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

Disruptive editing by User:Dicklyon

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

---

• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Discussion at WT:TENNIS re capitalization

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

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

The tennis articles are indeed very busy in fixing trivial over-capitalization issues, since there are so many of them and since they're pretty easy to fix with JWB. But you've chosen to pick on one particular fix for reasons that are hard to understand and have been roundly rejected at the discussion you linked at WikiProject Tennis; more days won't change that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where do you get 2+ days of roundly rejected by the same crew that always follows you around. One of which you invited KNOWING how they feel. It is not consensus, you were warned as such, it's under discussion, and yet still you change 1000 articles. The Project will very likely change this to something else like W–L if a heavy consensus ever forms to that odd pairing you want. You are blatantly misusing JWB for the umpteenth time and it must stop. I would be inclined to take that gadget away from you it's gotten so bad. That is why we are here; your disregard for the situation, and the discussion. And this has happened before very recently. You should know better. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I did ping the editor who had done similar changes there before; his edits were not objected to. As for blatantly misusing JWB, I don't know what you're referring to; are there accusations some place? I generally use it only for uncontroversial simple pattern fixes, such as downcasing per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

They have been controversial and you know they have been controversial. This is an item that will affect every single tennis bio in existence. Countless thousands or 10s of thousands. If there is something you don't like about a chart, the TennisProject may change things to make it more palatable. A handful of your buddies should not be able to change every tennis bio.... that requires a massive consensus. And 2+ days of talk and changing a thousand articles after being told not to is DISRUPTIVE EDITING. You should know that in your 16 years of editing as it's been told to you recently. It was also told to you in discussion that it's not clear with W–L|(16–7) and Win–Loss|(16–7) that MOSCAPS applies. You said yourself that W–L is functional, not W–l. But this is not the place to discuss it. This is the place to discuss your blatant disruptive editing in the midst of 2+ day discussion that has no consensus, where you went and changed 1000 articles to your way of thinking that now MUST be changed back. That is wrong and will always be wrong and you need to be reprimanded for doing it yet again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Countless thousands or tens of thousands"? No. There are 1397 tennis biographies with the table row header "Win–loss". This is the only recent place where you and Sportsfan have objected to using sentence case and prefer to use title case; but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

So my last 6 years or so of good work since being welcomed back is to be ignored in favor of this long memory of a bad time? Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Not being blocked in the last 6 years doesn't mean you've been doing good work all that time. It could just mean you've gotten better at avoiding a block. Plus, you were blocked in 2019 as well, so not completely better at it. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Those things from Ruling party are nothing to do with me, and completely unknown to me. I'm sorry if you're having a bad time due to the actions of others, but don't put that on me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

And that's the big thing. This is becoming habitual with Dicklyon. He has admitted having a "Pet Peeve" about capitalization with no room for any other views or flexibility. I can guarantee this will not be the last time he does this unless something is done, and I'm really getting tired of doing 100s of reverts ALL because of him. Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I asked Dicklyon to make those edits based on what I thought was consensus (all the newest tennis season article use a certain format, so I thought it reasonable to apply the same format to older season articles). User:Wolbo has expressed his preference for the older format and reverted the changes. As those edits by Dicklyon were based on my apparent misapprehension of the consensus, they should not factor into anybody here's conclusions about Dicklyon. Letcord (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wolbo: No, the changes I did at Letcord's request at User talk:Dicklyon#Suggested task are not the ones at issue here (not clear why Sportsfan is throwing in this distractor, or why Fy is using it as somehow supporting his issue that he came here about; there was no contention or disruption, but a little reverting since I took your request as representing something the project wanted, which wasn't right). I took those to discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task, and undid some of them, but we didn't undo the case fixes; nobody objected to lowercase "draw". Dicklyon (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will not suffer if some letters are Not To Everyone's Taste. However, Wikipedia will suffer if remarkably persistent users continue to irritate those who maintain articles. Unless there is a discussion showing a consensus for the recent changes, I support an indefinite topic ban for Dicklyon to prevent changing the case of letters and to prevent the discussion of changing the case of letters. A harmonious community is the most important asset we have. If necessary, I'll later dig up a few of the previous battles about this issue. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fy already linked the discussion showing consensus for "Win–loss", and MOS:CAPS has broad consensus. Of my last 20,000 or so case-fixing edits of the last month or so, there's this one little item that he and Sportsfan are the only ones objectig to. They're still sore they lost their beloved over-capitalization of Men's Singles and such, but the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper_names? was clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a blatant lie. Consensus was not reached in 2+ days. I'm not sure how you figure these things. To change every single tennis bio takes a lot more than a couple of friends agreeing with you. They are always the same couple plus you called one over in canvassing. With discussions like these an alternative may find a place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is not a matter of taste. It's a matter of Wikipedia having a long consensus about how to capitalize. Article titles, section headings and table headings are in sentence case. A local consensus does not outweigh a Wikipedia wide guideline. Yes, while this is being discussed, such edits should stop, but there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

As for subtly changing the section heading, I was reverting to the original heading that I created in this edit, which someone else had subtly changed without my consent. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I used the proper RM and MR processes there. How is this "ramming through"? Dicklyon (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The closing notes of the review specify that there should be "no rush to renew the discussion". Cards84664 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a 10-year interval before the previous re-opening, and I don't expect to bring it up again in this decade. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to the interval between this re-opening and the review. Cards84664 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The move review followed shortly after the RM discussion close. That's standard. Dicklyon (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion, but the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. I oppose any warnings/sanctions against Dicklyon based on the evidence so far, which shows a bigger problem of a small group of editors trying to invalidate project-wide consensus at a WikiProject talk page. Bigger, but still not that big, as this issue is barely noticeable by readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you think a strong consensus has been reached in that discussion, then close it and leave an explanation of the outcome. Why is it still open then? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Advice received. I do get impatient when people like Fyunck and Sportsfan throw delays into routine work. It took November through February to fix the overcapitalization in "Men's Singles" and such over their objections, but we got it done, including bot approval for thousands of moves. Sometimes a lot of process is needed, but not in the current case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  And we get angry when you skirt the system and implement a thousand changes without consensus that we have to fix. And since this happens over and over your "advice received" rings hollow. You need to change your tactics from now on or this will happen again and again. Have you changed back all your edits... I sure don't see it yet! Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's no need to get angry. WP:BRD serves us well. I do a lot of bold changes, and about 99% of them never provoke a comment. For the ones that do, we discuss. Did I jump too soon when I thought the consensus of MOS:CAPS was clearly re-affirmed for "Win–Loss"? Perhaps so. Otherwise, my "tactics" are mostly effective and uncontroversial. I've changed the case of about 200,000 letters in recent months, and you're picking on a tiny slice of that, while others are thanking (including 6 in the last few days) and supporting me in moving WP toward better consistency with our WP:MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  As for changing back all my edits, of course not. If you mean particularly the downcasing of "Loss" for row header "Win–loss", I've prepared a JWB settings, preparsed, and counted the 1397 tennis bios that that would apply to. I don't want to undo them without consensus, as I'll probably end up re-fixing them again if I do. It's about an hour in each direction. Let's settle it back at the project discussion if there's more to decide, not here. Dicklyon (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Therin lies your problem and one reason we are here today. You are putting the cart before the horse. It's do it my way, then hold it hostage until we agree. No thanks. Change them all back because for sure it won't stay that way. As another tennis editor has stated, we will change them all to W–L before we go to Win–loss in the row header. Change your disruptive edits back so the project can decide. It could likely be that no consensus will be reached and nothing will change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  This "tennis is so special" argument gets tiresome. No other area would cap them as "Win–Loss". See for example titles: Win–loss, Win–loss record, Win–loss record (pitching), Win–loss analytics, List of all-time NFL win–loss records, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  It not a question of tennis being special. What gets tiresome is you using this silly response over and over and over and over. W–l and Win–loss in the table header would be ridiculous no matter where it is located. But again, that's not why we are here. We are here because of your constant over-and-over again disruptive editing. That must STOP. You change hundreds and thousands of articles with no consensus at your own whim and then refuse, as above, to change them back when challenged. That is not the Wikipedia way. That is not working and playing well with others. Your fixation on the most minute supposed rules is a danger to the cohesiveness of working on Wikipedia articles. Again it has to stop. Revert yourself so the Tennis project can look at things. There are at least three editors right now trying to revert all your damages. You may do it in the blink of an eye but it takes us hours and hours. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that "W–l" would be a ridiculous header, but nobody has suggested such a thing. I didn't touch any of the headers "W–L". But sentence case headers are normal, not ridiculous. We are not here for any "constant over-and-over again disruptive editing"; we're here because you won't accept the consensus and MOS:CAPS advice to make this header sentence case. If there's something else that brought you here to complain about that, you haven't clarified what. I've done over 20,000 edits in tennis articles fixing case errors, and while you delayed me a few months with discussions on a few of them such as "Men's Singles", the consensus there was clear, and I got no pushback while or after doing all those. In a later round of case cleanups, you decided to react to this one table header. Why? Dicklyon (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, that is not why we are here. We are here because of your disruptive conduct, and fabricating consensus over 10,000 articles that are managed as best as possible by WikiProject Tennis and others. Win–Loss in a row is not clear and is a minor blip, yet it was being discussed and 2+ days later you puffed up your feathers and changed 100s or articles... which are still not reverted by your disruptive editing by the way. Before making all those changes you should have waited a week or so until an easily seen consensus (or not) appeared. Had we seen some huge Win–loss, tennis project would likely have said to change them all to W–L instead, as we do at the top of the table. That would be the time to do those changes and not before. You work with people and you don't ram things down their throats with 1000 disruptive edits. Your style seems to be with a baseball bat and a shredder as opposed to discussion and compromise. That has grown tiresome and you have been called to the mat on it here.
  

  At the very least we see that others have the same issue with your disruptive editing style and if it happens again you could be topic banned or blocked. I'd rather you change your ways than have that happen. I'd rather you not sit there with a stopwatch to tick off the days of a discussion. I'd rather you say at the end of a discussion "do we all feel like this has run its course?"; "Do we have any alternate suggestions that could work to get even more editors onboard?"; "Do we allow some more time for those who could be on vacation or could be involved in humanitarian aid?". Those are things that play well with editors. That means you are trying to find the best solution for everyone involved instead of bulldozing the conversation. But right now, your continued actions have me not trusting any of your motives or any of your edits. I feel I have to scrutinize all your tennis edits for fear they have overstepped. I don't want to feel that way, but I do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  I do hope you and others will scrutinize my edits and let me know if I get something wrong. But this thing about "Win–loss" being disruptive is nuts. If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  That is a lie. I said I would bring it up a level if you continued without consensus, of which there was none! That is why we are here. Your stated "Per Peeve" on all capitalization issues at Wikipedia, where they become the pinnacle of all issues, where everything else gets pushed aside to the point where you become judge, jury, and prosecution in 2.5 days is a problem. There are so many ways this could have gone where we could have told you to change things to W–L as a compromise. But that was sidestepped by the fervor of that "Pet Peeve." You need to learn to work with people much better than you have been. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I can't tell what you are saying is a lie. If you're going to make accusations like that, you need to be clear and say what the evidence is. I suggest you retract it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Initialism type abbreviations use caps. There has been no controversy about "W–L", which is used many times in all the articles in question. Dicklyon (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And article titles already use Win–loss. Note that I have not touched that disambig page; it's longstanding consensus to follow our MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

• but the consensus (5–2) at the discussion was that we should just go with what MOS:CAPS says. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)
• the consensus from the RM discussion Talk:1912 World Hard Court Championships – Mixed_doubles#Requested move 8 January 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? waw clear: tennis is not so special as to have their own capitalization style. Nobody has objected to the same changes in other sports. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC) (not true. what Dicklyon wanted was not selected in the RfC. what I wanted was selected.)
• If there's disruption, it's because you decided to complain at ANI instead of accepting the clear consensus at the (admittedly brief) discussion. Editors do not want tennis article to be style outliers. Nowhere else in WP capitalizes "Win–Loss". Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (same as above. still being discussed. two recent !votes against Dicklyon)

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

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

That RM discussion closed in support of exactly the moves I proposed. You did not participate; at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#More_discussion_about_dashes_in_sporting_event_titles you said the capitalized Men's Singles needed to be kept as a proper name: The sub-titles could always be justified as proper nouns, so MOS:SENTENCECAPS wouldn't apply. Why are you trying to rewrite history about that? Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I voted here (I voted for B or E. The winning option was Option B). Dicklyon's vote is clearly for A or D. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777: You seem rather mixed up here. We were speaking about the RM discussion that I started on Jan. 8, and you're now referring back to the RFC that preceded it. I took the result of that RFC into account when proposed the moves in the RM. Rather than pushing my own preference, I proposed moves that looked like they would be more likely to get consensus, based on the rather mixed results in that RFC. So I chose one of the options that you had previously supported. In the RM, you didn't comment. I think I did the right thing here. Was there an issue? Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said. You changed your vote. I didn't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Since the Tennis Project makes no edits, it cannot be hounded. Your bad-faith assumptions and wild accusations are pretty tiresome. Primergrey (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean no edits? A project can absolutely be hounded. Dicklyon never edited tennis articles before. They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop. If that's not hounding, then what is? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 09:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

A good faith-assuming version of that history is that he stumbled upon a capitalization issue in one set of tennis articles, fixed it, and then progressively found many more in other types of tennis articles (bios, draws, seasons) over time. I do agree though that he jumped the gun a bit in interpreting the consensus in the "Win–loss" discussion, and should revert himself if consensus ends up being for "Win–Loss". Letcord (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I have said that I am prepared to put them back to "Win–Loss" quickly if there's a consensus to do so; but that won't happen, since it's against MOS:CAPS, which says we avoid unnecessary capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there's a non-zero chance that it will happen. I also think from the limited I've seen of your editing that you've not displayed "chronic, intractable behavioral problems" as is required to post about someone here, so this public pillorying of you is undeserved. Letcord (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"They got into a dispute with Fyunck and myself about tennis. Now they are editing tennis articles nonstop.". "Nonstop" must mean something different than I think it does, then. Because his recent editing history is virtually all to NFL team articles and some MLB players. Does that mean he is hounding WP:SPORTS? You continue to be disingenuous in your lathered-up attempt to circumvent WP processes. Primergrey (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• If one reads the discussion here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Over-capitalization still, one thing is immediately apparent to me - the language being used. It is very strongly WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. The "apparent" trigger for this "incident" would appear to be DL concluding and acting upon a consensus from the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis. If it is simply their volume of edits, there is no incident. As SchreiberBike observes: ... there's no reason for reverting good guideline-following edits and continuing to argue against long-standing consensus. Firefangledfeathers observes: ... the strength of consensus after a few days makes his edits reasonable to me. While Firefangledfeathers observe (and DL acknowledges), more time might have been given, one should consider the pattern of engagement at WikiProject Tennis. A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Are "Men's Singles" and "Women's Doubles", etc., proper names? petered out in the same timeframe as the current discussion (ie just under 3 days) and, by my count, received 4 comments from card-carrying members of the tennis project. DL has regularly engaged with the project and in notified discussions elsewhere. If one reads the discussion fully, arguments about "W/l" are a red herring and the most recent comments at WikiProject Tennis are (IMHO) at best, novel but are clearly contrary to guidance and clutching at straws. Not even the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines were consistent in capitalising "win-loss" in tables (see this).

I would remark on these particular comments at WikiProject Tennis: even if you could get consensus that "Win–Loss" is not allowed, we would probably switch it to "W–L" to leave the capitalization and We would change it to W–L if it came to that. These statements (to me) signal petulance, WP:GAMING (WP:POINTy) and unacceptable intractability. This "threat" has been acted upon with this edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. If Fyunck(click) would ague that: Editor Wolbo is now doing a bunch of reverts of Dicklyon that he shouldn't have to do, who is now going to act to address this? If this "incident" is primarily that DL hasn't gained a consensus for their edits or hasn't waited sufficiently for the discussion to evolve, I am at a loss as to how this action (amending the guideline) isn't a case of WP:POT. This is an ill-considered change that doesn't serve our readers since it provides for no guidance (legend) that would now explain this abbreviation where previously it might have been deduced. If we weren't sailing close to WP:BOOMERANG before, I think it should now be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is a legitimate issue. The discussion linked was not an RfC and did not need to be formally closed to find consensus for a change. I'd advise Dicklyon to be less hasty but leaving this ANI thread open is not likely to improve things; nor has Dicklyon done anything worthy of any sanction. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I concur with Elli. I'll add that what is going on here is that a handful of people (mostly along WP:SSF lines) don't like MOS:CAPS but know they are not likely to get any traction on changing its central message – that WP doesn't capitalize things that are not overwhelmingly capitalized in modern source material, and not just specialized source material but general-audience source material like news, dictionaries, and other encyclopedias. Instead they attempt to resist implementation of MOS:CAPS (and the derived WP:NCCAPS) at "their" articles (WP:OWN), and to use WP:POVRAILROAD techniques to hassle editors like Dicklyon who just are applying the guidelines correctly. What's especially irritating is that the most frequent "noise" of this sort is coming out of sports and games wikiprojects, after a clear RfC implemented MOS:GAMECAPS specifically to curtail overcapitalization in those topic areas. What we have here is a WP:CONLEVEL failure wherein a handful of wikiprojects refuse to recognize that a site-wide guideline overrules their topic-specific personal preferences. This ANI should close without action other than perhaps WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The attitude that the capitalization conventions in the MOS are a top-level priority, which must be aggressively enforced despite the strong preferences of the editors who actually create and maintain the articles in their fields of expertise, has over the years caused a great deal of damage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • SMcCandlish, the Tennis Project is not against MOS:CAPS. The Tennis Project is against making wide-scale changes without discussion. In most of these situations, even if Dicklyon is correct that it is a MOS:CAPS violation, there are usually multiple options about what to change it to. Dicklyon does not just get to decide which one to go with. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

    If I've done something where the Tennis Project comes to a consensus that there's a better solution, let me know and I'll be glad to help get it done (assuming it doesn't go against guidelines). Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" so that is of concern as well. Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) and was told as much before this ANI was brought to bear. But I'll tell you one thing... that boomerang statement tells me all I need to know and is probably a good reason why you failed in your attempt to gain administration level. That is ridiculous bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think that it is accurate to say that: There was concern that Win–Loss works differently than MOSCAPS states. I am not seeing any such comment at the tennis project discussion. The objections being made appear to be based on personal preference without any reference to how MOS:CAPS may or may not apply to this case. Also, MOS:CAPS is quite explicit by virtue of a directly comparable analogy at MOS:ENBETWEEN. Also, I don't think that it is quite accurate to say: There are articles that have quite recently been judged to be fine with capitalization after the "–" .... If you are referring to this RM, then the close states: No consensus exists for the secondary proposal that all letters after the dash should be lowercase. It was "no consensus". Also, while both cases use a dash, the grammatical contexts are quite different, as is how the dash is used (spaced or unspaced). When stated: Dicklyon has continued to to run roughshod over consensus (or no consensus) .... This clearly fails to acknowledge that P&G are a representation of broad community consensus. Making a statement: That is a lie. is an allegation. There is no significant difference between saying that and saying "you are lying" or "you are a lier". If one is going to make such assertions, one really needs to ensure that their own statements are scrupulously accurate or risk WP:POT. To the last of the post, we are getting into WP:NPA territory. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Pretty much agree with everything Newyorkbrad said above. It seems like every time I see these MOS "uppercase/lowercase" disputes on Wikipedia, the same usual group of editors always show up to advocate for "downcasing", treating the discussions as if they're battles to be won. I'm not surprised to see this ANI report against Dicklyon, and I think an indefinite topic ban (from the MOS, or at least from MOS:CAPS) for the user is warranted. Also, Dicklyon's WP:SOCKPUPPETRY (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dicklyon/Archive) as linked above is also very concerning, since those sockpuppets' edits involved MOS-related issues such as capitalization of letters, MOS:CAPS, etc., and here we are in 2022 with complaints of disruptive editing by Dicklyon regarding those same types of issues. Some1 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Here we are in 2022, and you're digging up sockpuppet concerns from 2015? Calidum 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I didn't dig it up; it was mentioned earlier in this thread by Sportsfan77777 who said: Dicklyon has been blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPET-ing before on issues related to MOS:CAPS.[1] Some1 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• It's not a big secret that I oppose the lower-casing push on Wikipedia, that's been happening for roughly 2 years now. I believe that article titles & infobox titles are among the few areas left, that haven't been lower-cased (or at least not entirely). At some point, there's bound to be a push back, whether it's against one editor or a group of editors. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's not a lowercasing push so much as a push for congruence with the guidance of MOS:CAPS. Article titles and infobox titles are uniformly done in sentence case. Where there are exceptions, they should be fixed. But yes, it's no big secret that you oppose such fixing. And I've been doing it for over 15 years, so you're a relative newcomer to his area. Do you like to push your own style? Why? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• The charges against Dicklyon are spurious. As others have said above, this is just another example of small groups of editors in particular topic areas attempting to assert control over what they perceive as their WP:OWN territory. I am sure their efforts are made in WP:GOODFAITH, but Wikipedia is a generalist encyclopaedia, not a specialist tennis chronicle, and avoids WP:JARGON wherever possible, no matter the field being described. Luckily for us, WP:CONLEVEL explains that our policies and guidelines cannot be overruled by small consensuses of editors in particular topic areas. If these editors have a problem with the guidelines on capitalisation, they should make an effort to change them, or seek some sort of broader community consensus for an exception in the particular case of tennis articles. There are no grounds, however, for 'shooting the messenger' of the MoS that is Dicklyon. Overall community support for MOS:CAPS has been demonstrated time after time. Mr Lyon may sometimes be 'too quick to pull the trigger' when making these kinds of changes, but that doesn't negate the value of his tireless work to ensure our encyclopaedia meets a professional standard of stylisation. A topic ban would be disastrous for Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• I rarely opine on this board and am myself no expert as to misadventure, but I was active in the 2015? thread when Dicklyon got blocked for sockpuppetry and since this enforcement tool has been mentioned, I am going to narrate boldly for perspective. I don't even remember the specific disagreement (likely similar to this one--MOS vs. local consensus), but I remember User:RGloucester tried lots of ways to get folks to recognize Dicklyon's socking (a very new and unexpected development at the time). My recollection is that RGloucester got himself blocked saying something inexplicable to get folks to listen. I actually remember screaming "noooo!" at the screen, reading RGloucester's words. Later we found out RGloucester was right the whole time. Dicklyon took his punishment, tried very hard to not edit, and re-applied for editing sooner than he probably should have. But IMHO if any editor on Wikipedia has a reason to hold a grudge against Dicklyon, it's RGloucester. If HE says such current charges are spurious, I'm inclined to listen closely to him THIS time. BusterD (talk) 08:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  RGloucester and I reconciled just fine (see his comments just above). My socking was designed to tweak him into accusing me, and it worked great. I'm very sorry I took that route, and I've done my time. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think the suggestion of a topic ban was made much too hastily. Despite the enthusiastic attempts by a few editors to personally discredit Dicklyon, he is at most guilty of overzealous enforcement of the Manual of Style. It would not be reasonable to impose sanctions here and this matter should have been handled with more AGF and less venom. While I don't think we are in boomerang territory just yet, cheap shots like this one are not okay. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I probably should not have written that to be sure. It stems from something in the past where he was reprimanded by administration for hammering on me at Wikipedia. I apologize for bringing it up but his statement about me and my motives is perceived as biased and unfair and I just boiled over in reading it. I'm still angry in reading his post again right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This should just be closed with no action needed. Wikiprojects exist to serve wikipedia, not the other way around. An editor enforcing the MOS (even in banal ways like this) is not an issue. Hell it should be appreciated by topic editors as something they don't have to do. If it is demoralising editors as suggested above, it probably says more about those editors than anything else. Aircorn (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If enough editors are reverting you on several articles, it's likely a good idea to stop making the changes that you're making. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you see editors reverting me, please do let me know. According to the records, I did get one revert today, and it's being discussed. In the last week I've also had 3 mistakes reverted, which I thanked those editors for. There was also a small batch of mistakes reverted by Letcord at my request 8 days ago; see User talk:Dicklyon#Main template updates. And I had a mistake reverted on March 14. And one related to the redlink cleanup on March 13. On March 11, two of my case fix edits stray out of article space and were reverted; I thanked those editors for noticing and fixing my mistake. I also got a revert with suggestion here (this was on work that I took on at the suggestion of wbm1058 in this very discussion). On March 8 (before this AN/I complaint started), there was a batch of reverts of some part of the changes being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Another downcasing task, changes that I had already introduced into discussion after I saw that what Letcord asked for my help with might not be quite what the project wanted. So, if you're implying that when multiple editors are reverting me I don't stop doing what they're reverting, you really ought to provide evidence of what you mean. With a tiny handful of reverts during a time when I did many thousands of edits, I think my work is mostly pretty clean and correct, and where I have made mistakes I have either fixed them myself or thanked those who did. All these "he's still at it" type of remarks are just plain false, as should be clear since I challenge them to show us each time, and they never do. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

How absurd can this get?

