than 50% of their meaningful edits will be on Musk related topics. By meaningful I mean things other than minor edits/contributions/spelling corrections etc. My concern here is that, so long as the editor stays within the rules, I don't see a clear issue with an editor having only a narrow interest. It's OK to argue that some content is DUE etc so long as an editor is also willing to accept when consensus doesn't go their way.

    Springee (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This block is warranted. There's a pretty big difference between "having only a narrow interest" and fixating on adding negative information. The latter falls into WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Honestly I think QRep2020 is nice enough, but the editing behavior is clearly problematic. It has been problematic since COIN, and in fact has only gotten worse. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence there is actually a COI? Can you point to edits you think are over the line? Springee (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that they listed a few here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_167#QRep2020. Personally, I am not convinced, and giving QRep another chance and see how it goes would be much better (that however does not mean that QRep is free of problems, it is best left to others to decide). However, Elephanthunter have very strong evidences of canvassing outside of Wikipedia in Reddit ([102], [103], [104], search result of QRep2020 on Reddit). In fact, a boomerang may apply here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing all of that out. QRep2020 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CactiStaccingCrane: Can you explain your last two sentences with a bit more detail? BOOMERANG against who, for what? --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Three questions:

    1. The COI thread linked above resulted in no consensus and was from over a year ago. Does anyone have any new evidence of COI to present?
    2. Being an SPA is not against policy. Adding negative information to articles is also not against policy. Can anybody post three diffs of "bad" edits by QRep2020? Because I'm not seeing the problem here, other than someone editing a lot about a particular topic, which isn't unusual at all.
    3. Are we within WP:OUTING policy to link any Wikipedia editors to those Reddit threads about QRep2020? Because if so, that's a real problem that needs to be addressed. And if not, then it should go to arbcom via private evidence rather than be raised here on-wiki at ANI. Levivich 19:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    June Parker, hostility, personal attacks, assuming bad faith etc

    My first interaction with this editor was on the article Melissa King assault case, where I reverted their removal of categories. First sign of problems was their revert of my edit where they were going to ″cut the bull and call me a liar″ immediately assuming bad faith and throwing in a personal attack as a bonus. They were given a civility notice about this edit summary on their own talk page by a different editor, where I also went to provide my reasoning for the edit as well as observations I made about their similarity and convenient timing of editing to an editor named Desertambition (who incidentally, is also a current report on this board). The initial response to this was not particularly notable aside from their continued refusal to assume good faith, justifying it by percieving others not doing the same, and they denied being a sock. However this apparently lit a fire in June Parker and they would not let go of insisting that I was directly accusing them of being a sockpuppet in edits such as these: 1(a bit strange to claim a summon was made to this apparently aside from stumbling across the same article at the same time unrelated editor when there was no ping, and they apparently just found it on their own), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8. That's eight (has gone up as I've been writing this) diffs accusing me of calling them a sockpuppet, based on my initial message on their talk page.

    Throughout these diffs you will also see a complete lack of the concepts WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, aside from vandals I've reverted, I've never had so many assumptions spewn at me, particularly disturbing is the fixation on the white genocide conspiracy theory which Parker, for some reason, keeps bringing up despite no one else so much as mentioning it. Apparently because of my relevant edits, I am ″obviously passionate about the white genocide myth″. I have never so much as read in depth about this conspiracy theory, let alone made edits about it, which makes the accususation all the more perplexing.

    They showed up also on Talk:Melanin theory here claiming I had expressed I ″believe this page which describes a form of racism black people commit against all non-black races should be labelled as "Anti-white" and nothing else″, which like many things this editor says, came out of thin air.

