Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Please ask this editor to stay off my talk page

Hello community, I want to start by saying that I really do appreciate the opportunity to edit Wikipedia these past 5 months seeing as it has easily become my new favourite pastime. However, I may have made a grave mistake by disclosing on my user page that I was previously blocked for Sockpuppetry as a Newbie editor back in January 2021. I evaded my block and upon realising that it was also an infringement, I made the disclosure to Arbcom, got unblocked and asked to continue with this account. What brings me here is that Celestina007 (talk · contribs) since she first came to my talk page in March has continued to unfairly cast veiled aspersions [1] [2] [3], Outright accused me of paid editing [4] [5] and went on a power trip and tried intimidating me [6]. I have taken it all in stride because I understand that she is passionate about eliminating undisclosed paid editing and conflict of interest editing especially in the Nigeria-related space I however do not appreciate this continual harassment without proof or without reporting to appropriate quarters. More recently, She placed 4 warning messages [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] on my Talkpage because I removed the {{notability}} maintenece template at Siene Allwell-Brown because the AfD closed as no consensus and the sourcing was enough to prove notability. I reverted the warnings [12] placed on my talk page and politely asked that she should not post on my talk page any further. She ignored this and posted 2 more times [13] [14].

I just want the community to ask this editor to stay off my talk page and stop inhibiting my work as these accusations, assumption of bad faith, snide remarks and witch-hunting/nitpicking (for want of a better word) have severely hampered my enjoyment of editing. Thank you! Princess of Ara_(talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I have aided them severally in their endeavors. They have an unusual manner of archiving so digging out diffs are quite arduous. In AFC I have encountered them and accepted/published their submissions, an example is this this, this I have never casted aspersions. I would have proposed a boomerang indefinite block on their account but I can’t do so because I have access to non public information of which I am not to disclose on-wiki, I am however willing to share this information to any sysop or functionary. Everything I have told them is factual hence do not fall under the scope of “casting aspersions” As aforementioned I am willing to share via email why I feel an indef block on them might be the best possible route. I wouldn’t tolerate anyone accusing me of Harassment, they are on my watchlist thus it is not unusual if I run into them every now and again. That isn’t harassment. I left a UPE warning template on their tp because of this: Draft:Uzor Arukwe. I declined the article on June 9 and told them specifically not to resubmit the article any time soon seehere. To my surprise barely 4 days after they resubmitted the article which was reject by Hatchens. This appeared to be COI editing, thus the UPE warning template. I’m incapable of disclosing non public information if not they would have been indef blocked a long time ago. I am willing to point this out if any sysop wants to see for themselves. Yes! Sockpuppetry was what indeed got them in trouble because technical evidence substantiated or showed this, The sockpuppetry case is just one aspect. Infact after Arbcom gave them a new lease they began the same type of editing that got them in trouble in the first place. I feel horrible about this, It is very unfair that editors aren’t sysops or functionaries are restricted from viewing the evidence. Celestina007 (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Accusing Princess of Ara of having history of running a UPE ring without evidence after they explicitly told them to stay away from their talk page as can be seen here and also accusing them of returning to sockpuppettery without evidence is uncalled for. Casting aspersions and possible civility issues. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 has been asked politely not to post on Princess of Ara's talk page. We commonly expect editors to respect such requests, except when required to post by policy such as an ANI notification. Celestina007 should avoid posting on Princess of Ara's talk page. If there are violations of Wikipedia policies in Princess of Ara's editing, Celestina007 knows the proper avenues to pursue. Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• Based on what Schazjmd stated above I wouldn't leave any personal messages on their TP. I respect Schazjmd Having said, let the record reflect that I do infact have proof if they do not want me to post on their talk page I wouldn’t. I can carry still carry out my anti UPE activities, I don’t see how interacting with them impedes my anti UPE work. So there you have it, your wish is granted I wouldn’t be leaving messages for you anymore.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment  – Accepting my articles at AfC and being able to inhibit my work by disturbing my peace are not mutually exclusive as is clearly demonstrated here. In our "first" interaction, Celestina007 told me that she had A mountain of evidence [15] [16] that implied that I had been compensated to create an article for FK Abudu and said she was going to submit the evidence to functionaries. It actually beats me how an anti paid editing editor has hard evidence against a rogue editor but lets them run amok for months, putting the integrity of the collabourative project at risk.Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
• Princess of Ara, could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies? The two diffs you provided above where I mentioned that I had a mountain of evidence, were never targeted at you, but was targeted at FK Abudu. I said I had a mountain of evidence that they were trying all they could to get a biographical article on Wikipedia, it was a statement clearly targeted at them and not you, Anyone can read the diffs and confirm what I’m saying, so if I might ask, why were you being intentionally deceptive to the community? Why did you deem it fit to lie against me or did you think I wouldn't scrutinize the diffs? Lying is really bad faith editing. I wouldn’t be posting on your talk page, rather I’d let templates do the talking. Celestina007 (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a mountain of evidence to corroborate what I just stated above, an evidence I would be sharing with functionaries only & my senior colleagues followed by It’s a lot evidence I have but can’t be discussed on wiki as that would definitely constitute OUTING. It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in Outing who? This is simple deductive reasoning. Since Celestina has affirmed she won't be 100% staying off my talk page, I'll like to request a formal ban on interaction between myself and her. Thank you. Princess of Ara_(talk) 05:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Princess of Ara, rather than apologize for being intentionally deceptive to not just me, but the community as a whole, you are speaking of “deductive reasoning” meaning you just “guessed” By Outing, I was clearly referring to FK Abudu and not you. The diffs you yourself provided clearly show you weren’t telling the truth, its literally right there and anyone can read it. In any case, A formal iban is ineffective, you have asked me to stay off your page I have agreed to do so, so what’s the bone of contention here? An IBAN wouldn’t help you evade scrutiny, i can still very much template you if/when I observe you violating our TOU so like I said it doesn’t change nothing but you are welcome to try. Celestina007 (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s really a Catch-22 you’re currently in If you were referring to FK Abudu as you claim, pray tell, why was I the one in a Catch-22?

I'm requesting an interaction ban because I don't want you to template me either. Leave processes to other members of the community. It's that simple. Princess of Ara_(talk) 07:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• This is not the first time Celestina007 is accusing other editors of bad faith editing without evidence and also displaying civility issues while casting further aspersions. The most recent one is accusing Horizonlove of sockpuppettery without evidence or creating a sockpuppet investigation as can be seen here. Horizonlove archived their talk page after answering them as can be seen here. Unhappy, they reverted Horizonlove brazenly as can be seen here. While all this was going on, they threatened Horizonlove with an indef block even without being an admin I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and But I can assure you that an indefinite block is being arranged for you if you continue down this path, Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing. Liz came to their talk page and warned them about threatening other editors with a block even without yet passing an RfA as can be seen here. It's true that this editor is fighting UPE, but their method is way too wayward. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 08:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck, They fight UPE with valiance but the methods are on the aggressive side. At the risk of outing myself, my "actual" first interaction with Celestina was on my account that got blocked. I came to Wikipedia as a die hard fan of Erica Nlewedim and tried to create a page for her because I felt she was deserving of one. I jumped right in without reading the rules because I felt I couldn't be wrong. Little did I know. I edited the preexisting draft article and went to the pages of editors [17] [18] [19] [20] [21][22][23] [24] that !voted in the AfD to kindly review and publish. I didn't know about forumshopping at the time, some of whom offered constructive corrections relating to the promotional tone of the article [25][26] but I inadvertently got bitten [27] [28] by Celestina and got my account blocked. It all happened so fast. The reason I got a check user block by Drmies was because another fan of Nlewedim's gave me her login details after putting out this tweet thinking that having multiple people contribute to the page was going to help with the validity of Nlewedim's page. I created another account after getting blocked because I genuinely enjoyed contributing, any other new user may have gotten discouraged and not come back to the collaborative project.

  I've definitely come across various instances of them ABF, biting new editors, badgering editors to admit COI/UPE and being generally aggressive. See some instances here:

  1. [29][30] They were corrected by Samwalton9 to stop being aggressive.
  2. [31] - ABF
  3. [32]
  4. [33]
  5. [34] - Older users not spared
  6. [35]
  7. [36] corrected again
  8. [37]
  9. [38] - Untrue Assertion
  10. [39] - ABF
  11. [40]
  12. [41] [42]
  13. 2 Consecutive warnings

Princess of Ara_(talk) 12:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• Considering that, as a result of a report filed here by Celestina007, User:Nnadigoodluck only a week ago was stripped of all their permissions and topic banned, I'm reserving a helluva lot of judgement on their opinion. I'm surprised they're not taking a vacation from ANI actually; it might be safer if they do. As for User:Princess of Ara, well; I'm not sure, on balance, that the general thrust of C007s allegations do not have a whiff of likelihood to them. ——Serial 13:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129, why should I take a vacation from ANI? —Nnadigoodluck███ 13:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Princess of Ara, I'm afraid you kind of undermine your arguments when the first thing I click on -- the "2 consecutive warnings" link -- are for being bitey 4 years ago toward a couple of accounts that turned out to be a sock and a vandal. When you provide diffs, provide your ~3 very best ones and say something like, "I have a dozen others if you want to see." No one is going to read 13 once the first one they click on is a nothingburger. —valereee (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Noted. Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Veiled ass

Persians

-EEng

• While I understand that a previous block for sockpuppetry is grounds for additional scrutiny, I do not appreciate the still unsubstantiated veiled aspersions. Princess of Ara_(talk) 14:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

• With the diffs Princess of Ara shared, it shows that Celestina007 has been aggressive, uncivil and bitey to both new editors and old editors way back in 2017 and I'm surprised she's still exhibiting such behavior in 2021. In 2017, after Jamie Tubers reverted them on OC Ukeje article because their edit did not conform with the WP:MOS, they approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, accusing the very much older editor of not understanding the English language because they are from Nigeria and offered to teach them because they attended an Ivy League institution. They said can I advice you do a course or two in English Language before proceeding to edit articles, I may be lacking the understanding of some Wikipedia policies, yes, but to not know well enough the English Language is worse still. However if you need tips on the Language i am readily available to offer it to you. I speak Spanish and Italian, and 9 other African Languages also, So please rather than 'try to be in the good books of Jamie' put your time to things more constructive and she continued I am not afraid of you unlike most Nigerian editors, so yes, I am very bold and would continue to be bold if that upsets you, you may as well retire now, and hey, a little spelling mistake does not take away the fact I have an IQ of 132 and speak over ten languages excluding english. In the end let us work together and produce better Wikipedia articles. Thank you sir. In 2020, after M-Mustapha commented on this AfD they nominated, they accused them of operating multiple accounts without evidence. In their words Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to.. They further accused the editor of having a poor command of English language Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. I believe the real reason why all these are still going on till today is because they were given a free hand and they believe that it's okay to harass other editors. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 19:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Nnadigoodluck, All these diff digging because like Serial Number 54129 stated I busted you here for possible undisclosed paid editing and had two-third of your possible UPE works deleted? You do know nothing is going to stop me from destabilizing UPE rings right? Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Celestina007, We're talking about your own issues that has been going on since the very day you joined this project, the aspersions, the personal attacks, the civility issues, the witch hunting, the interminable assumption of bad faith and the intimidation of other editors. So, defend yourself and stop ricocheting. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Since this report was filed, between them twelve admins have made over 40 edits to this noticeboard... none of them touching this report. There are two reasons for this. One, they have glanced over the evidence provided and see either out-of-date diffs or minor issues that don't, in their view, warrant an ANI filing. Secondly, apart from the filer, the only editor who so far sees any value in the plaint is fully, as far as a non-admin can be, WP:INVOLVED. (To clarify: one who was recently topic banned and released of all permissions—discussion of which included two admins stating they would not have had a problem with the party being indefinitely blocked—as a direct result of a report filed by the editor complained about here: One who may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes... about which they have strong feelings). Both of these things degrade the original report even if they are not intended to. ——Serial 13:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. I'm not even an administrator or acting purely in an administrative capacity in this discussion. This is purely an ongoing issue that should be solved so that it doesn't happen again. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 15:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I was merely using the context of WP:INV to point out that your pretended neutrality wrt Celestina007 is just that—pretended. Cheers! ——Serial 16:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Prior to all these + the ANI report they filed here, me and Celestina007 has disagreed and agreed in the past. See here, here and here. So, if I feel they're still doing something that is not really welcoming, especially to Princess of Ara who I believe is a productive user who assumes good faith, I'm free to talk about it in the appropriate boards constructively and inferentially without picking a side. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 16:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, I wouldn’t take him too seriously, it’s a silly attempt to impede my anti UPE work. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Nnadigoodluck, please stop bludgeoning this discussion. You've said your piece. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Princess of Ara has asked me to keep off their TP good I wouldn’t post to them anymore and that settles that. This is a little bit long, but it’s worth the read to understand what is really going on here. Since they have outed themself here as being one and the same person as Kemmiiii in which they were an spa for Erica Nlewedim, I believe this is no longer non public information. Now, what happened was The Pr manager/hype man/woman of Erica Nlewedim via Twitter tasked all her fans to ensure Erica Nlewedim gets a “Wikipedia Page” as they termed it. It irks me that I can’t access the app to show the community the diverse tweets because unfortunately Twitter has been banned in Nigeria. In any case, after the tweet the user “Kemmmii” (who is one and the same person as Princess of Ara) shows up and clearly were an spa for Erica Nlewedim see here, here, here, Then they proceed to badger over a dozen editors, in-fact see their contributions as it tells the whole tale of how they were an SPA promo account for Erica Nlewedim. In their comment above they claimed to be a NEWBIE in their previous account, but that is very much improbable. Having looked through the edits of Kemmiiii (their former account) you’d notice, their very first edit shows they are very much familiar with our modus operandi, see their first edit here, where they know how to use an edit summary and articulate properly what changes they made, (red flag) but that can definitely be overlooked, but on their 5th edit it invalidates their claim they were a NEWBIE then as the 5th edit was to the TP of a sysop to request undeletion. It is highly improbable that a new editor knows their way around to the point they know to meet the sysop that deleted an article and request for undeletion which means they operated an account prior that of Kemmiiii (possible block evasion). Now fast forward to their new account, they are still attempting to push the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace. See here (trying to push the article into mainspace) & here (Requesting undeletion). There are many other diffs to substantiate that they are predominantly here to promote Erica Nlewedim. I believe this is enough to see that they a boomerang block be evoked. That a major COI between them and Erica Nlewedim exists is crystal clear and their is a possibility of covert upe also. Celestina007 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  The diff for "they have outed themself here as being the one and the same person as Kemmiiii" doesn't appear to support that claim; perhaps you pasted the wrong diff? Schazjmd (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, it’s the right diff, urgh diff digging whilst using a mobile phone is tough, but if you look for their entry that begins with “I very much agree with Nnadigoodluck” they show all the diffs that point to their former account being that of Kemmiiii. If you count via signatures it’s the 12th entry. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see; it's the diffs in this thread that establish that Kemmiiii is their previous account. The diff you posted to Seraphimblade's talk page is irrelevant. Thanks for explaining. Perhaps a topic ban on Nlewedim would be appropriate. Schazjmd (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, probably, but it was an attempt to substantiate my claims, if it got you confused, sorry about that mate, but yes, topic banning Princess of Ara from creating that very article is the first step into the right direction. Celestina007 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is salted. Are we saying Princess is shoehorning Nlewedim into other articles? Sorry if that's been made clear above, can't deal with the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, Valereee, I didn't realize Nlewedim had been salted; my topic ban suggestion isn't necessary then. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I found out because I opened it up to see how often it had been AfC'd. :) And a t-ban still might be appropriate, if Princess is wasting other editors' time by trying to get that article created, or if they're trying to insert Nlewedim into other articles.@Celestina007, can you explain (in 100 words or fewer <g>) why you think a t-ban from Nlewedim is necessary? —valereee (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, Surely I can, in their previous incarnation as Kemmiiii, they came into the collaborative project with a premise that is in alignment with what Wikipedia is NOT, precisely; using Wikipedia as a tool for promotion. Their contribution clearly indicate that. They further optimized multiple accounts to achieve that aim and eventually that got them blocked. Now with their new account they are still exhibiting the same behavior. This is them just 1 day ago doing this. Celestina007 (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Valereee for weighing in but per these here here [43][44] [45][46] I don't think they can give a balanced opinion. Also, I'm surprised that we're not addressing Celestina incivility also. Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

PoA, again you've shown me six diffs, and I've spent my limited time looking at them, and I'm not sure what you're seeking to prove. —valereee (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Celestina007, you're clawing at straws here; does being someone's fan constitute a conflict of interest? If yes, I will make a declaration without fail. I posted the tweet I made on the same very day I requested review of the draft which you rejected. You have posted the revisionist history but now let me paint a picture. On January 24th 2021, fans of Nlewedim (including myself) were trending #GoogleEricaNlewedim as can be seen in my tweet and the replies therein. Naturally, I googled Nlewedim and noticed that there was no Wikipedia link in her Google knowledge box. I did a local wikipedia search which turned up a red link as expected. I clicked on it and was directed to a similar the page as shown in the image (You may not know this because you edit on mobile). Following the links easily leads to the preexisting draft and the deletion log. Wikipedia is not rocket science if you read.

• The tweets you refer to were made by Justfrankleen which you assert by yourself here that The multiple SPA you see started from an off wiki twitter canvassing by the fans of the subject of the article to get a biographical article on the subject so you know fully well that you can't bring any tweets here since they've been deleted. A cursory look at Justfrankeen's twitter page tells you that they're another rabid and debased fan (as we in BBnaija twitter refer to ourselves) of Nlewedim and not her management as you assert here. I joined before the tweets you now refer to were made.
• An edit war and twitter war between Nlewedim's and Nengi's fans ensued based on my addition of Nlewedim's name to the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria article.(I can substantiate this with tweets) You yourself said Every year we face this same Bullshit, Alex vs CC, Mercy vs Tacha & now Nenegi vs Erica. It’s so fucking irritating.
• Mind you, Nlewedim's fanbase is her PR machine as has been documented in reliable sources [47] [48] [49] [50] Hypeman is about right though.
• I already explained above that going to all the talk pages of the people involved in the AfD was forum shopping and I know better now. Saying they proceed to badger over a dozen editors is a dishonest exaggeration; except you're saying a dozen is no longer 12 seeing as 8 is barely a dozen. What I posted on the Admins talk page was this; I noted that you deleted the page last year because she did not meet the notability criteria at the time. I have however updated the page and will appreciate a review; it's right there in the diff you provided. How can I request for undeletion of a draft that was existing before I joined the project and even edited before I went to the Admin's talk page. This defies logic.
• With my new found understanding that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, I tried to make a neutral as possible draft that was declined by you again because it was WP:TOOSOON despite the cited sources that were enough to meet WP:GNG. I personally requested for deletion under G7 but requested for an undelete yesterday because I envisaged that this conversation was still going to happen. So why not? I agree that I was an WP:SPA as Kemmiiii however, I returned to Wikipedia with the aim of being a productive user.
• For some reason (maybe a disdain for Nlewedim herself or BBNaija stars in general), you've gone around to ensure that the article and that of Nengi and Tacha never get accepted as seen in your untrue assertions here here [51][52] [53][54] knowing fully well that the community depends on your opinion and even citing that did not win BBNaija as a reason amongst other things.
• You have also failed to address the issue of your chronic intractable and unchecked incivility even in this discussion, amongst other things but hey, lets TBAN a rabid and debased BBNaija fan. Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Please be calm and civil, Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Very rich. Princess of Ara_(talk) 00:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Irrespective of any proposed T-ban, I am deeply disturbed by Celestina's actions here. It is absolutely unacceptable to make such serious accusations against another editor, based on evidence that is claimed to exist, but that was gathered off-wiki, and that Celestina claims they cannot present. While I accept that sometimes such evidence turns up, there are appropriate places to send such evidence, and making such accusations here meets the definition of casting aspersion, not to mention assuming bad faith (and worse Celestina is encouraging others to trust their "evidence" and assume bad faith about another editor). I am also deeply disturbed by comments that they have posted on other user's talk pages that have been mentioned here, where they explicitly threatened that they would ban another editor even though they lack the ability to do so. This may seem like a thin line, but there is a world of difference between if you continue to violate these rules, you could face consequences that include blocks or bans and saying If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true and Its no threat but an eventuality I’d make sure happens if you don’t refrain from COI editing.

  While I respect Celestina's desire to stop undisclosed paid editors, I believe that their actions are potentially far more disruptive than UPEs themselves, in much the same way that Joseph McCarthy's attempts at outing Soviet spies (and he did catch several real Soviet spies, remember) were much more disruptive and damaging to American democracy than anything that the Soviets could have done on their own. A project based on collaborative volunteer effort cannot allow public accusations backed by "secret" evidence, as well as threats and intimidation from self-appointed vigilantes. And I want to be explicitly clear about this, I do not care whether the people Celestina accuses are actually guilty or not. I do not want an environment where someone can hide behind such odious actions by claiming that it's ok because they were right in the end, in the same way that I do not support denial of due process for criminal defendants even if we later find that they were guilty. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35, I responded below before seeing this comment you made above, yes I accept that I have been ferocious and I have taken responsibility for that. The evidence in question was non public in that time, which was Princess of Ara previous account was “Kemmiiii”. But yes, like I said I take responsibility for my less than civil approach, moving forward it wouldn’t be confrontational. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but what you do is, you send that evidence to SPI. If SPI confirms it, let them deal with it. It is not your place to harass people who are suspected of breaking rules. But even worse, I worry that this looks as though you were threatening PoA with this info if her futute edits were not to your liking. I mean, you said If after this fair warning your edits are still worrisome, I’m afraid an indefinite block is what you are seeking for and one which I can make come true, did you mean that if she made certain edits, then you would take your knowledge of her previous account to SPI? This is the problem with being too "confrontational". Hyperion35 (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hyperion35, no, not at all, my knowledge of them being one and the same person as Kemmiiii was an information I could never have used against them as it was still non public at that time. In the end you are correct, I have learnt that moving forward I should do things like you have suggested. This has been a learning curve for me & I do appreciate your input. Celestina007 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Whilst my methods of nabbing UPE are effective, they have been some time too harsh. Some comments have been raised, yes I do take responsibility for some of my harsh methods of dealing with UPE, very effective, I did infact not only nab UPE, I took down a whole ring two months ago. I do infact see where I erred and could have indeed done better, this thread has been a learning curve, I have seen the “cracks in the wall” and I’m going to correct them, moving forward i shall continue to tackle UPE but in a less confrontational manner. Having said Princess of Ara still needs to be topic banned from creating the Erica Nlewedim article. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the actions committed in their previous account that got them check user blocked for sockpuppetry where they tried to move the Erica Nlewedim article into mainspace using multiple accounts. Celestina007 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, (and I realize this may be straying into ATA slightly), I have always been impressed by Celestina007's judgement. Celestina strikes me as a careful and punctillious editor who has caught numerous UPEs, and rarely, if ever, makes unsubstantiated charges. I have always had excellent interactions with them, and so was surprised by claims of impropriety on their part. I for one, have the highest confidence in their contributions. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

BrxBrx, indeed I’m hardly ever wrong and my body of work speaks for itself, for example see here where I single handedly took that UPE ring. This is me yet again taking down another UPE ring and those are the one I remember there are a plethora of others. My accuracy of nabbing UPE is near perfect. I know how UPE rings operate in Nigeria and I can tell UPE from a mile away, I know the stench of UPE on any given day. Even in instances where the community was skeptical about certain editors I called UPE editors in the long run I always turned out to be correct in the end, there’s an effort to incapacitate my work against UPE but isn’t going to happen. Several attempts have been made to hack my account but my strong password has always frustrated their efforts. There’s no universe in which anyone can stop me from exposing upe. Celestina007 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Just my two cents worth, but if you tried to come across as less confrontational and less like you were keeping trophies of groups you had "taken down", you would probably get less push back. All editors of good will appreciate those who are fighting UPE and sock puppets. That said, it is very hard to read all of your many messages here without coming away with a negative impression, despite all the good work you do. Take this as you will. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed t-ban for Princess of Ara from Erica Nlewedim, broadly construed

• Support as proposer. OMG. That wall of text all by itself is enough to make me think you need a t-ban from Nlewedim. Yes, being a fan can constitute a COI. Canvassing/being canvassed here, which you're admitting to, is not tolerated here. —valereee (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hey, I did not admit to being canvassed. I'm also happy to declare a COI. Princess of Ara_(talk) 21:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The excellent S'Nabou article shows that Princess of Ara can be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, it's just necessary to avoid the subject of COI. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Possible case of WP:NANE. Probably WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  Not sure that's fair, per Schazjmd's point above. I think this may be an editor who simply shouldn't edit in a certain area. —valereee (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, Hey Valereee, i say WP:NOTHERE because I believe they are being intentionally deceptive if they are claiming to be merely “die hard fans” Take a look at this conversation I had with them on their sock account & if memory serves me right, they had multiple professional photo shoots of Erica Nlewedim which I could not find anywhere on the Internet which is the M/O of a paid job. Now this would explain a whole lot. See here were Seraphimblade also states they suspect them of UPE. Celestina007 (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I get it, Celestina. I'm just saying she did create S'Nabou. That doesn't seem likely to have a paying client behind it. I'm not arguing there isn't a COI here, or that there isn't a UPE, just that we can't say flat out NOTHERE. —valereee (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, I agree. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

These are the images you’re referring to [55] [56]. Uploaded by OrjiNedd. Princess of Ara_(talk) 00:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Both of those say they were the work of EN. Both are nominated for deletion. OrjiNedd seems to have tried to create the EN article, too, and their user page says they're a creative designer/content creator. PoA, honestly, you are hurting your own case. This looks like a UPE sockfarm. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

it is very difficult to distinguish between fan editing and paid coi editing; the manner is almost identical. Neither is encyclopedic. And it is not at all unusual for paid editors to also write a few non-promotional articles. But what I think makes it clear is when one editor involved in promotional editing supports another. I think the evidence of UPE is clear enough for both Princess and Nnadigoodluck. . I think we can start on the basis of the discussion here and previous discussions by banning them both. We'd need a thorough SPI to see who else is involved, DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@DGG & Valereee, The textbook intelligent and very dangerous UPE editor is one who knows how to combine UPE and very decent work at the same time, this is the reason I’m unfazed/unimpressed with the S'Nabou article. @DGG, The fact that Nnadigoodluck is an undisclosed paid editor is crystal clear and that they are a spammer is factual, I mean there is real hard evidence of them spamming and using Wikipedia for promotionalism. The community indeffing them should be the next course of action. They ought to have been indeffed based on the last thread I opened that exposed their UPE. The possibility of both Princess of Ara and Nnadigoodluck being part of a larger UPE sock syndicate is very plausible, I would be opening an official SPI to see what pops up. @Nnadigoodluck, erroneously outed themselves in this very thread & inadvertently has given me on a platter of pure fine gold what I need to know, in order to know where to commence my search. Celestina007 (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Clearly this is a retaliatory proposal (How a "wall of text" is reason enough to TBAN someone is beyond me). I'm honestly dumbfounded that Celestina007's severe breach of WP:Civil towards PoA and other editors has been callously ignored. This is certainly not helped by the ludicrous hypocrisy exhibited by Celestina007 and i quote: Please be calm and civil, Thank you. 21:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it best if we stick to PoA's request for an interaction ban between her and Celestina007. AryaTargaryen 21:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It is in no way a retaliatory proposal as I didn’t initiate it an UN-INVOLVED did and my alleged breach of civility where from 2016, indeed, I was hot headed as a NEWBIE but that’s moot now. I have agreed to keep off their tp, An IBAN is only wasting our time seeing as I have agreed to keep off their tp as they have requested. Furthermore the proposal wasn’t made because of a “wall of text” it was made because Princess of Ara who admitted to being an spa for Erica Nlewedim and got Checkuser blocked for sock puppetry(trying to push Erica Nlewedim into mainspace under their previous account as Kemmiiii have continued to do so under their new account. A WP:FRESHSTART doesn’t invalidate the activities of the previous account. The proposal is very much plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I see multiple instances of incivility, including aspersions and outright threats, that you made on PoA's talk page in May 2021. I was going to post a diff for each comment, but it's easier to just put them all together here so that we get an idea of what you consider civil. Because I see uncivil behavior, aspersions, a battleground mentality, inappropriate threats, and an assumption of bad faith. Hyperion35 (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Let me see, I leave a UPE warning template, not against policy, I ask them how they obtain an image, not still against policy, they themselves casted aspersions against me, I refute it, they eventually report me to ANI where they made false allegations that got them blocked and to prove my point they implied that Wikipedia (Its editors) were foolish. So if there’s a particular diff you have in mind pop it up. UPE templating is not considered uncivil. I don’t threaten anyone I tell them to stop a particular kind of behavior that violates our policy and if/when continued would get them blocked. That isn’t a threat I am merely stating a fact. However, I do agree that more often than not I tend to tackle what I believe to UPE ferociously, and moving forward I’m going to be a less confrontational but still as effective. Celestina007 (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment  – I decided to stay away from this thread in order for the community decide without me bludgeoning the process but I noted that some facts may be misconstrued. I want to make some things clear and also make clarifications.

1. Going by this post on her talk page, Celestina007 clearly did not have any evidence as stated above and was only casting aspersions. She only made the deductions/accusations above following my disclosure.
2. Celestina007 has a longstanding history of incivility even after multiple warnings as can be seen in the diffs provided above and on this thread where she told me could you please read and comprehend before telling brazen lies?, (and is yet to respond to my counter question) among other accusations above. I believe this has gone unchecked and needs to be dealt with per policy. I'm actually not surprised her incivility has gone unchecked because she has done so well fighting UPE and has also self-styled herself the resident Nigeria 'expert' and gatekeeper. Sockophobia also applies here.
3. I'll also like to know what is very egregious about submitting Nlewedim's biographical article at AfC on 2 occasions; The first time as a newbie that wrote a promotional article that got rejected by Celestina007, G11'd and me blocked for sockpuppetry.
4. I understand that a checkuser block brings with it raised eyebrowsand additional scrutiny. Checkusers can however confirm that I only ever logged in to the other Nlewedim's fan account but didn't make an edit from it (This can be confirmed from the edit history from around the time I edited as Kemmiiii). I've read and understood policy and learnt that Wikipedia is not a soapbox hence I rewrote the draft with WP:NPOV in mind and even wrote a notability rationale on the Draft's talk page but it got declined again by Celestina007. I however believe Celestina007 is prejudiced against Nlewedim and BBNaija stars in general and went around poisoning the well as seen here where Drmies notes that BTW it looks like the subject is notable, and it's not a bad idea to clean it up, make it acceptable, and just go live with it, so we won't have to police two drafts and more editors will keep an eye on it to which Celestina007 responded I don’t believe the subject of the article is notable enough for a Wikipedia biographical piece because I honestly cannot see any notability criterion they meet, furthermore the sources discussing subject of the article are all centered on the subject of the article being a contestant on the Big brother Nigeria reality show of which she didn’t emerge successful, in any which way. I believe WP:ONEEVENT comes into play here.. Which is an untrue assertion. WP:DIDNOTWIN is an arguement to avoid
5. Since our interaction here where (Celestina007 misrepresented the WP:ONEEVENT guideline BTW), I have been submitting all BLPs via AfC as can be seen here.
6. Per me not being a new editor, Please see WP:NAAC where it says What about those huge, intricate, and exciting looking templates we throw on new user talk pages. The user may actually read that, yes it is possible! There are many ways a user can figure out Wikipedia before editing. and WP:BRANDNEW. Some people just have the aptitude for these things.
7. Lastly, remember to judge edits and not editors.

Kind regards. Princess of Ara_(talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I had decided to recuse myself from this argument just like you yourself said you would. You have accused me of having casting aspersions and poisoning the well, both of which you just did above by claiming I have a prejudice against Erica Nlewedim, which I clearly do not. I have accepted that I can be acerbic when dealing with possible COI and UPE as I have already stated above and have agreed to tackle with more civility moving forward.

