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

User:Homeostasis07 disruptive behavior

My first interaction with this user was from this RfC on Marilyn Manson that I closed. In the RfC, Homeostasis continuously made uncivil comments and cast aspersions on other editors, to the point where I felt it necessary to mention it in my closure. I feel their comments in that RfC alone are enough to warrant action. That is not the only disruptive behavior that I've observed from them so far though. They have also started badgering other users here, here, here, and here. I think Homeostasis should be, at the very least, Tbanned from Marliyn Manson. ––FormalDude talk 06:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have gotten engagement yet, so I'll offer my view, although my comments should obviously be read with the caveat that I'm WP:INVOLVED as one of the users Homeostasis has been badgering. Taken as a whole, I think the user's behavior paints a pretty clear picture of disruption.

I first encountered them after proposing that Manson's article include mention of the sexual abuse allegations against him. They failed to assume good faith from the start, which is certainly not model behavior, but which somewhat comes with the territory when one edits in controversial areas. Their behavior persisted and worsened over the course of the RfC, as FormalDude (the uninvolved closer) noted.

Then there was their behavior giving me this edit warring notice. I'll copy my reply:

Context for anyone following along: I began an RfC a month ago proposing that we mention the sexual abuse allegations against Marilyn Manson in the lead of that article. Homeostasis07, the top editor of the page, argued strenuously against it, but following a CR listing the RfC was recently closed with Consensus to add one sentence along the lines of "In 2021, multiple women accused Manson of psychologically and sexually abusing them.". Homeostasis then modified the addition to give more weight to Manson's denials, I reverted a single time, and Homeostasis dropped me the above note. I would advise them to consider finding other topic areas to edit in which they are less invested.

I find it highly difficult to believe that Homeostasis, an experienced editor, was unaware of the definition of edit warring and thought that it was genuinely appropriate. Giving another editor an edit warring notice to vent your frustration at them or attempt to sully their talk page is not at all appropriate.

Our next interaction came about due to an initially unrelated happening on my talk page, a pretty standard case of (now blocked) IP makes disruptive edits containing severe BLP violations, I (and others) revert, and IP turns around and accuses me of being the article subject. The IP's edits on my talk page were revdel'd per standard procedure for attempted outings, but Homeostasis then posted this, taking up the IP's cause and insinuating that their allegation had merit. At that point, I decided to give them a more forceful reply, warning them about WP:HOUNDING and asking them directly not to interact with me further. They ignored that request, first with a reply on my talk and then (after reverting the reply) with a ping on their own talk.

Homeostasis has certainly contributed quality content to Wikipedia, so I'll leave it to others to decide precisely how this should be handled, but I agree with FormalDude that some action ought to be taken to prevent them from causing further disruption. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

My involvement in this began on August 26, 2021, when I took a look at the RfC page for biographies to check whether I had done my first RfC correctly. I noticed the Manson RfC, something I hadn’t heard about before, started reading up on it, and made two edits to the body of the article: removing content not supported by the cite and adding content with RS.

Homeostasis07, an editor that—to my knowledge—I had never come across before, reverted the latter edit and accused me of edit warring in the edit summary and on the Talk page. When I asked them to assume good faith, I got high-horse lectured and or-else threatened ("before I take this further"). After I explained my reasoning, they accused me of "nasty misinterpretation of sources", a "completely UNDUE spiel about domestic violence", "not paying close enough attention" to the article, the sources, and the case, and of incompetence in general, "expecially when it comes to controversial subjects." I then suggested the editor step away from the article until they had cooled off and examined their own POV.

Looking at my contribs page, I just realized that there was another interchange. Before my second edit of the main space, I voted and added a comment on the Talk page which was answered with the first edit-warring accusation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That obviously hasn’t happened. Seems to me that the closer correctly decided that a clear majority of the participants answered the RfC question (should the lead mention the allegations of sexual assault) with "yes", without a qualifier, MANDY or otherwise, and that they bent over backwards to accommodate Homeostasis07’s view. It also looks to me as though Homeostatis07 thinks they have some sort of ownership of the article. After the closer added the sentence per the outcome of the RfC, Homeostasis07 immediately added a WP:MANDY comment, claiming that there was no consensus for the closer’s version. IMO a time-out from the page would be appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

From the outset, I would like to make it clear that I have never threatened to "out" anyone, despite what's been insinuated above. As someone who was on the receiving end of one of those threats several years ago, I am keenly aware of the outing policy. I never threatened to do that, would never do such a thing, and if I ever gave anyone that impression, I humbly apologize. That being said, the now-banned IP did raise what I still believe to be one legitimate concern which, to me, can be demonstrably evidenced within Sdkb's contributions log. Sdkb was obtuse and threatening in their response. I emailed my concerns with corresponding diffs to the team at COI Noticeboard, per the template there. I'm sure we all eagerly await the results of their investigation.

Regarding the RfC, the key issue was not whether the allegations be included on the article at all – Marilyn Manson#Abuse allegations has existed since the story broke on Feb 1 – but instead how the allegations be presented in the lead. During the RfC, Sdkb argued that genuine policies such as WP:BLP and WP:BALANCE be disregarded in favor of the WP:MANDY essay, which argues against any denial being included. That an experienced editor would cite an essay in favor of genuine policies in such a serious matter is beyond my comprehension. In the RfC, six votes (including one yes vote) specifically argued against the proposal as initiated by Sdkb (to exclude denial). A maximum of 3 votes – Sdkb, Space4Time3Continuum2, and I generously include Idealigic's vote, who said "based on points provided by Sdkb." – supported. All other votes did not address at all how the allegations be presented, so how FormalDude came to his initial assessment that consensus of the RfC supported Sdkb's version of the lead is still up for debate. I was not the only user confused by how FormalDude came to their conclusion. I believe a close review is necessary at this point.

Regarding Sdkb's conduct, I would like to note that they have attempted to WP:CRYSTALBALL to include the allegations in Marilyn Manson's lead since the story broke on February 1; added an [htRtps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMandy_Rice-Davies_Applies&type=revision&diff=958666601&oldid=940798348 inaccurate "nutshell" description to the MANDY essay], which they then cited in the RfC; tendentiously nominated a template for deletion just two hours after I placed it on Marilyn Manson's talk page as a means of deterring IPs and new users from adding particularly horribly-sourced and potentially libelous content (from Daily Mail, TMZ, Page Six, etc.). User has continually assumed bad faith on my part, arguing for several months at the RfC, the template for deletion discussion, and even here (above) that my status as the "top editor" of the article somehow precludes me from making constructive contributions to the subject or the entire project as a whole.

In response to Space4Time3Continuum2x, their statement above is misleading on several fronts. Their first edit to the article was a misinterpretation of the cited source. The source does indeed state that the "Mansonisabusive" Instagram page was set up in 2017, and that the accusers began contacting one another via that profile sometime later. It is an additional source (still included on the article) which confirms the September 2020 date (date always cited to that source). In their link above "explain[ing their] reasoning" (i.e., this one), Space4Time3Continuum2x said: "Abuse (domestic or otherwise, whether it involves sex or not) is about power. I have the power, you’re powerless, so you do as I say. Sounds as though Manson had a type, e.g. Bianco: long-time fan, model and actor with Hollywood aspirations, in need of work visa, unsure about a lot of things. There are also a number of witnesses." They proceeded to link to 5 different sources, none of which supported this highly-inflammatory and undue statement. During the RfC, this user also repeatedly claimed that Marilyn Manson did not specifically deny the allegations, which was categorically untrue.

Apologies for the long response. I've tried to be as brief as possible, but 3 users piling on in such a manner does not afford one much brevity. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Here's the actual !votes from the RfC:

RfC !vote list
Users who supported mentioning the abuse allegations in the lead: Sdkb Space4Time3Continuum2 Idealigic Some1 FelipeFritschF RogueShanghai Loki JeffUK Total: 8 Users who opposed mentioning the abuse allegation in the lead: Homeostasis07 Spy-cicle ili Isaidnoway Sea Ane Total: 5

If you'll notice, the RfC was not about any specific phrasing–it was about whether or not to mention a section of the article in the lead. That is why my close ended the way it did. ––FormalDude talk 03:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

In their RfC-initiating edit, Sdkb said the allegations "ought to be concisely summarized with a sentence or so in the lead". Substantial commentary during the RfC was then dedicated solely to how Sdkb introduced that content to the article; Sdkb specifically went on to cite WP:MANDY as a justification for their edits, which was directly supported by two (maybe three) users but opposed by six (see above, or the RfC). In your initial closing statement, you directly quoted Sdkb's version, which you immediately re-added to the article. But here, you're saying you reduced the entire RfC to simple yes/no numbers to re-add Sdkb's preferred version, tangibly disregarding the nuts and bolts of the RfC in the process and the lack of support Sdkb's version of the content received.

Since this is the RfC for which content added to the article will be dictated for the foreseeable future, I believe a close review is genuinely appropriate at this point, based on what FormalDude is saying here. It may not change much in the long run, considering FormalDude's subsequent edits to the talk page ([1], [2]), but there are serious questions here. That FormalDude also said in this edit summary: "I believe WP:MANDY is applicable here" is most worrying. MANDY is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and is not applicable anywhere on-site. Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I stand behind my closure of the RfC and am fine with it being reviewed. I think your suggestion of a TBan for me is ridiculous, but let's see what others think. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading through this RfC as an uninvolved user who has never, to my knowledge, edited the Marilyn Manson article, and did not participate or even know about this RfC until now, I support @FormalDude's closure. It is an accurate summary of the consensus there. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that Homeostasis07 was making the RFC be about more than its advertised question, which was a pure yes/no on whether to include the allegation in the lead. And their "omit it from the lead" vote was based apparently on disputes and over the wording of the body. So yes, it's hard to question the RFC close itself because on the narrow question of the lead it's almost always correct to include and summarize sections mentioned in the body. There are clearly much wider disputes than just that question though, particularly reliance on an essay which appears to contradict BLP policy, which need to be addressed separately.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment – To begin with, I'd like to note that it's taken me a week to decide whether to comment on this as previously any interaction with this user has been hostile, and quite frankly I'm a little bit vary of what the reaction from him will be. That being said, I have been for a longer time concerned about this user's editing related to the Manson abuse allegations, and would like to bring this up given that this discussion gives the impression that these issues have popped up just with the RfC.

My first encounters with this person were in this February, when I edited Manson's and Evan Rachel Wood's pages related to the news on the allegations. Homeostasis was not just difficult to work with due to his aggressive and condescending manner, but more concerningly, it seemed that he was blind to his own bias while loudly accusing others of that/libel. Case in point: after the Manson allegations became public, Homeostasis added this section about Wood publicly commenting on the rape allegations against Kobe Bryant soon after his death. H's addition not only included incorrect details (Bryant was indeed charged), but left out details that should've been there to present the incident neutrally (e.g. the entire tweet) and thus presented it in a quite biased manner. The mistake about Bryant being charged was corrected by another user, but Homeostasis added it again with the comment 'Semantics', while later claiming it was a typo. He also kept adding quotes around the word 'underage' despite that not being in the source; another incidence of this; editing based on his interpretation of Wood's 'bad intentions', and left out main parts of the context to perhaps present things in a very different manner (e.g. leaving out that Wood was accusing Usich of blackmail, not just publishing unfavourable photos and that the party where the images used for the alleged blackmail were taken was Manson's; Wood is claiming the images were taken under pressure from Manson, so it's a key part of the allegations).

Please also see the discussion under the header WP:Undue on Manson's talk page, where Homeostasis talks about his views of the case, which is very much OR: "And please be aware that there's so much I'd love to spill my guts about right now, but there is god knows how many people reading this, so I can't. Maybe we could e-mail, but I doubt that would even make a difference in the long run. Let's just say, did you notice how Wood removed the scan of the police report she filed against Lindsay Usich from her Instagram? This is why Wikipedia BLP articles need to be as neutral as possible: things change, even from the perspective of the accuser. It's all pretty damn interesting, when you delve into it—no way in hell I'm posting links to it all, though." It's clear that Homeostasis can be an excellent editor given his contributions to music-related articles (so no, I don't think a complete ban on Manson-related articles is in order), but it does seem that he is unable to recognise his own bias around abuse allegations and is very quick to go into 'attack' mode. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: 14 day block

A pause for reflection seems appropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support. I held off !voting on this, since I had hoped that being brought to ANI would humble Homeostasis and get them to commit to better behavior, enabling us to go with a lesser sanction. But their long reply above contains no admission whatsoever that any aspect of their behavior was inappropriate, instead doubling down on it. I think that anything less than a block like this would all but guarantee that the behavior will continue and subject other users and the encyclopedia to further disruption. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  In other words, sit back and not address what I genuinely consider to be inappropriate actions on the part of others? I did apologize for several things above. And will again here. I apologize to everyone involved for being argumentative, and sometimes downright rude, during the course of the RfC. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson Tban. After seeing Homeostasis double down in their arguments, which are mostly strawmen, I think a break is needed. I also think that at this point their outside feelings are preventing them from editing neutrally, and propose a topic ban from all Marilyn Manson related articles. I appreciate Homeostasis's apology above, but I still believe these sanctions are necessary. ––FormalDude talk 03:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support TBAN, indifferent on block. It looks like Homeostasis can't step back from this, and has continued arguing the point above. Further, immediately calling for the RFC closer to be TBANed just strikes me as retaliatory. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Given the statement below, I'm willing to withdraw my support for the TBAN and just see how things go from here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I find it difficult to take sudden reversals of attitude when a user is on the verge of being blocked as indicative of much other than the desire to avoid being blocked. The recent comments persuade me that a TBAN may not be needed, but I think it would be a mistake to go with nothing. Homeostasis has a repeated pattern of stepping across the line and then stopping/backtracking just enough to avoid consequences (e.g. at my user talk), and if we allow that to continue, we'll be back here again. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Normally I'd agree, but for once the response seemed sincere. If not, this provides us with enough WP:ROPE for an indef block later. I do not see enough support for a temporary block right now, especially this long after the events in question, so that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

        The level of support is something for the closer to judge. They'll need to balance the late-breaking apology with the fact that numerically, there's still more support for some sanction than for nothing. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support with a Marilyn Manson TBAN. This user cannot drop the stick, and appears very very invested in that article, to the point of badgering other users away from contributing, harassing other users about their RfC votes, and badgering away an RfC closer because, it appears, they did not like the outcome. This is precisely the situation in which a TBAN is warranted. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, per points I raised above, as a punitive measure against one editor when the other three editors involved displayed poor editorial judgement. At its heart, this is an issue of policy against the repeated use of an unvetted essay and resultant edit warring. I could have handled some things differently, and I apologized twice above for those, but I'm afraid I can't apologize for expecting other users to adhere to policy, and worry about the precedent being set here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN. I've had the pleasure of reviewing many of Homeostasis07's articles on Marilyn Manson, some of which were done as review trades, and some just because I enjoy reading his work. Over several years, we each have infrequently let the other know if we have a new FAC that needs comments. If you look at the diffs from before he started working on the Marilyn Manson articles, there's no denying his contributions have serious merit. There's also no denying he can be hot-headed when things don't go his way. I don't think the issue here is Marilyn Manson. I think Marilyn Manson is one of a broad selection of topics he is interested in, and the underlying issue is a lack of assuming good faith, and that by default he takes any opposition personally as opposed to constructively. When one of my FACs failed several years ago, he seemed to take it more personally than I did, and left a comment voicing his annoyance on the talk page of the main person who opposed my nomination, which I did not think was a constructive way of moving forward.
• Nevertheless, many of the Marilyn Manson articles were in extremely poor shape before he took it upon himself to improve them. I feel a topic ban does not take into account the overwhelming effort he has put in to genuine improvements in these articles, and therefore oppose such a measure. I do not oppose a temporary block on editing in general as I agree some action needs to be taken. A topic ban strikes me as nothing short of extreme for an initial punishment in this matter, especially when it remains to be seen if a temporary block may have a sobering effect on his ability to interact with others. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'd also like to say that WP:MANDY, as essay I'd not previously heard of before reading the current dispute, seems to have been treated as policy rather than an essay by others, a point which seems to have been lost along the way and (rightly or wrongly) overshadowed by Homeostasis07's response to it being used as such. I think the essay is an absurd opinion and could not oppose it more wholeheartedly, though that's a discussion for somewhere else. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced they won't react in the same disruptive manner when the next dispute doesn't go their way. ––FormalDude talk 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I understand, however, I don't see what there is to lose in giving him once chance before a topic ban. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm particularly concerned about this comment that they haven't retracted "Perhaps a TBAN of FormalDude closing RfCs, AfDs and other associated pages may be appropriate" which is completely retaliatory and unfounded. ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose TBAN: I am in agreement with Damien Linnane. I understand that Homeostasis07 can be hot-heated and take matters too personally, but I feel a TBAN is too extreme a response for this, especially given the work he has put into these articles. He would ideally learn from this experience (and a temporary block if that does occur). I do not oppose a temporary block either as I do understand and agree that some action should be taken for this and that seems like a more appropriate response. I think it would be better to do the temporary block and then see how he grows from that.
• As an aside, I have also never heard of WP:MANDY. It doesn't help that I'm an American and I honestly have no idea who Mandy Rice-Davies is. I think it is slightly odd to treat this essay like a policy. I do not agree with the essay either, but as Damien Linnane, that is a different conversation entirely so that would be best suited elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  What Damien and Aoba have said here has certainly given me food for thought. Without even realizing, I have been taking things too personally and been a hot-head for quite some time, causing problems for even the people I've worked with on multiple occasions. I apologize to everyone here and promise to correct this behavior immediately. I'd even agree to a permanent site-wide ban should the behavior ever occur again, which I swear now never will. Sorry for all the trouble guys. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose block or TBAN. No evidence of consistent disruption or any other history of incidents in the topic area. The only possible action that could be taken is a warning about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose TBAN or block. At heart, this just looks like a rather heated content dispute, which as far as I can tell was largely resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. At the bottom of the section [3], both Sdkb and Formaldude (reluctantly or otherwise) agreed to Homeostasis07's suggestion that Manson's rebuttals be included in the single sentence agreed to in the RFC. That should have been an end to the matter, with Sdkb and Homeostasis07 working together for the betterment of the article. So really, it looks like the more recent dispute boils down to this one episode. I don't think either Sdkb nor Homeostasis07 come out of that exchange looking good - if Homeostasis07 suspected a direct COI with one of the sources in the article then they should have filed a confidential report with paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org per the instructions at WP:COIN, to avoid outing, rather than challenging Sdkb in public like that. But on the other hand Sdkb's response is unnecessarily snarky too; gloating comments like "I gather that you remain very disappointed by the Manson RfC outcome" and accusing Homeostasis of being "picking up the amusingly inept attempt at outing" are not necessary, and a simple "no, I have no COI, you should follow the confidential procedure outlined at WP:COIN if you suspect otherwise" would have been a good response. As such, I wouldn't recommend a TBAN or block when all parties have essentially respected the outcome of the RFC and consensus on the line has been reached. But please, both of you, put your differences aside and continue with discussion rather than personal attacks on the content of the article going forward.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Amakuru for the accurate summation of events. I promise to refrain from conduct that could in any way be construed as a personal atack. The only thing I'd like to make clear is that I never threatened to "out" Sdkb. I tried disussing my concerns about CoI on their talk page, but the response I got was, as you said, sarcastic and, IMO, threatening. It was at that point I emailed those concerns to the above email address, per the template @ CoI. I realize now that's probably what I should have done in the first place. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 14:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Amakuru, first, it is not correct that the problems were resolved several days before the ANI entry was filed. Homeostasis's behavior began at the RfC, where the problem was not just the existence of a content dispute but the nature of their comments and their edit warring at the article, as FormalDude laid out above. It then continued with behavior at my talk page, persisting right up to when the ANI report was filed, as has also been laid out above.

  Second, when someone comes to my talk page making an aggressive accusation, it's my prerogative to point out the context of my interactions with the user, as that helps any others who see the accusation understand whether it should be considered serious or frivolous. The comments you characterize as gloating were my attempt to do that. Looking back, I do think I could have found better language, so I apologize there. But no other !voter here so far (well, except Homeostasis) has attempted to draw a parallel between my slight lapse there and the behavior that landed us here.