    I have tried to resolve and cool down the situation, but to no avail since the more I say and try the more crap I get thrown at me so I don't see what else to do but take it here since this editor is violating policies. --TylerBurden (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs of TylerBurden insinuating June Parker and I are sockpuppeting:
    1. [105]
    2. [106]
    3. [107]
    4. Right before posting on ANI: [108] Desertambition (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fast response, so you're going with the same reach but instead of accusing I'm insinuating? Like I said, being suspiscious of something and making observations, is different from directly accusing someone. Which you also falsely accused me of doing here. TylerBurden (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Accusing" and "insinuating" is a distinction without a difference. Desertambition (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you say, I never accused anyone and your diffs themselves show that. TylerBurden (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given June Parker called for Desertambition to be sanctioned for an unrelated dispute they weren't involved in unless we're playing a game of 4D chess here the sockpuppet concerns are hopefully not justified. AusLondonder (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I recently read a wiki essay to do with wikihounding, which I was not aware of until recently. My intent in appearing on those talk pages was after revisiting some of the articles I had previously edited (Including Melanin theory) and viewing the contributions of Sangdeboeuf.
    What I said there is fine to analyze but I had no intention to wikihound, which is an odd accusation coming from this user given that they appear to have entered two conversations on my talk page that had naught to do with them in order to accuse me of being a sock puppet, by suggesting my "Editing style", timing, and subject matter was too similar to Desertambition, multiple times, and then backpedaling when I defended myself against that. Also lauded with accusations of a bad faith attempt to "Whitewash" controversial South Africna politicians and events.
    To boot, they seem to have a dispute with Desertambition which they engaged in on my talk page. After I tried to funnel multiple conversations we had into my talk page they continued to engage until I stopped. Which I doubt is against the rules, but I don't think Tyler has a right to complain about me being uncivil with the amount of things he has said to me, especially when I tried to be mature and end the conversation. By egging the convo on, attacking me, and now bringing the case here.
    Feel free to deep scrub both me and Desertambition to prove we are not socks, as given this entire write up by Tyler he is still convinced I am a sockpuppet, naturally I won't let go of something if I am repeadetly called one. I have had multiple edit conflicts trying to post this too.
    I am going to bed. Notify me of your decision in the morning. June Parker (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to bed, so won't be responding here anymore tonight (I am usually either entirely inactive or less active editing during weekends but will try and keep up with the thread the best I can, but there's more to life than Wikipedia, espescially drama on Wikipedia). I will leave it on this: once again an accusation out of thin air, hounding is not something I have ever accused you of, so I'm not surprised to see that backed up with as much thin air as it came out of. Goodnight/whatever it is for you. TylerBurden (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me see if I got this right, because this is a confusing thread. On 03:51, 21 April 2022, June Parker personally attacks TylerBurden with an edit summary that read (in part): I’m going to cut the bull and call you a liar. Not someone who made a mistake. Not someone who told a lie. But a liar (i.e. someone who lies habitually). Not the most egregious personal attack, but it's still weird and unnecessary WP:BATTLEGROUND. I presume that's what Doug Weller's NPA warning on 08:52, 21 April 2022 was about, but who can really tell? Not even Doug, I'm sure.
    Then, on 11:25, 21 April 2022, TylerBurden says the following to Doug Weller about June Parker, stating (in part): It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least. After that, it's basically June Parker saying why did you call me sock? with TylerBurden responding with I didn't call you a sock. And on and on that rendition goes with great repetition, and with neither side relenting. Oh, and 17:36, 21 April 2022, Desertambition provides a super-friendly advise that talks about pearl-clutching or something (at length). Still not sure what admins are expected to do right now with... whatever this is, though it doesn't look to be heading anywhere good. El_C 04:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole incident started with an egregious personal attack by June Parker, who went on to engage in repetitive axe grinding about sock accusations. It looks to me that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible, although I am prepared to be proven wrong by a dramatic change in their behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty uncharitable reading given that they insinuated June Parker and I were socking four separate times, including right before this ANI post. I have no relation to June Parker and it seems like "heavily insinuating" is pretty close to accusing someone. Surely there would be a similar issue if I was implying users I disagree with are socks. It's understandable that people would get defensive when accused of socking. I believe WP:PEARLCLUTCHING is relevant to the discussion as June is too combative but seems to be willing to learn and engage with the process and the reaction to their comments is massively exaggerated.
    Here's the full quotes because you seem to be saying these "insinuations" or "accusations" never occured:
    1. It's also interesting how they show up on the article as the same time as Desertambition, an editor who has had similar behaviour in the past. I don't want to assume bad faith or a sockpuppet but it does raise some suspicion at least.
    2. If you are not a sock, or related to Desertambition, great. It just seemed odd you show up at the same article at the same time with the same arguments, and the overall similarity in editing. I'm not accusing you of being a sock for sure, I'm just saying I did find it a bit suspiscious but that's literally it. I've not opened an investigation against you and I don't find that to be necessary right now.
    3. By the way, sorry for continuing to pester you, as you call it, but what do you mean you summoned Desertambition? I see no ping, so they just stumbled across your talk page?
    4. I still wouldn't be surprised if you're more related to Desertambition than you're letting on, but that is not something I am going to accuse you of being with certainty, because I don't do that without feeling sure about it which I do not. Desertambition (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you have a pretty good idea of the timeline of events June Parker (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • June Parker seems to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and I share Cullen328's concern "that the odds that June Parker will turn out to be a collegial, long term, productive editor are negligible". In fact, just two days ago June Parker made the following egregious personal attack against David Eppstein: "You are the one misrepresenting a source to appeal to your white genocide fantasy, your 'Big scary muscular black dude invasion' fantasy. If you insist on being intellectually dishonest and breaking the rules, I can't help you. Have the day you deserve." Clearly, June Parker needs to be made aware of just how unacceptable it is to repeatedly cast such aspersions on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Accusing editors of holding a "white genocide fantasy" is the same as calling them racists. June Parker doesn't belong here. --StellarNerd (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, unless there are promises made to not behave in this way in the future, I don't think they belong here either. TylerBurden (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Regardless of anything else, that June Parker's first interaction with a person they had never previously met or interacted with is to call them a liar is not a sign that they intend to interact collegially with others. The other diffs cited above show similar personal attacks, which have no reasonable antecedent. I can't find anything in David Eppstein's editing history here that shows they have anything resembling a "white genocide fantasy", or could be interpreted as such (which is not saying that such people don't exist; they do. We deal with them all the time here at ANI. But David is definitely not one of them). It's a total invention of June Parker, who made it up out of whole cloth and lobbed it randomly at David because he did something June didn't like. This is not how disputes are supposed to be resolved. I'm not sure what is to be done yet, but something needs to change soon, hopefully voluntarily by June themselves, if not, maybe admins will need to do something. --Jayron32 12:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • :I have had a look at a couple of their edits and would have to agree about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am in two minds about mentioning this as it may seem minor and petty. Certainly by itself it is deserving of nothing more than perhaps a reminder to take care when dealing with citations.
      Gusfriend (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) Apologies, the more I thought about it the more petty what I wrote sounded in my head so I am striking it out and will give myself a trout tomorrow morning. Gusfriend (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with all of this? This seems like something June Parker/TylerBurden could have worked out themselves. There's certainly some poor behavior, but it was addressed on the user's TALK. Why was it brought here and what should be done about it? A simple warning to stop casting aspersions should suffice. Nemov (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not sure what you specifically are meant to do other than offer your opinion, which you've done I suppose, since you are not an administrator. They were already warned for the first personal attack they made against me, and you can see that I attempted to settle the dispute and ask them to be civil several times, to no avail. That's why I raised the issue here, June Parker does not listen to reason. TylerBurden (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You repeatedly accused me of being a sock puppet to Desertambition and then accused me of being uncivil when I asked why you thought I was, backpedaling on those claims and then slyly insisting on it. I stopped talking to you because I couldn’t convince you otherwise. June Parker (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, I had been resolved to not speak to Tyler when it was clear he wanted to egg the problem further than what had initially happened to insist that I am a sock puppet editing in bad faith, in a talk page warning and another user's “Friendly advice” that he had little to do with, I can’t say much about what I have said to other users except that it doesn’t work and that I’m going to avoid doing in the future. Tyler appears to be starting more arguments with users who express neutral or any opinion less than calling for my block which can’t speak well for his conduct either. June Parker (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding to this but the main reason Tyler seems to have brought this issue to ANI despite us no longer talking is because he believes I am conspiring with Desertambition to push a POV he disagrees with, and when I kept asking why he believed this he denied it and then derided about how my behavior to him specifically was “Unacceptable”, while exhibiting the same behavior I appear to be, and barely even discussed the page content that I have altered. I believe this has more to do with a different dispute that I have little to do with. June Parker (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I would recommend walking away from the dispute. Avoid casting aspersions in the future and assume good faith. Nemov (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing June Parker (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Except that and keep doing the same thing. How promising. TylerBurden (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    , June Parker and TylerBurden, you would both be well advised to say nothing further in this discussion, unless another editor asks either of you a specific question. I think that it safe to say that both of you are skating on very thin ice. Please go back to shore. Cullen328 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure thing, I will do my best to handle these situations better and would like to apologize to Tyler for calling him a liar from the jump. I just feel very disgusted by the amount of racialized propoganda I end up seeing on this website so I will try to tackle it in a more professional manner. June Parker (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, if you're willing to learn from this situation, I am willing to accept your apology. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure tyler, but I would also like to not be accused of sock puppetry or wikihounding in the future. I also never said I wanted nothing to do with you, I am willing to make an effort to work with you and avoid accusing you of bad faith if you are willing to do the same. June Parker (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't accuse you of hounding until it became clear you are doing so, or are you going to claim you just found yourself on the Khaddi Sagnia article by chance? Not so much as with an edit summary did you violate not only MOS or how categories are meant to work, seemingly out of spite. If you don't want anything to do with me, then don't creep on my edit history. Ironically you accused me of saying that you were hounding, while I never did such a thing, however your behaviour at this point sure seems to fit the bill. Seriously, look at the thread and learn from your mistakes. If you are willing to do that I'm more than happy to work with you. TylerBurden (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Comparing Wikipedians to Stormfront

    • This isn't stopping, today: "give the impression it was written by some mouth breather on stormfront who was too excited to be able to write an article where a bunch of black girls apparently beat up a white girl". --StellarNerd (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I feel like the existence of Conservapedia refutes this one effectively. casualdejekyll 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Steller, that was a reference to an earlier complaint raised by another user about a decade ago about the articles content and sources, which I said I would look into to verify the accuracy of. I did not accuse any particular user of being associated with Stormfront.
      I would also appreciate if you participated in that discussion since you were involved and I pinged both you and Tyler. Tyler is there and explaining his point of view. June Parker (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hamkar 99

    User Hamkar 99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the text with sources from the article Hazaras. I added information (about the ethnic ties of the Hazaras with the Mongols) verified by reliable sources, including secondary (among the authors are PhD (Elizabeth Emaline Bacon, Barbara A. West, Sabitov), candidates (Yuri Averyanov, Elbrus Sattsayev) and doctors of sciences (Lutfi Temirkhanov)) and tertiary sources (such as Great Russian Encyclopedia). All authors meet the requirements prescribed in WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Calls for consensus on talk page were unsuccessful. The talk page is currently being ignored by him. During the discussion, he unreasonably called secondary sources incorrect. And also without explanation calls my edits unacceptable . I think such accusations are WP:DE and a violation of the rules prescribed in WP:CONS, WP:NPV, WP:RSPRIMARY. Previously, the user was already blocked due to the edit war. I ask you to take action and warn the user about the need to comply with the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks.--KoizumiBS (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no policy reasons for your edits to be reverted. Your edits are adding additional detail, references and sources not changing the character of anything or representing them as anything not already mentioned and sourced in the articles. I've asked Hamkar 99 for a policy reason that they keep reverting your edits, as they don't seem to have been forthcoming with one so far. Canterbury Tail talk 20:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I've looked into this a bit more and it seems that Hamkar 99 has an issue with the Hazaras being associated with the Mongols, despite all the reliable sources supporting it. They've already been blocked for edit warring against this kind of edit twice now, and at no point have they ever offered anything approaching a policy based reason for the reverts. It smells completely of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and some of their comments seem to imply WP:OWN tendencies with this one indicating they think the edits are unapproved. Unapproved by whom I have no idea, and they haven't been forthcoming. It seems that since they've been blocked for edit warring on this very thing twice now they potentially need a topic ban on it, or they could well just end up being blocked if they continue their current editing patterns. Yes at heart this is a content dispute, but Hamkar 99's behaviour is questionable, as is their editing history. Canterbury Tail talk 17:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Canterbury Tail Hello! No, it is not. Mistakes and errors occur from time to time. But there is no reason for me to be punished for my past edits. I now follow the rules of Wikipedia. Thanks--Hamkar 99 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Previously, there was a consensus with Canterbury Tail on the talk page that the deleted text should be returned. However user Hamkar 99 continued the edit war and removed sourced information. During the discussion I have not seen a rationale for deleting my edits from user Hamkar 99. I guess It's meet the definition of disruptive editing. I currently believe his edits are net negative for Wikipedia.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BKFIP back?