My problem is, under your previous account, this are your entire contributions of which you were an spa(as confirmed by you) for the sole purpose of creating the Erica Nlewedim article where you optimized more than one account to try to move to mainspace. In here MarioJump83 discovered you were part of a sock farm. You eventually get blocked by Drmies for sockpuppetry, you were given a new lease and even under this account you have continued to try and push the article into mainspace. Right here a portion of Seraphimblade comment had this to say about the article the "Awards and accolades" That's some godawful puff), and stuff like that. I am not by any means guaranteeing that even At the end of the day, it really looks like UPE. That impression is used by what looks to be falsely licensed photos used in the article (there's one licensed as "own work" by an account with the subject's name when it is way too far away to be a "selfie" and appears to be a professional photo, so the licensing looks to be falsely done there and that's a hallmark of UPE).

The fact that multiple sock farm has been trying to push the article into mainspace has been made clear, the topic ban proposal is because you have continued the same behavior of trying to push that article into mainspace. Furthermore, I do not appreciate the deflection, my abrasive tone towards UPE is one I have accepted and taken responsibility for and moving forward I have agreed to tone down whilst being just as effective talking about it over and again is not proving helpful. You wanted me to keep of your page and I have promised my self and the community to do so, that is settled why have you remained hell bent on trying to recreate the Erica Nlewedim article? Do you not see how you are engaging in the same behavior that got you in trouble the first time is in alignment with conflict of interest editing? I have told you this, Valereee has told you this, do you not see how you err? In the end I have agreed to tackle UPE with less ferocity, agreed not to post on your tp anymore, why have you not agreed to refrain from that very article? Celestina007 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

1. It is not an aspersion when there are diffs [57] to substantiate the claim. You said; About her notability status, she definitely isn’t notable, asides the big brother, there isn’t any other significant thing, the beauty pageant is negligible at best. Her case is very much similar to & mirrors that of Draft:Erica Nlewedim who both have their claim to notability chiefly as having participated in the Big brother reality Tv show and their inconsequential participation in beauty pageants, and winning non notable paid for awards. Tbh, anybody experienced Nigerian editor creating articles on both subjects are engaging in undisclosed paid editing AND Basically what’s happening here is every years there’s a Big brother reality Tv show where 20 contestants participate in, last year she partook in it & became instantaneously famous, but the problem is the Big brother Nigeria is done annually & this years Big Brother is about to commence which would mean she’d soon become irrelevant as the focus would be on the new participants & not on the previous participants anymore. So it’s literally a now or never situation she’s facing. Which is another WP:ATA knowing full well that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Also, introducing the draft to conversations it was uninvolved is classic poisoning the well.
2. MarioJump is not a CheckUser, Drmies the Checkuser linked Kemmiiii to Ehizodenoria here so quit trying to muddy the water by dwelling on the previous Sockpuppetry block like you want me wallow in it and wear it like a badge of shame. It's old and you know it. I have been nothing but productive since I came back to the encyclopaedia because I learnt from my mistakes. I've been productive and even you have attested to it saying Thanks for your new article creations pertaining to the Nigerian movie industry, I’m passionate about that and it’s good seeing another editor have the same passion. Atonement is ALLOWED as Beeblebrox so aptly put it, We get so very many clueless new people every single day that misunderstand what Wikipedia is and want to use it to promote something. Some just keep spamming until they get blocked, some realize they are in the wrong place and leave, and a few of them actually try to understand what the problem is and correct it. That's good faith, not bad. That they make other edits that are compliant with policy is also a good thing...Reformed spammers and vandals are a real thing.
3. Being involved 4 times over At AfD [58] and AfC [59] is also not a good look. Don't you think this further supports the prejudice claim?
4. I have since declared a COI as suggested by Valereeee and making TWO submissions via AfC [60] [61] which is recommended by WP:COI in any case is hardly tendentious. WP:COI It says you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly which I have not disobeyed at any point.
5. Submitting via AfC is hardly trying to PUSH anything. PUSHING will be creating directly to main space which I have NOT done
6. Per your rationale for declining the draft on 30th May 2021, This source used in the article implies WP:TOOSOON and ELOY awards doesn’t meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO Can it also be implied that it is TOOSOON for Sharon Ooja, Idia Aisien, Sophie Alakija,Ini Dima-Okojie and Omowumi Dada to have biographical articles?
7. So why are you hell bent on Erica Nlewedim not getting a biographical article? Princess of Ara_(talk) 20:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• User:Valereee, I'm skipping over all this text here to say that I agree with you, that we should do this, and that we should just block the moment PoA touches anything Nlewedim related. DGG, you seem to have a better understanding than me of who is doing what likely for undeclared pay, and I urge you to act as you see fit--I appreciate it. Now, can we move on? Someone please close this? BTW nice work on [S'Nabou]]--we need more of that. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• I have accordingly blocked User:Nnadigoodluck indefinitely for sockpupettry and undeclared paid editing. I'm checking for further info about PoA, but if any other admin awants to do a similar block, that's OK with me. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• After further discussion I'm unclosing to get clearer consensus. —valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Drmies and my comments above; while PoA is not themselves yet a net-negative, their ability to neutrally edit this topic is fatally—and blatantly—flawed. ——Serial 13:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not seeing what this TBAN is trying to achieve, since PoA has agreed to disclose a WP:COI as relates to the Nlewedim article and submit the article through the AfC process (the process they've been following in all the BLPs they've created). WP:COI states that Editors with a COI... are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content.... COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead.. They should be sanctioned if they violate it. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 20:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• FWIW PoA has on their user talk indicated an intent to declare a COI, recreate the article, and resubmit. I don't see any reason to believe they won't just keep resubmitting as many times as it gets rejected. This just seems like a waste of other editors' time. —valereee (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Per Nom (see comments below). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
• Support per Nnadigoodluck. ——Serial 07:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

I now have a headache. I ended up here because I landed on a draft that was declined by Celestina007. A first glance (two sources) and very clear promotionalism (see draft and talk page) was evident. Wikipedia should not be used for advertising in the guise of a BLP. Straight out of the box I saw what appeared to be fancruft. By-the-way, didn't win, place, play, or succeed has been favorably argued at AFD when sources do not support notability. In this case the promotional aspect (including sources) are enough to hamper publication.

Anyway, I made comments and clicked "Notify submitter". That appeared to be TheSokks. I received three thanks from Princess of Ara and one included The Sokks. When I looked at "Princess of Ara" there was nothing but my contributions link to TheSokks showed a redirect to Princess of Ara with the notice landing on TheSokks. I proceeded to Princess of Ara's talk page and found "Topic ban Erica Nlewedim" with no discussion link from —valereee. I went to that editor's contributions to find a link here. From the comments above I think the well is deeper than the reflection indicates.

I have no horse in the race. Baseless accusations should not be allowed from anyone ("Comment on content, not on the contributor") but just reading a few comments and diffs above give rise to valid concerns of too involved COI (too close to ever be objective and neutral), very likely sockpupettry and possible undeclared paid editing, that should include looking at User:Nnadigoodluck.

Regardless of an editor's tone, I do not see evidence to support claims of prejudice which are serious accusations. Casting aspersions are a violation of multiple policies and guidelines. Further accusations that an editor has some ax to grind because they feel there are issues that they believe are reasons an article should not be published go beyond anything allowable. I see evidence of gaming the system (stir up enough stink and flies may congregate) and at the very least there should be a BOOMERANG somewhere. I fear to go any farther as I am getting thoughts (and chills) of possibly not being here to build an encyclopedia according to our standards to include our policies and guidelines on civility (WP:NPA) that ends up as a possible "net-negative" in disguise. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed t-ban for Celestina007 from WP:UPE, broadly construed

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No idea whose sock you are, but this one has zero chance of passing anyway. Fram (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Support as proposer. There is no excuse for violating WP:civility no matter how effective doing so may be. 2601:5C2:200:46:C55F:7074:3F2C:3538 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Incivility between Autodidact1 and The Rambling Man

• User talk:Autodidact1#MOS=Manual_of_shitty_typography
• Autodidact1 (talk · contribs)
• The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

I am an uninvolved administrator but I note that TRM has had arbcom sanctions before (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man) and as I'm unfamiliar with this territory and whether any sanctions are presently applied to them or the other involved user, I would like input from other administrators about how to proceed here -- or if another administrator would like to take the reins, I would be totally fine with that.

Both editors seem to be engaging in incivility that crosses over the line into personal attacks, and the behavior I see from TRM (one example among many in this thread) in particular is exactly the behavior mentioned in the arbcom case ("[TRM] is prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their general competence.") so it seems very likely that some action is needed here under WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I'm unsure what may need to be logged at WP:AE as a result. --Chris (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That restriction was vacated in January 2020. You can review any active restrictions against an editor at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Any violation of an Arbitration Committee-imposed restriction would normally need to be discussed at WP:AE rather than WP:ANI, but given that TRM's only active restrictions are interaction bans with people who aren't Autodidact1, you're probably in the right place after all. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe someone could give us a pointer as to what that two-monthlong bitchfest is even about? Just to provide context? —valereee (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The original cause appears to be Autodidact1's dissatisfaction with MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions. He or she is of the opinion that "1/2" is preferable to "1⁄2" and is willing to ignore the MOS to enforce that preference. Compounding the situation is Autodidact1's tendency to be sloppy in doing so, changing (for instance) "6+2⁄3" to just "2/3" and "210+2⁄3" to just "2/3". Not helping matters is TRM's letting his understandable frustration with the foregoing get the better of him. Both editors could certainly stand to be less confrontational in their attitudes. Deor (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Deor: I haven't paid attention to the squabble, but "MOS:FRAC's advice to use {{frac}} for fractions" is a somewhat inaccurate summary of our guidelines. In fact MOS:FRAC says that for science and mathematics articles {{frac}} is discouraged, and MOS:MATH agrees with that discouragement. One of Autodidact1's recent frac edits (although not one involving TRM) is Trisomy X, which could be reasonably interpreted to be a science article under this guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

As the writer of that last one, which is how this dispute got to my attention...I can't say I appreciated the edit to shrink the size of the fractions on a disability-related article (that is, one where poor accessibility to visually impaired readers is particularly ironic), nor have I generally been endeared to Autodidact1's odd, pushy style of copyediting articles that brush against the Main Page to his preferences. (I believe he drew the attention/ire of EEng recently for insisting Wikipedia:Contact us change 'via email' to 'by email', one of his particular bugbears.) I do not, to say the least, think TRM has made the worst moves of the pair here. Vaticidalprophet 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually I believe I displayed uncharacteristic restraint in that particulat interaction [62], but had I reviewed his contribution history he'd certainly have received a more severe correction. Nothing inspires me like pseudosophisticated stylistic pretension. EEng 02:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to move on, after all I have reached my limit on being called a liar there many, many times. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• It does seem very concerning that in refusing the adhere to MOS, Autodidact1 is also changing correct information to incorrect information. Autodidact1, I'm thinking you need a little more self-teaching? I'm wondering if maybe Autodidact1 needs to just stop "fixing" fractions.

Re: the incivility on both sides...ugh, TRM. Really? Your restriction was lifted less than six months ago. I get it that you're frustrated, but that discussion looks like you were just baiting him. You could have just provided the silly diff before the sixth time he asked. And AD1, instead of calling someone a lying SOB, maybe disengage and ask someone else to help you find the errors if you aren't sure how to find them yourself. For all TRM's faults, most of what he calls an error actually are. If he's reverting these kinds of edits, which are supposed to be changing only presentation rather than content, there's probably a reason. —valereee (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is there often so much heat over minor stylistic changes? I swear experienced users getting into spats over cosmetic issues is right up there with nationalistic disputes when it comes to heat generated. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Wait till you hear about cosmetic issues... by bots. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sayeth Ritchie333:

One area the hit and run editor gets involved in is the formatting ... The quality of work has increased in some areas, which makes it harder to contribute without good knowledge in the subject matter and sources. Fiddling with the formatting seems to be a suitable alternative passtime.

EEng 05:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

These stylistic changes were apparently also introducing factual errors by changing correct information to incorrect information. —valereee (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, have you noticed the series of personal attacks levelled at me, being accused multiple times of being a liar? I corrected factual errors and asked the other user multiple times to stop and they responded with personal attacks and attacks on the MOS. Having said that, this is a storm in a teacup, neither me or the other user appear to have considered this a "civility" issue, it's just someone else trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Now the other user has stopped reintroducing the errors, that's me done. And no, the restriction was not lifted six months ago, that was explicitly related to DYK. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As well as the outright errors TRM (rightfully!) complained about, the edit to trisomy X served to replace the fractions with yet another form of fraction (not sure what Autodidact1's preference is, then, aside from "not the kind the MoS requests" -- is this just trolling?) that not only is outright deprecated for all articles (contra the "mathematics articles can use another form") but causes accessibility problems on account of how tiny the text renders. Broadly speaking, I am not in undying love with the MoS, but I think it rises above "shitty typography". The only edits more frustrating than copyediting to make an article worse because-MoS are copyediting to make an article worse in contravention of the MoS. They weren't even consistent throughout the article, he left the one in History untouched... Vaticidalprophet 12:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and he introduced errors there too -- rendered 164cm/5'4" as 172cm/5'7.5". Vaticidalprophet 12:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Going to bed, but I think there might be further issues with Autodidact1's conduct regarding copyediting, in addition to these repeated cases of anti-MoS fractions introducing errors. A warning on his talk demonstrates an incident of not only edit-warring to change BC/AD to BCE/CE in contravention of MOS:ERA (pretty much one of the most uncritically great parts of the MoS because of its role in stemming this kind of warring) but making grotesque personal attacks against people and their religions when called out for it. Vaticidalprophet 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I've dropped a warning on their talk page for personal attacks. I am also of the opinion that MOS wars are largely pointless and have no opinion on the underlying matter, but repeatedly calling another user a lying son of a bitch (even if you use "SOB") is just not ok. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, there's a second and probably more important issue w/re: introducing errors in aid of "fixing" things that aren't actually broken. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I just saw those comments on his talk page and that was clearly not ok. I don't consider the matter closed or anything, I just haven't dug that deeply into the rest of it. I'm also hoping they will find a moment to comment here to address some of this before doing anything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Copy-editing as a battleground

While The Rambling Man was clearly being an ass on Autodidact1's talk page, trying (successfully) to provoke a reaction, Autodidact1 has editing problems of their own, as a skim through their contributions shows:

According to Autodidact1:

• Using "via" instead of "using" is "vulgar": "Replaced the vulgar preposition 'via [sic]' with a descriptive verb, 'using'."
• Using "...he singled off Welch" instead of "...he singled against Welch" is "vulgar": "Replaced vulgar 'off [sic]' with appropriate, 'against'.
• "as well as" are vulgar words in Fargo, North Dakota: "In two paragraphs, replaced three vulgar words, 'as well as [sic]' with the correct one."
• They are an ornithological expert, and their knowledge is vital to the accuracy of I, Tonya: "That's not a 'parakeet [sic]'. Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure." and "An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.", as well as this elaborate rationale for their edits.

Copy-editing is not a crusade against the vulgar forces of darkness, Autodidact1, it's a way to clarify communication and presentation of ideas.

(I know it's not within this noticeboard's remit, but I wish it were possible to ban Autodidact1 from constantly misusing "[sic]".) --Calton | Talk 01:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone of common sense who is not part of a conspiracy to revert my edits would agree with me -- well, ain't that a fantastic line. Vaticidalprophet 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

He certainly knows a lot about vulgarity. EEng 02:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass (good personal attack though!). I was repeatedly asking the user to show some level competence by being able to recognise their own error-strewn contributions. I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it. WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I was not being an ass

Spare me. Hell, spare all of us the act. How many times did Autodidact1 ask you an extremely simple question that you point-blank refused to answer? Five times? Six times?

I was asking the user to recognise we have a MOS and that, where possible, we should follow it

It's kind of hard to say that you're trying to teach someone something when you refuse to tell them what it is that they're supposedly doing wrong. You were trying to provoke him, and, frankly, you two deserve each other.

(good personal attack though!)

Descriptive language. Describing your behavior. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. Sure, but I couldn't care less. And if an editor who refuses to acknowledge MOS (which I told them about) and can't find their own errors, that's a lack of competence. Frankly, this, like that user's edits, is a gross waste of my time. As usual this place is full of people who think they're making a difference but who really aren't. Get to a conclusion and people can get on with their lives. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, there's no problem-in-the-ANI sense with your conduct here -- I would call it suboptimal, certainly, but I don't think it demands any sanctions. I think it's more just the general frustration many writers feel when people come around and tinker with articles for the worse, and that any good admin should be able to recognize it (and in turn that this is why so many people demand high-level content creation from admin candidates). I think Autodidact1's conduct is the important one here, and that there seems to be a sustained pattern of conduct problems stemming from copyediting. Vaticidalprophet 11:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Well only one of the two people who were dragged here was detrimentally editing Wikipedia, causing damage and disruption to our content and readers, and that individual has carried on doing it during this ANI. Meanwhile, some users feel obliged to take the chance to level personal attacks at me: instead of at the disruptive user's talk page where he personally attacked me half a dozen times, do it here instead! Anyway, as I said, unless someone wants to actually do something about the ongoing disruption to the encyclopedia, this thread is now a proper dramaboardz timesink. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

AKA Personal attack. So you think an accurate description of you is a personal attack. huh? Sounds like you could use a little self-perspective. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a personal attack. Obviously. Bye now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Now look, let's not get into it here. Everyone knows that TRM is one of the biggest ass-ets we have around here, and does a lot of good work. And speaking as one ass-et to another, TRM, you could have handled the situation better. But the only actual problem right now is that Mr. Autod is going around pissing on everything, hardly if ever improving things and frequently screwing them up. EEng 02:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. I've tussled with TRM before but he was only mildly snarky this time, with provocation. The only behavior in need of action here is Autodidact1's. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  No comment from him here yet, but... Vaticidalprophet 09:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

===proposed: Autodidact1 may not make edits against the MOS===

• Support as proposer. Since Autodidact1 seems to just be ignoring this, and since they seem to lack competence in doing so, I think we need to prohibit them from making edits against the MOS. —valereee (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Alt wording: Autodidact1 (talk · contribs) is banned from making stylistic or grammatical, or WP:ENGVAR changes to any article, broadly construed. This wording is similar to that TBAN imposed on Anthony22 (talk · contribs), to avoid haivng to judge if the edit violated MOS. They clearly have a habit of labeling styles as "vulgar" or otherwise improper, and some edits, such as Special:Diff/1017446054 at Brent Strom about MOS:FRAC, inadvertently changed factual information. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Rambling Man accused me of making errors to an article that I edited without any evidence or without a link to the supposed errors. He reverted my changes because they violated the MOS. He persisted in accusing me of making errors when I only changed the converted fractions on typographical grounds. He has now assembled a posse of editors who want to ban me entirely. I've made over 5,000 edits and only a handful have been reverted. Almost all of my edits are usage corrections or improvements to prose, such as rewriting sentences to remove clichés. Rambling Man is guilty of character assassination; he's the editor who should be sanctioned. My edits improve articles, not change facts or introduce errors. Autodidact1 (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If, at this late date, you still think your edits don't change facts or introduce errors[sic], then there may be a WP:CIR block in your very near future.[sic] I suggest you move quickly to show that you recognize where you messed up article facts.[sic] (Hint: It's explained in this thread.[sic]) EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [sic].

• The problem with "may not make edits against the MOS" is that no one on earth (or anywhere else, for that matter) has absorbed all of MOS -- it's beyond human capability, so there would need to be a warning issued for each new kind of transgression. I think Mr. Pizza's idea is better, though I fear it may be overbroad. A third formulation to consider might be Autodidact1 needs to cut out the half-baked pedantry. EEng 04:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Valid point. Maybe just a warning for disruptive editing, along with an explanation that introducing error in an attempt to "fix" what isn't broken is disruptive. At this point I think we could give an only warning, as Autodidact1 seems to be rejecting the notion that this introduced error. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time on this fail to note that in the very diff provided above, my summary was "actually changing the meaning of the sentences". If that wasn't clear enough for the user making the repeated errors to find, I call WP:CIR. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  Ironically, all those giving me a hard time...

  And what makes you think anyone missed it? What makes you think that one bit was sufficient? Also, how, exactly, is it "ironic"? Is it like rain on your wedding day? --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm bored of this thread and the pointless point-scoring here. Have fun, I'm going to improve the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to bold an oppose, but there is so much to the MOS (and frankly, some of it is unhelpful or even arguably wrong) that I'd be happier simply blocking them for CIR if they continue to make factual errors without any recognition that they are doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Introducing factual errors while making stylistic changes is harmful, blockworthy incompetence, so much so that I'm even going to pass up this opportunity to give TRM a hard time–a difficult but justified sacrifice. Levivich 07:10, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• The problem with a blanket ban on MOS edits is that it's treating a symptom: yes, it'll stop the half-baked pedantry in that particular area, but it's no the only space where Autodidact1 exercises their unsourced certainty. Take their edit-warring at I, Tonya

• 07:14, June 22, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ →‎Critical response: That's not a "parakeet [sic]". Sloppy journalism. Looks more like a conure.
• 20:46, June 23, 2021‎ Autodidact1 44,746 bytes +10‎ An obviously careless description; not a parakeet. Do your research.

Their response on my User Talk page It's a conure of some type, and if you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conure you would agree with me, assuming, of course, that you actually saw "I, Tonya", which I doubt...".

However, the very lede of Conure includes The term "conure" is used primarily in bird keeping, though it has appeared in some scientific journals. The American Ornithologists' Union uses the generic term parakeet for all species elsewhere called conure, though Joseph Forshaw, a prominent Australian ornithologist, uses conure.

So this is someone who not only practices unsourced, self-assured pedantry, it's self-assured pedantry that that's contradicted by the source that they claims supports them. That's a WP:CIR issue at work. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like Autodidact1's got a case of WP:ANIFLU. EEng 17:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bullied by Walter Görlitz

I am a new user - shocked and saddened by how I was treated during my first days with you. I have recently made some sourced edits on the page Bethel Church (Redding, California) that were reverted as the editors believed that CHANGED Movement (ex-gay ministry promoting conversion therapy) was not part of Bethel - I found sources describing it as Bethel's ministry. I decided to start a discussion on the talk page and immediately felt unwelcome and attacked. (I am not including other editors who were kind and respectfully pointed me to some guidelines and explained their points of view - I have learned something from them and I hope they have learned something from me too, regarding the sources I found).

Coming back to how I was bullied by Walter Görlitz:

1. After just a few edits Walter Görlitz accused me of being a "SPA". 2. He then started interrogating me why I am interested in the topic (which seems a bit unusual) 3. He then proceeded to interrogate me further: "why this topic, and why this particular article, and why now" 4. He then said he and the Wikipedia community are looking at me with suspicion 5. He then started accusing me of not reading the discussion, even though I have read everything before replying 6. He then said I was allegedly surprised that he assumed good faith of another editor which I never did. I said I did not, but he still insisted I somehow implied it which couldn't be further from the truth and my intentions ("While you did not state that you were surprised, you implied it"). 7. He then asked me to let him know when I leave Wikipedia ("Do not mention my name, link my account or ping me to this discussion again except to apologize for your implication that I was acting in bad faith, or to say you're leaving"). 8. He then started attacking my character and, dare I say, my cognitive abilities: "You do not bother to read anything", "I am simply baffled by your iunability to be a productive member of the Wikipedia community. Stop pushing your agenda on Wikipedia. Find a nice blog for yourself and until you learn the ropes, stop editing here. Good bye"

I am not sure if that's the standard how new users are treated - being berated and bullied, accused of not reading *anything*, being unable to be productive, and having some unspecified agenda (I asked what agenda could that possibly be - never received a reply). I am sad and hope that other new users will not experience similar behaviour from him or other editors. I am not sure if I am in the mental state to continue contributing in that atmosphere but I am thankful to all the other users who made me feel welcome and pointed me in the right direction.

Sending love and good vibes to all who need them in these difficult times, Rayknee (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry you're feeling bullied. I have no intention of bullying. I am tired of your poor approach of editing and clearly overreacted. I tried to discuss but you questioned the points and ignored the links I provided. I got tired of seeing your pings and links to my account that throw alerts on nearly every refresh of my watchlist this afternoon. Clearly, this is a learning opportunity for you not to generate alerts.

Please accept my apology. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've taken a look, and FWIW:
  • Walter Görlitz is closer than perhaps he might think to a page block from that article and it's talk page. I suppose any apology is better than no apology, but the "here once again is a list of all your faults btw I apologize" apology above is underwhelming.
  • @Rayknee:, One small issue that a new editor probably doesn't know: it actually is a valid concern that you kept pinging WG (i.e. actually linking to his user page) several times after he asked you to stop. That's one of the many social mores that you'll gradually learn as you edit here; we generally try to comply with requests not to ping people, not to post to their talk page, etc., within reason. As someone else on that talk page did, you can type "@Walter Görlitz:" in plain text if you want to make it clear who you're talking to, but linking it like so: {{re|Walter Görlitz}} sends him a notification that he's said he doesn't want. Rest assured that the number of people making this demand is relatively small, so it isn't that difficult to keep track. Other than that, I don't think you've really done anything to deserve the treatment you received, and from Cullen's note on the talk page, I think it's clear that it will stop one way or the other.
• --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Or the recipient can mute the sender without making a big hissy-stink about it. Especially where the sender is new and probably doesn't understand, this might be the better approach. EEng 02:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  @EEng: Would you mind pointing me to that and how it works? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Never mind. I see in now on the notifications at Special:Preferences. Thanks. I had probably seen that before, but had completely forgotten about that. Somewhat moot since the editor has forgotten their password and had to create a new account, but has not pinged me since filing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes, I have given Walter Görlitz a very firm warning and I will give them a long block if they ever harass a newbie like this again. The misconduct was quite egregious, in my assessment. I do not relish this type of conflict with a highly experienced long term editor like Walter Görlitz. On the other hand, I will not shy away from it. Perhaps Walter thought that the article was low profile enough that they could get away with it. Well, Redding, California is a city I love and have visited many times, and I pay attention to articles pertaining to Redding that are subject to disruption. It is deeply disappointing to see the disruption coming from such an experienced editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Again, I recognize that I was very harsh on the new editor. The editor's behaviour contributed to my poor behaviour, but still, I should have not reacted in the way I did. I apologize for any actions on my part t hat may have been perceived as bullying. I did not intend to bully. I find bullying unacceptable and so I am truly sorry if I crossed that line. I was short on time and was trying to be firm, but not a bully. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      • No, Walter Görlitz, there was nothing whatsover in that new editor's contributions that justified what you said to them. I will not let you get away with blaming your misconduct on the newbie. That plane will not fly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I respectfuly disagree. The editor has not responded to direct questions. The editor continued to ping me. That behaviour was frustrating. I should not have let my frustration get the better of me, and I have apologized. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
          • And to be clear, I am not claiming my actions were justifiable and I am not looking to justify them, only trying to explain the trigger. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Honestly, an editor with your extensive and colorful history of blocks for all manner of offenses + comments that egregious shouldn't be tossing out explanations OR justifications. Abject, unconditional apologies shorn of any vestige of "I wuz provoked," combined with humble acceptance of any punishment meted out, is about right. Ravenswing 22:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't "noping|Walter Görlitz" serve the purpose of naming but not notifying? -- Otr500 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Naming and linking would happen if {{No ping}} were used, and clearly, no notification, but I don't think it is necessary, since I had been named and linked multiple times on the talk page at that point. Simply replying would have been enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I was asking as an alternative to the two options above not your case in particular. Providing the "Naming and linking" seems better than @someone or muting. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. I believe that linking would still post alert. {{No ping}} would still create a link, but no alert. Simply responding (without even the need to mention the other editor) is the usual course of action unless you expect the other editor to respond. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Article section ban?

Thelonggoneblues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has had issues maintaining neutrality in their handling of contentious material on Britney Spears (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). The subject's conservatorship is a high-profile enduring event, and I've had concerns about whether the user's personal bias inhibits them from selecting appropriate material to include.

In this edit, Thelonggoneblues summarized their changes as balancing a bias between TMZ tipped sources vs non-corporate media tipped sources without adding any new citations on top of the (reliable) sources already cited. Here, they introduced undue content (and included statements that fail the BLP policy) per a New York Times article. In this discussion, the user said they support the notability of highlighting a grassroots movement that advocates for disability rights. No one is doing that. We're all supposed to document what is in reliable sources in a way that adheres to guidelines.

I was wondering whether there is a way to keep the user from editing the specific section where the conservatorship is discussed since their contributions in other sections seem to be constructive. If not, I would love advice on how to navigate this situation. Thank you! KyleJoan^talk 04:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have never heard of a section ban. I know, however, that there are site bans, section bans and page bans. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure there isn't any policy that allows section bans. The logistics would be pretty difficult; the software doesn't set in stone sections, as they can be added, deleted or changed in a single edit, so defining it would be difficult. Better just to page ban if it comes down to it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input. While I think a page ban would be a tad harsh, some of the user's statements suggest that their understanding of policies may be off. In the archived discussion linked above, they said: It was later identified by the Wikipedia as an malpractice evaluation, so this is not per Original research at all. It insinuated that anything that has been included at some point in time should be free from scrutiny. The subject's conservatorship is too contentious of a topic to be managed in this manner. KyleJoan^talk 10:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Speaking strictly about community-imposed editing restrictions in general: editors can be banned from editing about a topic, which can cover related sections in articles while still permitting edits to the rest of the article. isaacl (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably a topic ban for editing "Britney Spears conservatorship" would work? Not sure why @Thelonggoneblues is ignoring this, they've edited since. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

—valereee (talk), I spoke to KyleJoan on their talk page, I'm not ignoring the topic. I assumed I was not welcome to discuss it here, as I was unsure whether I could defend myself, or let other editors decide on their own. I've agreed that any statements that come across biased can be corrected, removed, and I won't add or amend it. I am following that guidelines as best as I can. I've made many edits since then, and I believe only one was removed. I hoped to contribute more to the new article FreeBritney on its own, regarding some statements Jamie's lawyer had made in contrast to what Britney has said in court; whether one is telling the truth and one isn't is none of my business. Obviously it is a contentious case. I will try to contribute information that shows both sides of the issue, if I can. I definitely crossed the line initially a while ago, with some phrasing and assumptions/misreading, but I am past that. So if I'm making a case to defend myself, I will say that I should not be banned from the topic, but I am willing to accept it if I am, if anyone feels it keeps continuing. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't delight in saying this, but I do believe a topic ban would be appropriate. Thelonggoneblues's assertion that only one [edit] was removed is false, and one edit does not mean one statement (e.g., [63]). In addition, it's concerning that they said they would try to contribute information that shows both sides of the issue, as that would also be inappropriate if reliable sources happen to assign more weight to one side's perspective in the future. I'm also not sure that the user is past making assumptions and misreading because they included this unsourced bold claim only yesterday. KyleJoan^talk 04:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, User talk:KyleJoan, this is not a bold claim. The subject in question's sister spoke in her testimony that her family "did nothing" while she endured "abuse" equivalent to "sex trafficking", and I did add a source but it was rejected (which I did not see) as per 'unreliable source claims' (and it was not TMZ, which I supported as being discarded, regardless of their information being pro-conservatorship or not), it was rather a UK media source. I added Huffington Post, and I will continue to add more sources. Whether others dispute this is up to them, feel free to remove the information I have added if you feel it is not good enough. It is also public knowledge that Jamie Lynn has garnered controversy and dismissed the situation for this for over two years, I was waiting until a statement by the public figure allegedly mistreated to have a legitimate party to back it up, because previously it was all dismissed as rumours by a grassroots movement to harass Jamie Lynn.--Thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

'that would also be inappropriate if reliable sources happen to assign more weight to one side's perspective in the future': This is not what I meant. Rather than create a confusing narrative, I meant that one perspective might have been displayed because the other party (Britney Spears) was either silenced, or misguided (by an inference). It is clear certain information is vital to discuss, such as: we were told in court documents Samuel Ingham said Britney had the authority to file for termination, but she said in the court hearing she was not previously informed of this. It is not up for me to decide whether Mr. Ingham lied, I would simply state Spears is contradicting that information/claim in court previously given by Ingham. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Lastly, that statement [64]) you point out was prior to our discussion regarding all, or at least, much of this (I believe you came to my Talk Page as soon as that was contributed?). I did mean the Jamie Lynn Spears edit was the one edit, but actually another editor re-added it, not me, after it was removed (you can check that), and I simply replied back. If you choose to remove it again, by all means you have my support. I support whatever decision is made by multiple editors. If any others want to give their perspective, that's fine and welcome.--Thelonggoneblues (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It is also public knowledge that Jamie Lynn has garnered controversy... It's not. No reliable source has said this.