  It would be a bad outcome for Homeostasis to walk away from this concluding that it was just another content dispute and everyone gets in those from time to time. And from Homeostasis's reply to you, it's clear that that's what will happen if there are no sanctions. @HandThatFeeds, I would look at Homeostasis's reply as further indication that their apology above may not have been sincere: they have agreed with the statement that this just looks like a rather heated content dispute and have gone back to defending their actions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  That isn't what I said above at all. To repeatedly label a heartfelt and genuine apology "insincere", well... I don't know at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem very sincere to me either, considering you called for me to be topic banned and haven't admitted that that was wrong. ––FormalDude talk 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  That was 2 days before and made up part of the apology. It's yours and Sdkb's prerogative to feel however you want, but the apology was genuine, and included that. I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you’re trying to change the way I feel, strike your unfounded comment against me. ––FormalDude talk 22:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose, given that it's been about two weeks since this thread was opened, a temporary block would be punitive rather than to avoid actual disruption. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• FYI: I've listed on WP:Closure requests. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• this is ok, for now 😗 Esaïe Prickett (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Esaïe Prickett: Are you supporting or opposing the proposal? Or neither? ––FormalDude talk 05:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• neither Esaïe Prickett (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Redvince1 continuous disruptive behavior

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

---

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redvince1, in forgoing further discussion for several days on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism (which I left alone to give them time to respond), had their contributions reverted to the purpose of reaching a consensus. Prior to this, the fellow Wikipedian and I were given notices to prevent a WP:edit war. As a result, they have been previously reported as evident in this archived discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account. Investigating the previous report, both of our personal talk pages, and the article's talk page, we were both assisted in attempting to reach consensus. Until today as of writing (14 October 2021), the article remained status pre ante until their WP:bold contributions which forwent any recognition of consensus. Better yet, in this, I would be willing to revert them a fourth time, but then again that would be seen as an edit war to which I reached out to Editor2020, Ermenrich, and AntiCompositeNumber on my talk page for further guidance. I could be bold as well yet be at risk of punishment alongside this contributor, and I refuse to be baited into doing so. They (Redvince1) were given warning on the article's talk page to self-revert their contributions on the basis of WP:NOCONSENSUS, as I still have yet to gain response pertaining to how their additions contribute to the history of the theological precept, in addition to their previous spurious source and previous biased terminology. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

No administrative assistance yet before this goes into the dust bin (archives)? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're going to need to provide diffs and sort of explain the problem a little better. I've looked at the discussion on the article talk page and I can't really make head or tails of it.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

1) The following contributor (Redvince1) seems to have introduced polemic into the history section, rather than actual history; 2) They used blatantly biased terminology by using the statement "complain" in a following contribution; 3) I reverted their contributions; they then restore these contributions and claim to have made a contribution they did not (refer to the archived report listed above); 4) their contributions were reverted until a consensus could be reached by an uninvolved editor; 5) they blatantly disregarded that by restoring their contributions, and adding more as if a consensus had been reached; they also forwent any further communication with me on reaching consensus; 6) I revert their contribution on the basis of WO:NOCONSENSUS and with a lack of any action for communication; 7) here we are now. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 02:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I have observed that this particular article Modalistic Monarchianism seems to have some editors who have a fairly strong Trinitarian bias. My new contributions to this article were merely to add relevant Scriptural passages and logical evidence from a Modalist theological point of view as well. In my opinion, a well rounded Wikipedia article on any topic should include evidence from editors with multiple perspectives. I have not deleted any previous content on the article. I am willing to continue discussion and try to figure out why the new content is so polemic to User: TheLionHasSeen. - Redvince1 (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Stop interjecting your responses outside of the pattern of conversation to confuse readers of this report. Next, on my talk page you admitted to being an advocate for this theological perspective. As for bias, where is it? All the article is stating is a historic documentation of the phenomenon; the only thing which you, as an open Modalist may deem biased is the statement: "By the 4th century, a consensus had developed in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, and modalism was generally considered a heresy." Note, however it says it was considered a heresy, not Wikipedia saying it is verbatim a heresy. As for Scripture and logical evidence from your viewpoint, that is also inherently biased furthermore. Wikipedia is not about multiple perspectives in the sense of polemic, rather, documentation with a WP:NPOV. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Just recently, they responded in the talk page which clarifies that they are indeed using Wikipedia for advocacy, not understanding how NPOV works. They even restored a source determined spurious by another involved editor to the encyclopedia. This is ridiculous at this rate! They disregarded more experienced contributors than both of us, because they merely opted to wait for consensus, and remove faulty citations. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What I am seeing here is one editor who appears open to compromise and discussion, and another, the OP, who responds in a belligerent and unreasonable manner to everything the other editor does - including the original filing of this report. I leave it to others beside myself to agree or disagree with this assessment and decide if any intervention is needed, but I think a WP:BOOMERANG may be warranted.—-Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Both users need to be blocked for edit warring

I decided just to look at the page history and these are all the diffs of edit warring: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18].

This is all since October 7. I didn't look to see if 3rr was specifically violated, but I don't think it makes much of difference. Both users have more than deserved a few days block.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I concur. If I need to be blocked, so be it; I merely opted to WP:drop it and return to editing articles pertaining to settlements (ironically, most U.S. geography places still have the 2000 census results). Especially when someone publicly declares they have an advocate perspective, when none of the information is inherently dogging out the viewpoint they saw as biased. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia staff have done nothing. Editor2020 got involved, and the Redvince1 has placed information which nowhere involves the history nor development of that theology again by forcefully reverting (for the umpteenth time). Then, they had a article about Thomas Jefferson linked that makes no mention of Modalism or Modalistic Monarchianism, nor applies to the content of the article in relation. What is Wikipedia staff even doing at this rate? Counting sheep? If both of us have to be blocked, so be it, but I may just escalate this with Wikimedia via email at this rate. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, there is no way to email them about this type of issue unfortunately. I suppose the English Wikipedia just lacks administrators; anyways, on the talk page and latest edit summary where they staunchly reverted Editor2020, they labeled me and others as "critics." I have had enough, now we are growing into WP:Ad hominem attacks. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As of this writing, on the edit warring noticeboard they claimed I removed citations pertaining to David K Bernard; that is quite foolish considering I placed the citations pertaining to David K Bernard (a Oneness theologian) in the article, and collaborated to bring Oneness Pentecostalism to a NPOV and ultimately achieve good article status. In the archived report, they claimed my contribution which another user called them out for...now they do it again... Wikipedia, seriously? - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins are volunteers, just like everyone else. And this looks more like an edit dispute than behavioral issue that requires immediate admin intervention. So I don't think you're going to get any satisfaction on this matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Neutralhomer

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

---

I recently closed a report at WP:ANEW filed by Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) on Punding as "no violation" as it seemed somewhat vexatious. I also notice they have recently been edit-warring at WMPW. On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times. I wouldn't normally start a thread here for two isolated (albeit recent) incidents of mild edit-warring and a general battleground behaviour, but in this instance I need to ask the question - is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I did the math. With about 74k edits and 24 blocks that is a block about every 3000 edits. That is a lot. I have noticed this user around over the last 14 years but did not personally notice the disruption. The block log includes blocks for personal attacks, edit warring, disruptive editing, block evasion, sock puppetry, borderline harassment, saying an editor "should be executed", 3RR, copyright concerns, wikihounding, misuse of twinkle, severe off-wiki harassment, and battlefield behavior. If blocks were pokémon this user is well on their way to collecting them all.

On the flip side a look through their user archives shows evidence of positive contributions throughout their 14 years here.

I don't know if they are a net positive or not. I do however think when block logs get that long and complete that further blocks need to escalate in severity going from days to weeks to months to indefinite. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the quick maths - perhaps this can be "solved" by making it clear the next block, for whatever reason, will be indefinite? Asking an editor to reflect on their behaviour and appeal their block if they want to edit again can often work wonders... ~TNT (she/her • talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Only three blocks in the last nine years. Levivich 13:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your point of only 3 of the blocks being in the last 9 years is well taken. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out what they think they were doing on Punding. Edit-warring to restore a problematic edit containing errors after the original editor ran out of reverts certainly isn't a good look. Black Kite (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it might be retaliation for this edit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Mmm. That's not great. Black Kite (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh ouch, the ownership going on there is strong and, well, yeah. I don't see a discussion about that (though it could be elsewhere) but they completely ignored DrKay's very valid points in the edit history for that article. Canterbury Tail talk 14:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer's condition leads to them being overprotective of various articles. They do have the best interests of the project at heart and can take into account constructive criticism but it takes repetition and patience. IMO a block would be punitive rather than preventative. As an aside this "it is a featured article and, thus, can't be altered" is becoming a real problem and probably should be added to the arguments to be avoided. MarnetteD|Talk 14:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've never come across this editor, so I can't comment on their conduct and/or edits. Regarding the block log, you can't just look at the raw numbers of 24 blocks. The vast majority of those are more than a decade old, with one of the most recent ones stating "no reason to keep this user blocked over an honest mistake" in the unblock log. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

While I agree with this to some extent, the block that stands out for me is the one placed in October 2012. Although nine years old, it was for "Severe off-wiki harassment" and sounds like the sort of thing we globally lock users for these days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

But it was 9 years ago... GiantSnowman 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

^^^This. I don't know how to quickly find the edits, but the indef was rescinded six days later. I assume all parties involved at the time were happy (as they could be) with the outcome, otherwise they'd still be indef'd. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Details of the indef block on their talkpage. Not pleasant reading. Note this discussion, from 2020 (i.e. not nine years ago), is about both on and off wiki attacks.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nigel Ish: I'm not rehashing or dwelling on something that took place 9 years ago. It's over, buried, done with.

What happened in 2020 I referenced below. That was part of a MUCH larger incident that involved FAR more users than just myself. Harrassment, rule breaking, and other issues were on both sides. There were no innocent parties in that. I, in turn, was topic blocked, blocked for 72 hours (which I rightly earned, again, no innocent parties), and on-and-off-wiki attacked (which no one deserved), though nothing was ever done to that user. But again, I referenced that below. That's why it was a debacle. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Considering that earlier this year they came to my talk page to bitch about being asked to drop an argument, then proceeded to try and drag out the argument in an ill-fated attempt to make a WP:POINT, I'd have say they're not a net-positive to the project. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

FWIW: I'm not a big fan of blocking people who are (mostly) a net positive, so I'd like to hear what they've got to say about the various issues. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I won't address everything. First, Ritchie333, no, it wasn't "relatiation" for anything. I saw something I thought was an edit war, it was. I was an uninvolved part in that discussion, inserted myself into that discussion, reverted, warned the user (manually), made changes, and the edit war continued by the user, I reverted, warned the user via a template (official), the user again reverted and I reported. That's not "retaliation", that's sticking up for another user who was being warned about other articles at the same time.

MarnetteD, "[my] condition" is called Aspergers, it was first diagnosed when I was 23 (I turned 40 this year). While I do appreciate most of your other comments (to an extent), I don't need time and patience. Featured Articles are held to a higher standard. It's in the rules. A few editors and myself worked very hard to get that article to Featured Article status. It is the only radio station article at Featured Article status, for which I am very proud. Being near the station, I have a special ability (so to speak) to gain updated information about it quite quickly. I also can access my local library in person, which has the information I need. I can copy it in person. So, you call it "protective", I call it upholding the rules of WP:FA. You can most certainly place that arguement within WP:AADP, I don't have the ability to stop you all, but that would change the fundamental foundation and rules of WP:FA, making those articles nothing more than something "special" with a star at the top and anyone could throw anything at them without consequence (just my opinion).

To the rest, it's good to see that I'm (he/his, for those using "they", apperciate that) not a net-positive. Yeah, I've had my problems in the past. Yeah, I have a block log. I've tried to make this place better in the 17 years that I've been here. I've created numerous articles, edited nearly 74,000 times, made a few offline Wiki friends (one of whom I will never forget), made 4 GA articles, 2 FA articles. I outed my own account off-Wiki (on Twitter) and worked with the Asexual Community when there was that huge Asexual Eraser debacle last year (involving Pauley Perrette's article and others), calming a firestorm that this community knew nothing about (for which I was topic banned, by the way) and in turn taught a slew of people, in real time, about Wikipedia. Yet, somehow my block log alone convinces you I'm not a net positive.

If that's all it takes, cool. Do what you wish. All I ask is you allow me 6 hours to get my affairs in order. I do want to have a trusted editor to watch that Featured Article of mine. Once that's done, you are free to do whatever you like. If my actual work can't convince the community I'm a net-positive, then I won't bother trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

You're work is a net-positive; it's your soft skills that sink you. then I won't bother trying is part of the problem. Take a break, reflect, come back. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel that any action is needed at this point. I do however think that future blocks for future issues should carry an escalating duration. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that incident where Neutralhomer dug up a Wikipedian's employer, then called the employer to complain about what the person was doing on Wikipedia is appalling. So is the fact that even that block, after a long and storied block log, was lifted in a few days based on a sorry and an oddly narrow assurance that he wouldn't call anyone's employer again. If anything, how about an assurance about not exporting feuds off-wiki, not personalizing disputes, etc.? Of course, if that happened today and went to arbcom or trust + safety rather than ANI, I have to think it would receive a ban. Maybe we've grown enough, or at least the zeitgeist has changed enough, that ANI would be able to handle it, too. I don't know. But we're not going to relitigate something that happened almost a decade ago. It got some attention, and was resolved, for better or worse. Same goes for most of the other blocks in the log. There are [only?] three blocks since then, including one for "clumsiness". I dare we'd need one of those big, lots-o-diffs showing a pattern style of ANI threads that doesn't rely on old stuff for anything to happen. If this section has a take-away, it should be a warning about personalizing disputes. After blocks for hounding, off-wiki harassment, calling someone's employer, etc., there should be zero tolerance for that moving forward, but it's unclear what there is to do right now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I will mention the MFD discussion two weeks ago at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP. There were two problems. Neutralhomer was breaking attribution, in a way that appeared to be trying to claim too much credit. Second, when cautioned by SmokeyJoe, Neutralhomer was uncivil. They have been warned that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. I am just mentioning this for those who were not at MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• See related section below: #Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Wherein Neutralhomer objects to the singular they and calls another editor "buckwheat". Levivich 06:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Quickly repeating something I explained below Neutralhomer's response to the buckwheat IMO epitomises one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing here. They could have simply read the sources provided, learnt from them and undertaken never to use the term buckwheat again at least in Wikipedia and hopefully in the rest of their life. Preferably this would have come in the form of recognition here of their mistake, but I'd personally be fine with no reply if we could be confident it wouldn't be repeated. But frankly I wouldn't be, and I'm even less confident from the way Neutralhomer has responded. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them, unfortunately Neutralhomer seems to have great difficult doing so and hence has a tendency to create unnecessary problems and waste the time of other editors. While they can do great work when they're not wrong, although we all know even an editor in the right can cause lots of problems if they handle it poorly, the risk is their tendencies are pushing the balance of their contributions too far into the negative. As I mentioned in another reply, I'm even more concerned about they way it sounds like they're putting their desire to win an argument ahead of harm to our readers from their actions. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • From the thread below: I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. I think that speaks for itself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Welp:

1. I don't like these WP:RFC/U-style ANI threads. is Neutralhomer actually a net positive for the project? is a question that can only be answered by reading all or most of Neutralhomer's 74,000+ edits, which no one will do. The question is better stated as: Is there a chronic problem, and what should we do about it?
2. I also don't like judging people by their block log, as block logs rarely tell the whole story. Ritchie wrote above:

   On further investigation, I notice they have an extensive block log for edit warring and incivility, and have been dragged to this very noticeboard lots of times.

   Two and a half years ago, Ritchie wrote at AN:

   Unless the problems that led to the blocks are reoccurring, somebody's block log should be irrelevant, and certainly not an excuse to stick your fingers in your ears. In the case of Neutralhomer, the blocks from 2018 are for 3RR (generally a one-off, and obvious if it re-occurs) and "clumsiness" which AFAIK isn't part of the blocking policy (and, indeed, was overturned shortly afterwards).

   Neutralhomer has been blocked once since then (before today's block), in 2020. That's not good, but it's not particularly bad, either.
3. I also don't like judging people for how they respond to ANI threads. One person drags another to ANI, the other person flips out and next thing you know they're calling someone "buckwheat", and it's like "Ah ha! See, told you they were disruptive!" An ANI report is provocative for the person being reported, and I don't want to judge editors based on how they react to provocations. However, there have definitely been some gems, such as "buckwheat," "thick skulls," "the real world" and the one I just got pinged to: "Oh, I'm "bludgeoning" people, but personal attacks are A-OK ... Do you all even have jobs?" But that's still after the ANI thread, so I took a look at some stuff from this year, before the ANI thread:
4. First, on the issue that precipitated this report: |publisher=Cambridge |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts should jump out as an obvious mistake to any editor with ~75k edits, just as much as |publisher=Oxford |location=Oxford, Massachusetts. And that's just one of the problems with that edit. To edit war to reinstate such errors, and take it to ANEW, is disruptive. It's not only inserting error into the encyclopedia but also wasting other editors time. Worse, he continues arguing about it, even up to today.
5. In the 2019 AN thread quoted above, basically no one agreed with Neutralhomer, and this exchange shows some strong WP:IDHT:
   • An editor says to Neutralhomer: Remember when you wrote "I would like the admin community to have a look and see if you all are seeing what I am seeing. If not, I'll move along." in your complaint? Because your responses here do not reflect your words above.
   • Neutralhomer's response: Well, shouldn't I? You all went straight into "it's your fault" and "I'm going to block you for harrassment" without taking a serious look at what I wrote. No one really mentioned anything and when you did you spun it back on me. So, yeah, I am going to take it a little personal.
6. Some user talk page threads from this year are concerning:
   1. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#DO NOT edit other editor's talk page comments
   2. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Thanks - "I'm easy to get along with. It's people who just can't listen that drive me MAD!"
   3. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Question
      • Neutralhomer: "Because, under FA rules, it must show "format=PDF"... I intend to follow the rules to the letter to which they were written"
      • Editor: "Can you point me to those rules"
      • Neutralhomer: "You can find them within the links at WP:FACR"
   4. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WRND (disambiguation)
      • Editor: "You removed the PROD tag without explanation. I'll be taking it to AfD, but I'm curious as to why you removed it, as it seems an open and shut WP:2DABS case"
      • Neutralhomer: "Actually, it's the way we currently do things around here per NMEDIA."
      • Actually, it wasn't, and the AFD closed a unanimous delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRND (disambiguation). Except Neutralhomer's "Keep" !vote which he struck a few days later, thankfully.
   5. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Disruptive Editing - leading to an ANI in July
   6. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Draft:WMFH-LP - about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:WMFH-LP, an MFD Neutralhomer started that he withdrew
   7. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#WMPW - "Just for the record, the edit summary wasn't even close to "defensive", that was an explanation and a request. Even this isn't defensive. Snarky maybe, but not defensive. You don't want to see defensive. :)"
   8. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#Files listed for discussion - all the files were deleted
   9. User talk:Neutralhomer/Archive15#"Buckwheat"
7. Vandalism warnings/reporting
   1. This warning issued in August was uw-vandalism1 for this edit, which should have been uw-unsourced1 (or better yet, no template at all, and just an explanation in an edit summary or a non-template talk page message). Normally I wouldn't nitpick over use of the wrong level 1 warning template, but:
   2. This warning issued in September was uw-vandalism4im for this edit, which might have been incorrect or even disruptive but doesn't look like vandalism to me. Special:Contribs/75.109.70.8 looks like an editor attempting to edit in good faith, and
   3. ANI in April about bad vandalism reporting
8. I noticed also that Neutralhomer can be very nice when asking admins for help if he gets the help: 1, 2, 3, but less nice when he doesn't get the help: 4, 5, which are reminiscent of the 2019 AN thread linked above.

So yeah, I think there is a chronic problem here. Levivich 18:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Over the past year I've watched the ANI, I've seen enough of these threads to feel someone needs to say this- Are there users somewhere between [b]Useful upstanding Wikians [/b] and [b]"Not a Net positive- get rid of them [/b]? The answer is, obviously, yes. And Neutralhomer is a perfect example. YEARS of editing and GA and FA contributions should not be ignored, neither should YEARS of problems and significant ones at that. There has to be a better answer than "Sorry, you're no longer worth our time- get out." Surely there is a way to apply restrictions and/or moderation/mediation to keep these type of users contributing without returning time after time to the ANI. I realize that the current system is not working either- that we warn, block, unblock, ignore, repeat until exhausted and then indef. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think we owe it to the project to at least try to find a better way. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

We've tried to come up with better ways repeatedly over the ~15 years I've been on Wikipedia. From what I've seen, the only thing that works (and rarely does it work) are custom restrictions for the problem editor. But when it's behavioral like this, it almost always winds up being a temporary respite before they get the restrictions lifted and go right back to doing it again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait until Neutralhomer's 48-block expires & allow him to defend himself, in this report. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No offense but this discussion gives a bad impression coming from the user with whom Neutralhomer had an aerated, but civil a day or two ago.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me. But I don't fully understand what you're posting about. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You aren't helping. Neutralhomer has dug his heels in very thoroughly both in this thread and the one below. He has insisted on finding fault with seemingly everyone but himself. There are significant behavioral concerns that he needs to address. If your intention is to divert the focus away from Neutralhomer by making vague implications about unspecified bad impressions, then I'm going to tell you right now that it won't work. The best thing is to give Neutralhomer time to reassess the situation and respond here once his blocked is lifted. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

NH blocked indef with talk page access removed

For anyone who has not been watching his talk page, NH has been in battleground mode, flinging insults and accusations at everyone, for 3 days now, with no hint of stopping, and continuing after I gave him a very clear final warning. This cannot be allowed to continue. I tried to cut him a little slack because real life is apparently stressful right now, but it just kept coming. I removed talk page access because his talk page is where all the unacceptable behavior has been occuring. If he makes a request at UTRS, I have no objection to the UTRS admin restoring talk page access if they are convinced he is going to stop now, and they don't need to discuss with me first. I would, however, ask that any admin talk to me briefly before unblocking; I think we're beyond "he was just stressed out" territory. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I reckon that renders this report moot. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. If and when Neutralhomer requests an unblock that request can be handled in a fresh thread. Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Wufjdk

Persistent vandalism. Unresponsive on talk page. Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced contents. Removal of maintenance templates. Disruptive editing. These issues mentioned are all on this user's talk page. This user should be blocked. Jourdanescense (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Like the section above this one, looks like WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Mobile web editor, no meaningful edits to user talk space. While certainly disruptive, I haven't seen any obvious vandalism. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 12:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is recent obvious vandalism: Miss Ugly Face, Fat Body, locale changed to Mars, etc. [19].