    22funny has been blocked as another appearance of BKFIP. Nothing else to do here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

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

    A new user just repeated a WP:BKFIP edit at Milky Way and started a repeat revert war with similar edit summaries. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    These are some amazing lengths you are going to to try to force a fringe viewpoint into the first sentence of an important article. 22funny (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Looks like a duck to me,].Moxy- 14:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, see also two threads above this one. This is maybe the third or fourth time they've dragged Wikja19 to AN/I. If a user is harassed in a forest, but they aren't around to hear it, is it still harassment? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hate talk at Shia Islam in the Americas

    Requesting a block of the IP involved, as well as rev/deletion of vandalism from April 20. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Acroterion (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Bob - haven't seen you around for a while, glad to see your IP hasn't changed. :) Girth Summit (blether) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Girth Summit. Best wishes, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi hi from me too, Bob! El_C 13:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, El_C. Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This made me smile. Thank you for your service my fellow IP.82.45.77.215 (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Bawah Nama Cinta

    User indeffed by Ad Orientem. (non-admin closure) Viewer719/Contribs! 07:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Bawah Nama Cinta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly submitted Draft:Khilaf Asmara for review despite having no refs every time, and is persistently trying to put it in mainspace without addressing the issue. The current mainspace version was recently recreated ignoring all TP messages. MB 19:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User is also a paid editor [109]. Theroadislong (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They have also recreated Dendam Seorang Isteri and Hati Yang Dikhianati, which is the only one without a version currently in mainspace. The message Hi please approve this page!, left on my TP, is another indication they are ignoring or not understanding policy. MB 21:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Genre warrior on the loose

    Genre warrior LKF2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned multiple times (diff, diff, diff), yet seems to be completely unbothered. Genre additions (mostly "adult") are either unsourced or poorly sourced despite having been specifically warned to adhere to MOS:TVGENRE, also instances of edit warring (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). Throast (talk | contribs) 19:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, strange habit of blanking and then self-reverting (see edit histories of List of adult animated television series before 1990, List of adult animated television series of the 1990s, List of adult animated television series of the 2000s, List of adult animated television series of the 2010s, List of adult animated television series of the 2020s). I don't think this should be ignored. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon user persistently adding WP:OR to pages

    2402:800:61B1:74AE:7C93:FF9B:1C17:AA4E (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding WP:OR content to various Vietnam-related articles. The OR content that the user is adding is related to a former writing system that is no longer in use for almost a hundred years. They are adding characters to mostly concepts, with no references to show that they were ever written that way (which they're most likely not). Attempts to warn the user had gone nowhere. Some other users have been using socks to attempt this and were blocked. This could be yet another attempt. DHN (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This person might change their IP address to try again so these pages could use semi-protection if they attempt to change again under a different IP. DHN (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Choixong di (talk · contribs) seems to be one of their logged-in accounts. DHN (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AbsolutelyFiring

    Over the last few months I have had several disputes with AbsolutelyFiring, primarily at The Suicide Squad (film), which did not go their way after numerous reverts and discussions. Last week they raised a WP:ANEW claim against me which they manufactured by combining diffs from many different issues involving many different users and many different talk page discussions over those months. The claim was closed and referred here (see archive of the claim at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive450#User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: Referred to ANI. )). They did not take the issue further, but have continued to re-revert me and ignore talk page discussions at other articles in what is certainly starting to feel like intentional harassment. The two most recent issues are:

    • The Batman (film): the user added details to the lead that are not clearly supported by the body of the article. I reverted this change with an explanation, but they chose to ignore WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, re-revert me, and leave a talk page comment that used information from outside of the article to support it being in the lead and accused me of having "instinctively reverted without checking". I responded to this comment by clearly explaining that I had checked, that I do not have it out for this person as they seem to think, and that their change is still not supported by the article, but to no avail. The unsupported content is currently still in the lead.
    • Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom: I reverted an IP editor that added an unsourced synopsis to this article, and this user came out of nowhere to revert me stating that a source was not needed. This is obviously not the case and should not be a controversial revert at all, which I explained properly in my next revert. The user then reverted me again, and simply named a MOS section that does not support their case. Another user has since removed the unsourced content from the article, for now.

    Normally I would not take action against another user like this, as I would prefer to just move on and spend my time on Wikipedia more productively, but is difficult when even the most straightforward and uncontentious edits are reverted for no good reason. The first issue is not an uncommon disagreement for film articles and almost always gets resolved after the discussion is completed, but that seems unlikely when the other editor is just assuming that I am "instinctively revert[ing]" them and isn't willing to engage in good faith discussion. I even suggested the ideal next steps for resolving the issue but they dismissed this as too much work. To have the second issue happen at the same time, with blatant edit warring over clearly unsourced material in a different article where they weren't originally involved, makes it feel like I am being targeted. Add to that all the unnecessary edit warring, bad faith assuming, and talk page ignoring that this user has been doing over the last few months and I think it is clear that something needs to be done.