...I would simply state Spears is contradicting that information/claim in court previously given by Ingham. That would be improper synthesis. No reliable source has said this.

Since our first discussion about this topic in September 2020, it is clear that Thelonggoneblues has not learned much about how to document this topic appropriately. Their obvious personal bias aside, the user has not exercised the discretion necessary, as they have repeatedly failed to differentiate information in reliable sources from their own conclusions based on information in reliable sources. Please topic ban them. KyleJoan^talk 19:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That is false, User talk:KyleJoan. 'SYNTH cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources.' My statement above was a hypothetic scenario of information given to the public I've found, not mentioned on the Wikipedia. My point is, a source saying those two things does not mean I'm granting a new conclusion. It is simply saying, two people live on Planet XYZ, and this person said the sky was grey and this person said the sky was blue on Planet XYZ, therefore disputing one another. This also falls under SYNTH is not a summary, SYNTH is not a rigid rule and SYNTH is not a catch-all. Thanks. I'd support the ban, but it is probably pointless as I will not be contributing to new material anyway, in the future most likely. But I respect your amendments made and the effort you've made on the page. If I contribute more, I will go to your Talk Page and ask if you can add information if I ever find something worth contributing to. Have a good day. --Thelonggoneblues (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Point of order: if a topic ban is imposed, you will not be allowed to discuss the subject anywhere on Wikipedia. That includes asking other people to edit the page on your behalf. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

User:RandomCanadian and Peter Daszak

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

---

• RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peter Daszak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I'd like to bring to the admin's atention the behaviour of RandomCanadian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the article Peter Daszak.

For a quick summary, Peter Dazsak is the only US member of the WHO's investigation team into the origins of COVID-19. There's an extremely well-sourced link between Daszak and the Wuhan lab [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76] (I can provide a plethora of more sources like this, but I think you get the picture)

While I applaud RandomCanadian's effort into fighting misinformation, he reverted my WP:GOODFAITH addition including these aspects into Peter Daszak's article. When asked why, he reverted my addition to his talk page. When I tried reinstating my content, he reverted me again, and further reverted my second addition to his talk page without adressing my remarks. He cites WP:BLP [77]. I've been a Wikipedia editor for 15 years, I know what WP:BLP entails. All my additions were properly sourced, none were contentious (never accusing him of anything in Wikipedia's voice) and quotes were properly attributed. In any case, most of the content I added stemmed from Dazsak's The Lancet letter which didn't disclose his association with the Wuhan lab. This was noted in extensive WP:RS as indicated above and as sourced in my edit, and led The Lancet to issue an addendum asking him to disclose this. Some of this content was already in the article but was missing a lot of recent coverage (and some not so recent). Daszcak right now is almost EXCLUSIVELY known for this potential conflict of interest in WP:RS, a fact that is missing in his article.

In my opinion RandomCanadian is showing signs of WP:OWN, with a grave potential of WP:BITE, in a battleground-like approach in what would otherwise be a noble intention of fighting misinformation. I don't bring this as an edit warring issue because I see this behaviour towards other editors, and similar content in other articles for example this weird wording without atribution that was deleted but reverted in an unpolite form by him, this unpolite behaviour is explicit in his User page, where he says "To those intent on complaining about how Wikipedia isn't presenting your favourite conspiracy theory in a favourable light: Fuck off." At the center of this issue, it seems RandomCanadian considers the so-called lab-leak theory as a conspiracy theory, just as Peter Daszak, contradicting what the WHO and extensive WP:RS say, that it is at least possible (although unlikely). In this fashion, he has reverted edits in the talk page suggesting these changes [78], this edit, while not properly sourced, brings the same arguments covered in most WP:RS now, and reverted and accused newbie editors of sockpuppets without any proof [79] then unilaterally "decided" that "the controversy and misinformation about the lab leak is UNDUE and off-topic" in the Peter Daszak article [80], linking to a weird essay which could be misunderstood as policy, an essay which accuses anyone signaling these topics as meatpuppets.

I'm compltely uninvolved in COVID related articles, barely editing the Sputnik V article a year ago and maybe other minor edits. I'm certain well sourced assertions and properly attributed criticism is not and has never been WP:BLP. The bulk of this criticism has been discussed in the Talk Page (The entire talk page is about this issue, by multiple editors), despite the multiple reverts of WP:GOODFAITH additions by RandomCanadian. I have noted this behaviour is not exclusive to COVID articles. His misuse of the ROLLBACK tool is constant, with WP:ROLLBACKUSE saying Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool.. One has to be aware of good faith edits, not reverting when additions could be worked on per H:RV (Consider very carefully before reverting, as it rejects the contributions of another editor. Consider what you object to, and what the editor was attempting. Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reverting it? Can you revert only part of the edit, or do you need to revert the whole thing?) and the essay WP:ONLYREVERT

Thanks for you time and I apologize for potential grammar mistakes, English is not my native language. Loganmac (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems like you made a bold edit and were reverted with an explanation. You have since created a talk page discussion, though no one has responded. Things seem to be proceeding per WP:BRD. No one owes you a detailed explanation of their reasoning, and everyone has the right to remove posts on their own talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said this is less about the edit war and more about the general behaviour showcased which has potential ramifications for several users. My edit wasn't as WP:BOLD as it seems, I was already aware of the contents of the Talk Page, which like I said almost all mention what I added Loganmac (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the strength of the sources, reverting on BLP grounds is not correct. RandomCanadian tends to exhibit a bit of ownership on content relating to the lab leak theory, and should probably engage more in consensus building rather than imposition. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think a WP:Consensus required discretionary sanction would be appropriate for the Daszak article, as he is not only embroiled in the lab leak saga (WP:ARBCOVID) but is also a BLP.

Regarding the behavioral concerns, here is the timeline of events here, because I think it is illustrative:

1. 2:36–2:43: Loganmac introduces the content
2. 2:47: RandomCanadian reverts
3. 3:10: Loganmac leaves a message on RandomCanadian's talk page, asking them to not revert good faith edits or potentially be blocked, and suggesting WP:ONLYREVERT is required behavior
4. 3:15 RandomCanadian removes the talk page message, asking RandomCanadian to read a few P&Gs and discuss on the article talk page
5. 3:16: Loganmac reverts Peter Daszak to restore their content
6. 3:17: RandomCanadian reverts
7. 3:30: Loganmac leaves another message on RC's talk page
8. 3:46: RandomCanadian removes the talk page message, informing Loganmac that it's acceptable to remove comments from one's own talk page and again asking Loganmac to discuss at the article talk page
9. 4:51: Loganmac begins a talk page disussion at Talk:Peter Daszak
10. 5:31: Loganmac begins this ANI discussion, without waiting for RandomCanadian to contribute to the talk page message

RandomCanadian reverted Loganmac's edit with an explanation, and the next step should have been to begin a discussion on the article talk page, not re-revert to insert the contested content (and only after being reverted a second time, begin a talk page section). This whole issue could have been avoided if Loganmac had gone from step 4 to step 9, and waited for RC's input at the article talk page section. The immediate threat that RC might be blocked for reverting (with apparent misunderstandings of WP:ONLYREVERT) and the opening of this ANI discussion without waiting for RC to discuss on the talk page appears quite WP:BATTLEGROUNDy to me. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I agree on a consensus required DS for this BLP who is much-in-the-news being connected to a conspiracy theory. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's not quite an accurate description. There has been far too much conflation of this so called conspiracy theory with other, more grounded reporting from RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that RC's revert (which I agree with in principle, apart from not using WP:CIVIL language in the edit notes) appears to have been more about using non-neutral language to describe what was described in some otherwise good sources (along with a few non-neutral sources that I don't feel fit WP:BLPSTYLE, even with attribution, including a National Review opinion piece titled "China Apologist Peter Daszak Has Some Explaining to Do"), and possible WP:COATRACK additions which were purely about the origin investigations rather than Daszak's involvement. I think the revert matches policy of WP:BRD and WP:BLPBALANCE (The idea expressed in meta:Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.. Final policy point, I'm a bit surprised Loganmac cited WP:ROLLBACKUSE, as it explicitly states The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. RC added comments to his rollbacks (and I've found him to be consistent in doing so), so I'm uncertain what to make of this apparent misuse of policy by the submitter.

On the content dispute, I was pinged, and subsequently [ made suggestions] for how to improve the edits for NPOV and BLP, eventually adding these edits once there were talk comments exhibiting some loose consensus. Submitter replied once to my initial suggestions, but not yet to my response (there was also no mention made of this ANI request on the talk page, which I have since added). I suspect the content dispute can be resolved easily (and most of the comments on the talk page and edits to the article have been productive since), but I have not found Loganmac to be as engaged in building consensus or justifying edits from WP:PAG concerns as I'd like. They appear to be insistent their proposed edits were flawless and anyone who disagrees for whatever reason is "whitewashing" the article, which I feel is much more concerning behavior than the original complaint that an R in a WP:BRD is somehow unacceptable. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a basic content dispute that has been brought to ANI in lieu of actually waiting for discussion on the talk page to develop. If anyone here is WP:BATTLEGROUNDing or edit warring, I would argue that it is Loganmac. RandomCanadian should have been more civil, and criticism is fair for that. But I don't believe he's actually broken any WP:PAGs here. Loganmac, on the other hand, has repeatedly controverted the spirit of WP:BRD and brought a content dispute to ANI. Could be a WP:BOOMERANG situation. But the editor also seems inexperienced, so perhaps a simple warning is all that's necessary here.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Not so inexperienced. I was thinking the name seemed familiar and finally looked to see why: it's because they were sanctioned in the 2014–15 GamerGate arbitration case for battleground conduct: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Loganmac. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah... I find their statement at the time to be interesting. Both for the similarities ('reverting good faith edits') and for what appears to be different (the perspective around neutral tone for topic on which there is criticism). Bakkster Man (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I don't know who it is exactly who debunked this here, but the dubious claims about rollback abuse are not unprecedented - see [81] (from a wee bit ago). As I said, I'm feeling suspicious, and yes, harassed, but there's nothing I can prove at this point so I'll just bear this out, hoping it eventually stops: whether that's likelier to come first because it stops being in the news cycle when COVID becomes irrelevant, or because of enforcement actions against tendentious editors here, I don't know. Anyway, I'm fed up with this and I probably should take a Wikibreak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That diff @RandomCanadian: left is one of my contributions, but I wasn't notified that my name was being brought up here at AN/I, in a vague sense that I'm somehow up to no good. That's not cool, RC. You owe me either evidence of actual wrongdoing, or an apology. Otherwise, it's casting aspersions. Geogene (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is at the AE thread, where I've given a clear account of your BATTLEGROUND attitude (which also includes casting of aspersions), behaviour which extends even beyond the COVID area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have filed an AR/E request regarding a potential violation of Loganmac's gender controversy topic ban above. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Loganmac. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noting here that I have gone ahead and imposed a consensus required restriction at Peter Daszak as a COVID-19 discretionary sanction. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• After looking at page Peter Daszak and sources, I should say that the revert by Random Canadian [82] was fully justified. However bringing this complaint by Loganmac to ANI was not. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A COI about a COI

Firefangledfeathers, since this noticeboard is for editor conduct issues and since you are an editor with POV on the subject of Loganmac edits [83], it would be better for you to leave this to an WP:UNINVOLVED admin. Thank you. CutePeach (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, there is nothing wrong with Firefangledfeathers or anyone else commenting here. It might be different if FFF was an admin, and if they were to take administrative action in a dispute with which they were involved, but for better or worse, there is no prohibition on making a comment in response to an editor with whom you have previously disagreed. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Girth Summit. I didn't mean to imply that Firefangledfeathers can't comment here and I apologise to them if they took it that way. I was retorting to their comment that the OP is not owed an explanation for a two time revert on a WP:DUE submission which met WP:BURDEN. I don’t agree with everything in OP's edit, but I wouldn’t have reverted them without explaining it, while citing WP:ONUS. There is a very close parallel to this case [84], which RandomCanadian already started cropping [85]. Note that RandomCanadian below accuses OP of harassment for reaching out on their talk page.. CutePeach (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach, I think most of what you've said here is wrong.

• I don't have any COI here, and you shouldn't be baseless accusing me of having one
• the "POV" diff you posted was related to a dispute between two completely different editors
• RandomCanadian did explain their reverts of the article

I don't want to bog this section down with more conduct dispute unrelated to RC, so I ask you to start a user talk page discussion, post a new thread here, or strike your comments about me and drop it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Only revert is an essay. WP:ONUS and more importantly WP:BLP are policy. Your edits have been reverted, and the reason why I reverted your posts on my talk page is because its the wrong venue to discuss article content. Now please, since you absolutely overreacted to this and went straight to the dramaboard, I'm asking both of you (CP and the OP) not come back to my talk page. I have smarter things to do than deal with PROFRINGE harassement and disruption (which involves mostly other editors). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• Isn't is it better to have a COI about a COI than to be coy about a COI?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  Note also CP's canvassing (via ping and talk page messages), notably on Talk:Peter Daszak. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that together with a well informed villager from Sumatra, Indonesia [86] [87], RandomCanadian shares credit for bringing COVID-19 under Discretionary Sanctions [88], so this noticeboard may not be the right venue for further complaints of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Note also that the editors I pinged on Talk:Peter Daszak have widely varying POVs and have edited the article recently. The only two outside editors I pinged were Forich and Bakkster Man who are recognized for improving Wikipedia’s neutrality in this contentious topic area. CutePeach (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@CutePeach, apologies, but this could be read as some sort of accusation that something nefarious is going on here: Note that together with a well informed villager from Sumatra, Indonesia, RandomCanadian shares credit for bringing COVID-19 under Discretionary Sanctions. Can you clarify? —valereee (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Since this appears to be now moving towards a content dispute (and appears to be resolving on its own), could we perhaps consider closing this? BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 18:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have no concerns with RandomCanadian's behavior, but I would like to continue the discussion above this subsection. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    • You have no concerns with RandomCanadian calling me PROFRINGE and accusing me of harassing him? Accusing people left and right of suckpuppets? Of his clear as daylight misuse of the revert/rollback tool reverting completely good faith and sourced additions? And that he called the venue you're writing on a "dramaboard"? This is the behaviour Wikipedia upholds? Loganmac (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

      Anyone who pays attention to this place thinks it is a "dramaboard". Doesn't mean it isn't useful, but it generates a lot of drama, or is at least a place where a lot of drama collects. SamStrongTalks (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

      • Dramaboard? Is that a redirect yet? :) HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

        Yes it is :D — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

      • (edit conflict) I'm not sure RC was actually referring to you, given they said "(which involves mostly other editors)", but I might feel harassed too after multiple talk page messages after being asked to discuss at the article talk, and then being dragged right to ANI. I don't see evidence of RC "accusing people left and right of [being] sockpuppets"—they did refer to Keepingitabuck as a "likely sock", but given the user's first edit was to show up and apparently continue some other conversation, that seems pretty obvious, and the user has since been NOTHERE blocked. Regarding rollback, please read the policy more closely and note the caveat The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. Regarding "dramaboard", that is an extremely common name for ANI, to the point that WP:Dramaboard directs here. So in sum, no, I am not concerned, and the rollback and "dramaboard" complaints makes it appear that you are now attempting to fling spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I was also referring to linking an essay that accuses editors of being meatpuppets. So now leaving "multiple" (aka two messages) on Talk pages can be harasssment, okay then. I see the utility of this board and what it is for now. Loganmac (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Loganmac, everyone calls ANI and other behavioral noticeboards "dramaboards." As in, "I strongly advise editors to avoid the dramaboards unless involuntarily dragged there by someone else." —valereee (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
        • "Dramaboard" is rather gentle (@HighInBC: Yes, it is a redirect -I think there's both a normal case and an all caps version of it, too). There's also WP:CESSPIT, and a fair few others listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 February 25 (blame Softlavender). As for "harassment", yes, when politely asked to take it to the proper venue, which was the article talk page, repeating a very similar post on my talk page and then going right here (while most editors usually avoid ANI as much as possible) is suspicious. More on that later. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
        • First, @CutePeach: you're walking a very fine line after the latest incident at Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 - I also find it bizarre that you immediately jumped here to pile-on, despite having no previous involvement in the article in question.
        • Re. "suspicious" - I'm not one to parrot conspiracies (doing all my best to prevent them - while we're speaking of that, YES, even the mundane "accidental lab-leak", by the way it is being treated in the media, is described by some sources as a conspiracy - see Gorski, Science-Based Medicine: [speaking of the "respectable" variant] "Unfortunately, now the lab leak hypothesis has become, in essence, a conspiracy theory. It is weaponized uncertainty designed to frighten people for political purposes."). At least not usually, but this edit is hard to explain, given that none of these users seem to have any kind of significant on-wiki interaction together (Toolforge lists only a few pages. Both editors )Publius, Logan) added substantial sections about the controversy... What is the "suggestion" being referred to? If Loganmac is only referring to the existing talk page discussion (which he should have been aware of after I pointed him to discuss the subject on the talk page), Talk:Peter_Daszak#A_new_addition:_Controversies contains no "suggestions" from Publius. So I must ask: is there something going on behind the scenes here? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers. No flagrant violation of WP:Ownership, in my opinion. BLP does require editors to go conservative, that is, tone down accusations as much as possible, so perhaps the possible tendentious (POV being a Dazsak defender) editing of RC with his edits and reverts is just him exerting WP:BLP. Forich (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

My comment on Publius' talk page was referring to his suggestion here [89]. I don't know what you're getting at. Loganmac (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

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

• Comment for future reference, in case other admins might not be aware, RandomCanadian has repeatedly been involved in restricting discussions relative to lab-leak scenarios to the point that his persistence is unclear how much produces wp:NPOV results in the articles involved. 205.175.106.86 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Likely UPE on Forest Trail

A new SPA editor, Rūta Rulle, has recently created this article: Forest Trail. A quick search of their name suggests that they are likely employed by an associated organisation. I have placed a COI query on the user's talk page, but there has been no disclosure or other response. Granted, it has only been a few days, but they have meanwhile been active on the site so should have seen the message.

IMHO, the article shouldn't exist in the first place, as it's quite promotional in nature, and probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead. It's also only supported by references to the organisation's own website, baltictrails.eu. I've tagged the article accordingly, but to little effect.

I don't want to hound the editor, and I don't necessarily want to take the article to AfD, but neither do I think things should be just left like that; at least the UPE question needs resolving. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I have no opinion on the UPE issue; that is outside my expertise. However, I do question whether Forest Trail has the notability to support an article independent of E11 European long distance path, the last paragraph of whose lede reads "This article presents an encyclopedic overview of the trail. Detailed information about the routing is found in WikiVoyage. Links to detailed information about the townships along E11 are found in a special group of references at the bottom of this article." Narky Blert (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

That article is a brochure for the trail. It is promotional, surgery is about to happen. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 07:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Heh, surgery indeed. Roughly the equivalent of amputating the body and leaving just a foot. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

probably better suited to Wikivoyage instead Embassy note before people start talking about transwikis at the AfD: Wikivoyage does not accept articles for individual tourist destinations. (This might be in scope as an itinerary, but as currently formatted it's as useless there as here.) Vaticidalprophet 08:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, noted well; didn't realise that. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• I redirected it to E11 European long distance path#E11 in Lithuania (747 km) (the first Baltic in the E11 country). Besides being unclear whether the common terminlogy in Baltic countries forms a cohesive topic (as opposed to individual country segments), the created article simple doesn't expand on the existing E11 article whose Baltics sections are much longer.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
• @Roxy the dog and Eostrix: "Forest trail" is such a generic term, and, along with the dubious origin and the at best very tenuous notability, I'd suggest just getting rid of it, even as a redirect. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think notability is tenuous as this is a major trail, more a question of merges/redirects and promotional editing. You do have a point on "Forest Trail" vs. "forest trail". Might be worthwhile having a DAB or redirecting elsewhere (e.g. to Trail).--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 04:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I would agree that a redirect is pointless. Anyway, I'm going walkies now, along my forest trail. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Funnily enough, the thing about this article that first caught my attention was that I thought 'Forest Trail' was an awfully generic-sounding term, and I wanted to see which of the countless forest trails in the world had claimed ownership of that article name. I agree, FWIW, that having 'forest trail' redirect to this E11 route may not be sensible. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Note, I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rūta Rulle.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 08:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia so I noticed the whole discussion only yesterday and now I have time to answer (we had a long national holiday last week, if that changes anything). So yes, we wanted to create a whole new page about E11 in the Baltic states (Baltic Forest Hiking Route). The name "Forest Trail" is how we call the route in the Baltic states, so we used it at the beginning. However, I agree that it could be misleading, the name "Baltic Forest Hiking Route" would be better. And yes, I work for an associated organization which is involved in several projects creating the long distance hiking routes in the Baltic states. That's why I tried to create this article. However, we didn't think about it as promoting the hiking trail, it was only meant for informational purposes for other hikers. Also, we are not the only organization involved in these projects, as you can see here: https://baltictrails.eu/en/forest/aboutus. But, of course, I understand that there are certain rules about what can and cannot be published, so if you think think this article is inappropriate and against the rules, we will not try to create it. Regarding the account of Anna-Sara Reinisch - she is an intern from Sweden in our organization. She is currently working with different apps and portals where to put the information about the Baltic Forest Hiking Route. Yesterday she saw that there is a conflict of interests here on Wiki, that's why she created an account for herself - we thought that from another account we could create the article. As I mentioned before, if the whole idea about this article is against the rules, we will stop with trying to create one. Sincerely, Rūta Rulle (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandalism from Albania – possible rangeblock?

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

---

• Jun 2021 – 46.99.103.237 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jun 2021 – ‎46.99.97.133 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jun 2021 – ‎46.99.100.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jun 2021 – 46.99.111.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jun 2021 – ‎46.99.111.214 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jun 2021 – 46.99.121.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Jun 2021 – ‎46.99.108.40 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• May 2021 – ‎46.99.114.247 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Someone from Albania has been using multiple IPs to change to wrong dates in music articles. The most recent seven IPs might be stopped by a rangeblock.

The disruption has been going on for a long time. In 2019, Special:Contributions/46.99.114.179, Special:Contributions/46.99.98.209, Special:Contributions/46.99.91.33 and Special:Contributions/46.99.116.157 were active, for example. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• I blocked Special:Contributions/46.99.96.0/19 (which covers all IPs above except for the inactive 46.99.91.33) for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Fantastic! We can close this thread. Binksternet (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

New block evasion! Now it's IP Special:Contributions/46.99.72.61. Previous activity on the /21 occurred earlier this month with Special:Contributions/46.99.72.136 and Special:Contributions/46.99.73.243. Looks like another rangeblock could help. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The assigned CIDR block (and the range that would cover everything mentioned here) is 46.99.64.0/18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). --Blablubbs|talk 15:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I blocked Special:Contributions/46.99.64.0/18 for three months. Thanks for monitoring this nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive edits on Nubia (character) article by Benicio2020

Over a period of the last 3-4 weeks, Benicio2020 and I have been involved in a conflict that is starting to know no end. Beginning on 31 May 2021, I have made 14 edits to the Nubia (character) article, most or all in the Nubia (character)#Long-term publication absence which is the particular area where Benicio2020 and I have have been having a conflict.

Benicio2020’s first edit on 19:38, 31 May 2021 was a simple revert, that deleted all of multiple interconnected points, in which he/she 1) claimed that it was all original research 2) neglected to contribute any discussion beforehand 3) did not attempt at salvaging anything or 4) did not attempt to add any references (which were already in the article or related articles that were wikilinked-to) that were relevant.

After a simple un-reversion by me, my very next edit on 03:55, 3 June 2021 showed improvements on my part with the addition of 3 references for a medium-sized paragraph with less than 100 words. This was followed up by Benicio2020 the very same day (3 June) in a series of 6 edits over a period of 4 minutes, beginning at 13:57 going to 14:01. Some of these edits included what I would call rather petty quibbles over language choice, including an objection to my using the word “full” in a quote “a full twenty years” in reference to a publication gap for the subject’s publishing history (actually, 19 years and 11 months), although I later did make this more technically correct by further qualifying the statement. It was also in this series of 6 edits in one edit on 13:59, 3 June 2021, when Benicio2020 1) started a series of contentions of his/hers over a particular item of material by calling into question the reliability of the cited source for that material and 2) deleted additional material without any explanation whatsoever.

In the next edit I made, on 18:05 4 June 2021, I changed the source from the one Benicio2020 objected to, to the primary source which, for this intent and purpose, was the best possible source. Benicio’s next edit on 20:15, 4 June 2021 was 1) a simple reversion 2) with the rationale that I was introducing opinions into the article and sourcing them to the new (primary) source, taking contention with the exact same material 3) in which he/she continued to delete accompanying material without any rationale, whatsoever.

Since that time, Benicio has undone that work a total of 5 more times (including 3 simple reversions) without once ever having demonstrated at all that he/she has done any fact-checking on the particular item of contention, despite on 22:06, 4 June 2021 on the article’s talk page, my calling to his/her attention on 22:06, among other things “Not even an hour-and-a-half went by between my making that edit and you 1) deleting some material for no stated reason, whatsoever, and 2) making a deletion without any demonstration of consulting a source to determine its relevancy” (something that he/she has continually repeated to do). I reminded him/her again on the article’s talk page on 19 June 2021 that an editor must fact-check, linking to Wikipedia’s fact-checking policy and citing that she/he “h[ave] the responsibility of fact-checking Wikipedia's content” before he/she can start to make a contention about the applicability and relevance of a reference to the material it supports in the article.

Benicio2020 has made repeated claims that I am injecting opinions, but how can somebody claim material in an article supported by a reference is an opinion if they have repeatedly and consistently refused to demonstrate that they have consulted that reference, themselves?

Also, after my 18:05 4 June 2021 edit, and after I made the explanation that I mentioned on the article’s talk page on 22:06, Benicio2020 made 3 more reversions over the next 24 hours (curiously enough, stopping just one edit short of the 3-revert rule), all the while completely neglecting to engage with my discussion on the article’s talk page.

Throughout all 5 of his/her reversions/edits since my edit on the main article on 18:05 4 June 2021, not only has Benicio2020 refused to demonstrate, every single time, that he/she has consulted the source to be able to argue the relevancy and applicability of the source to the corresponding material in the article, he/she has also, in all 5 edits, deleted other material for which he/she has failed to articulate any reason for deleting.

Can I please have an administrator’s oversight on this?

ETA: Sorry. Forgot to sign. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly simple case of QuakerIlK continuing to add their opinion to the article, in various phrases, while sourcing those phrases to a comic book (a primary source). I removed it because it is Original Research according to WP:OR. QuakerIlK has ignored me when I pointed out that you can't add your own personal interpretations of primary sources to articles. Benicio2020 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a fairly simple case of Benicio2020 failing to demonstrate him/her having fulfilled their basic editorial responsibility of undergoing basic fact-checking to determine whether the material a source supports in an article is actually an opinion. Benicio2020 fails to grasp that visual evidence is more proof of a person's appearance (and cultural identity association) than mere text is. If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source. Additionally, Benicio2020's rationales for reversions/deletions are inconsistent. On top of that, Benicio2020's reversions and deletions include deletions of additional material, beyond the debated appearance and possibly resulting cultural identity association of Euboea, for which he/she has failed to ever even once articulate a rationale.

I could be more helpful and more directly supply evidence to illustrate that the material in the article is accurate, making more irrefutable than ever any disagreement, but according to Benicio2020's rationale, which is faulty to begin with, there isn't anything I can provide OTHER than opinions, (because he/she actually wants text opinions from secondary sources to prove what the appearance and/or ethnic looks of Euboea are), which directly contradicts more objective and irrefutable evidence ever being applied, which puts me in a lose-lose position in Benicio2020's eyes, no matter what I do.

I think with an administrator's proper oversight, this could be solved very easily, but I have already spent too much time and energy on this matter to further invest more time and energy only to have the contribution I have made be negated for no good reason. If I can be provided with either an administrator's written advice as to how to proceed in order to properly support the material in the article OR if Benicio2020 would care to realize that he/she is putting me in a lose-lose situation because he/she fails to understand when/why different categories of sources are applicable, then I am more than happy to proceed. QuakerIlK (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

If I were to use somebody else's written opinion (a secondary source) on what the character in question (Euboea) looks like, THAT would only be an opinion. Visual proof is more authoritative, *especially*, in this case, if it is a primary source This is absolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works; we use established, reliable secondary sources. OP is a pretty clear case of an editor failing to understand WP:OR and pushing their interpretations of source material (or interpretations/claims sourced to fan wikis) in the article. Suggest QuakerIlK familiarize themselves with the relevant policy, because they are fully in the wrong here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"[A]bsolutely the opposite of how Wikipedia works", Grandpallama? Your statement is both reductive and extreme, (in other words, wrong), and whereas you absolutely fail to quote any specific policies, I will not fail to do so. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Furthermore, as per Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Additionally, that section states "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia", and "[a] primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". (The primary source I ended up using that got reverted/deleted 5 times by Benicio2020 was an excerpt from a issue of the main series of the Wonder Woman comic book, published by DC Comics. It is 100% relevant to the article and the publisher is DC Comics, which was, at the time of the publication of this source in particular, A Warner Communications Company.)

As for the material, itself, fine. This shouldn't be necessary, but perhaps because of the audience, it is. Perhaps visual proof would help more than a bunch of text. Benicio2020, are you really going to claim, in light of this visual, that it is only an opinion that Euboea's “looks suggest perhaps East Asian or Hispanic ethnicity, rather than Caucasian ethnicity”? This is not an opinion, it is “straightforward, descriptive statements of facts”. Frankly, in light of this visual evidence, I could easily issue a stronger, less qualified statement.

If you don’t believe the context/sourcing, here is a video proving that this is from the stated source. [90]

Again, this is not how Wikipedia works; this is a textbook example of original research with what increasingly appears to be some WP:IDHT thrown in for good measure. Your interpretation of this character's appearance is just that: interpretation. If you continue to dig in your heels on this, prepare for the incoming boomerang. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, since you are quoting WP:RSPRIMARY, you might want to pay attention to the text immediately below what you quoted (that you seem to have conveniently ignored), which is relevant in this situation: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. The fact you just tried to edit war this back in while the ANI discussion is ongoing is unacceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your accusation that I am edit-warring is utterly inappropriate - Benicio2020 was the one who started repeatedly reverting my edits, plus I was the one who initiated this complaint and I made that edit a little while ago only after going through great lengths to provide greater transparency regarding the sourcing. We're still waiting for an administrator to weigh in on this, aren't we? You also fail to grapple with the actual material and the related sourceing at all.QuakerIlK (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You are wrong on pretty much all counts, and Grandpallama has explained the relevant policies to you correctly. Please just drop it. There is nowhere on Wikipedia where you can argue about the apparent ethnicity of fictional characters. If you want to include this, you have to cite a secondary source; posting your own interpretation of a primary source is against policy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Does being "wrong on pretty much all counts" include the fact that not only Benicio2020 (at least 5 times) but now also Grandpallama have made reverts that delete, in addition to the debated material, material for which no rationale for deletion has ever been articulated by either one of them? That is part of my complaint. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

More supporting material, including 2 new sources, have been added to the article. QuakerIlK (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Two editors and an admin have now explained why this attempt to insert original research is inappropriate. Please quit trying to force it in. If you have other edits you want to make, that's fine, but continuing to edit war to include your personal opinions is going to lead to sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You completely ignored the fact that I introduced new sources and material and all you did was a simple revert. Your rationale for making the revert you just did is 100% baseless because neither you, nor Benicio2020 nor NinjaRobotPirate has weighed in at all on either the newly-introduced material or the newly-introduced sources in the article section. QuakerIlK (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So, at this point QuakerI1K received a 24 hour block for edit warring. That should be a clear message that yes, you are edit warring QI1K. Once your block lifts, take your comments to the article Talk page, but do not resume attempting to force your edits into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

In addition to here at ANI, this has already been discussed at the article talkpage, at QI1K's talkpage, and at Benicio's talkpage. If we are advising QI1K to return to the article talkpage, they need to understand that it isn't an invitation to continue to push this particular edit; further attempts to argue that their interpretations and unencyclopedic language should be included in the article are just going to result in an escalation of sanctions. Grandpallama (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The Hand That Feeds You, Can either you or NinjaRobotPirate please explain to me why once I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question that Grandpallama reverted that edit without either a review of the source or discussion of it on here by any involved party? Can anybody explain to me how I was being charged with edit-warring and was blocked and not Grandpallama? Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made ( Black characters in animation and Category:Black people in comics ), and why those categories remain deleted from that article and why none of the reversions of the articles by any of the other editors, other than myself, involved in this dispute, included rationales for the removal of those categories and why the categories remain removed/deleted without absolutely any rationale whatsoever as to why those removals/deletions persist? QuakerIlK (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to resolve content disputes; you need to use dispute resolution for that. You were blocked because people were complaining about your edits here, and I saw you edit warring. Grandpallama hadn't made any additional edits on the article at the time I blocked you. Life is unfair like that. It also doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong when you're edit warring. This is explained in the policy itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring? They claimed in that edit's rationale "Explained by two editors AND an admin that this is inappropriate.", yet this most recent material to which Grandpallama was referring to there that I added at the time which included a new secondary source that supported the material, which is what both you and Grandpallama said was needed, was (and remains) content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked? None of the involved editors here put forth any effort whatsoever in discussing it.