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

Strike rate refers to two different statistics in the sport of cricket. What does that have to do with tennis? wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know it means in cricket or even in tennis, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be capped. See n-grams. Or book search. Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Really, Dicklyon? You've exhausted all higher-priority tasks for fixing incorrect visible text, and now you're going after tool-tips that are only visible when you hover over them? How do you set your priorities? There's a ton of stuff worse than this lingering around the project that somehow you've missed. wbm1058 (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing is my hobby; I don't aim to be as productive or efficient as possible, just work on fixing things I find wrong. Thank you for your concern. But if there are things wrong that you'd like me to help with, let me know; I usually aim to please (which got me into a bit of pickle with Letcord's suggestion as you can see above). Dicklyon (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if editors were generally called upon to explain what they worked on and why the project would disintegrate. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can I interest Dicklyon in working on clearing Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations? This is something only I have ever worked on for any extended length of time, AFAIK. My time is too oversubscribed to keep it under control. There are over 400 links to Buzzfeed, that should link to BuzzFeed. Hundreds of links to Bachelor of arts that should link to Bachelor of Arts. Same for Bachelor of science and Bachelor of Science. A lot more where those came from, with more added most every day by drive-by biography writers. I don't follow how fixing some tool-tip in a table is higher priority than those. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's fine if you don't follow. No one needs to explain their priorities to you, let alone operate according to your priorities. Primergrey (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to remove the need for fixing Bachelor of science but Chris the speller refused to take it out of the queue. So I think it's reasonable to ask for help. He's not the only editor who keeps piling work on me. wbm1058 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I'd be happy to work on more tasks that others think are more important (in addition to what I do organically). Tell me more on my talk page about the nature of the problem and how you go about fixing it. Do you use JWB to generate list of articles linking to wrongly-capitalized redirects to start, and then just do the appropriate replaces? Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris the speller: so if you two disagree on whether "Bachelor of Science" needs caps or not, did either of you open a discussion on that? Dicklyon (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you both had a word in there, I see now. But nobody cited a relevant section of MOS:CAPS, nor linked it at WT:MOSCAPS#Current, so nothing is resolved except that the two of you have different priorities, which is not novel. If we agree it needs fixing, I can whip it out in a few minutes with JWB. So agree first. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

wbm1058, it is categorically impossible for me to pile work on you. Please see WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:VOLUNTEER. You are painting me as stubborn for marking a redirect as a miscapitalization 10 months ago. Dictionaries show "Bachelor of Science" as capitalized, as it is a specific, formal distinction. A "bachelor of science" is an unmarried man who plays with test tubes. Your fight is not with me, but with a bunch of lexicographers. Chris the speller ^yack 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, we three agreed, and I went through and fixed all those links to capped Bachelor of Science. In the process, I accidentally didn't restrict to main space, and ended up editing this conversation as I clicked through too fast. Sorry about that. I also noticed that I need to go and fix Bachelor of Science in Xxx to lowercase xxx. Will work on that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

True, your edit summary did say either the tooltip should be (1) all lowercase --- there is no reason to capitalize it, or (2) removed entirely as you restored title-case Strike Rate. Sorry if I didn't characterize your revert exactly correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

So, with clear reason to remove the tooltip template, and make the dispute redundant, Sportsfan77777 chose to revert the edit - an action that keeps the dispute alive. This strikes me as being rather WP:POINTy, since the actions required are rather trivial. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Firefangledfeathers commented above "I would advise Dicklyon against determining consensus so soon into a discussion" and Dicklyon replied "Advice received", but he is still doing it. There is no end to this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there is an end to fixing over-capitalization in tennis, and we're nearly there, thanks to help from Letcord especially at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Cleanup edits #2. And I'm allowed to keep changing "Strike Rate" to "Strike rate" because the title-case version violates guidelines at MOS:CAPS, and because the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Caps_in_tooltips found no support for an exception in tooltips, and because nobody has seriously suggested that the title case version is preferred, and because the tennis project uses sentence-case tooltips widely in their templates that use tooltips. There's still the open question of whether all lowercase would be preferred; or weather the tooltips should just be removed; I would not object, but wouldn't do it just for "strike rate" and not for the others. Your re-instatement of title case in a few cases, just to keep the argument alive, was quite POINTy as pointed out already by Cinderella157. Re the issue that brought us here, fixing the title-case "Win–Loss" in table headings and tooltips, most were previously fixed and I'm holding off fixing the rest until this AN/I discussion ends. But it never ends, with vague accusations being re-posted from time to time. Can we stop now? Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Some background

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

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

I'm sorry but I can't see how implementing a mass-change against consensus is in anyway being "cooperative with the project." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out when/where you think I did that? Maybe a diff or two, so I can see what you're accusing me of? As you told some above, That is a very serious accusation. You need to provide evidence, or withdraw this accusation at once. Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: again, if you have evidence that I have been "implementing a mass-change against consensus", please link it here. Otherwise please retract this accusation, which is a wild extrapolation of what brought us here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a "wild extrapolation" and will not be withdrawing it. Please do not ping me again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd ask if you will be substantiating your accusation for the benefit of those of us who are trying to wrap their heads about this thread, but I doubt if you'll see my comment. If someone doesn't want to be pinged back to a discussion, they really shouldn't lob an accusation before leaving. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Obviously he will not be substantiating his accusation, since I never did any "implementing a mass-change against consensus"; he just read too much into the complaint and extrapolated to that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Just the read the discussion above, Lepricavark. Dicklyon "implemented a mass-change against consensus" four times last week alone, including once after this ANI started. All but one of those changes are still being discussed, while the other one was reverted back to what it was before Dicklyon made the changes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have read the massive thread, thank you very much. What I saw was a tantrum by the OP, who acted as if a series of minor stylistic changes was somehow the end of life as we know it. For example: We don't have time now for vandalism and sockpuppets and sourcing as we are too busy with reverts. Fyunck unironically stated that reverting stylistic edits had become a higher priority than dealing with vandalism and sockpuppetry. Do I agree that Dicklyon carried things a little bit too far and acted a little bit too eagerly? Yes. Did it justify the character assassination perpetrated above? Absolutely not. Also, I see no evidence of Dicklyon violating an existing consensus. He may have been too eager to claim that a consensus existed, but given that he was merely trying to bring articles into compliance with the MOS as he understood it, I'm not sure it was reasonable to expect him to seek consensus in the first place. I really don't think it matters if the tables say 'Win-loss', 'Win-Loss', or 'W-L'. But what I do care about is the manner in which this dispute has been needlessly personalized against one individual. Cooler heads need to prevail. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no horses in this race whatsoever; if anything, I have viewed Dicklyon as a rather charitable editor who was kind to me when I first started editing.

That said, I think Dicklyon is wrong here, and I am wondering why he has forgotten that Wikipedia is this funky mundane miracle wherein everyone gets together to collate knowledge into an encyclopedia that most get to edit and everyone gets to use. Yes, there are rules in place to govern how we interact with each other, but the overriding unspoken truth is that without that collaborative effort to work together, it all falls apart.

And Dicklyon, your actions have repeatedly worked to sidestep that collaboration. Never mind why you have done it in the past, or why you continue to do it now. What matters is this single inexcusable truth: your actions - in not genuinely seeking to work with other contributors - have proven to be corrosive to the Project. I totally understand why you do it, but its an arrogance, Dick, and one that distances you from others in Wikipedia; it turns you into a Cabal of One. And that effing sucks, man, because you have a lot to offer the community, if you'd but listen to and work with others.

You need to cowboy up and change how you approach Wikipedia editing. You may not like some of the changes that new generations of editors have brought about, but you either adapt to those rules or walk away. The third option is you get kicked out, and that would be a shit legacy for you. YOU NEED TO RE-THINK THIS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside the fact that your very long comment is just a series of generalizations that fails to address any of the specifics of this dispute, you are at least the second person in this megathread to bring up the importance of collaborative work without acknowledging the very real problem of the OP putting their own personal preferences ahead of the MOS. Why is this so hard for some of you to understand? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: You said he may have been "too eager to claim that a consensus existed to change tennis charts" and that he had no reason to realize there may be debate on the issue. Even if true, it looks like his eagerness never abates per all his edits in the last several hours, in spite of this discussion going on. Many of those edits are exactly what is being discussed currently elsewhere and why it was brought here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not ideal. Whether or not these edits should be controversial, they clearly are. It would be prudent for him to refrain from making mass edits related to the 'Win-Loss' display while this discussion is ongoing. This is not a matter that is so urgent that it cannot wait for discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

And this was my point above: there was no concensus for these mass edits, yet DI continues to make them. Even while this discussion is ongoing. This has become a repeat problem with him. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

When you said I implemented mass changes against consensus, you wouldn't say which changes or what consensus you were referring to. You've softened it just a bit to "no concensus for these mass edits", but you still haven't pointed out what mass edits you mean. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

You're actively still doing it. People are watching you do it and taking note. Are you so dense, so mired in your own ego, that you cannot sit back and accept this is a problem? You're just going to doggedly demand I point out the obvious? I don't see the point, as you're clearly going to just deny there's any problem anyway. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am still actively editing Wikipedia, fixing case errors and other things. Getting no complaints, comments, reverts, or other indication that anything I'm doing is wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The short answer here is WP:FAIT, which sets expectations for exactly this type of situation. --Masem (t) 16:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you think I've done something relevant to WP:FAIT, such as large numbers of edits not supported by broad consensus, please do say what you're referring to. I have even stated that I'm prepared to immediately change all Win–loss back to Win–Loss should there be a consensus that that would be better (hard to imagine). Dicklyon (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Getting no complaints, comments, reverts, or other indication that anything I'm doing is wrong.

What the fuck do you think this entire discussion has been about? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to fuckin' know what the fuck you think it's been about. Primergrey (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell what it's about. I keep asking for links to edits that illustrate the complaints, and I keep not getting any. The original poster did have a couple of links about downcasing "Win–Loss". That's what it was about initially, and I stopped doing that. But people keep saying I'm "still at it" and making thousands of controversial edits, and editting against consensus, without so much as a single example. Go figure. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Dicklyon)

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

Boomerang time?

I suggest that the next user to post a vague accusation against me, without so much as a single diff of an edit that is in some way objectionable, be sanctioned by at least a short block. We keep seeing this behavior above. They say I'm "still at it" but won't post a single single diff to show what they're complaining about. Yes, I do a lot of editing, including a lot of case fixing in tennis recently, but none of it is controversial. Or if you think it is, show us which, and why. Dicklyon (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

It would have been wiser to just let the thread die. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

But every day someone lobs another vague accusation. When will this stop? Dicklyon (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This board is often like "running the gauntlet" but stray individuals keep turning up to take their whack. I'm not about boomeranging but do see a value in closing this discussion sooner than later. This drama has run its course. I advise Dicklyon to button up and let some uninvolved closer tackle this. We've got more important work to do, I'm certain. BusterD (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no stakes in this argument, but here's what I think.

Dicklyon made some edits, which weren't inherently controversial, but his methods after the fact...

"Styling it [Win–loss] according to the guidance of our MOS doesn't make it an unusual outlier"- Dicklyon

I think that sentence pretty much sums up Dicklyon's point, and many people aren't fighting him on that. The real problem I have, and I think others have, with Dicklyon is not his logic or his claiming consensus maybe a bit too early. The problem is his blatant refusal to slow down and talk about the problem, and to stop editing while he does so. Honestly, if there is problem that needs to be addressed more on Wikipedia, it's this idea of no apology in any circumstance. Dicklyon is a tenured editor here, with many quality articles and pictures, but that doesn't give him the right to be a jerk.

"You're actively still doing it. People are watching you do it and taking note. Are you so dense, so mired in your own ego, that you cannot sit back and accept this is a problem?" - The Hand That Feeds You:, referring to Dicklyon's other mass changes without consensus.

First of all, I think MOS:CAPS is law. It's widely agreed on, but the thing that differentiates it from WP:CONSENSUS it the fact that it is much more specific. Agreeing that consensus is the way to go is inherently much less controversial than agreeing on a certain style. For something to be as specific as MOS:CAPS is, an yet still be widely agreed upon, gives it more power, I think, which is why I think it overrides consensus in this case. Keeping Wikipedia consistent with a stylistic guideline, at least in this case, isn't of utmost importance, but it's important, and to believe in MOS:CAPS and yet deny it when you think it 'looks weird', at least in this circustance, isn't fair, not to Dicklyon, not to Wikipedia, and not to the thousands of thousands of editors who agree with it.

The question is, does anyone actually object to his mass editing anymore? If no one objects now, why are we bringing up some of his other recent edits? If anything, that shows that the argument is no longer 'Win–Loss' vs 'Win–loss' vs 'W–l' (still makes me cringe looking at it) but an argument against Dicklyon's methods. And, overall, Tennis Project editors, is this really the hill you're going to die on?

All I'm saying is, coming into this ANI with no knowledge of any party, Fyunck and Sportsfan77777 made Dicklyon seem like some sort of scourge that plagued Wikipedia with his mass editing and his blatant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines, when in reality he is an editor following the rules (maybe a bit too vigilantly). Ten paragraphs in and I'm already rooting for Dicklyon's downfall, when in reality, a couple of disgruntled editors brought up a justified complaint and blew it up in such a way that it made Dicklyon look like a tyrant. Then the goalposts were slowly shifted away from the idea that 'Dicklyon's edits are unjustified' to 'Dicklyon is unjustified', and we're talking about indefinite topic bans because he's what? Why would we be banning him, exactly? Is it his personality? If we were to ban Dicklyon from anything, it would be a serious blow to Wikipedia as a whole. Dislike of a person is not grounds for an indefinite topic ban, in my highly unprofessional opinion.

Dicklyon should stop mass editing until this ANI is resolved.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument should explicitly state whether they are against the edits or indifferent.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument should explicitly state whether they are against the edits themselves, against Dicklyon's methods, or for Dicklyon's methods.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument, say you're sorry. Please.

Everyone who has a stake in this argument, admit any possible wrongdoings you may have commited pertaining to this discussion.

Move from there. This discussion won't close until A) people sit down and actually address the problem, or B) people get tired of arguing, which I don't think is the way to go. 2ple (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You're saying I refused to slow down. On what? I've stopped on the Win–Loss issue that brought us here. I stopped on the "Strike Rate" tooltip thing until after the discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#Caps in tooltips made it clear that there was nobody at all arguing that the title case way was in any way preferred to sentence case (not even Sportsfan who brought it up). Was there anything else that Fyunck or Sportsfan or anyone else complained about or asked me to slow down on? No – or show me. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment - I haven't yet reviewed the details of this particular controversy, and so will only make three observations at this time. First, without regard to the details of the capitalization controversy, what stands out in looking at this lengthy interchange is simply the stubbornness and certainty of his rightness with which Dicklyon states his case, and his unwillingness to consider that it might be a good idea to accept that sometimes one has to accept what one did not want. After having been repeatedly sanctioned, he doesn't seem to have learned to be collaborative. Second, this is not the longest block log that I have seen. That doesn't mean that it isn't a long block log. A long block log usually is the sign of an editor who won't learn from his mistakes, because he doesn't recognize them as mistakes. That is, his argument here is demonstrating the same intransigence that has resulted in a history of blocks. Third, I may have somewhat different criteria than some other editors, but I have a very strongly negative conclusion about any history, even several years ago, of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is to Wikipedia what academic dishonest is to academic studies, and what falsification of data is to research. It undermines the integrity of the enterprise in which it takes place. I don't trust anyone who has a history of sockpuppetry, even if it wasn't recent, especially if there is evidence that they are otherwise still the same, and appears to be still the same. I will research the details of the controversy before further comments, but that is what I see at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, one block (for edit warring) in the last seven years; I'm sorry for that. But it does indicate that in recent years I've learned a lot compared to my old ways. I'm not asking for your trust, just for objectivity on what I've done, as opposed to reacting to this gauntlet thing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• And thanks for admitting that you have no idea what this is actually about; your drama amplification is no doubt in character. Go trout yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Dick, please strike that. Much as I find your frustration understandable, this thread has already seen too many uncharitable personal comments. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Robert, want to know why Dick sockpuppeted? I'd say don't hold it against him, because, at least how I experienced it, it was one of the funniest surrealistic things on Wikipedia. Dick's addicted to the site, as many of us are, students should be studying this effect, but he had to do some other life projects off-site. If I recall correctly he tried several ways of getting a long block, but couldn't get one. So he threw up some socks that were instantly recognized as him, and someone finally had to let out a sigh and block him. Dick, was that the time you wrote a book? Randy Kryn (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Robert, this is a complex dispute with various factors to consider. I've been observing/participating over the past several days, and it is still not entirely clear to me what is going on. You really do need to review the details before making observations. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt. There is wisdom in that counsel. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

BRD vs mass edits

So to start with, I don't care about the caps issue. Win-Loss / Win-loss? whatever.

My concern is that people are waving arounf BRD and I just see that this is a good example where WP:BRD fails us.

• Bold

• Revert

• Discuss.

Sounds awesome, right?

Well, when the bold editor is making a large amount of edits, mass edits, automated edits. etc. It is not trivial to enact the "revert" part of the cycle.

In the past we have typically asked those with automated tools to be accountable for their edits, knowing they may need to revert them.

But that seems to be failing here.

Fait accompli has been determined MANY times to not be the way we "should" do things here.

Yet, here we are again, with another example where it seems to be the de facto way.

I really don't care who's at fault for whatever.

But I do think we need to take a look at whatever policies we have regarding this and make them very very clear.

If we need a new policy page clearly stating that those with automated tools are flat out not allowed to use those tools to gain "advantage" in the brd cycle else face sanction. Then let's get that written - right now.

If someone would like to helpfully point me to whatever existing policy we have regarding this, I would appreciate it.- jc37 08:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know or care what the alphabet soup is, but mass edits are not ok and continuing to mass edit when you know it's controversial is very much not ok. Is the answer here some kind of topic ban from capitalization-related edits?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

By "alphabet soup" do you mean "the relevant policy or guideline"?Primergrey (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, not yet at least. I think this whole ANI has silently shifted off the topic of 'controversial edits' and onto the topic of 'controversial editing'. I don't think what Dicklyon is doing is the problem anymore, it's how he does it. 2ple (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems like WP:FAIT is the appropriate reference, as noted by Masem, and its content seems adequate. However, I haven't noticed anyone really successfully impeaching the nature of the edits, and there was a volunteering to help fix them if they proved to be against consensus. The edits seem to be helping Wikipedia follow its own guidelines more consistently, and I don't see a reason to complain if that's done quickly or affects a lot of articles. It seems a bit risky, and a bit unfriendly to a minority group of opponents, but not actionable as a clear problem. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the link.

And the thing is you express a valid point, one that concerns me.

BRD is: be bold, then revert, then discuss. What is being said here is that it's Be bold, discuss, and if concensus forces them to, then revert. Sounds a lot like fait accompli to me. And definitely does not match BRD at all. - jc37 19:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't pick on the quantity of my work; just the quality. Mass edits are OK when not controversial. If someone reverts one edit out of a mass, or complains or comments on it, we stop and discuss. We continue if there appears to be a clear consensus. What I've mostly been criticized for above is making that determination a bit quickly. Since then, nobody has shown any of my edits to be wrong or controversial. So why state things like "sounds like" and "seems to be failing here", without any indication of what you guys are complaining about. Go trout yourselves. Dicklyon (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

And that is not why this report happened and not why people continue to pile on. You do not do proper BRD's when you put the cart in front of the horse. You did mass changes and multiple editors complained and told you to take it to talk. You pretty much refuse to do that and continue to make those same mass changes, right or wrong. Especially against long-standing consensus. And when we did have something at talk, there was discussion about doing it differently but after a few days you arbitrarily declared a consensus where none was forthcoming as of yet and start mass changes again. That is wrong and will always be wrong. If you make a change and someone reverts you, you do not add it back either. You have personally declared capitalization as your own "Pet Peeve" and it has blinded you to procedure around here. If it was one time then no big deal and people work things out in talk. But it is far from one time as the multitude of complainers here indicate. This is a long-term issue that needs to be addressed so it doesn't happen again where editor after editor feel bullied by your implementation style or that they have no voice and leave editing Wikipedia altogether. Wikipedia does not need to keep bleeding good editors because of your "Pet Peeve." You don't seem to listen and plow ahead like a bulldozer, and that can't be good for Wikipedian's moral. It simply can't be that hard to post on a WikiProject that you would like to change 10,000 article punctuations. And what happens is that people may stop complaining that your edits are wrong and controversial because they throw up their hands in disgust and weariness and simply give up. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yet you provide not a single example to illustrate what you mean by "You did mass changes and multiple editors complained and told you to take it to talk. You pretty much refuse to do that and continue to make those same mass changes..." It's bullshit. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

All anyone needs to do is look at your 1000s of changes to tennis articles, see the complaints, read the talk page timeline, and see you declare consensus arbitrarily. You always make the changes assuming in your own mind that there will be no complaints instead of checking first. That is what is bullshit. You made a bunch of capitalization changes and got called on it until we had an RFC... only have of that got consent so you knew there was pushback from the project. Then you did it again with Win-Loss and bazillions of articles again. If you didn't think there would be pushback again then your insight to Wikipedia editors is broken. It is still not clear the Win–Loss is wrong but editors have thrown up their hands at your bulldozer editing style. Look at how many are complaining here... this is not a one time thing and I can see it will continue to happen unless someone finally stands up to you. We are not in a rush at Wikipedia. If it takes a couple weeks to sort out what is the best styling that's no big deal. You declaring some fictitious victory after 2+ days of discussion is downright nasty and wrong, and you should know it by now. Fix that bullshit behavior and these discussions go away. Work with a team-effort mentality and not a wrecking-ball. That is why we are here and that doesn't seem to be sinking in at all. I'm starting to think you are never going to change your ways. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You can see at WT:WikiProject Tennis#Cleanup edits #2 that I've continued with a few thousand more case fixing edits, with help from User:Letcord mostly, all opening discussed at the project, with zero pushback. Fyunck and Sportsfan have found nothing to complain about, as far as I can tell, and nobody else has had any problem with these either (including from the fans of baseball, football, squash, badminton, archery, cricket, etc., whose articles had a lot of the kinds of over-capitalization I was working on). If it turns out I made any mistakes in there, I stand ready to fix them. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

[2] - "I don't want to undo them without consensus" - That is the issue. Full stop.

I'm sorry that it may mean more work for you. But you chose to use an automated tool to make the edits.

If you refuse to adhere to BRD, are you surprised that people are expressing concerns?

As I said above, I really don't care about the current situation. So the "quality" of your edits is immaterial to me. This is purely a behavioural question. Which is, I presume, why it's being discussed at AN/I.

However, my concern is less with your actions in this particular instance, but rather, whether the current policies are clear enough to help you or anyone else making mass edits. If not, then we need to clean up the policy right now.

And from your comments throughout this discussion, apparently WP:BRD and WP:FAIT are not clear enough.

Am I misunderstanding you? - jc37 21:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently so. BRD doesn't say that I have to undo every edit that might be in question; it says that if others revert, we discuss. And as I said, I stand ready to return "Win–loss" to "Win–Loss" is there's a consensus that title-case works better there, or to "win–loss" if there's a consensus that that's preferred. I think the policies are pretty clear. You're saying there's a "behavioural question", but it's not clear what the question is. I'd question the behavior of Fyunck and Sportsfan for trying to win at ANI when they're clearly on the opposite side of consensus in the normal discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

BRD and FAIT say that you should not continue making the same series of these small mass edits while they are under dispute no matter how right you may believe you are. That is disruptive. Discuss to get consensus, and presuming you are right then continue to do those edits (though those seem to be something best suited for a bot). --Masem (t) 21:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec) - When you are making mass edits, it is not trivial for someone without those tools to revert your mass edits. Hence: Fait accompli.

I just went to look at WP:FAIT, WP:BOT, and even WP:Mass editing. And while it is implied, apparently it isn't clear enough. WP:BOTPOL states that all use of automated tools, not just bots, requires following all policy. As an aside it also notes special rules in particular about "cosmetic edits", of which capitalisation is an example, but you and others can look at that. As I said, my concernm is the fait accompli part of this. And unless I am misunderstanding you, you are clearly saying that when using mass editing, you feel that it is not your responsibility to revert when your edits are challenged.

So, it sounds like we need to clean up policy. - jc37 22:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It is my responsibility to revert or clean up after my mistakes, and to stop when challenged (which I did). The challenges we're talking about here were not about mistakes, just a couple of whiners who like more capital letters than Wikipedia style rules suggest (actually that was only for the "Win–Loss" thing; their complaints on "Strike Rate" made even less sense, as you can see if you read about that silliness). One of them asked me to revert all my edits (I'm guessing they just meant put all the "Win–loss" back to title case "Win–Loss") but that would be pretty lame lacking a consensus to make an exception to our usual style. I have continued to work with others on the tennis project page to bring tennis articles into compliance with Wikipedia style. None of that is getting any pushback. That that stupid "Win–Loss" thing that I'm holding off on. So complaints that I'm still actively editing Wikipedia are about what? Nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

BDR is not BRD. I don't think I know how to say it any more clearly than I have above. - jc37 23:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Masem, please note that I have not kept making the same edits to things under dispute. Or if I have, say what edits you're talking about. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Just my opinion of course, but regardless if Dicklyon is right with the capitalization issue, is it really worth it to potentially clog peoples watchlists with edits that in essence don't change anything on the page? I stopped counting Dicklyon's edits today (March 21) in the 40's, and it looks like there were way more yesterday (March 20). I'd feel pretty annoyed that my watchlists were filled with edits that don't really do anything. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 23:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You can hide minor edits by checking the "Non-minor edits" filter. Dicklyon (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone is doing many things out of control like Dicklyon, then the community must restrict him. I think we must reserve space for other contributors. Maybe Dicklyon is the best, but it does not mean there is no room for other worse contributors. Wiki is not a private house, it is a common hall. Leemyongpak (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"doing many things out of control" is yet one more unfounded accusation without support. Yes, I do a lot of edits. They are not out of control, and not controversial, which is why nobody is able to link anything that I did that's wrong, controversial, or out of control. If I'm wrong, show us. Or go trout yourself. Dicklyon (talk) 04:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You just don't care others feelings. Look a few lines up, you will see my nearest supporter User:JCW555. There are some more up and down, you don't care of them either. Leemyongpak (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of watching all this unfounded speculation about Dicklyon's mindset. Deal with the facts, please. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yah, I'm tired of watching this thread too. It is neither a Single Match nor a Double Match, it is a Quadro Match in fact. I think if a bulldozer is allowed to work on a tennis yard, then a bulldozer-style editor can work on tennis category's articles also. Otherwise ... Leemyongpak (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Say what? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Guess what. Just imagine, don't write down here because it will make more tiredness :). Leemyongpak (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right!! You should start a section called "Unpopular style editor clogs watchlists with edits I think are dumb". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primergrey (talk • contribs) 01:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's rich! But I'm not really that unpopular. This thread has certainly tarnished my reputation among those ANI regulars who would rather amplify a complaint than look into it, but I do still get lots of thanks for my style correction work across the board. The tennis project page has been not a bad place, usually, with a lot of constructive stuff going on there recently (in which Sportsfan and Fyunck pretty much just don't participate). We've got tennis articles in pretty good shape now, and the only changes they object to were on Win–loss and Strike rate, because apparently they like these word pairs to either both be capped or both be lowercase, unlike most of the other tooltips and two-word headings across the project. The absurdity of these little hangups blowing up into this big ANI thread is still mind-boggling. Probably we'll just leave Win–Loss in an inconsistent state so I don't risk upsetting them again. If they decide they want Strike rate done differently, as I said, I have no objection as long as we make it somewhat consistent across tooltips, not just a one-off weirdness like it was. I'm happy to implement if they say what's needed. There is no fait accompli in this, just a willingness to help make it right, and some shortage of patience for their bullshit, which started way back in November with Fyunck stating that "Men's Singles" is "a proper phrase in tennis". Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

And with the Men's Singles terminology (which is used in tennis publications) at least it was vetted instead of bulldozing editors out of the way as you did with your thousand edits. I don't care that consensus found "Men's singles" was the way we should do it on wikipedia. I'm ok with a consensus at Tennis Project. What I objected to was your making 10000 revisions without that consensus, even after telling you not to. Then claiming consensus after two days. That is why we are here... your own bullshit started all of this, and obviously it has happened many times in the past listening to folks "pile on." As far as helping change to Win–loss... talk about rich! I still think that is a frivolous change as was changing all "Men's Singles." It has caused many red links that I have better things to do than fix. It was your baby to make all these changes so it's your baby to fix all the messes created with that change. Goodness. You keep attempting to shift blame from a hole you dug yourself by being inflexible and rough-shodding over proper protocol. I was pretty much done here figuring the AN/i has run it's course with nothing really happening. That's ok and in fact I would say that is the most common outcome here. But then I read you are still posting this "whoa-is-me" stuff and pointing a finger at everyone but yourself. That's what's rich!. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As discussed on the project talk page, we're still working on a few lingering redlinks from the big renaming and cleanup (the one that went through extensive RM discussion and more). If you want to help, put a comment in support at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TolBot 13B. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And if you want your way on tooltips, your support at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Caps in tooltips would be more productive than whining here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you make a single change and someone objects you either revert or the other person reverts and you bring it to talk before doing more. If you do 1000 edits because you can do it so fast, then you should revert those instead of leaving it to people that do it more slowly. When it's all worked out in talk, including perhaps alternate choices, after a week or so then it gets re-added or stays reverted or some alternative goes in. We are in no hurry. That's what I was taught here but you want to ignore the trial and go straight to a verdict. I tend to think it's best to get many involved to make an informed and complete decision. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's "woe is me", not "whoa-is-me". You say "it's [Dicklyon's] baby to fix all the messes created with that change", but Dicklyon has made all the necessary edits to update to the new title capitalization style. He has said repeatedly that he will revert to Win–Loss if that is the outcome of that discussion, so I really don't see what the problem is here. Letcord (talk) 09:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some misconceptions about WP:BRD. Boldly edit, if reverted, discuss. A revert to one article doesn't mean that all articles with the same edit should all be reverted while the discussion is occurring. But it does signal to stop making the particular edit that was reverted/objected to. There is no element of WP:FAIT to Dicklyon's edits. He undertakes to revert edits where it is found to be a consensus against his edits. There is no reason to question his integrity in this. There also appears to be some misconceptions about the levels of consensus (WP:CONLEVEL). Some of the comments here ignore that P&G represents broad community consensus. DL's edits are IAW P&G and therefore are made IAW that consensus. It is therefore a misstatement to say that DL can't make edits without first gaining a consensus if the consensus exists in P&G. There are also comments here about over-riding a long-standing consensus at the tennis project. Per WP:CONLEVEL: ... participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. However, what we are seeing here is exactly that coupled with WP:OWNership behaviours. On the otherhand, we have a group of tennis editors finding new things for DL to fix and are working quite collaboratively with him. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Another thing that just might be worth mentioning about WP:BRD is that it is neither a policy nor a guideline. Although the spirit of it may be very widely supported on Wikipedia, we probably shouldn't be overly scrutinizing its exact prescriptions, because it "is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" (according to its headlining banner). (BTW, AFAIK it may be hard for some people to interpret unlinked abbreviations like IAW (International Alliance of Women?) and P&G (Procter & Gamble?), although I think I eventually figured them out.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Horse Eye's Back on Kosovo

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

Content dispute. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

While I was aware of this discussion, I had little interest in getting involved in it, as I had the aforementioned negative interaction with HEB. I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address histheir unnecessarily confrontational behavior. The user sees dissent as a personal attack; and this retaliatory 'Request boomerang' subsection below is highly indicative of that. Note that HEB cherry-picks comments of others but in no way apologizes for their own, "suboptimal" comments and behavior (to quote @Floquenbeam:). One such instance is coincidence; twice is enemy action. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would like to "cherry-pick" comments of mine from Talk:Kosovo which you feel are suboptimal you can do so, I would appreciate knowing what there you think I can improve on. Also please use the singular "they" when referring to me, my gender is undisclosed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nope, not playing your game of distraction, HEB. However, please feel free to point out where I have, in this conversation, applied a gender to you. Additionally, others have fully addressed your 'suboptimal' interactions with them. I've only pointed out where your comments in our previous interaction triggered an unconstructive interaction. Just like this completely different situation with an entirely different group of people. What's the common factor in the friction from both conversations?