    I'm not even sure if this is the right forum or what the correct outcome should be here, I just came here since the ANEW closer suggested it. The ideal outcome for me would be for this user to stop harassing me and learn how to work in with other editors by following good practices such as WP:BRD. I don't get to spend as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to and the last thing I want to be dealing with is a user who can't handle being reverted (something that most of us had to learn about a long time ago) and who edit wars to force other users to give up so their version gets to stay without consensus. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The user Adamstom.97 is into ownership behavior and imposes his edit version by force. He especially seems to target me deliberately. I'm tired of edit-warring against him. I usually edit DC film articles so noticed his revert on The Batman (film) and later Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom.
    He targeted me out of nowhere claiming the criticisms of the film I added to the lede weren't mentioned in the "Reception" section [110]. Even after explaining to him that the "Reception" section does and citing the quotes from reviews. Instead he denies it and in bad faith claims I'm cherrypicking and biased. Tells me to read and add more reviews just to satsify him. When the point is thag the criticisms were made by "some" criticise, not all.
    Later I reverted him on Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom while checking that article. Because it's a plot addition and common knowledge, and doesn't require source per WP:PLOT. [111]
    Although I've restrained after being reverted on both articles by others. [112] and [113]. So Adamstom's claim that I want to force other users is untrue.
    He doesn't bother to discuss himself and then accuses others of not discussing while telling them not to edit again using BRD or STATUSQUO which aren't even policies. I made a complain of long-term edit-warring against him here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive450#User:Adamstom.97 reported by User:AbsolutelyFiring (Result: Referred to ANI. ). He also made uncivil comments against me earlier. Plus this user has been blocked for edit-warring twice before, see their block log.
    I've already self-reverted multiple times or let the situation go so as to not create more of a dispute on The Suicide Squad (film): [114], [115], [116], [117]. I'm tired of him. I don't have any problem with discussion and consensus, but he always creates a dispute and an edit war until h3 is satisfied or I give up. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added indentation to the post above so that the thread doesn't come across as an unreadable wall of text. The plot summary added to Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom is a copyright violation. WP:PLOT says nothing about needing or not needing sources. The relevant guideline is WP:FILMPLOT, which says sources are required for films have not yet been released. Rotten Tomatoes provides a ready-made summary of a film's critical reception. For popular films, industry magazines, such as Variety, often post more in-depth coverage of what critics thought. It is trivially easy to find reliable sources that describe the critical consensus of a Hollywood blockbuster. Wikipedia editors should not cherry-pick reviews and synthesize their own Rotten Tomatoes-style summary in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As AbsolutelyFiring has noted in their own reply, multiple other editors also reverted them and the same applies to many of the previous disagreements that this user has escalated. If this was a case of me targeting them then those other editors probably wouldn't see the same basic issues that I am seeing. NinjaRobotPirate has very simply laid out the answer to both of these issues, they clearly did not need to get to this point but AbsolutelyFiring turned them both into silly edit wars anyway. Accusing me of "ownership behavior" is ridiculous when I have put so much effort into explaining why the changes were not correct. Reverting an unsourced copyright violation is not ownership behaviour. Reverting lead changes that are not supported by the article body and asking the user to follow WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO is not ownership behaviour. Having to fight every time this user makes a bad edit because they would rather edit war than discuss is not ownership behaviour. They may be "tired" of being challenged over their bold edits, but I am sick of them thinking they can do whatever they want without discussion or courtesy. I have been editing film and TV articles for more than 10 years and every now and again someone comes along who thinks they don't need to work in with the rest of us, this appears to be one of those cases and it is sad since it is so unnecessary and avoidable. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Other editors reverting me doesn't exempt you from the fact that yes you are targeting me. They reverted because there was an edit-war going on. You however claimed that what I added was not in the "Reception" section. Which was outright false as I didn't add anything that wasn't in the section. When I pointed that out, you transitioned to "cherrypicking". Whether someone feels like I've cherrypicked is another thing, that wasn't my intention and I'll hold off the edits then. What's important is that you did misrepresent my edits without checking the "Reception" section. The previous time you dismissed my claims of you edit-warring claiming bad edits can be reverted and thus it's not an edit war [118]. You are clearly a dishonest user. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go again, trying to make it out that I was wrong to say "bad edits can be reverted" when that is a very simple fact. Do you seriously believe that you are exempt from being reverted because you think your edits were correct? The fact that multiple other editors have said they are not should tell you that you are in the wrong and need to discuss rather than re-revert. The same goes for continuously adding controversial information to the home media section at The Suicide Squad (film) despite knowing full well that other editors had taken issue with that content and were still discussing it at the talk page! When you are an editor on Wikipedia there are always going to be times where you get reverted and have to discuss your changes, and times where you need to hold off on making bold changes that other editors have already objected to and are currently discussing. You don't just get to ignore the process and do whatever you want. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was just you reverting me on The Suicide Squad (film) and I pointed out explicitly that what you were doing at the time was an edit war. You refused to recognize it and claimed it's not.
    Also while you tell others to not revert while discussing, it is notable that you don't apply that to yourself and don't restrain from reverting during an ongoing discussion. For example you revert here despite replying to a discussion at the talk page of The Batman (film). And this was your 2nd revert. Per WP:3RR (an actual policy) you're not exempted either from not reverting. It's you ignoring the process yourself.
    The others who reverted me on The Batman (film) didn't make up false claims like I added something that wasn't in the article. Or shift goalposts later like you did when I pointed out that what I added is in the article. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple editors opposed your bold changes to The Suicide Squad and consensus ended up being against you, no matter how many times you continued to add disputed content to the section while it was being discussed. The revert diff you linked above and the revert made by the other user were also completely consistent with the point that I have been making (follow BRD and STATUSQUO). You keep trying to talk around the fact that you don't want to follow these two very simple guidelines that are designed to make working in with other people easier and less contentious. As I have been saying continuously, re-reverting everyone who disagrees with bold changes that you make and then accusing them of edit warring is not the way to work in with the community here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    AbsolutelyFiring blocked as a sock puppet of LéKashmiriSocialiste. Logged-out edits make the connection even clearer. There were several other accounts edit warring across a few topics, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User 81.110.199.80 NOTHERE

    This may be premature as 81.110.199.80 (talk · contribs) has only eight mainspace edits, but it already seems quite clear they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. They have already been warned for a number of things on their talk page (regularly blanked), and to that mix, toss in a dollop of antisemitism.

    It's early on, but it's hard to see any prospect of their becoming a net positive with time. Mathglot (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and placed a fairly short block. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Acroterion,@Mathglot: after all that junk, I agree that a 48 hour block isn't going to have much effect. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocks are easy to reinstate and extend, and we generally don't go straight to long blocks when the IP's only been active for a week. I'm keeping an eye on them, they blanked their talkpage, so they've seen it. Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Let's hope the wake-up call turns them around. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Haleth

    IP blocked for one month as a proxy by Blablubbs.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The user Haleth has recently made major changes on Kopi (drink), with major inaccuracies. As I've pointed out on the edit summary, he is confusing the culinary and political history of the two. The drinks and their colonial history were not remotely the same (British Malaya v. North Borneo). The sources that they added were also copied from Tenom, notice the identical citations and only one or two words being replaced. You can tell by the citations being "retrieved in 2016", etc even though Haleth had added it today. Isn't copying within Wikipedia a policy violation? It's similar to copyright. After I had explained my reasons on my edit summary, I was accused of "disruptive editing" and to "not remove provided citations" without "providing evidence" to "support my claims". It seems kinda ironic to say the least. One of their reverts was also done with no apparent reason. 118.33.35.16 (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Also Chipmunkdavis constantly trying to remove this very report for some reason, they were also present on that article, which leads me to think there's some sort of a collusion going on so that Haleth isn't accused for edit warring. 118.33.35.16 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The content issue should be discussed in a civil manner at Talk:Kopi (drink), where nothing has yet been posted about this. On the behavioural side I would note that both editors have been edit-warring and are on the brink of violating WP:3RR. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the whole thing was relatively civil, and I had tried to be explanatory and understanding as possible on the edit summary, but I was responded with constant hostility with accusations being thrown around. 118.33.35.16 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: Revision history

    Out of sight, out of M. If problems resume, maybe try WP:RFPP or WP:AIV first. El_C 14:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Not sure exactly where to take this, as it may be meat or sockpuppetry, but its a over a range of IP's.

    This [[119]] keeps getting re added by SPA ip's with dubious attempts made to claim A. already few individuals disagree with you this is not forum thread (all (as I said spa's) B. Its a request to make a change (hard to see what they are asking to change) C. removing it is vandalism.

    Any ideas? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock/meat puppets blocked, talkpage protected for a while, forum chat removed. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This [[120]] seems to be realted Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC) I have also just had an alert that multiple attempts have been made to access my account. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And this [[121]] a clear threat, is there any way to protect my account? Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Slatersteven, people attempting to access your account is a fairly common form of harassment. Assuming you have a strong, unique password, they won't succeed. I've semi-protected your talkpage for a while - let me know if you didn't want that and I'll undo it. Girth Summit (blether) 14:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Its fine, no opinion either way.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has started attacking me too, see my talk page. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all proxies. Revert, block, protect, ignore. Acroterion (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Now extended to Talk:Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    They really will not leave, won't they? Now that page is going to be protected too. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect it will be on every page related to the conflict. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And another IP with more threats [[122]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    9 login attempts, speedrun. El_C 14:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What? Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nine of em, all at once somehow. I win, 1th place. El_C 14:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not clear, nine attempts to log onto what? Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My accountant, what else? El_C 14:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ohh I see, so its not just me who wants to be their enemy. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit warring has now resumed on Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War[123]. — Czello 14:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Really hoping they don't try and breach my account, that would be bad news for me... 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't even have an account, so that probably is worse. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be worse? M.Bitton (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They have hijacked his IP. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they haven't, at least, not yet. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I mean that is what wouod be worse than just hauivng your account hacked. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If could be arsed I would check other articles about the war, just in case they are at it elsewhere. But A, I have better things to do. B That would smack of looking for trouble. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, it seems as though the abusive IP's have stopped, though it is likely they will come back. 162.219.198.189 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given all the pages are under PP, maybe not. They just cannot, and once PP is removed with start up again. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We can not protect talk pages indefinitely. Once they do, please report again. Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, just pointing out we may be back here. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    39.40.37.143

    Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    39.40.37.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) IP keeps altering sourced statistics, increasing the percentage of Pashtuns whilst decreasing the percentage of other ethnicities [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Shashank1947 - No communication