Can we get a block already? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Creation today of Home Econimic Education (HEE) Different types of Chart: probably not vandalism, but WP:CIR. Block please. Fram (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Irish/British/English disruption related to Francis Bacon

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

---

FreddysDead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing British to English on articles mentioning the artist Francis Bacon (artist). On that article they changed "Irish-born British" to English, and in the process removed the note about previous discussion on talk page, and then promptly blanked that discussion. This has all been done without any explanation or attempt to seek consensus in what has been a somewhat contentious area. I have given Level 1 and Level 2 warnings for the actions at Francis Bacon. I would ask 1) more eyes, especially admin-type eyes, on this editor and their actions, and 2) should we revert all the related changes to other articles? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting that FreddysDead's response was to try to blank this section. MrOllie (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Best to escort the lad off the project. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Which has been done by GeneralNotability. I think I'll go ahead and undo the related changes. DuncanHill (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Or I would if Drmies hadn't beaten me to it. Thanks Drmies and GeneralNotability, and also GoodDay and MrOllie. DuncanHill (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Completely lost and in need of help regarding the use of parameters in bibliographic sources in articles against antagonistic editors who try to undo those improvements

Hi, My name is Carlos and I live in Mexico so English isn't my mother tongue and I apologize beforehand if this isn't the appropriate place to post the following issue: I recently registered in Wikipedia with the purpose of being able to better help improve the articles I can as many articles, for example, usually sport citations composed just of a last name and a year or very little information and sometimes with no citations at all. With that in mind, I set out to improve the sources and in-text citations of every article I read, I achieved this mostly by filling the most relevant parameters availalbe for each bibliographic source in the articles such as the editors, archive URLs, publishers, full dates, and others.

However, lately, a user named DrKay started to undo all my improvements in all the articles I edited, claiming it was wrong somehow (instead of offering a correction) and when I asked for a justifications he just copied and pasted some generic notice and links to citation manuals, after I insisted he threatened me with banning me or something and the last time I asked him in his talk page to please explain to me his reasons he erased the section I created and claimed in the log that it was "abuse" and melodramatically claiming that I was an editor "pursuing personal vendettas".

I just want to know why the parameters are even made available by the platform in the first place if the editors will not be allowed to use them in a clear way.

Thank you very much in advance, I hope I can get from whoever reads this the help, respect and attention I feel I was specifically denied (perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people).

Thanks again for your time and have a great day, Carlos.

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This would be the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct) to the Punding article (and apparently others), to which DrKay edit-warred to remove. Ritchie333, an admin, asked DrKay for a response and got the same one-line "go to this board" response (which was apparently enough for Ritchie333, see above). So, perhaps, it wasn't I who was "wrong" and "retaliat[ing]", but maybe, just maybe, an admin was in the wrong here. It does happen. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, The Exterminating Angel. The brightly colored warning at the top of this page and the big brightly colored box on the page for editing informs you that you must notify DrKay of your complaint. Since you have not done so, I have done it for you. Now, I will look into your complaint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, just to note, while I do agree about the note on the talk page, I did immediately ping DrKay immediately after seeing this post and with my reply. So, he was "technically" notified. Just sayin' and stickin' up for TEA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay's latest edit summary to that article says undo obvious faults like claiming that Cambridge University is in Massachusetts and not England, or that a country that hasn't existed since 1801 is extant, adding irrelevant details that no-one interested in and removing journal names that are required by the cite journal parameter. "Irrelevant details" is a matter of opinion, but the factual assertions appear to be correct. What precisely is DrKay's misconduct here? Neutralhomer, it is well established that a ping is not sufficient notice, because editors have the ability to disable receiving pings. I don't but some do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I am responding to the request for help from Carlos The Exterminating Angel. Thousands of Wiki editors over the years have developed regular accepted policies regarding journal citations. These are based on the Chicago Manual of Style which is used by most academic authors, editors and publishers. You should familiarize yourself with the usual policies and you should not change good citations into bad ones. What happened it that you added lots of extraneous and often wrong information that will mislead the many thousands of students who use our footnotes every week. If they start copying you they will get lower grades. Rjensen (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rjensen: I'm not sure where you get your information, but elementary/middle/high schools and colleges/universities here in the US are highly recommend that their students not use Wikipedia for any sources. If they use Wikipedia, it's only for quick lookups, not for sourcing anything. Even I wasn't allowed to use Wikipedia when I was in school....and that was a long time ago. So, Carlos/TEA isn't responsible for any "lower grades" and furthermore, that's not anywhere close to the subject at hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

students in fact use wikipedia a lot according to surveys. the teachers usually approve using footnotes so they can study published scholarly sources. Rjensen (talk) 07:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Surveys". Not really a damning arguement. From what I've seen, they perfer the students actually use the actual sources (ie: the documents themselves) and not the Wikipedia articles. Meaning skipping Wikipedia altogether. Meaning, students are using Google, looking for actual sources, going to them, and taking them down from the actual source. Not lazily going to Wikipedia where the answers may lay there...if that page is up-to-date, hasn't been vandalized, etc. It's easier for teachers to teach students to look for the answers from the actual source, then from a source that may be up-to-date. Most of the time, it isn't.

Now Rjensen, I get you did a Wikimania talk in 2012 and you have your own article and you are an editor (that's a big deal), but you don't have to preach the Wikipedia gospel to me. I ain't buyin'. But we are still way off topic. This has nothing to do with students, teachers, or anything like that. It has to do with DrKay and his behavioral issues. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I agree this students thing is a read herring. Whether students are using Wikipedia to find sources or finding the sources directly themselves, none of it excuses you damaging Wikipedia by destroying references making it hard for readers, be they students or anyone else, to find our cited sources because you add nonsense like claiming Cambridge University is located in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: You do understand what a "red herring" is, right? There aren't any "students". There is just DrKay's behavior. We can deflect to this non-existant "students", to my block log or something I did 9 years ago, or because TEA brought up race (is he wrong?), but you all are still (intentionally, I strongly believe) overlooking the real reason for this discussion. DrKay's behavior.

Maybe the "Cambridge University" and the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" was noticed and was left in as a red herring of my own, just to see if DrKay would mass-revert all of those editors/authors once again. I did. See, your non-existant "students" aren't stupid and neither am I. I left that in to see what DrKay would do. He mass-reverted once again based on two things. Instead of removing those two things, doing actual work, he hit the revert button. He engaged in an edit-war over two red herrings. He is the one with the "personal vendetta" and now crying "victim". He violated 3RR, misused the revert button, misused the vandalism templates, misused his admin tools, threatened blocks he couldn't give out. Because he refused to remove two red herrings.

I'm not as dumb as you all think I am, neither are your non-existant "students", but DrKay's behavior and this group of editors and admins defense of this behavior is. He got caught, it's time he faces some consequences. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

You should really disengage from this discussion. --JBL (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

So you're admitting to violating WP:POINT? As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point". I concur with JBL -- this argument is not positive for you (or anyone else, for that matter). eviolite (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eviolite: You call it whatever you want. The fact of the matter is, you all are still trying to deflect from the actual issue, DrKay's behavior. I know that you want me to stop saying DrKay's behavior, cause it will make it easier to archive this entire thing, bury me or TEA, and make it all go away, but DrKay's behavior is why we are here. So, let's discuss DrKay's behavior. Not me, not non-existant students, but DrKay's behavior. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It's very hard to find fault with the fact that DrKay reverted those edits given that you have admitted that they introduced patently false information, any editor who saw the introduction of blatantly untrue material into an article would likely do the same. Are we really meant to chastise users for reverting what is essentially vandalism? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: Two small pieces of misinformation, which was intentionally left in to see if DrKay would remove just that information and leave in the actually correct editor/author information he intentionally removed repeatedly or blindly revert the entire thing...repeatedly. Yes, you are meant to chastise an admin for not going the extra mile and actually doing their job. Doing what they are supposed to do, the actual work, what an admin is supposed to do, instead of misusing their tools. Yes, you are meant to find consequence in an admin falling for two red herrings and mass reverting correct information...repeatedly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no more onus on an admin than on any other editor to sift through a vandalistic edit to find what's right and what's wrong. If you can see at a glance that it introduces incorrect information, admin or not, it is entirely reasonable to revert it. We absolutely should not be condoning in any way the idea of falsifying information to "test" other editors, that's just wrong conduct no matter who you think you're baiting with it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You're not getting it. I removed some of the issues on the Punding page, the initial issue, changed some things around. I knew he was still going to try and revert, but he could mass revert 4 edits from me. But he could just remove that two red herrings. Instead he removed that and the editor/author information. The editor/author information was correct. If anyone of you would actually look, all of those names are actually in the links to the documents themselves. He edit-warred them repeatedly, didn't bother to look and see, he was wrong. Just as everyone here isn't. I did that to prove he was just going to revert the edits regardless. It was an experiment and it worked. He didn't care about the edits, all he cared about was making an editor (or in this case two) go away. Now you are trying to make that go away too instead of focusing on that behavior. You just don't like how I got to it. I got one over on DrKay and you all. Too bad. Focus on the big picture and not me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm 100% getting it. You added "red herrings" (ie deliberately false information--vandalism, basically) to try to bait another editor. Now you want that editor chastened because they didn't sift through those edits to separate wheat from chaff. Well if you don't want someone to revert your edits, don't mix vandalism with constructive editing. If I've got three punchbowls and I see you take a turd in two of them, I'm not checking the third one, I'm throwing them all out, that's an entirely reasonable response. If this was about purely constructive editing being reverted en masse that would be a wholly different matter but it's not, you've set up a situation where any reasonable editor would have reverted those edits. I would have done so immediately if I saw them on my watchlist. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X: No, you are 100% not. The editor is an admin, which are intentionally overlooking. That admin is held to a higher standard than I am. That admin must look before they leap. That admin must check for that "turn in the punchbowl" (as you so elegantly put it) and not throw all three of them out the window blindly with the revert button. But that's what he did. He removed perfectly legit information, didn't readd it, hasn't readded it even though it's been said multiple times, because they feel they are right. To hell with the rules. To hell with the fact that the actual medical papers list those names. The admin thought he was right and refused to admin he was wrong, edit-warred, warned a user, WikiStalked, and threatened a user with a block. When he could have easily removed two pieces of information. You might not like how I did it, you might want to overlook the fact that completely correct information remains off the page, that an admin broke the rules, and not "a reasonable editor", but that's what happened.

A situation was, indeed, setup. But had DrKay taken the time to look at it, he would have seen the situation at hand. But he flies by the seat of his pants, is rude, threatens, warns, and doesn't care. Focus on that, not on me. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay being an admin has no bearing on this. No admin tools were used. Their edits are being judged by the same standard as any other editor because that's what an admin is in this case. Having sysop tools doesn't mean you have to hand-hold a vandal any more than any other editor would be expected to. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of an admin here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This issue has already been raised and the reason for the reverts explained multiple times on talk pages,[20][21]][22] by edit summary[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] and at other noticeboards[31] by multiple editors. DrKay (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@DrKay:: Not even close, dude. Not even close. When you explain, with directing people to a noticeboard, why you removed authors of papers, from references and did it repeatedly to the point you violated 3RR. Also why your snide remarks to just about every talk page post from "abuse" to "personal vendettas" and just rudeness with no reason. Then we can consider it "explained". Cause when you were asked anything, you just erased it and actually issued repeated vandalism warnings against The Exterminating Angel, an editor you were highly WP:INVOLVED with. I don't think you should have been throwing any sort of warnings out. This edit, perfectly fine] you removed portions of it and then issued a Warn4IM warning. The hell dude?! These are authors and editors on the papers. They are allowed to be used as citations and attributions within the reference. Do you know anything about referencing an article?

There are other examples of this, but I think this is enough. This is a prime example of extreme admin overreach, WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates (I know that one), misuse of admin tools. You should be TROUTed and thrown to ArbCom and you owe Carlos an apology. The hell dude?! You know better! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, maybe you should be a part of this discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There are several things happening here that I want to separate out, as it may explain the issue more clearly:

• Most of what DrKay removed were things that were factually incorrect. I have no problem with these, nor should anyone else.
• The exceptions were, as Cullen328 suggests, whether to include editor names in a citation. AManWithNoPlan gave a reasonable justification with this comment "Just becsuse a parameter exist, do not mean it should always be used. For example there is a parameter to include where the author physically did the writing which is silly almost all the time. Also, execessive weight is given when there are 5 editors and 1 author." Personally, I can't get excited about the formatting of citation templates and think we have more important work to do around here.
• Help:Citation Style 1 says "Wikipedia does not have a single house style. Editors may choose any option they want; one article need not match what is done in other articles or what is done in professional publications or recommended by academic style guides. However, citations within a given article should follow a consistent style." I would suggest that if the formatting of citations is not to your liking, you raise a discussion about it - Talk:Punding would be a suitable place to start.
• In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive. (After all, it tends to leads to ANI threads like this one!) In this instance, a good response would be a polite follow-up question to DrKay along the lines of "Sorry, I don't understand the salient point in the conversation you linked to, can you clarify what you mean"? How to ask smart questions may be useful reading. That does not mean I'm excusing DrKay's conduct - admins should strive to communicate as helpfully and thoroughly as they possibly can, but telling someone to do their own homework is not really a sanctionable offence.
• Neutralhomer appears to be inflaming the situation. I advise them to step back and reflect on what their actual goal is here, because despite their protestations, it still seems to be centred round wanting to "stick it" to DrKay and hold it up as an example of "admin abuse". No good will come of this; in particular you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia.
• Do not, even in vague suggestion, accuse editors of racial bias, particularly when the dispute in question has nothing to do with it whatsoever. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Ritchie333: First, it's not "they", it's "he". I'd thank you to get the pronouns correct. Second, I left examples above of how, yes, he is "significantly harming the encyclopedia". Third, nowhere have I said I was going to "stick it" to DrKay. I don't like to see admins going after users for no real apparent reason. Fourth, I don't like admins sticking up for admins, especially when they know they are wrong and threatening those who go after their friends (ie: "No good will come of this"). Fifth, if you can't operate with a clear mind (ie: "you cannot demonstrate that DrKay has significantly harmed the encyclopedia"), then maybe you should have an uninvolved admin step in. Because you are "excusing DrKay's conduct". That is what you are doing. You did it at 3RRV then you turned it on me, you are doing it now against TEA, you aren't able to operate with a clear mind. Maybe it's time for you to step away. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, if you don't want to listen to my advice, then I'll duck out of the conversation. However, I will just add that a) "In my view, DrKay has not been as polite and helpful as he could have been, and accusing other editors of "pursuing personal vendettas" is counter-productive." is hardly "admins sticking up for admins" and b) if you carry on like this, you run the risk of being blocked. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Neutralhomer: Here's some feedback from a non-admin: interjecting your commentary here isn't helping you or TEA, and is actually helping DrKay.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @BubbaJoe123456: How? Everyone has been coming to his rescue from the beginning. He didn't need my "help". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: No, I want you to actually do something more than tell TEA that he needs to form his responses to DrKay's rudeness in a better manner. Look at the evidence of his WikiStalking, misuse of the vandalism templates, misuse of admin tools, his threatening a user with a block, and actually do something that doesn't involve threatening the other user. Do something to the offending user. Because when you "duck out", you are sticking up for admins. You can block me, I don't care. I fully expect it. DrKay will continue to bully other editors, you will continue to stick up for him. Nothing will change. Be the change, block me, or be a coward. You have three choices. Make one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A) Who's Carlos? & B) This is a content dispute, which should be settled at the artice-in-question's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Carlos is the name TEA gave both at the beginning and end of their post. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I wish to request a one-way interaction ban on Neutralhomer with regard to me. I consider the posts in this thread, which are not supported by facts, as prima facie evidence of a personal vendetta, which arose over me making two edits to WZFC (AM) which were so wholly trivial that they did not even noticeably effect the appearance of the page. However, on the basis of those single edits, he has pursued me relentless from talk page, to AN3, to ANI and clearly has no intention of stopping. His complete over-reaction to such trivial edits is concerning, as is his previous history of off-wiki harassment. I feel fortunate that I edit anonymously. DrKay (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop trying to force yourself into the role of a victim and agree to engage here what you refused to do with me even when I pled with you and which of course to hold a civil and rational discussion, please? No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations, let's just talk this over. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"No snide disdainful remarks or overblown accusations": you mean like calling someone whose skin color, home life, life story, and nationality are a complete mystery to you, a racist? DrKay (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race but yes, I belong to a racial minority (I'm Hispanic and that can be easily surmised since I actively participate on the Spanish Wikipedia) but I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it; is it? I truly hope not for the sake of Wikipedia.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I never once mentioned race—You literally said perhaps because of race-related reasons in your first post in this thread. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM. The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

No I'm not? Where did I say that? 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay Dude, you are not a victim here, so stop acting like one. You are an editor who refuses to communicate with editors in anyway but rudeness, snark, and one line directions to a noticeboard. Then, when you are actually confronted with your behavior, you play the victim card, say you are being "abuse[d]" and the person confronting you has a "personal vendetta". When your edits are open to the public and it's quite evident who the real bully is. You can bring my block log up all you want. I can bring up your actual behavior, your WikiStalking of TEA, your same one-line directions to another admin when he was asking you, basically, what your problem was. Now you want a "one-way interaction ban", meaning you can still bully me, but I can't do anything about. No. Interaction bans don't work that way, buckwheat. If any I-Ban happens (that's a BIG if), it will be two-way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

"Buckwheat", Neutralhomer? Really? Please explain your use of that term. What, precisely, does it refer to? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Have you ever heard of The Little Rascals? I'm not that old, but they used to play in reruns with The Three Stooges on TBS in the mornings. Also, I'm from the South (Virginia to be exact), "Buckwheat" is something you call another person. Yeah, it's an old term, but since my parents come from Preston County, West Virginia, which is home to the Buckwheat Festival, it's still used. It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. It has a place in two very distinct areas. The Little Rascals and The South/West Virginia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I thought that was what you meant. You are admitting that you used a racist slur. Not cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: It is not a "racial" term and was not used in a "racial" way, so get your head out of the gutter. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems to epitomise one of the big problems with Neutralhomer's editing, their refusal to accept when they are wrong which leads to an inability to admit being wrong and more importantly learn from their mistakes. While I admit I'm a bit like that as well albeit mostly on the refusal to accept being wrong, IMO Neutralhomer tends to take it way too far. Especially considering they don't back down or disengage. (At least when I make this mistake I tend to post one or two long posts, and promptly ignore the discussion forever or at least days or weeks.)

I suspect most of us are fine accepting Neutralhomer was unaware of or didn't understand the racial connotations of the term and didn't mean it that way. However per the source provided by Cullen328 and even more by Schazjmd (which to be fair, I'm not sure if Neutralhomer saw even if it was before the above comment), it's a term that is considered racist. This takes into account the history including way it's been used.

Using such a term isn't a good thing, still the simple way forward is for Neutralhomer to recogise what the sources are telling them and accept that it's a racist term and therefore not use it anymore on Wikipedia. Ideally this would come forth in something like "Wow, I wasn't aware of the history of the term and didn't mean it that way. I apologise for using it and won't ever do so again.". Or at least some acknowledgement "Thanks for the link, wasn't aware of that.".