The answer you might be struggling with is facing you in the mirror, pal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"I was not at all surprised that someone else would eventually address his unnecessarily confrontational behavior." The common thread seems to be editors completely ignoring WP:RS in favor of their own opinions and then escalating to WP:ANI when they can't win a policy based argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: You used "he" in the quoted sentence above when referring to Horse Eye's Back. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, so I did let an accidental 'his' slip into the post where, at every other point before and since, used their preferred pronoun. I could care less as to the user's gender; my complaint addressed their behavior, not which restroom they used. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Just FYI but I was the one reverting to the status quo, it had been steady from 2 February [3] to 8 March when it was changed by Edin balgarin [4] (who was indeffed for *related* disruptive editing BTW, the case is above this one) and I partially reverted Edin less than twenty minutes later[5]. Not really sure why Coldtrack is omitting that part of the narrative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Edin was blocked following a bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage (admins feel free to correct me). Unless I am completely misunderstanding the content dispute here, this is not related to Kosovo's borders. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A bizarre and offensive tirade regarding pronoun usage in a conversation discussing this exact issue at Kosovo, the conversation can be found at User talk:EvergreenFir#‎Kosovo and 1RR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

If someone commits a murder in a post office it doesn't make them guilty of mail fraud. This is a good opportunity to show some contrition and self-reflection...just some friendly advice. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Their rant was a two-parter, half was posted on a personal talk page and half was posted on the article talk page[6], if they hadn't been indeffed for the one they probably would have been sanctioned for the other. If someone commits a murder in a post office but is killed by responding officers and were also committing mail fraud they will never be charged for mail fraud, but that doesn't make them innocent. You can either advocate for a topic ban (what topic exactly?) or you can offer friendly advice, its kind of hard to do both. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Request boomerang

"Kosovo is not Serbian irredentism because it has never recognised the breakaway of this region, and as such, Serbia's claim over Kosovo extends beyond nationalists to the whole of ethnic Serb society."[7]

"Nobody is interested in your unauthenticated appraisal of what is a "puppet state" and what you decree to be "sovereign", and while you are unable to corroborate any form of "puppetry" outside of your Russophobic mainstream media, everybody that knows Kosovo, famous for Camp Bonsteel, knows that it is nothing more than a western outstation. Its streets and squares shamefully honour contemporary US political figures in a way not even known in the US, and where the Kosovo "flag" flies, so too does the US flag."[8]

"You don't get to appropriate this policy to violate delicate NPOV matters. That would firstly be in breach of WP:PARITY and of WP:GAME."[9]

"The contemporary sources will unsparingly cite "Kosovo-Serbia border" as a consequence of their pre-existing advocacy which is to treat Kosovo as legitimate. Al Jazeera did not waste time here as within three days of the declaration of independence, they put out a report titled "Europe's Newest Country", filled with the usual vexed anti-Serbian rhetoric."[10]

"No. You have had this explained to you a gazillion times now. NPOV is about reflecting conflicting viewpoints. You need to know what RS is and is not. RS is about choosing which of two diametrically opposed claims to treat as factual (e.g. round earth, supported by science vs flat earth, supported by pseudo-science). RS is not a trump card to oust NPOV. If it were, then there would be no such policy as NPOV."[11]

"If you wish to dodge questions then this conversation is finished ... You are basically saying "RS says this so we should discard MNPOV". That is appropriating one policy to conceal the elephant in the room, which is not how this project works. Any more WEIGHT violations to the article and sidestepping of longstanding consensus, and you will be reported. Bye."[12]

"The conversation with Horse Eye's Back has gone as far as it can go. Three editors including you have now spoken to him and he clings onto the tassels of "Reliable Sources" out of sheer desperation to push a slanted viewpoint. So if he removes "uncontested territory" again, I will report him and in doing so, will alert you to the discussion."[13]

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

Boomerang for what? I haven't touched the article since God knows when. I can revert you right now and lock you out of restoring your partisan revision for almost 24 hours, except I haven't. So where does Boomerang come into play? You've argued with three editors. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I should specify, the request is either for a topic ban regarding Eastern Europe and the Balkans or a general WP:NOTHERE ban given your complete dismissal of mainstream WP:RS as "Russophobic" and for "pre-existing advocacy." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll allow the admins to deal with it. Your singular point you raised after it was debunked time after time after time did not mean you had to play around with the article. I've kept off it, and nothing has prevented you from doing so while seeking a third opinion or making a request for comment inter alia. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the boomerang took a while to double back (see WP:ANI#Unusually_nasty_and_unfair_personal_attack). El_C 04:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@El C: How are these two incidents related? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say they were, but the OP is indef blocked all the same. El_C 04:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies if I am being obtuse here but Coldtrack is the OP of this discussion. It appears you blocked a user called Caltraser5 as a result of the discussion you linked to. I just don't see the connection. It doesn't appear Coldtrack has been blocked? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh shit. I can't read. Sorry! El_C 04:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is indeed a content dispute, but I am concerned by edits like this one which basically state that Kosovo (a state recognised by over half the UN) has the same position as Somaliland or Transnistria (states recognised by precisely zero other countries). That's obviously a POV issue, but I'd say it's even more a competence one (and I agree that someone whose worldview is that skewed should probably keep away from editing in that area). Black Kite (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite. Wait. You have just taken a position of advocacy here by making a representation for Kosovo. Yes I have compared Kosovo with Somaliland, though why should this concern you? Your cultivation of "majority of UN states recognising" is a distinction and not a difference. Internationally, every polity has the choice to extending recognitions and denying them to others. The UN is not a yardstick for determining legitimacy. In fact, "majority of the UN" is a mere selling point, because it ignores that fact that nobody is obliged to be a member. You may know that 21 years ago, the UN was noted for its absence of Switzerland. There are countries outside of the UN, but some of them have limited recognition. Kosovo's current majority in the UN is by one. Add the Vatican City, and that is the the two equal. Then add the State of Palestine and that puts Serbia in the lead. The Republic of China, if classed as a separate entity as it is a different polity evens the scoreboard, and then you can add Cook Islands and Niue which have the same relationship to New Zealand as Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands have with the US. That's three more in Kosovo's favour, before Serbia runs away without looking back when you add the final ten self-controlling states. As I said, you are arguing a selective distinction to raise Kosovo's profile whereas when I say Kosovo is the same as Somaliland et al, I refer to a territory to have unilaterally declared independence from its host nation, and the host not recognising (and that is what sets Kosovo apart from every single member of the UN with the obvious exception of North and South Korea regarding one another, but Kosovo/Serbia is not of the same nature as integral Korean state). Every one of about 200 or so polities play at international diplomacy, and form ties with one another where possible. Nobody asks to be treated like a pariah, and none of the self-ruling entities choose isolation. Afghanistan for example recognises Kosovo, but also chooses to recognise Abkhazia, and Abkhazia recognises Afghanistan, while Kosovo and Abkhazia do not recognise one another. Furthermore, I have not touched the Kosovo article this recent period. I have been editing the talk page looking at finding a solution to the NPOV violations disguised as "following reliable sources". --Coldtrack (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Update request

"looks good to because it fits your narrative. But the change was without consensus and this does not conform to other articles such as Serbia and Outline of Serbia"[14]

"I have never in my life seen such a one-sided and flagrantly loaded misrepresentation of the matter at hand anywhere ... If there is to be a credible RfC, it needs to be written by someone like me who objects to the current wording, and in doing so, I would have built a dam stronger case that the loaded overture ... The fact of the matter is that the above "choice" is a false dilemma fallacy since a true RfC should be open-ended ... It is flat out mendacious to pretend that dealing with "confusing wording" is remedied by satisfying one of two POVs ... I suggest scrap this section and allow me to rewrite the overture more comprehensively and without such restricted options."[15]

"partial undo. I have rewritten the first sentence to explain what this article is actually about. Information such as the capital city and the partially recognised status of the "Republic of Kosovo" should not be removed."[16]

"I argued for months about the diametrically opposed appraisals on the White Helmets. Al Qaeda linked terrorists posing as rescuers? Or benign and benevolent cuddly band of non-dangerous fanatics? The so-called "reliable sources" claim the latter, while the rest of the world's media, state-owned and private, point to the former. I argued with scores of anti-Syrian government apologists for possibly more than a year on and off, and had to leave because it was like pissing in the wind. The discussion ultimately came down to what is and is not reliable, and I was a one-man gang representing radical changes to the whole of en.wiki. That was never to be on the cards. I don't know if we are dealing with the same category of mainstream gatekeepers here. There is a certain symmetry about the two: one version permanently on display, 1RR per day, and an army of editors on hand to "revert the reverting editor" so their preferred version stays for the best part of 24/7."

"It is all good and well saying "reliable sources call it the Serbian border" but that has two problems: A) it rides roughshod over the disputed status and moreover breaches the neutrality of the source in question since its editors have fostered a position of advocacy, and B) Saying "Kosovo's border with Serbia" - which is half right due to it being Kosovo's border however you dice it - is being erected as a wooden dummy to create the illusion that the community has chased the gigantic elephant out of the room. Tomorrow, "we'll, we've agreed Kosovo borders Serbia, therefore we operate on the basis that Kosovo isn't a part of Serbia, and if it isn't a part of Serbia then what it is? It must be independent. So let's start calling it a country of the same standard as India and South Africa, and move "disputed territory" to line three, etc. when ElderZamzam has already explained Kosovo here is being singled out for special treatment as other comparable examples are all worded differently."

"The fact that it is state elsewhere on the article that Kosovo is disputed does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources."[17]

"RS is a tired argument and if it the one and only response you have for every challenge made to it, then you'd best go read WP:ONUS. In other words, you don't get to foreclose suggestions that frustrate your unrelenting standpoint by yammering the same old policy over and over."[18]

"No, you agree that. Many others share the position that Kosovo is occupied by local rebels and their western handlers such as those based at Bondsteel ... The reality in the case of Abkhazia is the same as Kosovo's."[19]

"There is not one scintilla of "nationalism" behind suggestions that Kosovo is in Serbia (which incidentally is not implied by A, C, D and all other alternatives mentioned). Apart from more than half of the globe recognising Serbia's territorial integrity, this is the position of the entire Serbian society, from left-wing to right-wing, from moderate to extreme, from sectarian to secular, and from native to diaspora. There is no fifth column that calls for Kosovo's recognition in some fringe corner of Serbian society."[20]

The POV pushing/competence issues continue. Really looks like they can't be relied upon to edit Kosovo related articles dispassionately however they appear to be suggesting that their disregard for our reliable sources policy extends beyond that topic area. The most disturbing to me is the characterization of the portion of Serbian society which supports the recognition of Kosovo's independence as a Fifth Column. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC time

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

---

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

• El_C The wording was introduced after a long informal discussion by several editors with a variety of viewpoints in 2015, Talk:Kosovo/Archive_30#Northern border, and has been continuously present in the article ever since. It's as solid consensus as one can get. I was initially opposed to it as well since it reads awkwardly, but unqualified "borders Serbia" is unacceptable from NPOV standpoint. Quoting Future Perfect at Sunrise from that discussion: Whether you like it or not, and whether it reflects the facts on the ground or not, Kosovo is still considered as de jure part of Serbia by a significant number of international actors, so there's no way around the fact that Wikipedia will have to remain neutral about this in its wording, as a matter of principle., and your accusations of irredentism are out of line. Nobody is edit-warring to include that wording; it is Horse Eyes' Back edit-warring to remove it. You're seriously overreaching here. No such user (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why we're tying ourselves in knots trying to find the least convoluted wording for a sentence that probably doesn't need to be there at all. Why not simply replace the sentence with a map? Black Kite (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• I will just reuse Fut. Perf's answer from the same discussion: I don't think that would be a good idea. "X borders on Y" sentences are pretty standard in our country articles, for good reason – they provide an easily understandable geographic reference frame for readers unfamiliar with the region (and speaking of maps, the one we are currently showing at the top of the infobox is so small you can hardly see Kosovo anyway, let alone what other countries it borders on). I dislike the idea of sacrificing a piece of plain, uncontroversially useful factual information for our readers just because some entrenched Wikipedia editors keep reading non-existing and quite unrelated POV issues into one bit of wording. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC). No such user (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, run the RfC nonetheless. The preceding sentence already reads: Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia on 17 February 2008,[14] and has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 97 member states of the United Nations. It is bordered by Serbia [etc.] Again, get affirmative consensus if you wish to reiterate that distinction in the next sentence, too. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough. As for the map: Abkhazia is about the same size as Kosovo (i.e. half an Israel), and it resolves its tininess on the continental map well enough (like Israel), I think, so have a look-see at those examples. El_C 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No such user, it is not out of line for me to view that addition as irredentism, because it tells the reader the same thing the previous sentence just did. And it reads awkwardly. Edit warring is edit warring, be it on the side of inclusion or exclusion. A major part of WP:ACDS is that it allows uninvolved admins to, sometime, skirt the line between content and conduct (i.e. normally indeed an over-reach). Now, whether that action crosses that line would be subject to appeal in the usual venues. Hope that clears things up. El_C 13:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not skirting the line, that's a blatant involvement in favor of one side of a content dispute. WP:ACDS#Role of administrators: To this end, administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom. While indeed Any uninvolved administrator may impose... prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), your interpretation of "except when consensus exists" amounts to "but I do not like it". What do you consider "usual venue"? AN? Anyway, consider it appealed. No such user (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The venues for appeals are: yes, WP:AN by the community, or WP:AE by a quorum of uninvovled admins, or WP:ARCA by the Committee itself. El_C 13:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I dislike that passage not because I have a content preference. I dislike it because it reads awkwardly and, arguably, restates the sentence that precedes it. I have no opinion on any changes that qualify (or not)... whatever in relation to describing the borders, in text or visually, with a better map. El_C 13:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait, what? Since when are admins supposed to make content choices in their administrative capacity? You're being helpful like a bull in a china shop. A discussion from 2015 that was never closed is not enough – since when we need a RfC for every wording, and every single discussion needs to be closed? In that discussion, nobody (except the last poster, Let's keep it neutral supported unqualified "borders Serbia" wording that you're trying to impose now; I announced I'll change it to "uncontested territory" wording, nobody objected, and it was in the article ever since HEB's incursion. I'm not in love with that wording either, but the onus to open a RfC is on the one(s) advocating the change. No such user (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just like the ACDS WP:RMfC I mandated for Kiev→Kyiv name change, I will not be closing this RfC. If you want to see that consensus for inclusion realized per WP:ONUS, argue your case on the RfC, not here. El_C 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Content issues aside

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

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

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

User:Ripomobo11

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

---

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

from their comments, it seems that they do not have a good grasp on english and that could be one of the problems. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Problem combines disruptive and competency is required. David notMD (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have offered to help mentor them. Their talk page doesn't look like editors have "tried to engage and instruct" them so much as editors have used templates to warn and correct them. We'll see if they are responsive to me at all. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've attempted to help them out, however them not having a good grasp on English is a bit of an issue as it creates issues for me when trying to understand what they are saying. I might ask them what their first language is to see if they usually speak something besides English. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I did see that you were trying to help them. I also see that most (all?) of their edits are on the mobile web browser, mostly using the visual editor. I don't think that helps their cause any. It makes it hard to cite sources properly, and people are yelling at them for just dropping a link in the middle of the text. Now they're confused as to if they can link sources at all.~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That does indeed complicate things. I would be able to help them easier knowing that, however I've never made an edit from the mobile web browser version of Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few and I absolutely detest the mobile web version, so I normally use the desktop version even if I'm on mobile. The problem is the quick citation tool just isn't there in mobile. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Mobile-using cretin here. The quick citation tool is available in the visual editing mode (unavailable in source editing mode), represented by a quotation mark icon (") at the top of the screen. – ².O.^Boxing 18:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Timesink and/or WP:CIR issues. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

@Success think: Ah alright. From what I understand, cricket is similar to baseball here in the US. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

@David notMD: Hi everyone, @Ripomobo11: is back and he began his work of vandalism again. I and other editors tried to explain and help him many times but he is not willing to take help. I suggest all of you to keep eye on his edits or block him from editing.Success think (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

They claim to be an expert in English, but their SPAG makes it apparent that this is not the case. I'm not sure their edits count as vandalism, but many of them need either tidying up or just straight reversion. CIR is my main concernSpike 'em (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree not vandalism, but consistently not proper grammar. Annoying like a dripping faucet. Editors who either watch cricket-player biographies or watch Ripomobo11 are burdened with a lot of clean-up. One example: at 'Ben Stokes he wanted to add that Stokes is English player, but was born in New Zealand. What was written was "...is a newzeland born English..." David notMD (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

And what about, yesterday they erased this discussion. As I understand so far they're Cricket fan and self proclaimed Cricket expert, their Eng is weak, they're from India. They want add Original research without adding cite, From their editing pattern I also understand that they only do editing in lead, they add .... Is great/ highly regarded/ best in the world cric plyr. And they want to same kind info in every cric related article.Success think (talk) 10:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bonadea:, Ripomobo11, add unsourced material on South Africa related articles, I also suggest him to add reliable secondary sources at [21]. I suggest you to take further appropriate action.Success think (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

They're continuing to make edits like this which are not helpful. All their recent contributions have been reverted. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Just following up on what Lugnuts says there, I've had to revert Ripomobo11 at Rohit Sharma. I've begun a discussion with him (assuming male) at his talk page and, for what it's worth, I don't think he is actually a vandal. I do think there is a CIR issue which he could resolve by taking care and exercising due diligence – using the preview facility before publishing would help. Reading his comments, my impression of him is that he is several streets ahead of himself in his enthusiasm and he needs to take several steps back. I've suggested that he goes to WP:5P to try and understand what the site is about. I've tried to explain NPOV and NOR to him, too. Oh, well. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @No Great Shaker:,@David notMD:, @Blaze Wolf: and @Lugnuts:, @Ripomobo 11 again removed citations form Kemar Roach, when asked him to its disruptive editing, he said its your last warning, see [22], He removed cited info here[[ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1078195051]] and gave explanation in broken Eng, which I can't understandand. [Isn't it is disruptive editing, when they're removing Citations with no reason. I suggest to admin to remove Ripomobo11's editing privileges, per Incomp and doing WP: editing war.Success think (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Success think This discusion remains open until an Administrator makes a decision. Until then, Ripomobo11 can continue to make edits and other editors can revert those for cause. A complaint could be made about Ripomobo11 at Teahouse, but the advice given there is likely that a complaint should be created at ANI, which is this discussion, started 16 March. Patience is advised. David notMD (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As with what David said, they can continue making edits with this open. And I'm also not an administrator so there's not much I can do. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

At 15:27 20 March, Ripomobo11 left a note on my Talk page about leaving Wikipedia. Same on own User page. Will Watch to see if this holds true. Regardless, I am still requesting an indefinite block for all the transgressions and time sink of this WP:CIR editor. David notMD (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support CIR block this discussion started 3 days ago, and in that time, they have continued with the same poor quality editing, and amassed 4 more warnings on their talkpage. They are a net negative to this project regardless of any good intentions, and WP:CIR means they should be blocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support CIR block They also left a message on my talk page about leaving WP in broken Eng. They also indirectly or directly attacked fellow editors by naming them Brain less'’'.

Per wp: CIR, he should be blocked from WP editing.Success think (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support CIR block per my earlier comment on CIR/time-sink and the above posts. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per CIR. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

24rhhtr7 and the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

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

• It wasn't bullshit in 2020 but nice try.
• The best part of that claim is the fact that Adam Schiff took money from Russia yet has the audacity to accuse everybody else of being corrupted by Russia.
• Oh, and Russiagate was a hoax that was pushed by the Clinton campaign, and the people who pushed it were CONVICTED for it. Keep pushing baseless conspiracy to "own the cons". That's so very mature and intelligent and not at all every bit as juvenile and pathetic as you claim MAGA people are.
• I'm not talking about Wikipedia. I'm talking about five years of nothing but the nonsense of people like you EVERYWHERE in media and in society in general all to "defeat Trumpism".

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

This comment also confirms we're dealing with a fringe editor (defined as one who believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources). They create problems as they constantly oppose reliably-sourced content, denigrate RS, vandalize articles, and waste the time of mainstream editors. Also, they don't know how to vet sources, a primary requirement for all editors. -- Valjean (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference being excluding someone for espousing wrongthink and banning someone for using talkpages to WP:SOAPBOX. Arguing that this person needs to be "removed" because they're an editor who "believes conspiracy theories and unreliable sources" and decides to "waste the time of mainstream editors" pretty much turns them into a martyr and proves their point. If an admin takes action they should make it clear it's not because of this editor's opinions but because of their habit of going onto talk pages for the sole purpose of debating them. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

That's literally what a talk page is for, bringing up or questioning something about the entry.

I "argued" because like in the cases of the other talk pages I "argued" on, it was full of original research and bias and editors who aren't even remotely adult enough to be objective and make sure the article is accurate. There's literally only one talk page you could claim I committed original research in, and that was on local basketball. I've made compelling points in every single Talk page I've commented on that not only challenged the asinine groupthink present in each talk page or article but also referenced credible things that completely refuted or called into question the assertions I was responding to.

Calling me argumentative rather than admitting that I was responding to baseless speculation and childish nonsense that I saw a grand total of one person even bothering to address or question is exactly what I expect from Wikipedia editors these days though. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTHERE, an editor absolutely can and should be removed if their edits seem devoted to promoting a fringe theory. Of course, any edits devoted to promoting anything are inappropriate, but per PROFRINGE, promotion of fringe theories is taken more seriously because it has the potential to do more harm to the encyclopedia. It isn't just a matter of being wrong; but holding fringe views is part of the problem when coupled with edits that seem intended to advance those views by eg. disputing clearly-reliable sources (one of the basic examples on WP:TEND.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  That Talk page is literally full of anti-Trump conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You have literally done nothing but post baseless conspiracy theories and denigrate any story that doesn't fit the narrative you choose to believe. It's unbelievably hilarious to me that you have not only the nerve but the complete lack of self-awareness to accuse me of believing conspiracy theories. Comment after comment of yours on that page is literally baseless speculation about it being Trump or the Russians, and the people you all accuse me of being disrespectful towards projected being a Fox News viewer onto me as well as a MAGA type. I'm neither, and you all want to play victim because somebody dared to direct that same vitriol back at you while pointing out how NOT ONE claim you posted or source you linked has turned out to be reliable in the end.

If you had any integrity whatsoever, you'd edit the Wikipedia entry to reflect the fact that sources you consider reliable have now verified the "conspiracy" claims and directly contradict basically the entire first paragraph of that entry.

Instead you want to sling mud and point fingers like a child then play martyr when some gets slung back at you.

I've edited plenty of articles thanks and have kept the same consistent values my entire time here, unlike you. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've lost count of the amount of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories you posted in that Talk section. It's at least five if not more.

And you weren't alone in doing that. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha that page is literally full of lies and baselessly conspiracy theories pushed from clearly biased editors who were disrespectful before I ever was but yeah absolutely blame me. So predictable.

I really don't care in the slightest. That page is a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia but par for the course these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Who is we? You're one person, and I have seen this exact same behavior from you in every single Trump related entry. You have done nothing but baselessly speculate, and your "reliable sources" include blogs written by people who are connected to left-wing extremists and constantly lie and attack others on social media and opinion pieces from people who have been wrong time and time again without so much as an apology or promise to do better? You want receipts? Try basically every single story they've covered over the past five years.

Steele Dossier. Russian interference. The 2016 election being stolen. Every single hate hoax and story they spun or video they selectively edited to misrepresent an event. The "good people on both sides" lie. The lie about calling soldiers losers. The lie about Trump doing literally anything for Putin. The pro Antifa propaganda and encouraging doxxing and glorifying violence. Calling everything under the sun misinformation. The Brian Sicknick cause of death lie. The "Hands up, don't shoot" lie. The blaming white supremacists for the violence and destruction during the George Floyd protests and subsequent riots. The claim people on January 6 planned to kidnap or murder politicians. The actively calling for Trudeau to send in the military over the trucker protest after calling Trump a fascist for protecting DC during the riots of 2020. The refusal to cover what happened to Antonio Mays Jr despite the evidence being out there for almost two years and the acting as a mouthpiece for the people involved with CHAZ/CHOP. Do you want more? It'd literally been five years of lies and the complete opposite of journalistic integrity. Your sources stopped being reliable almost five years ago, and that has been made abundantly clear with each retraction they're forced to make and updated article they're forced to write.

Who are you to question anybody's sources or accuse anybody of believing in conspiracy theories? And who are you to label anybody argumentative when I've yet to do anything other than point out inconvenient truths and challenge the ridiculous assertions you and others have made with zero proof?

You're literally the ones who started with all the behavior you're accusing me of. Grow up. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

If you would pick out isolated bits of content to which you object, and then discuss them in the context of what RS you can cite say about the matter, THEN we'd all be able to have a constructive discussion with you.

In fact, you might even convince us to change our minds because, as it so happens, we hold our opinions because they are based on the RS used in our articles.

But you have not chosen to use such constructive dialogue. Instead you have accused, complained, impugned our intelligence, insulted us, and otherwise violated WP:NOTFORUM in a manner that shows a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. You'll have to do better than that. -- Valjean (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this a serious comment?

You've called me a conspiracy theorist and implied I'm a Fox News viewer and MAGA type more times than once and thrown disrespect my way, all unprovoked.

You've literally done every single thing you're accusing me of multiple times, and have done so completely unprovoked. You're the one who turned it into a Battlefield, and you did it way before I made a single comment. I'm just the only one who responded in kind. This is all there for anybody to see. You gonna blame your behavior in those other topics on me as well? Or hey how about when you started an edit war with Mr. Ernie but accused him on his talk page of being the one to do it and threatened to have him disciplined? You seriously think I don't make sure to get receipts before I make a claim?. I'm sure I can find plenty of other examples of similar behavior from you considering I've only looked at a handful of Talk pages you've participated in.

The only time I've ever had a problem on this site is dealing with dismissive and disrespectful people like you yet you have displayed this exact behavior over and over in multiple Talk pages of topics at all regarding Trump. It's all there for anybody to see. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've combed this entire wall of text and literally the the only factual statement is the the January 6 protesters did not mean to kidnap or murder politicians. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Literally not true but way to show your maturity level. Every single thing I said was factual and backed up by evidence. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Would you care to list some of that evidence? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 14:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As one can see in the rambling tirade above about Trump, Russia, CHAZ/CHOP, and the like, this person is just here to argue the topic, it has nothing to do with the Wikipedia. Also the Biden-Ukraine article has seen a 4 different editors in the last 12 hours, with similarly unproductive rants. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Rambling tirade? Rant? And you have the nerve to accuse me of argumentative behavior? You're literally acting like a dismissive bully. Point blank period.