    Shashank1947 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    I'd like some help in getting this user to respond on a talk page, like once. I'm grateful that they're updating WP, but I'd really like if they communicate as to why something (maybe like this and this to start with) should be removed. All my attempts on their talk page, or edit summaries are futile. Mobile edit, sure. WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, maybe? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yep, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. It is truly astonishing what the WMF can spend stupid amounts of money on, yet ensuring editors can see their messages is (despite being a major issue) apparently something that they can't be bothered to fix. Spectacular incompetence, but don't expect it to be fixed any time soon. Black Kite (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The mobile sites and apps should either be fixed promptly or shut down, since they actively impede collaborative editing. The fully functional desktop site works just fine on modern smartphones and mobile devices. Cullen328 (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        (Non-administrator comment) They are a logged-in mobile web editor. A big red circle is shown to them about new notifications since at least a couple of years; see some screenshots at the bottom of phab:T229902. There is an open ticket about making it more intrusive, but it's not like they aren't seeing any intimation of the alerts. Hemantha (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tharun Srinivas Reddy - Unsourced Edit

    Found Many unsourced edits being published without any reliable source and being continuously undoing the edits. No Citations Found — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmk456 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Pmk456: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. Please provide diffs to the problematic edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this edit by the OP we may need a WP:BOOMERANG. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. There's a lot of shouting in a few of the edit summaries with threats to block ([131] [132]), including the one in the diff MarnetteD provided. I dare say it comes close to threats given the attitude used. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    May be conjecture, but is it not a coincidence that in 99.9% of cases where the OP has failed to notify the reported user, the OP in fact is at fault/WP:BOOMERANG-eligible? I guess that's not always surprising, though I do wonder what exactly is the cause of this. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Failure to follow the clear instructions on this page regarding notification is probably correlated with failures in WP:CIR. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Classical library and ad hominem attacks

    Classical library indeffed Lacks the necessary temperament and general competence to contribute constructively to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Classical library (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    In March 2020, I filed a report here regarding an editor that ultimately proved to be Classical library; the discussion is archived at the following link.[133] The user was subsequently blocked for three months for assumptions of bad faith.

    After two years of radio silence, Classical library returned today to remove content from the Seraphim Rose article [134] and then to immediately challenge Pbritti about the edits—not as much on substance but on the basis of Pbritti's religion. [135]

    I come to this noticeboard with two concerns:

    1. Classical library's edits are laser-focused on Seraphim Rose; they have edited no other article or article's talk page. (They have edited user talk pages and multiple noticeboards.) At the best, this is a single-purpose account. (Other users have alleged a conflict of interest, but I cannot find diffs to support that claim at this time.)
    2. The user's tactic of responding to any edits away from their preferred version of the article by challenging the user on the basis of the user's religion goes against WP:NPA: it's focusing on the contributor, not the content. When this happened two years ago, it was adjudged to be bad-faith editing.

    I ask the community to consider what steps can be taken to either coach Classical library into being a constructive, collaborative editor or to prevent further damage caused by their bad-faith comments directed at other editors. —C.Fred (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, C.Fred. If any one looking into this matter would like to contribute to further resolution outside of disciplinary action, ask you to consider weighing the merits of the conversations held on the talk page and in the cited material so that you may vote in the ongoing survey. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose Indefinite Topic Ban from Seraphim Rose, article's talk page, and any discussions relating to Seraphim Rose anywhere on the project. Classical library's behavior is indeed unacceptable. And the suggestion that Roman Catholics may not edit an article about someone who was Orthodox is simply risible. As for the specific content dispute, it should be handled through the customary processes. Fr. Seraphim is a controversial figure within the Church's recent history with lots of opinions, some heated, on both sides. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indefinite block based on this comment left on my talk page. This editor clearly lacks the temperament needed for a collaborative project that requires both civility and a respect for WP:CONSENSUS. If that comment had been left anywhere other than my own talk page, I'd have already blocked them myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsure if I'm allowed a vote but I would prefer a temp topic ban with explicit explanation of what is wrong with the editor's actions, with perhaps a temp from editing user talk pages. This editor seems sporadic at best and failure to properly inform could simply lead to ban-evasion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Who is this? El_C 05:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering too. Brand new account just to stand up for this? I mean, I appreciate it, but what? ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Classical library blocked indef

    User_talk:Classical_library#Indefinite_block. Discussion about a site ban (above) can continue, of course, though personally, I don't think this user's contributions merit it. As for a WP:TBAN (or a more limited WP:ABAN, now popularly known as a p-block), due to this editor's single prupose here, I just don't think those kind of sanctions would have worked. El_C 05:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @El C: - might be worth taking away their talkpage editing ability too, based on this. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that read like a fever dream. But at least they wished me a nice day (thank you, I qwill!), so there's that. El_C 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That talk page tirade gave me a good laugh. AusLondonder (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    dispute with User:Praxidicae who repeatedly moves article LH Research back into draftspace

    Not an admin issue; problem being handled via normal AFC and editing processes. --Jayron32 14:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    I created a new Wikipedia article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:LH_Research , which is about a major Californian electronics-company that existed from 1976 until 1996. It had thousands of employees, changed significantly the power-electronics-technology until now and had a noticable impact in computing. So one could argue that relevance is given.

    This article also exists in the German namespace, and has been redacted and improved by a lot of other editors. This is remarkable, given the fact that this was an American company after all.

    The editor User:Praxidicae repeatedly moves this article back into draftspace, claiming it does not live up to Wikipedia-standards, especially not including enough citations. Though my article has many citations, some from computer- and electronic scientific journals.

    I had a discussion with said editor, but with no success. So I inquire an arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoman3 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Contrary to your statement, I have engaged with you, on your talk page where you said you'd wait for a review. I also explained to you that we don't accept word of mouth or your personal interviews with former employees as a source. So you linked me to your google drive (which I do not recommend anyone click) which I also told you isn't appropriate nor can it be used as a source. Not to mention it's extremely promotional. Move it back for all I care. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Madame. Then I may suggest we can close this arbitration. (p.s.: It's a dead company after all, how could I promote a corpse?)Geoman3 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it back to Draft. The other option is deletion. The sources used fail WP:RS and I see no indication of notability (WP:NBUSINESS). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this mean that the following articles should be deleted as well: PrairieTek, Siel, Phase_Linear?
    WP:NOBITING anyone?
    So go ahead and delete my article. I will leave the English Wikipedia once and for all, since I see no need for me to work on this project. Geoman3 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of bad articles on Wikipedia, and lots of promotional dross that should be deleted. If you identify something like that and it's irredeemable (WP:TNT, WP:BEFORE), definitely please send it to WP:AfD. JBL (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of the best essays on that matter:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jean-Francois_Gariepy/Preservation_Details
    And I am NOT sending articles to WP:AfD ! Because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold "Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it."
    I pity you guys, you entire lost the essence of what "Wikipedia" meant in the first place. Geoman3 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't speak for anyone else, but there are much better reasons to pity me than my stance on the threshold for keeping Wikipedia articles. Cheers, and have a nice week everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'm not sure what the problem is with Draft:LH Research. For one thing, the company has been defunct for 26 years, meaning that it is unlikely to actually be an ad - although in theory an article on a defunct company could read as promotional, and there is a successor to the company's IP that is still offering replacement parts for the company's products, so I suppose it could be promotional in that it's promoting the existence of replacement parts from that other company. That said, it doesn't read as "extremely promotional" to me. Regarding sources, the article cites 9, plus some "Further reading". Of the 9 cited sources, the ones that strike me as applicable towards notability include:[1][2][3] and[4]