Instead we get this. As I said the thing that matters most is that they learn from this and so even with this reply or no reply, it wouldn't be that bad if we could be confident Neutralhomer wouldn't go around using the term buckwheat again. But the reply combined with my admittedly very limited experience makes me think we can't have confidence this is what will happen.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NBC, ABC, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and AP News all characterize it as a racist term (as did the Colorado legislature which reprimanded the member who used it). Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you think "Interaction bans don't work that way", you should read WP:IBAN, and learn about one-way IBANs. It most certainly CAN work that way.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@BubbaJoe123456: Like I said, if (and that's a BIG if) any I-Ban happens, it will be two way. I won't have a known bully of an admin being allowed to bully me and I not have recourse. It will be a two-way interaction ban, again if one actually happens. At this point, I don't think that will take place, not the way this discussion is going. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no bulling from me. I've not once posted to your talk page; neither of us edits in the topic area of the other. This would all go away if you left me alone. This has all happened because you approached me, followed me and are determined to push a false narrative in relation to me. Just walk away and you're very unlikely to ever come across me again. DrKay (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Hello everyone,

I've decided to add a more complete explanation so you'll have the full context: My name is Carlos and I'm Mexican; Wikipedia is, to put it simply, my passion, (not a pastime, a passion; I feel true well being and satisfaction when I help improve an article. With this in mind, I created an account and never had a problem with anyone (other the occasional spelling mistake, as Spanish is, naturally, my mother tongue). I focused my efforts on adding new bibliographic sources (I won't use those which are more than 15 years old, unless they're considered classic) and trying to fill all the parameters that Wikipedia made available to me and everyone and which I suppose aren't there just for show; anyway (like the names of the editors, publishers, places of publication, full date when available instead of a year, among many others), because I believe that MORE INFORMATION IS GOOD instead of les information.

DrKay caught wind of this and undid my editions, when I complained he just put copied and pasted a text redirecting me to Wikipedia's manuals, then he tracked down all the articles I've ever made and undid those too, which to me, speaks of malice; when I complained again on his user talk page he erased my plea to just have a normal civil discussion about the issue and he arrogantly and disdainfully mentioned in the history log that he erased my posts because I was an editor "with a personal vendetta"; a smear. So I had no choice but seek other alternatives and I chose to complain here.

Now, he mentions race which I thought was not a factor in this issue, and even if he didn't know me is easy to see my contributions to the Spanish Wikipedia and my username which is the title of a popular Mexican-made movie. So, indeed, I belong to a racial minority.

For the sake of Wikipedia (which I would be embarrassed to see involved in a scandal), I hope DrKay has no ulterior racist motives of any kind, but he's the one that brought it up. Regardless of that, like I said, he just undid my edits even if it meant turning the article into a stub like with Punding; his mentioned motives? My sources I think because he refused to explain more and even threatened with having me banned from editing. And he remains rude and defiant as you can see. That's what happened, in a nutshell, and I hope I will find here the help and resolution I seek; and if some parameters in a source are not to be used, why are there on the first place? (Furthermore, when added a source with relevant parameters nobody complained and did the same for all the other sources so they would look the same).

The Exterminating Angel (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're proceeding from a misunderstanding about sources and templates. Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable. That's a question of norms and common practice. The related issue is that you apparently don't understand the distinction between the editor of a book with multiple chapters by different authors, and the editor of a journal. I explained all this to Neutralhomer in this thread. That's the main reason why you were reverted, and DrKay explained that in the revert.
• Regarding your claim of racism, please post a diff. Mackensen (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Break

Maybe I can chime in as someone who spends some time fixing {{sfn}} no-target errors, which often involves tweaking {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} parameters (and also has relevant IRL experience). Attempting to fill in all the parameters of the templates is detrimental to the reader experience and unnecessary inflates the length of citations; as a result it is pretty disruptive. In addition, and as with any work that consist mindlessly copying stuff, it also introduces a significant number of errors and imprecisions. And looking at just a single edit, the number of errors is pretty astounding:

• confusing the British Cambridge with the Boston-suburb Cambridge (as has already been mentioned);
• spelling out the UK the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" without mentioning Northern Ireland,
• Listing the Mayo Clinic as a publisher of "Drug-Induced Compulsive Behaviors: Exceptions to the Rule–Reply–I", which does not seem to be the case
• Using the current editorial board to fill in the {{cite journal|editor}} parameters of a 12 year-old publication
• Using the {{cite book|chapter}} parameter for a single-author book, whereas the docs at {{cite book}} indicates that it should be used in relation to books written by multiple authors (as is the practice in regular scientific writing).

I could go on, but I will stop. I think The Exterminating Angel's current editing habits are disruptive; they should stop filling out unnecessary parameters, and absolutely double-check or triple-check the validity of any information they are adding in those templates. JBchrch talk 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Clarify: TEA made mistakes on article-in-question. DrKay corrected those mistakes. Well then, what's the problem? What's this report about? GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: DrKay engaged in a revert war, instead of actually "correcting" mistakes (which would have required removing a small amount of text), he removed all of TEA's text. He then WikiStalked TEA to other pages, issued warnings, continued to revert war, broken 3RR repeatedly, refused to discuss anything in a constructive way (even with an admin), and threatened to block an editor who he engaged in that revert war. DrKay did not simple "correct mistakes", he blindly reverted.

If JBchrch thinks these parameters are "unnecessary", then perhaps those fields should be removed from the infobox templates completely. TEA added all available information to the infobox template. Instead of working with the editor, we have yet again warned over and over and over again, insulted, and diminished another new editor to that of a child who knows no better. We have yet again had admin after admin circle the wagons around another abusive admin who is given carte blanche to do whatever he wants without consequence and the reporting editor(s) are the ones threatened and punished. When will it end?

Maybe TEA did make mistakes, but he is a new editor and English is, admittedly, not his native language. But we are holding that against him. We are excusing the behavior of DrKay, all the insults and rudeness, because, essentially TEA made a mistake. He wasn't "disruptive", he didn't "damage the encyclopedia", it's still standing, it's still running, no one was sued. We can stop being overly dramatic. He made a freakin' mistake. Maybe we should help the new editor instead of insulting and punishing him, just like we always do. Then hold DrKay responsible for his actions, actions even Ritchie333 "counter-productive" and "not polite and helpful".

Do I expect this? No. Do I expect you lot to actually do the right thing? Hell no! Will DrKay see even one sanction? Absolutely not. Will we lose yet another new editor to abusive editors and admins? Yes! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I think the parameters were unnecessary in context, not in general. Hope it clarifies. JBchrch talk 01:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: So the editor/authors listed on the front page of the documents in question are "unnecessary". I doubt they will be happy to know that "in context" or that will "clarif[y]" anything, but I'm not telling them squat. It's not like anyone who it's on a medical paper gives two shits what people on Wikipedia think anyway. They got published in a medical journal, they are far and above us no-name cretins (myself included). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: Are you deliberately interpreting uncharitably what I write? Honest question. JBchrch talk 01:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@JBchrch: No, I'm not. What was removed was the editor/author names, which are listed on the actual medical papers. You said those fields (ie: names) were "unnecessary". I took that to mean you think those names are "unnecessary". 1+2=3.

If people would actually look at the history of the actual (ie: Punding) and what was removed, instead of focusing on me or TEA, maybe this would move a little bit better. Maybe I come off a little "rough", but when people focus on anything but the subject at hand, I tend to get a little bit cranky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

May we have a list of the article or articles being disputed over? Sources are either correctly shown or they're not. It can't be both ways. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I can only speak for myself (pinging The Exterminating Angel), but Punding would by my example. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, in that case it's simple. TEA's version, which you reverted to, isn't correct (I'm looking at [32]). There has never been any such country as the "United Kingdom of Great Britain"; there is no context in which that would be the correct way to refer to the United Kingdom. Not now, and not before 1801. Jon Stoessl, though quite distinguished, became editor-in-chief of Movement Disorders in 2020 (see [33], page 8), and was not editor-in-chief in 2006 when "Punding and dyskinesias" was published. Even if he had, the editor of a journal is not considered a co-author of a paper published in that journal. The same goes for Julio Licinio, who was editor-in-chief of Molecular Psychiatry when "Insights into pathophysiology of punding reveal possible treatment strategies" was published in that journal but is his name is not "on the paper" nor does he list that paper in his extensive CV. Confusing Cambridge with Cambridge, Massachusetts is a problem inasmuch as both have major--but different--academic institutions based there.

For those unfamiliar with how academic publications work, there are important distinctions between the editor of a book with multiple chapters submitted by different authors and the editor of a journal. In the former case, the editor is really another author, who has probably helped organize the book and more than likely will contribute a chapter themselves. They may have organized a conference panel or two which led to the book. In the latter case, they are overseeing the publication of the journal, organizing submissions, assigning reviewers, and such. It's a much more permanent role; lasting years. The key distinction is that they're the editor of the journal, not of the articles published in the journal, whereas in the former case the credited editors are the editor of the book (as opposed to the editor(s) who work at the publishing house that published the book).

To take this back to the original issue, citation templates have many parameters to help Wikipedia editors capture the many nuances of the publishing world. Not all are necessary or even appropriate in all cases, and using them incorrectly, no matter how well-intentioned, can convey inaccurate information to the reader, as in this case. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Precisely, Mackensen. Outside the academic arena, it is neither necessary nor useful, and actually counter-productive when citing an article in the New York Times for example, to add to the reference that Punch Sulzberger was the editor, and that the newspaper is published in New York City, the state of New York, and in the United States of America. The senior editor of a major newspaper is not involved with fact checking or copy editing routine articles, and the repetition of "New York" enters into blue sky territory. If the name of the city is part of the newspaper's name, then there is no need to repeat it elsewhere in the reference. And if you do add a location, be sure to get it right. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: So, what you are saying is, because TEA used the wrong template, since he is a new user, English isn't his first language, and didn't understand the "nuances of the publishing world", that made it OK for DrKay to insult/warn him repeatedly and threaten him with an indef block. Is that what you are saying? Instead of DrKay being helpful and polite to the new user, he was rude and engaged in an edit war. What DrKay, an admin could have done was explain what TEA had done wrong, help him to better understand those "nuances", better use those templates. Is that not what admins are for?

Now, I have readily admitted that after I moved somethings around to help TEA out, I left the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and "Cambridge University" in as red herrings for DrKay (with no intention of leaving them in permanently, I'm not a complete jerk). The editor/authors were admittedly OK. I personally didn't see the Infobox book use as a problem. If the use of Infobox journal was a problem, DrKay could have certainly explained that too, again politely. He did not. But the use of the red herrings were to see if he would remove them or just revert all. He reverted all. That was a problem.

TEA was not helped, nothing was explained, and even I didn't see the Infobox journal issue until now. I think Infobox book was fine. Had DrKay explained that, I would have learned something new. I may have been here for 17 years, but I haven't learned everything. That was something new. But DrKay could have explained everything to TEA in a polite way and not just revert with rudeness. That's not helpful to anyone. It helps no one. It leads to issues like this. We all need to be better editors. That's what we are here to do, edit an encyclopedia. I think we have forgotten that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Actually Cullen328, when they are listed on the front page or top of the document (and it's an academic document, a medical article, not the New York Times), you do add the editors and authors. DrKay removed many editors and authors....repeatedly. Which I have said....repeatedly. This wasn't the Times, but medical articles. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, in your first contribution to this conversation at 02:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC), you wrote °the editor who added quite a number of edits (all correct). Right? Now, a little more than 24 hours later, you are talking about two pieces of false information that you call "red herrings" that you deliberately restored, in an attempt to somehow trip up DrKay. You told incompatible stories. There is a word for that behavior and it is reprehensible. Have you ever read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Please study it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No, I actually didn't, if you would stop putting your own spin and interpretation on what I write. Read the words as they are and go from there. You and I said the same thing. You just spun it. With the exception of the red herrings, which show DrKay not doing his due diligence, TEA did everything right. DrKay didn't help a new editor as an admin should. No one wants to see that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, are you still trying to argue, 25 hours into this farrago that you created, that it is a good thing to add a list of the names of the entire editorial board of an academic journal to a reference to an individual article published in that journal? Where on earth is that considered good practice? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

First, I didn't start this discussion, TEA did. Second, yes, I am prepared to continue to argue DrKay's behavior until it gets through your thick skulls. I'm pretty good at arguing and I don't give up easily. One of my better qualities. Third, it is always good practice to stand up for what's right, never back down to bullies, and always tell people when they are wrong. I will always die on that hill. Maybe I'll die alone this time, but I'm fine with that. Fourth, the hell is a farrago? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Farrago is a Latin word, meaning "mixed cattle fodder", used to refer to a confused variety of miscellaneous things, and several online dictionaries agree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Several online dictionaries agree that you could just say "bullshit". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I make my own vocabulary choices, and anyone curious about a word I use can look it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Never said you couldn't. It is funny, though, that you get defensive about me using a thesaurus on farrago and coming up with "bullshit". "Mixed cattle fodder" is a polite way of explaining that, but a thesaurus does come up with the comparison just the same. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reading of my comment that allows that interpretation. I do think it would help this discussion if you gave concrete examples (with diffs) of the things you're talking about. From what you're saying above it's my impression that you're still confused about the author/editor distinction in academic publishing, but I could be mistaken. Mackensen (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: Real quick, what part of my three paragraphs "allow[ed] [for] that interpretation"? From Punding and from Mexican Spanish. I would advise everyone to actually look at the individual links, click on them, and look at the documents. Remember that TEA is a new editor and that DrKay is an experienced editor and an admin before passing judgement. The "nuances" and what template to use and how to use it is confusing to a new user. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Mexican Spanish, yes, TEA's edit is wrong, and wrong for the reasons DrKay gave. John M. Lipski is the sole author of Tracing Mexican Spanish /s/:: A Cross-Section of History. Crediting the editors of Language Problems and Language Planning is incorrect and would give a false impression of authorship. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia and everything to do with academics and publishing. María Rosario Montaño-Harmon is the sole author of "Discourse Features of Written Mexican Spanish: Current Research in Contrastive Rhetoric and Its Implications"; Karen L. Smith appears to have been the editor for the Applied Linguistics section of Hispania at that time; compare doi:10.2307/344576. It would not be appropriate to credit Smith. Mackensen (talk) 04:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mackensen: OK, Now look at this. First edit removed. He leaves some of the editors. If the editors aren't necessary, then why remove some, but not all? He also removes ISSN numbers. Why?

Also, he also removes is the publisher. Those are required, even in books and newspapers. Look at any article. Those are required. Not adding the publisher, etc. could get use sued. It almost did with the Nielsen Arbitron debacle (see WP:TVS). We didn't have the right publisher information and Wikipedia got slapped with a DCMA notice. So, yeah, it's required. Explain that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The editors of academic journals were removed. The editors of books and conference proceedings were retained. This has been explained already. The issns were replaced with journal names, which were otherwise missing causing a CS1 maintenance error. 'journal' is a required parameter. 'issn' is not required. Publishers of academic journals were removed. Publishers of books were retained. Again, this has been explained already. DrKay (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, if you truly believe that listing the name of the publisher is required for newspaper, magazine and academic journal references, then it should be easy for you to provide a link to a policy or guideline spelling out this requirement. Please do so when you wake up. My own practice is to provide the publisher for references to books, but I contend that my practice of providing the name of the periodical is sufficient for references to newspapers, magazines and academic journals. Let's see your evidence for this requirement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

You lot are giving me a migraine and I have to be up at 8a for the real world. I know the vast majority of you don't live there, but some of us do. So, final punches.....and go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

...and that's time ladies, gentleman, non-binary friends. I look forward to more deflection later today. Let's try for after 3p EDT, shall we? Good. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is TEA's report. Let him comment from here onward. Don't make yourself the focus/topic. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: you most definitely do not get to decide whether a one way ban is happening. Nor does DrKay. While your can feel it's unfair, and you can explain why you think it's unfair, it's our decision as a community of editors (generally for many of these discussions with a majority being non-admins) that ultimately matters. Although I don't personally think an iban, one way or two way is merited you continuing insisting it isn't going to happen isn't helping anything, in fact it's increasing the chances it might happen albeit only very very minorly. (Your other behaviour here is however likely having a bigger effect on the chances a one way iban might happen.) Frankly your apparent disdain for our readers, be they students or anyone else, which seems to be reflected in your comments here makes me think a better solution might simply be a site ban or indefinite block of you. (Redacted) What anyone editing here should care about is our readers not their ego. If an action makes the experience worse for them for no good reason, that is something we should all care about. If an editor keeps insisting on preserving or changing something despite the harm to our readers for no apparent reason other than a desire to win an argument, that's an editor who likely doesn't belong here per WP:Vandalism and WP:POINT. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ever since DrKay mentioned my race out of the blue (by the way and for the record, DrKay mentioned race first, not me) and because of how antagonistic he has been to me, I became paranoid about racism which I had never experienced in Wikipedia with the possible exception of this instance, and it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal). So I hope we can deal with this issue in-house, on our own, with my question being: If editors, publishers, places of publication, and others, are not to be used that means some parameters we can't use, and if that is the case, why and what are said parameters?The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

DrKay mentioned race first, not me—Would it be possible for you to provide a diff of this? Without seeing where this happened all we have to go on is that you first mentioned race when you started this ANI heading, and if anything has happened previous to this it hasn't been linked to here yet. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: No, for the record, he did not. In your very first post to ANI you said perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people (in which you not only mention your race, but also an assumption on DrKay's race based on nothing), and I haven't found anything about race in any of DrKay's prior edit summaries or talk page posts. Also, could you clarify what you meant by the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes? Votes in what?

In regards to citation parameters: please read the content guideline on what information to include on a source -- it conveniently presents what to present for each type of citation, notably excluding editors for everything except individually authored chapters in books (which these were not). Of course, you should not add blatantly false information either (Cambridge etc).

And when multiple experienced editors, all active for over a decade (I count at least 4: not just DrKay, but also Rjensen, AManWithNoPlan (here), and Philip Cross (here)), tell you that something should not be done, you should listen to them, not get into multiple simultaneous edit wars. That is not productive at all. Regards, eviolite (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I will listen to what I'm told, however I must add, science is not a consensus. Also, if attempting to use the parameters made available by Wikipedia is "detrimental" then why are they even there? Shouldn't they be eliminated? The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: I realized I should clarify something you might have misunderstood -- if you were worried about this "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Mexican Spanish" -- Mexican Spanish is referring to the article you edited (as you can see by the link). These are standard warning templates people use when editors seem not to cooperate. No racial insinuation at all. eviolite (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: But you don't appear to be listening to what you've been told. The reason for not filling in all the parameters has been explained several times, including at least twice on this page by User:Mackensen at timestamps 02:13, 18 October 2021 and 02:44, 19 October 2021, e.g. "Citation templates support a wide variety of parameters because they have to account for numerous different use cases. That does not mean that all possible parameters should be used for all sources; in most cases a smaller subset is desirable." Extra details like the full name of the country "United States of America" are unnecessary in almost all cases (since the city and state will suffice) and distracts from the key information. Similarly, as was explained earlier in this thread (and elsewhere), listing the editorial board of an academic journal is unnecessary and extraneous, and gives excessive weight to people who have had no academic input into the work cited. It is also often wrong since editorial boards change frequently and indeed examples of where they were wrong are given above in this thread. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nail on the head hit by Celia Homeford, very patient and clear explanation. I'd put it a bit more bluntly: just because my QWERTY keyboard allows me to type profanity doesn't mean that it is useful to, nor does it mean that any of the keys should be removed. That a citation parameter exists means it is useful in at least one case, not useful in every case. — Bilorv (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Been around here for over 15 years. Gotta be honest, that this has been the most confusing ANI report, I've ever seen. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Neutralhomer for 48 hours from ANI for persistent bludgeoning of the discussion. The comment above gives me no confidence that he can simply walk away from a debate when he is being disagreed with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He mightn't see it that way. But, it's for his own good. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why the condescension is necessary; it's for the good of WP to stop the disruption. I think the requested interaction ban (forbidding NH from interacting with DrKay) is also a good idea, for the same reason. --JBL (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) An interaction ban makes sense but given the admission of introducing false content to "entrap" DrKay I would suggest a tban worded in such a way as to prohibit the knowing introduction of untrue material into articles for any reason (I can't believe we'd actually have to write such a thing out, but here we are) as it seems that this behaviour could conceivably continue otherwise. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would be necessary. NH said he hadn't read WP:POINT, so in theory he didn't know he couldn't do that. Now he knows and has been warned not to do so under any circumstance. Were he to do that again after unambiguously knowing he shouldn't, a block would be warranted. —El Millo (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think an editor who's been here since 2007 with 66k edits to their name should need a specific guideline to understand why damaging Wikipedia to prove a point is unacceptable. (While technically it doesn't matter, the fact that it's IMO a very dumb point doesn't help matters to me.) The point I was trying but maybe failed to explain above is when Neutralhomer gets into these disputes, to me it looks like they get so focused on defending themselves and their edits and trying to prove they are right that they forget why they are here namely to create an encyclopaedia to serve our readers. To some extent many editors fall into this trap at times including me, but it seems to me Neutralhomer falls into it too easily and too hard. It's fine to think your preference is better for the encyclopaedia and our readers and defend and support it. However you also have to be able to accept when the community disagrees with you, including the level of discussion that may be reasonable to establish this depending a lot on how much it matters. And most importantly, you should never lose sight what matters is what's best for the encyclopaedia and our readers. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but their comments above where they didn't seem to understand the point being made by me and others that we are here to serve our readers is a major red flag to me. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Since it seems to matter a big deal to NeutralHomer I should clarify I meant live edits. I restricted it to live edits since these seem to be the best indicator of experience. I apologise for any confusion or offence causesd by my failure to make it clear I meant live edits above. Nil Einne (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ironic. By bludgeoning the report (which wasn't begun by him), the lad made it about him, when he wanted it to be about another. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the word for a boomerang that seeks out vexatious bystanders? EEng 03:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Contempterang? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd call it a vex-byst-erang. JG66 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that may mean something very rude in Swedish. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's either a kind of dinosaur or candidate for the missing link. On reflection, see WP:VEXBYSTERANG. EEng 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Endorse, good block, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 18:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Exterminating Angel: despite the derailing of the discussion by another editor, you must have learned from it that your edits have been too error-prone to expect other editors to leave them stand, or to check each fact one-by-one. For instance, at both George V and Punding you introduced the misconception that Cambridge University Press is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, rather than Cambridge, United Kingdom. I can see how you'd make this mistake, but if you had a more thorough double-checking process when making these reference changes, you could have caught that before submitting your edit. Obviously you've now learned this particular publisher's location for future, but how else will you be changing your behaviour in future to increase your accuracy? — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Cambridge University Press and Cambridge University are the same institutions and that is obvious; and so is the fact that Cambrige University Press is an autonomous institution derived from Cambridge University, as the name says, I was just trying to be thorough and complete in the info about sources but no reasonable person would consider both to be the same; I agree it's wrong because someone might assume CUP belongs to CU and while this is financially true, functionally is a complete different institution. Either way, that would not warrant reverting an entire edit, just a correction and telling the editor to please not do it again (talking to the editor which is DrKay never did with me, and saying it politely, which DrKay has never been either).The Exterminating Angel (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

To clear things up: the issue is not with Cambridge University at all. The issue is with the locations you placed. Cambridge University Press is not in Cambridge, Massachusetts as you wrote. It is in Cambridge, United Kingdom, a completely different city. eviolite (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

A simple mistake and very natural confusion if you don't live in either country and it can be corrected, still no need to revert the whole thing.The Exterminating Angel (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the press does happen to be part of Cambridge University (which is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom), but I'm rather confused as to what The Exterminating Angel is saying because I never mentioned the university. Cambridge University Press is located in Cambridge, United Kingdom, not Cambridge, Massachusetts. Simple as that.