Was I guilty of vandalism in that edit? Was I guilty of inflammatory comments? Where is the disabusal process from you on this series of actions from my edit - "Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either with editors (e.g., lack of suitable warnings or explanations of actions)".

I can admit that throughout this process I have been overly verbose, which is generally advised against in these sorts of processes. (It does mean that I am trying, though.) But as I have continually tried to make improvements on the material in question by further qualifications and articulations with an increasing body of sources that supports the material I add, the language directed against me by both Grandpallama and The Hand That Feeds You, that I "force" edits in, escalates, as does Grandpallama's warning of sanctions against me.

If I continue to make improvements, which I have done consistently, that means that I realized that, to a certain degree, I was wrong in the past, but can you or any other involved party here admit to having made any mistakes throughout this whole process and consider that I might be being punished unfairly or that the article is being prevented from being improved by me? So far, I have seen no indication of that. QuakerIlK (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself. I think the problem here is that you refuse to hear what people are telling you. If you continue down this path, the end result is an indefinite block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure NinjaRobotPirate wants to be done with this (so my apologies for pinging him), but a few of these claims merit response, especially since they are directed at me.

• can you please explain to me how Grandpallama edit on the Nubia (character) page on 05:38, 28 June 2021‎ is not edit-warring I reverted you a grand total of three times. The second time I reverted your edit, it was because a discussion was ongoing here (which I very clearly explained/referenced above, in this very thread), per WP:STATUSQUO. The third time I reverted you, it was to again restore a policy-compliant version of the article after you were blocked and the problems with your edits were explained to you. I will not put words in NRP's mouth, but I don't think most admins would see those reversions as disruptive; on the other hand, after you initially inserted your problematic material, you reverted eleven times. Do you really not see the difference?
• I added to the article a secondary source (something that both Grandpallama and NinjaRobotPirate said was what I needed to do) supporting the material in question You absolutely did not. You added a secondary source that supported a claim about the ethnicity of the actor who portrayed the character in live action, which you used to continue the attempt to push your original research into the article. At no point did you provide any sort of sourcing that supported your original research. The fact that you're not getting this is alarming.
• Can anybody explain why the reverts that have been made on the article undid the category additions I made Sure. You made a bold edit of which 80% was highly problematic. It's not the job of other editors to dig through that edit and preserve the "okay" parts; if you don't want them reverted, don't bundle them together with material you have been told is contentious. It is not the job of other editors to clean up after you.
• content that went completely undiscussed and untreated at all by any of the involved editors/administrators here in any venue/article that I can see in all of Wikipedia before I was blocked If you haven't read WP:IDHT, you need to. Your content was discussed on the article talkpage (pretty calmly by Benicio2020, despite your constant needling). The fact that you don't like what other editors said about the content not being compliant with policy and that it needs proper sourcing is right there, on the article talkpage and on your talkpage and now at ANI. Please start listening and stop arguing.

If you had engaged in good faith on the talkpage, you probably would have avoided the first block in your long editing career here. Instead, you chose to bring this to ANI, which resulted in shining a light on your edits. If I were you, I would walk away from this before editors start scrutinizing some of the similar stuff you've added to other pages. Grandpallama (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Alarming edits by User Wyk1ng

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

---

I am very alarmed by these edits by Wyk1ng, as they strongly suggest that this person is editing from a White Nationalist / Supremacist POV. The first is is explicitly phrased using terminology characteristic of Holocaust denialists (on an article directly related to the Holocaust, he talks about "Jewish victim propaganda"). I have not engaged with this user directly, as prior experience suggests to me that this is unlikely to help, and will just expose me to abuse. Moreover, this talk-page message does not fill me with confidence. Archon 2488 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

115 edits in 9 years and I am seeing multiple warnings for spamming on multiple occasions, racist comments, and a rant about how they are superior and don't like how people disagree and that admins are dumb. I have blocked per WP:NOTHERE. If another admin thinks that I have overreacted I am happy to listen, but I am not seeing a net benefit to the project here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It ill behoves someone who makes so many spelling mistakes to claim superiority. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Right decision by HighInBC, also per WP:NONAZIS.Cinadon36 04:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User Noteduck HOUNDING and violating AE civility warning

Noteduck is a relatively new editor who opened their account in Dec 2020. They made a few edits with a prior account Spungo93. In a short period of time it became clear that Noteduck had civility issues related to edit warring and generally confrontational behavior issues. To this end I opened an AE related to Noteduck's behavior which resulted in a logged warning on 25 March (3 months ago)[[91]]. In the 3 months since Noteduck has engaged in a clear pattern of hounding and incivility with respect to my edits and myself.

HOUNDING:hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Noteduck has made, at the time of this writing, ~185 edits since since receiving a warning on March 25th related to uncivil and problematic AP2 behavior. Of those over 50% have been about me in some capacity.

• Aprox 40 sandbox entries to a grievances list in violation of POLEMIC [[92]]. After a repeated requests they blanked the list with an questionable edit summary [[93]]. Since deletion they have continued to add to the list [[94]].

Edit: this list of grievances was started on 24 Feb. POLEMIC notes grievance lists are only permitted when used for dispute resolution in a timely manner. Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Followed me to a 3RRN where they were uninvolved to attack my credibility. [[95]].
• Cold contacting other editors to campaign against me [[96]], [[97]], [[98]], [[99]], [[100]].

• Engaging in topic areas where they weren't previously involved after I was involved and in a way that opposed my edit/arguments:
  • Odal rune RfC [[101]]
  • Candace Ownes, restoring disputed material[[102]] by reverting my edit without participating in the on going talk page discussion [[103]].
  • I edited the Wall Street Journal page 31 March, Noteduck finds the page 1 April [[104]]
  • Tucker Carlson, reverting my removal of disputed content [[105]] despite not being involved in any related talk page discussions

• Article talk page comments/edit summaries that focus on me as an editor rather than on edits
  • Earlier today [[106]], "Frankly, I ask you to familiarize yourself with with Wikipedia:HOUND and WP:FILIBUSTER and ask yourself why you you continue to persist with challenging this exceedingly minor edit.", [[107]] where they accuse me of having a double standard, and [[108]] "respectfully, you've had considerable difficulty understanding WP:DUE and other policies in the past, including on this page,"

• Violated page's 1RR restriction when restoring the disputed edit above. 1st [[109]] 2nd [[110]]

• Personalizing disputes on talk pages - violation of AE warning regarding civility:
  • [[111]], "This is an extremely worrying double standard on Springee's part, given that they insist on the most uncompromisingly high standards on sources they disagree with. If Springee finds it difficult to evaluate sources, it might be best to stand aside and listen more"
  • [[112]], "Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers "

I've repeatedly warned Noteduck that this is a HOUNDING issue that needs to stop (closing AE admin's page [[113]], Noteduck's page [[114]]) with no success. I was hopeful when they recently focused on editing on topics like architecture it would mean I would be left alone. From my earliest interactions with Noteduck last winter I have tried to make it clear the editorial disagreements aren't personal disagreements. Personalizing disputes was one of the problems discussed at Noteducks AE. Despite trying to keep things civil it is clear they did not understand the prior AE warning. I am requesting either an AP2 topic ban or a 1-way interaction ban (I will voluntarily avoid interacting with them as well). Springee (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban from American politics, broadly construed. The bloody topic is enough of a permanent battlefield as it is, without the encouragement of new warriors to join the field. ——Serial 13:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If it's a violation of an AE warning, shouldn't this be at AE as well? Black Kite (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I've absolutely not only focused on Springee's edits: see my contributions page.[115] My recent new pages include Architecture of Belarus, Land Captain (Russian Empire), Wellerman etc plus extensive work on Texas Revolution, We Will Always Love You and more. Given a shared interest in politics we've indeed both edited Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray, and others. I maintain that Springee is a repeat civil-POV pusher on conservative politics (which almost all their edits relate to) invariably rejecting unflattering material. Springee was before arb com just a month ago for adding material from deprecated Daily Caller to the Andy Ngo page.[116] "Springee" gets 98 hits on the WP:AN archive. Many editors there share my concerns, and Springee's been sanctioned in the area of US politics before.[117] I indeed prepared a WP:AN complaint in sandbox, as Springee did against me[118] in Feb. My "double standard" comment came from Springee's persistence in wanting Fox's Ken LaCorte's "LaCorte News",[119] which dlthewave observed was "obviously terrible", added to Andy Ngo in April[120] {{{1}}} while rejecting material from Rolling Stone and Jacobin this month[121] (plus BuzzFeed News[122] and Bellingcat.[123] Springee is often litigious and made a WP:AN complaint based on an incorrect interpretation of 1RR on the Jared Kushner page in April.[124] I see this as a WP:BOOMERANG. Springee is quite fixated with challenging my edits and has 65 mentions on my talk page. I maintain that Springee's ongoing challenge to my short sentence on Andy Ngo is a WP:FILIBUSTER.[125] The 1RR Springee has raised with dlthewave[126] is trivial, as Dlthewave notes and I've reverted for now anyway.[127] Springee knows I'm sensitive and afflicted by bipolar-2 and prone to being angry and frustrated in manic phases. Full disclosure: yesterday I launched an unrelated WP:AN action after getting highly aggressive and personal insults elsewhere,[128] and can repeat details if necessary. I question Springee's decision to launch this complaint hours later and not wait for the other action to conclude Noteduck (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Noteduck, please indicate when you change your text. You have made significant changes to your reply above. As I noted below such changes may result in replies to your text that no longer make sense since the original text has been altered with items added/removed. Springee (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It makes me uncomfortable when editors cite mental health conditions to explain their on-wiki behavior. A lot of people suffer from a lot of things; anyone who is not healthy enough to participate here should immediately log off. Levivich 14:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, the recent AE against me was closed only with a comment to be more careful, not a logged warning.[[129]] Springee (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: Noteduck removed the logged warning claim as part of a series of edits to their above statements[[130]]. The newly added claim I added "College Fix"[[131]] is an example of not getting the facts right. It was added by another editor [[132]] just before my edit. Springee (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck is trying to sidetrack with claims of bias etc but it's clear they personalize disputes (that was found at the AE and recent examples can be seen here. Rather than argue that edits were not supported they accused Conan The Librarian of acting on personal opinion/bias [[133]] and then proceed to put a warning on their user page [[134]]. In the month after the AE closed (24 March to 24 April), Noteduck made 39 edits. All but 5 were related to me. That included reverting my edits at pages they were otherwise uninvolved with, adding to the POLEMIC list, and trying to recruit other editors to join them against me. This fixation has toned down but they still treat all disputes as personal to the point that (see below) they accused me of knowing they are biopolar and trying to use that against them! It's clear that when editors disagree with them Noteduck is taking it personally. This is the core problem and one of the findings of the AE that resulted in a warning. I'm asking for this to stop. Springee (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I ended up here because I lurk at HiLo48's talk page which references an ANN which references this one. I've seen Springee at work and they are a careful, polite editor who stays on the high road even when confronted by rough behavior such as that described above. I find the above construction of trying to paint an incorrect picture regarding Springee very opposite to that very telling. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

North8000, what points in particular do you consider incorrect? –dlthewave ☎ 21:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Basically every (mis)characterization and claim about what every diff shows.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Some of these complaints really don't hold up to scrutiny, and the diffs don't all show what Springee says they do. I would urge folks to take a close look at the diffs in context before forming an opinion. Noteduck does good work in maintaining NPOV in controversial American Politics articles and I would hate to lose a productive editor from that topic. They do raise numerous valid concerns about Springee's editing (although perhaps they could find a better time and place to do so), and this complaint comes across as a fairly sad attempt to gain "first mover advantage" and silence an editor who they disagree with before they have the opportunity to present their evidence.
  • Regarding the sandbox concerns, it appears that Noteduck has been collecting evidence for an Arbcom case or similar, which is explicitly allowed per WP:POLEMIC: The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Sure, the definition of "timely manner" is debatable, but the second diff presented by Springee has been up for all of three days which surely is well within bounds. I would also note that Springee maintained a similar collection of diffs in their sandbox for three months during which time they repeatedly asked Noteduck to remove theirs [135][136]. Pot calling the kettle black? I'm also drawing a blank on how this edit summary (material addressing concerns of tendentious editing and civil-POV pushing put in a safe place. This does not mean the concern has gone away, and WP:ANI proceedings may eventually be required.) is in any way "questionable".
  • Tucker Carlson, The Wall Street Journal, Candace Owens and Odal (rune) have been in the news lately and are hot topics for editors involved in American politics; Noteduck and Springee are far from the only editors who showed up to these articles around the same time. I'm sorry but you'd have to be quite the conspiracy theorist or have particularly thin skin to think that someone who responds to the same RfC [137] as you is trying to create "irritation, annoyance or distress".
  • The 1RR concern is a nothingburger. Springee raised the concern on my talk page [138] (I thought they didn't like it when people did that?) and Noteduck promptly and politely self-reverted [139]. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Dlthewave, several of your points are incorrect or misleading. I did in fact compile a sandbox list before filing an AE in February. I started the list on 29 Jan and filed the AE on 22 Feb, so just 1 month. I will grant that I didn't clean out my sandbox for two months but the AE was open for a month of that. You mention the 1RR violation. It was interesting how you handled what you thought was a 1RR on my part. You went fishing for sanctions.[[140]] Why weren't you as aggressive with Noteduck's clear violation? If Noteduck were editing a wide range of AP2 articles I would find your point about similar article interest to be more convincing. But articles like Odal (rune) are low traffic, Noteduck isn't making it to a lot of AP2 articles where I don't edit (and that's most). This also came at a time before they decided to edit about architecture and the vast majority of their edits were focused on me (at that time near 80% since the AE closure). Springee (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake, don't pretend that Odal was some backwater article. You know it was well-trafficked and heavily edited after the CPAC incident, and you're having a meltdown because someone responded to the same RFC that you did.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the first 1RR violation that I've seen from Noteduck, and they quickly apologized and self-reverted when it was pointed out. On the other hand you and I have had several disagreements over what constitutes a revert, so I asked an admin for advice and it seemed to me like the three of us had a nice productive discussion about it. Do you see it differently? –dlthewave ☎ 01:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. During the first month after the AE closed (24 Mar-24 Apr) Noteduck edited 7 article/talk pages that could be seen as AP related (Dennis Prager, WSJ, CPAC, Odal rune, Candace Owens, Douglas Murray, Andy Ngo, Tucker Carlson, 2020 US presidential election, A People's History of the US). Of those I have no involvement with the last 2. Noteduck had no involvement with WSJ, CPAC, Odal, Owens and Carlson but was either opposing my RfC comments or reverting my edits. They did have prior involvement with Ngo, Prager and Murray. If their comments and edits weren't related to mine it would be easier to see this as just hitting the same topics.

Was it Noteduck's first brush with edit warring? Edit warring was one of the AE concerns. You also haven't made it clear why you were quick to warn me when you felt I crossed the line but you didn't even provide a curtesy notice to Noteduck that they had crossed the line. When you asked an admin it was clear that you were fishing for sanctions and made accusations of 1RR violations on my part which you have yet to support. Springee (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Back to the sandbox thing: If we give you the benefit of the doubt, you had a list of grievances up for a month and you're claiming that keeping a similar list for three days violates POLEMIC. This is one of those things that really feels like a double standard: It's hounding and uncivil when Noteduck does it, but we're expected to give quite a bit of leeway for your similar actions. If you're so concerned about it, I would hope you would remember to keep your own sandbox clean. –dlthewave ☎ 12:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

The grievance list was started by Noteduck 10 Feb. It's almost July and and still being added to. Do you consider 5 months timely? Blanking means little if they note that they can bring the blanked content back (the "blanked" content was added below) and if they keep adding new entries. You claim what I did was similar so lets compare. A specific list in less than a month, used at AE, never used again until blanked when the sandbox was cleaned a month after the AE closed. VS a continuous 5 month list, including many obvious errors, a portion was blanked but in a way that was easy to restore after multiple complaints that the list violated POLEMIC. The accumulation has continued even after several POLEMIC warnings. It's clear Noteduck has decided I've wronged them. To that end they are making a list, following me to continue their grievances at other articles, trying to drum up other editors for support (yourself included) and not trying to claim "but civil POV pusher" rather than reflect on their own actions. If they agree to stop personalizing disputes, MfD the list, and leave me alone all would be fine and we could close this right away. Springee (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

on the point about leeway: Springee has been editing for more than a decade and has far, far, far more editorial experience than I do. I've only been regularly editing since December 2020 (I have a handful of edits under an old account earlier in 2020). "Springee" gets 98 hits in the WP:AN archive; "Noteduck" gets 5. Springee should know the rules very well by now - and in fact, Springee does appear to know them when it suits their perspective. There's no reason for Springee to claim ignorance of editorial policy or expect preferential treatment Noteduck (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I can wipe my sandbox of references to you and any perceived breaches of policy now if you request. I can store it elsewhere if need be. However, you seem to be demanding that I never use my sandbox to build up any sort of allegation involving you again, which I think is pretty unreasonable (and indeed, a total WP:POTKETTLE situation). On the repeated HOUNDing allegations, please refer more to the specific parts of the policy you feel I am violating, and remember your many posts and 65 hits for "Springee" on my talk page[141] don't suggest you are exactly non-adversarial. Per WP:HOUND: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. I believe that this is what I've been doing. You've recently pinged me and reverted my edits on the Andy Ngo page,[142] dragging me away from other Wikipedia projects I enjoy much more: see Architecture of Belarus and Texas Revolution Noteduck (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And again an inaccurate telling. I was consolidating citations per a talk page discussion [[143]]. As part of that I noted questionable claims that included OR [[144]][[145]]. Despite your last involvement with the article being in May, you quickly reverted my removal of the OR [[146]][[147]] just 1 hour later. I pinged you because I went to the talk page to discuss this [[148]]. I will note that you edit warred not with me but with Volteer1 who reverted your restorations. You claim I was targeting your edits, I agree you originally added the OR but that was on 22 Feb. I wasn't aware you were the original editor at the time I removed it. Mischaracterizing and personalizing these disputes is a big issue here. Springee (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Just re the ping: sorry, I'm incredibly busy right now. I know I'm related to this stuff, and your retelling looks accurate at a glance, but I'll chime in properly a bit later when I have time. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• An earlier encounter between User:Noteduck and User:Springee was a lengthy mediation about five months ago at DRN, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU. My observations were that these two editors disagreed on content, and that Noteduck was verbose (which is common and unhelpful at DRN). It was a difficult content dispute that ended up as a lengthy RFC that was really six RFCs rolled into one. All of the parties in the dispute were civil, which, like accuracy, is a duty rather than a virtue. It was preceded by Noteduck filing a Request for Arbitration that the arbitrators and I agreed should go to DRN. I haven't been involved with subsequent interaction between Noteduck and Springee. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding the sandbox, from the content blanked in Special:Diff/1029281530, pasted below. The user accumulated a large number of grievances, mostly against Springee (talk · contribs). I note that some of the sources mentioned, such as CNN, are generally considered to be reliable, so they do have legitimate concerns about Springee. Their current revision says that they think it is Springee, not themselves, who should be AP2 topic-banned (esp. in relation to Andy Ngo). But, I think this warrants an interaction ban between the users as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• The problem with long lists of diffs is the reason things were reverted is often lost. Noteduck's records aren't very accurate either. Consider above where they accuse me of adding "Collegefix" as a source even though that was added by a different editor. Sometimes the removal of a reliable source from an article is not related to it being a RS but DUE, WP:V, specific phrasing etc. Recently it was suggested that I removed Rolling Stones from the Andy Ngo article. It wasn't true. I removed a specific claim that failed Wp:V and the redundant citation associated with it. The fact that Noteduck has been creating such a long list over so many months supports my POLEMIC concern. The long list says I violated my self imposed 1RR rule twice yet fails to note once was to revert an IP editor, the other was 7 March, where I reverted myself because I didn't include an edit summary [149][150]. Springee (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• dc̄ I absolutely contend that there is enough evidence of such a long and egregious history of civil-POV pushing to launch a WP:ANI action against Springee, with the main difficulty being the staggering number of potentially relevant diffs. dlthewave I share your frustration that Springee's characterisation of the Odal rune page as "low-traffic" is typical of Springee's selective recall and application of policy. Similarly, my recent uptick in engagement on the Andy Ngo page was in response to Springee on 18 June making an unjustified wholesale revert (although I've repeatedly reminded them about WP:ROWN) of material I had added sometime earlier.[151] I don't find Ngo particularly edifying and recently have spent the vast majority of my time working on more interesting things like the Texas Revolution and a bunch of Russia-related topics in my sandbox.[152] As dlthewave notes I believe Springee's clear motive here is seeking "first mover advantage" they can leverage as a WP:BOOMERANG that distracts from their own actions. As course, as per WP:BOOMERANG: There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participated in the dispute or discussions might find their actions under scrutiny. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

whoops, on the extremely trivial point about who added the "College Fix", it wasn't Springee. I still think it's inexplicable that you added a point about Andy Ngo being purportedly threatened by left-wing protestors on the basis of the sources "Katu" and "College Fix"[153] without questioning their reliability, while RS's more critical of Ngo have been repeatedly challenged and reverted. Yes, you did remove material from Rolling Stone from Ngo's page, just this month.[154] Noteduck (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

And this is why we have to look at the details because you are still getting things wrong left and right. First, these edits were done after starting a talk page discussion [[155]]. Second, I didn't add any of the sources. The edit you link to is one where I changed the language to match that from the parent article. Nothing more. If you want to complain about those sources why don't you talk to the editor who added them? As for Rolling Stone, you are conflating two arguments. I was talking about being accused of removing a source (in the past, not this instance) when I only removed a redundant example of the source. A diff that only looks at the one edit might miss that the removed source was redundant. As for the Rolling Stones material you reference, the issue was it didn't pass Wp:V. The source is still in the article but the specific claim was OR. Springee (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

About 20 KB, by Noteduck (talk · contribs)

In May 2021 Springee expressly named a belief that the Cato Institute was an RS, but the SPLC was not, again expressing their selective assessment of sources based on their ideological position. Partisan reverts: some of the sources Springee has removed from pages related to conservative politics because they are "biased", "subjective" or some other feeble reason: the Southern Poverty Law Center,[156][157][158][159][160][161] The New York Times and CNN,[162][163] National Review(!),[164] The Washington Post,[165] Newsweek,[166], The Washington Post and NBC,[167] The Washington Post and Bellingcat[168], Vox and The Daily Beast[169], the Los Angeles Times,[170] The Intercept,[171] the [[BBC],[172] Rolling Stone, Jacobin and Columbia Journalism Review[173], BuzzFeed News,[174] The Guardian(including restoring grammatical errors!)[175], Salon (website),[176] Forbes,[177] the Seattle Times,[178] Reports sans Frontieres,[179] New Republic and NBC News,[180] the Chicago Sun-Times[181] Politico and four other sources,[182] The Independent,[183] Daily Dot,[184][185][186] Reuters and Fox News(!)[187] Middle East Eye,[188] The Huffington Post,[189] Mother Jones,[190] and smaller-scale newspapers like the 8-time Pulitzer Prize winner Kansas City Star,[191][192]Des Moines Register[193] and The Arizona Republic(known for its conservatism!)[194][195] and academic articles[196]. These are almost all going back to November 2020 alone! There are simply too many of them to list, as Springee's pattern of deleting material unflattering to conservatives has become increasingly brazen. Springee also fought a protracted rearguard action to keep a Harvard University study about promotion of climate change denial out of the ExxonMobil page in favor of an article from a fossil fuel lobby group,[197] as well as contesting at length the inclusion of an article from the New York Times on the same article.[198] Concerningly, Springee seems to have a record of whitewashing the pager of powerful climate-change denying groups[199][200][201][202][203] - Wall Street Journal here[204][205] Springee is currently engaged in a rearguard action to minimise the use of material related to climate change denial on the PragerU page.[206] The consistent feature of absolutely every one of Springee's reversions is not evidentiary weight but ideological bent - the material challenged is always something reliably sourced, but arguably unflattering, to a conservative subject. I've provided around 50 diffs as evidence. Here are some accusations of "whitewashing" by other editors levelled towards Springee.[207][208][209][210][211][212] Springee will throw the book at the offending editor in terms of spurious complaints about Wiki policies, frequently launch RfCs in order to contest sources and drag out the process as long as possible. Look back through Springee's edits on Andy Ngo, Douglas Murray (author), and PragerU and you'll see this pattern play out time and time again. The results are horribly whitewashed pages representing powerful, moneyed conservative interests - consider that on the current PragerU page, a flattering paragraph given over to the company's unsuccessful lawsuit against Google has 3 paragraphs and 310 words, while just a single sentence is dedicated to PragerU's well-documented[213][214][215][216][217][218] record of misinformation on climate change. On 15 September 2020, Springee said that they would voluntarily follow a 1RR rule limit.[219] Nonetheless. They repeatedly violated this request - on 28 January 2021,[220][221], 7 March 2021,[222][223] For other contentions of Springee's partisan bias, see[224][225][226] for behavorial problems on pages related to conservative politics[227][228][229][230][231][232][233][234][235][236], including a formal sanction in the area of American politics[237] unwarranted deletion of material[238][239][240] especially misbehavior related to guns[241][242][243][244][245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252][253][254][255][256][257][258][259][260][261][262]. Multiple overt claims of firearms advocacy[263][264][265][266] and whitewashing pages of firearms[267][268] are particularly concerning. If you go through these diffs, you'll see that unexplained block reverts and stonewalling are particular problems for Springee. It's worth noting that Springee has been accused of abusing the noticeboards and being overly litigious towards other editors before.[269] Note that these diffs are (a) not exhaustive in terms of Springee's record of misconduct and (b) fragmentary, so may not individually be absolutely damning. While my focus here is Springee, it's worth noting that they often operate as a kind of tag-team with others, invariably backing each other up on topics related to conservative politics.[270][271], [272][273], [274],[275],[276] Needless to say, dealing with multiple editors making the same partisan arguments is frustrating. You have made made several comments about purported left-wing bias on Wikipedia.[277] Some of Shinealittlelight's claims about obviously reliable sources are frankly quite bizarre - see this extended (and baffling) complaint about a widely-cited report written by a University of North Carolina professor that was critical of PragerU[278] and this attempt to ensure that the term "white nationalist" would not be used in relation to the Kenosha unrest shooting suspect.[279] PragerU has met the criteria for a "repeat offender" of spreading misinformation on Facebook[280][281] and yet "misinformation" barely appears on the PragerU Wiki page. Remarkably, these editors have alleged poor sourcing on a proposed addition to the header that would mention misinformation that contains more than two dozen sources.[282] Absolutely every addition that it critical of Prager gets ruthlessly purged. UPDATE4: I've perused through the WP:AN noticeboard and Springee appears on a jaw dropping 97(!) different archive pages, usually many times over. Cedar777 and Shadydabs have summed up what the problem is with Springee's editing, over and over: Springee reverts whole blocks of new material on a page related to conservative politics (despite their long history on Wiki, WP:ROWN appears to be unfamiliar to Springee), claims the source is not DUE, claims the source is not an RS, misrepresents the source's contents, and if this all fails Springee then claims there's no consensus, essentially demanding a personal veto S, that's a mischaracterization - I did not "accuse" editors of anything. I reminded editors of policy, namely WP:ROWN - here is the source[283] Noteduck (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Record of Springee's spurious edits and reversions: 2021 [284][285] July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the Andy Ngo page.[286] Reverts of good sources on Tucker Carlson.[287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298] June-July 2020: reverts of good sources added to the page of conservative historian Victor Davis Hansen.[299][300] June 2020: Andy Ngo [301][302][303], Tucker Carlson[304], Burt Rutan[305]

Proposal 1: Two-Way Interaction Ban

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

---

This is another case of two editors who do not like each other. I propose a two-way interaction ban between User:Noteduck and User:Springee with only the usual exceptions. Since they both edit in the area of American politics, this will inconvenience both of them. Antagonism between editors should be inconvenient to both editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I have nothing personally against Noteduck. I do not seek to interact with them. If they agree to AGF I'm happy to do the same. I do not feel my ability to edit articles where I have long been involved should be restricted due to Notrduck's logged uncivil behavior. As North8000 said, I understand AP2 can be confrontational so I take the high road. Springee (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as not the solution to this problem. This isn't about two editors not liking each other. Or rather, it's about more than that. I mean every ANI report involves two or more editors not liking each other. If we handed out IBANs for that, we'd all be IBANed. The problem here is disruption, and disruptive editors should just be removed from the project altogether. Or at least the topic area. We've had enough noticeboard drama about this (by my count: an arbcom request, a DRN, at least one AN, at least one ANI, and that's probably not everything). Either there is a real problem here or someone is really crying wolf. Either way, an IBAN is not the solution. (Also, no one is going to use DRN if the neutral later proposes sanctions against the participants.) For my part, I don't see a case being made yet by anyone for sanctions against anyone else, mostly because there are so many false positive diffs being presented. So if anyone reading this thinks this thread should end with action, I'd suggest posting your best diffs and quotes, and really making a clear and brief argument about what is needed and why. Levivich 16:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - the problem is not Springee or two-way interaction, it is WP:HOUNDING by Noteduck which is a policy vio and it needs immediate attention by an admin. This is unacceptable behavior. Hounding violates the UCoC, Section 3.1 Harassment - it is a very serious behavioral issue, and no editor deserves to be hounded, on or off WP. Atsme 💬 📧 17:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This mis-characterizes the situation. Springee has consistently taken the careful, polite high road. And they came here for relief from hounding. Maybe just a warning to Noteduck regarding the topic at hand would be sufficient to resolve this. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I appreciate Robert McClenon's work on resolving this. However I think the problem is asymmetric here, despite this litigious WP:BOOMERANG by Springee. Again, if allegations of WP:HOUND are being made, specific references to the text of the policy should be made, rather than broad-brush claims. I recommend looking through both mine[306] and Springee's[307] contribution pages and see the contrast between an editor who has added constructively to a broad range of topics, and one with a dogged focus on contesting material on pages related to right-wing politics Noteduck (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I am willing to withdraw this proposal. Will someone else propose something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposal #2

Enough has been seen and reviewed to at least raise concern about WP:hounding, WP:Battleground and against-WP:civility behavior by Noteduck particularly with respect to Springee. Noteduck is warned to avoid those types of behaviors. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I would support this or as an alternative I would accept a MfD Noteduck's sandbox with an understanding they may keep the content not related to me. This is a grievance list and a clear violation of POLEMIC. This is especially true since many of the claims are false if anyone actually looks at the diffs in question. Springee (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to see it deleted, why don't you nominate it for MfD yourself? –dlthewave ☎ 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I considered that but if we decide to MfD here it will be easier to ensure it is completed. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at the discussion above, I'm not sure there's agreement that Noteduck's actions merit a warning or even meet the criteria for those issues. It may be wise to wait for more input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins, before making further proposals to close. –dlthewave ☎ 12:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support as proposer As the mildest remedy that has a reasonably good chance at resolving the situation. I didn't fully understand Springee's response/post. But they are referring to work there by Noteduck that appears to be aimed at using the system to "get" someone vs. just to solve an issue, would agree that that should be deleted. North8000 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I've had limited access recently and will for a while longer. I think it's clear that Noteduck has been campaigning against me (see the diffs showing them contacting other editors out of the blue and in cases which they weren't previously involved). The POLEMIC list started in Feb is also a problem. Yes, they blanked it but then started it right back up so it never went away and as the collapsed section below shows, it's still very accessible. This list is a serious problem when editors presume it was in any way shape or form reliably collected. In addition to the fact that most examples don't contain context, they also have a lot of just plain wrong claims (saying sources were removed in cases where I was moving blocks of text, saying I violated 1RR when I self reverted then restored to correct my edit note etc). Finally, trying to bring being bipolar into this! Levivich is right, if a this is a problem that results in confrontational behavior then the editor should stay out of confrontational areas. Springee (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Comment not particularly sensitive Springee. At any rate, Springee seems to want an asymmetric rule that I can't collect material in my sandbox for use in WP:AN complaints. As we've already observed, this is a total double standard. I'll certainly be more mindful about the "timely" requirement of the policy but surely this is an important part of the sandbox function, especially for the sake of transparency about upcoming complaints. One glance at my sandbox reveals that the large majority does not focus on Springee but on my various pet projects to improve Wiki. I just made Farmers or Hunter-Gatherers? The Dark Emu Debate btw and I'm quite happy with it Noteduck (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no double standard. You have maintained a grievance list since February. That is only allowed if the contents are to be used in a timely fashion which you have not done. It doesn't matter if only 1% of the list is a POLEMIC, 0% is the upper limit. The fact that you deleted the list on June 19 means nothing if you show that you have learned nothing and started a new one. Springee (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'm a bit confused here, was Noteduck not supposed to start a new list (as new issues emerged) after deleting the previous one? –dlthewave ☎ 13:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but I think that the "timely" part serves to make a distinction between complaints to try to resolve a current problem vs longer term constructions to try to "get" (deprecate or remove) an editor or just do battle with an editor. And the latter is presumably a reason for the polemic rule, particularly against another editor. Perhaps, in addition to the proposed gentle warning, if Noteduck could (you) agree to be extra careful and mindful of these objectives? North8000 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good distinction. A month is reasonable period of time to collect diffs but if this list is still here mid July it will be a clear POLEMIC and now Noteduck would be clearly warned about the policy. Springee (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Ulises142 - When a user receives three final warnings, and yet continues vandalizing

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

---

Ulises142 (talk · contribs · logs) has been vandalizing for several days at this point. Don't let their blank talk page confuse you, there have been multiple final warnings this month. Removal of speedy deletion tags: Ulises142info. Move vandalism: [308]. Plain ol' vandalism: [309]. More move vandalism: [310]. This user is causing damage that others need to fix, and is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. In total, three final warnings were left by General Ization, Spiderone and myself.​ Curbon7 (talk) 11:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify: the reason we didn't see the prior final warnings is cause the user blanked his talk page after every one, so RedWarn didn't detect the prior warnings. Curbon7 (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours. I didn't realize RedWarn was so... (searches for polite word).. limited. Live and learn. Bishonen | tålk 11:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC).