You have the nerve to accuse me of being argumentative while you're disrespectful towards me completely unprovoked and rather than actually carefully reading what I write, react like some high schooler. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Uhh no. I was calling out the obvious bias and inability to be objective of the people who were basically running the Talk page like it was an anti-Trump club meeting. I guess you missed the countless number of baseless anti-Trump conspiracy theories, the completely unprovoked disrespect and dismissiveness towards anybody who questioned the prevailing narrative being pushed in that Talk section, and the overall complete lack of professionalism from people who are supposed to be objective.

And maybe I'm being "argumentative" because I don't appreciate being ganged up on having my name dragged through the mud by people who can't even own up to their own behavior or see a situation objectively.

I won't be returning to this page so don't bother responding to me or trying to get my attention on my Talk page. I've had just about enough of this kangaroo court you put me through. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that articles like the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory are so hopelessly filled with bad content and muddled topics that it is thoroughly impossible to go back and correct everything. This dispute was kicked off with a new NYT piece. I am issuing an open call to uninvolved editors to read that NYT piece, read the Biden Ukraine Conspiracy Theory page, and help make the relevant improvements. I can understand 24rhhtr7's frustration, even if I wouldn't phrase it the same way as they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This stuff is exactly why I've stuck largely to editing mainly uncontroversial historical pages and municipalities. It's amazing the behavior the very people trying to lecture me engage in regularly completely unprovoked. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of this case but there is a problem with that article and what it displaces, and extra questioning there is needed. The article should confine itself to "conspiracy theory" items but instead it is Wikipedia's main coverage of all of the real factual Hunter Biden Ukraine material from that era, thus having Wikipedia brand the latter as "conspiracy theory". And "groupthink" could be a part of the cause. North8000 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I share your concern. The Hunter Biden/laptop content doesn't belong in that article. It only belongs on his biography. If any of that material ever impinges on the topic of the conspiracy theory, THEN that content can be used there. Currently it just confuses people. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the editor for unacceptable comments like this one, but there are more, including "insanity and childish behavior displayed on that Talk page and in that entry" on their own talk page. I have not looked far enough into their history yet (it took me a while to clean up their posts here, which were done in installments that messed up chronology and indenting), but this already seems one of these cases between CIR and NOTHERE. North8000, Mr Ernie, poor article quality is not a justification for blatant name calling and violations of AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

On your latter points, I agree and did not imply otherwise. What's needed "there" is for somebody to start an article on the factual Hunter Biden Ukraine matters, fight off the people who will accuse it of being a fork, and than bring the two articles in line with their titles. But that's not my dance.North8000 (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I literally didn't say one bad thing to anybody unprovoked but yeah no you're totally objective.

Here's what I was responding to on my own talk page, by the way.

"They are personal attacks that only rebound upon yourself as you are obviously partisan. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. We're just people here."

The second time Valjean has called me partisan or a conspiracy theorist completely unprovoked. And I was more than civil in responding. If I were gonna insult any of you, you'd know it.

This is blatant hypocrisy and proof that some of you clearly aren't fit for your positions.

But whatever. You got your scalp. Congrats. I'm really impressed.

Thanks for reminding me exactly why I stay away from articles where people can't constructively work towards an accurate and factual entry, which sadly is many these days. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I posted a discretionary sanctions notification at your talk. You will be topic banned unless future comments focus on actionable proposals to improve the article, based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're literally dragging my name through the mud and putting me through a trial, and I can't defend myself? I can't point out how certain editors have engaged in exactly the kind of behavior they're accusing me of and worse or point out when somebody is very clearly not being objective about a situation where the evidence is there for everybody to see and/or says completely uncalled for and disrespectful things like "rambling tirade, unhinged, rant, conspiracy theorist" or accusing me of being partisan or argumentative while engaging in uncivil behavior towards me when I haven't ever said a single word to them? Really?

So basically everybody commenting here but me can be as disrespectful and biased and uncalled for as they like towards me and I should just take it and not defend myself or present a counter-argument or pick apart theirs with facts to back my claims up?

Do you literally ever hold these people accountable for their behavior? What they've said on that Talk page, on my own Talk page, and here is ten times worse than anything I did, and they did so completely unprovoked.

There's been multiple disrespectful comments and at least five Trump-Russia conspiracy theories added to that Talk page in the time I've been temp banned alone. Plan on doing literally anything about that? 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried whining about it yet? Evoke Heir (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm so impressed by how hardcore you are. I mean I totally haven't been around that energy you're sending at me completely unprovoked my whole life or anything. It's totally new and tough and hilarious in a completely original way.

Note how I've been civil while you're trying to grandstand on me and showing exactly your maturity level.

You know what's funny though? Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody. I've never had to talk that stuff a day in my life. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You think Real men don't have to try to grandstand on anybody is a WP:CIVIL comment? Paging Drmies... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Muboshgu, while I agree with you in substance, it's such a feckless comment that I am not sure it's worth continuing the tsuris. Just an outside thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With one feckless comment, I'd agree. But with a wall of them, it's a chronic issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention soibangla broke a rule against reverting edits three times and was merely warned, this on top of the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect they have directed at other editors who don't agree or point that out or make a general and largely civil comment this particular editor doesn't like.

or how the person warning him has been engaging in the exact same conspiracy theorizing and completely unprovoked disrespect towards the same people as soibangla and Valjean. 24rhhtr7 (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You've made your points and I can understand your frustration, but it would be more helpful to link to diffs where you believe other editors have been uncivil so it is easier for uninvolved passersby to verify. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7, I encourage you to demonstrate the many conspiracy theories this editor has posted and the unprovoked disrespect and that I have referenced nothing but opinion pieces[23]. If you cannot, I encourage you to retract. I am prepared to demonstrate many instances of your persistently disruptive and uncivil behavior that includes false or misleading assertions. soibangla (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There are other behavioral issues by other editors that need to be examined, as it is unfair to put singular focus on 24rhhtr7. At 24's talk page, Valjean writes "Don't make accusations of partisanship" directly before saying "you are obviously partisan." A few days ago on my talk page Valjean also writes that I am "extremist right-wing partisan warrior" and says my edits are vandalism, without bothering to include any diffs. There is also an edit warring complaint regarding Soibangla which no admin has bothered to respond to. I can understand why 24 feels singled out and unfairly targeted. Our policies and guidelines apply to all editors, so I would appreciate an even handed response by admins. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, if I mentioned an editor in a contentious ANI discussion, I'd ping them. But that's just me. soibangla (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I should have pinged you. Sorry for that. My thinking was that you were already aware of the edit warring noticeboard discussion. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

24rhhtr7's comments here literally suggest they are having a very hard time working in a collaborative atmosphere. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree and they need to take a step back. But we have very experienced editors who are also misbehaving in smarter and less obvious ways. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to bring those users up on the board, Mr Ernie--let's deal with em one at a time, and not fall for WHATABOUTISM. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Soibangla was reported here, but there are no admin responses yet. They all seem much more eager to upbraid the less experienced editor. I had hoped there could be appetite here to look at the simple diffs I provided here, as I dread AE. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ernie you have been around long enough to skip the Whataboutism aspersions. Any concerns, and you can gather your diffs and file a complaint. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ernie. Where is the same condemnation for these edits? It's certainly within the scope of this discussion. We shouldn't need to restart this process and frequently condemn multiple people when both sides are out of line. Buffs (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, that's whataboutism. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

 Note: 24rhhtr7 seems to have vanished into the ether after I asked him for evidence to back up his claims. I suspect his claims may actually be unfounded. Drmies, could you please block this user as WP:NOTHERE? Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose A break for ~2 days is hardly "vanished" and certainly doesn't meet the intent of WP:NOTHERE/warrant a block. I do not support his conclusions, but it's important for due process so we are consistent in our application of policy. That said, his editing history is sporadic. Buffs (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

My apologies. I was suspecting that I was a little hasty. Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to block someone right now for, essentially, not editing. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Xtreme o7 and Indian hate speech

Status:     Requires attention: Their reply may need additional action

• Xtreme o7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this hate speech against Indian people posted by Xtreme o7 at Talk:2019 Jammu and Kashmir airstrikes after it was mentioned by FoxtAl at the Teahouse. Clearly, there was an extensive dispute that led up to this, but this appears to constitute a personal attack that obviously crosses the line. Bsoyka (talk) 07:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Bsoyka (talk · contribs) Thank you for helping me. —FoxtAl (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah that's not ok. A sysop needs to have a word.—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• One and only warning issued. Stifle (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  It got a wonderful reply. Bsoyka (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to the level of anything actionable though. People may express what they perceive as bias... but if it becomes disruptive then admin action would be appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'd argue otherwise. I entirely agree that they can express their opinion on bias, but they responded to their only warning for racist remarks with... well, more racist remarks and personal attacks. (that Indian guy, suffering cus of guys like this) It's not quite as in-depth as their original comments, but I don't think this is deescalating much. Bsoyka (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

My own personal view is that it's better to let [trolls/hotheads/kids/fools] have the last word and hopefully end the conflict than it is to just block immediately as long as it's not egregious slurs or other WP:ZT situations. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I'm then curious to see how this will turn out in terms of continued behavior. Bsoyka (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of racism at WP:COIN

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

---

We could use some administrator eyes on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#ForTheScience_again given comments such as this and this. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: Baselessly accusing others of racism and vandalism; see the bottom of Special:Permalink/1078227271 and the latest edit summaries). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring the ref WP:PROMO across multiple pages is also a major problem, even if it wasn't accompanied with egregious personal attacks. El_C 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Pestering from Atlantico 000

Atlantico 000 (talk · contribs)

This user has started a number of RMs about Polish football clubs; I have expressed my views on the same, mostly in opposition. Now he won't leave me alone. Yesterday I asked him to "stop pestering me" - I logged back on this afternoon to six notifications, all from him - two talk page posts on my talk page and four pings at the RMs. I have now explicitly asked him to stop posting on my talk page or pinging me - 1, 2 - he has ignored me and instead said he will continue to post, despite my numerous requests for him not to! Please can somebody else intervene? A one-way interaction ban would be ideal if nobody can persuade him to stop... GiantSnowman 17:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Objection! He is a party to the discussion and I can ask him questions, ask for suggestions on pending cases. Btw. this user has a description called "if you need any help or have any queries, then please feel free to ask". Maybe it's time to change it since the user doesn't have time to be on the wiki? Marking him several times is not bothersome, because my every contact was substantive, and if GiantSnowman is wrong, it needs to be corrected! Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

If I have told you I have no interest in further discussion, that means I have no interest in further discussion and you should leave me alone. And also you just sent me another ping!. GiantSnowman 17:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Then stop writing to me in discussions and take part in discussions in which I participate, then I will not ping you, because you will not be a party to the discussion. Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. If editors comment on a discussion you started or are involved in, they are under no obligation to continue discussions with you, and you are not able to police whether or not they are 'allowed' to participate. I am becoming increasingly concerned about your competence. GiantSnowman 17:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not concerned about your competences at all, because I believe that you do not have them at all. You got a few mentions in the ongoing discussions (which you don't read - since you object to Stomil Olsztyn's name change in Ruch Zdzieszowice's name change discussion) and instead of substantive reference - you are looking for help in administration. Nobody tells you to reply to messages, but nobody tells you to keep busy being a party in discussions. You can skip them, because you do not bring substantive value there! Atlantico 000 (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

All the incivility aside, why are you pinging a user whose opinion you aren't interested in anyway? I have removed your comment from the "Tamale17" section below for now because it was yet another unwelcome response to GiantSnowman. And yes, Special:Mute/Atlantico 000 exists, but repeatedly pinging and sending talk page messages to users who have explicitly requested you not to do so is a form of harassment. Can you please retract the announcement from Special:Diff/1078254372, where you seem to say that you'll continue to do so? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote, the fact that I have pinged him a few times - is not a form of harassment, but a request for my views to be taken into account (here I will only indicate that GiantSnowman's incompetence may prevent some articles from being moved to the right place, since GiantSnowman does not read the talk page thoroughly). I never announced that I would write to GiantSnowman nonsensically, only that if there was a need to explain something with GiantSnowman as part of the discussions he is having with me, I will. Atlantico 000 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You're literally trying to pester him in another thread on this page. Also, stop the personal attacks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal: Atlantico 000 -> GiantSnowman

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

---

Proposal: Atlantico 000 is indefinitely banned from interacting with GiantSnowman.

• The discussion above is sufficient for me to propose and support this. It seems to be a necessary measure to prevent further incivility and harassment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but I’m pretty sure that Atlantico is on their way out of here anyway at this rate. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 19:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. If I see any further harassment from Atlantico 000, I intend to block that account. Cullen328 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, and I'd also support a block based on their harassment in another thread on this page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  (for the record, [24] had been reinstated in [25]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that, I'm on mobile right now, so copying multiple diffs is difficult. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  You should get yourself a better phone then. Atlantico 000 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Did you just when I wrote that I would not write to him anymore, because I don't feel the need (everything is explained), did you start a discussion to forbid me to write to him? Why should I write to him if he doesn't get in my way? XD And how is it supposed to be normal here. Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Clear harassment. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support harassment and incivility. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, especially after the section below. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, under the proviso that any break is immediately turned into a full block, as I have little faith that Atlantico 000 will abide by it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Not !voting, just noting there is a serious CIR issue. Had I stumbled across this before they were blocked and voting started, I would have been tempted to indef them for WP:DE and WP:CIR Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. I agree with Dennis that there is a CIR issue as well, and would support an indef. GiantSnowman 09:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, at a minimum this is required. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban proposal: GiantSnowman -> Atlantico 000

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

---

Proposal: GiantSnowman is indefinitely banned from interacting with Atlantico 000.

• The discussion above is sufficient for me to propose and support this. Inexplicable reporting, spoiling the atmosphere, inability to talk to others - this is what characterizes GiantSnowman. Atlantico 000 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked; feel free to unblock once the IBAN is through, as that will resolve a main concern. If Atlantico 000 agrees to abide to the ban, that is, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that they've been editing for two months, and what appears to be the first real content dispute they've gotten into resulted in their harassing another user. I think they should have to address that behavior before unblocking as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, their first response to the block was making fun of my username. Some people. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh! I hadn't seen their small response to our small discussion above yet either. They've really been throwing incivility around and around. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Atlantico 000 is the aggressive party here, and seems to lack the collaborative skills to be a positive contributor to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:2600:1004:B1E6:2C27:B97B:5EB6:5D3F/40 disrupting various BLPs

Moved from WP:BLPN

2600:1004:B1E6:2C27:B97B:5EB6:5D3F:601C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

See the following:

• (T·E·H·L·R) Luc Montagnier [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]
• (T·E·H·L·R) Chaz Bono (cannot link to the 10 diffs during an edit war on 18 March as they were all suppressed)
• (T·E·H·L·R) Rod Stewart (cannot link to the 2 diffs on 18 March as they were both suppressed)
• (T·E·H·L·R) Reggie White [31]

Non-BLP disruption over same time span:

• (T·E·H·L·R) Window [32]
• (T·E·H·L·R) Interstate 270 (Missouri–Illinois) [33]
• (T·E·H·L·R) Talk:CNN Center (single edit suppressed with edit summary removed on 16 March)

As an aside, this /40 is also rangeblocked from editing Talk:Race and intelligence and User talk:Stonkaments until 2023. [34] After this thread here at ANI back in June 2021.

Why keep this /40 range? I propose at the very least a temp range-block to prevent this continued disruption. This IP range is creating a significant burden of work for editors while contributing very little to the overall encyclopedia. If one is to examine their contribution history, the non-reverted edits are mostly small neutral changes [35] [36] [37] [38] or later heavily revised changes [39] which do not improve the project. If this is better suited for ANI, let me know and I will happily move it over there. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC) (edited 17:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC))

The Chaz Bono and Rod Stewart edits are from WP:Long-term abuse/CalebHughes (or some copycat; it doesn't really matter). Unfortunately; CH uses some other ranges. I doubt the other edits are CH. The same range is used by 16ConcordeSSC; I don't think they've been active in the last few days, but the partial block on 2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/41 is ever-growing. zzuuzz is familiar with both users, and wizzito might want to comment about 16ConcordeSSC.

I don't know what the best step is now. A Verizon Wireless /40 or /41 (or even /44) range might cover hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of customers. A block allowing account creation certainly won't slow down CH, but it might cut down on some of the other crud. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I typed all that thinking I was looking at ANI; perhaps this should be moved there? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm happy to move it to ANI, it will certainly get more eyes there! Will do it right now — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

One idea I had was this: can we pend changes for this range, forever? Is that a thing? That would solve so many of these problems. I just don't know if it's technically feasible, since pending changes are usually applied to a page, not a user. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not possible, currently. WP:Deferred changes, if it were ever implemented, would allow this, but my understanding is that the PC extension is such a mess that no one wants to touch it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that's a shame. But I get why it's dormant, looks like a technical nightmare. My other thought was a partial block against all BLPs, but i think this is probably also not technically feasible, since "BLP" is not a technical category as far as I can ascertain? (i.e. not a namespace) I know it is a category in the edit filter (sort of duct taped together), but idk if it is in the block system.... Maybe we could just advocate for a partial block against the BLPs this range has disrupted thus far, for a long period if not indefinite? As, at the very least, a stop gap measure? I do not see any legitimate edits to any of these BLP articles in some time. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It's technically possible to create a filter stopping a certain range from editing any page in Category:Living people. But, such a broad filter would be the worst option IMO; unlike with blocks and protections, people don't discover that their edit is disallowed until after they've clicked "publish". If they've just spent 30 minutes hunting down references, or struggling to get a table to format correctly, that can be really irritating. A filter would need to be much more targeted to cut down on false positives. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• This recent SPI case involving the IP range may also be relevant: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gardenofaleph/Archive#Gardenofaleph. In closing, GeneralNotability stated: I have blocked Gardenofaleph and will be keeping an eye on the /40 - their behavior does not currently justify the collateral damage in blocking the /40, but if I do have to block it I will. Pinging them in case they're interested in the current discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I sadly think that this is a case similar to when a block on 2607:fb90::/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) was needed; there was persistent vandalism from users on that range, including from one LTA, and now the range is blocked both globally and on here for years. wizzito | say hello! 18:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

As another example with the same ISP (Verizon Wireless), 2600:1000:B040:0:0:0:0:0/42 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is currently CU-blocked due to an LTA. This is apparently the subnet for the Boston, Massachusetts area and it affects millions, but the block is apparently needed here to stop this LTA. wizzito | say hello! 18:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Just some extra context.. I am already monitoring the 'CH' situation very closely. It is not one of their usual ranges, hence the edits only go back a short time. I'm also monitorig the 16ConcordeSSC situation, which has calmed down. I feel it's important to point out that there are lots of other users on the range, and my opinion remains that there's going to be a lot of collateral from a range block. I'm afraid I don't buy the 'contributing very little' argument. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Zzuuzz I appreciate your careful input and attention to this. And I agree the rangeblock is probably overkill. I was being rash in my statement that the range is "contributing very little." My apologies. If there is any way we could figure out to prevent this disruption, even if it's just protecting all these BLPs that they're disrupting with a lower threshold, that would be very helpful to me and to the project. But truly if you have any other ideas that are better suited for this situation, I would be happy to hear them as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate it can sometimes looks like the admins are doing very little. For simplicity, let's talk about the /40. You need to divide the disruption into at least five parts: 1) The 'race and intelligence' person, who is topic banned, and I'm not aware of any recent relevant disruption; 2) The '16ConcordeSSC' person, who has been quiet since the last actions taken against them (possibly because they're effective?); 3) The 'CalebHughes' person who used the range to vandalise two BLPs for 23 minutes, a few days ago. This is an unusual technical signature, and I can assure you I'm keeping a close eye on that; 4) The 'Luc Montagnier' editor. I don't know how much of a drive-by those edits were, but they appear to be drive-by and unrelated to much. The article is currently semi-protected for a year. 5) The rest. We are left with, apparently, mainly non-BLP edits without any structure or pattern to target, likely because it's different users. It is this fifth category that is outstanding. I appreciate not all of the edits are constructive, but that can be said of a lot of ranges. Anyway, I've had the opportunity to look at this range (and at least one of the LTAs) in some depth, but I'm not the only admin in town so don't want to monopolise the response. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Rhetoric

Can some admin convince Dsnb07 to tone down the rhetoric-laden battleground attitude (1, 2, 3 etc.) before I drag them to AE for a TBan. Admin Regents Park warned them twice and Admin Abecedare left another round of sage advice but they had little appreciable effect. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, they are trolling us but I won't have minded as long as a certain threshold of disruption in content-space (article and talk) wasn't breached. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the number of notes and warnings they have received and the persistence of disruption, I have topic-banned the user from all Kashmir-related pages and discussions. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban is unilateral and I should have given a notice to put my POV. Abecedare has mentioned on my talk page that he is uninvolved admin whereas S/he has certain point of view on topic and have beed involved on editing. Dsnb07 (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs to prove their involvement? If not, you're likely to end up with worse sanctions for casting aspersions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

1. What you claim as trolling was a reply to what (log) was reply to Kautilya3 accusation and I quote him "Your knowledge of Kashmir topics is minimal. Please don't act like you are the master of the universe."
   1. Was that not trolling TrangaBellam by Kautilya3? Will you act now that its bough to your attention?
   2. Am not allowed to respectfully answer Kautilya3's question bullying (if I say so)?
2. What do you mean by they are trolling us?
   1. I am alone and not work in any group. Can you please clarify on us? Dsnb07 (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

      You have set your pronoun to "they". And wiki-etiquette demands that I respect your personal preference for pronouns. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

      TrangaBellam My question was "Can you please clarify on us?" and not on they - I had already replied on on they. Dsnb07 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Abecedare Please check my pointed reply to TrangaBellam and let me know where I am wrong.
2. Also on personal note, a sincere apologies for my previous reply, I was expecting a fair space to put my point forward before a ban and ban was least expected from you ( because I admired you for trying to give space to people). so I replied in emotional whim. Sorry again and hope you understand.

Dsnb07 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam Where my tone was wrong or rhetoric later in 1, 2, 3 etc. (mentioned by you)? Please see my reply on context (and as whole) and if you still find it so please point me to exact line. Dsnb07 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Dsnb07, there really is no point arguing the issue with TrangaBellam. Since I am the admin who imposed the sanction, you can ask me about anything I said in the sanction notice or file an appeal at WP:AN or WP:AE as I explained on your talkpage.

I am loath to do so myself, but perhaps this section at ANI can now be closed since any next step would have to be at WP:AN or WP:AE. Abecedare (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Abecedare now that I brought Kautilya3's accusation (or bullying, if I say so) in your kind attention , what is your POV? Dsnb07 (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:NOTTHEM. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry, but per WP:NOTTHEM you cannot excuse poor conduct on your part with equally poor conduct from another user, even if such was the trigger for it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 04:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TheDragonFire300 Sir Thanks for understanding and your reply. I did not troll him I replied stating my background around topic i.e. Kashmir and its history. I am still not sure "how it is trolling" and it will be great If someone helps me to understand the same. Dsnb07 (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dsnb07 might be relevant. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

BilledMammal

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

---

Discussion

First of all, I apologise for the length of this entry. This case has already been raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm and it was found that I had barked up the wrong tree, which is fair enough, as far as Störm is concerned (I have apologised to Störm). Even so, both Shibbolethink and Lugnuts stated that BilledMammal may indeed be a sock, but probably not a sock of Störm. The sysops involved, RoySmith and Blablubbs, commented separately that behavioural evidence needs evaluation and suggest taking it to ANI. The purpose of this ANI is to request that BilledMammal is blocked indefinitely for WP:DE, WP:HARRASS, WP:CIR, WP:GAMING, WP:WL and, although the sockmaster is unknown, WP:SOCK.

The BilledMammal account was opened on 24 April 2019 and the first edit was published same day. This was a new article, created in one edit and displaying instant knowledge of drafting, image parms, linkage, ref name, cite news, cite web, citation parameters, article structure, heading formats, and reflist. He even knew not to include categories in a draft. Only 31 edits were done until 6 December 2019 when the account became a sleeper for nearly 18 months until it was resurrected on 18 May 2021. In the ten months since then, over 7,500 edits have been done but only a mere 29% of them are mainspace because this editor spends so much time in forums and the like where, despite his apparent lack of experience, he has such a lot to say about policies, guidelines, procedures and so on.

In those first 31 edits, he twice opened AfD cases and knew exactly how to go about it. I find that surprising, to say the least. In the first one, he displayed familiarity with WP:CORP, WP:BEFORE, WP:SIGCOV and WP:PRIMARY. He even knew how to include the case in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. In the second one, just before he left us for 18 months, he cites WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, writing with confidence about whether the subject qualifies for the latter. Again, he apparently performed a BEFORE and knew which deletion discussions would be interested.

BilledMammal returned on 18 May 2021 and, editing fairly regularly, made about 100 contribs to 27 May and then disappeared again. He was back on 19 June and immediately returned to AfD. Apart from short breaks, he has been a regular editor for the last nine months during which he has been using AfD and other forums as a deletionist.

In July, BilledMammal opened this ANI discussion and began by saying: I was regrettably unaware of this forum. Fortunately, one of the editors at AFD was kind enough to point me in the right direction. I find it strange that someone who was so obviously comfortable with AfD and other WP concepts had never heard of ANI. He seems to have been at home in ANI as he proceeded to outline his case. Soon afterwards, some of his edits there had to be permanently deleted because he made alterations to change message context and invalidate another editor's responses. He was full of apologies, of course, and finished by asserting: I am relatively new to Wikipedia myself, and am only here after being directed by an editor at the AFD that I was in the wrong forum. Are there guides in regards to submissions on these pages that I can read? I searched for them before posting, but unfortunately could not find any. Again, it is very strange that someone so well-versed in AfD and other site concepts should have such difficulty with ANI and finding useful guides.

BilledMammal appears to have stayed clear of sport until posting this revert on 22 January this year. He then began an argument about canvassing with Cbl62 and, despite his supposed inexperience, was talking throughout as if it was anything but new to him: for example, this, and so on. As a follow up, he goes to the VP and raises a fuss about canvassing there. This becomes something of an obsession with him – it seems he cannot bear to have other people knowing about something he wants to change or challenge in case they oppose him.

Two days later, having made several edits at the NSPORTS rfc and related pages, he arrives at Lugnuts' talk page for the first time with an AfD and this becomes a flood. Eventually, Lugnuts had to issue this complaint about hounding and stalking. Even so, BilledMammal has continued to post unwanted messages at Lugnuts' page. It seems very strange to me that someone with only 7,500 edits can claim to be so much more competent than someone with well over 1 million edits.

An example of BilledMammal's animosity towards Lugnuts is this proposal at ANI on 3 February. Remember that this is someone with relatively few edits and, of those, only 29% are in mainspace (so, WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE?), running the rule over one of the main builders of the encyclopaedia. It seems incongruous that BilledMammal is referring to something in 2020, a year in which he did not make one single edit. I would suggest that his sock master almost certainly did, of course. How can an "inexperienced editor" know so much that they could even consider making such a proposal? I opened my account only a couple of months before BilledMammal and have done over 50,000 edits, which means I am considerably more experienced than he is through the same timespan, but I'm not sure if I would be confident about making a proposal like that even now – I doubt if I would even think about "wikicode that doesn't impact the rendered page". If I see something that needs correcting, I just do it, page rendering or not. It's quite bizarre and it's definitely harrassment to try and sanction someone for performing WP:GNOME activity.

On 9 February, BilledMammal created this AfD involving some 31 sportspeople and the result was a procedural keep. It is just one example of his activity in recent weeks and it was a complete waste of everyone's time. In the past, other users have been sanctioned for doing precisely this same thing – creating a flood of entries at AfD, wasting people's time, and annoying many editors. Actions like these give rise to concerns of WP:CIR and, since Lugnuts was obviously being targeted here, WP:HARRASS.

Another CIR issue has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi where BilledMammal has used WP:NOTDATABASE as his primary reason to delete the article. This amounts to WP:GAMING as an abuse of process. NOTDATABASE is a component of WP:NOT and it concerns the context, structure and usage of the article, not the sourcing. He has already been blocked by Bishonen for abuse of process in October 2021. He was warned about his attitude by GoodDay in this discussion and, in this message to the project concerned, GoodDay summarises BilledMammal's attitude very well.