Re-reading this discussion, I see a comment by DrKay that somewhat escaped me showing that, I believe, the primary concern with your edits is more a matter of excessive detail in sourcing (for which "the parameters in the template exist" is not a compelling argument). DrKay's diffs show a pattern of other editors raising issues with your edits. In this case, it seems to me like this needs an RFC or discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability or somewhere, as ANI is not the place to decide content disputes (only conduct disputes). — Bilorv (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Where's ETA??? It's rather frustrating, seeing Neutralhomer going to bat for him & he's been absent from a report he began. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  ETA's expected time of arrival is about 10-15 minutes. EEng 03:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to the OP

Folks. I was initially sympathetic toward The Exterminating Angel. I thought, a newbie misled by the WMF's instructional videos into thinking citation templates must be used ("the more complete a bibliographic source, the better; ESPECIALLY, in articles where the sources are just a title and a year"; several references in Mexican Spanish are {{sfn}} references referring to listings in the bibliography; a new editor is unlikely to be aware of WP:CITEVAR and the separation of notes and bibiography in many of our more sophisticatedly developed articles because, after all, the video just says to use citation templates) and jumping to the conclusion that the existence of a parameter means it should be filled out: "those parameters are available by this platform for a reason". See also his first post above. But now I'm getting a whiff of under a bridge troll. (NOTE: edited with strikeout and plain speech on 20 October, with apologies to anyone who misconstrued my allusive language; see below)

• On his talk page, in edit summaries, and here, several editors have attempted to explain the misapprehension about parameters, many in response to the initial query. The first attempt, by rjensen, precedes DrKay templating him. He rejects the information and accuses DrKay specifically of rudeness and vindictiveness.
• Some of his additions to the citation templates were also erroneous. Several editors have pointed this out, but his response here was to sidestep the issue with an assertion that Cambridge University Press is independent of Cambridge University.
• I have not seen rudeness from DrKay in his dealings with this editor. It is possible that the editor misinterpreted Template:uw-disruptive2 and Template:uw-disruptive3 as attacks, but a statement of terror seems overblown, and there is open hyperbole in the claim that DrKay reduced Punding to a stub. That makes me ill disposed to take the accusations of rudeness and vindictiveness at face value. Looking at Dr Kay's removal of TEA's last post at User talk:DrKay, I find "I already explained, multiple times, as have other editors, multiple times" quite a mild edit summary, especially in response to "Honestly, give me a legitimate and valid reason why should I heed that rule".
• From his first post here, this editor has suggested racial animus against him; added in the second edit: "perhaps because of race-related reasons but I don't want to believe that, although there is a specific special disdain I felt which I've only felt when confronting discrimination from White English-speaking people". After asserting repeatedly that "DrKay mentioned race first, not me", "I have never publicly suggested that your rude and arrogant mistreatment and arbitrary edits were linked to racism, you mentioned it", he has now changed to: "I mentioned my race, yes, but you're the who mentioned RACISM."
• Veiled threats to stir up a mob against Wikipedia on Twitter, or just to get us downvoted on Reddit or something: "it would break my heart to see Wikipedia in the center of a scandal, especially since the users of Twitter are not exactly forgiving as I am Hispanic (the largest minority in the United States where most Wikipedia editors are based and which of course means lots of votes which means that if this indeed becomes a public scandañ would inevitably turn political scandal)"
• I see the username, which nobody but me appears to have had any suspicions about, is attributed to a Mexican film, but by this point I'm done assuming and need evidence of good faith. What is this editor here to exterminate?

I think we are being played. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You might have mis-linked to the Mexican film. This is what we say about The Exterminating Angel. The “comic horror” of a “slow descent from normality into anarchy” in ”a never-ending feast”. Hmmm… DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"The movie follows a group of wealthy guests finding themselves unable to leave after a lavish dinner party, and the chaos that ensues afterward." Hmmm, now that sounds familiar. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of the key indicators of NOTHERE behavior. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My 15+ years on this project, is giving me 'two' impressions about ETA. Either he's got WP:CIR issues or he's entertaining himself, which would fall under WP:NOTHERE territory. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll sum up for myself and state the following:

• I see no evidence of any racist comments by DrKay and I have no idea what the basis of the accusation is, despite all the words spilled above.
• TEA's edits were incorrect and unhelpful and DrKay was right to revert them, and DrKay explained themselves in a reasonable way.
• Neutralhomer inflamed and escalated what should have been a simple matter, and their contributions to this discussion were uniformly unhelpful, even after multiple uninvolved editors asked them to stop.

TEA is a new editor who got confused. Fine, that happens. Multiple editors have explained citation templates to TEA. They'll learn from this experience or they won't. Neutralhomer has been here since 2007 and has a history of blocks and warnings for battleground-style behavior. This is yet another instance. They show no awareness that there's anything wrong with how they approached the situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This seems like an appropriate summary of the problem. I'd suggest this report be closed with a warning to TEA to heed others when corrected on Wikipedia policy & procedures. We can seek sanctions on TEA if they repeat their behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My concern is, that accusing people of racism without evidence is a serious civility violation, and devalues the experience of victims of racism, and I have not found any evidence that TEA had any reason to make such an accusation; moreover, he's doubled down on it and been caught in an absurd equivocation over who mentioned race first. Since at least one person—NeutralHomer—found my reference to "under a bridge" susceptible to more than one interpretation, including racial bias, I've struck it out above and replaced it with "troll". Whether he was at the start or not, TEA appears to me to be trolling, and that's something we need to protect the encyclopedia and the community from. Ritchie333 already warned him against unsupported accusations of racism above, and he continued attacking, right here on AN/I. I think at the very least we need either evidence of bias in how TEA's edits were treated and how he was addressed (it's possible I missed something, but I found only mischaracterizations of all interactions as attacks), or a convincing apology, before we effectively express the message that preemptive accusations of racism, or accusations of racism in the mistaken belief that that is the most plausible reason his changes are not automatically accepted, or whatever it is, are ok. (I still think choosing the username "The Exterminating Angel" is indicative of a combative attitude to editing from the get-go. Even though he said in one of his posts here that he named himself after a film, presumably the Buňuel film (I linked to the diff where he explained his username; scroll down in it), the name is worthy of WP:UAA. We've bent over backwards to extend good faith to this person. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Neutralhomer, who had 14 years of service, was rightly indeffed for repeated, unsupported accusations of racism. I don't see why the consequences should be lighter for someone who hasn't really established a history of productive contributions. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

More accurately, Neutralhomer was indeffed for complete loss of self-control for several days, ranting and raving about a wide variety of things, and engaging in many personal attacks against other editors. It was particularly striking to see this editor make "racism" accusations shortly after they lobbed the buckwheat slur at another editor. As if people routinely call other people a grainlike crop grown in West Virginia and Russia and a few other places. Intelligent people know exactly what it means, from its 1930s film origins to the outrageous 1980s parodies by Eddie Murphy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Pilgrim might have been a better choice. EEng 05:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

EEng, why oh why isn't John Wayne a featured article? If it was, we could all argue endlessly about adding or removing an infobox. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Date-changing vandal in Chicago registers as Henry Hughes8

• Henry Hughes8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1045#Date-changing vandal in the Chicago area
• 174.253.66.81 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.253.67.7 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 174.253.82.184 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 64.107.48.1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 64.107.48.2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Fourteen months ago, The Anome blocked some IPs from the Chicago area that were vandalizing articles by changing dates and worse. Today, Henry Hughes8 registered the username and immediately began to make the same edits as blocked IPs. For instance, a long series of IPs have been edit-warring a maintenance template into a video game article, now joined by Henry Hughes8.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]

A few minutes ago, Henry Hughes8 was blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter. Two months ago, Ohnoitsjamie put a much-needed rangeblock on Special:Contributions/172.58.136.0/21. Can we get further rangeblocks on the recently involved IPs, if there isn't too much collateral damage? This person is terribly persistent. Binksternet (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I gave lengthy blocks to Special:Contributions/64.107.48.0/30 + Special:Contributions/174.253.64.0/19 which cover all the IPs above. Johnuniq (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do it. The /30 block appears very focused on our date-changing friend, but the /21 range is going to frustrate some good-faith editors. The tradeoff in peace and quiet is worth it, though. Binksternet (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Also used IPv6: 2601:240:2:CF74:C1C0:B115:17C:C0AD (talk · contribs), which geolocates to Pittsburgh. MrOllie (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

They appear to be editing again from here as well 2600:1700:8641:2FA0:513B:BF64:6CDC:AEC8 (talk · contribs) Wieldthespade (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Waylan Johnson Repeated unsourced genres, refuses to communicate

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

---

Waylan Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Received more than enough warnings from multiple editors, but completely ignores, refuses to communicate and continues to introduce and reintroduce unsourced material with almost every single edit. I also opened an SPI but the backlog there makes it close to useless. --Muhandes (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done, blocked for 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Suspicious editor in kids' TV show editing area

The editor User:Mikolaj2008.11 has awfully suspicious edits that make me think they might be an LTA or someone with competence issues. Some issues include:

• Rewriting of Molang to the point where it may need to be rewritten altogether
• Constant use of this person's own name as their edit summaries

They also use the IP addresses 81.219.238.175 and 94.246.179.17

What should I do in this situation? Or am I just being overly suspicious? wizzito | say hello! 09:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good grief. I suspect the only way of rescuing that article is to nuke it from orbit and start again. And surely all of that description, characters, episode summaries etc. are simple copyvios? Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Black Kite: Computer says "Yes, definitely". [43] --Jack Frost (talk) 09:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you, both! What else should be done, is a block or a warn needed? wizzito | say hello! 09:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Black Kite and Jack Frost, I've warned the user on their talk page. What else is needed here? A CCI report? A block? wizzito | say hello! 10:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• P.S. Besides Molang, these articles should also be checked as they've been heavily edited by this user: List of programs broadcast by Treehouse TV, Tree Fu Tom, Polsat Seriale - Also might want to check their contributions on Polish Wikipedia for anything weird: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wkład/Mikolaj2008.11 wizzito | say hello! 10:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There are a handful of LTA accounts that roughly match this, among them ItsLassieTime, Bambifan01, and Caidin-Johnson, to name a few. Perhaps a follow up is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B15B:FB4C:9422:304C:FA0:1C5 (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@2600:1011:B15B:FB4C:9422:304C:FA0:1C5, I'm very familiar with Lassie, Bambifan, and Caidin, and none of them edit like this user. I'm pretty sure this user is in Poland and named Mikolaj, which none of these users are. wizzito | say hello! 14:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Judging by their username, they seem to be only 12 years old, so they are probably not an LTA as children will probably want to edit kids TV articles. dudhhr_Contribs 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Block evasion by LTA

Ninenine99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked in March, and since then has periodically returned with an assortment of IPs. The user is active again using the 2603:8000:B00:0:0:0:0:0/48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) range, which had previously been under a three-month block earlier this year. Topic areas and editing patterns are still identical; another block on this range would be helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive edits are still being made from this range, like the tampering with sourced data that Ninenine99 was known for. Is a block on this range feasible? --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Previously blocked IP is again edit warring with hostility/aspersions/personal attacks

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

---

Currently an IP user is engaging on Genetic studies on Jews page, edit warring, making relentlessly hostile and aggressive accusations of bad faith, and behaving in a WP:BATTLEGROUND manner.

Recently the IP user (69.157.143.2, User contributions for 69.157.143.2) posted a somewhat vague and uncivil message on the Genetic studies on Jews Talk page (here [[44]] (which seemed to violate WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM). Soon after, they substantially modified parts of the article dealing with one study, removing information with the claim that it was WP:OR (here [[45]]. I began a Talk page topic explaining that it was not OR but supported by the source (with link and quote) and reverted their edit (mentioning the Talk page in my edit summary)

They then replied in Talk with an even more hostile and uncivil reply (here [[46]), containing agressive assumptions of bad faith. They began their replt by ordering me to "stop lying" and accused me of "intentionally misstating the study concludes", they then accused me of conveniently excluding information "so that you [meaning me] can push your false narrative." And accused me of trolling. The talk page discussion is here: [[47]]). Then they reverted me, reinstating their preferred edit. I asked them to refrain from personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith/accusations, and replied to their points, includkng quotes and referwnces from the study. I then modified the disputed sections of the article to more closely follow the source and remove anything that could be seen as OR. Nonetheless, they reverted me yet again and left another reply on the Talk page (here [[48]]), with more personal attacks and accusations of "lying" and of intentional misrepresentation. They also accused the authors of the study itself of designing it to mislead people.

It seems likely that this IP user is the same person as an IP user from several months ago, 69.157.247.154 (with a similar IP) who engaged in a particularly egregious edit war on the Genetic history of the Middle East page (Their contributions here: [[49]]) and were blocked [[50]]. Their edit warring focused on the same genetic study as the more recent IP. Both that IP and the current IP geolocate to Montreal, Canada, and seem to focus information relating to the same genetic study. The old IP was warned by User:Austronesier and finally blocked by User:SQL.

This user's extreme incivility/hostility (and disregard for WP:AGF and WP:NPA and other policies) is also consistent with them being the same blocked editor. This user also seems unwilling to WP:LISTEN.

(As mentioned, the current IP geolocates to Montreal (see here https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/69.157.143.2) and the earlier one did as well (https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/69.157.247.154)

Any help is appreciated.

Skllagyook (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The current IP is blocked for two weeks for continued personal attacks after my warning. Acroterion (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Acroterion: Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Editing my sandbox against my wishes

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

---

@Cavalryman: has edited my sandbox against my wishes. I take this as hounding me.

Background: see this talk page and especially the RfC on the bottom.

These notices were posted at a list and at my talk page (thank you). I responded here. Since this time I have believed a discussion was taking place. I have edited neither list, thinking to change them during a discussion was bad faith.

Cavalryman has moved, changed the focus of, and continually edited to improve a list which was under discussion. The edit history is here. I believe the discussion started at 10:05 October 2021.

Instead I edited the older list in my sandbox. Where it was edited without my permission by someone who is in conflict with me elsewhere.

I have tried to discuss, including a RfC, here. I have proposed changes the older list's talk page. I believe that, in general, I have acted in good faith.

No matter what excuse they come up with Cavalryman edited my sandbox without my consent and while in conflict with me elsewhere. I don't know how much more bad faith he can show me. Sammy D III (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at Cavalryman's contribs, they were removing all transclusions/uses of a now-deleted template, Template:US military utility vehicles. No comment on any other issues, but the sandbox thing is not a big deal. Cavalryman, would you agree to stop editing anything in Sammy D III's user space, even if it's to make a non-controversial change? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers. The sandbox thing happened while Cavalryman delete a large number of uses of the template. While it was the last deletion, there's a fair chance they didn't even notice it was Sammy D III's userspace. While they are responsible for ensuring all those mass edits complied with our policies and guidelines, removing use of a deleted template is largely uncontroversial. By the same token even if they did notice, there's no reason for them to think it would have been controversial whatever disputes they had with Sammy D III (unless the dispute was over that template which it doesn't seem to have been). I would not assume malicious intent if someone edited my sandbox to remove a template in the midst of a mass removal of a deleted template which was not the focus of the dispute, since the only real way that could arise is if the editor specifically looked for something they could mass delete so they could annoy me. The far more likely scenario is that the editor came across the discussion and/or deletion while dealing with the disputed articles and/or things they linked to, or yes looking at the sandbox; was wondering what was going on and investigated. As a result of that investigation, they decided to finish the cleanup from the deletion and knowingly or unknowingly but with no malicious intent edited the sandbox. Sammy D III you need to AGF more. Also most a bunch of your links do not work, I assume because of the moves you referred to but either way it's difficult to see most of what you're talking about. If you're just linking to a page rather than a diff or certain version, I'd suggest you use WP:wikilinks rather than external links in future, as that makes it easier to see the links are invalid. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC) 17:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking more carefully, the reason those 4 links don't work is because you included a period (.) at the end of the URL. Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I found what I think is one of the discussions referred to Talk:List of soft-skinned vehicles of the United States Armed Forces. Looking at it, the thing that struck me was the RfC started by Sammy D III clearly doesn't comply with the neutral wording requirement as the the text is "Should a list that has been in place for years have been edited or replaced with a new list". Nil Einne (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, if one diff doesn't work then none anywhere will. I guess it doesn't matter, although I've been personal I thought that RfC was pretty good (except for the damn links). I'm going to get AGFed and maybe-ed until I'm supposed to think this is just a mis-understanding. But you did spend your time on me, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sammy, as my edit clearly caused you distress I apologise, all I can do was assure you it was in no way intended to be malicious, it was part of a series of remedial edits after a TfD closure. Until the characterisation above of our interactions at Talk:List of soft-skinned vehicles of the United States Armed Forces as "conflict", I had assumed them to be cordial discussions between two good faith editors with similar interests who hold divergent opinions about these lists. Unless policy dictates I must (or in years to come forgetfulness overtakes this) I have no intention of ever again editing any of your user space, including your talk page. Cavalryman (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC).

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

Notice of harassment from User:101.127.139.158

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

---

diff links reformatted, {{IP}} added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is 97.101.193.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

I would like to report User:101.127.139.158 and his alternate IP 2406:3003:2002:57:11DA:1CED:A437:57A2. Since yesterday (Oct. 16th, 2021) this user has vandalized my talk page with nonsensical edits and has repeatedly threatened to "Block" me & has falsely claimed that I have been "Blocked". He has no such power but still claims to otherwise. Here is a list of his edits:

2406:3003:2002:57:11DA:1CED:A437:57A2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [51] [52] [53] [54]

101.127.139.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS): [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62]

97.101.193.162 (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to create a report with diffs.

Context: This was at WP:AIV before. I've sent the reporter to ANI because it's not a one-sided simple issue. The reporter favoured the encyclopedia with contributions such as Special:Diff/1043861255, Special:Diff/1043860093 and Special:Diff/1043860418. Their block log is extensive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, this is going to be difficult to deal with because of the lack of accounts on either side... What to do.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Warnings all around? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The IP addresses appear to be static enough for long-term blocks, though. I'd say the main question is whether either or both editor(s) are disruptive enough to justify that measure. And I'm afraid both are, but I didn't want to respond to harassment concerns by blocking the reporter without discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Warnings could do, both users use their talk pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Let's just go with that.