    References

    1. ^ "Beginning with nothing in the way of experience". Asian American identity Jade magazine. Vol. 4–5. Los Angeles: Jade Publications. 1981. pp. 10–12. ISSN 0147-8230. Retrieved 25 April 2022.
    2. ^ "Today, LH Research is the world's largest dedicated manufacturer of regulated switching power supplies". Electronic design. Vol. 35. New York, N.Y.: Hayden Pub. Co. 1987. p. 186. ISSN 0013-4872. Retrieved 25 April 2022.
    3. ^ "The World's Largest Manufacturer of Switching Regulated Power Supplies". Digital Design. Vol. 14. Boston: Benwill Publishing Corporation. 1984. p. 73. ISSN 0147-9245. Retrieved 25 April 2022.
    4. ^ "Costa Mesa's LH Research Acquired, L.A. TIMES ARCHIVES FEB. 24, 1996". Los Angeles Times. 24 February 1996. Retrieved 2022-04-15.
    I do think "How Wally Hersom, The Most Powerful Man In Bigfoot Made His Money". Retrieved 2022-04-20. is an unreliable source. Also the Open Corporate sources don't strike me as contributing to notability as they are routine coverage. The last citation to a list of replacement parts on the Pioneer Magnetics website strikes me as potentially promotional and better as an external link than as a reference. The article could also use a through copy edit. That said, I don't think it's bad enough to force it back to draft. It seems like a need for relatively minor clean up. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also not entirely sure what we are supposed to do with this. I'd say let AfC decide this one. Oz\InterAct 19:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the OP wants us to take some action against Praxidicae. However, I don't think Prax has done anything really wrong, and I don't think action against her is warranted - even though I disagree with her on the question of if this needs to be in draft space. I also don't think the OP or the article is in need of admin action. My suggestion for the OP is to work on the article some more, remove the sources I have identified as unreliable, read through it looking for awkward or incomplete sentences, and then submit it to AFC. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a plan to me. Oz\InterAct 07:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I actually would feel obliged to accept it if I were reviewing. However, if it's declined again it needs to be deleted, preferably after a deletion discussion. Deb (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Julian Alden and SaucySoup posting link to a possibly phishing site

    Julian Alden (talk · contribs)

    SaucySoup (talk · contribs)

    Both users are changing links on HSA Bank. While this might be some normal vandalism, my concern is that they are changing the link to this site that is very similar to the official login page that can be accessed by going to the official site of the bank. The phony login site is similar to the official login site, I am suspicious that this is a malicious attempt to get the login information of HSA Bank customers.

    While this is just standard vandalism, I feel that this could have an impact on the public in general, and request admin action for an immediate block of both users, and if necessary, do a revdel on their edits. SunDawntalk 15:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Working on it. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That does look decidedly dodgy. I have blocked, and I think I will revdel those edits as pure disruption. Girth Summit (blether) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit beat me to the blocks. I did revdel the websites as likely phishing EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the very prompt response Girth Summit and EvergreenFir! SunDawntalk 15:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Are these compromised accounts? One of them was used to make a couple of childish "I hate studying this at school" edits 2 years ago, and the other account was made 3 years ago but wasn't used. It might also be worth adding the site to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind, it's already been added to the global blacklist [137]. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked martin to add it as a result of this thread - which brings me to my next task, figuring out a way to prevent this from happening again. It's not the first time I've seen similar edits to banking articles, and I think we've gotta figure out a way to prevent this whether it's by filter or something else. Especially on smaller projects. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to 192.76.8.70 for pointing out the age of those accounts - I confess I didn't look too hard at them when I blocked. Looking at them again, there's not much more I can say - from a CU perspective, they are  Confirmed to one another, but there are no other accounts that look similar operating out of the same range, so I can't connect it to anybody else. Can't say any more than that really. Girth Summit (blether) 07:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @PRAXIDICAE: there are antiphishing sites that offer an api for automated requests. Wikimedia could cache the current list of "OK" sites and query the api for new sites. For example, https://www.ipqualityscore.com/threat-feeds/malicious-url-scanner . You could block attempts to add phishing and perhaps autoblock the user/ip address as well. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anujror trying to game the system fresh off a block for the same behaviour

    indef block. Oz\InterAct 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello. A few days ago, User:Anujror was blocked by Inter for making disruptive edits, after repeatedly making and reverting meaningless edits to the pages for FF, JShell, RT, and Thul Hairo Khan; see User talk:Anujror#April 2022 2. This appeared to be an attempt to WP:PGAME himself some user permissions after some of his articles for creation submissions weren't going through.

    After his block, he applied for rollback permissions by editing another user's request to pass it off as his own, and continued to engage in the same PGAME-y behaviour for which he was blocked, this time on his user page at least. With his newfound permissions, he created Ridhi, which is how I found out about him: She has learnt to do all of this. And she has learnt to do it all very well... The Holy Grail for an Archer Is Now on the Radar. I'm not sure it is worthwhile for the encyclopedia to keep this user unblocked. Endwise (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This user clearly did not get the message. Indef blocked on grounds of WP:NOTHERE Oz\InterAct 16:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks . Endwise (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Zamindars of Bihar, unreliable source

    I have started a discussion on the Talk Page of the Zamindars of Bihar relating to an unreliable Hindi language source:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zamindars_of_Bihar&diff=1084449503&oldid=1019850101

    I also started a discussion on Wikipedia noticeboard for reliable sources with consensus being that it is not a reliable source:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1084582085&oldid=1084572904

    The user @Heba Aisha: has previously reported me (on frivolous grounds) for being a sockpuppet (which failed spectacularly) and seems to have an issue with every edit I make. After I removed the source, he started calling me a vandal. I feel like admin intervention is needed as this user is repeatedly trying to start a fight even after discussion indicated it was not a reliable source.RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    RuudVanClerk, reporting any editor for assuming similar behaviour compared to a blocked editor is not any policy violation. The WP: Sockpuppetry is made for this only. Second, i reverted you on Zamindars of Bihar as you seems to be unaware of WP:RS, Hindi sources are also reliable and can be used. I would like to draw admins attention on some of your edits, which amounts to lack of competence and as according to WP:CIR, you should made yourself aware of basic editing policies
    1. When you put the discussion on Reliable source noticeboard, you got [138] this comment from an editor and he also says that he has no reason to believe that that was not a reliable source. You should have waited for more comments, as these discussions could go longer.But without getting proper consensus, you removed it citing wrong consensus in edit summary [139] .
    2. I would like to draw admins attention on WP:CIR issue with you. Let me just give an example: in an article related to politics you were putting image of agricultural caste group and despite being told about MOS:LEADIMAGE, you were not getting it [140], the image was finally removed by TrangaBellam [141] and you refrained from reaching that talk page again as you had no conclusive argument. Besides this you were involved in edit wars to restore same image on different articles without understanding properly about WP: MOSIMAGE, here [142] ,[143]
    3. Also, i assume that you will bring me here anyhow as [144], here when the Sockpuppetry investigation ended, you were eager in asking the admin about any sanction in order to book me.
    4. It seems that many a times you involve in WP:GAMING on talk pages. Like here you reverted and brought the matter to talk page [145], later admin himself jumped into the matter to disagree with the image you tried to use in the article. [146]
    5. seems to have an issue with every edit I make, now this statement is totally frivolous as looking at your contribution and mine one can easily see that i have reverted one or two edits of yours and not following every edits of yours on various articles. After ending of Sockpuppet investigation, i reverted the edit on Zamindars of Bihar only and that too because you made mistake there. I didn't touched other pages where you are editing.Heba Aisha (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unreliable" and "Hindi language" are totally independent of one other. The language a source is written in reveals noting about its reliability. So some Hindi-language resources are unreliable, just like some English resources are unreliable. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    5644Khorasani

    No further admin action taken. Oz\InterAct 07:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    5644Khorasani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User keeps attempting to add a questionable map into Ethnic groups in Afghanistan, replacing the original map which he simply dismissed as 'wrong' and 'trustless' [147]. He has been told by three users (including an admin) to stop reverting and discuss/take the map to WP:RSN [148] [149] [150], yet keeps edit warring [151] [152] [153] [154] [155]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have pblocked the editor from that specific article for 48 hours so they can cool down a bit. The rest is a content dispute and the editor is at least responding to other editors. Oz\InterAct 20:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, he is responding. But err.. they're not the best ones [156]. I have restored the long-standing map, hopefully he will take his concerns to the talk page and/or join the WP:RSN I opened [157]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks HistoryofIran for actually starting a discussion and Oz for quenching the edit-war. Sorry I didn't notice the message on my talkpage. DMacks (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New editor SOAPBOXing in article space

    Blocked by Bbb23 EvergreenFir (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I'm not thrilled about giving this troll the attention they crave, but the disruption has now reached a level where it shouldn't be ignored any longer.