During the last seven days, at WP:RSN, BilledMammal was accused by other parties of harassment towards Ebergerz following this unwarranted accusation on the 17th. This again arose from the obsession with canvassing and it is not the only problem he has caused in that discussion. As a result, he was warned about disruptive editing and harassment by Guy Macon.

At the SPI, Shibbolethink rightly commented: they are certainly very disruptive, and did come into several spaces already with a huge amount of wiki-lawyering knowledge and then that My inclination is to suspect that BilledMammal may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm. I would be in favor of a CU. In response, Lugnuts said: "...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. RoySmith stated that: Behavioural evidence needs evaluation and Blablubbs suggested that the case should be taken to ANI.

BilledMammal, whether he is a WP:SOCK or not, is unquestionably a WP:DE who indulges in WP:HARRASS. He is WP:NOTHERE and adds no value to the project, especially as there are additional concerns about WP:CIR, WP:GAMING and WP:WL. Whatever limited pros there might be are completely wiped out by the overwhelming avalanche of cons and I contend that the account must be blocked indefinitely.

Again, I apologise for the length of this entry. If you have any questions, please ping me. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

My brief encounters with BM, gave me the impression that he argues for the enjoyment of arguing. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support block - This editor has been a huge headache in a few different places.

1. First, on WP:NCNZ [40], this editor campaigned to remove a paragraph from the page regarding dual names (successfully, I must admit) but now is also interested in removing any such mention from the infoboxes of any pages. When several editors informed them that there was consensus against this, they stated repeatedly that they will advance it to an RFC despite any such consensus. @Turnagra noted "As mentioned on that page, that RFC leaves a poor taste in my mouth. It seems in very poor form to wait until a consensus is emerging against your view to open an RFC in another location without any prior discussion of such an idea." BilledMammal replied, in part: "from the start I had believed an RFC would be required."
2. BilledMammal has been blocked previously (48h) for filing vexatious complaints against editors they disagreed with. [41]
3. Other editors (notably, @Nableezy) are suspicious the editor is a sock [42]
4. Adding last reply and closing a discussion in one stroke is never a good look [43] (and this is another editor accusing BilledMammal of harassment and failure to AGF)
5. A long history of calling others "involved" "canvassed" when they disagree with the user. [44]

Overall, I actually think BilledMammal has been uniquely disruptive in a number of different areas of the wiki (sex/gender, sports, new zealand naming, skepticism/pseudoscience). I think they actually are a generally nice demeanor editor (perhaps rising to even WP:CPUSH - See what @GoodDay has said above). My impression is that they are, in general, a nice enough person, but that they are arguing quite a lot in a WP:BATTLE-like fashion. I think a temporary block would be ideal to prevent future disruption and show that this behavior needs to be heavily reconsidered if they are to remain a productive editor moving forward. I am suspicious that they are a SOCK, but I don't have more than the circumstantial evidence presented here to go off of, and I don't personally think that's enough for an indef SOCK block. But it shows the editor should tread carefully, regardless. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to clarify two things. First, for #1, on NCNZ the current proposal that some editors believe there is a consensus for is to use only the dual name in the infobox and the lede, excluding both individual names even when one is the article title. My position is that we should use the dual names and individual names similar to how they are used at Uluru. Second, for #5, my concern there wasn't WP:INVOLVED but WP:CANVASS, and I wasn't the only editor to have that concern.

Beyond that, though it is not my intent, and I believe most of the specific concerns raised are inaccurate, it is clear that in general how I engage in discussion is not ideal, and even if this discussion is closed without action I will take any criticism onboard and attempt to adjust my behaviour to address it. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Duly noted wrt INVOLVED vs CANVAS, and I have corrected my comment to reflect that! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Too long and not well organized, but I did read. Just want to address one point in this post. The "evidence" you've posted is useless for the purpose of blocking him as a sockpuppet. There are legitimate reasons why people have more experience than they should for a new account. Lost account. WP:FRESHSTART, etc. Socking is about abusive use of the two+ accounts and I'm not seeing clear evidence in what you are presenting. They aren't as new as their edit count indicates, but that isn't proof of violating policy by itself. And also, this is NOT WP:SPI. Yes, we will block obvious socks here from time to time, but for cases that require deep analysis, you have to go to SPI. I clerked SPI for some time, blocking many hundreds of socks (300 in one case, which is still the record), and I couldn't block based on this. The rest of this needs looking at, just not now by me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Dennis, but it has been to SPI and the suspected master was not guilty (see above). I doubt if we will now prove WP:SOCK so I'd rather prioritise the other concerns. If you should be right about lost account, etc., I must ask why BM hasn't declared that on his user page as required. He does say in his first ANI, as quoted above, that he is a new editor. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Many freshstarts may say they are new editors, meaning their account is new. That isn't so uncommon. It's how you use the language and doesn't always imply deceit. If this has been to SPI, rehashing the evidence is pretty useless because we are always going to say "take it to SPI", so it muddies up the report is all, and actually hurts your chances of getting enough eyes. Reports need to be concise, with diffs, clearly (and briefly) explaining the problem, and preferably, suggesting a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Most of this just seems to be complaining about an editor who has played a part in discussions with outcomes you disagree with, rather than actual disruptive behavior. The two+ whole paragraphs devoted to his "hounding Lugnuts" just boil down to Lugnuts objecting to the automatic AfD notices generated by Twinkle--which he should honestly be expecting given he created an enormous proportion of the microstubs on non-notable athletes--and BilledMammal not having the "builder status" you think is necessary to propose a (unanimously supported and enacted) sanction against Lugnuts.

Plenty more experienced editors have bundled sportspeople in AfDs that are procedurally kept with "no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages".

And then there's the active AfD you link where "the CIR problem" seems to be his invoking NOTDATABASE...for a microstub on a GNG-failing, NSPORT-failing subject that is exclusively sourced to databases. That argument doesn't seem incongruent with To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

The CANVAS issue highlighted was regarding one oppose editor leaving non-neutral RfC notices at projects where members were absolutely expected to !vote oppose in large numbers, and then repeating this. That is totally in the realm of WP:CANVAS.

And I find it pretty ironic to on the one hand label a question I am curious how you discovered this RFC; I notice you have very few edits on this Wikipedia (most are on the Spanish Wikipedia) and you have never participated in formal discussions here, nor have you participated in Wikipedia-space here as an "unwarranted accusation" while on the other make very similar accusations here toward BilledMammal.

I have no input on whether they're a sock, but if the only evidence is that they had precocious familiarity with wiki mechanics then I think CUs would be orders of magnitude busier processing all the accounts fitting that description. JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Joelle summed it up nicely and said most of what I was going to say. No Great Shaker seems to be the one with a battleground mentality here, viewing normal disagreements and interactions as personal attacks and even stalking. The complaints are all over the place but most of these diffs seem pretty normal; they're only objectionable if you believe that mass stub creation is productive and stub deletion is disruptive, a position that has been rejected by the community. One exception would be this which seems to be a personal attack/preemptive canvassing by GoodDay. –dlthewave ☎ 04:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  There is no policy against stubs. In fact, we have a guideline which describes stubs and implicitly approves their existence. Seeking to have a stub deleted solely because it is a stub is disruptive, and you're spreading misinformation by claiming that the community has taken a contrary position. Mlb96 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, there is no policy against stubs. But as dlthewave references, the community has sanctioned an editor participating in this discussion from creating sub-stubs, because the community not only felt it obnoxious that the editor was creating many thousands of them without showing any interest in improving them, but kept on doing so after being warned against the practice and promising not to do it any more. Me giving you a light punch in the arm might or might not be a problem. Long before I'd delivered more than nine thousand of them, you'd rightfully have me up on assault charges. Ravenswing 15:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I thought there were a few oddities in the account, so asked if it was their first account, and have accepted their answer and not been inclined to look into it further. I remain disinclined. nableezy - 05:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'll add my full thoughts later, but I thought it important to point out that newbies aren't always clueless, nor should we expect them to. Expecting newbies to be socks if they do what we expect them to (read and understand our PAGs before contributing) seems counter-intuitive to me. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  @A. C. Santacruz I think you're in general right, and your logic is sound here. But the added part is the rest of the behavior of a new editor. As I said, it's not enough in this case. But just for other situations in the future, if a new user is doing precocious things, yes that is on its own not enough to declare a SOCK. But it certainly is a contributing feature in an overall sock-like picture. See: WP:PREC. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Shibbolethink, I agree with you, I just thought I'd point it out since some of Macon's phrasing made it seem like BM possibly being a sock (I'm assuming they're not until proven otherwise) directly followed the axiom that they are a new editor.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note that BilledMammal specifically challenged me to take them to ANI[45] but I declined to do so.

Re: "He was warned about disruptive editing and harassment by Guy Macon", it seems self-evident that the accuser needs to actually provide evidence that [A] someone is a member of a particular group, and [B] that that group has been canvassing. BilledMammal provided no evidence for either claim other than that they are a new editor, that they found an RfC that was widely publicized,[46] and in essence that BilledMammal somehow just knows that GSoW members have been stealth canvassing. No evidence required. [47]

Even if we ignore the many reasons why someone might legitimately start using a new username, Ebergerz has been editing in skeptical areas since 12 Aug 2019, mostly on commons, wikidata, and en.wikipedia.org.

Likewise, all of the evidence in the recent Arbcom case points to GSoW carefully avoiding behavior such as canvassing and Arbcom chose to not place any special restrictions of GSoW members. It is likely that GSoW members are also interested in Wikipedia pages related to skepticism and would watch such pages. Skeptical Inquirer is listed in the following templates:

Templates

Also strange: changing "The editor BilledMammal has expressed a concern that Ebergerz has been canvassed to this discussion" to "An editor has expressed a concern that Ebergerz has been canvassed to this discussion"[48] Why try to hide who "expressed a concern"?

So what is to be done? IMO BilledMammal's harassment of Ebergerz justifies no more than a 30 day block, and I would be fine with 3 days. I will leave it to others to evaluate the other areas discussed in this case and decide what the response to all of the reported behavior should be. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk)

Guy Macon Alternate Account, the fact that Skeptical Inquirer's article is linked in templates does not mean that the RSN thread is being widely publicized. Additionally, I see no link from the SI article to the RSN thread. Although fluent in Spanish I am unable to find an es-wiki equivalent to RSN, and Ebergerz's Wikipedia space contributions in es wiki do not show them participating actively in such source discussions. Their only contributions to RSN here are to the SI discussion, and the only other edit in Wikipedia space here is related to this thread ([49] xtools ec]). I don't see the canvassing concern as unrealistic nor do I see expressing that concern as disruptive. The discussion following the concern, which really should've happened on a user page or in the discussion section of the RfC, probably did more to railroad the discussion than just placing the template, in my opinion. In any case, I don't see anything as sanctionable here and I think it's probably best if we can all get back to the RSN thread as soon as possible rather than litigating this whole issue without having a user talk page discussion beforehand. As always, reasonable minds may differ. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz Is there a specific reason for which you are omitting to mention the fact that I explicitly explained that I followed the ArbCom case and that as I've used SI as a source dozens of times I keep an eye on this discussions precisely because SP WP does not have a list of reliable sources as such, so we tend to use the english one, and this time I decided to finally participate? [50] After which BM continued to demand evidence and an explanation from my side, instead of providing any themselves. [51]. As I've mentioned elsewhere, By this reasoning any user who is new to the formal discussions and is judged to be part of GSoW (or any other group) has to be by default canvassed and would seem that there is no chance that said user could have a legitimate interest in the discussion. So, if a user is new to this discussions (myself in this case) is not judged to be part of GSoW, then there is no reason to believe they are canvassed by GSoW, but if they are judged to be part of GSoW (or any other group), then immediately the conclusion is that they have been canvassed. And it would seem no evidence is needed to back that claim. Such logic seems a bit circular to me. With this shifted burden of proof and circular logic, what defense would remain for me or any other such user? What sort of evidence could possibly be be exculpatory? Should I remain forever excluded from any such discussion because I never participated in one before?Ebergerz (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ebergerz the short answer is that due to multiple SI articles [52][53] talking about how GSoW purposefully repeatedly inserts citations of SI with a promotional agenda (This style of editing can be used to improve the exposure of publications like Skeptical Inquirer as well.), there are understandable concerns from many editors (myself included) that GSoW would try to coordinate in order to affect discussions on the reliability of SI towards a consensus of higher reliability on the source than would have been reached otherwise. In my opinion you saying that you use SI as a source dozens of times and followed the Arbcom case only adds to the concern that you were canvassed as a possible member of GSoW. Notwithstanding, that wouldn't have mattered if you and Macon hadn't continued to demand discussion on the issue in public noticeboards rather than discuss it in a user's page or in the discussion area of the RfC. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, so that is why, in your opinion, no evidence was needed to back up the accusation of me being canvassed: If I give no answer, I'm canvassed, and if I explain exactly why I know about the RFC, and why it is of interest for me, then I'm under even more suspicion of being canvassed. Also if I'm reading your reply correctly, if only I had stay put, and not argued with an accusation with no evidence to back it up, then somehow "that wouldn't have mattered". Again, you seem to also subscribe to the faulty logic I described before: If you are judged to be a member of GSoW then you are canvased, no evidence needed (and no defense is possible either). You seem to forget that the ArbCom case evaluated such claims of coordination to affect discussions, and found no evidence of such practice (and as has been mentioned by Guy before, they found plenty evidence of the opposite). Ebergerz (talk) 16:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ebergerz I personally have been convinced by the arguments raised and so do not see the point in more evidence being shared that there is a possibility you were canvassed. You as the target of the accusation obviously will seek court-proof evidence you actually have been. It's not that I think no evidence was needed to back up the accusation, is that we differ in how we are interpreting BM's template and thus have different reactions. You could have literally just commented "I am not a GSoW member nor have I been canvassed here" and we'd all have to take that at face value (WP:AGF) and so the closer would have just noted that and moved on. RfCs are not a vote and the panel of closers will judge the merits of arguments in favor or against SI's reliability. Your comment was not even about SI! You [didn't] have much to add to the discussion above except your own vague opinion on others' arguments, which really won't affect the closers' judgement as it is their opinion and not yours that counts. This whole ANI case and the RSN discussion are all just a group of editors making a big shadow out of a small figure that is much less serious than you and Macon are making it out to be. That's what I mean by it wouldn't have mattered. Y'all could've just taken a less public, less aggressive path to discussing this whole affair and it would've stayed as a minute subthread to the RfC, but as y'all have insisted on going to the dramaboard there are now dozens of editors analyzing your contributions and asking themselves if they think GSoW editors have been canvassed (which really hadn't been much of a publicly discussed concern at the RfC before). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz I find quite ironic the reference to the "dramaboard" and to discussions that "are all just a group of editors making a big shadow out of a small figure that is much less serious than you... are making it out to be." coming from you. Regarding the analyzing of my contributions, I have nothing to hide, not had ever had anything to hide. And of course, I don't take well to being aggressively accused of false things with no evidence ("more"? there was not any presented). In other matters I tend to very much avoid aggressive discussions and favor respectful argumentations to seek agreement. As you seem to be fluent in spanish, you could check it is so in the talk pages for some articles I've been involved in. But I'll stop here, as this thread is getting out of topic. Ebergerz (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: "You could have literally just commented 'I am not a GSoW member nor have I been canvassed here' ", they did declare that they were not canvassed. Repeatedly. As for declaring non-membership, WP:OUTING is clear: do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information.

And yes, being asked to reveal personal details like where you work or what organization you have joined is definitely covered by our outing policy. Refusing to answer when you are not a member helps shield those who refuse to answer when they are members.

Also, there are good reasons why one would not want their GSoW membership revealed. See the case of Narendra Dabholkar. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I can see a clear commitment from BM to change their communication style, earlier in this thread. The rest belongs at SPI.—S Marshall T/C 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

BM - sock or no sock. Whatever you're doing, if it's annoying an increasing number of editors? then it's best to stop. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Lodge the complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz

Place you complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Dates fit. Targeting Nableezy is shared with Icewhiz. Just look at BilledMammal's top edited talk pages: Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes and Talk:2021 Israel–Palestine crisis are Palestine. Talk:Łódź is Poland.219.89.87.76 (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that I'm not the only person whose mind this had crossed. Being anti-NSPORTS was another Icewhiz trait, but doing a load of mass edits, then editing an IP article shortly after passing the 500 edit mark is often a giveaway. Number 57 11:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

If BM is a sock, we will need to re-visit the recent NSPORTS RfC given they were a significant contributor. GiantSnowman 11:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be a completely undue action due to the wide participation and length of discussion. Stop trying to re-litigate the RfC, GiantSnowman. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not, and your assertion that I am is incredibly ABF. Clearly, when discounting BM's arguments and contributions at the RfC, the consensus will not remain the same, even if the overall eventual outcome does. GiantSnowman 11:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is, like, the Platonic ideal of looking for reasons to relitigate a discussion whose outcome you didn't like. --JBL (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that the topic overlap is significant enough to indicate being the same editor (unless Icewhiz is South African, which is something I don't know), and there are so many "anti-NSPORTS" editors that I don't see that as a particularly significant smoking gun. What do you mean by "IP article" Number 57? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That’ll be Israel/Palestine, I expect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense, Malcolmxl5. In any case, perhaps this is best discussed at SPI? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, also the WP:CPUSH demeanor fits Icewhiz, as someone who has had a very long time to fit their comments to the "nice guy", even enough to become an admin as a sock! Totally support an WP:SPI. But it needs to be carefully examined. Any witch-hunt like process which prematurely blocks BM would only further serve Icewhiz's intent to disrupt the wiki. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Never expected anything like this. I'm struggling for time right now but I'll certainly take this forward when I can. Thank you very much to 219.89.87.76. Also to Number 57, GiantSnowman, Malcolmxl5 and A._C._Santacruz. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the new SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Closed [54] - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (BilledMammal)

• Oppose The above is acting like Lugnuts is a net postive to the encyclopedia and needs to be protected. He is a net negative. He has been banned from creating small articles because he flooded Wikipedia with literally thoudsands. Billed is one of the few editors who has shown a willingness to run the gamut of harrassment and road blocking Lugnuts puts in the way of those who seek to remove his huge excessive number of permstub articles that do not in any way approach being biographies. If we find it surprising that new editors do AfD right, we really need to consider making AfD a simpler process, because its pure difficulty is one reason we have articles that have existed for over 15 years with no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

"He is a net negative." - Lambert please retract your egregious personal attack. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Johnpacklambert are you opposing the block proposed above or taking the complaint to SPI? Because the latter is not something you can actually oppose. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I was trying to oppose the proposed block. I figured if I reached the bottom of the section that was connected with the complaint, it would be a good place to place it. Which made sense because there was so much wall of text here, and I did not realize there were sub-sections.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Johnpacklambert, it's not at all clear to me what it is you think that you're opposing above, but you have added your statement to a thread suggesting that BM is a sock of Icewhiz, an editor who has been globally banned by the foundation for, amongst other things, doxxing and off-wiki harassment. I have no comment to make on this particular case at present, but I can assure you with my CU hat on that Lugnuts is the regular target of at least two LTAs with a penchant for harassment; I hope that you and I can agree that all users need to be protected from people like that, whether or not we like them or their editing style. I'll go further than that though: I think that your assertion that Lugnuts is a net negative to the project is unnecessary and distasteful; you are under two separate editing restrictions yourself, does that make you a net negative? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Girth Summit: Whatever situation Lugnuts might be in (including the one of being sanctioned by the community for some of their bad habits), that doesn't give anyone the right to people to make exaggerated claims at the Dramaboard in an attempt to get rid of philosophical opponents (and the fact that Icewhiz also had an "anti-NSPORTS" view is borderline an ad Hitlerum - guilt by association) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    That's an egregious accusation of bad faith editing, RandomCanadian. I'm not sure who it's aimed at, but it surely can't be Lugnuts, whose only comment to this thread is to complain (reasonably, in my view) about being insulted. Sniping at one another at ANI will not hope resolve this. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Girth Summit: WTF? I was just pointing out the obvious fact that this is just a continuation of a previous dispute (one which you are probably aware of), which has been exaggerated out of proportion at the Dramaboard (something which doesn't require any bad-faith, and happens far too often in any case - often time just as a natural consequence of what the Dramaboard is), and that being on opposing sides of a dispute does not give anyone (read "no exceptions") the right to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    No, I am not aware of any previous dispute. However, if one were to accuse someone of being the sock of a globally banned LTA because you were in dispute with them, and not because you genuinely believed that they were such a sock, I would most consider that to be bad faith editing of the worst kind. That seems to be what you are saying is happening here - have I misunderstood you? Girth Summit _(blether) 16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    Oh, well, in that case, without the context, the confusion might be understandable. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#NSPORTS_closure_review and related threads. I still find it an uncannily convenient coincidence that this thread was opened at this time in light of that context... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not sure whether or not I am confused (is that meta-confusion?). Are you, or are you not, suggesting that the person who started this thread has accused BM of being Icewhiz not because they had a good-faith concern that they were the same person, but because they wanted to win a dispute about NSPORTS? I'm not calling on you to agree that the suspicions are well-founded - you're welcome to reject them as a load of old rubbish in your assessment - but you should be clear about what, if anything, you are accusing people of. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

    I might be confused myself, but wasn't it just yesterday that the OP was convinced that BM was a sockpuppet of Störm, instead? At least enough to file a SPI complaint to that effect. While we're talking about clarity of accusations. Ravenswing 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'll just note that the CIR stuff about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi is patent nonsense (and, on top of that, the article was indeed deleted for failing WP:NOT, so...). That obviously puts this into perspective. I guess BM might have been a bit abrasive in their recent actions, but looks like they have accepted some of it needs to change. Disagreeing over the technical interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is not CIR; and taking the literal wording of something and ignoring the spirit of it is not recommended either (much less so when used to argue somebody else is incompetent), but that's another issue.
• As to the "deletionist" issue with Lugnuts, BM wouldn't be the first person to have a fundamental disagreement over this with Lugnuts and some other editors. The inclusionist vs deletionist debate is not something that's going to be resolved by dumping bad epithets on others at the Dramaboard, anyways. Unless there's any substance to the SPI complaints (and, frankly, given the whole context of what preceded, and the fact the one which has gone ahead so far did not find any evidence to support this, I wouldn't have much confidence in that), this should probably be closed with no action, and, along with the existing notice to BM to be less irritating about what they have been doing so far (since being right does not give one the right to be annoying about it), a reminder to the OP what CIR is and isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oh good grief. Listen. I've had a clash or two with BilledMammal myself. But this is absurd. There's not only nothing sinister with getting into it with Lugnuts, enough editors have had enough issues with Lugnuts for him to be brought up before ANI on multiple occasions, leading ultimately to him being community sanctioned. (What, is the OP going to go after every other editor involved in that as well?) There's not only nothing sinister about being knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works 7500 edits in, I rather wish all newbies studied their brief. Nor is there anything sinister about the majority of an editor's edits being elsewhere than mainspace -- that can be said of quite a few productive editors.

  And shall we turn this interesting line of scrutiny onto the OP? No Great Shaker's third edit had the edit summary of " modified this section to remove unsourced material." Is he seriously claiming to have mastered the need for sourcing, three edits and 34 minutes into editing Wikipedia for the first time? On his first edit, he added a citation, and used the proper template to do that! He spent his whole first day on Wikipedia updating citations, fixing broken links ... and the next day he was correcting an edit filter and chatting up other users! How did he know how to do those things, that early, if he wasn't a sock himself? And if BM Knows Too Much for having only been on Wikipedia since April of 2019, then surely No Great Shaker Knows Too Much as well, for having created his account a mere two months before BM. Is that how the OP wants to play it?

  Honestly, this is utter bullshit. That complaint is a heap of "isn't that strange?" on a repeating loop that just supports the contention of the editors above who feel this is more vendetta against a philosophic opponent than the presentation of a policy-violating complaint, and my feeling isn't assuaged by No Great Shaker launching yet another SPI complaint on top of the failed attempt he filed yesterday. Until and unless the OP comes up with solid evidence that BM has violated policy, backed by solid diffs and not innuendo (either from him or any other editor), I oppose any sanctions against BM. Ravenswing 15:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Ravenswing, I'm quite at ease with scrutiny and it's only fair that I should be investigated too, if I'm prepared to open SPIs about others. Not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Would you be happy about it, yourself?

Anyway, I've never made any secret of the fact that I edited WP as an IP for about 14/15 years before I finally opened an account. Information about my earliest edits used to be a fun piece on my userpage (I'll restore if you like). I opened the account soon after I retired from full-time employment – until then, I'd been too busy and could only edit occasionally. I knew HTML/XML through work because I had a phase of web development and wiki-markup was never a problem. I'm afraid your three edits and 34 minutes is well short of the actual figures. I remember inline citations being introduced (ages ago) and I decided that I would use them so I read WP:CITE and learned how. I don't recall the edit filter thing but I obviously followed a link and filled out the form. I see my edit was accepted, so all good. As for "chatting up other users", it looks as if two guys had helped me and I thanked them. Everything else I did in the first few days seems to be mainspace editing, with which I was already familiar. I do remember I decided to improve Bury F.C. as a starter project, as I had much more time for the site, and I was interested in the 10th millennium BC then too.

I think, though, that you'll find it was a long time before I became bold enough to venture into AfD and ANI and suchlike because I didn't have the confidence. I remember going to the WP:TH about that peer review I requested and, again, I have professional experience of reviewing so why should I worry about that?

The point about BM, by contrast, is that he plunged straight into AfD twice in his first 30 edits and I think that takes some doing even if you have been an IP for a long time, so I think an SPI for him is fair enough and others evidently agree. If BM isn't a SOCK, I will apologise to him – as I did to another editor last week who was not guilty. Okay?

If you want to ask me anything about my early WP career, please go ahead. Not a problem. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of unrelated fact, I edited Wikipedia as an IP for a while, and even participated in some AfDs. That some editor might have been seemingly experienced from their "first" few edits does not make them a sock. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not unrelated and it's a fair comment. In fact, I just looked at your first edit and you mention it there: you were an IP for four years. Unlike you, though, I never took part in any discussions except occasional questions on article talk pages and user talk pages, so I wasn't familiar with AfD and whatnot when I opened the account. As I said above, if BM isn't a sock, I will apologise as I did with the other person last week.