• 97.101 shouldn't vandalize articles and be uncivil.
• 101.27 / 2406:3003 shouldn't pretend to be an admin and harass 97.101 about their block log. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:SpaceFactsBot is malfunctioning (2)

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

---

The bot is no longer working anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shujianyang (talk • contribs) 05:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard § General query: I imagine this has been caused by the removal of some deprecated API parameters for obtaining tokens (see phab:T280806). There's nothing really we can do, the bot code will need updating. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• See a similar query on this page from 15 October, the bot operator is working on it. TSventon (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

172.58.128.0/17 again

May an admin interested in range blocks take a look at Special:Diff/1049981274/1049982671? Kleinpecan (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've converted the /17 block into the two range blocks previously mentioned. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Londanfaqir9000

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

---

Londanfaqir9000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an user with bit over 20 edits and seems to be exclusively engaging in vandalism-esque and trolling conduct. See these for example; addition of gibberish on a BLP, unexplained content removal, addition of a forumy comment, etc. I had placed a final template on their talk page and they have responded with what seems like plain trolling to me, see this and this. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Blocked, run of the mill troll/vandalism account. Never going to be a constructive editor. Canterbury Tail talk 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock requested

Rangeblock is requested to cover the following

1. 103.211.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2. 103.211.13.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
3. 103.211.13.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

For disruptive edits to Talk:Tiny Banker Trojan. The three IP addresses are obviously the same user making the same 1,040 byte addition to the talk page reverted multiple times by Dawnseeker2000 and myself. This talk page has a history of disruption from users adding WP:FORUM and WP:PROMO type edits and this is the case with the edits from this range. It has been previously been protected twice due to this disruption. I have previously warned the .216 IP address and after the 4th level warning they switched to the .160 today. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the /24 range from editing that talk page for a week. There've been some useful edits to other pages from other IPs in the range, so let's try this before blocking it sitewide. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, whoever it is came back with a completely different IP, so page protection may end up being necessary after all. clpo13_(talk) 21:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

119.93.40.241 repeatedly adding unsourced info

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

---

Reporting this IP user repeatedly adding unsourced info on these articles: Balitang A2Z Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 and Honeycomb toffee. Need an action. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I was only restoring what Ctrlwiki has been removing. What with restoring uncontroversial additions by other users? These were cast members and segment titles that are easily verifiable. Which can easily be added a reference. The user is obsessively removing content without explanation--unsourced is not an explanation. Aren't we supposed to be building an encyclopedia? The guy is single-minded about providing a source. He could have verified the content added or provided the citation himself, instead it's no source, delete for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.40.241 (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@119.93.40.241: Wikipedia says, it's your responsibility to provide a source, so don't push me to provide a source for the information that I didn't add. I explain and warn you at your talk page. Ctrlwiki (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to add, he's removing names in the starring section of the tv show infobox because starring and main cast are different, really? I know English proficiency is not required but there's no getting through to him. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't let him to add a content without providing a reliable source, those excuses he makes will destroy the rules of Wikipedia. Please warn this user! He forces me to add references to those information he added. That user previously blocked here in Wikipedia for disruptive editings. If you don't block or warn this user, he will continue to add unsourced content and continue to disrupt any articles, the rules of Citation are mentioned in these pages: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Help:Referencing for beginners, and don't let him to break these policies in Wikipedia. Ctrlwiki (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Croatian Air Force

Hello. I want to report sock puppetry PTS 188 [[63]] which does vandalism from various IP addresses and deletes reliable sources. Please take a look [[64]]. Thank you. 89.172.36.100 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• PTS 188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefblocked by Bbb23. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 14:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've blocked Special:contributions/42.188.91.65 for 3 days for block evasion. The article was semi-protected by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

ISIL Anthem

Just a heads up that the ISIL anthem file is in an infobox on the Dawlat al-Islam Qamat, it was posted there by User:2601:192:4B40:7410:F877:650D:4234:17D8. Previously it was only linked to, but the actual file itself is now there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dawlat_al-Islam_Qamat&diff=prev&oldid=1050710370

Not sure if something should be done about this? 106.69.33.39 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Germany also has its anthems in the infobox. Levivich 13:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, sadly, Godwin's Law does not have an anthem. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

But Godwin does. Levivich 15:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The file (which is on the Commons) will be deleted soon, as there was no copyright info supplied.— Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• By far the quickest vindication to date of the WP:Iron Law of Infobox Ubiquity:

“ In any sufficiently long Wikipedia discussion, sooner or later someone is bound to invoke the Infobox Wars. Then Nazis. Then infoboxes and Nazis. ”

EEng 02:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ctrlwiki removing names in the infobox

Ctrlwiki can't seem to wrap his around the word starring, apparently starring means the actor playing the titular character that is why he keeos removing the names of the other actors despite being part of the main cast. Maybe the guy should read the instructions on how to use the infobox on television or compare similar usages on Supergirl (TV series) and Grey's Anatomy. 143.44.164.124 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove those names. If you will read the first sentence at the top of the article: "starring Jane de Leon", there is only one cast mentioned, but if you read the starring section at the Infobox, you will see a lot of names. So it is not the same? Other editors agree and removed those names you added for other reasons. Readers will confuse when they read the article. Let's wait for the admins response for this. Ctrlwiki (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ctrlwiki: Actually you just did. Main cast are listed as starring in the infoboxes. What's not clicking? Not only are you stubborn, you're a big liar. Your swift removal of warnings in your talk page clearly illustrates your stubbornness and unwillingness to listen. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This looks to be related. Also, you are required to notify the editor on their talk page when you open a discussion about them. I have notified them for you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

As stated at the page protection request this is a simple content issue that should be resolved on the article talk page. There is no need for admins to get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure we don't need to have a thread open for a week or two with back and forth bickering about content matters? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be what the editors involved want. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Ctrlwiki has been a regular fixture in ANI the last two months. Common denominator, clearly there's a problem, not the guy he reported nor the people who reported him. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not the problem here. FYI, if I'll list your problems here: Edit warring in many articles, removing templates / content without providing a valid reason, adding unsourced information, not using edit summary, personal attacks, you've been reported here in May 2020, and you've been blocked once here. Protecting articles for disruptive editings is not a problem. Ctrlwiki (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Misdirection. Typical liar. You're claim" removing templates / content without providing a valid reason, yet you reported me for adding content. Adding and removing are two opposite things. Secondly, I was blocked in 2029, that was a year ago. That was a long time ago. Then again, I'm not the only one with a block history. Lastly, edit warring is two ways. It wouldn't be an edit war if you can comprehend what I was trying to add. Yet, you're very mind is closed. 119.93.40.241 (talk) 03:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

2029? I guess I was comatose longer than the doctors said. EEng 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This covid thing has really dragged on.. feels like I've been locked down for a decade.. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't call me a liar, adding a content without sources (which what you are doing) is called lying. The problems I've mentioned are based on warnings you received on your talk page, so be careful with your words. Ctrlwiki (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have a choice here. Either this thread is closed quickly as a content issue and the editors involved talk about the issue civilly on the article talk page(s), or they talk their way here into blocks. Which will it be? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Just close this nonsense issue, the discussion here is not clear. Ctrlwiki (talk) 08:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As I've pointed out several times before, anyone bringing a content issue here is already generally demonstrating they are a problem. Add to that the failure to notify, we have even more evidence. Then we compound that with the most serious problem namely Talk:Darna (2021 TV series) [65], Talk:Balitang A2Z [66], Talk:Pinoy Big Brother: Kumunity Season 10 [67] and Talk:Honeycomb toffee [68] having no relevant edit history and it's a triple whammy. So you IP are clearly one of the problems. To be fair Ctrlwiki is as well since the talk page discussion point also applies to them especially given the RFPP. However "we're both big problems" is never something you want to bring to ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm also going to say that Ctrlwiki is wrong to be removing the main cast en masse; as far as I know it is fine to have the main cast in that section. I looked at a few TV Featured Articles and it is certainly the case there (i.e. House (TV series)). Black Kite (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I understand you and other IP users. The only thing I wanna know is if the first paragraph of the article mentioning that Jane de Leon is the only starring, but if you read the starring section of the Infobox, there are three names mentioned, so it is not the same? And please warn that IP user for not posting a reference for every content he added. Thank you. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't remove the main cast, I only removed the names in starring section in the infobox of the article, because it is not the same when you read the first paragraph of the article. Try to read the article so you can understand what I really want to say. Ctrlwiki (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no helping this guy's comprehension. Per Black Kite (talk) I looked at a few TV Featured Articles and it is certainly the case there (i.e. House (TV series))., yet this user still insists on matching the lede and the infobox. I doubt he checked out the example mentioned. And we haven't touched on his fixation on sources. 143.44.164.124 (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

77.134.227.100

IP engages in persistent disruptive editing on a dozen articles, including Sebastian Kurz. They have a long record of desist warnings on their talk, refuse to abide by the WP:MOS, and seemingly ignore core policies like WP:Consensus and WP:Communication is required.

Regarding Kurz, I removed the succession box on the article, as its content was already included in the infobox. The IP reverted my edit with the explanation "Succession box for all political leaders (not justifiate exception)", I asked what guideline/policy establishes that, they reverted again, explaining this time that "this is what can be seen in all the articles about politicians. It's a fact. Why would Kurz be the subject of an exception?". I’ve attempted to compromise by retaining the succession box, adding additional content not included in the infobox, and moving it into a more compact navbox. I was reverted once again, because the IP unilaterally ascertained that "The main offices are more than sufficient".

To avoid a potential edit war, I started a discussion on the IP’s talk page and re-shared my point of view there. The IP replied and raised valid points. As the whole thing seemed to become increasingly tricky and subjective, I requested a third opinion. I concurred with the conclusion of the 3O provider on the condition that the succession box be contained within a navbox. The IP did not reply; the 3O provider thanked my reply, so I inferred that they would be ok with a navbox. About 24 hours later the IP still did not answer – despite user activity – so I presumed they were fine with the 3O and the navbox part; hence I opined that there was a consensus and went ahead to enforce that consensus. The IP did not revert or query within another 24 hours, thus reaffirming consensus. Four days after the discussion, the IP removed half of all the content agreed to by consensus, without providing an edit summary or explanation elsewhere, and without getting prior consensus.

Yes, I could start yet another discussion, and like so many others, ask yet again that they comply with WP policies and guidelines, but their whole conduct to date has proven over and over again that such an endeavour would be in vain. Hence, I’m here now, and ask that the IP be sanctioned with a page block or final warning. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

IP 207.172.244.20

This IP was blocked in June. Since returning from the block, they have gone right back to making edits with multiple issues. Some of these includes introducting deliberate factual errors (that player is indeed on the Cardinals now], Removing redirects (which has been done multiple times), swapping an image out because they hate the old one", and adding a non-existent image. While this editor, prior to my warning, has not been warned, it doesn't appear the person using this IP is here to build an encyclopedia. I know we can't permanently block an IP, but this IP appears to need another block.--Rockchalk717 21:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: 207.172.244.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not been blocked in the past, but since it's associated with a school, I have schoolblocked it for 1 month. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Is that what this was then? I only said that because the talkpage for the IP said it had been blocked. I appreciate that school block though! I'm just trying to figure exactly what that was in June.--Rockchalk717 22:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: Wow. I sure screwed up there. I blocked the wrong IP address (which was a school). I have no idea how that happened. Maybe it was a tab I had opened from WP:AIV, which was next to the tab I opened from your initial message. The address you're referring to isn't a school. I have blocked it for 1 week. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Lol. Thanks for clarification. I was a little confused, but it's all good. You probably aren't the first admin to accidentally block the wrong IP or editor and probably won't be the last.--Rockchalk717 23:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

187.171.44.114 is an active IP relevant to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Urbanuntil

Title, this guy edits very quickly. Attention needed. Zayul (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

"Zayul" is other account of Tbhotch. --187.171.44.114 (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but @Materialscientist can confirm I have exactly one account. Zayul (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

? --187.171.44.114 (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It's easy to overstate what a checkuser can confirm, but I can confirm I've checkuserblocked the IP. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Redvince1 reported by User:TheLionHasSeen

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

---

• Redvince1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Modalistic Monarchianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This incident published to the adminisrators' noticeboard has been summarized in a fashion to assist with its complexity.

Around 7-9 October 2021, Redvince1 contributed to the article listed above. Reviewing their contribution as a new Wikipedian, the article appeared to have content written like a novel. Within the contents of their contribution to this article, wording which violated a neutral point of view were found. One blatant example was making use of the term, "complain." Undoing their contribution on the basis of their initial workmanship to Wikipedia, information that had no relevance to the historical development of the theological position (rather instead, seemed as alleged polemic to justify it from their personal point of view, more on that later) was purged and term "complain" was replaced with "suggest." Doing so, they haphazardly claimed my contribution as theirs in the diff which can be clicked here. They also restored this information which was removed to the purpose of representing advocacy.

As evident in the previous report--Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1080#An apparent agenda and/or advocacy account--Firefangledfeathers corrected them and vindicated my displeasure with them claiming my own contribution to the article (removing biased language) as their own, to which an apology of varying weight was given by Redvince1. Being personally notified that my responses instead of with grace were becoming WP:BITEy, I alleged that Redvince1 continued to deflect from the conversation, and gave my concern with their claims of my contributions being seen as an attention-seeking impersonator account; the incident was thereby archived.

Being contacted after much delay on my personal talk page which can be currently seen, I have been duly notified of edit warring warning alongside should have known better to initiate the discussion on the article's talk page. Redvince1 reaches out, yet clarifying my allegations of polemic, they indeed stated they were a Modalist perspective editor, and then a blatant Modalist. From their perspective, the information in the article lacked information from a Modalist perspective and "logic" (apparently the article lacks logic, to which it would have been duly deleted by then), however in all actuality, there were citations from well-known Modalist, David K. Bernard of Oneness Pentecostalism which I allege invalidates their argument on my personal talk page. I was invited to discuss, yet highly displeased with their delay with communicating while prioritizing an edit war which allowed me to shoot myself in the foot.

Nevertheless, on the talk page for Modalistic Monarchianism, I tried to clarify that their contribution to the article cannot be kept as in discussion there has not been a consensus reached yet; their response is that it takes multiple people instead of us to reach this consensus. The first uninvolved contributor (known for editing theological articles), Editor2020 reverted their contribution to this very purpose. Redvince1 against these desires while continuing to as of today claim boldness even in this edit warring report, and vowing to continue reverting every few days, reverted their contribution to dispute resolution. Then, on 14 October 2021 a second uninvolved party, Scrollsaficionado removed a source that was deemed spurious. Having realized they forwent additional contributors being involved, I reverted their contributions again on the grounds of there not being a consensus. They (Redvince1) continued to insist otherwise. They also restored the citation that was removed. I become involved again, and become aggressive out of angst for this situation remaining a stalemate at this rate. Redvince1 claims boldness.

16 October 2021 comes, and I revert stating in their boldness, discussion should still be upheld which they seemed to have promised to continue trying to do. They forgo this proposition and continue reverting. Becoming exhausted with this issue as seen in this diff on the noticeboard, I revert yet again which allows me to shoot myself in the foot on edit warring rules which I disregarded feeling WP:trolled. Later, I add quotations from the citations already listed pre-dispute and a third uninvolved editor contributes to the article. Editor2020 then improves upon the article as it was in its state, to be staunchly reverted by Redvince1 yet again; he then in the edit summary rudely labels me and others reverting his contributions as "critics."

Agreeing (as seen prior in the diff of my exhaustion on the noticeboard) that we should both just be blocked (me on the accountability of failing to have proper conduct in dealing with their advocation and now WP:POV pushing and WP:POV railroading me into oblivion), I took the issue to the edit warring noticeboard. Redvince1 then again blatantly states the following: "I am puzzled why TheLionHasSeen is unwilling to include or consider the content with references on modern day adherents of Modalism such as David K. Bernard and logical arguments that are made by those who adhere to the Modalist Christology perspective. I am reverting this article every few days to get more attention to this article so that more editors will get involved in adding content and so that TheLionHasSeen and myself are not the only arbitrators of what content goes on this article. I am adhering to WP:BOLD in doing so." I responded by clarifying I am the one to originally posit David Bernard into that article, and never removed him. The information on Thomas Jefferson and Arianism had no relation to the content of the article, and to show that I was not a critic I assisted in providing a NPOV for Oneness Pentecostalism which on its talk page was commended for (not directly) with countless contributors on Wikipedia. I then called them out for their claims that they placed Bernard in the article again and rebuked their action for making Wikipedia a background, and deliberately ignoring those other contributors that became involved for not agreeing with their advocacy.

As a result of this, I motion whether I am blocked on pretense of shooting myself in the foot while handling this or not, that this contributor is blocked from editing Wikipedia for the purpose of being an advocacy-only account, and for their blatant muddying of the conflict at hand to cause confusion toward all involved. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• If that's a summary, can we please have a summary of the summary? EEng 06:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• New user make edit. I revert edit seeing it as blatant POV pushing; they revert back and make tons of horrible arguments (even against others while focusing on me especially). They then label those that do not agree with their edits as critics, and lie about their edits as if they placed citations from certain scholars in that they never provided. I then get annoyed at the Wikipedia's 1,000+ administrators not being able to respond to this complex issue. I then will soon shoot myself in the foot again, by just blatantly disregarding all rules since the other contributor wants to (after I acknowledged two wrongs do not make a right), because the staff are not that active as of late, and revert their POV pushing as I did with a certain contributor to the P'ent'ay article for months. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 15:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the closed incident above: WP:ANI#User:Redvince1 continuous disruptive behavior, and should be closed as a duplicate of that report. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair to me! - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen: you keep bringing Wikipedia "staff" but there are no such thing. The Wikimedia Foundation has staff but they don't generally concern themselves with the internal runnings of any project. AFAIK even the controversial UCOC doesn't seem likely to result in significant staff involvement especially on large projects.

Wikipedia has administrators and arbitrators but both are community appointed positions filled by volunteers. Neither rule on content disputes. Your complaint seems to be mostly content issues which you need to resolve via discussion starting on the article talk page and using some form of WP:Dispute resolution if needed.

In so much as there are behavioural issues which is something which administrators do deal with, there are enough problems with both of you to suggest if the solution is restrictions on editors, it would be for the both of you. But the far better outcome would be for both of you to stop without requiring restrictions.

I'd note at Talk:Modalistic Monarchianism#Dispute Over Additional Content I see some discussion which is great. Unfortunately far too much of that discussion seems to be over behavioural issues and frankly having skimmed through it I remain confused what the actual dispute is about. I'd suggest a reset of that discussion focusing on one or two proposed edits and going from there. Since there are only two of you, if you still can't come to consensus WP:3O is an option.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Davide King disruptive behavior

This user (Davide King) does contribute to articles, I have nominated him once in my ITN nominations as he contributed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2021#(Posted)_2021_Czech_legislative_election). And I was thanked by him (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=122677475). However the recent edits have been getting severly worse and this is why I'm reporting this. Whilst if there would be a consensus in doing this, I'd understand but of course there is nothing in talk.

So he goes on to remove all the sourced ideologies in the defense that 'as a member of the PES, it is a centre-left, social-democratic party'. So now we are basing it only on international alliancies according to him. He removed in total 13 sources in the defense of that and 'bloated infobox', leaving only centre-left and social democratic because they are a'member of PES' with no consesus to remove the sources and just ignoring the sources totally. This was the first warning sign of breaking NPOV, putting his opinion (without sources) over how it should be displayed over everything else.