    The diffs speak for themselves: [158][159][160][161][162][163][164].

    Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Dude! Their first 5 edits were fine, then they made one that got reverted, then they went on a combo philosophical rant/vandalism spree. Bbb23 beat me to blocking them though. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, "philosophical". Thanks Bbb23. Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Telex80 (second post)

    Filer blocked as LTA. —173.79.38.2 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    About a week ago I posted here about Telex80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who adds material to articles that is simply gibberish. The report is here. They were blocked for one week by User:El C, but very shortly after the block expired, they continued exactly as before. They never gave any acknowledgement of the block. So, perhaps further action is necessary to stop them further harming English Wikipedia. 82.132.212.222 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Legal threats and block templates from User:Walter420

    Walter420 seems to have made a couple legal threats against IPs who were vandalizing articles ([168], [169]) and, upon closer inspection, placed a block template on the talk page of a user who is not blocked. This is just from a cursory check of the user's contribs. AviationFreak💬 22:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked this editor for the legal threats. Cullen328 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a sock of, among other accounts, Crab Meat Hooperbag. I'll put in a glock request, and suggest that any talk page conversation is not going to be very extended. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    References to legal sources

    curvy stick block applied. --Jayron32 14:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I have tried to add back to an article references to an act of the Australian commonwealth parliament which was mistakenly deleted from that article, but that was repeatedly deleted and even my talk page message was deleted again and again. Now that the talk page is locked. What can I do about this? Is there something wrong with references to statutory law, that they aren't accepted in articles, not even discussed in talk pages? 223.197.159.34 (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    How many times do editors have to tell you that the material was removed because you are evading a block?user:Chipmunkdavis has repeatedly pointed out their edit summaries on when reverting you on Talk:Country: "WP:BLOCKEVASION". And as user:M.Bitton said in their edit summary: "Block evasion followed by a revert from the same geolocation is usually as valid an excuse as any" The talk page has now been protected too. Meters (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection from me if anyone decides to nuke this whole thread. Meters (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Evading a block? Me? I thought they are talking about other messages not mine. I am not associated with any block. I don't pay any attention to who the blocked users are and who aren't. I haven't even talked any where else in that talk page or edited anything else in that article in the past few years. My talk page message is in no way related to the recent dispute there which I have quickly gone through just now. They are talking about the US and China squabbles aren't they? As for the same "geolocation" you are talking about a country of 7½ million people, which is one of the most active countries on the web by some measurements. I thought administrators here are able to tell what happened. Maybe I was wrong. Just as those who deleted my message there and went on to protect the page. 223.197.159.34 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't you find it strange that both you and the blocked IP are reintroducing the same content, such as The word country is used to refer both to sovereign states and to other political entities.? M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IP Blocked – for a period of one week for block evasion. Note: I am one of the protecting admins. El_C 12:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Degretory remarks by an IP

    106.203.238.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuously making vandal edits on Director's Kut Productions and Anupama: Namaste America. He's also using negative remarks in plot summary for Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah for it's makers over a small mistake and promoting the same negative remarks in Packer&Tracker's talk page. I suspect him to be blocked User Princepratap1234's IP trying to evade his global block as usual seeing his talk and edit summary pattern and geo location also. Administrators please look into this matter. Pri2000 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ohh wow, I was helping you in making Anupama: Namaste America page better and you are accusing me for no reason. I did not say anything to you and did not make any derogatory marks on anyone.You try to own a page and don't let other people edit it. WP:OWN. even somone help you , you will betray them.106.203.238.218 (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs? Also, you should have notified the IP, but it's a moot point now. Singularity42 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Singularity42: I tried to make him understand this thing. You can see his talk page. But he started creating more degradatory remarks. You can see edit history. And this person is none other than Princepratap1234 who harassed and stalked me brutally in the past even on the day when I created the draft. There he made negative remarks against me and used my real name in edit summary which he came to know after severely stalking me. He doesn't stop here. God knows how many e-mail address he owns. That he comes by new IP. Few days back when I reverted an unconstructive edit by an User on Anupamaa he created negativity against me there also. Even he sent me a mail again 4-5 days back that his IP is blocked and I should remove all his contributions. I blocked his that mail again. He even harasses one other editor in same way.Pri2000 (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When did i make derogatory remark on someone. anyone can see my contibution and check if i made a derogatory remarks or did vandalism. 106.203.238.218 (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to create any edit war. Administrators just see his talk page, Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah edit history and Packer&Tracker talk page once. What's the need of using detractors remarks even on makers. These type of mistakes can happen in daily lives even happen in publication house producing History books. So will we call them that they just intend to make money???Pri2000 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pri2000:: I don't see any evidence of vandalism. What is see is two different perspectives on what makes an article better. You like your version better, they like their version better. This is a content dispute and should go through dispute resolution, which does not need any admins. When you use a word like "vandalism" in this sense, that is just wrong. Vandalism only means that someone is trying to ruin a Wikipedia article, like by adding random swear words to it, and that is not what is happening here. Accusing people of "vandalism" when they clearly are not doing that is a Bad Idea, and you should stop doing that immediately. I would strike the word from your vocabulary until you learn to use it correctly. Secondly, other than a single use of the word "shameful", I don't see any other derogatory remarks. Probably not the best choice of words on their part, but seriously, that's not a sanctionable offense. What I do see at that article is an edit war; which you each should stop immediately, lest you both get blocked. I have no idea on the sockpuppetry issue, WP:SPI is thataway. --Jayron32 16:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • A brief review of the IP's edits show the following less-than-kind remarks that Pri2000 is likely referring to:
    Do they care about our country.They just care about money and being indian i did not like that thing.
    see this https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/taarak-mehta-ka-ooltah-chashmah-team-apologises-for-airing-incorrect-fact-about-lata-mangeshkar-song-7887764/. Creator of this show does not even know out country history.
    I see nothing else that constitutes vandalism or derogatory comments. Nothing actionable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Carletteyt, a severe case of WP:IDHT or possibly just WP:CIR

    Indeffed CIR block. Highly regrettable given what I believe was a sincere desire to contribute. But just way too many issues. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I'm not going to make this super long, you can see by their talk page that their edits are highly problematic, from overlinking, to writing illegible nonsense and straight up nonsensical edits for which they've been given detailed explanations why this is problematic, which is always met with "I'm only x years old!" and the behavior continues. Even BusterD and several others have tried to mentor them and give them numerous last chances, but they don't appear to be capable of listening and following through. To put this in perspective, they have about 374 edits, of their mainspace edits, all but about 10 have been reverted for various reasons.

    Since giving them final warnings and being asked by myself and Buster to stop editing mainspace directly, here's a small selection of their edits. adding a link taht is neither an RS or relevant to the topic, barely legible content addition which later was changed to be a little more readable but about Twitch, a nonsense category addition, [170][171] Actually this word refers to a person with a big sexual desire. a direct quote from that edit. There are hundreds of such examples, this is getting old and editors are tired of cleaning up after them.


    I am requesting a 1 month (or longer) block so that they can take some time to read about our policies, guidelines and take in all the advice they've been given. The only reason I'm not suggesting an indef is because Buster has asked that the next block simply be escalating. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll also note that this may be a language issue but their inability to actually take advice and criticism, combined with IDHT leads me to believe they cannot be a productive editor at this time. Further, we have often blocked people as CIR for far less, who actually were moderately productive editors and that just doesn't seem to be the case with this user. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And now, after notifying them of this thread, a denial of actually making any of those edits. PRAXIDICAE💕 15:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Indeffed without prejudice to a possible WP:SO somewhere down the road. Unfortunately, good intentions only go so far and there are really serious CIR issues here. User has failed to heed repeated advice, admonitions and warnings from experienced editors. Too many other editors are having to spend too much time cleaning up after Carletteyt. At some point you have to say enough. Maybe they should try editing at Simple English for a while. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    sock blocked --Jayron32 18:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    And now we have this. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Sock blocked. Viewer719/Contribs! 21:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Back again as User:Carletteyt3. I'm involved. Can somebody block this person? BusterD (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I want them to become a productive editor at some point. But this has to stop. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:28, 26 April 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.