Anyway, I think this ANI should be postponed while the SPI goes ahead. What do you think? No Great Shaker (talk) 16:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

In similar fashion, I edited as an IP for several months before I created an account. But that being said, I think you should worry less about apologizing yet again for a false socking accusation (if that's how it spins out), and more about whether you ought to enjoy the privilege of filing SPI complaints at all. Filing one in the first place is serious business, and editors who are trying to run other editors out of Wikipedia altogether damn well better have some strong evidence to do so. What two failed SPI accusations in three days would be strong evidence of is that you have no business filing such complaints. Ravenswing 17:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I jumped into AfDs very soon after starting to edit regularly, and this probably would've raised some flags if my account wasn't so old. However I also spent ~3 days reading all the relevant guidelines as well as hundreds of the most recent contentious (10kb+) AfDs on academics and athletes before participating myself. It's pretty insulting to assume every new editor who appears familiar with AfD is a sock. JoelleJay (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to copy a part of a comment made by Ravenswing at the second SPI filing. I'm not alone in feeling that this complaint involves a great deal of innuendo, largely without merit or evidence. Especially given the prior failed investigation and the ANI complaint, it seems that the OP and his cadre are looking for some excuse, any excuse, to run BilledMammal out of town. I agree with what Ravenswing has said here. At the moment this feels like a witchhunt to remove BM. This case has now involved two sock puppet investigations, this thread at ANI, as well as some spill over into this thread at AN. If this SPI fails, what will happen next? I realise I may be jumping the gun here, and I'll be happy to retract this if the second SPI is actioned and it is found that BilledMammal is a sock, but given all of what I've just said, I strongly suggest some sort of WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against No Great Shaker. At a minimum in some form of an IBAN between BilledMammal and Shaker is warranted due to the disruption being caused both here and at SPI, as well as a warning or probation for vexatious SPI and ANI filings. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see any clear evidence for sock puppetry here, and the attack seems to largely be built around objecting to behaviors that are clearly not sanction worthy. There is a less confrontational way to address people using wording in AfD nominations that people do not like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment So there have been two failed attempts to prove this editor is a sock pupper of someone else. That looks to me like behavior that borders on harassment. Going around and falsely accusing an editor of being other editors who are banned. That seems to me to be one of the cases of truly problematic behavior occuring here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• My quote above to No Great Shaker: "What two failed SPI accusations in three days would be strong evidence of is that you have no business filing such complaints." I trust that the apology he has indicated he is prepared to make will immediately be forthcoming. I also trust that he will withdraw this ANI immediately, and that he backs off of any further action against BilledMammal, and I trust that he realizes the likelihood of such BOOMERANG sanctions as Sideswipe9th if there's any hesitation or backsliding here. Enough is bloody well enough. Ravenswing 00:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  No Great Shaker apologized to BilledMammal hours ago.[55] Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  ... and a pretty damn wishy-washy "apology" it was. "The SPI has closed in your favour so, as promised at ANI, I apologise for the inconvenience you were caused by it. I felt justified because of the circumstances of your evident AFD knowledge, which strongly suggested prior experience. I suggest you put something on your user page to explain past IP editing, etc." After an ANI complaint long on innuendo and two SPI filings, self-justifications and suggestions on how BM should shape up were in no wise called for, never mind it being one of those "I'm sorry if anything happened that may have etc" non-apologies. Given that, I'd support Sideswipe9th's recommendation of No Great Shaker being put under an interaction ban with BM, as well as a tban against filing any more SPIs. Ravenswing 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just to make it clearer/easier to navigate, should the boomerang suggestion be put into its own subsection? At the moment it's somewhat hidden in this arbitrary break. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I think that would be a good idea, but keep in mind it also gives more opportunity for editors to disagree with this suggestion, as I will. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've got no issue with editors agreeing or disagreeing. From my perspective, I just want there to be less ongoing disruption. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  What two failed SPI accusations in three days would be strong evidence of is that you have no business filing such complaints I don't think this is particularly fair... The evidence that BM may have been a sock of Störm was, at first, circumstantially interesting if not plausible. But the IP differences, deeper analysis, etc. that were all triggered by the SPI, showed it was clearly not the case. I would posit to you that this was a case of SPI working correctly, and the original investigation was worth considering and gathering broader input on. In the contrapositive, do you think that the only SPIs that are filed should be absolutely incontrovertible 100% obvious slam dunks? This would cause us to miss an awful lot of sock masters. And, besides, these cases actually bolster BM's position on the wiki since they've failed. It makes it less likely that any subsequent SPI against BM would succeed. Is this not a good thing for BM? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I think it is entirely fair. What a good thing for BM would be is not to be subject to vendettas because people don't like his activism in NSPORTS criteria. I am quite comfortable with characterizing filing an ANI complaint and two SPI complaints (naming two different sockmasters) within two days as a vendetta. Should SPI complaints always be slam dunks? Obviously not. But they shouldn't be fishing expeditions either, and it's troubling that you neither see that, nor hesitate to defend the practice. Do you get that the only action of the anti-BM editors consonant with good faith, at this stage, is to humbly apologize and drop the damn stick? Ravenswing 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  But they shouldn't be fishing expeditions either, and it's troubling that you neither see that, nor hesitate to defend the practice
  What do you call this statement I made above, if not precisely this?
  Totally support an WP:SPI. But it needs to be carefully examined. Any witch-hunt like process which prematurely blocks BM would only further serve Icewhiz's intent to disrupt the wiki
  Please refrain from assuming my position on things, and particularly assuming I am a rabid anti-BM editor, as I am not. I was supportive of considering the SPI, but ultimately if given the chance to add to it before it closed, I would have said the evidence was too thin for any action, which is also exactly what I said when given the chance to add my comments in the Storm SPI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  ... in which case, I presume you're about to retract your call for BM to be temporarily blocked, as you advocated uptopic? Ravenswing 04:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I am, as far as I know, allowed to support a temp block for disruptive behavior but oppose a sock block. Please advise if you know of a policy which forbids this. I am not in the business of changing my position just because it is not popular. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose regarding the sockpuppet claims, for now, unless there is some actual non-circumstantial evidence. I think there are some nuggets that there may be some involvement, such as what the IP editor posted way above regarding the editing of Israel-Palestine articles right after getting 500, but this is all circumstantial. It is definitely something to keep an eye on; however, obviously don't Wiki-stalk BM. Neutral regarding the claims of disruptive editing; I have no opinion on this, but it is simple in that if administrators feel that BM has partaken in DE, he should be blocked, with that period ranging from no less than 1 week to no mroe than 1 month. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanctions for BilledMammal. I have looked at the evidence presented and there just isn't anything there that justifies sanctions. Maybe a reminder in the closing comments about certain behaviors (a reminder, not a warning), but no more than that. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose- if you're against filling the encyclopedia with microstub "biographies" based on spreadsheet data you can expect the defenders of such gunk to try to purge you from the encyclopedia eventually. It's just one of those things. Here's what it looked like when they tried it with me. It never works, and it cannot be taken seriously. Reyk _YO! 21:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Boomerang sanctions for No Great Shaker

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

---

Proposals: Interaction ban between No Great Shaker and BilledMammal. Topic ban for No Great Shaker from filing Sock Puppet Investigations.

• Support IBAN as proposer. Undecided on TBAN. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Note. I'm undecided on the TBAN proposal. I've included it here as it was proposed above by Ravenswing, and I'm open to being convinced on it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral on IBAN, as I think a two-way might actually be good for the wiki, but also onerous. Opposed on any SPI TBAN. While I agree that filing repeated SPIs is a bad thing, we have no indication that these SPIs were made in bad faith. The second one was spurned on by multiple multiple other editors, several of whom are admins and more familiar with IceWhiz than most, and more cautious than most. However, when it became clear evidence-wise that these SPIs were likely going to fail, No Great Shaker did not pursue them to the ends of the earth, did not fight any closes, did not dispute that the evidence was circumstantial. Rather, they apologized and moved on. As we all should as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral on IBAN, Opposed to SPI TBAN. I agree, it's not a good look, but NGS has been warned, and if there's another insufficiently sourced accusation, the remedy would be clear to all, I think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both SPI TBAN per above; RE: the IBAN, there doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment that an IBAN would solve; these two users aren't disputing content and there is no indication that they are going to murder each other if they interact. As an alternative, it would be in order to require NGS to state that he will not WP:WIKIHOUND BM, in exchange for no IBAN. Secondly, a reprimand against NGS would be in order, for bringing allegations with little merit against an editor in-(relatively)-good-standing. Curbon7 (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comments. This a complete over-reaction by Sideswipe9th and I'm grateful to Shibbolethink for applying some perspective and to Dumuzid and Curbon7 for their sensible assessments of the matter. I had good reason to believe BM was a SOCK based on the reasonings I've given above and the flooding of AfD, apparently aimed at articles created by Lugnuts, seemed to be a repeat of Störm's activity. I probably should have stepped aside from the IceWhiz issue but, as Shibbolethink says, others were involved and I thought it was incumbent upon me, as OP, to take it forward. I think, looking at the whole ANI case, that someone should be asking questions about all the bad faith accusations levelled at me and the continuing (and off-topic) attacks on Lugnuts.

Anyway, I will happily agree to any IBAN which is required because I do not like having to communicate with people I don't respect. Further, I will self-impose a TBAN upon myself with regard to SPI and ANI, unless someone pings me with an invitation to take part.

As for BM, I suggest a TBAN from AfD and, as User:Guy Macon suggested above, a temporary block for DE at the GSoW issue.

I'm now moving on. Ping me if you want me for anything. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral on IBAN, Opposed to SPI ban. I'd be in favor of a formal warning to NGS about filing vexatious SPI reports, but I think there's very little benefit to any sanctions based on how both NGS and BM have conducted themselves. It's best if we let this fizzle out and just chalk it up to wikistress. The above response isn't super encouraging to be honest but I think it's best to go with a warning first and then a ban if the issue continues. Also, not everyone that is a deletionist is a sock of Storm. There is wide community consensus that Lugnuts has engaged in creating an extraordinary number of non-notable permastubs. That doesn't excuse any PAs against them, but it also means that someone nominating a series of Lugnuts articles for deletion is about what you'd expect from a deletionist. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just to correct your mistake - they were all notable at the time of creation, with some of the notability requirements being changed at a later point in time. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  That may be the case, Lugnuts, and I hope my message did not read passive-aggressively towards you. My point is that now, and from what I can tell at time of nomination by BM, those articles are/were not notable. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's definitely not true that they were all notable beforehand; they met sport-specific guideline criteria which presume GNG notability but failed to actually meet GNG as required by NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  For the intents and purposes of article creation, passing an SNG is good enough a claim to notability. It may not hold at AFD's, but it's definitely enough to justify article creations, even if they're made in mass (see for example the geo permastub issue). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - to TP, IB or any sanction to be set on the account with a clean block record unless prior serious warnings (I'm not aware of) are revealed. Warn first. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctions on NGS and BM at this time. The latter SPI case was filed when multiple other editors also raised comments about the possibilty of BM's account/edits mirroring that of another. The result of that case is/was inconclusive. I suggest this whole thing gets closed down before it becomes yet another time-sink for everyone. Maybe someone who has greater experience in making SPI reports could share their knowledge with NGS? As someone who gets picked up on personal attacks, it's a shame to see others going down that route. I wonder if I would have gotten off lightly if I had gone for the "net negative" or "ad Hitlerum" ad hominems. Anyway, we've all got better things to do than waste more volunteer time, right? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, Lugnuts for you usual common sense approach.

Thank you to you too, GizzyCatBella. By the way, I just popped into our bedroom and, guess what, our cat is fast asleep in the middle of the bed!! No Great Shaker (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose both The community needs to impose measures to protect the project from recalcitrant editors, those who refuse to acknowledge concerns about their editing behavior and refuse to modify their behavior. That is not the case here. Schazjmd (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support strong warning - I was on the fence but after seeing this posted on Ravenswing's talk page this morning, it's clear that NGS just doesn't get it and is persisting in labelling anyone who disagrees with them as overreacting, unproductive, disruptive, etc. There seems to be a WP:BATTLE mentality here, along with a tendency to view everything as a personal vendetta. Some self-reflection is certainly in order; practically everything that NGS has accused others of, applies equally to themselves. The best advice I can offer them would be their own words: "I could place any number of interpretations upon it but I'll simply suggest you calm down, get things into perspective and do something useful instead. Having looked at some of your work, I can see you are a good editor. So, stop ranting and get on with your work."

I'd like to hear BilledMammal's opinion, but an iban seems unnecessary and would complicate matters between editors who are active in the same area.

I would, however, oppose any SPI-related sanctions since they were encouraged by others to open the second one. A simple reminder that familiarity with Wikipedia's inner workings does not indicate sockpuppetry is sufficient here. –dlthewave ☎ 15:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Obviously there's no traction for action against NGS, but I'd like this much on record: I don't give props for "they were encouraged by others to open the second one." The immaturity of some of NGS' comments/actions notwithstanding, NGS is ostensibly an adult responsible for his own actions. Over the years, I've taken some actions prompted by other editors. Sometimes that hasn't come out well. But at all times, I've been responsible for my own edits. No one has forced or compelled me to take any action or stance, and if I screw up or fail to do my due diligence, that's on me: no excuses. No one should be filing a sockpuppet investigation as the meatpuppet of another editor/s, suggested or otherwise. Ravenswing 16:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  No one is saying here that NGS isn't responsible for their own actions. I believe the point in bringing up the fact that others spurned on their SPI is that it was, at the time, not all that inadvisable. It was made in good faith and from a perspective that was a reasonable time to investigate. It just didn't end up holding water. This is the system working as it should. We should not call an SPI a bad SPI just because it failed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would tell you that basically all of us should WP:DROPTHESTICK and follow that advice, as nothing here is actionable. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that an IBAN seems unnecessary; the issue doesn't seem to be chronic or intractable yet. Like A. C. Santacruz some of No Great Shakers recent actions do not convince me that this won't become a larger issue - in particular, the implication that they have no intention to drop the stick with the edit summary "if at first..... [you don't succeed, try, try again"] in reference to the opening of the ANI report after the failure of the first SPI and before the opening of the second SPI, as well as failing to drop the stick with their proposal in this section for a TBAN from AfD for me, and their recent spree of responding to every AFD that I had opened that were not yet closed. However, that doesn't mean they won't drop the stick in the future, or that there will be an issue with hounding, and as I would also prefer to not be under an IBAN I am willing to take that risk. BilledMammal (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note my concerns about a lack of consensus and impending time sink remain, but per request on my Talk, undoing my close to let this run longer. Star Mississippi 19:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate Star promptly agreeing to my request to re-open this, and I will post some diffs tomorrow (well, later today UTC time). Levivich 03:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose SPI ban. The SPI team can and will instruct users to improve their conduct at SPI or to stop filing SPIs altogether, if needed. No need for AN/I to decide on that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both as premature. Sometimes we get a little too ban-happy around here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support strong warning I think it needs to be emphasised that this was a really bad pair of SPIs. NGS concluded BM was Storm because they weren't clueless about WP procedure and were critical of NSPORTS, and after being rebuffed on that concluded BM was Icewhiz because ... they weren't clueless about WP procedure, were critical of NSPORTS, and edited in the I/P area. Not only that, but they thought the Icewhiz case was a clear case of WP:DUCK here and, given the WP:DE and WP:HARRASS reported at ANI, I strongly recommend an indefinite block to settle this matter. NGS' only real defence is that they haven't done this before, and were egged on by some other editors who should have known better. --RaiderAspect (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support warning. TLDR: I do not think the SPIs or this ANIs were brought in good faith, nor that NGS has "taken on board" what they should, based on what happened before, during, and after, the filing of the SPIs and this ANI (diff'd in detail below). I don't support a tban or iban only because I think everyone should get a warning first. But I think the community should issue that warning now. There's a lot of background:

Diffs, quotes, commentary

In February 2022, BM proposed a sanction against Lugnuts that gained consensus, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Proposal to restrict cosmetic edits (Special:Diff/1069762788). NGS opposed, vociferously, referring to the whole thread as a "witch hunt", etc. Several editors (including myself) commented that NGS's participation in that thread was uncivil and that they should absent themselves from the discussion (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#User:NoGreatShaker and personal attacks/aspersions casting). At the NSPORTS RFC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability, NGS, GiantSnowman, and Lugnuts (and others) have a number of arguments with BilledMammal. They are so many that I'm not sure what to diff, and there are no easy subsections to link to, but I trust no one will disagree with this characterization of the interaction between BM and others during that RFC. Let me know if someone wants diffs. In the beginning of March, WikiProject Football had this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Operating without WP:NFOOTBALL, where the OP, (Govvy), writes, "Go and have a look at WP:NSPORT, BilledMammal is systematically destroying it if you ask me! ". (Special:Diff/1075722640) In that discussion, GiantSnowman writes, "From what I can see, BilledMammal's edits - and they are heavily INVOLVED anyway - have been reverted? NFOOTBALL still exists. Also, a side note - if you didn't participate and try and make the case for NFOOTBALL, then don't f***ing moan about it." (Special:Diff/1076180634) GiantSnowman writes that he reverted BM's edits at WP:NSPORTS (Special:Diff/1076180967, Special:Diff/1076181780) Number 57 writes: "Unfortunately this whole exercise has been carried out because a small group of editors are very unhappy that there are far more people who want to write about sportspeople than there are who are interested in others, and rather than encouraging more articles on politicians etc, they've decided to try and reduce the amount of sportspeople biographies." (Special:Diff/1075784144) N57 argues the recent RFC didn't have consensus and should be reviewed (Special:Diff/1076175323) Lugnuts writes, "Not to mention that the main two editors re-writing and trimming WP:NSPORT were both big supporters of ditching most of it at the RfC. Still, we've got plenty of articles about moths that someone made a single note of in 1831 to pass WP:GNG, so everyone is a winner, right?" (Special:Diff/1075787185) and, about post-RFC AFDs, "Jesus wept. Talk about not wanting to WP:DROPTHESTICK." On March 19, NGS conferred with Lugnuts about the possiblity of filing an SPI against BM, based on Storm or someone else as the master: Special:Diff/1078109546. March 20, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Störm An SPI that results in "unrelated" or "no action", etc., is not necessarily a "bad" SPI that shouldn't have been filed, but this one was a bad SPI that shouldn't have been filed. Each of these is a terrible reason to accuse someone of socking: Competence in early editing: First edit "was a new article, created in one edit and displaying instant knowledge of drafting, image parms, linkage, ref name, cite news, cite web, citation parameters, article structure, heading formats, and reflist" "In those first 31 edits, he twice opened AfD cases and knew exactly how to go about it." "He even knew how to include the case in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions" "he apparently performed a BEFORE and knew which deletion discussions would be interested" Mainspace %: "over 7,500 edits have been done but only a mere 29% of them are mainspace" Hanging out in the back room: "this editor spends so much time in forums and the like where, despite his apparent lack of experience, he has such a lot to say about policies, guidelines, procedures and so on" Policy knowledge: "displayed familiarity with WP:CORP, WP:BEFORE, WP:SIGCOV and WP:PRIMARY" "he cites WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, writing with confidence about whether the subject qualifies for the latter" Being a deletionist: "he has been using AfD and other forums in the same way as Störm did – i.e., as a deletionist" Referring to edits/events prior to account creation: "It seems incongruous that BilledMammal is referring to something in 2020, a year in which he did not make one single edit. Störm did, of course." In the SPI filing, NGS specifically mentioned Störm's and BM's disputes with Lugnuts: "it's clear that [Storm] was an extremely disruptive editor as can be seen from the various comments made by ... Lugnuts" "It seems very strange to me that someone with only 7,500 edits can claim to be so much more competent than someone with well over 1 million edits." "An example of BilledMammal's animosity towards Lugnuts is this proposal at ANI on 3 February. Remember that this is someone with relatively few edits and, of those, only 29% are in mainspace (WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE?) running the rule over someone who is one of the main builders of the encyclopaedia." Then there are the contradictory reasons: "I find it strange that someone who was so obviously comfortable with AfD and other WP concepts had never heard of ANI" "it is very strange that someone so well-versed in AfD and other site concepts should have such difficulty with ANI and finding useful guides." "BilledMammal appears to have stayed clear of sport until posting this revert on 22 January this year..." "...despite his supposed inexperience, was talking throughout as if it was anything but new to him..." "How can an inexperienced editor know so much that they could even consider making such a proposal?" (The "inexperience" is 3 years, 7,500 edits.) "I opened my account only a couple of months before BilledMammal and have done over 50,000 edits, which means I am considerably more experienced than he is through the same timespan..." The next few paragraphs of the SPI report are accusing BM of various types of disruption: harassment, CIR, GAMING, etc. "Another CIR issue has arisen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massimo Ridolfi where BilledMammal has used WP:NOTDATABASE as his primary reason to delete the article." (That AFD resulted in "delete". The only two editors to !vote "keep" were Lugnuts, who created the article, and NGS.) In that AFD, NGS says "If the nominator does not understand the purpose of the site's policies and guidelines, how can their flood of nominations be justified?" (so BM does, or does not, have knowledge of policy?) "If the checkuser should be negative, then I contend that BilledMammal should be blocked indefinitely for persistent WP:DE and especially for WP:HARRASS." Lugnuts says, ""...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. Thank you for doing the extra analysis here too." (Special:Diff/1078266789) This SPI was processed very quickly, even NGS noted "I broke off to have tea and watch the Forest v Liverpool cup tie and it's all done!" That's a sign it wasn't a tough call. The end result: CU came back "unrelated", behavior analysis came back "I'm confident BM is not them", and Masz "draws a blank on this pair of accounts." NGS posts on BM's page (Special:Diff/1078296182): "The SPI was negative and I've apologised to Störm for barking up the wrong tree ..." but no apology to BM. Instead: "Just letting you know that I will be taking the case to ANI, per advice given at the SPI, and I will present you with a formal notification when that is done." Later on March 20, this ANI is posted (#BilledMammal), which is essentially the same report as the SPI, and it's bad for all the same reasons. About 12 hours after the ANI is posted, on March 21 10:30, an IP, in its one and only edit, suggests "Lodge the complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz" (Special:Diff/1078394270). Within an hour, N57 posts that it's a good idea (Special:Diff/1078399138) and GS suggests re-visiting the NSPORTS RFC if BM is a sock (Special:Diff/1078399384, Special:Diff/1078400047). The second SPI is opened at 15:31: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive#21 March 2022 This SPI was even worse than the first, but thankfully it was shorter. "Earlier today, [513] a new sub-section was opened at the ANI which advised us to name Icewhiz as the sock master." "It would seem that we have a clear case of WP:DUCK here and, given the WP:DE and WP:HARRASS reported at ANI, I strongly recommend an indefinite block to settle this matter." N57 says "Personally I have suspected this for a while. When this editor first came onto my radar, I checked their early contributions, and like many Icewhiz socks, they make a load of minor edits (in this case, 244 edits/moves of Ethiopian districts on 3 July 2021[514][515]) to cross the 500 edit threshold and then jump into editing an Israel/Palestine-related article (559th edit)." (a complete article in their first edit is apparently not part of a "load of minor edits") "The relentlessness in various discussions is also reminiscent of Icewhiz, an editor who would never drop the stick..." (like opening two SPIs and an ANI?) The second SPI was closed even faster than the first SPI, with the comment "Timecard doesn't match. Editor interaction is unconvincing. This whole SPI was triggered by an IP who has made exactly one edit (to ANI) and their range has zero edits to projectspace before that, which I file under "generally suspicious". Not everyone in this damned topic area is Icewhiz, folks." Then there is NGS's blame-shifting non-apology to BM, still suggesting that BM did something wrong by not making some kind of disclosure (Special:Diff/1078473167): The SPI has closed in your favour so, as promised at ANI, I apologise for the inconvenience you were caused by it. I felt justified because of the circumstances of your evident AFD knowledge, which strongly suggested prior experience. I suggest you put something on your user page to explain past IP editing, etc. On March 22 (yesterday), NGS posts in a bunch of AFDs started by BM: Special:Diff/1078404721, Special:Diff/1078602087, Special:Diff/1078602472, Special:Diff/1078602731, Special:Diff/1078619474, Special:Diff/1078619873 These two SPIs aren't NGS's only bad SPIs Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/256Drg. Here is another blame-shifting non-apology from NGS to the editor they accused, Success think: Special:Diff/1078001415. NGS goes so far as to try and claim that the SPI was a good thing for Success think: "Apologies again for the SPI but it is always as well to be sure about such things and it does mean you have a clean slate if anyone else should suspect you of anything." In the Success think "apology", NGS writes "I've seen the outcome of the SPI and I'm satisfied that the investigation found no wrongdoing on your part." So why isn't NGS satisfied that the investigation into BM found no wrongdoing on BM's part? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HarveyCarter/Archive#03 March 2022 - No bill against Flybd5. NGS writes, (Special:Diff/1075219921). "LOL! Oh, dearie me. I'll wait for completion of the SPI and then off we go to ANI." The ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#Flybd5, went nowhere. Flybd5 apparently quit Wikipedia thereafter (Special:Diff/1075489374) and hasn't edited since. NGS has posted a lot of SPIs: some resulted in blocks, but most did not. Looking through NGS's last 1,000 projectspace contribs, I found, in addition to the ones I've already discussed here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. In this thread, NGS's writes, "I had good reason to believe BM was a SOCK ... As for BM, I suggest a TBAN from AfD and ... a temporary block for DE at the GSoW issue ... I'm now moving on." Then they posted a message at Ravenswing's talk page, which speaks for itself: Special:Diff/1078579634.

I believe the above supports a warning against NGS, for reasons explained by other editors supporting a warning above. I also think N57, GS, and Lugnuts should be "reminded" about, as others said above, not "egging" NGS on, about what makes a good SPI, and about battleground behaviors (like not using a conduct accusation against an editor as a reason to try and reopen an RFC). Levivich 18:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping with apologies to @Lugnuts and @GiantSnowman, who I neglected to ping in my post. Levivich 18:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I've not "egged" anyone to make an SPI report. Maybe you should be "reminded" to supply evidence of making a conduct accusation... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. "...that they may indeed be a sock, but that they are probably not a sock of Störm..." That's my line of thinking too. Thank you for doing the extra analysis here too. Special:Diff/1078266789. Sorry, I misquoted it in my initial post (but the diff was correct). This is what I refer to as "egging" NGS on. YMMV. Levivich 19:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, those are more thoughts AFTER an SPI case was raised (infact during said SPI). Quite different to "egg" someone on to make an SPI case. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Levivich - at what point have I 'egged' anybody on? I always spoke about ifs', never made any accusations, never encouraged any form of behaviour. I believe I made a whole TWO comments on this subject, both here at ANI (one saying "If BM is a sock" and one following that up), and ignored the SPI... GiantSnowman 21:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think that would be necessary. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Boomerang sanctions applied to people is just another way to wiki-bully. I have no respect for admin that do that. I am only here because my name was ping'ed at ANI. All this talk at ANI which I just read through is taxing, I don't see how this ANI is going to accomplish the deeper issues at play. Nothing was helpful, not one core issue resolved. If anything this whole conversation is just muddying the waters. Govvy (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose both - NGS gave reasonable grounds for his actions and, unlike many editors, has not hesitated to drop the stick when appropriate. Despite the whingeing from BM stans, no-one benefits from a environment where editors are afraid to raise legitimate questions in case they're sanctioned themselves. Ingratis (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • "whingeing from BM stans" is a very inappropriate way to address other people. Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Noted.Ingratis (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Neutral on the interaction ban, Support topic ban on SPI and calling or implying that people are sockpuppets, broadly construed. People may not have quite realised just how often No Great Shaker yells "SOCK!!1!" at people just for saying things he doesn't like. Aside from the previous "I'm sure BilledMammal must be a sock of Storm! No wait, he must be a sock of Icewhiz" fishing expedition we also have
  • SOCK!!
  • SOOOOCCCKKKK!!!!
• Reyk _YO! 04:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support temporary interaction ban, for the benefit of both parties as well as the rest of the community. I believe User:No Great Shaker is genuinely doing his best, and I don't see this as a boomerang at all. I would prefer him to lay off the SPI accusations voluntarily. After many years as an admin, I remain reluctant to raise them myself. Deb (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Deb, what would be the purpose of an iban imposed on BilledMammal? None of the supposed harassment etc was directed toward No Great Shaker, and there doesn't seem to be an ongoing conflict between the two aside from NGS bringing this to ANI. –dlthewave ☎ 12:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any punishment / restriction related to the SPI. It was a bad SPI, but it's important to recognize that SPI is not like AE or ANI (where issues are subjective enough that someone can hope to get some result even with a weak case.) It's a very binary question, so if someone isn't a sock, nothing will be accomplished by taking them to SPI. Because of that, there's less risk of it being misused; and it's important that people not be afraid to bring suspicions to SPI so more experienced people can look into them. At the same time, experienced sockpuppetiers are going to take extensive efforts to hide themselves. Punishing people for SPIs should therefore only be even open to consideration when there is unequivocal bad faith (ie. it is completely clear that someone has brought something to SPI that they, themselves, do not believe - simply letting their distaste for an editor cloud their judgment isn't enough), or when someone is so repeatedly and consistently bad at determining when to bring something to SPI that it forms an obvious pattern and raises WP:COMPETENCE issues that need to be dealt with to avoid clogging the system. Even the suggestion of punishing someone for something like has a potential for a chilling effect where people would be unwilling to bring serious suspicions to SPI in the future, and needs to be shot down hard. --Aquillion (talk) 15:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  This is one of the best posts I've ever seen on ANI, or anywhere on WP for that matter. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I had dropped this and moved on but I think I'm entitled to address some of the prevarication I'm seeing above. If certain people are so assiduous in digging up my past visits to SPI, they might also mention User:SallyWho, User:256Drg, User:Proudhindu256 and one or two more whose names I forget. Even if they are justified in talking about failed cases only, they should include User:Success think only a week or so ago – as you see, I've nothing to hide. I'll hold my hand up if I make a mistake because, unlike some, I admit I'm not perfect. They should also READ the cases they have found and present the full story instead of behaving like an "investigative reporter" for some tabloid and presenting only one small part of it.