For BSP: This was his presented way: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Socialist_Party&direction=prev&oldid=1050817866 And this is how it was and with sources should look: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgarian_Socialist_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050817866

In conclusion, he removes all of these sourced ideologies without consesus in the defense of a bloated infobox to only keep 'social democratic and centre-left' on the basis of them being a European Socialist member. Democratic socialism[3] Social conservatism[3][4][5][6] Left-wing populism[7] Left-wing nationalism[7][8] Factions Pro-Europeanism[9][10] Russophilia[11] Position: to left-wing[13]

He not only goes on to remove the sources presented in this article in the infobox but, The same with PSD of Romania. He goes on to remove 20 sources and 5 key ideologies in the defense that it 'bloats up' the infobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)&oldid=1050522420 Another experienced editior responds with reverting it and telling him to go the far-right party AUR and do the same there and see what the response would be. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)&oldid=1050523332

In conclusion, he removes all of these sourced ideologies without consesus in the defense of a bloated infobox to only keep 'social democratic'. Left-wing nationalism[7][3][8] Left-wing populism[9][10][11] Social conservatism[12][2][13][14][15][16] Soft Euroscepticism[17][18][19][20][21]

He goes on to remove Pro-Europeanism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Party_of_Action_and_Solidarity&oldid=1050814172

He goes on to remove Republicanism and Eurosceptism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Left_Party_(Norway)&oldid=1050752545

He goes on to remove hard eurosceptism and socialism (sourced) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Party_(Norway)&oldid=1050641517

Here's an even funnier one, this is how it looks: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Șor_Party&direction=prev&oldid=1050820012 National conservatism Protectionism Statism Russophilia Euroscepticism[1] Populism[2][3] Regionalism[4] Political position Big tent[a] He goes on to change it to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Șor_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050268754 He removes all the sourced ideologies again, and keeps 'big tent' in description, "big tent and regionalist party,[3] it promotes both left-wing and right-wing views. The party does not define itself as belonging to either side of the political spectrum and its policies mixes Moldovan identity with support for the former Soviet Union." But because the party is a member of ECR (European Conservative) he changes it to " A member of the centre-right, Eurosceptic European Conservatives and Reformists Party," and the politial position now is Centre-right based on his edits. He just puts in his own opinion without any sources, and removes all sourced ideologies. On the basis that the European affliation is all that matters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_of_Moldova&oldid=1050268498 Social democracy[2] Populism[3] Pro-Europeanism[4] His edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Democratic_Party_of_Moldova&direction=next&oldid=1050268498 He goes on to remove pro europeanism and populism sourced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSP_for_Bulgaria&oldid=1050816675 And again.. TO him an alliance with two communist parties is only social democratic.

Again from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec_Liberal_Party&oldid=1050123952 Canadian nationalism[1] Federalism Quebec autonomism Factions: Social democracy[2] Political position Centre[3][4] to centre-right[5][6][7]

To this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quebec_Liberal_Party&direction=next&oldid=1050123952 Removed centrist, removed the sourced stuff, and only centre-right according to his opinion now without any sources.

Obviously, reverting all of this will just lead to an edit war, and in my three years of Wiki experience, I look at how the big parties are lined up for me to make it as close as possible. I look at, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDU/CSU, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_République_En_Marche!, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States).

So to end this off, I am submitting this report in as he is 1) removing all sourced ideologies and positions that doens't fit him in the infobox to only keep one political position and one ideology in. Several examples up is that he only wants 'centre-left' and 'social democratic', the rest are completely irrelevant to him. He is trying to get rid of all 'Pro Europeanism' as can be seen in this report although it is well sourced and he has no consesus, on top of that the big parties use it in Europe. He is using the justification of 'European affliation' to political position as can be seen in BSP and SOR edits, the sources and consesus are irrelevant to him. He is also using the justification of the 'infobox being bloated' for removing all sourced stuff, but yeah, I have never heard of anything like that in my years. If he is so confident, he should remove all factions of the Republican party and democratic party and see what you guys administrators and editors say. So yeah, he is doing this to several parties, he has no consesus behind him and he is removing sources to only please his own opinion. Both of these clearly breaks NPOV and WP:SOURCES as he just completely discontinues them. If there was a consesus that we can only have 1 political position and 1 ideology, I wouldn't make this rpeort but he has clearly decided that he has to change the political parties to his own will, and that's the reason of this report.

This has to be looked into, one user should not be able to remove all sourced ideologies of an infobox in a political partyy for his own will (if there is no general consesus on Wiki regarding this).

Cheers, BastianMAT (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Involved user's response

First of all, you are resorting to other stuff exists rather than our policies and guidelines, or do not actually understand NPOV and RS, as I did not violate NPOV not any other guideline because ... say it with me ... no sources were actually removed from the article; that many infoboxes of political parties are bloated (as noted by Autospark and others who have supported my removal of bloating, including the view that policies should be removed from the Ideology parameter) is not an excuse or good reason to not improve it; our guidelines say they are for key, uncontroversial stuffs, and should be seen as a summary, which is why I took care to better contextualize it in the lead rather than use bloated, empty labels in an infobox; of course, you did not say this and falsely accusing me of removing sources (we actually have a references removed tag, which did not appear in my edits ... because I did not removed sourced stuff, I simply better placed and moved them to the lead to contextualize it!) In addition, some things put in there (pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, etc.) are not even proper ideologies but policy positions that I simply moved to the lead.

Second of all, I did not actually remove any source, I simply moved them to the lead, so your wall of text is clearly misleading, and of course you are mystifying things like me saying "as a member of the PES, it is a centre-left, social-democratic party", which you took out of context; it is sources saying it is a centre-left, social-democratic party and member of the PES, I simply summarized it as such rather than bloat it, like any other centre-left, social-democratic like-minded party. Second of all, several of those articles (e.g. Șor_Party) are not well-sourced; again, Political position (as the link says, it is about the political spectrum) is for left-wing, centre, and right-wing, not catch-all, or big tent categories, which can be easily put more appropriately in the lead; if you are opposed to the change to centre-right, we should leave it blank rather than put something that does not actually fit the parameter. Thirdly, you falsely accused me of relying of personal opinions rather than sources but I simply followed the given sources (academic books) in describing the Quebec Liberal Party; I was also careful to clarify in the lead, where ... you know ... we can actually contextualize and explain stuff rather than bloating the infobox, that the party is centrist by federal standards but centre-right in the context of Quebec politics, which is why I used centre-right in the infobox, since it is a party in Quebec.

In short, your flawed arguments boil down to other stuff exists, or are misleading if not outright false, while I am at least trying to argue based on our policies and guidelines, which say the infoboxes are for key, uncontroversial facts (they need to summarize, not be bloated) and it is much better to make it a prose in the lead. Finally, rather than engage in a discussion on the talk page, you took me here. You said "reverting all of this will just lead to an edit war", except that is exactly what you did here, again using a misleading summary; I did not remove any source from the article, I moved everything, with proper context, to the lead, and only left the key, uncontroversial facts in the infobox.

Davide King (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like the the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks are at it again. EEng 15:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, I get the reference but what is the point of your comment? This is serious, I have been falsely accused of removing sources when I did no such thing. I just trimmed the infobox (removing stuff that is a policy more than ideology, e.g. pro-Europeanism, or unsourced stuff, e.g. liberal conservatism at Quebec Liberal Party), which should be a key facts summary, and expanded the lead using the same sources but with context rather than empty label in a bloated infobox. I have been simply following the policies of WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:INFOBOXREF rather than a false-balancing equivalence of malpractice of other stuff existing (e.g. the whataboutism of malpratice within infobox of other political parties), which is an essay and not a proper or prescribed policy and guideline. Davide King (talk) 07:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  My point is that the wall-of-text complaint followed by the wall-of-text response looks, to outsiders, like one of those tiresome doctrinal debates no one wants to read. In fact had you not responded to me, this thread would probably have died a natural death, and no one would even have known (or cared) what you were being accused of. EEng 12:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  EEng, so I got the reference right. You are right but there was just so many falsehoods, so much misleading stuff, and lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines that I had to write one, and if that highlighted how those accuses of disruption are false, it is good by me. Davide King (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Davide King - Without wanting to comment on the content, an area with which I'm unfamiliar, I would ask you to bear in mind that, if you're a member of a political party, you can't be 100% impartial when editing on the subject, and it would be as well for you to avoid making any edits that might be considered controversial. Deb (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with this. "Membership in a political party" is far too broad and indirect to be any sort of serious WP:COI when such membership can include huge swaths of a nation (and you'd obviously have to bar anyone with membership in an opposing political party in the same way, which would rapidly spiral out of hand to the point where you're barring most people with detailed knowledge of or interest in the subject.) It is comparable to asking an editor to limit their editing in a particular topic because of, for example their religion - would you argue that practicing Catholics should not make controversial edits on anything relating to Catholicism or Catholic doctrine? Or that active Jews should not make any controversial edits on anything related to Judaism? Or that both Jews and Muslims should refrain from making any controversial edits related to Israel? If not, how is this different? Would we similarly bar members of the Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States) from making controversial edits on either article? (That would be 84.6 million people, or about a third of the adult population of the United States - and it would be the third most likely to have an interest in or knowledge about those topics.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Aquillion, completely agree. As I wrote below before your comment, the real problem is that one actually has to comment on content rather than engage in such speculation; once one does the former and not the latter, it can be seen this is an issue of basic verifiability (e.g. BSP) which I have tried to solve, and I am the one who is respecting proper policies like WP:INFOBOXREF, and the other user is violating them. Davide King (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Deb, with all due respect and understanding the point your are making, this makes no sense since I am not even a member of a political party, and those parties involved all come from the Eastern European region and Canada (I am from Italy and do not belong to any political party); ironically, your comment seems more appropriate for the other user who took me here (despite me opening a discussion on the talk page, e.g. Bulgarian Socialist Party, but got no response, only reverts, and now this), since they seem to be the one to be biased. The OP lacks context and contains clear falsehoods, which do not stand to WP:INFOBOXREF and is serious.

In the case of the Bulgarian Socialist Party, as I wrote here, this is a simple matter of verifiability, since refs for social conservatism only say that the party leader opposes same-sex marriage (as shown in the lead, that is not the sole position), and the academic book source says that it is a social-democratic party with somewhat socially-conservative views, which is not the same thing, is qualified, and reflect the region's strong social conservatism), yet I have been falsely accused of removing sources and not actually following them when the reverse is true. Again, given academic sources describe the Quebec Liberal Party as centre-right, so I changed the infobox to reflect that, also removing liberal-conservative which was unsourced and not discussed at all in the body, and I am the one who is failing our policies and guidelines?

I am actually standing by them (WP:BOLD, WP:BRD, and WP:INFOBOXREF), while the other user is resorting to an essay, and making such false accuses is not something that should be taken lightly. You should really comment on content, rather than engage in speculations, and you will see that I am not the one who is being disruptive. I am not the one who reverted, edit warred without citing any policy (I actually explained it), and took me here. I am the one who opened a discussion on the article's talk page, as done here and here, but all I got was no response, edit warring, and false accuses, so forgive me if I am pissed off by this. Davide King (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Davide King Could you please clarify - did you use the phrase: "as a member of the PES"? Deb (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Deb, at first I did not understand what you meant but I think this is a misunderstanding on both of us. I was not saying I am a member of the PES, I was saying that the Bulgarian Socialist Party is a member of the centre-left, social-democratic PES, so we can just have in the infobox Centre-left and Social democracy, both of which are supported by the academic book, while the other user misled and insisted on bloating the infobox (see diffs). Davide King (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Darylprasad & Platonic solids

• Platonic solid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Classical element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Darylprasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring on Platonic solid [69] [70] [71] (the attitude of the other edit warriors there was less than optimal, but I'll move on). When it became apparent the content would not be accepted there, they tried to insert the same content in Classical element [72]. When I objected to this on the talk page [73] and reverted it [74], they started mass-removing other content from the article repeating a sentence from my talk page comment as an edit summary [75]. I think they need a cool-down period. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed (as non-involved). Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Well it appears that all non-sourced material has been removed from the article "Classical elements". And we quote Apaugasma who says quite rightly that "Writing sections based upon no source is original research, which again in itself is a great thing, but which is expressly disallowed on Wikipedia" Have a nice day. Regards Daryl Darylprasad (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This may be resolved for the time being [76]. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope you're right. Darylprasad strikes me as someone who has the capacity to improve WP, but who doesn't understand very well what encyclopedic writing is about, nor various cultural norms here. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBL, I will try to do better next time. I will use the talk pages first before making large contributions. Once again, thanks for your comments, I am just trying to do my best to improve Wikipedia. I am new to "Talk" page etiquette.Darylprasad (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems with User:Vice regent not accepting the result of a closed dispute

I believe we might have a series of problems with the Sexual slavery in Islam page and its POVFORK. More than one year ago an editor, Vice regent, who did not like the “sexual slavery” label in the page title, attempted to rename the page without consensus, but the the issue was solved and the previous title was restored. However, as of today, they still claim that “the title dispute was never resolved”, and in the name of this belief they keep restoring the {{POV}} template that they had inserted long ago during the title dispute (#1, #2, #3, #4 – I am not sure if this list covers all the reverts). Furthermore, in the meanwhile they have also WP:POVFORKED the page and created a duplicate, Islamic views on concubinage, basically as a way for bypassing the closed dispute. I was not aware of the WP:POVFORK, and after becoming aware I have requested a page move (please see Talk:Islamic views on concubinage § Requested move 14 October 2021). The issue should be considered long solved by now, and I find it challenging to discuss: on the one hand, for defending the separate existence Islamic views on concubinage, they claim that sexual slavery and concubinage in Islam speak about different phenomena, while on the other hand they also claim that the they are the same thing and the Sexual slavery in Islam page should be renamed to “Concubinage in Islam”. --Grufo (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits on 11 different articles. At one point I counted their edits and found that Grufo spent 90% of their edits on wikipedia getting into disputes with me (all of which Grufo followed me to, not the other way around). Grufo was warned against edit-warring by an admin, and then eventually blocked. If you look at Grufo's latest proposal, every single user has opposed it[77], but that's not an ANI matter. This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior.[78]VR _talk 21:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

“Last year Grufo started following me around undoing my edits”

Vice regent, you cannot link an old failed attempt of yours to bring me to ANI for WP:HOUNDING you as a proof that one year ago I was hounding you.

“Every single user has opposed it”

Being minority would not be sin. WP:POVFORKING after being minority instead would be. You, Mhhossein (who once accused me of being uncivil for defending two atheist bloggers who opposed a bloody dictator), Baamiyaan2 (who you keep accusing of being a sockpuppet), Jushyosaha604 (who was involved in the previous discussion on the minority's side) want to keep your WP:POVFORK as it is, while Anachronist, Wiqi55 and I are open to a change. Your side also uses opposite arguments (some say that it's because “sexual slavery” and “concubinage” are two different things, while you say that it is just one thing). There are not many users currently involved in the new discussion.

“This is not the first time Grufo has taken a content dispute to a board about behavior”

WP:POVFORKING a page and not accepting that a dispute ended after more than one year is not “a content dispute”, it is a natural case for WP:ANI.

Could you please explain to the admins here, do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why have you created Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why do you want to rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

--Grufo (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Re POVFORK, see this discussion.VR _talk 22:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics, broadly construed. They are practically a WP:SPA when it comes to this topic area, and seem keen to push an anti-Islam agenda. I encountered them last year when they were pushing Nonie Darwish, a noted counter-jihad personality, as a reliable source for Ruhollah Khoemini's views on sex with underage children. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_306#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia:

• Yeah, I remember you too. I remember that you called me “a civil POV pusher” one of the first times we met (or you met me), commenting about a discussion of mine related to the Planck units (in which you were not involved and I am not completely sure you understood), in the WP:HOUNDING discussion that Vice regent had raised (which had nothing to do with physics).
• Fortunately we don't need your memory, as my contributions are public
• How can someone be “a WP:SPA [only] when it comes to [a specific] area”? If I have many interests, how can I be WP:SPA? You do you realize that this is an oxymoron, right?
• As it seems, you were not happy with my contributions even when they were about physics, so maybe I should be banned from physics-related topics too?
• I was not pushing Nonie Darwish (who I certainly did not know), I only fought to make sure that the reliability of a source is always discussed first. Thanks to me we discussed the topic, and my opinion is still that despite her political views are disgusting (according to me) she can be reliable when she tells the story of her life. Opinion-wise, I consider Nonie Darwish utterly garbage (sorry, I am far left politically – so I also can hardly have a “counter-jihad personality”).
• “A topic ban for Grufo from Islamic related topics”: Specifically, what edits of mine are you referring to? I would say that your attacks are purely personal, I am not the one who lost a dispute and WP:POVFORKED a page, and I also haven't edited many Islam-related pages lately.
• I had expressed in more than one occasion that I sincerely believe that Vice regent is in many ways a WP:SPA: his edits tend to be Islam-related and with the intent of pushing the same point of view (in this case that of using an apologetic alternative to “sexual slavery”) independently of the consensus – but we also don't need my memory, as his edits are public too. And yet we are not even here to discuss the WP:SPA nature of Vice regent's account, we are here to discuss two very specific facts:
  1. The fact that Vice regent has WP:POVFORKED a page after loosing a dispute more than one year ago
  2. The fact that Vice regent keeps pushing the {{POV}} template that he inserted in Sexual slavery in Islam during that dispute one year ago, despite the dispute has ended, and despite several editors have attempted to remove it
• Do you have any actual opinion on what we are discussing here? Feel free to contribute.

--Grufo (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nobody agreed with you on the Plank Units discussion either. Vice Regent is a competent editor who mostly focused on Islam and Iran related topics. This does not make him a SPA. My SPA accusation came from your very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles. Which you returned to after a year hiatus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• As I thought. Obviously you haven't read the Plank units discussion. It was a very long discussion with only three editors involved (me included). The trio became a duo almost immediately. And yet you commented about that lonely duo that I seemed to “have issues finding consensus with other users”. On the other hand, the discussion about Vice regent's proposal of using an apologetic alternative for “sexual slavery” has been a rather participated discussion, with many editors involved, about which he still struggles to make peace with the fact that the dispute ended.
• “This does not make him a SPA”: this is literally what makes one WP:SPA. He literally is a WP:SPA – whether good or bad, we are not here for that (my personal opinion based on the nature of his edits is that he is on an apologetic mission even at the cost of the truth – but again, we are not here for that).
• My “very narrow focus on Islam and sex related articles”? Excuse me? What exactly are you talking about? --Grufo (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The RM you linked to was closed as non-consensus so you can't say it was resolved. This doesn't mean it's acceptable to simply ignore the previous RM since when there's no consensus we preserve the status quo ante, but since we operate by consensus working towards consensus is generally a good thing. Also while this wasn't mentioned by the closer, it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam. So VR's actions don't seem inherently even against even the no consensus RM. Clearly we don't want duplicate articles, but what each article should cover or even whether we should have two can only be resolved by further discussion, again aiming towards consensus. You are free to link to the previous RM help guide the discussion but you can't claim it establishes something it clearly doesn't. Frankly although it's probably too late to close, the new RM you started seems a disaster as it's missing the point. Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two things are mysterious for me in this discussion. The first is the passion for discussing about unimportant things, the second is the passion for discussing about what I do, although I haven't done much in the last year. Unless people are really interested only in me – and I will be happy to have conversations in my talk page – I still believe that the question here is: do Sexual slavery in Islam and Islamic views on concubinage treat the same topic?

• If yes, why do we need Islamic views on concubinage?
• If no, why should Wikipedia rename Sexual slavery in Islam to “Concubinage in Islam”?

It is a stale mate created on purpose by a specific user. You say “it looks like there was support even by some opponents of the move of the possibility of a separate article to cover concubinage in Islam”. Yes, some (few) editors supported that (not me). The result? Vice regent created a clone and uses that clone (which shouldn't exist) as an argument for pushing the {{POV}} template in the original article, despite a dispute was closed (you like it or not). Do you sincerely believe at this point that Vice regent wanted to treat a different topic when he povforked the page, or instead he deliberately wanted to bypass the ended dispute and treat exactly the same topic under a different name? --Grufo (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above comment is an example of Grufo's WP:IDHT. They asked this exact question earlier in this section, and I pointed them to the answer. Yet they continue to WP:BLUDGEON with the same question. Per WP:BOOMERANG, examining Grufo's conduct is appropriate.VR _talk 14:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: I hadn't replied to your previous non-answer for politeness, but now I will: you have not answered my question yet (no, your link is not an answer to my question). --Grufo (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed

• Islamic views on concubinage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sexual slavery in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Both Grufo and Vice regent have dug in their heels at Talk:Islamic views on concubinage and Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam. Grufo seems to have vowed not to rest until all articles relating to concubinage in Islam are called "sexual slavery" instead (coming here after their move request was receiving much opposition). Vice regent appears to have vowed the exact opposite, and will not rest until the term "sexual slavery" is removed from all such articles (as it is entirely absent from Islamic views on concubinage, a POV-fork which they wrote, also after a failed move request last year). It seems that Grufo wants to turn these articles into attack pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam was a special, institutionalized form of sexual slavery, at times more akin to marriage), while Vice regent would rather like them to be apologetic 'defense' pages (refusing to concede that concubinage in Islam should ever be called or treated like a form of sexual slavery at all). Neither of them seem particularly interested to work towards a solid summary style- and NPOV-compliant article, and instead they (ab)use these pages as a battleground for (anti-)Islamic apologetics. This has become time-consuming and disruptive. I therefore propose to topic ban both editors from sexual slavery in Islam, broadly construed.

Pinging editors recently active at both articles' talk pages: Toddy1, Wiqi55, Baamiyaan2, Assem Khidhr, Srnec, Mhhossein, Anachronist, Aciram, Slywriter, Jushyosaha604, Sirdog, FormalDude, Wikiedit01995, Bookku, Mcphurphy.

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

User: Wojak6 Needs to be stopped from misusing article talk page. Editor needs corrective action.