    Heavy Off-Wiki Canvassing

    There is currently a very intense AFD discussion about a person called Gonzalo Lira (AfD discussion). From what I can gather, the subject is famous in the Incel community and fringes of the alt-right and far-left (contradictory as that might be; the common demoninator seems to be anti-mainstream, anti-society, pro-Putin and some conspiracy theories). None of that is ANI-worthy, but what stands out is the extreme off-wiki canvassing going on. In more than ten years at Wikipedia, I've never seen so many WP:SPA accounts in the same discussion, all of them shouting that the page must be kept (whereas most established users point out the lack of WP:NOTABILITY.) To be clear: while all SPAs shout 'Keep', that doesn't mean every 'keep' comment is a SPA. A handful of established users also say keep, and that's of course fine Given how heated the discussion has become, with heavy personal attacks from of the SPAs, and the sheer amount of off-wiki canvassing, some admin overview might be needed before it completely spirals out of control. Jeppiz (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you think it's bad enough that semi-protection is warranted? I just skimmed through the discussion, and while there are a lot of unregistered users commenting and a couple newer accounts, I think a closing admin would be able to parse who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't in trying to judge consensus. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually tried to draw some attention to this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Football-related AFDs. Levivich there was talking about making a case with 2 sources, which I repeatedly pushed for people to do in this AFD discussion. I think that a closing administrator won't have trouble filtering out the non-policy rationales. I had to reverse some early refactoring attempts directing people to "vote" and moving comments out of chronological order such as Special:Diff/1083954787.

      Yes clearly this is an influx of novices who haven't a clue about our content standards, supported by regular editors who should know better, but are sadly doing the usual thing of waving at search engine results and not actually citing, or reading for themselves, what the search engines turn up. But an experienced closer should recognize that. I certainly do, and I always try to push such people to do better, and not put in such zero-effort contributions, because they actually do end up being given less weight.

      I've had more than ten years too. I've seen this pattern many times before. This isn't anywhere near the worst that I've seen, though. There were reasons that {{notavote}} et al. were invented in the first places. ☺

      Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Uncle G If you discuss an editor here (as you're clearly doing since you've used the same language here[172] and in your reply to me there[173], you have to notify them.--Jahaza (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Really? How's that? What's under discussion is whether this AfD has gotten enough out of hand to require admin supervision/semi-protection. (Since this is one of the worst cases of SPA-bombing I've seen in the many hundreds of AfDs in which I've participated, I'd say it does.) So far, the conduct of individual editors is not under question. The requirement to notify editors is yoked to the potential for those editors to be admonished or sanctioned. This is not the case here. Ravenswing 10:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Help - Sock reports on my talk page

    Please see my user talk page User talk:Maile66 Created by blocked or banned user. I don't have a lot of experience dealing directly with socks. There seems to be an ongoing issue with blocked sockmaster User:Amkgp. At least, that is my understanding what is happening, and my experience in this area is scant. A good-faith IP keeps reporting on my talk page, which is well and good. It seems to me it might be a good idea to report this elsewhere to get it stopped. Their requests to me are to delete the edits. But if this is ongoing, shouldn't something else be done? Anyone here know how to deal with ongoing socking by one user? — Maile (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not so sure about the good faith-yness of the IP but I would advise them to file an SPI. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, good then. The first thing I did was advise them of that and provide a link. They left me another alleged IP sock anyway. Maybe if I just leave it with my original post, they'll figure out what they should do. I don't feel comfortable blocking an IP just because another IP says it's a sock. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Vikramkarikalan

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

    User's talk page is filled with warnings asking him to stop adding unsourced information / altering sourced information, yet he ignores them and keeps on doing the same.

    Some examples; [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]

    --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, his editing history is highly problematic. He seems to take the attitude of "because I say the sources are wrong, I can change the data to whatever I want". That's not how Wikipedia works. --Jayron32 11:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pblocked the editor from Article space for a period to prevent further disruption. Maybe that will make the editor engage in a more productive discussion. Oz\InterAct 13:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits to Essendon Football Club

    Many new accounts and IPs are making disruptive edits to Essendon Football Club. Protection already requested at WP:RPP but disruption is ongoing. FozzieHey (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Page is now protected, not sure if anyone wants to check the accounts / IPs. FozzieHey (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack and insults

    Personal attack and insults by user JohnGalidakis against me [179]. JohnGalidakis wrote (in Greeklish) in my talk page that "I suck dicks" (Perni pipes). Please, note that the same user has been blocked in el/WP for the same reason plus the legal threats they made against me (see [180] & [181]) (same applies for the sock they created; cf. [182] & [183]). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. JohnGalidakis keeps abusing my talk page, and attacks users (admins at el/WP) Kalogeropoulos (called "f*ing Gypsy") and Diu [184]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I have indefinitely blocked JohnGalidakis as nor here to build the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be worth blocking their TPA given this charming tirade.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have revoked their talk page access but I was busy off-Wikipedia when that all went down, and El C cut off their talk page access. Subsequently, I received an email from JohnGalidakis, sent through Wikimedia Commons. I am not a mental health professional and so I will not use diagnostic language. But the email was threatening, bizarre, convoluted, lengthy and intimidating, packed full of numerous grievances, anti-semitic hate, and demands to right great wrongs. If Russia attacks North America with nuclear weapons, apparently history will judge that I was the responsible person. I immediately forwarded the email to WMF Trust and Safety. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    History is cool122222222

    History is cool122222222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Removed sourced info [185] [186] [187]

    Replies to warnings with comments such as Shut up and Are u bot or human --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef for vandalism-only account. Next time, these ones can go to WP:AIV Oz\InterAct 19:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Mass removals of content from articles without any attempt at constructive editing

    An IP editor occupying the following range: 2603:7000:2143:8500:454C:4914:BC97:487F/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been on a crusade to purge all articles related to Belarus and Russia (mostly, but not exclusively) from of data that has citation needed tag, and has been doing so at an alarming rate for the past two months, with barely any attempt to actually add anything. User has received multiple warnings regarding this, spread across several of his IPs (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc), and even engaged in a somewhat of a discussion (here), but their only response to everything is playing wp:burden card. This makes me wonder if they're actually wp:nothere to improve the wiki. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    And yet WP:BURDEN is a thing and Citation needed tags are a courtesy. What I see are several editors re-adding unsourced content with belief that a cn tag is sufficient to allow unsourced material to remain. Along with editors mis-using templates to warn an editor whose edits are proper. Now, there choice of topic ares may be a concern, but that would be a discretionary sanctions issue. I don't see how it is WP:NOTHERE as editing includes ensuring the encyclopedia is verifiable.Slywriter (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please just block immediately, for gaming the policy. They are not helping. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4671 (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerald Ward (biker) and user:Grasshopper1970

    I came across the article Gerald Ward (biker) while correcting cite errors, and just manually reverted it back. The first ref I came across was <ref>Mr. Ward </ref>[188], and the second <ref name=":0">Mr. Ward did not buy any drugs from the Hells Angels.</ref>[189]. I went to user:Grasshopper1970 talk page to leave them a message, but there are three messages already there about the same subject. They don't appear to understand how referencing works, or what Wikipedia is for, and I suspect they have a close link to the subject. I think it would be a good idea to partial block them from the page until they showed some more understanding, or a willingness to respond to messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    All their edits appear to be mobile. I'm wondering if this is a case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? (Also, anyone else getting increasingly frustrated with this issue?) Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I personally believe the mobile client should have the ability to edit non-talk pages disabled until the communication issues are addressed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's completely ridiculous, and noone appears to be listening. Maybe we should block the Devs until they fix it. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That has been seriously proposed before. As I remember, it gained some support. casualdejekyll 21:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is more astonishing is that the devs who have commented WONTFIX on the Phab tickets don't appear to actually understand why it's an issue. This suggests that the mobile interface may be improved soon, but not the apps. Perhaps simply blocking any edits from IP app editors (which would be trivial via an editfilter) might make someone in the WMF actually take notice, but I doubt it. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Block all app users with a notice directing them to the phab ticket, see if they'll fix it when they're getting unending messages. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1085038993"