As Deb kindly said just above: I believe (he) is genuinely doing his best and I would prefer him to lay off the SPI accusations voluntarily. In my last post here on the 22nd, I said: I will self-impose a TBAN upon myself with regard to SPI and ANI, unless someone pings me with an invitation to take part. As Dlthewave rightly points out, there is no ongoing conflict other than this ANI.

I don't give two hoots about the stuff which Levivich has said above about me (water off the duck's back because it's nearly all bullshit), but I am annoyed that he has made bad faith insinuations against GiantSnowman, Lugnuts and Number 57. Is he going to apologise to them in the same way that I have already apologised to BM, Storm and Successthink? No, I don't suppose he will.

As for BM, I explained my case at the Storm SPI and others obviously thought he should be investigated, even if I was out by the width of the Indian Ocean. My case had nothing at all to do with NSPORTS and I don't think I mentioned that once (correct me if I'm wrong). My concerns were rightly based on excessive AfDs, especially of articles created by Lugnuts. SPI is an investigation and, if the accused is not guilty, then they've got a clean slate and we can all move on. But, there are people here who wish to make a WP:POINT and drag the thing on and on and on. To read some of their statements above, they appear to think we should close ANI and SPI down because it's apparently WRONG to raise the sort of concerns that these forums were designed for.

I will just say one thing to BilledMammal in answer to your post yesterday evening. You claim that I have carried out a recent spree of responding to every AFD that (you) had opened that were not yet closed. Perhaps all of yours were among them, but I think you'll find that the majority of the AfDs I've visited in recent days were raised by JohnPackLambert and many by other editors. Also, I'm by no means new to AfD and I've even recommended deletion of some articles this week.

So, having said that, I'm now moving on as I tried to do before. Thank you again to the people I've already sent notifications to. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

CreecregofLife - continued disputes/edit warring

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

Just a little over a month ago, I had started a discussion regarding the same user, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#CreecregofLife- Constant edit warring, edits against MOS, usage of unreliable sourcing, etc. While I had hoped that this could possibly lead to a change in behavior from the editor in question, it appears to be quite the opposite occurring.

Since that previous ANI discussion, there have been many more edit wars/content disputes involving the editor, another ANI discussion involving the editor, and continued assumption of bad faith, the latest time here, right after the warning about casting aspersions about other editors.

All the latest warnings/issues can be found following this thread onwards. Quite frankly, the amount of disputes/issues involving the user in the past month alone is a bit troubling. It appears even when suggested to cool off/take a break from editing, even more issues start to arise. Hoping something can be done at this point, as I have a hunch even more will happen in the future, given the continuing behavior here. Thanks. Magitroopa (talk) 05:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just because they involve me doesn’t mean I am the perpetrator. @C.Fred: can attest that I have been directly attacked and antagonized by multiple users. I am sick of the undue antagonism. It doesn’t matter how hard I try to mind my own business or follow the rules, I’m still being put up on the noticeboard. With my luck, I’ll be told my frustrations are invalid. If you’re troubled by my behavior when I’m not the one randomly throwing homophobia accusations, I don’t know what to tell you because then I’ll be accused of being uncivil. The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.--CreecregofLife (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

While you may not be the primary(?) perpetrator in every case, this continuing behavior is still a problem. Putting aside any personal attacks sent from other users towards you, there are still issues continuing that was brought up in the previous ANI thread, including edit warring. Your comments (including the above, such as, "The above assessment by Magitroopa is taken out of context and should be disregarded.") is yourself continuing to attempt to remove any blame from yourself whatsoever, and say that every person is against you, which again, is just more bad faith assumption (and possibly assuming good faith onto yourself?...) Not every single issue is to blame on one person alone, but at this point, it's starting to look like you're just trying to cause new issues/disputes. This needs to stop. Magitroopa (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I literally have two people who have openly stated they’re working against me, and somehow I’m still the problem because I acknowledge that it happened? You are only taking into consideration piecesof the disputes into your reports, continuing to frame me as the problem, and accusing me of trying to cause new disputes? Without any evidence? My comments are 100% factual. You just stated that you’re putting aside the evidence that I’m not the issue in order to insist I’m the issue. How is this in any way a fair assessment? You created another dispute about me to claim that I seek them out. I didn’t ask for this to happen, let alone at 2AM CreecregofLife (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

However, whether you want to believe it or not, you seem to downplaying your involvement with all of this. Even if you didn't start every single issue, you tend to continue them, and then (as you are here) claim to be entirely innocent and accuse bad faith of others, whether they were actually acting in bad faith or not.

And yes, I have seen some attacks against yourself, but I do wish to know if everything you believe to be an attack against you actually is or not. For example, where do you see the personal attack against yourself in this (as you have previously claimed)? Do you mean just the, "...weird stance to take"?... Magitroopa (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Open the collapse. You claim I’m downplaying when I’m describing exactly what goes on. If you didn’t exacerbate my wrongdoing you wouldn’t be accusing me of “downplaying”. You harp on the negative, reframe my involvement as seeking it out, while disregarding every behavioral improvement. Again, you’re not playing fair.--CreecregofLife (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see the collapse, yes, that is clearly put into a collapsible due to the personal attacking. However, you seem to be confusing the two. I am referring to this specific edit from Historyday01, which you claimed to contain a personal attack. Everything in the collapsible happened later on and didn't exist at this point (check the timestamps of the comments). Magitroopa (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Where they accused me of being a corporate shill, basically out of nowhere--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said in the first thread, I share Magitroopa's concerns. It's clear this editor just doesn't get it, with their continued edit warring and disruptive editing and behavior. They are right on the border of WP:NOTHERE, but, quite frankly, they are probably past it. I would support a block at this point. Amaury • 07:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

How is any of that “clear”? If you only see me for what you perceive to be my disruptions, of course you’re going to see it that way, but your perceptions are wrong, and a block shouldn’t even be in the question--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, I also agree that this editor seems to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem, which does not seem to be improving. Though I have doubts that ANI will do anything about it, as that's the usual pattern. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

So what am I to do when multiple users throw personal attacks at me, while several other users disregard it to portray me as the bad guy because I spoke out against them? Sit there and take it? You'd rather put me on the admin noticeboard than actually work with me and try to see things my way. It's very apparent that the WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem is not mine. Because you didn't hear my efforts at being a better user, you came in here with old and outdated perceptions to say it's okay for me to be punished for the abuse I've taken, otherwise it's I'm too "combative"--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

When multiple, multiple editors are reporting problems with you, doubling down on "[I am] not the problem, they are" is usually the wrong direction to go in. The fact that you can admit absolutely no fault here really makes me wonder if editing Wikipedia is right for you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've only had limited interactions with this editor, but in addition to the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, there's a real WP:CIR issue here as well. Their discussions on sourcing is problematic because of this. This personal attack is just another example as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that this is also partially a WP:CIR issue. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Define competence if it's such a "real" competence issue. I can't control who has a problem with me. It doesn't make me the problem. Why should I take responsibility for others' perceptions? You keep making judgments about me, tripling down on arguing my character rather than my edits, and I'm not supposed to defend myself? You are making it sound as if it is impossible for you to be wrong and me to be right. On anything. Multiple people can say the same thing and still be wrong. I cannot believe you are blaming me for defending myself, while giving me reason to defend myself, but yet I'm the only one doing anything wrong? If you really had a problem with it, you could've tried to talk to me, with any compassion or understanding, but you refused--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that you can't even admit to your edit warring/disruptive behavior means you're still not getting it or are intentionally refusing to. Amaury • 03:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Peng Shuai protection and FobTown

Background: On Feb 21, FobTown rm an entire paragraph (henceforth Lede Para) from the article's intro (diff 1). I believe the stable version since Feb 9 (diff 2 compare with diff 1) better reflects most editors' intent. When Deepfriedokra protected the article, FobTown's version was locked into place.

Request: A protection should not favor any side. An impartial version of the intro, neither by myself nor by FobTown, should be in place for the duration of the protection. There are many reasonable picks available from the article's history.

Additional reasons: Other editors have criticised FobTown before (link 1). I will highlight some of my experiences here.

Transplanting admin comment out-of-context:

I was wondering why, out of all their comments, Deepfriedokra repeated a particular one from their Talk page (link 2) again on Peng Shuai's Talk page below protection (link 3). The top line "The administrator who imposed page protection made the following observation", together with Deepfriedokra's signature, gave the impression that an admin placed the quote there and questioned my edits, but that was not the case. Deepfriedokra did not question anyone at the time (diff 3). It was FobTown who picked it out afterwards before I could reply, proceeded to add their own line on top, and sandwiched the quote in with the rest of their edit (diff 4). This was a very deceptive practice, to prejudice a discussion right off the bat using an out-of-context quote from an admin. AGF? You decide.

Reluctance to respect BRD:

The latest row began with FobTown's Feb 21 edit (diff 1). Their removal of Lede Para from the intro has been reverted by me and once by Floydian, but they persisted in re-instating their removal. FobTown did not initiate BRD. They gave some excuses after I notified them on Talk (link 4). My previous interaction with FobTown was in Dec 2021. After they edited the intro (diff 5), I rv because the content was not verifiable. I ended up initiating Talk (link 5) for them that time as well. After some tangents, it settled down with FobTown's version (diff 6) on Dec 29. Now, almost 3 months later, with no new source and no new discussion (before admin intervention), they've gone back to make changes again (diff 7). AGF? Again, you be the judge.

Not getting the point:

FobTown keeps claiming they are against so-called "my changes", even resorting to using Deepfriedokra's comment (see above and link 3). It is actually FobTown who still insists on removing Lede Para, along with other changes (diff 7). I'm not proposing any content different from the Feb 9 version; see (diff 8) and (link 4). Yet FobTown continues to go back to an error that's been fixed (see link 2 and link 3), re-hash or unilaterally undermine previously settled BRD (see above and link 3), generally pretending that they are somehow still unresolved and chalking it up to "my changes".

Disregard for collateral damage:

In the course of their reversions, FobTown does not respect other consensus or editors' contribution. For the sake of the intro they want, they've repeatedly re-introduced citations (diff 9) that had been moved to the body (link 6). To change content about Peng Shuai, they reverted good edits to cite and punc (diff 10). Similarly, in another article they followed me to, they re-inserted outdated content about Peng (diff 11) and later reverted my edit about Li Qi as well (diff 12). More worryingly, their edit copied from their version of Peng Shuai's intro, even though in the new article, it would no longer be fully supported by citations and a body. Lastly, they are willing to advance certain arguments to justify what they want to add (despite previous BRD), but ignore the same reasoning when removing content from other editors (link 3 near bottom).

Summary: Besides benefitting FobTown, the locking-in of their version unintentionally rewards their long-standing, borderline (if not worse) behavior and inauthentic editing, can create a misperception of consensus the longer it remains in place, and provide grounds for FobTown to repeat their tactics across other articles. I recommend that admins weigh in on this seriously and arrive at a better solution. CurryCity (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have removed the protection on Peng Shuai. It was supposed to be two days. A month is/was ridiculous. In my head it was for two days.
  • This is a content dispute. My impression is that CurryCity would have been much happier if it had happened to be their preferred version that had been protected. The version CurryCity asked me on my talk page to restore was one of their edits. Protection is not endorsement of the protected version. It is happenstance. This a content dispute. The next step is to copy their discussion on my talk page over to the article talk and seek a third opinion. I said as much at the discussion on my talk. Or some other form of dispute resolution.
  • Each is intransigent. Neither is perfect. IMHO. The next step is to partial block them both from Peng Shuai for a month. That'll give someone else a chance to edit. Looking at the edit history, there are a lot (I did not count them) of reverts between the two. We'll see what happens now that I removed the protection. Back to bed. Maybe I'll go back to sleep. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with your impression. I did not ask you to protect any version in particular (diff 13) on Mar 19. Just informing you that FobTown's was a major change from stable version. I was upfront about who had been involved with that version, but there are other versions from that day to pick from. In fact, I didn't contribute any more to the intro than other editors had. After you raised concern about not picking a side, I have twice suggested rv to a neutral version (see diff 14 and diff 15). If both of us were blocked, FobTown's edit is still left standing for now, basically a revert of editor contributions from around Feb 7 ~ 9 and most of the concerns raised above still valid. CurryCity (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

CurryCity, admins are supposed to protect the wrong version. I have partial-blocked FobTown and CurryCity from the article for a month for edit warring and battleground editing. Both are still free to edit the talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 12:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC).

(Ew. a button. Will this add the reply template?) Thanks, @Bishonen:. Maybe now they can initiate a third opinion request. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Like wot I sed B4. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@FobTown: I certainly hope you were not under the misapprehension that my protecting your version of Peng Shuai is/was an endorsement. Just for future reference, Admins do not judge the merits of competing versions of pages as admins. An admin must not take sides in a content dispute and exercise their admin powers. That's a very good way to not be an admin any longer. I find dealing with content disputes unpleasant, and always marvel at the extremes to which they can/have been taken. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason I opened here is because it's not just about the content but also whether FobTown's tactics is getting what they want (which for now is true), and whether it should be overlooked again (link 1). Past blocks have not changed FobTown, despite editors including myself trying to AGF and engage with them through discussion. They come back again and again, revert even months old BRD, ignore discussion as much as possible, what more could I have done? 3O is not mandatory, would that even help? CurryCity (talk) 13:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It might or might not help. The only way to find out is to try it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, is just added to MeToo movement in China to FobTown's partial block. Any admin can undo if they see fit, but this looks like the sort of battling CurryCity is talking about. I invited FobCity to discuss here. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I agree that your protection of Peng Shuai isn't an endorsement, so I have been justifying my rationale on talk page and hope other editors chime in, as I wasn't not aware that the one-month page block was removed until today. As for MeToo movement in China its that segment on Sports (Peng Shuai is the example) that I focused upon, since that would lead back to Peng Shuai.

@CurryCity: you use a lot of those tactics on 2022 Winter Olympics and other contentious articles, and got called out on it by numerous editors. [56][57][58] You continued to battle some of these editors on Peng Shuai too, perhaps they gave up after your persistence.[59][60]

2022 Winter Olympics and Peng Shuai have been the subject of attacks from accounts that have since been blocked. [61][62] FobTown (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, FobTown. (sighs) So now we have conflicting accusations of battlegrounding. Both combatants have been partially blocked as regular admin action. Noting both have received WP:ARBBLP discretionary sanctions notices. Both are again called upon to let an objective third opinion decide their dispute(s). Not sure where we are to go from here, but both are headed in the direction of editing restrictions via discretionary sanctions if they don't stop fighting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to point out that I was the one who asked for article protection after witnessing at least two editors back and forth edits for a couple months, but especially in the last couple weeks. I didn't really see any MOS or BLP violations, just a heavy content dispute. My own personal views as part of WikiProject Tennis don't really align with either side as the two subset sections of the article (the lead but especially "Sexual assault allegation and disappearance") are way over-trivialized with undue weight for this tennis player bio. For a 20-year tennis career this allegation now takes up 1/3 the readable prose in this encyclopedia. I'd get a couple of other tennis editors to help trim the sails on the info but not while we have a couple editors going back and forth multiple times a day. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry for not messaging; I didn't know you initiated the protect, not just opening Talk afterwards. CurryCity (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes edit war happens, which I regret. But equally importantly, I sincerely engaged in Talk and respected agreements afterwards. Contrary to FobTown's accusation, the other editors they cited actually persisted to the end of BRD; I was the one who gave up afterwards. @FobTown: Do you see a difference? Never did I sandwich an admin comment into a discussion, or skip BRD to edit changes in article content months after a settled discussion. Please also go light on reflexively counter-accusing other editors with untrue projections and casting aspersions. We all know what battlegrounding for its own sake really looks like (linked at open).

FobTown followed me to MeToo movement in China on account of Peng Shuai. There's now [63] a copy from their version of Peng Shuai's intro lacking full support. Propose: undo our edits back to [64] + add an outdated template to Sports section + restore their citation fix [65] + restore my touches on Li Qi that they reverted [66]. If implemented, I also won't edit about Peng in Sports section until FobTown's partial block there extinguishes or new agreements in her article's Talk, whichever earlier. @FobTown: Is this fair? CurryCity (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Josh Parris

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

---

Josh Parris (talk · contribs)

On 2006, Independent business was created by Josh Parris, and has been protected since 2016. but on 2021, I have nominated for deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent business. The {{Notability}} or {{Original research}} has been tag since 2021, and it was redirected to Privately held company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.246.137.4 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with any of that? What action are you asking for? Josh hasn't even edited since that perfectly civil AfD, in which he agreed with the consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Block: per nom 180.246.137.4 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You are the nom. What is your complaint, exactly? — Czello 14:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

OP also says that he nominated the article for deletion, when in fact it was Piotrus (and I doubt they are the same person). I'm doing my best to AGF in case this is just a communication issue but I'm unsure what else to say here. — Czello 15:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless someone has something they wish to investigate surrounding this IP, I think this is just a spurious waste of time troll and should be ignored. Canterbury Tail talk 15:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the IP is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/I love you - same range as these IPs [67][68] which were recently blocked for socking, and same interest in Hearst Communications and Draft:Independent business. Based on the history, I would not expect a coherent response from them. Spicy (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Block: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent business. 180.246.137.4 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes you've already said that, but you haven't explained why anyone should be blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Indefinite block: per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent business. 180.246.137.4 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Boomerang'd. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Deletion of article Ketto

Hello admins, kindly have a look in Ketto the article has been nominated for deletion for 3times. I am the nominator of the 3rd time. I saw other 2 AFD and found the discussion was not very professional neither effective. I hope this time it will be helpful. @@@XyX _talk 13:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Meh --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• What do you want us to have a look at? Stifle (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Blackbeautyinc and Bill Tomicki

This user has an obvious COI with Bill Tomicki, based on their insider knowledge not available in any source and extreme puffery. When I called them out, they denied it and responded:

"I truly believe you only bothered it because my name is blackbeauty let me find out your a racist and are only bothering my article because of my name! I will definitely be filing a lawsuit" (Talk:Bill_Tomicki)

They revert attempts to fix problems, including deletion of all cats (multiple times) and removal of the COI and cleanup tags at the top of the article. The article is in serious need of cleanup work: unreliable sources making wild claims about Tomicki. NPOV language. Unsourced BLP claims, puffery, etc.. but I can't do it when there is a hostile user reverting edits, calling me names and threatening law suits. -- GreenC 14:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

They are also likely a sock. Talk:Bill_Tomicki: "this not my first or tenth article". The account has edited two. -- GreenC 14:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Somewhat cut-and-dried; this is a legal threat and merits indeffing. Ravenswing 15:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I've indeffed them for both calling other editors racists and making legal threats. Canterbury Tail talk 15:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, that's also a WP:CORPNAME. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by an IP range

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

---

IP address starting with 106.204.00.00 is disruptively editing multiple wikipedia pages and adding everywhere Koli caste pov. He removed redirects of Chouhan and Chavda pages and added content of Koli caste in both of the pages without any discussion whatsoever, thankfully Chouhan's protection has been raised, so he couldn't revert. He also made similar disruptive editing and multiple reverts bordering WP:EDITWAR on Parihar, Parmar and Rathore (surname), on all these pages his single aim is removing the name of others and adding his caste name on every page. I couldn't find other pages, but maybe there are pages as well he disruptively edited. The ip address is dynamic hence it keeps changing. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide Diffs so we can try to see the issue. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

User:Realme233

Realme233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Hello, This user has been posting the same or similar content on random users talkpages, which appears to be spam, or (stretching it severely here) potentially advertising. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm seeing what I can do for 'em. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, I left them a message to visit Teahouse with clear queation, feel free to revert me if the double-messaging is confusing.Slywriter (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

anks okra, good to see you again by the way.h PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG inbound Evoke Heir (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Evoke Heir: What are you talking about? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh. They cannot answer. They are so blocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is in relation to me, Being a good wikipedian and reporting things that dont seem right is not WP:BOOMERANG worthy. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User: The Gentle Sleep

User:The Gentle Sleep, the original author Peacenotwar (malware) has been inappropriately enforcing POV, reverted the page many times either explicitly or manually, and misused the page protection procedure to try to lock in the POV changes, claiming "vandalism".

The original article wikilinked to "hate crime", an original claim not citing any sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1077915502

After this was removed, the user restored the link to "hate crime" with the disingenuous edit summary "removed biased language". After further disputes the user eventually changed phrasing to "racial profiling" which is still POV and doesn't citing any sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&diff=prev&oldid=1078184894

The user further edited the page to say the malware was protesting the "Russo-Ukrainian War" (started 2014) instead of the recent invasion of Ukraine, which started shortly before the malware appeared: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_%28malware%29&type=revision&diff=1078287148&oldid=1078279675

The user requested to lock the page over this content dispute, which was denied: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2022/03#21_March_2022

The user has repeatedly removed cited mentions of denials by the living subject relevant to the article partially denying the claims, claiming "The accused frequently deny their crimes". Whether or not the denial is truthful, it's relevant and supported by sources. In particular enforcing POV regarding a living person is problematic (BLP issues) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_%28malware%29&type=revision&diff=1078459784&oldid=1078411729

From a content dispute perspective User:The Gentle Sleep and User:GhostOfDanGurney have discussed extensively at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peacenotwar_(malware)#Racial_profiling_vs_hate_crime but shows no sign of resolution. At this point I think it's gone beyond any reasonable assumptions of good faith and would like an administrator or a third party to step in.

Reverts (there are other manual edits I haven't included): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078459784 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078327085 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078323193 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacenotwar_(malware)&oldid=1078279675 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.163.135 (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion as yet on any possible behavioural issues, but, on the content issue, I see no secondary sources either cited or that I can find, but just some news reports and the usual automated stuff that gets generated for any malware, all primary sources. Shouldn't we just delete the article and have done with things? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Phil Bridger Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Miller (motorcyclist) is relevant here, though, as some people at this AfD are suggesting that the software is more notable than its creator and should therefore be redirected to it. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Surge Of Reason and Moderna

Surge Of Reason (talk · contribs) appears to have a particularly negative view of Moderna, where they seem to be especially focused on adding sharply critical content. SOR has been adding and expanding controversy sections on a number of articles about corporations, but, while perhaps a little undue, those changes are comparatively neutrally framed. At Moderna, they had been adding discussions of tax avoidance [69] and secretiveness of research, which has been disputed by Zefr (talk · contribs) and Aoi (talk · contribs), and which resulted in SOR initiating this ANI thread a month ago [70], accusing Zefr of "abuse." I closed that discussion and cautioned SOR to examine their own POV before accusing others of POV. In the meantime, an RfC was initiated by Tigraan at Talk:Moderna over the tax item.

With the RfC still running, SOR added a section headed "tax dodging" [71], which I reverted as plainly POV, and cautioned SOR [72], and Zefr reverted another portion getting this congenial edit summary [73] from SOR. They then went to NPOVN with this [74], and replied to Aoi and M.Bitton like this [75] [76]. I warned them again [77], and today we have another attack against Zefr [78].

Since then, they've posted this odd statement on the Moderna talkpage [79], which seems to reveal a particular animus toward pharmaceutical companies. Since Moderna is to a large degree Covid-related, I left a DS/Covid notice, which got their usual talkpage revert.

SOR does not seem to be is not able to maintain NPOV with respect to corporations in general, and pharmaceutical companies in particular, and their treatment of other editors is unacceptable. This is aside from issues with copyright and overall sourcing. Since I reverted them at Moderna I will not be taking administrative action, but I don't think they learned anything from their last trip to ANI. Acroterion (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

My concern about SOR is two-fold: 1) they seem to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and 2) they feel the need to have everything their way and while they may occasionally engage on a talk page, it doesn't seem as if they are open to any opinions other than their own. If you look at their 750 or so edits, the entirety of their mainspace contributions has been to add or expand "Controversy" sections in articles on businesses. While some of these additions are probably merited, I am concerned about their heavily anti-corporate POV and their repeated actions to edit war their preferred version of text into articles.

For example, SOR added text to the article "Criticism of Netflix", under the heading "DVD spinoff disaster." I reverted the addition with a note that the the discussion was probably better presented elsewhere, but SOR shortly thereafter added the text back in, changing the word "disaster to "tragedy". They also duplicated a lot of the material from Criticism of Netflix on the main Netflix article as well[80], which was reverted by another editor[81]. In the resulting talk page discussion, three editors disagreed with their addition. Their response was to accuse others of "obsessive ranting," and said I was "removing their comments" to make myself "look better." (For the record, I did not remove any of their comments anywhere except from my own user talk page, where they copied and pasted the entire text they wanted to add to the article without attribution.) Not to be deterred (and despite opposition from three other editors), they waited a couple of weeks and re-added the material to the article when no one was watching a little more than a week ago.

Similarly, at the Moderna article, they've been trying to add this tax avoidance stuff to the article six times over the last month and a half: [82], [83], [84], [85], [86] (plus one more diff that I can't add because it was revdeled as a copyvio), even as an RFC on the issue was ongoing.

This user's habit of casting aspersions also needs to be addressed, whether it's accusing other users of "protecting a personal stake" in a company or accusing an administrator who made a single edit to an article of "hounding".

I don't know what needs to be done to address this. I am concerned that the user's sole purpose here on Wikipedia is to add or expand controversy sections for businesses. Further, while I do believe they are editing in good faith, their inability to accept others' opinions (and their apparent need to have articles worded their way) is concerning. Perhaps topic banning them from editing about business controversies would give them a chance to show that they can edit other topics in a constructive fashion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Good heavens. Possibly that vicious edit summary aimed at Zefr should've drawn a vacation of a day or two, but in any event, this bloke seems to be unable to assume good faith in anyone disagreeing with him. I'd certainly support a tban from editing business articles until they prove they can be not only a productive editor, but one who can collaborate with others. Ravenswing 04:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Acroterion and Zefr are clearly interested in nothing other than removing negative information about Moderna from the page. My suspicion is they're economically motivated. The bias they exhibit in favor of Moderna is outrageous, they've done nothing other than defend this one company from objective criticism. I'm certainly not treating Moderna any different from how I would other companies. Aoi also appears biased, showing excessive favor for the companies Moderna, Netflix, and Broadcom. I know I'm casting aspersions, please don't point that out to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 11:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Came here due to a PA at WP:NPOVN, the user clearly has cooperation issues and no real interest in obeying policy. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

And they are still at it [[87]]. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong diff or wrong user? Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong user. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural note: Acroterion made me aware of that discussion via a mention on my talk page, the same as Zefr and Aoi, though those two got pinged too so it’s more obvious they were mentioned.