Wojak6 is misusing the Kisii people article talk page (refer to recent inputs on the talk page by editor). The editor is using the talk page to express his personal views and his inputs to the talk page are full of negativity and appear to express hate speech to an editor and a group of people. The editor appears to be using the page to fight another editor rather than using it for a discussion to improve the encyclopedia. The editor posts unnecessary content to the page and does not add anything rather than continuously criticizing an article without providing any solutions. I am personally tired of having to reply to the editor's rather irrelevant posts which seem to be getting out of control as the talk page is now getting overfilled with a lot of unnecessary content. It is also getting tiring to report on this editor and long term solution is needed. I don't want to engage in any more discussion with editor as he appears to be fighting me. The editor need to be stopped from posting irrelevant and unnecessary content on the talk page. The editor seems to post anything he feels like on the talk page. The editor also seems to ignore the feedback and warning on his talk page since he repeats some of the concerns on his personal talk page. Serious intervention is needed to help stop the editor from misusing the talk page. The posts by the editor on the article talk page need to be removed to clean up the page which is now overcrowded with unnecessary discussions. The editor needs corrective action.Nyanza Cushitic (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea if you were previously the ip editor(s) who have bloated the article into an unreadable wall of text over the years, but ever heard of "less is more"? Wojack6 isn't communication great on the talk page but your long posts on Talk aren't exactly helpful either. Additionally, while you managed to get an admin to previously protect the page as edit-warring, even got Wojack6 warned, a review shows they removed unsourced content or tagged unsourced content and you promptly reverted. WP:ONUS is on you to provide sourcing, not restore the content and seek sanctions. The article is a mess and needs a pruning, not a guard. Slywriter (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is grossly lacking citations for much of its content. From a quick look, it would appear that much of it is original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the 5th time you've brought this editor to ANI in a month [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. At this point this is simply becoming harassment. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible Copyright Violation for "The Golden Verses of Pythagoras (Rowe/Firth translation, modernized)"

The user Apaugasma has recently reverted an edit of mine.

The reason Apaugasma gave was that

" Rowe is probably more reliable than Westcott as a translator, given the latter's explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools"

By this reasoning, Apaugasma should delete all Christian edits that have allegiances to Christian theological schools. Similarly with other theologies.

And by the way, Wescott did not translate it. It was translated by someone with the initials A.E.A. Wescott was an editor of the volume the Verse was published in. So Apaugasma's reasoning is incorrect on all accounts.

So the reason for reverting was incorrect. Can I revert it back? Or should I just leave it?

The reason I edited it in the first place was the doubt I had about a potential copyright breach for the the modernized translation as no reference was given for that, and is still lacking. Usually, modernized versions are copyrighted by somebody. The Rowe/Firth translation currently on Wikipedia is a modernized version of the Rowe/Firth translation of the Golden Verses. The version I replaced it with is not under copyright. The reference provided for the modernized Rowe/Firth version does not state who translated the modernized version.

I hope I have gone about reporting this issue in the correct manner, if not please tell me.

Regards Daryl

PS. Both Rowe and Firth have "explicit allegiances to certain philosophical schools." But we do not know about the translator of the modernized version because it is not given.

Darylprasad (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You should have notified Apaugasma of this discussion. I have done so for you. Additionally, this reads like a content issue to me. As you've already brought it up at their talk page, I suggest you wait for their response. (Non-administrator comment) – Rummskartoffel 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rummskartoffel

Thank you for that. I don't have much experience in "Talk". Darylprasad (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed entirely about content. I've answered the query at Talk:Golden Verses. The translation I reinstated dates from 1904 and so should be safely within the public domain. The copyvio accusation (also here) is thus entirely frivolous.

@Darylprasad: this noticeboard is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. I may have set somewhat of a bad example yesterday by bringing you here after your point-y edits [84], but please take more care in the future before you wrongfully accuse a fellow editor and waste community time both here and on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Also, please try to finish your comments in talk pages with a few less edits: this clutters up the edit history, which many people use to watch the page. Thanks!

Incivility/personal attack by User talk:Qwirkle

Regarding these posts at Talk:New York City Subway#Requested move 14 October 2021 (unless otherwise indicated):

Revision as of 02:41, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Not particularly civil but not of itself a concern.

Revision as of 13:53, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Note that the edit posts at two places. I would characterise the second as ad hominem and feel it is quite inappropriate.

Revision as of 14:26, 20 October 2021 Cinderella157: I addressed Qwirkle at their talk page, expressing my concern that I felt their post was uncivil to the point of being a personal attack.

Revision as of 14:30, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: Their response at their talk page: If that is all you can assume, then I suggest you take it to ANI. Goodbye.

Revision as of 14:54, 20 October 2021 Qwirkle: I believe that this edit falls to casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

In consequence of this last post, I bring this matter here.

Revision as of 05:02, 21 October 2021 Cinderella157: Notification of this discussion

Cinderella157 (talk) 04:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

De minimis non curat lex. Bishonen | tålk 06:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

Unwarranted removal of expression on my user page

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

---

"Holocaust enthusiast, not an expert by any means" -> this was removed by User:Bishonen. I've explained many times that what I meant is "A Holocaust enthusiast is someone who is interested in Holocaust studies but not at expert level, not someone who would like to participate in the Holocaust." I was questioned at length by multiple editors. When they're out of logical reasoning, Bishonen decided to censor any perspective/interpretation that he doesn't like. This is a gross violation of my user page rights. I request to delete my user page to restore to what it was (taken from Meta). Perhaps, a warning to Bishonen that his forceful action is unacceptable. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The self-explanatory thread on the OP’s user talk page fills in the gaps: User talk:Nguyentrongphu#Refactored from ACN. DeCausa (talk) 09:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have any appetite for arguing with Nguyentrongphu on ANI as well. I've said my piece in this exchange between multiple editors, which I recommend people to read. Bishonen | tålk 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC).

Everyone, please read! An admin cannot just remove any interpretation that they don't like, especially in a user page. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the OP, and I don't want to make a personal attack against them, but with all the good faith I can muster this post is indistinguishable from trolling. If you have to explain many times that a statement is not expressing your support of mass murder, you probably need not to have that statement on your userpage. I support Bishonen's action in removing that offensive phrase, and am flabbergasted that someone would come here to defend it. I strongly urge the OP to accept that the statement is unacceptably offensive, and to drop this. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I know the OP from a previous interaction. They’re not trolling. They have a significant WP:BLUDGEON/WP:IDHT/WP:STICK problem. Given that English is not their first language, using the phrase originally is understandable. The stubborn resistance when this is pointed out to them seems to be the underlying problem. DeCausa (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've dropped it since then. For the record, I've never edited Hitler article, not even once. I've done some good work on Hitler related articles before I moved on. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition to everything that has already been said, I would point out that there is no right to free expression on Wikipedia, so nothing for there to be a "gross violation" of. If this user doesn't want to edit English Wikipedia without that statement on the user page then I would suggest that an admin helps him not to edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Enough people are confused by this that it obviously is confusing. And being clear enough that people understand you is kind of a requirement. Why not just rephrase it to "Holocaust studies enthusiast", which is probably still short enough for your purposes and clear enough for everyone else? Reyk _YO! 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reyk I accept your solution and ask that my user page be deleted for Meta page to take over. Thanks for a great idea! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Post-close discussion

• I once was on a bus tour somewhere in Italy with a guide who was truly excellent despite her only moderately good English. As we pulled up to St. Someone's Church (on which she'd been rhapsodizing for several minutes) she was puzzled by the titters that met her exhoration that we "all get out now and see this marvelous erection!" Same principle at work here, I think. EEng 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. Indistinguishable from trolling sounds about right. Note that I'm considering contacting T&S (Steward?) to look into this user's contributions on the Vietnamese wiki, where they hold advanced permissions — I've said that much on that user's talk page (diff).

1. The English language is always changing. I wouldn't be surprised if one day in the future (could be a long time), more people would use "Holocaust enthusiast" with a positive connotation. I'm happy to participate in its evolution of becoming a popular expression one day. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

2. I'm also a highly respected admin on Vietnamese Wikipedia too. [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021

3. El_C Same-wise here. Your last phrase is up for debate. You got your buddies to back you up in the English Wikipedia. I'm at a disadvantage here. You should come to Vietnamese Wikipedia sometimes for a treat :D. We can agree to disagree. This discussion is done here. Adios. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

4. Bishonen We'll talk at ANI. Good luck being a star attraction. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Super weird. Add to that the naked hostility and repeated attacks as well as the relentless IDHT, and I'm troubled more than ever now. El_C 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

More:

5. I take "language gap" [...] the same way as attacks on my knowledge of the English language [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is odd, because though my command of English obviously exceeds this user, English is also my second language (my native tongue is Hebrew) and yet I still fall prey to language gaps all the time. Except, I welcome when native (or non-native) speakers correct me. That's largely how I learned to speak English, with a heavy dose of error correction. And it's how I continue to learn and improve my command of it. Also:

6. Bishonen I do not value your opinion. No thanks. [...] Nguyentrongphu (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2021

These are not exceptional quotes. Pretty much the entire exchange is like this. And just now:

7. We respect editors more here in Vietnamese Wikipedia. I actually have a more advanced permission than you in Wiktionary + admin in Vi Wikipedia. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss here, honestly. El_C 15:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd let it go. Nguyentrongphu changed the questionable text. Not very gracefully, but to have it changed was the original request here. They have no admin functions here, and if their behavior at vi:wp is problematic, then I'm sure vi.wp will figure that out without the help from en.wp. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I already conceded. WP:DROPTHESTICK. You called me incompetent and bad faith indirectly + used Dunning–Kruger effect to low-key attack me. I didn't attack you from any of the quotes above. For example, how is this, "We'll talk at ANI. Good luck being a star attraction" or "I do not value your opinion" an attack? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t a one-off bizarre WP:IDHT from Nguyentrongphu. See this ANI thread about these three threads at Talk:Adolf Hitler. There’s the same behaviour in both incidents with similar themes including the memorable “I'm sorry my seniority is higher than all of you”. DeCausa (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sluzzelin, I think we can see how well that's been working at the horror show that is the Japanese Wikipedia, so I'm skeptical. And I don't know if, here at en, a free pass is called for. Especially in light of DeCausa's additional info directly above. El_C 17:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, I conceded both cases. I've never edited Hitler article (not even once) and moved on since then. Why keep digging up dead incidents? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Why? Because it establishes a pattern (i.e. concerns about future misconduct). Simply copying WP:DROPTHESTICK over and over again isn't gonna diminish from that. El_C 17:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You meant my pattern of making concession when I saw consensus wasn't supporting me? This continued discussion is unwarranted. You're trying to get me blocked for no reason. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If it has to take you that long to realize consensus wasn't supporting you — that's a major problem in my view. El_C 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Let bygones be bygones. This time around the realization comes fairly quick if you ask me. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure I follow, but I suppose it's better than El_C Thanks! Our conversation is done here. I'm going to ignore you from now on. You're welcomed to visit Vi Wikipedia any time though to see a more civilized community. El_C 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course they are attacks. If you don't understand that then you have a much less than professional grasp of English. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Calling someone incompetent, bad faith and acute Dunning–Kruger effect is civility? Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Let me give you some unsolicited advice -- simply step away from this thread, and say you'll be more collegial in the future. I don't think you are doing yourself any good. Your English is obviously excellent, but that is hurting you here to some degree. The phase "holocaust enthusiast" is so wildly offensive to any speaker of idiomatic English that questions about competence and good faith are bound to arise. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Except, I do genuinely think you lack competence in this matter (I linked you to WP:CIR). I'm allowed to make that criticism. I'm still not sure you're operating in good faith (I linked to WP:PACT), though perhaps you are. I'm not gonna engage in mental gymnastics to express that. Nor do I feel that calling your prolonged IDHT behaviour acute Dunning–Kruger attitude is an attack. You grossly overestimated your expertise, and then grossly underestimated the input of others. That is a fact. I'm allowed to call a spade a spade, especially when it concerns disruptive conduct. El_C 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• There seem to be two possible issues. One is perhaps overestimating their own fluency in English; my advice is that if someone with more advanced skills tells you a phrase is offensive on its face, you take them at their word. The second is perhaps not great online social interaction skills, which unfortunately isn't something one can easily fix. Nguyentrongphu, you're telling people to drop the stick, then immediately following that with further accusations. FWIW, no one here on enwiki cares that you have advanced permissions on another project (and actually it wouldn't impress anyone if you had them here and behaved badly, either.) Realize that things are done differently on different projects, and it may take you some time to understand how things work here on enwiki. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  First, I wasn't the first who brought up advanced rights. Second, the issue at hands was resolved, and I was happy to let it go until this diff. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I brought up your advanced permissions because it concerned me in light of your recent misconduct. The problem wasn't solved in my view, because I and others here have little confidence you won't behave like this again. I'm not sure I'm able to explain that any more clearly. El_C 17:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've been contributing fine (moved on from controversial topic) for the last 6 months until you brought up a problem regarding my user page, which was resolved fairly quick in everyone's views except yours. My advanced permissions in other Wikis are irrelevant to this project. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. El_C 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think that this should be reported to the Trust & Safety people. It's excusable for someone to not realise that something not written in their native language is bad, but for someone who claims to have a professional level of English to carry on in that belief after multiple native speakers have said they are wrong is inexcusable. If this kind of behaviour is accepted at the Vietnamese Wikipedia and other projects then that should be reported to the owners of all the Wikimedia projects. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Changed my mind. I no longer think my erection story is apropos; instead, I think Nguyentrongphu is just being a dick. EEng 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Is being a dick actionable? Nguyentrongphu seems to have accepted the main point, and the pile-on of dredging up mildly argumentative posts is excessive. Let the issue drop. Spike 'em (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Mild. Alright. Wow. El_C 17:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Whatever. Spike 'em (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  You sure showed me. El_C 17:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you can make snarky, dismissive comments, then so can I Spike 'em (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay. El_C 17:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  If being a dick is not actionable, we need to revise some policies. Levivich 17:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Post-close discussion addition

Blocked per NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I've made several replies prior to learning of this action, which I (unsurprisingly) support. El_C 17:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good block. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

HK unregistered ip cult again

Please read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#Please instruct how to deal with ip hopping, meat and suspected offsite canvassing from a lot of ip ranges from HK first.

• I think i stumbled them again by leaving this stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dgtdddsx123#11 October 2021 as well as Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings (the rfc)

Suddenly, the ip range 210.6.10.X that related to the above IncidentArchive1058

• (210.6.10.148 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:List of lighthouses in China)
• (210.6.10.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:Military of Hong Kong, Talk:List of lighthouses in China)

despite the ip range is from Hong Kong, suddenly claiming i am offsite canvassing them (the ip user(s)) from Mainland Chinese forum (which i never did), which seem they mistook i am one of the "blue" political spectrum because i cannot agree on the "deep yellow" political spectrum wiki editing cult, so that trying to black mudding me

210.6.10.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Talk:2019–2020 Hong Kong protests Special:Diff/1050888402

210.6.10.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings Special:Diff/1050889100

And then this guy, Dgtdddsx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), which i has stumbled in the SPI, unsure is genuine believe the ips , or WP:GHBH to try to enforce the controversy. Special:Diff/1051012890

• A more generic issue. Evidence in the LIHKG forum there is recruitment thread https://lihkg.com/thread/2168907/page/1, and indication of channel and bot for Telegram existed, for off site discussion of wiki matter and offsite canvassing. The link to the channel is dead so that it seems went underground by renaming the channel, but i can still screenshot the bot https://imgur.com/L7qmaSa The forum do have other thread that warn them do not sock , but seems more people still unregistered and summoned to wiki by offsite canvassing. This just mini scale of off site recruiting, just not escalated to those Mainland Chinese level yet, which led to this meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement.

Just like @Ymblanter: said in ANI "[he] do not know what the best solution would be." The "ip union" coined by @Atsme: in the last ANI, just readily observable in Template talk:China–Hong Kong border crossings that i never saw a RFC has so many ips as SPA. So, what wikipedia should do on this off-site canvassing from the "deep-yellow" wiki editing cult? Matthew hk (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, Dgtdddsx123 just missed a block due to using sock, so that @Tamzin: should also leave the comment here that should give every new Hong Kong user an assumed good faith on they may not aware Sockpuppet policy of wiki, or not. Matthew hk (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Simple solution - the IPs need to register their accounts. They do not lose anonymity, they simply validate that they are not socking and are here to help build the encyclopedia. I'm of the mind that in the beginning, the advantage to IP editing was so passerbys could perform some quick copy editing on the fly without having to register but we're at a point in our history that it has become too much drama, and the ill-intentioned have made it an incredible time sink, not to mention what it is costing the project relative to credibility. Just my 2¢ worth, not calculating growing inflation. Atsme 💬 📧 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• The orgiginal problem (discussed in the link in OP) was meatpuppetry at Talk:List of lighthouses in China and several related articles dealing with HK. Because these POV-pushing IP-hopping editors are anti-registration due to privacy concerns w/re the Chinese gov't, we managed to protect the article by semi'ing, but because of the unbelievable level of disruptive meatpuppetry at the talk I eventually ended up having to semi the talk page too. Honestly I think semi'ing one by one these articles, and if necessary their talks, is the only way to solve this problem. I truly hate to semi a talk, but it was just unbelievable. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Commenting from the SPI side here, I don't currently see persuasive evidence that Dgtdddsx123 is the IP-hopper. I've marked the filing as {{moreinfo}}; if anyone sees good evidence, please do let me know at the SPI. I do think there's a decent chance of meatpuppetry or canvassing here, although I'm not sure I have the subject-matter expertise to opine, which is part of why I referred Matthew to ANI. This is the kind of meatpuppetry allegation that is hard to handle at SPI, since you may have legitimate editors who stumbled on something independently, or who were made aware of something from an off-site post but aren't actively colluding; easier for ANI to look at it as primarily a conduct issue. (As an aside, I'm not sure "Let's just ban IP editing" is a helpful take here; VPR is thataway.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oh and as to the warning I gave Dgtdddsx123, standard practice for first-offense non-innocent sockpuppetry by a newbie is either a warning or a short tempblock. Since they hadn't actually !vote-stacked (just used one account on the article and another on talk), I elected to warn. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock/global issue

Following this discussion on a racist and disruptive user, I've periodically blocked IPs that are obvious socks of them. Recently they have started editing much more frequently and from quite a range of IPs (93.142.156.26 (talk · contribs), 93.143.100.86 (talk · contribs), 93.140.140.247 (talk · contribs), 93.140.140.84 (talk · contribs), 93.142.144.122 (talk · contribs), 93.140.158.79 (talk · contribs).

Occasionally when I've blocked them, I've had messages posted on my talk page on other language versions, commons[85] or meta[86]. After blocking another sock today, I had offensive messages posted on my talk page on over 30 different language versions of my talkpage (e.g. [87][88][89]) or random pages/files I had edited[90]. This particular IP has been globally blocked by Tegel (thank you), but I was wondering if any more could be done to prevent them editing here or globally. Cheers, Number 57 10:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Jadidjw

• Jadidjw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hazaras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User has been disrupting Hazaras for months now by altering sourced info, as well as adding non-WP:RS to the article.

1 July 2021 Removed (sourced) mention of the physical characteristics that the Hazaras share with the Mongols and Turks, added obscure citation

23 July 2021 Removed mention that the Hazaras were Persian speakers in the lead

30 September 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect

5 October 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect again. Makes WP:OR claim that many Hazara does not speak the dialect anymore

6 October 2021 Removed mention of the fact that Hazara speak the Hazaragi dialect again. Makes WP:OR claim that many Hazara does not speak the dialect anymore

6 October 2021 Added non-WP:RS source named 'khorasanzameen.net' to support the POV he had attempted to push earlier regarding his claim with the Hazaragi dialect

6 October 2021 Added tons of non-WP:RS (www.kabulpress.org, www.radiozamaneh.com, www.afghanpaper.com, etc) to push a claim that 60% Hazaras were massacred

I did revert those 2 edits right above me, only for the user to start edit warring. Thus I created a section [91] on the talk page for him to explain how those random websites are WP:RS. He failed to give an explanation, and I eventually reverted him after having waited almost a month. Yesterday, he once again added a random non-WP:RS [92], once again failing to explain why it is WP:RS, and once again started edit warring, without reaching WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page, again.

Looking at these diffs, I believe user has personal feelings related to these people, which is why he engages in WP:TENDENTIOUS. There might also be some WP:COMPETENCE factors behind this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you mean by "personal feelings?" Minkai ^(rawr!) _{(see where I screwed up)} 12:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully I don't think I think there's anything to clarify in that regard. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's clearly a pattern of disruptive editing by Jadidjw on this article. I have alerted Jadidjw to the India, Pakistan, & Afghanistan discretionary sanctions and I would suggest that any future disruption result in a block under those DS. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)