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

Unconstructive edits by User:Carl Francis

User:Carl Francis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user reverts some edits which he considered as unconstructive, but some are disruptive such as removing an existing link in an article to another article in Wikipedia. The user was given a warning in his user page by another user due to this issue. Please check the contributions of this user for more details. Despite of this, I don't want him to be blocked and banned from Wikipedia due to his editing behavior but just to remind him. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

NewManila2000, please add some diffs to illustrate the problem. The talk page warning also does not include diffs. TSventon (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon:: This is one of the diffs that you want to see. [311]. It appears that the said actress is a mainstay in a Filipino variety program and will appear in an upcoming Filipino TV series but the edits and links there were edited. The edit summary says, "fixed" but instead of fixing, the user removed some important edits there. It is okay to remove unsourced edits but not to remove other sufficient edits. NewManila2000 (talk) 14:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@NewManila2000:, I just wanted to help you make a case to any admin reviewing the page by reminding you that diffs are required as noted at the top of this page. Also, when you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. I have done this for you this time. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon:: Just wanted to let you know, if you haven't seen it, here's the other diff: [312] DavidCostell44 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@DavidCostell44:, I think that is the diff @NewManila2000: meant to link when they linked to an old version of Charlie Dizon at 14:23. More than one diff is needed to indicate a pattern of behaviour. TSventon (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone check if his edit in Jodi Sta. Maria is disruptive or not. Indicated there is the diff in the said article, [313]. Also, in the article of Ivana Alawi, [314], and [315]. NewManila2000 (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Likely a disgruntled sock. Also WP:SOLICIT. Carl Francis (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, we must respect and review the edits of other users before reverting it. I will now avoid myself from doing WP:SOLICIT if proven that I am doing it. Thank you. NewManila2000 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Urgent attention needed

User:MezzoMezzo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) An old sectarian editor has started vandalizing articles of Sufi oriented subjects as he was doing in the past. He after suddenly waking up from sleep of two years, has once again created problem with sufi related articles. He removes content when Some movement calls themselves as Ahle sunnat. This is blatant POV pushing as many reliable sources have established and named the movement as Ahle Sunnat Movement, see the sources here at talk pages.

In Islamic world Ahle sunnah wal Jamaah is term used for all sunnis but movement of Sunni sufi scholars from south Asia including of Imam Ahmad Raza Khan is widely known as Ahle sunnat movement. They call themselves Sunnis or Ahle Sunnat. They don't use Barelvi term any where in their literature or organizations. The Barelvi is slur and is used pejoratively by the opposition movements. There is conflict between Sufis and their opposing groups. Such sectarian conflict is being done here by editors like him.

Other than it, he is removing well sourced content from multiple articles [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_Qayyim_al-Jawziyya&action=history] and Hadith of Najd. He is pushing his Salafi view point in all these articles. His modus operandi is to remove content from Sufi related articles to show them in poor light and add content to show Salafi related articles in good light.

This editor Mezzo Mezzo has conflict of interest (COI) as he has created all Salafi related articles in Islam category and has put Sufi related articles into bad light. He wants to continue pushing this sectarian POV in all articles. Hence, he need to be stopped from vandalizing these pages. Topic ban is required to deal with him. Pinging User:TheEagle107 and User:Obaid Raza in case they wants to comment. ScholarM (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

So within two hours of my edits, rather than discuss them with me, User:ScholarM has chosen to:

• accuse me of vandalism and being a sectarian on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism twice
• accuse me of the same thing over on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, also twice
• including articles unrelated to the main dispute, over on the Barelvi movement and its namesake Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, and asked for page protection and admin intervention on most of the articles I’ve edited since I returned to editing two days ago per my contributions

In addition, the user opened this ANI report without making any attempt to discuss matters with me on the on the relevant talk pages. Instead, he’s now systematically reverting every edit I’ve made on any article with only a few exceptions. I took a break from Wikipedia from 2019 until two days ago, and I’m now finding that I can’t even edit without being reverted. If there is disruption here, then it isn’t coming from me.

On top of that, I would like to mention here on ANI that problems with POV pushing on the Barelvi article [|go back many years] and have popped up here on ANI many times. I’ve been subject to personal insults and false accusations, just as I am now, by a number of users pushing the same exact POV as ScholarM is now. I don’t think this matter needs to be at ANI now since the user hasn’t attempted to discuss any matters with me, but I do want this said for the record: there’s nothing new here. User:Bbb23 and User:Jimfbleak might remember this back in the day, and nothing has really changed…just another user mass deleting sources from Cambridge University Press, Time (magazine), The Times of India, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, etc. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that ScholarM is abusing forums by reqesting protection on pages edited by MezzoMezzo. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 14:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Close discussion per WP:BOOMERANG. The ANI initiator has not attempted to discuss the issue with MezzoMezzo and has made the situation worse by opening reports on multiple notice boards. Jerm (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Bad faith editing

I have requested to stop one editor from editing in bad faith and from vandalizing pages of particular area of Islam. Here are the proofs that after two years of gap, following pages faced his ire and anger. He does not like editing of many editors at those pages so after two years of gap, when he saw some pages are not reflecting his views, he started removing sourced content and started adding partial content that too, without establishing consensus at talk pages. For example.

• At Hadith of Najd he removed sourced content because this Prophetic saying goes against his area of liking i.e Salafism.
• At Ahmed Raza Khan page, he changed the name of a movement to a pejorative term. The point was well supported by Oxford reference and is explained in the same article here.
• At Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, he removed the scholar's association with Sufism. and his insistence on removal of Mysticism section.
• Removing this Kanthapuram A. P. Aboobacker Musliyar scholar's name from this template despite his article speaking for itself.
• At Ahle Sunnat Movement page, he dislike the term Ahle Sunnat which is being widely used by reputed sources/scholars like Prof. Usha Sanyal, Oxford Reference and Springer Science+Business Media and removed it, then he removed valid sourced content. These are bad faith edits. He did not start discussions. The purpose is to reduce the importance of certain movements with in Islam. ScholarM (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo ScholarM makes a valid point. I don't know why you've been trying to remove sourced content, but that needs to stop and be discussed on the articles talk page. Likewise ScholarM, use the article talk page, not the edit summary. Going to multiple notice boards doesn't help either, especially if you haven't attempted to discuss the issue. I still think this case should be closed with a warning to both of you not to keep edit warring and make an effort to resolve the issue first at the article talk page/s. Jerm (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Jerm I don’t agree that ScholarM has a point for the following reasons:

• At Hadith of Najd, I restored the version which was reached via consensus in 2018 based on representation of actual sources. I didn’t simply ‘remove sourced content’ because of my preference.
• At Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, I simply wrote the actual name of the movement. This has been established again, and again, and again across a decade per multiple community discussions.
• At Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, the sources which I removed are ones which had failed community verification checks on the article’s talk page almost a decade and a half ago, if I’m not mistaken.
• At Ahle Sunnat Movement, the true name is the Barelvi movement as established by scholarly consensus again and again. Even the sources which ScholarM is quoting don’t support his claims that the common name in media and scholarship is somehow a slur.

I can accept if I should go about things different, and will simply go to talk and repeat points already made multiple times over the years, but I’ve never simply deleted sources, and even the diffs which ScholarM is posting prove that. I just want to make that very clear. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course you’re not going to accept it, but the evidence ScholarM provided is contrary to what you are saying. But what is expected from both of you at this point is using the article talk page to resolve this issue. Jerm (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Banana6cake. resumed inappropriate behavior and disruption after calls for topic ban

The participants from the following (now archived) discussion: [316], have proposed a Topic Ban for User:Banana6cake. due to their past persistent unconstructive behavior and disruption in the Turkey topic area. However no topic ban was applied and this encouraged the editor to keep going on with their inappropriate attitude and disruption in the Turkey topic area. Just had to revert them (again!): [317] where they - against the WP:Consensus and Wikipedia's rules - had restored fake claims that the modern Turkish Navy was founded.... 1.000 years ago or so. Furthermore, they used the edit summary to make more racist WP:NPA attacks against the ethnicity of editors for no apparent reason.

Something really has to be done about this editor. This behavior shouldn't be tolerated in Wikipedia.

Pinging @Beyond My Ken, Visnelma, and Jéské Couriano: as well as they were participants in previous discussion with Banana6cake..

EDIT: Oh and also pinging - just in case they would like to add more to it - @Canterbury Tail, Oyond, Dimadick, Kevo327, and Spudlace: --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Support for topic ban per Silent and due to the disruptive editing of the user.--V. E. (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Add: Racist attack most likely warrant a block.--V. E. (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I have also added a warning on their talk page for the attack.--V. E. (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Support topic ban - my stance has not changed a whit. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Having a looksee at the diffs, I stand corrected. Indef site ban - nationalist and racist attacks, to me, is grounds for a site ban overtop the other issues. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 20:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• support site ban this has gone too far and he user doesn't seem to be a net possitive to the project anytime soon. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 21:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
• Indef site ban The editor had their chance to correct themselves after the past week's call for ban, and apologize for their behavior, but it seems they simply dind't care. The latest edit shows the problem isn't really their edits in a topic area that would make a Tban sufficient; they are WP:NOTHERE. For this reason, I support Indef site ban.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef site ban. Those nationalist attacks are uncalled for and there's no reason to allow this user to continue editing here after that behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

A list of edits containing personal attacks

[318] [319] [320] [321] [322]--V. E. (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You didn't notify them of this discussion.However, I have blocked them for 72 hours for a pattern of nationalist attacks.Discussion of a topic ban may continue here. Acroterion (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

To the Admins: There is a solid consensus that User:Banana6cake. should be banned from Wikipedia. The particular user has not only violated Wikipedia's rules repeatedly but also has failed (clarification: never bothered, or are not interested) in convincing us that they would improve their attitude and behavior. All these days, they had their chance to remedy for their actions, but didn't even bother. For this reason, I do not believe we can expect anything positive from them; they should be banned from the site indefinitely. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism and/or WP:CIR

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

---

StarryNightSky11 in Template:2021 Copa América group tables. On 19 June (UTC time), removed the A note (meaning Brazil advanced to quarter-finals) without explanations [323]. The A note was reinstated by UltraBlazer with an explanation [324] on 20 June, only to be removed again, still unexplained. Later that day, I tried to reinstate the note ([325], [326], [327] etc.) and discuss (in edit summaries and his/her talk page [328]), Twkang0115 also did [329]. We received no replies by any means, but the reverting finally stopped in late 21 June.
Then today, he/she adds a wrong A note for Peru [330], and the reverting continues, despite explanations by Tryphiodorus [331], 2 IPs ([332] and [333]), myself ([334] and in his/her talk page [335]) and JenningsTheCrow [336]. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I just gave the user a level four warning and warning about 3RR (which I did not see on their talk page) for a further revert. —C.Fred (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:FieldMarine creating alumni categories that go against long-standing practice

It has come to my attention that User:FieldMarine is creating school alumni categories that are unnecessary and duplicative, because he's simply using a modern university's old names as the basis for the new categories. For myriad years it's been the practice to merge alumni categories of historical institutions up into the modern name only. It makes literally zero difference what a school used to be called as far as alumni status – someone who graduated from "Western Maryland College", for example, has the exact same status as someone who graduated from "McDaniel College".

The creation of these historical-name-based categories is going against long-standing convention, is creating unnecessary layering of alumni cats (making the site less navigable for readers), and is frankly a slippery slope.

I have no clue how many unnecessary child categories are now out there because of FieldMarine but they need to be undone. I'm bringing this to ANI to get uninvolved administrators and misc. editors to weigh in. SportsGuy789 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

What you describe as long-standing convention seems plainly crazy when subcategories could be used to prevent anachronism while preserving the basic information. —JBL (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

SportsGuy789 When you start an ANI case, make sure you send an ANI notice. I've gone ahead and sent one to FieldMarine. Jerm (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Jerm, thanks for the alert. I presume this discussion is about edits on cat structure for colleges that have been renamed. If not, please let me know so I’m not missing what I should be addressing.

As for the discussion above, if there is prior consensus about this cat structure or a policy about it, please post link here as I believe that would be helpful to inform this discussion. I believe it is good practice to base arguments on good reasons, and not, "That's the way it's always been" (with no prior discussion/consensus on the issue) or "I don't like it". If there is a policy, let's review and discuss. There are reasons why I believe it makes sense to have a cat using the old school name as a subcat of the new school. For example, a two-year technical or business college may change and become a university. In this case, the cat for the old school may include subcats related to the technical or business school, in addition to cat for the new school name, whereas the cat for alumni of the new school may not have those. In general though, I think it's an easy way to capture prior history of the school.

Here's a current discussion related to this topic.

Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• @SportsGuy789: Why are you starting an AN/I thread over a content dispute with zero evidence? AN/I is for actually disruptive behaviour. If you actually look at FieldMarine's contribution history [337] they've been creating these categories (there aren't that many of them) for years ever since Southampton College alumni back in May of 2019. [338] Nobody has ever brought this up on FieldMarine's talk page either. If FieldMarine has been going against some kind of consensus that they actually knew about or should have known about this might be a matter for AN/I but you've presented exactly no evidence of prior consensus. You've also shown no evidence that Fieldmarine should have or did know about that consensus. This thread is a complete waste of time and ANI is not for resolving content disputes. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 08:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Disruption on BLPs

All month long, Ethan2345678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has disrupted BLPs, mainly by changing surnames to pronouns and writing Too much [insert surname here] to summarize these changes.[339] The user has been warned about various forms of disruptive editing on their talk page, but they would simply thank those who posted the warnings and go on with their disruption. KyleJoan^talk 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this user could benefit from a gentle schooling on Wikipedia policy, as they continue to make (I assume unintentionally) unconstructive edits. Here, for instance, they misunderstand MOS:SURNAME and misunderstand basic chronology. Sometimes, their edit summaries make little sense, such as this, which simply mimicks phrasing from watchlist script. They've also added unsourced information after a revert. Again, I assume these are inadvertent due to a lack of knowledge and could be benefited by some guidance or careful review of Wikipedia's policy and style guides. Their talk page is rife with warnings and second warnings, especially for disruptive editing, which they usually return with a thank-you and little subsequent action.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This user had been blocked many times on Thai Wikipedia due to his disruptive behavior. There, he had ignored all advice given to him and community consensus. He even broke his own promise to not cause disruptive editing once again. His conduct is still the same. -- Just Sayori OK? (have a chat) 04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Just Sayori, being blocked from another Wikipedia site is not evidence of current disruption on this site. Please provide current evidence of continued disruptive editing on this site after the user was informed about this ANI? — Johnnie Bob (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Now he's draftifying articles that are 4 months old and more, triggering the edit filters and using edit summaries such as 'Article is not good enough.' and 'is only a stub,' etc. Examples: [340], [341], and [342]. He's also moving articles because the subject's name changed because of a marriage: [343]. User still seems "confused" about MOS:SURNAME. Can't something more be done besides "... a gentle schooling?" — Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. It seems like the several explanations left on their talk page have been insufficient. I think there also might be some difficulties with the English language at work here.--Bettydaisies (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Erennica doing PA on my talk page repeatedly

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

---

The user does PA on my talk page and re-adds it when I revert the edit.[344]--V. E. (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Someone else did personal attacks on my talk page earlier this month.[345] I'd appreciate it, if you could protect my talk page.--V. E. (talk) 20:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Visnelma: The edit in question was not a personal attack—at least, I don't see an obvious one. User has been advised that 3RR applies when re-adding messages or warnings to user talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.--V. E. (talk) 20:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

BabyKate1

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

---

BabyKate1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've received a rather weird email from this editor. They're currently blocked but seem to be spamming random wikipedia editors demanding they be unblocked.

I didn't know where else to bring this one but sounds like they need email access withdrawn. WCM_email 23:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. All the best, Miniapolis 23:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

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

User:WesternPenquin

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

---

WesternPenquin (talk · contribs · count)

The edit history speaks for itself: This account made 10 minor edits over 4 days to reach Autoconfirmed and then began repeatedly removing the same content from Tucker Carlson, narrowly skirting 3RR. Multiple userpage warnings (including one for edit warring [346]) were ignored. Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. –dlthewave ☎ 02:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Ignoring user talk page warnings

Asdfghjkl9658 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has ignored over a year's worth of user talk page warnings about disruptive editing and providing edit summaries. The user has responded to an alert once before,[347] so the disregard seems intentional. KyleJoan^talk 02:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Could it be just that WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

They have a handful of edits on talk pages and have, as KyleJoan said, previously responded to a ping on one. At the very least, they must be aware that both talk pages and notifications are a thing. Of course, that doesn't mean they're actually looking at either. – Rummskartoffel 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The disruption has continued.[348][349][350][351][352] KyleJoan^talk 08:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Multiple anonymous vandalizing on Ken Willis page

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

---

I happened to come across some weird content on the Ken Willis page. Looking at the history ([353]), there were a number of IP-only edits from similar IPs. Since that former professional athlete is apparently a teacher now, my guess is that this is students (some of the content claims to be from students), possibly posting from school computers. Would it be reasonable to protect the page so that only logged-in users could edit it? He is retired from the NFL, so it seems unlikely that there would be a great need to edit the page. And of course if there is a need, someone could create an account. The big thing would seem to be to end the anonymous edits, as they seem overwhelmingly to be vandalism and the use of multiple IPs make warnings unlikely to be effective. I did not go past the first page of the history, but about a third of the edits seem to be anonymous and later reverted. At least logged-in users can be warned, suspended, etc. Mdfst13 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The playing around with this article has been going on since last October, with only one (incomplete) revert before Mdfst13's. It's clear that no active editor has been watching the article, so I've semiprotected it for a year (and added it to my watchlist). If that seems too long, any admin is welcome to adjust the expiration date. Deor (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with FSR support

I added the AfD to the list yesterday, now I notice a few more comments on it. It was pretty clear the creator (7Prefix7) just logged out of his account to post from his IP. But now the other usernames, are they all the same person?? Can an admin have a look? I am not sure where to start or where to end, who is the puppet to the puppeteer. Govvy (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Badhunter0303's one singular edit is at that AfD, and uses the same choice of words (" it's an informative page") as 7Prefix7, which is a bit suspect. — Czello 07:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

No, there are no socks in that discussion. I am not really surprised that people are showing up in that discussion because the technology is kind of a big deal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If the technology is a 'big deal', maybe someone should write an article about it, demonstrating the notability of the topic via third-party coverage. Because as it stands, the list contains a redirect to an article that doesn't actually tell anyone what FSR is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: no socks? And what about Silvershot10, an account with one edit in 2012 to suddenly turn up again in 2021 directed straight to this AfD. I don't know about ducks, but it smells fishy to me! Not to mention Badhunter0303 being created just to post one comment at this AfD. :/ Govvy (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: While not sockpuppetry, there might be canvassing involved, intentional or unintentional. The creator of the list page shared it on Reddit, which probably explains a lot of the sudden interest in it. --Veikk0.ma 04:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

{{Not a ballot}} added to the discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

That account made 2 small edits before he even commented to you he was also editing at the same time as me before. And as this admin has stated the accounts defending me are not alts. I dislike how you are accusing me of things with no evidence and also why you are emotionally involved in trying to get this page removed. Your behavior is very improper. 7Prefix7 (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

O, the evidence is obvious to me. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: It's not sock puppetry, it's unintentional canvassing from reddit. The creator of the article made a reddit post shortly before they started the article on a pc gaming subreddit asking people to help them write their new page and add missing entries to the list, which is why this day old orphaned article has been edited by about a dozen IP's and several brand new accounts. 16 hours after the reddit post it was sent to AFD. Clearly what's happened is that people reading the reddit post have ended up at the AFD discussion. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC

I'm the creator of the post on reddit, i just wanted a place where people could see all games FSR support, just like the DLSS wikipedia page/article. Badhunter0303 (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuous vandalism on Recreate Greece

QuaestorGaius has been involved in multiple reverts on Recreate Greece by claiming that they are either biased or distorting the truth. I tried to discuss it with him on the relevant discussion page but he has not responded sadly. The name of the party and its leader is clearly mentioned in all sources provided - some of them are from academic journals. The history of the page shows that he has done the same to other users, whilst he was recently blocked from Greek Wikipedia for using sockpuppets to do the same and after being involved in multiple reverts against other users on the same article. There might be a conflict of interest here for sure, but I will let administrators decide what to do next. Thank you! Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

For now I've cautioned the other user on edit warring. Mightberightorwrong, I would extend you the same caution irrespective of the other user. 331dot (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I've also as a courtesy informed the other user of the existence of this discussion, for future reference Mightberightorwrong that's required when you discuss another user here(see the top of this page). 331dot (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. May I kindly ask you to revert the article back to the version I edited in order to start a discussion with the user? Or is it ok if I do it myself? Pretty sure that those reverts are considered vandalism as multiple sources have been erased without an explanation. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that you not do so, to allow others to weigh in. I will not do so as a matter of fairness here. 331dot (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mightberightorwrong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I would like to report that user for source distortion in the article of the party “recreate Greece”. For example the Amadeo report he uses does not mention the party even once. It is a clear attempt to shift the article’s perspective towards his own POV. Moreover the way he formulates the article with the opening sentences being heavily loaded with political accusations is clearly against wikipedia policy on article neutrality.

He even goes as far as to blatantly LIE here about the party being named in his sources even though in the article’s history he clearly states the sources only provide information on Thanos Tzimeros and not the party as a whole. I would also like to ask for intervention against his ad hominem attacks about this imaginable “conflict of interest” he claims.

←QuaestorGaius (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not a good policy to complain about ad hominem attacks and then launch one of your own. Acroterion (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Only I didn't, I merely said he was lying which he is as is proven by the source I cite further down. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I reiterate, stop doing that. Acroterion (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

All of the sources clearly mention both the name of the party and Tzimeros. An administrator can have a look and verify that I am not lying. This is vandalism and should not be tolerated. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment An admin should put full article protection for at least a week until things get resolved on the article talk page. Jerm (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Now you again caught clearly lying. Here is an example. source This source does not mention the party even once. So here we have you lying about ALL the sources naming the party and I provide you evidence that they don't. Can anyone intervene. Btw ythe user reverted the article again claiming vandalism while the issue is still being discussed. Is such behaviour even acceptable any more QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Page 85 as 'Creation Again'. Translations vary. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

You realise you are claiming clear references on a huge list of political accusations and no where is it directly stated that the party can be accused of those. That is just a board naming the leader of the party as influential in Social media, nowhere close the claims that you make. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, the discussion is turning into a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. @QuaestorGaius: & @Mightberightorwrong:, use the article talk page. Jerm (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well he claimed vandalism, and this is clearly not vandalism since I have provided ample of reasons why this content is either distorted or heavily biased coming from left leaning NGOs like the above. But as this is discussed he reverted the article again. QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) As much as I dislike to not completely agree with the one who isn't trying to remove the phrase "far-right" from an article on a far-right political party and isn't creepily mirroring the opening words of the other person's talk page comments, this obviously should have gone to the article talk page first. I endorse Jerm's solution. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Holy quadruple negative, Batman! --JBL (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Technically it's two similarly-structured triple negatives alongside each other, and I don't think anyone would say that I should have written as much as I like to completely agree with the one not trying to remove the phrase "far-right" from an article or that doing so would not have changed the meaning of my comment. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think I must have been counting "remove" as the fourth? I have given up on actually parsing either version, but after concentrated effort I think I understood your drift :). --JBL (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article and warned both warriors to stop attacking each other. They will have to go to the talkpage and work it out, and the first to attack the other, either in comments or edit summaries, should be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

NOTHERE use of Wikipedia to host fan fiction

• Amigos da Verdade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Defesa777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 45.238.168.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

all appear to be the same WP:NOTHERE user engaged in using Wikipedia to host fan fiction.

Six months of nothing but webhosting of fan fiction. RE WP:OUTING I won't link to the non-Wikipedia fan site where it appears the same user has been posting this same material, but this is nothing but descriptions of imaginary productions the writer would like to see happen. It's not immediately obvious from looking at the Wikipedia material how bogus this is until you look at the many bizarre pipes that make it look as if there are Wikipedia articles backing things up, or try to actually find any real sources that these things exist. See the edit histories of Draft:Justice Knight, Draft:JK, Draft:J/K, Draft:YHWH, User:Defesa777, and User:Amigos da Verdade (some have been already been deleted as WEBHOSTING and will not be viewable by non-admins).

No response to pointing to WP:NOTWEBHOST and repeated attempts to communicate with user, other than the abandonment of user:Amigos da Verdade and the creation of user:Defesa777. (User seems to have created Defesa777 on May 21 just after the warning to Amigos da Verdade and largely switched to using the second account). Meters (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The IP has no edits other than to this group of articles, and first appeared on Draft:JK mere days after its creation by Amigos da Verdade. Meters (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Meters apart from a bizarre set of self indulgent edits, do you perceive this also to be sockpuppetry? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

All three are almost certainly the same person. Per NOTHERE, I have indeffed the two accounts and blocked the IP. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

While not block evasion, it was WP:ILLEGIT. The second account was WP:SCRUTINY and the IP was WP:LOUTSOCK. Meters (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Troublesome Unlearning Editor

I was informed by the teahouse I can take this here. I have come across a user HariSinghw whom strikes me as a notably poor yet rather prolific editor whom well appears out of their depth and is ultimately creating significant mess on Wikipedia. Of note, they appear to have a poor command of English which has not improved over time which is certainly a contributing factor. I came across them last night when I submitted a speedy deletion (which has since become an AfD) for an article HariSinghw created. What grabbed my attention was after submitting the SD request I noticed they left a message on the talk page for the article and it was rather poorly articulated and argued. So much so that I decided to review HariSinghw's talk page. I noticed a multi-year banner of numerous AfD's, PROD's, SD's, article creation failures, attempts by others to kindly help the user that seemed ineffective, as well as a general demonstration of not learning and seeming disinterest in learning from past mistakes. It's possible there is more evidence (both positive and negative) in other locations past what is in the talk page and immediately linked on it. I found it rather striking that such a seemingly prolific editor has such a long track record of failures and yet has demonstrated almost no signs of improvement over this time. I would have though that the user would either be successfully helped/coached to improve, or some action be done to limit creating messes and straining bureaucratic machinery.

Based on what I saw, I thought it would be wasted effort to try and guide them (plus, I am relatively new at editing and am likely not the best choice to do so) and instead I made a post in the treehouse to ask what (if anything) could be done to alleviate this. That message can be seen here. One person provided a similar analysis to what I had observed. It was also suggested there that more guidance on their talk page might help, but I am extremely disinclined to think this will be helpful due to this long standing track record.

As I am rather new to editing wikipedia (I have had an account since 2018 but I didn't start involving myself in active editing until this month) and am still learning how things work, so I am unsure of what can be done and am mostly sharing this to gain the attention of administrators who might know more of what could be done (if anything). All things together, and most poignant it seems to me like HariSinghw's editing activity is messy to the point of straining the bureaucratic machinery due to volume and persistence, and is almost like vandalism without any intent (if that a thing or there is a different term for this).

Thanks for taking the time to have a look at this. I will post the requisite note on the user's talk page.

--Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I was just made aware of WP:Competence is required and after reviewing it, and considering the many years pattern the user has displayed I do still think this is worth review by administrators so it is on their radar and potential actions (whatever that may be) could be taken. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 02:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This guy meets the bare minimum of competency required to edit. Please read the section on "responding to a suspected lack of confidence" which suggests talking to the user beforehand. The person at the teahouse who directed you to ANI should probably be WP:TROUTED. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 02:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information here (and the larger comment below). I'll admit my threshold of whom I am willing to help/teach isn't that low and this person doesn't meet that. Certainly not opposed to others helping them though. It's also good to see this has been done by someone else and hopefully will set a trend in the future. Also, lolol at the trout (that's new to me). --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of templates. I don't see a lot of help. Barely anyone has even tried to meaningfully engage with this editor. What is this guy even doing wrong, like specifically? If I can't tell from solely reading their talk page how are they supposed to tell? You're "of the opinion that guidance will have no effect whatsoever" but have you even bothered to try to give that guidance? WP:AGF is still something that exists. I count 4 threads where someone didn't just leave a generic template. They're actually doing a pretty good job considering how little help they've received. For instance, Date palm farming in India. This is not a high quality article by any means but it demonstrates a remarkable improvement over articles they've made in the past, so I doubt the idea that this editor can't improve. I'll also note that the article was created once somebody left a message on HariSingh's talk page letting them know a bunch of articles on date farming in different parts of India might be better off in a single article at first. There's also no rule against creating minimally referenced stubs.

My advice to HariSinghw is to focus on topics with clearer notability for the time being. People that have their own policy, such as those falling under WP:NPOLITICIAN are a good start. Stubs on broad topics can also be useful. Date farming in India was good; are there other major crops that don't have articles? Additionally, I think you might benefit from expanding existing articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject India has a table of articles by importance and by size. There's 499 high importance articles to India that are still stubs. [354] You should consider focusing on those. It seems counterintuitive that I'm telling you to edit higher importance articles despite your inexperience but generally the more important a topic is the easier it is to find sources and write about it; especially when barely anything has been written about it on Wikipedia already. You should also try to avoid promotional language. Try reading other articles on related topics before writing your own article. You will learn the bland words that Wikipedia wants that way. You should also feel free to ask at the WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:Help desk for help on what you did wrong and how you can fix your editing. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 02:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I left a comment on HariSinghw's Talk page listing many examples of articles and drafts that in my opinion do not benefit Wikipedia because those are too short to be useful, inadequately referenced, etc. My recommendation was to focus on quality over quantity. David notMD (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I saw this, and thanks. Will comment further elsewhere since this (I think) seems resolved. Thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

From recent XfD !votes, it appears he's not familiar with notability criteria, which would be a great place to start. From this edit it's also not clear whether he's familiar with what type of content is encyclopedic. Star Mississippi 23:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nationalistic edits reg. place names in Georgia

In the nation of Georgia, there are places that aren't ethnically Georgian, which shouldn't be surprising considering most other countries on Earth aren't homogenous either.

Namely, the southern historical region of Javakheti, also known as Javakhk, is almost fully Armenian, while another region known as Trialeti has historically been Greek and Armenian until post-Soviet times, when the region became pluralitarily Georgian. Another region, Kvemo Kartli has a population that is around half Azerbaijani.

Despite all this, a user by the name of Giorgi Balakhadze is removing names from several (formerly and presently) Armenian/Greek/Azerbaijani cities in Georgia, namely Akhalkalaki, Ninotsminda, Marneuli, Dzveli Kveshi and Tsalka. His justification is that the inhabitants are citizens of Georgia, even though their native languages are not Georgian. As an example, the city of Marneuli, also known as Sarvan to its majority-Azeri population, now features the latter name in the introduction and infobox. Giorgi Balakhadze, however, has made it their task to systematically remove non-Georgian, native names, from the aforementioned article.

Historical and present names which may serve as alternatives to the main names of places have always found a home on Wikipedia, yet Giorgi Balakhadze keeps attempting to change this very fact. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The names are in the lede but not in the infobox. I agree that the infobox in non-0exceptional cases (like disputed territories) must only have one name, which in this case is Georgian.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

In that case, let's do it uniformly then, no? It'd be okay to remove Azerbaijani names from villages in Armenia and Georgia and vice versa; am I understanding this correctly? BaxçeyêReş (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Do we have articles on localities outside of Nagorno-Karabakh with two or more names in the infoboxes?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is a map of former Azerbaijani villages in Armenia: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1uZHWE3I4m3xCiYbWcO8R9IBSW9T3LJmo&ll=40.11264278826263%2C45.08639034391172&z=8. They all have former Azeri names in their infoboxes, so Akhalkalaki and co. aren't alone. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

If the issue is that it's inappropriate to call an historical or unofficial name "native", {{Infobox settlement}} also has the parameter other_name (as used in Mumbai and Kolkata). NebY (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue with this specific user seems to be the mere mention of alternative, non-Georgian names. I personally just want nothing but consistency on this encyclopedia. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue for this specific user - me is that you were doing wrong edits in infobox, and even started edit-warring about that. After your intense reverts, I tried to explain to you on your discussion page but instead of any dialogue, you showed unfriendly attitude and from the very beginning called me "nationalist". In addition, even in "roll back comments" you used an invalid argument, like, the example of Marneuli article, where similar edits were recently made by the user VivaEspana11. Both of you were doing the same, and used each others edits as an argument. As you can see from other users they don't agree with you or all of them are Georgian Nationalists and please remove all your disruptive edits mentioned on your discussion page. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 23:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, if not you, I was definitely going to start a discussion here regarding edits of you two BaxçeyêReş & VivaEspana11. It's late time for me but anyway it is good that the issue is already here. If you don't mind see you tomorrow. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 00:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Really @Ymblanter ? 1, 2. Btw personally, I think inclusion limited to the lede is more appropriate (given it's sourced), but to see someone like Ymblanter saying that and even questioning its existence outside of NKR is just something (: ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why you bring my mass reverts of an obviously disruptive user as an example, but yes, I think everything from the infobox should just go.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You were just questioning the availability of such articles outside of Nagorno-Karabakh? Am I reading the same thing as you do? Also, the reverts you restored, done by now blocked Azerbaijani editor, CuriousGolden, directly contradict you here. But I guess it was "mass reverts" so it's fine then right? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, if an IP arrives and makes 20 similar pro-Armenian nationalistic POV edits without any discussion, it is perfectly ok to revert them. If someone shows up in your house with a gun and does not say anything, it is perfectly ok to shoot them dead first, even if their intention was to offer cleaning services.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious (pun intended) how all the edits done by CuriousGolden including infobox additions and often times poorly sourced/unsourced same POV style additions as you mention with that IP (only on the Azerbaijani side) didn't bother you at all it seems like. Hell, they even had a map apparently, and added the Az names (in infoboxes included and again, often times poorly sourced), to hundreds of Armenian villages. Some consistency would be appreciated, and your analogy is just pure hyperbole. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not quite sure what are you trying to achieve. This is not a topic about me. You showed up with your ad hominem arguments which do not address the topic in any way, but are presumably intended to attack me. At least I do not see any other purpose. If you think I performed any misconduct you are welcome to open a topic about me and prove this misconduct with diffs. Trying to derail this thread is not going to be helpful.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• It' hard to say what exactly "native" names of these villages might be. Looks like a content dispute. The only immediate concern is editing by user VivaEspana11 who recently opened an account specifically to edit war on this issue. My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

How exactly is it "hard to say" when a city is inhabited by over 90% of a specific ethnic group? BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I beleive it does not really matter what ethnic group is/was leaving in a settlement. Which WP policy or guideline tells that naming of cities should be based on ethnicity of inhabitants? My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there any Wikipedia policy that recommends not doing so? If a settlement has a native (historical or present) alternative name, it deserves to be mentioned. That is the case on virtually every WP page; just see Lviv, Tabriz, Cluj-Napoca, Belfast, Port Elizabeth, and probably thousands of others. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

But then you need some good RS explicitly saying that "city X had an old/historical name N". If you do have such RS, please use then on all pages in dispute. That would make your position a lot stronger. But you do it without any referencing [355]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

This is all fine, but this is a matter for the lede, not for the infobox.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ymblanter. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 06:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No matter in the lead or infobox, but the claim about each specific old/alternative naming must be explicitly sourced. If not, this is WP:SYN by BaxçeyêReş, and it should be reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Strongly disagree. We routinely mention alternate names in infoboxes[356][357][358][359][360][361][362]. Even more: we sometimes prefer traditional, actually used names to official names[363][364]. That's the whole reason of having multiple parameters! We do not routinely require strong sourcing for each name; enough that some sources confirm alternative names. I agree with the OP that an argument that Armenian names are not "official names" is insufficient to remove them from Wikipedia. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I think one needs at least one RS to support alternative naming if it was disputed. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Kashmiri firstly, providing example on India where territories can have their own official languages as a universal example is a manipulation. Secondly, no one were trying to remove Armenian names from Wikipedia. It's clearly said, provide sources, include them in the beginning of the article but not in the infobox, where they provide them as native name!--Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 19:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a separate set of naming rules for India and for Georgia. Your argument is further void because Georgia is also a multi-ethnic and multilingual country[365]. Infobox always should contain any names in significant use – because that's its role. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Georgia is also a multi-ethnic and multilingual like most other countries in the world but unlike India there is one official native language - Georgian, and regions don't have their own official languages except Abkhazian AR. Placing any other language name as native in infobox is wrong. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 20:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks like one needs an RfC, otherwise edit-warring would never stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, My very best wishes the user VivaEspana11 keeps vandalizing Dzveli Kveshi article. He pushes other name which is not even the second most widely used name for the village (see User_talk:VivaEspana11#Dzveli Kveshi), puts it in bold (before even as native name) and says that s/he has sources but I can't access those links, they are dead links. Any help? --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 15:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I can not act as administrator in this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Though this user has no useful contribution to Wikipedia and must be blocked per WP:NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That user just seems to be a singe purpose account. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The constant reverting isn't resolving anything. There's already violations of WP:3RR. The best course of action though is to add full protection to some of the disputed articles, and have the involved individuals use the article talk page to resolve the matter because this discussion is becoming a content dispute. That is not what ANI is for. Jerm (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Consensus has already been reached. I have reverted my edits, and I will work together with other editors to remove non-official names from infoboxes in the future. I (the purported sockpuppet of CuriousGolden, according to you) am no longer involved in this. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

BaxçeyêReş I've already moved on from the SPI, why can't you? Jerm (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Notes

References

Snooganssnoogans

Snooganssnoogans was aware that I was blocked as a sockpuppet because on their userpage, they placed my name under the word, "Busted".

On 16 May 2020, they removed "Busted" and kept my name listed under NoCal100 Sockpuppet investigations.

On 28 Dec 2020, I was informed by Maxim that ARBCOM approved my appeal, that I was not a sockpuppet.

On 24 May 2021, I warned Snooganssnoogans to remove my name from their userpage:

As I'm sure you are aware, ARBCOM cleared me of being a sockpuppet. Therefore, per WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVILITY, you need to remove this edit from your userpage immediately and I may consider not reporting you. The Kingfisher (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Shortly thereafter, they made this edit, removing me from under the NoCal100 Sockpuppet investigation, but still leaving me listed on their userpage under sockpuppet investigations.

As of now, their userpage still has me listed as an editor that is a suspected sockpuppet.

I believe that listing another editor on their userpage as a suspected sockpuppet for more than six months after ARBCOM stated that I'm not a sockpuppet, AND after I warned them, that they are most definitely violating WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CIVILITY.

Thank you! The Kingfisher/UberVegan The Kingfisher (talk) 01:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You DID sock by creating the account User:UberVegan. UberVegan was an account that you created to circumvent a block. Even if the original block was bullshit you still made a sockpuppet account. You need to keep in mind that ArbCom didn't clear you of socking; it cleared you of being a sockpuppet of NoCal100. Listing you as a "active" sockpuppet isn't true anymore and you're right that it's something that should be removed. At the same time you need to moderate your language. You're overplaying your hand here and saying stuff like "I may consider not reporting you." doesn't demonstrate a collaborative mindset; it's very battlegroundy and seeking to remove any and all mentions of your sockpuppetry isn't a tenable position. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 09:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Your points are well taken.

It's listed on my userpage because I was the editor who successfully uncovered that you were running a sockpuppet account to evade a ban[366]. If the consensus here is that I should remove the sockpuppet mention from my userpage, then I will comply with that. However, the list of past sockpuppets is very helpful for me to bust future ones (usernames are hard to remember), which is why I note them down. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous at best. It is not listed as "I uncovered this sockpuppet", but rather "Active sockpuppetry to watch for". In other words, you've put a bounty on me. I am simply an editor with two accounts. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs)

You're not simply an editor with two accounts. This is how you reacted when I asked if you had a relationship to the other account: "You're insane! No, I have no idea who The Kingfisher is! Are you crazy???!!!"[367] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

All the mud that you're throwing clearly came out in my appeal and I've left on my talk page for all to see. And, most of that was the basis for my appeal being denied. However, ARBCOM was able to get past that and ultimately unblocked me, BOTH accounts. Meaning, neither is now a sockpuppet. All the S#!T that you continue to sling from the past doesn't justify you to openly imply on your userpage that I am a sockpuppet. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I do find your obsessive focus on me a bit disturbing. Since your return, you've made baseless claims of tendentious editing on my talk page[368] and absurdly called for a ban on me for bringing a content dispute to the BLP noticeboard[369]. Even in your unblock request, you called for a ban on me for successfully uncovering that UberVegan was your sock[370]. In my view, this borders on harassment. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A bit of a strawman and again disingenuous. I believe that since my return I have made one claim, not claims (I will check later) whereas you have ME listed on your userpage! Who is obsessed? The Kingfisher (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• @The Kingfisher: Will it make a difference if the word Active was removed (assuming Snooganssnoogans agrees)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No.

I changed it to just "sockpuppetry".[371] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You need to take my name off your userpage.

Just want to briefly weigh in as a third party--while I don't think Snoogans' approach here is particularly constructive, he is within his rights. Kingfisher, I think you would admit that whatever the merits of any official action, there are some things you regret. I understand that it is irksome when some people won't let the past be the past, but neither you nor I can control anyone else's conduct. My advice would be to have some of your favorite food or drink and just try to ignore this, difficult though it may be. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: What do you think the community would say if every editor who wanted, placed on their userpage transgressions of other editors? Would it be okay for me to list on my userpage every editor who has been blocked? Is that civil?

The focus should be on the process that allowed an editor to be wrongly blocked as a sock in the first place. Think of Andy Dufesne. Are you going to judge him by the fact that he was wrongly convicted or on the fact that lied to the guards and the warden? Or that he dug a hole when that was forbidden by the prison? Or that he was a sockpuppet and used a fake name to set up bank accounts? Or that he broke out of prison??? I'm sorry, but that's exactly what is happening here. The Kingfisher (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would say that if you want to list all userpages of blocked editors, you'd be expending a lot of effort, but it would be within your rights. I've given my take. You are, of course, free to ignore it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Why personal attacks are harmful says, "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user." Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors says, "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them."

It bothers me to see for example members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list#Eastern European mailing list who were banned for coordinating their edits off-Wiki now un-banned and editing under new names. But I have to accept that ARBCOM has decided to allow them to edit as full members of the community and would only bring up their past misdeeds in a disciplinary discussion. While past blocks and bans are relevant to discussions of future blocks and bans, they are not relevant to content discussions, as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

If you want to listed sanctions against editors, you are free to save them on your computer or use cloud storage, which is provided free by several companies.

TFD (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

While I do not condone socking (Which The Kingfisher did), I think Snooganssnoogans is wrong to keep The KingFisher's name on his userpage even though he is not actively socking. This is highly uncivil behavior that I see all the time. I do not think a community where civility is a pillar should allow editors to keep highly negative information about other editors on their userpages if they are in good enough standing. Telling someone to "just ignore it" does not sit well with me at all. Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the list – I'm pretty open-minded about userspace freedom but userpages shouldn't be used to keep score or brag about successful sock hunts; it's counterproductive to a welcoming, collegiate community. And kind of immature. (Oh, and if an editor actually did use multiple accounts to pretend they were two different people, that's also immature and they should avoid riding high horses for a while.) Levivich 19:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Just wanted to be perfectly clear that I agree with this entirely from a prudential standpoint--I just don't think an administrator should have the ability to enforce such a mandate. Then again, perhaps that's why I will never be an administrator. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  It is not a listing "used to keep score or brag about successful sock hunts". It is a listing helpful to identify sockpuppets in the parts of Wikipedia that I'm familiar with and with modus operandi that I'm familiar with. A number of the sockpuppets are long-time abusers and I go back to the notes to identify them when they return. Editors who have little to no experience in identifying socks may not realize it, but it's extraordinarily tiresome and time-consuming to identify likely socks and connect them to the right account. Those notes help with that task. It's absurd to see it described as "immature", but I'm not surprised to see that from Levivich (who pops up in every discussion related to me to lay into me). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's what WP:LTA is for. If you want to maintain your own LTA notes, do it offline. Having your own personal LTA section on your userpage is not a good idea; it looks like you're publishing an "enemies list" on your userpage. Levivich 20:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  I am not going to maintain notes on LTA on my computer and I see no value in consulting a crowdsourded LTA list where I have no familiarity with 99/100 accounts listed. The point of the notes is too rapidly link a particular sock with a master account. Your suggestions are all burdens that serve no purpose (except to protect the feelings of confirmed sockpuppets) and make it much more time-consuming and complicated to link likely socks with their masters. If my notes are so offensive, isn't the next logical step to do away with all archives of sockpuppetry on Wikipedia? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  Another option would be a user subpage. Levivich 21:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. This is WP:POLEMIC and inappropriate, regardless. Few people will be interested in a random old sockpuppetry case anyway. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Without further comment on the other sockpupppetry listings, the listing of the UberVegan account, given the totality of the circumstances, likely violates WP:POLEMIC, point 3, as "[negative] evidence ... should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if [it] will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Given it bothers The Kingfisher enough to bring it to ANI, I would suggest that the mention of The Kingfisher/UberVegan be removed from User:Snooganssnoogans. Maxim_(talk) 19:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I advise User:The Kingfisher to read Streisand effect. The Wikipedia community knows far more about this incident than we would if they hadn't made so much noise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, that's one way to deal with uncivil behavior. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Procedural Close by administrator at Talk:Radio Free Asia, per WP:GS/UYGHUR

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

---

At 21:00 UTC on 27 June 2021, an RfC was created on Radio Free Asia by Paragon Deku. Multiple editors proceeded to respond, including myself, the RfC's creator, My very best wishes (diff), and Thomas Meng (diff). After these edits were made (at which time all !votes were in opposition to the proposal except that of the proposer), Paragon Deku refactored the RfC and moved users' comments into a section that did not accurately reflect the question that users had responded to; this appears to be in response to a suggestion made by BSMRD to restructure/draftify the RfC. Paragon Deku left notes on user pages informing us that this had happened.

In general, it's bad form to refactor an RfC after it's been created, as My very best wishes noted on the page. It's also bad form to refactor user comments except under limited circumstances, and the particular refactoring of the RfC's survey section resulted in users' comments being framed as if they were answering a question that was not asked. The article, which is extended-confirmed protected under the Uyghur genocide discretionary sanctions, has experienced disruption in the past regarding, in particular, the very question the RfC appears to be trying to get community input on. Under the sanctions regime, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict... reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

In light of the RfC being refactored after multiple users had commented, user comments being re-categorized by the RfC's creator after they refactored the RfC, and the WP:GS/UYGHUR regime applying to this page, I'd respectfully request that an administrator procedurally close the RfC as invalid through the use of discretionary sanctions. This RfC appears to have been bungled, and while I think an RfC might be helpful, the refactoring may well have tainted the RfC. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hello! This is not the appropriate forum, try WP:ANRFC! Heart ^(talk) 04:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@HeartGlow30797: I think it's appropriate here considering the request for discretionary sanctions to be applied. WP:CR is for posting requests to have an uninvolved editor assess, summarize, and formally close a discussion on Wikipedia, and this isn't one of those sorts of requests. I'm willing to move it if others would see it more appropriate on the other noticeboard, and I understand that WP:CR is typically where closures occur, but I was thinking that this was a better place owing to the difference in scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would like to say in my suggestion I said I would suggest closing the RfC, making a draft of a better structured one, and then resubmitting that one. I probably should have been more clear on recommending that course of action (and still think it's the best way forward, as this is an RfC that needs to be had). BSMRD (talk) 05:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with the RfC being closed, I do not like how you seem to be attributing malice to my actions. The question that was provided WAS asked initially and one of them was partially reworded to be more clear at the request of other editors. I understand this was sloppy but it was not done in an attempt to alter the results or obscure consensus. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The initial question asked was Should a reception section that details descriptions of the outlet as propaganda (and potential refutions of this allegation) by media analysts be included, and if it is, should the allegation of propaganda be mentioned in the lede of the page? I responded to that question. After refactoring, responses got moved into a section that corresponds to the question, Should the allegation of propaganda be mentioned in the lede of the page? They aren't materially the same, and as a result this restructuring substantially changed the scope of the oppose !vote left by, for example, Thomas Meng. The reason I'm recommending that the remedy for this is for the RfC to be procedurally closed by an admin (rather than for an editor to be issued sanctions against them under the GS regime) is because the intent doesn't obviously appear malicious, but it was sloppy. Administrative action would be necessary and proper for the RfC to be closed, but it would probably be the only way to enable us to scrap the ongoing RfC and actually go through a drafting process before creating a better structured one. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, there's no need to procedurally close the RFC at this point, if all parties are currently in agreement that, if there was an initial malforming issue, it was in good faith. The only one who has responded to the RFC who hadn't already posted to the talk page numerous times already is Renat, so there isn't exactly a "tainted jury" at the moment, at least from where I'm sitting. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:14, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrative action would be necessary and proper for the RfC to be closed, but it would probably be the only way to enable us to scrap the ongoing RfC and actually go through a drafting process before creating a better structured one. Why is an administrator close necessary? The RFC opener is already aware of what the issue is and has stated that he is fine with the close happening. And what is "the only way to enable us to scrap the ongoing RfC" supposed to mean? We can just close / withdraw it as "invalid", a draft can be made and we can restart the discussion, I do not think any of the participants are in disagreement about this. Also, I do not mean to cast any aspersions, but one could get the impression that this is a deliberate attempt by you to get sanctions imposed for good-faith actions by another editor. (especially because you've had issues[372] with them in the past) CPCEnjoyer (talk) 10:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• @CPCEnjoyer: What does that last sentence mean? I've asked an admin to look over and procedurally close a bungled RfC, that we mostly recognize as bungled, with the rationale that it would be proper to have the project go smoothly. As El C notes below, it is probably better for an admin to invoke a procedural close than for an uninvolved editor to do so. As the admin notes, my request here probably could have (and should have) been more brief, but I still think this is the appropriate noticeboard for this discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Mikehawk10: It refers to the fact that instead of trying to discuss an obviously good-faith edit and asking the user to withdraw/close the RfC, as it was invalidated, you decided to instead create an WP:ANI section regarding the "incident". CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• As the admin who invoked the GS for applying WP:ECP to the page —an action which I wasn't confident in applying from the outset— I feel increasing concern about the GS being used as a blunt instrument (to gain an edge), Mikehawk10. Also, I personally feel that there are certain non-admins whom are better discussion closers than some admins. Regardless, even if the GS' topic area were to feature prominently in this RfC, I don't think it disqualifies non-admins from closing it. That said, in my view, this RfC needs to be re-drafted as a single question, clearly and cogently. Splitting it into two parts is quite confusing. El_C 11:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I see that the request is for an admin to procedurally close the discussion (the section header should have given it away!). Indeed, if the discussion were to be procedurally closed, it probably would be better for an admin to do so. But, again, to me it looks like a voluntary re-drafting would be best here. El_C 12:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Ah ++, now I see what happened. I've closed the RfC as requested, see my closing summary for details (diff). Mikehawk10, in future, brevity something-something. El_C 12:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! But here is another poorly framed RfC in another DS area where people two times changed the questions after voting. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest you file a separate report that includes evidence in the form of diffs. Speaking for myself, I'm not inclined to sift through the revision history in-the-blind again (once is enough for one day, for me). El_C 17:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it again, Mikehawk10's report was more cogent than I gave it credit. My poor reading comprehension is on me. Struck. El_C 17:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

IP user attacking me with uncivil slurs

A user 63.194.188.238 (talk · contribs) has been attacking me when I was trying to suggest to them to not attack users on their talk page. Continued edits have not helped. There edits can be seen here:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

There are several more that can be seen through their edit history (often just spelling the words backwards I assume to hide some sort of profanity filter?). I've suggested to them to read WP:CIVIL and gave them over four warnings on their talk page (all have been removed). I'm not really sure what I can do more, but I would suggest a block/ban as this user is not here to work with others to help build an encyclopedia. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As a follow-up, the users response to to giving them a notice to this was this. I'll admit, it gave me a cheap laugh at least! They are currently blocked but I'm suggesting that they have little to no interest in contributing to the encyclopedia and don't seem to show any indication that they've read the rules I've linked them to. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I've extended the block and disabled TPA due to that last edit summary, which used the f-word (i.e. not fuck). That said, you should report misconduct and leave it at that, rather than continue posting on their talk page (in the double digits), seeing as they've just been blanking everything (without exception). El_C 10:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Repeated additions of non-RS material to June 8

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

---

Christopher 1167 added non-RS material to June 8, which got reverted by Deb. They then proceeded to add more poorly sourced info [373] [374] (note the WP:IDHT behavior) [375] [376] (my bad in the third diff, it was a mistake). They are currently at 3RR. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

They then attempted to remove my report. --Firestar464 (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I reverted a bunch of these date additions as not significant enough. The removal of the report from ANI is giving off strong NOTHERE vibes.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is now also at AN3. Firestar464 (talk) 10:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

CapitolKing editing dispute

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

---

These are my evidence for CapitolKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being vandalized my talk page here, and to disrupt editing (even if unsourced) for the members of the British royal family. Locally, DrKay refrained a warning message, but they blanked in several times. --Frontman830 (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Frontman830, WP:BLANKING is allowed. I also don't see how the aggression exhibited in that one diff rises to the level of harassment. Finally, you are required to notify the subject of this complaint about it having been filed (a requirement highlighted prominently at the top of this page). I have done this for you. El_C 12:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've since removed the harassment claim (diff). Well, so long as I didn't hallucinate it! El_C 12:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Forget it, but I have no good reason why this evidence if being threatened my talk page and DrKay's talk page, if CapitolKing placed the notice on my talk page and for DrKay's talk page. Conclusively, I trying to revert this talk page, and blanked it again. --Frontman830 (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Frontman830, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're trying to say. El_C 12:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Frontman830, please stop editing your comments after they have been replied to. Use strikethrough (<s>text</s>), or note the change with a diff. Thanks. El_C 12:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Ruedi33a and campaign boxes

Ruedi33a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has unilaterally decided there is a problem they are responsible for solving, and their actions in relation to this are becoming disruptive.

To briefly summarise, navboxes don't show in mobile view. Something to do with them not displaying properly on phones and taking an eternity to load, I don't really know. It's been known and discussed for years, see for example this Phabricator thread.

Ruedi33a decided to sidestep all this and implement their preferred solution, by creating a whole new series of "navboxes" (that were really infoboxes in disguise) and replacing the existing navboxes without any discussion. This resulted in a discussion that began at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 162#"Hubs", and then moved to the Village Pump at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 190#Template:Campaignbox is not visible on mobiles and tablets even if desktop mode is turned on. As a result of the latter a discussion a TFD was started at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 20#Template:Peninsular War 1810 1811 mobile which was swiftly expanded to include all the templates they'd created. During the TFD Ruedi33a has doubled down on their position that this is a problem that must be solved and kept suggesting "solutions" (if it is deemed to ba a problem it's something that will need solving at a higher level than a single editor implementing it), including starting a parallel discussion on the exact same templates at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 June 22#Template:Campaign Austria 1809 that was swiftly closed.

However, they've now started an attempt to sidestep the TFD. At Battle of Krasnoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and at many other articles) they have removed {{French invasion of russia mobile}} from the previous version, and made an addition which effectively merges their soon to be deleted template with the pre-existing map. This appears to be a transparent end-run around the pending deletion of their templates. FDW777 (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am actually deleting my infoboxes out of every article as they do not comply with the wiki rules. At the same time I improve my existing OSM location maps. This change of the OSM map was improved by a suggestion of Nuevousuario1011 and by a suggestion of Urselius. In addition I add the old navigation boxes to help in the TFD process Ruedi33a (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

As before and after show, you're not deleting the templates at all, you're coding them into the articles manually. FDW777 (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am looking into before: There is {{French invasion of russia mobile}}(TFD pending) and no {{Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia}}. Now I am looking into after: There is no {{French invasion of russia mobile}}(TFD pending) and a {{tl:Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia}}. But the list of battles invisible for mobile users in {{Campaignbox Napoleon's invasion of Russia}} is now in the OSM location map as a caption. I am learning a lot and trying to follow wiki rules. Which rule do I not know? Ruedi33a (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Bonadea

Hi, I am having a hard time with this used Bonadea after we disagreed on a topic related to a page names LGBT propaganda. I created the page and after my edit was reverted I wanted by Bonadea, I just wanted to discuss the problem with him and see what I did wrong and if we can agree on something. The main issue was that in his opinion propaganda had a negative meaning and that would break the neutrality of a page. While it is true that propaganda refers to a unfair way of transmitting information, as i explained on Talk:Gay agenda the fact that propaganda is an unfair way of transmitting informations about LGBT doesn't transfer it's negative attribute to LGBT itself. For example: Christian propaganda, while we can all agree Christianity isn't a bad thing, when it is promoted through propaganda, Christian propaganda becomes something unfair. Everything was peaceful until this point before, this used started calling me a "bigot" here [377] (he used the edit description to insult me by saying bigots not welcome) and deleted my message from his talk page where i was trying to discuss the issues with him so we can solve it. The word "bigot" is a slur [378] meant to categorize me as someone exaggerated and unreasonable and it offended and discouraged me. The 2nd thing this user did was to call people who oppose same-sex extremists here [379]. Why would someone use such a bad word to describe others who have different opinions, taking in consideration the European Court of Human Rights stated that art. 12 of ECHR guarantee the right to marriage only to heterosexual couples and countries have the freedom to legalize same-sex marriages or not. Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. This user's attitude was aggressive towards me meant to discourage me and intimidate me by associating me with extremists. I am really sorry if I didn't address the complaint right, but i rarely edit on Wikipedia and I am not an administrator and i have no power when it comes to someone as Bonadea who is an administrator. --JOrb (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to make things clear: I have never pretended to be an administrator. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Basically, it means that JOrb would vote Support, thought they already were one :D ——Serial 16:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I considered you an administrator by mistake since I thought mostly they are the ones who have the power to delete an Wikipedia page.--JOrb (talk) 15:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Hold up. You're arguing at Talk:Gay agenda#What has Wikipedia become? that the word "propaganda" isn't necessarily a bad thing, just a plain old neutral word to describe something. Now here, "bigot" is always a negative, no doubt about it. So which is it, do words matter or don't they? Woodroar (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you don't know word "propaganda" is used on many Wikipedia pages XD. It's not forbidden word, there s even a dedicated page for it - Propaganda.--JOrb (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I was going to type up something longer, but realized that it's a waste of time. This ANI report is a nothingburger. The best outcome you can hope for, JOrb, is that it is closed without action. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, sir! I am waiting to see other opinions, maybe some that are supported by arguments. Cheers! --JOrb (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

while we can all agree Christianity isn't a bad thing Hmmm. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

that's one of the things I decided against typing up above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Please keep your hate towards Christianity out of Wikipedia. Thanks you! --JOrb (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

JOrb, I identify as Christian, but I thought the same thing. The above good editors (and myself) aren't hating on Christianity, they are joking about our vast diversity and, well, inability to agree on anything at all. Please WP:AGF. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just because someone has a different opinion on a issue, it doesn't make him extremist when he is not opposing any fundamental right. Grandpallama (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Freedom of religion is a fundamental right, same-sex marriages aren't. That's what ECHR decided.--JOrb (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be careful when invoking judicial or quasi-judicial decisions: English Wikipedia encompasses many jurisdictions, and they don't always reach the same conclusions. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

You should stop talking. Jorm (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I was expecting someone to say that ECHR is only for Europe, but at the same time, have you identified another international court and another international convention of human rights that give people more rights that ECHR? On other continents, even the right to life isn't fully protected since they allow death penalties. Also, the reason why I invoked it is because only because of ECHR we talk about LGBT rights.--JOrb (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

So, to be clear, your position is that all law other than the ECHR is invalid? Dumuzid (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

My point is that no other international convention guarantees a larger protection of human rights than ECHR. You can check this fact.--JOrb (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@JOrb:, if my colleagues were not clear enough: This is going to stop now. If you can not stop yourself, I will help you with a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Since it continued, I blocked indef per WP:NOTHERE. --Ymblanter (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

JOrb, Bonadea is not an administrator but I am. Your comments here are coming across as offensive for the sake of being offensive, and not for any purpose that would improve the encyclopedia. Take your bigoted arguments against non-heterosexual relationships to some other website, they are not welcome here. If you continue this, you will be blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. I stayed mostly away from Wikipedia last night, and had an early night so most of this discussion happened while I was asleep, but it looks like my input wasn't needed here at all. FWIW, I tend to have a fairly high tolerance for other non-native speakers of English (and native speakers of different English varieties) when it comes to different discussion styles and/or misunderstandings based on semantics, but this was way beyond that. --bonadea contributions talk 07:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

JOrb topic ban proposal

Since JOrb has already appealed their block and seems not to understand why it was done in the first place, indicating they are likely to continue this disruptive line of argument if unblocked, I propose that they be indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning LGBT matters. They had already been warned about discretionary sanctions for gender disputes but I think a broader ban is warranted here.

• Support as proposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite site ban. Point 1 of WP:NPA prohibits abuse based on gender identity. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like this is pretty much moot; based on their most recent comment on their talk page, even if they try another unblock request I doubt it will be accepted. Not opposed, but it feels a bit like a dogpile. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support I have just declined their unblock request. In the very unlikely even that they are ever unblocked they certainly need to be banned from any topic related to gender including LGBT. But I support and prefer an indefinite site ban by the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support any of the above.--Jorm (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support This person is not capable of editing LGBT topics neutrally. This is just another attempt to WP:RGW. I have no opinion on a site ban. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Chillum. ——Serial 07:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support site ban - User is clearly NOTHERE and we don't need someone who is just here to start arguments that LGBT people don't deserve human rights protections. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support a Site Ban. At this point, since the subject has already been indeffed, discussion about any lesser sanction is probably pointless, but a site ban will affirm the block (and constrain unblock requests). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Mark83

This person disagrees with my grammar but reverts on mass calling them errors, his language is snide and his attitude poor, I asked him to stop leaving me maessages he carried on. The rules of English grammar are comples and there is more then one possible intpretation him not agreeing does not make them wrong. I really don't need or want to interact with him till he gets and attitude change.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, this editor did not notify me of this discussion at they are required to do. For reference, this is the talk page conversation. [380]. I respectfully asked this editor to be more careful when copyediting as they are introducing errors. The 'correction' of quotes is a significant concern for me. Mark83 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Kitchen Knife, Mark83's comments were perfectly civil, and his concerns are entirely valid. I would urge you to withdraw this report, as I can't see anything good coming of it for you. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I started looking at KK's edits, and their last three (to Offal, Transistor and Type 45 destroyer) all contain errors (and not all of them are grammar issues, either). Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kitchen Knife, I was just about to say the same thing. And what is up with the your [sic] far too pompous (diff)? That's not appropriate. Now, I'm not a grammar prince or anything (more like a grammar serf), but the one example I looked at (diff), you changed ships (plural) from "were" to "was" — that doesn't seem right (mind you, that "For" does seem redundant). El_C 18:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I looked at a random sampling of Kitchen Knife's edits, and I feel that many of the grammatical corrections being made are poor. This introduces nonsensical sentence structure ("Titanic collided with an iceberg on her maiden voyage and the sank in the North Atlantic" makes no sense), while this deletes words ("conducted to the and the rest of the Bishops"), changes meanings (e.g., "on site" is a prepositional phrase, whereas "onsite" is an adjective), and refactors quotes inappropriately. I'm not trying to be snide, but given that this editor repeatedly conflates "your" and "you're" in edit summaries and talk page messages, perhaps they should not be complaining about others' attitudes toward very legitimate grammar concerns. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipeda bleeding? no correct place to post this, but ...

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

---

Is Wikipedia bleeding? I've been noticing the last few weeks that CSDs and related activity, have dropped to almost zero. Same phenomenon at WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:UAA, CAT:AFD, and others. Summer vacations aside, I don't think it dropped like this during the summer 2020 Covid 19 panic. This is odd. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well, no one could go anywhere last year, that might be part of the problem. If you're bored and stuck at home, might as well contribute to the sum of human knowledge -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 20:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I get that part. But I've been an admin through five summers now, and no summer has been this barren. To put it bluntly, it seems that some seem to devote their lives to rid Wikipedia of their particular perceived errors or articles they believe should never have been written, that kind of thing. Someone once described WP:ERRORS (and I'm paraphrasing here) as nothing but a bunch of cranks and nitpickers. This is strange. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Could also be the opposite effect. After a year and a half in the United States of almost complete lockdown, people are fleeing outdoors and on summer vacations as fast as possible. In other words, it's not so much that we had a massive influx that is now dying down as much as having a disproportionately large number of editors happy to be allowed to go out and away from computers than we might have (at least in the post-vaccination States) in a normal summer. Grandpallama (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

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

RFC Statement

An editor has accused me (multiple times) of violating WP:RFCNEUTRAL at Talk:Bongal_Kheda#Describing_the_Bongal_Kheda. Site administrators are requested to evaluate if the charges are correct and take necessary action. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Accusation" is a mischaracterization here. The RFC is this: [381].

• This RFC has a 7,458 diff length, and includes a curated "sources" section, and even a leading discussion where the poster has "taken care" to state the positions, including the opposite ones. This is wrong on nearly all the criteria set down in WP:RFCNEUTRAL which states the opening statement should be "neutrally worded, short and simple". The RFC is thus not neutrally worded, not short and not simple.

So effectively, this is no longer a request for comment but a leading question.

My first response was to point to TrangaBellam that:

• his statement violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL and that he should to remove the sources section and other comments to fall in line with the policy [382], and
• he should follow the endorsement ([383]) earlier from Sennecaster (talk · contribs) who was the WP:3O in the earlier phase of the dispute.

Then I went ahead and left a note after the TrangaBellam's leading discussion that this violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL. [384]

No accusation was made against TrengaBellam (talk · contribs). Rather TrengaBellam has not made a good faith attempt at an RFC. Now the statement in italics could be construed as an accusation!

Chaipau (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC) (edited) 23:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you not understand that Legobot transcludes the RFC from the beginning of the {{rfc}} template to the first timestamp? And, that part alone is governed by RFCNEUTRAL?

Where do you encounter the first timestamp (inserted using 5 tildes) in the RfC section? Have you checked the pages where Legobot has transcluded the RfC?

So, the RfC has not got a 7,458 diff length. I have taken my stance in the discussion section, which is not in the RFC statement. You can, in the same section. Others will, too. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Legobot cannot judge an RfC statement for neutrality; it simply takes all of the content (text, lists, images etc.) from the {{rfc}} tag (exclusive) until the next valid timestamp (inclusive) and pastes this into the RfC listing pages. If you amend the statement in the original RfC, Legobot will copy the amendments to the listing entries. So the fact that a listing entry exists does not mean that the statement is inviolate. As to brevity, the statement is 255 characters long, as I write this - it's certainly brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The RfC is not in good faith. There is no point in asking for comments if a new editor is made to wade through a wall of text (leading question). This could be WP:GAME. Chaipau (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I can make my arguments after the first RFC timestamp. That's stated in RFCNEUTRAL.

And Redrose64 has found my RFC to be brief. How is it a leading question, because the rfc question has been agreed between us. Time for you to drop it. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Redrose64:, is there any prohibition that the editors who were originally in dispute cannot cast a reasoned !vote in the RfC? See this edit. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The rules are clear WP:RFCST. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section Your inclusion of another section adding your POV comments is against the policy and done in bad faith. Chaipau (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Looking at the RFC as it stands now, it's a brief statement, then a heading for discussion/!votes, then TrangaBellam added their position & !vote. There is no rule that the editor opening the RFC cannot participate in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Schazjmd: Thanks! Chaipau is edit-warring with me to move my vote out of the RFC proposal. Please see page-history.TrangaBellam (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Well now, quite a mess. I'd suggest that you simply copy your statement down to the new section. (I also recommend collapsing your long list of refs; other editors can expand to view it but collapsed will make for easier reading for everyone.) Schazjmd (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
          • @Schazjmd: yes, it is a messcreated out of bad faith. Please note that his TrengaBellam's vote includes a supposed paraphrase of the opposing position. My opponent (Chaipau) has claimed that .... TrengaBellam has not right to state my position. This is in terrible bad faith. TrengaBellam is trying to game the system. Please read closely. Chaipau (talk) 06:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
            • TrangaBellam, I think it's reasonable to ask that you modify your statement to just speak for your view, and let other editors speak for themselves, don't you? And Chaipau, please stop repeatedly accusing TrangaBellam of bad faith. Schazjmd (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
              • I don't think that the request is reasonable. An intrinsic part of argumentation lies in proving why the other party is wrong. I have now added diffs and if Chaipau believes that I am mischaracterising him, he is free to make his own argument. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
                • Well, that's up to you. I don't see anything here that requires administrator intervention. Good luck to you both with your RFC. Schazjmd (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
                  • @Schazjmd: It is OK to argue why Option B is not right. It is not OK to paraphrase me. This is (I will not say it). Chaipau (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nikephoros1

Nikephoros1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is what seems to be in a bizarre fashion attempting to Greekify the article of Arsaces I of Parthia by removing/altering sourced information as well as adding unsourced info. His argument behind removing sourced info is 'No evidence' or 'It’s dubious', even though the very sources contradict what he is saying (see [385]). Yet ironically he keeps adding sourced information himself, completely contradicting his previous (baseless) arguments. This is sheer WP:TENDENTIOUS.

His edits;

[386] [387] [388] [389] [390] [391]

--HistoryofIran (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

SharqHabib

SharqHabib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked by Anachronist for 31 hours on 19 June for persistent addition of unsourced material in spite of repeated warnings (see also a previous ANI report posted by Mosesheron on 1 June). Since their block, they have received three further warnings for adding unsourced material ([392], [393], [394]), and several other warnings (unconstructive editing, disruptive editing, copyright problem). A number of articles they created have been proposed for deletion ([395], [396], [397], [398]), one of which is now at AfD. They seem well-intentioned, but they clearly have a serious competency issue that has been pointed out to them numerous times (the diffs above are coming from 7 different editors in 10 days time). Though they know about talk pages (see, e.g., here), they rarely make use of them and do not respond to the messages at their own talk. For example, I just warned them to cite sources and to make use of edit summaries ([399], [400]), to which they responded by making unsourced changes without providing edit summaries ([401], [402], [403]). It may not be intended that way, but each and every of their edits that I have seen is doing damage to rather than improving the encyclopedia (I'm echoing Mosesheron in this). Not sure how much more rope they deserve, but I'm not seeing a willingness to learn and change on their part. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see that I have done many wrong edits, and the Wiki administrators can ban me if they want, but on the other hand I have done many good edits too such as at Mehmet Bozdağ, The Establishment (Pakistan), Matiullah Jan, Day of Resurrection and thousands of more, the second point; yes my articles are proposed for deletion and all of these articles are proposed by the user Pepperbeast, I have also given reasons on why the page should not be deleted at AfD. 3; yes I do know about talk pages and I see them, but responding to them isn't neccessary? I have responded at at AFD and these discussions at ANI, 4; Yes, I did make bad edits at religious articles, now I am trying to stay away from religious articles and edit political articles, I hopefully won't make bad edits now, Regards SharqHabib (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If you know all this, then why do you keep repeating the problems that result in warnings on your talk page? You give the impression that you ignore all warnings and advice you have been given, you failed to modify the behavior for which you were previously blocked, and you are not here to collaborate on an encyclopedia. You need to demonstrate that you are a net benefit to the Wikipedia project rather than a burden to others who must clean up after you. Other than your stated intent to "stay away from religious articles", you have given no indication whatsoever that you have read, acknowledged, or understood all the messages people have left on your talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have tried to give some further pointers to SharqHabib at their talk page, but just for the readers here I will note that their edits at Day of Resurrection which they cite as an example of good editing (seen together in this diff) consist of adding and removing information without sources or explanation, of adding a section 'Fate of Muslims' based on unreliable sources ([404], [405], [406]), and of adding a section 'Fate of Non-Muslims' copied from Islamic eschatology without noting this in the edit summary. I'm not familiar with the subjects of the other articles they cite as examples of their good editing, but IronManCap seems to have had some issues with their editing at Mehmet Bozdağ, and while I can't judge the sources used in their edits at The Establishment (Pakistan) (here) and at Matiullah Jan (here), I do see way too much unsourced and unexplained additions and removals (sometimes mixed up with copy-editing of varying quality). Again, intentions seem to be good, but the editing is pretty disastrous, and requires a ton of clean-up that is not even getting done, because it's in poorly watched articles, and because there's just too much of it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 04:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: They seems to be sockpuppet of User:SajidMir2 which I think is the sockpuppet of User:SheryOfficial because most of their edits are link with them. User:SajidMir2 was also blocked for the same period of 31 hours time and User:SajidMir2 and User:SharqHabib has made edits to many same pages like some of them are KSI etc. which are related to professional boxing and User:SheryOfficial's sockpuppets had the intrest in professional boxinf related articles. Check their contributions and then you'll find out what I am talking about.119.152.232.222 (talk) 08:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

SPI report here. I believe it to be meritless as it stands, and recommend to ignore it here. We have a real 'civil CIR' issue to deal with, so let's focus on that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Russia-Ukraine POV pushing

• Sputnik13 (talk · contribs · logs)

Sputnik13 (talk · contribs · logs) seems to be involved in POV pushing regarding Russia-Ukraine articles. Account has existed since 2013, but has seen little use until the past week: [407]. Account has exclusively come into use to flag several articles related to Russia-Ukraine for deletion (an AfD for Russo-Ukrainian War, and a PROD and AfD for Russian-Ukrainian cyberwarfare), both of which are pretty obvious keeps. Additionally, the user removed a few Russia-Ukraine conflicts from List of wars involving Ukraine (removed mentions to Russian military intervention and Donbass and Crimea). This behavior, in addition to the username being Sputnik, suggests that this is a non-neutral editor regarding this area. Curbon7 (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Crimea concerning information is mentioned in the right part of the table, it was duplication. Just tell me what is not neutral in the proposals which I made concerning few other articles and let's discuss. --Sputnik13 (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Curbon7's report. Seems like a topic ban is in order. starship.paint (exalt) 05:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Feeling hounded and vulnerable to what to do?

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

---

I seem to be having a lot of editors now coming onto my page criticizing me, threatening to have me reported time and time again and blocked from editing/creating articles. I am getting sick of being accused of being "Inappropriate", "Disruptive", "Abusive" and "WP:Bullying" and "Trolling". I really am getting beyond offended and annoyed now with being targeted over small little edits or mistakes...I am seriously lost for ways to improve when being constantly targeted like I was on pages like the Shropshire (district), Batley, Listed buildings in Dewsbury etc...I have tried to work on them but keep getting told I am wrong and should not write articles if I cannot source them correctly...I am not perfect never have been, never will be...if I make mistakes I at least have the decency to ask unlike those assuming I leave it in a state to benefit laziness...I am getting tired of these minor "I don't know better" edits I keep getting...I am disabled and ask for help but others assume I am a troll without even seeing what I have contributed to help the site...It upsets me to feel like this...if it continues...what do I do? - I am only trying to contribute but others assume I am here to destroy this encyclopedia? RailwayJG (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding your sources to the article when you were making the edits instead of after you were reverted would probably help you get a better response. Because as far as the other editor could tell, you were just making it up, since you cited zero sourced until they reverted you. I'll note that you also just reverted their revert instead of discussing it on the talk page, which is generally not a good idea. Also, if you are going to talk about another editor's edits here you should give them notice of the conversation.

All that said, this doesn't seem specific to any editor, so I doubt this is the correct forum for it. SamStrongTalks (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not just "this editor", there are others too who keep targeting me...if you look at my Talk page...you will see I am being threatened with having my edit privileges took off me...I also tried to write on the editors page but his page manually reverted the edit. I also found sources confirming my edit was accurate and have reverted it. Being told I assume it isn't something when I tend to find corrections like with Penkridge shows it was not looked into and assumed to be a Market town until I found two sources clarifying it was not a market town...as the village did not get a market charter to be called a town[[[408]]...also a recent editor on Shropshire page here [[409]] on the seperate article page used language which was imo very inappropriate...I am trying to contribute but it's not nice being accused of disruption...the link was an example more then it being at that one editor...this covers other editors on both my talk page and edits who have attacked me for my editsRailwayJG (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

So... what exactly are you looking for out of this thread? If you aren't discussing the behavior of particular editors , I think you are at the wrong place. And if you do want to discuss particular editors, you need to notify them and provide more diffs. SamStrongTalks (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Guidance...really...I am feeling hounded and can't seem to find any help with what to do about the editors involved and how Wiki helps people like me with support in getting things better. Aside from one editor who helped to show me how to reference. Others have posted on my page with some debates on my edits...some on talk pages of articles calling me "bored" and "disruptive". What can I as an editor with learning difficulties do to get support for how I am feeling and how to improve. I know wiki is not a club or society but surely there are pages with help and guidance to help me get better at my editing? RailwayJG (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps try posting to talk pages first. Suggest the changes you think appropriate, and reference your sources. I think you'll soon get a sense of what makes for an appropriate change and what doesn't. After some time, when most of your suggestions are meeting with approval, go back to editing pages carefully and with references. Just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I will definite look at doing that thank you, Dumuzid. RailwayJG (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Learning Wikipedia's rules takes some time, and I certainly understand how it can seem scary. But people really do tend to be helpful; just make sure you're walking before you try to run, if you know what I mean. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: Also checkout the Teahouse if you have general questions about how to do things. It is specifically setup to help get people up to speed. I would also review the policies Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Citing sources. From skimming your talk page, it seems like getting familiar with those three would help you dramatically. SamStrongTalks (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Dumuzid and SamStrongTalks...appreciate you two helping me with some suggestions...will try to make better of my editing...thank you :) RailwayJG (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Can close discussion if you wish too, think I have had my issues addressed :) thanks RailwayJG (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@RailwayJG: In the future, you'd have better luck at the WP:TEAHOUSE. AN/I is the place to go when you want someone to be banned and have all the evidence already. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 05:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:COMPETENCE issue

So I think that Springsteen1555 (talk · contribs) may have some WP:COMPETENCE issues. To wit:

1. Draft:Rebel Son (Band) is a zero-effort draft with no sources or content.
2. Zero effort put into an album article; no sources or categories or even a track list
3. Using Spotify as a source for music genres
4. Unsourced genre changes
5. Dubious genre changes
6. Adding associated acts of dubious relevance
7. Their user page is a random clutter of unrelated infoboxes that nave no connection to each other.
8. No response to any inquiries on talk page
9. Habit of self-reverting or restoring removed edits

In short, there doesn't seem to be any feedback from this particular user or any competence to their editing skills. What should be done? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor hasn’t been around that long. I think a 24 hour block should be implemented seeing that the editor doesn’t respond to notifications and doesn’t attempt to improve their articles. Jerm (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a typical case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU to me. I'd say block them for a just long enough that they'll notice, and use the block message to direct them to their talk page, where a friendly message should be left to explain to them how to improve their editing. – Rummskartoffel 09:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Chase and his fake band: block evasion by LowerAndSlower

• 2603:6011:3141:B68F:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
• SuperStarChase (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• LowerAndSlower (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 2603:6011:310E:C7F3:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Ohio has been putting a fake band into various music articles. They were previously blocked as SuperStarChase, with the blocking admin, AmandaNP, referring to LowerAndSlower. All of the contributions from the IPs and the registered users have the same thing in common: they claim that someone named Chase is a famous musical artist. Can we get a rangeblock? Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

An admin recently blocked the first /64 above for six months, and I just did the same for the second. The two named users are CU indeffed. I guess that's all? Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a musical artist named Chase who may have been famous a few years ago: Chase Goehring appeared in The X Factor (American season 3) during 2013, and also in America's Got Talent (season 12) during 2017. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a different person. The TV competitor was born in California but now calls Tennessee home, while the disruption described above comes from Ohio. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing, 'investigating' of AfD participants, at DRV

Hi all, can I please ask for more administrator eyes on the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 28? Baffled by the influx of new editors to the discussion, I did some poking around and found a post canvassing contributions on Facebook (link in the discussion). From that discussion, there was another post linked, where an editor started to 'investigate' the editors who !voted for delete, as well as the closer (myself). Can't say the whole thing sits entirely well with me, and as such, I would appreciate a few more eyes on the discussion as it develops. Semi-protection may be required at some point if the canvassing continues. Thanks in advance, Daniel (talk) 10:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Doing... things... Give me a sec. El_C 13:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Okay, I did the thing. El_C 13:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering that OlivierAuber is essentially running background checks and posting personal information regarding the people who voted delete, disciplinary action against him may be in order. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 20:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have already explained that this little investigation was motivated by the fact that the deletion of the P2P foundation article occurred precisely at the time when its founder Michel Bauwens was facing extremely violent personal attacks. I now think the two facts are unrelated and I am happy for that.--OlivierAuber (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As this is a discussion that concerns you and Mitar, I pinged you both on your pages - Daniel probably should have done so when creating this. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing any specific editors, rather just asking for more eyes on the discussion there, hence why they weren't pinged. I was not aware who was doing the off-wiki canvassing and if they had Wikipedia usernames at the time. Daniel (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Note that my suspicions were reinforced by the fact that Michel Bauwens told me that his IP was blocked by Wikipedia. It still is. Does anyone have any idea why and how to clarify this situation?--OlivierAuber (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that my actions were canvasing because: it was not mass posting (I posted only to two places, here and here), my message is neutral (I am asking for people to leave comments, I even provided link to official instructions how to do so, without instructing what exactly to do), I disagree that audience is partisan (I invited a general population of existing editors and people who I think are experts on this topic, so that they can provide missing sources), and it was done with transparency (they were posted in public/open Facebook groups; they were not posted on Wikipedia itself, because relevant experts on the topic of the article in question do not have access to it, e.g., some reported that they have been IP blocked, which I think is a relevant specific reason not to use a talk page; moreover, for editors in question I communicate with through Facebook and I do not know their Wikipedia names and I even should not be trying to figure them out, so messaging them through Facebook is in my the most reasonable way). I think community around the deleted article was baffled about what is happening and I wanted to help them. I am not affiliated with the P2P Foundation. On the list of appropriate notifications it is listed that they are "Editors known for expertise in the field" and "Editors who have asked to be kept informed" which I think I did. Mitar (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The editor apparently has NOT been notified per "How to respond to canvassing"? There seems to be a lack of understanding. I don't think pleading guilty by confession will pass as an excuse. Is there an exception that off-wiki canvassing, to hopefully change a result of something, is alright as long as there is transparency and neutrality? I don't think so. IP blocked editors do need to know about these things but there may be a transparency issue with "they were not posted on Wikipedia itself" as well as a potential sock or meat puppetry issue. The main issue with canvassing is that even if seemingly well-intentioned it is counter-productive. Stealth canvassing is what is present when one of the "Appropriate notification avenues are not utilized with good reasoning and concerns of potential Votestacking is also a concern. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"My message is neutral" & "without instructing what exactly to do" - really???

• "The article on the P2P Foundation was deleted for not being notable, and the editors claim they could not find peer-reviewed articles attesting its role. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Wikipedia.../P2P_Foundation 'However, such articles do exist. I would appreciate if anyone could connect to them, and point to, for example, the following 2: Prophets and Advocates of Peer Production. By George Dafermos. . Excellent introduction to the role of the P2P Foundation in the context of the re-emergence of a commons movement that is linked to digitally-enabled self-organization. Digital Commons: Cyber-Commoners, Peer Producers and the Project of a Post-Capitalist Transition. By George Dafermos. [6]: Excellent introduction to the theoretical and strategic work of the P2P Foundation." (emphasis mine) - certainly seems like the bolded part is, um, "instructing what exactly to do".
• "Olivier has done research on the wikipedia editors responsible for the deletions, it is quite instructive"

And from other people on your post:

• "If you want to overturn the deletion, then leave a comment. See instructions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review... You can follow my example there. You can also add more references/links/comments in there, too." (emphasis mine)
• "Sounds like a nefarious attack.. P2P foundation is highly notable.. For many things.. But from populist pov, if only for where Satoshi first appeared! Just reinstate it.. But have a good look at who took that action." (emphasis mine)

Daniel (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Off-wiki matters are, ultimately, the domain of the Arbitration Committee or Trust & Safety. El_C 14:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to overturn the deletion, leave a comment: provide requested information, as per instructions. I think you yourself said that if they provide two sources pointing to notability, that would change the decision, no? And please, I am claiming I have not instructed anyone, I am not claiming nobody suggested to no editor what to do. Moreover, the examples you are listing in fact are providing sources you are searching for and suggesting they should be propagated to the Wikipedia itself. Isn't this exactly what the original problem was? How is that canvasing? It is engaging community to obtain relevant sources to support the notability question. Mitar (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants: Incivility

The other day I made a post to WP:BLPN, and checking back on the noticeboard to make certain nobody had commented further I chanced upon another discussion on the noticeboard, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#A question on MANDY and sourcing. Here I noticed some rather incivil remarks by the above-linked user. "I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram," is a roundabout way of telling someone to fuck off: see Arkell v Pressdram. Asked in response to play nicely, they responded "Stop pinging me, for fuck's sake. I don't know where you got the notion that I owe you any explanation beyond "you're wrong", but I sure as hell don't."

I don't really want to get sucked into... whatever this is. So I'm posting it here in the hope somebody else is more willing to step in. 27.59.88.67 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)(added on behalf of IP, as report was blocked by edit filter false positive ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC))

May I refer you to the answer given in Arkell vs Pressdram? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I suggest this editor login to their registered account rather than logging out to file an anonymous complaint at ANI. Grandpallama (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: Please, tell me which account you imagine I have. I assure you I do not. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Referring someone to the reply in Arkell v Pressdram is a famously civil circumlocution. I suggest a thicker skin and stop pinging people if they so request. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Dumuzid and Grandpallama, feel free to open a SPI, rather than making vague accusations. I've never edited as an IP since opening my account two years ago. I would assume experienced editors would be more aware of this sort of typical behavior from vandals. Dumuzid, I also haven't pinged MjolnirPants once since they asked not to, so maybe you should reconsider that part of your comment as well. It really doesn't help to spread false information that is meant to disparage other editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, I didn't say it was you, nor do I think it was. But there is no IP from the past two weeks, from that IP geolocation, that has posted to BLPN. So my suggestion to the OP stands. Grandpallama (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Grandpallama. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I honestly had no intention of making vague accusations; to be honest I am confused by your response. I made recommendations. Feel free to ignore them if you like. Dumuzid (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Dumuzid, if you are going to make statements that are obviously about me ("stop pinging people if they so request"), then you really should be letting me know. Additionally, if you are making those statements about my actions when responding to an IP comment, then the obvious implication is that you are making an accusation of sockpuppetry, and you should instead take that comment to an SPI investigation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert--I can assure you, I was replying to what I thought was a random IP. Upon an overly quick reading, I thought the 'ping' comment was aimed at the IP. I see now where my mistake lies, and I am sorry you got the wrong impression. Dumuzid (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This really is peanuts compared to some of the incivility that flies through this board on a regular basis.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes at least he was oblique about it. And I learned something by looking it up, so win-win. I mean, all this was in the context that OP was making the argument that we should use the Wikipedia's power to bully private citizens by making a deliberate practice of not including BLP subjects' claim of innocence when we're reporting that they've been accused of some dreadful practice (on grounds of "well they would say that wouldn't they", and in contravention of specific policy), so of course people are going to get angry. If I were to deign to weigh in (heaven forfend), I might even have been moved to note that one might say that OP is not necessarily fully demonstrating the qualities expected of a gentleperson to a degree generally found satisfactory in refined company, which is lot worse than anything MjolnirPants said. Had I done so, OP would have been invited to include me in their complaint if they wished. Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• I was the person who expressed concerns about MjolnirPants's behavior on the original BLPN thread. While I think their behavior was unhelpful, especially on a noticeboard that already does not receive enough active participation, it clearly does not rise to the level of an ANI complaint. It is also concerning that neither the IP of the poster nor any similar ones have edited the BLPN. I would recommend that this thread be closed as quickly as possible. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm thoroughly unsurprised that you would like to avoid any admins looking into the incident that led me to refer you to that famous response. Here's some good reads to avoid similar situations in the future: WP:HOUND, WP:ASPERSIONS and Meta:Don't be a jerk. You might want to glance at WP:AGF, while you're at it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  MjolnirPants, I didn't think it was appropriate at the time, but given your repeatedly nasty responses starting from your initial response to me on your talk page [410], obviously there are issues with your behavior that others may want to consider, especially given your behavioral history. Attempting to accuse me of "casting aspersions" with no evidence seems pretty indicative that you have serious problems with interacting with others in an appropriate manner. This is not the type of behavior that is helpful to a collaborative project. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Interesting that you think calmly and straightforwardly disagreeing with you is "nasty" but you don't have any problem with hounding someone over your apparently complete inability to distinguish between criticism of an argument and criticism of an editor.

  I would point out that your WP:BATTLEGROUND approach of repeatedly coming after me after I explicitly told you that I wasn't interested in discussing this is much, much worse for a collaborative project that an editor pointing out weak arguments. In fact, one wonders how you expect us to discuss anything if we can't do the latter. It's mind boggling that someone would demonstrate such a complete lack of awareness of their own lack of civility in their pursuit of attacking another editor over such an obvious misunderstanding on your part, but here we are.

  Have you read those page I linked you to? You'd really be doing yourself a favor in doing so. Might save you from being blocked the next time you decide to go on the offensive over someone daring to point out that you made a weak argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since there are some very obviously false accusations of puppetry flying right and left, I feel the need to point out claims my BLPN comment never happened are obviously false. 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  You may want to register an account. The original post of this section had your IP as 27.59.88.67. We had no way of connecting that with the IP you're currently using. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers: I have no idea who that IP is, but it is not me, and I don't know why it is listed there. Good catch, though; I had missed it. It explains the bizarre accusations. As for an account, I can do everything I want to without one. (And being on this board is not on the list of things I particularly wan to be doing.) 92.24.242.202 (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Indeed - the 27 IP is on a completely different continent, and neither IP is a proxy. Black Kite (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe an edit filter bug? Like, maybe it misread the four tildes and produced a signature from itself? I'm not technically minded but hopefully you can see where I'm going with that! :) 92.24.242.202 (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Human error, I'm afraid. My tab management sucks; it seems I had the tab open for another IP at EFFP's contribs open at the time. For the record, abusefilter entry corresponding with this ANI comment is Special:AbuseLog/30309438 (visible to admins/EFM). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

There are other editors who agree or have agreed that MjolnirPants does engage or has engaged in incivility. They are often dismissed when those on this page say that it doesn't rise to a level that he should be sanctioned for, but surely that has to have a limit too, right? 21:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Here's a relevant question: At what point does you following me around, trying to get me sanctioned rise to the limit of sanctionable behavior? This is the fifth time, and as I recall, you only narrowly escaped being blocked yourself the first two times. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "following you around". Pages such as this one are on my watchlist, and I participate in the discussion on them. 21:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Ahh, so you just wait until you see my name, and then jump on to try and get me sanctioned because I reverted you a few months ago. Do you remember what you were told here and here, or do you need a reminder? I know for a fact that you were told to read WP:BATTLEGROUND more than once. Why haven't you done so? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

You are currently casting aspersions. To be very clear, that discussion was not about the revert, but about the civility in the discussion on the talk page. 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

You might want to read WP:ASPERSIONS before you make another, similarly ridiculous statement. What I'm doing here is reminding you that two independent admins threatened you with a block over your behavior. Behavior which you're still engaging in. Are you sure this is what you want to do? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Instead of continuing to reply to MjolnirPants, I will allow his replies to be the evidence for my original assertion. 02:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

• (Non-administrator comment) I kinda feel like, at this point, we should have an edit filter that prevents non-EC editors from using the character-strings "MjolnirPants" or "MPants" in ANI posts. 90% of these reports seem to be filed by accounts/IPs that get blocked for sockpuppetry/harassment within a month, and the other 10% are mostly just those whose malfeasance couldn't be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

On a related note, can someone look into this "The owner of all" account? This and this are very concerning, and it wouldn't surprise me if this person's bizarre interest in MPants was related to WP:NONAZIS, and ... well, the almost-unused account emerged from the woodwork a few days before MPants came back,[411][412] but some weeks after this and possibly some other buildup, if someone with more of an understanding of the background of MPants' revival wants to look into the matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88, maybe editors who are frequently uncivil to others should actually be held accountable for their behavior? I think this type of behavior by MjolnirPants has a negative impact on both long-term editors and new editors as well as those who are here to not make constructive edits, as acting that way towards those who are only here to harass others seems like a pretty guaranteed way to make them continue to come back, rather than leaving Wikipedia alone because they can't get the reactions they are seeking. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:聖やや also seems to be failing to WP:AGF. Interesting that they are trying to tie me to ""WP:NONAZIS", when their own username has 88 in it. 19:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Constant MoS breaking edits

• 77.126.68.137 (talk · contribs)

IP editor has, on a few occasions [413][414][415] (amoug others potentally in their edit history) totally ignored the MoS when making edits. After being reverted by both Sam Sailor and myself, and me adding a note to their talk page about why their edits were incorrect per various MoS guidance, they proceeded to add this edit just because I didn't mention it in the message to them... I'm no longer reverting them as 1. I would be in violation of WP:3RR on List of directors associated with art film and 2. Could probably been seen as edit warring. Could an mop have words? - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 13:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Just tell me what not to do and I will not do it, thanks.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rich Smith: I don't think we need mop-intervention quite yet. I posted on IP's talk, I'm sure we can guide them in the right direction. Sam Sailor 14:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Done what you have asked, hope that it is fine now.--77.126.68.137 (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Jewish labels on BLPs, poorly supported

• 2001:8003:D95F:3301:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone in Melbourne has been labeling BLPs as Jewish on very thin grounds. If some aspect of Jewishness is brought up in connection to the BLP subject, this person jumps to conclusions and applies the label.

For instance, at the Lou Barlow biography, the person said Barlow was Jewish, citing an article in thethinair.net. But the article itself only says that Barlow's songs "were melancholy and introspective but laced with a wittiness typical of self-deprecating Jewish humour." The article does not say Barlow himself is Jewish.

Another example is Jim Starlin's biography in which the Melbourne person labeled Starlin Jewish, citing multiple sources. I looked up the first source: I'm not a subscriber, but this cited article appears to say that Starlin's parents were Jewish. I don't think it says that Starlin himself is Jewish. The other sources are tangential mentions of Jews, not definitive. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

This address been blocked by Bbb23 for BLP violations, and it looks like the edits have been reverted. This sort of behavior (from many editors) has been a perennial problem. I don't suppose it would be possible to create an edit filter for the addition of Jewish categories to articles that don't have some likely keywords like "Jew" or "Jewish" anywhere in their text? It wouldn't catch all of them but it might help. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User gets unblocked and immediately starts being disruptive again

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

---

• Ulises142 (talk · contribs · logs)

Ulises142 (talk · contribs · logs) has been unblocked for literally like 10 minutes and is already being disruptive. They were blocked here by Bishonen for 3 days. Their first edit after unblock was to disrupt 331dot's talk page by spamming WikiLove templates and removing messages that other users left for 331dot ([416][417][418][419][420][421][422][423]). Their other series of edits since the unblocking was to move Draft:Randy Bishop from draftspace to mainspace ([424]). As I said a few days ago, this user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Curbon7 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

More bizarre page move disruption: ([425][426]) Curbon7 (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE. I've moved Randy Bishop back to draftspace (again). Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC).

PS: I've now undone the ExampleBot moves also. Bishonen | tålk 14:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC).

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

E-960 community imposed TBAN

E-960 is subject to a "community imposed TBAN from Christianity and European secular politics, broadly construed" following this discussion. They were warned here about breaking the ban.

Today, E-960 blanked a large section of the The Holocaust article, which also contained references to churches:

Some Christian churches defended converted Jews

, and the Holocaust itself is related to secular politics in Europe. But this one instance may have been an oversight, a mistake. However, E-960 made this edit two weeks ago which modifies a section on churches in Belarus, among other things adding:

The church entered full communion with the See of Rome while keeping their Byzantine liturgy in the Church Slavonic language

This can not be seen as a mere mistake.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: who closed those discussions.--Astral Leap (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• That's an umambiguous breach. Blocked for one week, the next will be substantially longer if they persist. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Girth Summit was quicker on the draw, so I'll just note that I agree with their assessment and response. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy and accusations of racism and white supremacy

User:FloridaArmy is edit restricted from creating articles directly, and has to use AfC instead. While many of his articles get accepted (directly or after considerable efforts by others), many others get rejected, usually for not adequately showing why the subject is notable, and/or a lack of indepth reliable sources. Because many of the subjects FloridaArmy writes about are about African-Americans, many of the drafts which get rejected are about African-Americans. However, according to oft-repeated claims by FloridaArmy, this is evidence of racism. They were blocked for a weeek in October 2020 for "accusing an editor of "slurring murdered victims of White supremacy and enforce punishments on those who point it out", after multiple warnings to stop accusing editors of stuff like that without clear evidence", and for 24 hours in May 2021 for "Accusations against other editors of racist behavior".

Today, they once again started a thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Omission and exclusion of African American subjects from Wikipedia, claiming that the rejection of some articles (or even the non-existence of some articles) is due to "Shouldn't we call it what it is? Systemic racism." "Let's be honest, I've received a lot of pushback for creating entries on African American subjects." "Confronting racism ruffles feathers." "Are African American communities, schools, films, and cemeteries notable? Should we continue to omit and exclude them? Does doing so present a white supremacist version of history?" (emphasis mine) "the Wikipedia standard is to exclude African American subjects and attack editors who seek to fix the situation and point out the problem." "we are responsible for our systemic racism".

All this is highly offensive to all people at AfC who have rejected drafts by FloridaArmy, not because of systemic racism, not because of white supremacy, but because his drafts are often clearly substandard (the reason he got this restriction in the first place). There is no indication at all (not in FloridaArmy's comments, and not when looking at which of his submissions get accepted and which get rejected) that African-American subjects are treated any differently by the AfC people than others. As the previous two blocks clearly haven't helped in stopping these baseless accusations, can we get some other restriction? A topic ban from discussing the racism and white supremacy of Wikipedia and its editors, or something similar? Fram (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the editor making structural arguments (that lead to racially skewed outcomes) rather than accusing individual editors of racism and white supremacy? My experience editing on Wikipedia is consistent with claims that it is extremely easy for editors to erect hurdles and block content that relates to the history and experiences of African-Americans, which leads to a systematic neglect of content that relates to the history of race and racism in the United States. That Wikipedia's editing processes lead to those outcomes does not necessarily mean that the editors who erect the hurdles are white supremacists and racist, but the ultimate outcome ends up being racially skewed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

No, he is blaming the rejection of his article drafts on systemic racism and white supremacy in Wikipedia (not racism in general or in historic sources), without providing any evidence of this (he compares sports people to African American schools and communities, which has nothing to do with racism; there is no different standard for African American and other sportspeople, and there is no different standard for African American schools or communities vs. other schools and communities). He no longer names individual editors, as that got him into problems earlier, but the message is the same (and has been repeated ad nauseam already). Fram (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading the thread over at Wales' talk page, if you haven't already. FloridaArmy is tiptoeing right to the line of explicitly stating that other editors are being racist for not accepting articles on these subjects, in my opinion. They have stated that the subjects are notable, but as far as I could tell in the conversation provided no sources showing that. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Though I will generally admit to being personally doubtful of most high schools and cemeteries being notable excluding extraordinary circumstances. SamStrongTalks (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

As an example of the racism, bias, and bigotry he sees at work, he provided in the previous discussion at the same talk page[427] a section "Typical examples of high schools serving African Americans not being covered" with "I can't even get a disambiguation page approved for the three Draft:Greene County High Schools. I think two served mostly African American students. " This has nothing at all to do with racism, this is a draft of a disambiguation page for three redlinks, which would get rejected from anyone (or deleted in the mainspace), and which doesn't mention anything about African Americans. That draft has been submitted four times, was rejected correctly four times, and then gets paraded as evidence of racism? Fram (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia systemically racist? I suspect it is. Does it have a pronounced and systemic male bias? I am even more sure of that. Questioning the epistemological frames that we bring to the community and that emerge from the community as a whole should always be on the table. All that said, I would respectfully suggest that FloridaArmy is less than an ideal messenger here, and it is possible to raise such topics and push things in a better direction while simultaneously "dropping the stick." I hope FloridaArmy will consider doing so. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I look at it from this perspective: being an AfC reviewer, I end up working with FA a lot regarding his drafts. The value this editor brings is very much needed, as he has contributed a huge number of pages that otherwise likely would never have been created in the first place. That being said, of course I have occasional frustrations with FA when he submits a draft that is so obviously non-notable, but that's just part of the AfC process. With this in mind, topic ban is simply preposterous, the most we should support would be to follow the standard warning line the same as we would any other user for attacking other editors (Tier 1 warning to block if we sadly have to go that far). In this case a topic ban is too much of a half-measure for me to get behind. Either take the full-measure or go via the normal warning process.

Addendum: I just read the thread on Jimbo's talk page. I agree that action should probably be taken; however, I don't believe a topic ban is the correct action with this case. Curbon7 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• (General comment as previous blocking admin:) This came up on Jimbo's talk page a while back, and I'll say the same thing here that I did there. Evidence-free accusations of personal racism against specific editors: personal attack, unacceptable (indeed, that's what I blocked them for a few years ago). General accusations of systemic racism in WP (and everywhere else), even if aggressive: not personal attacks, and indeed healthy. It doesn't matter if FA is the best person to make this accusation, we should not be censoring people for having thoughts about systemic racism that aren't targeting specific editors. That is a slippery slope. If FA has returned to targeted unfounded accusations of personal racism (I haven't seen any), then we should do something. If he is just refusing to stop saying WP's policies have institutional racism built into them, then good luck FA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  It seems like a fine line to thread. Seeing as at least some of the cited examples are about declined drafts, which were declined by specific editors. I'm not sure what FA's goal is, are they trying to get policy changed so that these drafts fall under some exception, or are they accusing these editors for declining them for biased reasons? There are other ways to interpret their statements, I'm sure, but those are the two I came away with. Maybe it would be helpful if FA clarified exactly what they are trying to accomplish. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Why is it a fine line? When someone is complaining about institutional/systemic racism, that's by definition not singling out particular editors. It seems to me all his recent posts have specifically been about that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Pretty sure I stated why I thought it was a fine line in my comment. They are talking about systemic racism at Wikipedia while talking about specific declines at AfC. How can that be read as anything other than an implicit accusation of racism against the editors who have declined the article? I'm seriously trying to assume good faith here, but I honestly am not seeing another way of reading that part of their thread. SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  If FA was complaining about individual editors, I assume he would call it something other than systemic racism. Isn't the easiest interpretation that these declines are supported by a WP policy, but the policy is racist, and he wants Jimbo's help changing the policy? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the linked thread, it seems to me that FloridaArmy is being more critical of our notability guidelines and other community norms and policies that result in inequitable treatment of biographies of African Americans and related topics (aka, systemic racism), than describing any specific AfC reviewers as racist. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
• As one of the commenters on that thread, the issue around FA is not that these are directed personal attacks, but that several editors are provide them good advice on how to deal with the systematic bias issues, and they are turning that aside, refusing to put down the stick, and continuing to assert WP as a whole is racist. While this is not immediately actionable, there is a history with FA that is disturbing that they keep turning to this level of accusations at the project as a whole and missing the point that the project is not inherently rejecting African-American topics because of a racial bias, and that's not a healthy argument to continue to present. I did try to warn FA that they're missing the advice and were trending into the same territory that they were blocked before on. --Masem (t) 21:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  While this is not immediately actionable, there is a history with FA that is disturbing that they keep turning to this level of accusations at the project as a whole and missing the point that the project is not inherently rejecting African-American topics because of a racial bias, and that's not a healthy argument to continue to present. Why is this disturbing? It seems like a very legitimate opinion—is the issue with the opinion or just that FA is the one to hold it? It's not entirely clear to me from your comment. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  Echoing other editors here, with regard to the fact that FloridaArmy's views are perfectly legitimate - as long as they are not attacking other editors and accusing them of racism without evidence (and there is nothing to suggest this has happened) then why should the editor's views be completely disregarded? When it comes to systematic bias (and I will preface this by saying I am not a Person of Colour and therefore will not comment from such a perspective), it is not something that one editor alone can take on, as Masem seems to be suggesting (forgive me if I have misunderstood you). Challenging such a bias needs to be a group effort - as they say, we can all do better. Patient Zero^talk 22:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is absolutely an issue related to external systematic bias and sourcing in some topic areas on WP. There are absolutely in existence and no one denies they exist. The reason they exist, however, is not as FA continued to assert that this is a purposeful effort on the collective group of WP editors to stop inclusion of these articles. We have outlined multiple times (see below) why WP is not an original publisher of material and dependent on sources, how one can look to find difficult-to-acquire sources, and what types of minimum standards we anticipate from sources. FA tends to flat out ignore that. They're free to ignore our advice but we're entering the WP:TE area here. That's really the problem here. --Masem (t) 23:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

  I do not have a problem with the subject's agenda but as a member of WP:AFC it would be a stretch for his favorite fan not to see there are directed insinuendoes. I made comments at Jimbo's talk page, because he specifically mentions AFC along with mention of White Supremacy, systemic bias, and his other choice of Shouldn't we call it what it is? Systemic racism. For any that might not know or didn't look that is Institutional racism, that if true we should close down Wikipedia permanently. When you go farther than the acceptable systemic bias there should be acceptable proof because "I feel" as if I am targeted as part of the problem that I have had nothing (I can't change my race like I could my gender) to do with. If I have ever (still didn't look) declined a draft of the subject (or any minority article) there would be absolutely no doubt I am included as would any of the other AFC volunteers. To state that the subjects' comments weren't personal and including AFC participants is giving a pass that may not be deserved. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There have been several studies (the most recent one I have been advised of is https://artandfeminism.org/resources/research/unreliable-guidelines/) that suggest reforming the verifiability and reliable source guidelines in order to tackle systemic bias and improve diversity. I wonder if this is the root cause of what FloridaArmy is getting at? It's still acceptable to enforce those policies because, well, they're policies, but maybe it's worth stopping and thinking about what everyone's ultimate goal for the encyclopedia is? I tend not to look at Jimbo's talk page too often, but I note he says, "I have gone further to say that we should examine our policies on notability and sourcing to ask ourselves whether the policies are consistent with our goals and in particular whether they may have a disproportionate impact on minority-related subjects.". That said, FloridaArmy should not take all that an excuse to fly off the handle at people and should assume good faith. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The claim that African-Americans are underrepresented in Wikipedia has at least three layers:

1. Systematic racism in society whereby people in a position of power refused to allow minorities to engage in activities that could lead to achieving notability
2. Systematic racism by media and other publishers who declined to cover at all or in-depth minorities who have performed in a way that would meet our notability standards if reported
3. Systematic racism by Wikipedia editors who consciously or unconsciously show preference for coverage of subjects other than minorities

I've read some of the charges of FloridaArmy and it isn't perfectly clear to me whether the charges of systematic racism are directed solely at the third item on the list or are more general. The comment by Snooganssnoogans Could be interpreted is saying that yes systematic racism exist but it is more categories one and two rather than three. My guess is it's a mixture but absent definitive language I'd like to err on the side of benefit of the doubt. My impression is that Jimbo is bending over backwards to try to be helpful. Wikipedia, for better or for worse has hitched its wagon to public reliable sources. Relaxing that might help address one of the three points but not the first. However, we have to be exceedingly careful as relaxing our dependence on published reliable sources will have far-reaching consequences. Obviously, this community is in a position to address the third.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I will probably comment further on this thread in the near future, but for now I would like to thank User:Sphilbrick for providing a clear and useful breakdown of reasons for under-representation of some racial and other groups. Point 1 is known, a long ugly history. In discussing systemic racism, systemic bias, and systemic bias in Wikipedia, we must be careful to distinguish point 2 from point 3. Thank you for providing the breakdown. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need for admin intervention based on the latest thread. I would suggest to FA and others, as I did there, to the extent they are having difficulty with finding RS, they ask for help, on and off the pedia, and also remember that a new article is not the only way to get info, and a link to that info, onto the pedia. A post asking at Jimbo or other places for sources would at least begin to help fill out the pedia. (As much as we all like to work alone, and not have to deal with others for whatever reason, part of the success of the pedia, to the extent there is any, is at least somewhat working with others of different experiences.)-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose any sanction of FA based on this report. I believe they should be commended for their efforts, both in terms of substantive editing and raising difficult, important issues in appropriate venues. In particular, it's clear from the initial post here that FA has taken on board criticism of their earlier, more personalized approach. --JBL (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  In his most recent thread, FA claims "Wikipedia excludes..." topics like Westfield, Alabama (repeatedly). That is false. They claim Oberlin Academy was "deleted and redirected repeatedly". I can find no evidence of this. It was moved from a title with a typo, and it was kept at AfD in 2019. He presents this as evidence of "systemic racism."

  Far from being evidence of "racism", I think the community has been exceedingly patient with Florida Army because of the topic area in which they work, and that they would have been indeff'd a long time ago if they were working in almost any other topic area. 2601:194:300:130:C849:BAB9:595B:CE43 (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  Right, got it, racism is only against white people and that's why you think people who oppose racism should be indefinitely blocked from WP. Why don't you log in under your account? --JBL (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  That appears to be a gross misrepresentation of the point they were trying to make. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

  ...as well as a personal attack. I attempted to respond at their talk page, and was ignored. I didn't want to derail this thread (which may well have been the goal of the comment). In case it wasn't obvious, I am the same IP that posted the list above. 2601:194:300:130:C849:BAB9:595B:CE43 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour

Ihohh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Ihohh added the category United States government propaganda organizations to the Polygraph.info article with this edit - diff and left no edit summary.
I reverted their edit because there was no basis to add the category - diff.
Ihohh reverted it again instead of trying to discuss it - diff.
I politely asked to follow WP:BRD and asked to provide a reliable source for such allegation - diff.
Ihohh reverted it once again - diff and left no edit summary.
I started a discussion myself and invited the user to participate - diff. Ihohh was pinged each time I mentioned them.
Now there is the ongoing discussion about this edit, but instead of trying to get a consensus, waiting till the discussion is over, Ihohh readded this category and the category is now still in the article. I asked them to self-revert because of the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, but the user refuses to do so. The user clearly thinks that it is okay to push their edits without getting a consensus. I explained my position on the article's talk page, but the user is acting with no respect to WP:CATVER and WP:OR. More than that, the user claims, that I need to prove something to them, so the user attempted to shift the burden of proof which is against WP:BURDEN. I would like to ask an administrator to remove the category from the article, because of the ongoing discussion and lack of consensus. --Renat 22:47, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The situation is explained in the talk page. I just want to point out that all the sources for my edit (adding a category) were already present and were not added by me. User RenatUK simply chose to ignore them. His appeal to the OR issue is completely baseless. (He also deleted my messages from his personal talkpage, for what it's worth).--Ihohh (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456 (talk · contribs) removed the category (diff), but Ihohh decided to start edit warring and reverted it once again - diff. He also used generally unreliable source to "prove" their point - diff. The user reverts and leaves no edit summaries. --Renat 01:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ihohh's reverts: 1: diff. 2: diff. 3: diff. 4: diff. --Renat 01:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

TypographyFixer

TypographyFixer (talk · contribs)

I came across this user while looking through Special:WantedTemplates and noticing that a large number of broken templates were being transuded onto pages in this editors user space. Upon trying to open the page to see where the templates were being used my browser promptly froze, and once I opened the page history it became obvious why - their user space is full of absolutely enormous million byte plus sandboxes full of all sorts of broken stuff that seems to have no use whatsoever for improving the encyclopaedia. Looking at the users edit count something like 97% of their contributions are screwing around in user sandboxes - of their 2018 total edits 1941 of them are in user space. The user has made only 70 article space edits, the vast majority of which are trivial spelling fixes with bizarre and unhelpful edit summaries e.g. [428]. Since this user has so few main space contributions and their edit count consists almost entirely of mucking about in sandboxes I feel that at a minimum they should not have extended confirmed rights, but reviewing their overall their contributions is giving off a distinct vibe that they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia and are only here to screw around. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Page stalker here. I was curious and looked at TypographyFixer's sandbox. It's bizarre. Besides making the bots remove page protection templates that were added to an unprotected page, thus creating more computing work, another issue that jumps out is that by making the pages so large, it's harder for other users to see what he (she?) is doing by scrolling through the revision history. There could be parked copyright material (or even worse - information used for criminal purposes) in the history that we'd never notice without a lot of time and effort spent. This encyclopedia thrives on openness and collaboration, none of which is present here. Also, while drive space is cheap, if you make enough copies of a gigantic page, even Wikipedia servers have their limits. I'll be curious to hear TypographyFixer's thoughts - he/she was asked in November on their talk page to reduce the size of the sandbox, and gave a strangely capitalized answer. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

With regards to copyright - at the minimum there's a ton of unattributed copying and pasting from other Wikipedia articles, mostly with weird modifications, e.g. This diff contains an entire copy of the Constructed script article, and this edit is a copy of the Upholstery article. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to improve the encyclopedia. They have produced a massive amount of gibberish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Would their sandboxes fall under some combination of G1, G12 and U5? The reason I ask is that it would be significantly easier to just delete the things than to fix all the template transclusions cluttering up the special page and finding where everything has been copied and pasted from to provide proper attribution. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I was just about to mass-delete all of their sandboxes under U5 and G12 for being obvious unattributed copies of articles which they looked to be trying to modify into something they called "Kiwipedal, the expensive uncyclicalipedal", however I came across this old MfD where deleting these pages was already discussed, so I think speedy deletion cannot apply (it would not be uncontroversial). Personally I think they should all be deleted, they're clearly not serving any purpose to building Wikipedia and are also causing occasional technical issues for some editors. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I deleted some of them before realizing that there had been an MfD. If somebody really thinks that we should fill out paperwork to re-delete it after a discussion, I'll restore it, but it's clear that the sandboxes had nothing at all to do with Wikipedia's purpose, and that it's either conlang nonsense, or a whole lot of test pages. Acroterion (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a load of subpages of their sandbox full of more of the same stuff that could do with speedying/MFDing too. Some of them are full of articles that have been run through google translate which is what is flooding Special:WantedTemplates with broken transclusions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I think G12 overrides everything except BLP (and that would be under very unlikely circumstances), certainly an inconclusive MfD, so I'm going to go ahead and delete them all. Acroterion (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

All of the problematic ones are gone, on the basis of G12, G1, G2, U5, IAR and disruption of Wikipedia technical processes in violation of the ToU. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Good block and deletion. Thanks. That MFD... well, crowdsourcing doesn't always work. But anyways, it was closed no consensus not keep, and this deletion is solidly supported by the global consensus of NOTBURO and IAR (IMO... which of course trumps consensus anyway). Levivich 16:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:108.48.189.192

Vandalism-only account, focussed entirely on Moscow Metro line templates. Constantly adds unverified and fictitious information. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

AlgaeGraphix, have you reported them to WP:AIV? I cannot see the IP on the current list. Patient Zero^talk 01:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I report that IP to AIV. 180.242.42.109 (talk) 03:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

No warning so not an matter for AIV.©Geni (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

User:76.69.146.236 creating more talk pages without associated articles

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

---

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

76.69.146.236 has created Talk:Cast Actors (log), Talk:Hello Cell Phone (log), Talk:Crazy The Movie (log), and Talk:Campfire Marshmallow (log); all contain only the text TBA and do not have an associated article. 76.69.146.236 has already been warned twice about this behavior (including a level 4 warning) at User talk:76.69.146.236#Talk pages and blocked (log) for disruptive editing (the block has since expired, and 76.69.146.236 has resumed editing). It's not quite vandalism, but it is disruptive editing by persisting in unconstructive behavior after being made aware and instructed to stop (and even blocked). Tol | talk | contribs 04:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Multiple IPs making possible unconstructive edits

A couple of IP users, including IP ranges (1), (2), and (3) (probably used by the same person), have repeatedly made unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Some edits have clearly violated the Manual of Style. (like this one and this one). The MoS clearly says that The term "mainland China"...Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should only be used when a contrast is needed. And other edits include removal content without any reason and addition of empty sections. Moreover, the IP user is simply unwilling to discuss with me despite the messages on the talk page. --HypVol (talk) 06:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Most recently, a single-purpose IP has made a total of 22 edits within 15 minutes, all of which were to undo mine. --HypVol (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• 2402:7500:900:0:0:0:0:0/42 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) blocked for one week. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential legal threat @ Talk:Rajputisation

Legal threat of 'penal action' issued by IP user. See Special:PermanentLink/1031153956. Section removed and user warned. Could an admin please review? Melmann 09:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what "penal action" is, sounds spicy. However it is a clear attempt to influence a content dispute with a threat meant to have a chilling effect. I have blocked the IPv6/64 for 72 hours for making threats. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

MCRainbowSupernova8196 edit-warring over Carambolage versus Accident at Belgian Grand Prix

Hi, this probably belongs in the 3RR noticeboard but I can't work out how to show diffs. There seems to be a ridiculous edit war going on at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Belgian_Grand_Prix&action=history between MCRainbowSupernova8196 who is determined to put a French word Carambolage into the article for no reason, versus SSSB who is (in my view quite reasonably) attempting to use plain English ("accident"). It's gone beyond 3 reversions with some fairly unhelpful edit summaries such as "What? Do long words scare ya?". I've also reverted it once and been reverted back, so I'm not getting involved further. I'll stick a note on relevant user talk pages that I'm passing it over to you the experts. Elemimele (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Also note the comments on User talk:MCRainbowSupernova8196 starting a discussion (Special:Permalink/1031224414) which involves myself, MCRainbowSupernova8196 and 5225C (talk · contribs).
SSSB (talk)12:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)

I'm not one to get involved in this sort of thing but this seems like quite bizarre and very combative behaviour from MCRainbowSupernova8196. The MOS is fairly clear on this and it seems fairly intuitive to me that the English Wikipedia is written in English. Regardless of that, their behaviour in edit summaries and on their talk page seems to indicate no change from the previous incident.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, so we should be using words that English speakers understand. Most English speakers know what an accident is. "carambolage" is not an English word according to any reputable English dictionary e.g. Collins, Cambridge Dictionary, and shouldn't be used. MCRainbowSupernova8196 needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK or they'll get themselves blocked again. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, almost every edit they've made in the last 2 days has been reverted. Are they actually here to improve the encyclopedia, or just cause pointless arguments that waste people's time? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Note, you must notify the other editor when you start a thread about them here. I've gone ahead and done so. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@SamStrongTalks: Elemimele did, MCRainbowSupernova8196 removed the notification (diff).
5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

My bad, sorry Elemimele. I checked the last few edits to their page and didn't see it. Should have looked further back. Thanks 5225C. SamStrongTalks (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SamStrongTalks They had been notified: Special:Diff/1031224414, but chose to remove the notification: Special:Diff/1031228059. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually quite concerned about MCRainbowSupernova8196's behaviour and edits in general. They've been here about 3 months, been blocked twice, have a very clear combative editing style, and about half of their edits have been reverted in one manner or another. They seem to be throwing around, if not outright then on the line, personal attacks and aren't interested in editing in a collaborative manner. This may change, but we may wish to point out to them that people's patience is wearing thin and if they continue to approach editing Wikipedia in the manner they have been then they're going to end up with an indefinite block very soon. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Their talk page seems to be a case study in I didn't hear that behavior. SamStrongTalks (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that they're WP:NOTLISTENING- I don't think I could have made my point any clearer, and they're choosing to ignore it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

If nothing else happens, I think we can leave it. If they start up with changing "traffic jam" to embouteillage they'll need an indef, though. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

67.80.249.131 again

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

---

• 67.80.249.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This IP was blocked last month for making disruptive edits (the original ANI. Their block expired a few days ago. Now that they are unblocked, they are making the same exact disruptive edits. This is pretty frustrating. Curbon7 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh disregard they were literally just blocked. Curbon7 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

99.107.157.94 again

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

---

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

I previously reported this IP back in April for edit warring at pages like 1998 and At the Codfish Ball (see archived thread). Just today, they've returned to their habits of making the edits at the latter page again, and are now starting edit wars on other pages as well (see their contribs). Also note that this IP also edited on enwiki under the IP range 2600:1700:CAD0:A390:0:0:0:0/64 before that range's block in 2019. Jalen Folf (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

JalenFolf, I've blocked them for three months. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and repeated incivility by Locke Cole

@Locke Cole: seems to have an especially strong dislike for IEC binary information units. Whatever the merits of the arguments pro/contra these units, this editor has taken the liberty of engaging in repeated edit-warring, together with passive-aggressive talk page posts (almost universally dismissive of anyone who even tangentially calls their opinion or their behaviour re IEC into question) and abusive edit summaries such as "if I could find a consensus of editors here who could read, that would be ideal" (diffs below). They have maintained this attitude despite having started (for example) a discussion as to whether a template that they did not like should be nominated for deletion, and getting universal rejection. I have taken the liberty of opening this discussion as someone who has not participated in these events outside of a few talk-page messages, but has witnessed some of the disruption and annoyance caused by this editor's intransigence over the past month or so.

In an ongoing thread at WT:MOSNUM, @Dondervogel 2: has summarized the latest incidents of such disruptive revert-warring in this post, with the relevant diffs.

I appreciate that the issue of IEC units is unimaginably trivial to most people, but the disruption it causes is out of all conceivable proportion to its importance. These edit wars and talk-page battles have raged for well over a month, across multiple articles and talk pages, and are now affecting templates that are (I believe) quite widely used in computing-related articles. Largely because a single editor with a militant POV (who has been recently warned about their revert-warring behaviour) will simply not accept that not everyone shares it, and that people who do not share it are not incompetents or acting in bad faith (as they insinuated about another editor in a spiteful and condescending reply to me), or liars.

I don't know what the appropriate course of action is here; it seems to me that general sanctions of some sort might be appropriate regarding edit-warring related to IEC units, as this nonsense has gone on far too long and caused an obscenely disproportionate amount of frustration and disruption. And as anyone with the patience can verify, disruption relating to IEC units has been going on for well over a decade now, with absolutely no sign of abating, at MOSNUM and in article-space. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting to me to see that my behavior is called in to question here, but the behavior of an editor who has pushed IEC units against consensus for well over a decade is somehow just fine... If you can't see how this would frustrate someone, dealing with sources that amount to less tghan 1% in most instances, but being told we simply must use this unit, I don't know how else to explain it. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So it's tu quoque is it? However other editors have behaved, you are very thin on justification for your aggressive edit-warring and abusive attitude towards the (many) editors who do not share your view. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

[429][430][431][432][433] I mean sure, starting a bunch of nearly identical discussions isn't disruptive at all, which is what they did initially. They also resisted my attempts to get a combined discussion going at WT:MOSNUM (note all the various sections which are, fundamentally, about the same things). Then there's the habit of restarting old discussions, or waiting a month to reply to keep the section from being archived and allowing editors to move on: (original comment 2021-05-01T19:12:09, reply 2021-06-14T07:38:22; original comment 2021-05-03T16:06:45 reply 2021-05-30T09:57:43‎; original comment 2020-05-25T17:12:18‎, reply 2021-05-03T10:14:13 (almost a year later), pings the editor who never replied to the initial conversation almost a year later). Trust me, my behavior is not the problem here. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's amazing how, like clockwork, the default response to some people's behaviour being called into question is to assert that others have behaved worse, and then double down on it. Even when the evidence is right in front of us. It's yet another time-wasting distraction. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The OP leaves out LC's attempt to delete a bunch of templates when they discovered that consensus might be against their position in a related content dispute. I called it "a remarkably childish approach to dispute resolution" at the deletion discussion, but I now think "pointy", "bad-faith", and "disruptive" also apply. --JBL (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, LC seems to see no problem with starting spinoffs of one talk-page tirade elsewhere, while the original one is still ongoing (so long as LC is the person doing it, I mean). Archon 2488 (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

user:2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C

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

---

Edit warring on Danny Cevallos + talk page harassment Drill it (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Note there is already a WP:ANEW thread about this, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:2601:5C2:300:62E:B5C3:7F1C:394F:748C reported by User:Drill it (Result: ). -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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

Strange and inappropriate editing at Midakanatti as well as other places by User:Yallappa Nandi who is also doing logged out editing

Yallappa Nandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A look at the history of Midakanatti tells an interesting story. It appears that User:Yallappa Nandi is attempting to hijack the article on an almost weekly basis. Despite the edits being reverted and Nandi having repeated warnings on their talk page, this has no effect. Blocking Nandi from editing the article could be a solution to the issue. They are, however, continuing to vandalise the article while logged out so there'd need to be a way of preventing that from continuing as well. They have also created inappropriate articles like Mallasarja Desai (copyvio), Yallappa Nandi (shameless self-promotion) and also Draft:Yallappa Nandi (also shameless self-promotion). Thank you to User:Msclrfl22 who has continued to challenge the user about their poor behaviour. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeffed as NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)