Without having made any investigative effort, I think Aoi’s first sentence summarizes the problem well - RIGHTGREATWRONGs mentality with a "compromise means compromission" mentality. Based only on the behavior at Moderna and the talk page, I think a stern warning is needed, but I think it is worth trying that before the more coercitive means. But then, I might be uninformed (I have not looked at other pages, I am not an ANI regular) and/or unduly lenient (I am a Teahouse regular where patience regularly pays off, and I am in the same "camp" regarding the content - see RfC - so I might be tempted to minimize the gravity of their actions). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think a TBAN is the right approach... would go with an SBAN instead. Surge of Reason is clearly NOTHERE and is as far from AGF as I've seen in a long time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if a mainspace block is more appropriate. We can insist they prove they can contribute on talk pages in a collegial and good faith manner, building consensus etc, before giving them mainspace privileges back. Canterbury Tail talk 18:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  I quite like that idea. Not sure if it will work, but it's creative. Plus one from me. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Put me down as another in favor of this. Frankly, I have little faith it will work as intended, but I think it's worth a shot befre abandoning all hope (with apologies to Dante). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Instead of retracting the unwarranted personal attacks, they decided to double down on them. This is an indication that all the TBAN will achieve is displacing the problem to another topic. M.Bitton (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal TBAN Surge Of Reason from Moderna

• Support as proposer Given the single-mindedness of Surge Of Reason that leads to the vitriolic lack of cooperation discussed in this thread, and the lack of WP:AGF, seeing all who disagree with them as evilly motivated, I believe they need time away from the subject to gain some sort of editorial perspective. I mean, they know they are casting aspersions. Wikipedia is not a debating society where one exercises their capacity for rhetoric in outrageous attacks on opponents. Perhaps three months. indef per Jayron, et al. (and per Surge Of Reason's comment below) Broadly construed to mean editing about Moderna at all anywhere on Wikipedia except to appeal the TBAN itself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite TBAN from Moderna, broadly construed, as described above. Setting an arbitrary end-date seems unwise; the release of the ban should be contingent on proper behavior, not on waiting it out to resume bad behavior at that date. --Jayron32 15:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Of course Moderna, in common with just about every corporation of its size, has made some mistakes, and has probably done some bad things. Wikipedia's job is to cover those in proportion to how much coverage there is of them in independent reliable sources, not to campaign against the company. I think that Surge of Reason has admitted that he is not here to collaboratively produce neutral content with the statements above. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban from Moderna, with a stern warning that if the same stubborn Right great wrongs muckraking behavior continues on other articles, additional sanctions will be imposed. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ya wow, you know you're right, no investigative effort and you pick the easiest option of saying that I'm the problem. I'm embarassed you people even appear on this page. Surge Of Reason (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  When one is already skating on thin ice, it is best not to Axel --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban with the above comment (this time it was them) it is clear they can't be civil in this topic area. Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban with recommendation that this is extended to indefinite site ban mainspace ban as per discussion above. User is not here to collaboratively contribute to an encyclopedia. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support indefinite tban as I indicated above, and indef ban. Sorry, but when a new editor with no record of productive edits meets with disapproval by swinging fists and levying insults, since when upon being whacked by the Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice do they miraculously become mindful and courteous? Ravenswing 04:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Also support main space ban Casting aspersions at other editors; no efforts at collaboration. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - this user simply refuses to engage with concerns expressed in good faith, while accusing people expressing such concerns of being paid shills. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You people are a gang of children, you belong on the playground where you can torment people of you're own fucking mental age.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge Of Reason (talk • contribs) 13:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

And I've just completely indeffed them for that one. Not entirely sure how they thought that would play out any differently. Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would have indeffed them for using a contraction in place of a possessive noun (or is it adjective?)... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I did notice that, but I'm not that much of a grammar policeman. Canterbury Tail talk 15:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Just here to say that "your" is the adjective while "yours" would be the possessive pronoun. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I did warn them about jumping on thin ice. UR often works for "your" and "you're". Perhaps they can be unblocked when they grow to be as wise as we. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

(Conscious I just f'd up the thread formatting) you are a diamond... thanks for the grammar confirmation... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 22:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting. It's really the over-use of {{Outdent}} that screws everything up and makes it impossible to reply to comments. That template should be banned on extremely busy pages like this one where clarity in who is replying to who is paramount. Modulus12 (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

IP User:2409:4072:6000::/36

User:2409:4072:6C84:E0CE:2C15:F3B0:BC4B:389B Already blocked in many places. Have a look at this range it needs a strong range block. Spamming my Userpage. @@@XyX _talk 10:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Mistaken undo

Hello I am shadowwarrior8. I am writing this to notify that I made an undo, by typo-on screen mistake (mobile) [here]. I tried to undo it personally before another user undid. Hope that mistake is clarified.

~~ shadowwarrior8

UTC 13:31 22 March 2022

• Thanks. You don't need to let us know here; please discuss the content on Talk:Barelvi. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

LambdofGod again

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

---

After being told at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1093#LambdofGod that they needed to engage with the discussion on the article talk page rather than edit warring, LambdofGod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed restoring their preferred version of Arabs in Germany, still without engaging in discussion at Talk:Arabs in Germany#Updated population figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked from editing that page for a week. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Stifle. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Please be careful yourself not to end up the same way. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I've been making extensive use of discussion pages, Stifle, including at User talk:LambdofGod#March 2022, and only reverting to the consensus version of articles pending discussion, but it seems LambdofGod will only engage when forced to. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I recognize that :) Stifle (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) I think that Stifle was just giving a friendly warning that being right is not an exemption from WP:3RR. It's easy to get carried away when reverting people who add spurious content to articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, understood. Thanks both. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Harassment

I have been targeted for harassment by the user Unbh Special:Contributions/Unbh, who is following my account and has reversed almost every edit that I've made Special:Contributions/Baronet13. This editor also threatened to suspend my account (which I'm pretty sure they don't actually have the authority to do) as seen here: User talk:Baronet13 . This is a clear example of WP:HOUND and WP:HUSH.Baronet13 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like a standard, garden variety edit war at Will Self, both of you could be sanctioned for that. Also, any user may warn any other user who is engaged in improper behavior at Wikipedia. The warning is a bit aggressive, but you were edit warring (they were too), and so the warning is not invalid. While they may not be able to block you, any admin could. The warning is a reminder that you can be blocked for edit warring. --Jayron32 16:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

What Jayron said. You need to stop reverting and discuss your preferred version on the article talk page. "All content must be cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." If discussion is fruitless, see some form of dispute resolution. The important thing now is to stop reverting and seek WP:CONSENSUS for your changes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

While I think a consensus can be reached, that doesn't solve the problem of this user reverting every edit I make. Most of these are minor, non-controversial edits that don't really warrant a discussion. Baronet13 (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This is only one incident. Based on the fact that nearly every edit I've made has been reversed by this user, the issue is bigger than this one article and the warning. The aggressive tone of the warning and the wider context shows this is meant to be seen as a threat. Baronet13 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As noted, the warning is bog standard. While perhaps not the friendliest way to go about putting you on notice, it's well within the bounds of normal Wikipedia conduct. Feel free to remove it from your talk page should you care to do so, and have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems everyone is fixating a bit too much on the warning. The main issue is this user reverting nearly edit it make. Wikipedia is essentially unusable to me because of this. Baronet13 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's not just them, is it? You have had similar edits reverted by other editors. I don't think Unbh has exactly covered themselves in glory here, but I would urge you to consider some of the sourcing issues brought up. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the only user to revert an edit I've made, but they are the only one who follows and indiscriminately reverts edits I make, usually with either no explanation or baseless explanations. One example is their claim that redirects can't be categorized, despite the fact that many redirects do have categories. Unless this editor is scouring Wikipedia for redirects and removing categories, which doesn't seem to be the case, they're specifically targeting ones to which I've added categories (most of which, by the way, had already had been categorized for years). Baronet13 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The categories stuff is a bit outside my wheelhouse, and El_C is dealing with it below better than I could. My interest veers more toward the substantive edits--and while I have no doubt that your edits were made in good faith, I also think the reverts were reasonable. I'd encourage you to make more use of talk pages and see if you can't get some collaboration going. As ever, just a thought. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Unbh: after you removed categories added by the OP to the Susan Karolewski redirect with the edit summary that read don't need categories on a redirect (diff), they then reverted with an edit summary that read: Categories are allowed on redirects if the categories are incompatible with the main article (diff). However, you reverted again but this time unresponsively, with a blank (automated) edit summary (diff). Please explain. El_C 16:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

They're adding WP:NONDEF "people with" categories to bio pages that don't exist and are redirects. It's ridiculous. The category itself has already been deleted once. I'm clearly not reverting all their edits, despite what is being claimed. The Will Self edit does not accurately match the source and is not RS anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbh (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Unbh: but how can that reasoning on your part be inferred when you don't leave an edit summary that mentions it? Or mentions anything, for that matter (i.e. blank/automated es). El_C 17:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it was pretty obvious, but I'll leave clearer edit summaries in future. This whole category would be treading really close to BLP violations if these redirects were actually bios. It's pretty problematic to have people listed in a category that states they have a personality disorder when they don't even have their own article.Unbh (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The edits I made to the redirects were valid, as they are in compliance with WP:INCOMPATIBLE. How would this editor even know about these without viewing my contributions? It's apparent I'm being targeted, unless this editor is removing categories from all redirects, which doesn't seem to be the case. Baronet13 (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Baronet13: For an account that was created 4 days ago, you cite policy as if it were an old friend.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI: some similar editing behaviour (i.e. edit warring) has also been involved by Unbh and GustavoCza on some Coldplay articles on 8 March and I think it is ongoing today judging by what I see myself. Jonny Buckland is now a 3RR page for today as I've now noticed three reverts there. I haven't seen any harassment on either talk page of the two said users in my response here but edit summaries might. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So it looks like there is a pattern of behaviour exhibited by Unbh of at least being overly aggressive towards those whose edits they disagree with and often reverting edits with little to no explanation. Baronet13 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yep, including the contributions dated 14 January 2021 when the user got blocked for edit warring. That was the only block so far. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 07:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy isn't difficult to look up. Baronet13 (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Perfectly possible to remain an IP editor while you familiarise yourself with the website, isn't it? Let's not go making baseless insinuations. — Jthistle38 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well ... where I got concerned was at actually looking at the reverted edits. Superficially, since they came from several different articles, one might jump to the hounding conclusion. But when one examines the diffs, they are also all attempts by Baronet13 to insert allegations of mental disorders into BLPs. I hope and trust Baronet13 understands not only that we need iron-clad sources for such provocative accusations, and that furthermore they ought not run afoul of WP:UNDUE nor of the standard of care necessary for BLP articles. So as long as he is accusing Unbh of hounding him, I'd like to ask @Baronet13: something in return: why are you so fixated on claiming that these people have mental disorders, to the exclusion of pretty much any other edit? Ravenswing 04:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  All of the information I added is reliably sourced. Baronet13 (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  First off, that's not true. The first diff I looked at was [88], an interview on a website starting out by calling the subject "Germany’s most notorious confidence trickster" -- that's reliable?

  The second [89] cites "360tv.ru," which judging by its headlines is yet another Russian propaganda organ.

  The third, the Will Self edit you've been edit warring over, doesn't say what you claim it does. [90] The subject doesn't claim that he has psychological disorders; the interviewer does.

  In five other articles, you've added categories referencing various personality disorders, without any attribution or explanation. So once again, I ask you the question you failed to answer the first time: why are you so fixated on claiming that these people have mental disorders, to the exclusion of pretty much any other edit? Ravenswing 08:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Quote from the Will Self interview:

  CH: On the South Bank Show a few years back you said that a psychologist had put “schizoid personality” on your case notes. Now, this might sound like a conceit from your own fiction, but I got the impression that you might have interpreted this as meaning that you were schizophrenic, but diagnostically it means a personality disorder characterised by “extreme shyness and oversensitivity to others”.

  WS: I did know that, but the same diagnosis had borderline personality written down as well which would be another form of that.

  The interviewer brings it up (mentioning that Will Self had said it on the South Bank Show) and Self confirms it. Your interpretation of the interviewer claiming Self has mental disorders is completely incorrect. Baronet13 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to read that interview more closely. The interviewer states that a psychologist wrote that down in his case notes. Short does not claim that it's accurate, just that yes, that's what was written down. It is not a confirmation that he has the disorder, just acknowledgement that it was written down.

Further, you failed to answer Ravenswing's question, which is the more relevant part: why are your fixated on adding mental disorders to BLP articles? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

He describes it as a "diagnosis". I think this is good reason to believe he does have these disorders unless you have evidence proving otherwise. Also stated in this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=jRVfQI82hx8C&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=%22will+self%22+%22borderline+personality%22&source=bl&ots=U3w3cqSVry&sig=ACfU3U3gLg3dk3uVLtWLEHePEuzbU0YB7w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFr_TY6Nz2AhUqIzQIHUGsAa84ChDoAXoECCMQAw#v=onepage&q=%22will%20self%22%20%22borderline%20personality%22&f=false Baronet13 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No. This is a BLP article; we need iron clad sources for these, not your interpretations of the same. (You've also failed to justify adding those mental disorder categories to several BLP articles, OR your creation of a category just for that purpose!) And stop ducking the question of your fixation on adding mental disorders to BLP articles, if you want to avoid a followup proposal to tban you from making further such additions. Further stonewalling or attempting to deflect the question will not work out well for you. Ravenswing 18:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your "interpretation" of the interview doesn't match what was actually said, but this had gotten far off topic. I think I've at least proven that the edit merits a discussion and that reverting it without explanation is not an acceptable response. The pertinent issue is harassment. Disagreeing with an edit I made doesn't justify harassment. Baronet13 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I do not see a pattern of behaviour that rises to the level of harassment. There is overlap in articles edited. It's not 100%, but it's reasonable for an editor who sees problematic edits from a new editor, particularly in an area related to BLPs, and checks further into their edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor has a history of edit warring (and has apparently been blocked for this before) and has been accused of harassment by others. Baronet13 (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Keeping a careful eye on your edit history, given your persistent efforts to tag BLP subjects with having mental disorders, based on questionable sourcing when you bother at all, isn't harassment. Rather, it's the sort of duty a conscientious editor undertakes. Given your stonewalling from defending your tagging, it's a duty I'm minded to take on myself. Ravenswing 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There isn't a single edit I've made where I didn't cite a source; that claim is wholly false. I don't know what your problem is, but it's obvious from your first comment that, for whatever reason, you've been excessively and unnecessarily antagonistic. From your "creative" interpretation of the source I cited, to your describing somebody who stalks my account and indiscriminately reverts every edit as a "conscientious editor", to your outright lie about my not citing sources, to what can only be described as a thinly veiled threat, you clearly have some bizarre bias against me. Baronet13 (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I myself have had a mental condition. If I was notable and there was an article about me my diagnosis would be no more relevant than the fact that I had tonsillitis as a child or that I now get the odd day when my arthritis is painful, unless confirmed by impeccable reliable sources that don't need this sort of "reading between the lines" interpretation. The same goes for Will Self. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I should point out that Will Self also has Polycythemia vera, which is stated in the article. I don't see how this is more relevant than what I added. Baronet13 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's sourced in an extensive piece in an RS that is sigcov of the polycythemia, not a passing mention by someone else in an interview to something that is not explicitly a diagnosis.

For all you aspersions of harassment my reversions are not hounding. I've solely addressed your edits (obviously by looking at your edit history) adding this problematic category and BLP additions of this disease that are without sufficient sourcing, or justification for why the category should be added to redirect pages.Unbh (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I could have found another source or clarified the relevance had you addressed that issue instead of reverting my edits without explanation. You've reverted almost every edit I've made (admittedly by viewing my edit history), usually without explanation or with a explanation that doesn't make sense, such as the claim that redirects can't be categorized, despite the fact that Wikipedia has an entire page dedicated to categorizing redirects. Baronet13 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Outside of this page you've edited 10 pages. I made reversions of a specific type of edit on four of them that I, and others here seem to agree, think is a BLP problem. I made edit summaries on those edits, except this one, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jane_Laut&diff=1078388275&oldid=1078298498, which I should have done. This is not harassment. This is not reverting almost every edit you've ever made.

Additionally I I've not stated that redirects can't be categorised, but that the categories you have added are not needed ( a category which has now been deleted twice). These are different things. Unbh (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Kevo327

User Kevo327 knowingly vandalize and do disruptive edits to the Azerbaijan related articles and disguise edits as a good faith edit.

Kevo327 removes content from the article noting that content "unsourced" without taking any attempts to discuss or find the source. At first I reverted his edits and provided sources, however I find more and more cases where he did the same, which means that it is chronic behavior. Here examples of the cases: Sevinj Stories; Nar (company); Baku Crystal Hall Case1; Baku Crystal Hall Case2; Khojaly massacre in popular culture Case1; Khojaly massacre in popular culture Case2; Khojaly massacre in popular culture Case3; Victory Day (Azerbaijan); Araz Selimov; Ilham Aliyev;

Previously (Here) Kevo327 was warned by Bbb23 for speedy tagging Azerbaijan related articles for deletion. Where Bbb23 stated that Kevo327 need to stop because it appears that Kevo327 have an anti-Azerbaijani bias that is leeching into edits. However, Kevo327 continues nominating Azerbaijan related articles for deletion. Recently he proposed for deletion number of articles, one of them The house with angels. Overall looking thru recent part of the Kevo327 contribution history, I found over 50 cases where he nominated articles for deletion, and all of them are Azerbaijan related articles.

Moreover, to hide disruptive edits and push his POV Kevo327 hide edits under general comments. For example in the Sevinj Stories, he made a change which he not mentioned in the edit summary. What he hided is that he changed title of the reference from the original(as stated in the source) "Xocalı soyqırımında həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl killed in the Khojaly massacre) " to the "Xocalıda həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl who died in Khojaly)".

Another example showing that Kevo has anti-Azerbaijani bias and doing POV editing while hiding it under good faith edits: Here, Kevo edited the lead, however, although there many examples of populat culture outside of the Azerbaijan in the article, Kevo for no reason added "mostly appearing in Azerbaijan." to the lead.

Considering all above I would like to ask Admins to take measures that would prevent user Kevo327 from disruptive, tendentious and biased editing of the Azerbaijan related articles.

--Abrvagl (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Without addressing the other issues noted, your first comment says "Kevo327 removes content from the article noting that content "unsourced" without taking any attempts to discuss or find the source." Kevo327 is under no obligation to find such sources, WP:BURDEN states "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", it is only the responsibility of the person who restores the information to provide the source; I appreciate that you state you did that; which is good, but Kevo327 did nothing wrong with removing it. I take no stance on the rest of the complaint, which may have merit, but on that one issue, there is nothing to stand on by policy. People are allowed (even encouraged) to remove contentious material that lacks a clear source. --Jayron32 16:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32 I believe the issue here is that sources are consistently being removed and reverted by this user with 0 explaination as to why, Can you truely assume good faith if this is on a constant basis? PerryPerryD Talk To Me 16:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I picked one out at random from your list, here, this is entirely within policy. The information has no source. It should be removed. If you have a source for that information, cite it when you return the information. It does not appear that they are removing sourced information. --Jayron32 16:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Lets look in the same article but different case Baku Crystal Hall: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia. Here Kevo again just removed information, not stated his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source. If fact even if he just open 42nd Chess Olympiad, which stated in the statement he removed, he will find that it is well sourced. He's just abusing wikipedia's rules to remove information does it primarily to the articles related to Azerbaijan. In order to see destructive behavior, you need to look at his behavior as a whole. Abrvagl (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

They are not obliged to open anything, they only have to look out for sources. The diff you provided didn't have a source, as simple as that, so it was removed. That's not a reason to report an editor to this venue, in fact, basing that as one of the reasons for your report shows bad faith and insufficient reasoning. And btw, I don't see any 'good sources' provided in the article, still. These are the latest edits by you [91]. Nevertheless, Kevo327 didn't revert you or anything (see Revision history), which shows good faith and standard removal of unsourced content in the initial edits, which many editors do. Your dislike of an editor still doesn't allow you to see this, though, even after comments from multiple editors. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32 beat me to it. I'm not seeing any prima facie evidence vandalism or bad faith editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You need to look wider to see it. Kevo nominates for deletion only Azerbaijan related articled, he removes information under souse of "unsourced" only from Azerbaijan related articles. He obviously abusing WP:BURDEN. Not a single time he considered adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Not a single time he state his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source. He just find anything without inline citation and removes it without any comment. Armenian user who does that only to Azerbaijan related articles. How do you call that? Abrvagl (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Why not just show an actual diff of it rather than leaving us to find it ourselves and failing to? The burden of proof is on you to show any wrongdoing. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes he has no obligations, however, edits should be done with good faith. But does not Wikipedia:BURDEN state following "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable." ? Kevo going thru primarily Azerbaijan related articles and removing information, which was not previously challenged, he never stated his concern. Abrvagl (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

If you want to include the information, find a source. --Jayron32 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not about me wanting to include information. It is about that user continuously removes information from Azerbaijan related articles and abuses BURDEN. Burden gives several options, but user just deletes it in every case. Abrvagl (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Abrvagl: Again, you really need to show evidence of this. It isn't our job to look for it just because you say so. Just as you have a burden of proof to show sources for your edits, so too do you have one for showing any evidence that is worthy of sanctioning Jayron32. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed they have prodded or redirected some Azerbaijani film articles yesterday (prod, redirect). I'm assuming both were done in good faith. Maybe someone could take a closer look at the redirect here? I did create it as a redirect (some 14 years ago!) but has been since turned into an article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently an WP:ANEW thread related to this at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Abrvagl_reported_by_User:Kevo327_(Result:_). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Also for those curious about recent disputes with both the article and Abrvagl, there is currently a DRN case I am moderating at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan. I have placed it on hold due to this thread and the ANEW thread, but it seems that in general Abrvagl is in strong disagreement with a number of other editors about the quality of sourcing on the article. Their arguments hold some weight (at least in the DRN thread) so I don't think it is in general a case of WP:IDHT as much as reasonable disagreements by editors that are unwilling to pursue dispute resolution processes on their own initiative. I think the edit warring issue is best discussed at the ANEW thread and this should probably be closed with a strong warning to both parties to disengage or open a DRN case. I had recommended Abrvagl not to open another DRN case while the previous one was ongoing but if the community and the parties in this dispute and ZaniGiovanni believe it necessary I would be willing to moderate a wider DRN case on the state of sourcing in the Anti-Armenian sentiment article. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I want to say that this ANI not related to edit warning or any other discussions. This ANI is about the behavior of Kevo327 in general. This one is about that Kevo’s disruptive behavior. He abuses WP:BURDEN and on constant basis removes information primarily from Azerbaijan related articles and pushes his POV while masking it as good faith edits. If it was one-two off cases, it would be completely acceptable and not suspicious, but Kevo does that constantly and PRIMARILY to Azerbaijan related articles and this is clearly biased and disruptive behavior. Abrvagl (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Noting here that the ANEW thread was closed with a formal warning towards both editors. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• comment have you tried to discuss with me before dragging me to ANI? No. And you have breached 3RR on Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, on a sourcing dispute that could be discussed. Yes, I primarily edit in the AA2 area, so do you, and a couple of dozens of other editors, this isn't a sin. And no, I'm under no burden to add sources on paragraphs that were left unsourced for years. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TheDragonFire300, Jayron32, Okay, I'll go through one of the examples in more detail. But before doing so, I want to emphasize the following points/facts which will help to understand the reason of ANI:

1. AS per WP:BURDEN if any material lacking an inline citation it may be removed if editor believes that it may not be possible to find a source. If editor not sure or believe that it is possible to find a source, then it is recommended adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Moreover if editor think the material is verifiable, he is encouraged to provide an inline citation himself. This is how good faith utilization of WP:BURDEN looks like. However in all cases of Azerbaijan related article edits Kevo immediately removed material from article withour even stating his concern, even if it was obvious that materials are easily verifiable. 2. User Kevo327 primarily edit in the AA2 area. This is fact and Kevo admits that. The AA2 area is sensitive area where editors shall be very cautious in their edits.

3. Edits, where Kevo327 removed material from articles with comments as "unsourced" and "unrelated", are primarily Azerbaijan related articles. (More detailed in ANI text)

4. Nominations for speedy deletion raised by Kevo are primarily consist of Azerbaijan related articles. (More detailed in ANI text)

5. Kevo was recently warned for looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion, even if the articles have existed for a long time, and was asked to stop because it appears that he has an anti-Azerbaijani bias.

Now lets closer look to one of the cases of disruptive edits on Azerbaijan related article: In Khojaly massacre in popular culture Kevo did in total 10 edits where under different reasons he removed almost half of the materials from the article. How article looks like before Kevo edits and after Kevo edits.

1. In his first edit Kevo removed mention of 3 films from the article with "Unsourced" comment. Although no inline citation was provided to the films, they are obviously verifiable. Sources for the films just pops out as soon as you google them.

2. in his second edit Kevo again removed materials from Music section, all of them are obviously verifiable.

3. in his other edit Kevo without any talks just removes Black January and March Days, just because he believes that they are unrelated. It is [WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]. After 3 edits Kevo completely removes See Also section of the article.

4. Here, Kevo removes material from the lead without any talks or valid reasons, and says that it can go to the See also section, but never puts it into see also section.

5. Here, Kevo removes from the article mention of additional 2 films, which are obviously verifiable.

Conclusion: This is one of the many examples of bad faith edits and abuse of the WP:BURDEN. In above example Kevo removed half of the obviously verifiable materials from the article, removed other materials from article without discussion and deleted whole section See Also. The user sneakily removes information from articles related to Azerbaijan and tries to disguise it with good intentions, but his ultimate goal is not to improve articles, but to remove materials from articles and delete articles related to Azerbaijan, and pushing POV. The fact that Kevo327 does such edits and speedy deletions primarily to Azerbaijan related articles shows that he has Anti-Azerbaijan bias. I think this user should be banned from editing AA2 area.--Abrvagl (talk) 08:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Literally zero of those show bad faith, and even in total, it doesn't show he has anything against Azerbaijan. It shows he has an interest in improving articles about Azerbaijan, and removing poorly sourced contentious material is improvement. You've imagined a slight, and are simply creating a narrative to fit your perceived notions. I have no particular dog in this fight, but looking at the edits you cite, I do not agree that any of them show bad faith, and none of it shows any kind of prejudice against Azerbaijan in any way. --Jayron32 13:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So constantly abusing WP:BURDEN policy to remove materials primarily from Azerbaijan related articles and nominating primarily Azerbaijan related articles for the speedy deletion by the user who was previously warned on Anti-Azerbaijani bias editing apparently is good faith editing? I really just do not get it. Abrvagl (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You have not shown any evidence of any abuse of WP:BURDEN. You've just asserted it out of the blue. You have also not shown any "Anti-Azerbaijani bias". You just asserted it because he edits a lot of articles in the topic area. Look, I'm growing weary of your refusal to abide by WP:AGF. I am extracting myself from this, because you obviously have a personal vendetta against this one user, and are not looking for anything except justification from others for your vendetta. I, as an uninvolved person, have given my opinion regarding the diffs you have shown me. If you're just looking for someone else to confirm your own dislike of this other person, find someone else. I'm out. Vaya con dios. --Jayron32 14:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont have personal vendetta against Kevo327. I will give a last try to explain reason of the DNI Abrvagl (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Jayron32, EvergreenFir, TheDragonFire300, Kevo327, Abrvagl, For someone having a grand total of 3 edits prior to January 26th of 2022, Abrvagl continues to demonstrate extensive knowledge about Wikipedia and its policies, unmatched by no other new account I've seen on this website. They cite all kinds of guidelines in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan, like WP:QS, WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:EXTRAORDINARY, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:RS. They demand the best sources for any quote, or it should be removed according to them. Their extreme 'care' for sources doesn't follow in other articles, though.

• Not every letter of the article should be provided with sources. However, just simple google search would give you source. I will add it. Do not agree that there was over-sourcing either. [92]
• Unsourced does not mean that you need to delete it, if you google, then you will find the source in very first search result. I will add source to article as you believe that this bit of information should be sourced. [93]

They then proceed to add these supposed "google sources", apparently forgetting all the guidelines and policies they cited in their DRN analysis. [94], [95].

They're also edit-warring in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, claiming BLP in this example. Simple check would reveal that the primary source for those statements by Ilham Aliev is directly from Az president's website [96]. Abrvagl justifies his reverts, claiming the source:

• 1) "...reveals that this words were said about Armenia leadership, not Armenians as nation."
• 2) "..reveals that this words were addressed not to Armenians as nation, but about the Armenia army which was occupying Azerbaijan territories at that time."

However, in the first instance, Azeri president's source directly says “...manifestation of Armenian fascism and a witness to Armenian fascism”. So clearly it is not just talking about leadership. The "dogs" part is also about Armenians, not leadership as Abrvagl claims. It doesn’t mention leadership, it mentions all Armenians. From the same source: "I said that if they do not leave our lands of their own free will, we will chase them away like dogs and we are doing that.". The second point by Abrvagl is a personal interpretation it seems like.

As a conclusion, I would say that this editor is engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS edits and reverts others with highly insufficient and misleading arguments, which is an edit-war. I would support a WP:BOOMERANG here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a bad-faith ANI report to win a content dispute and disrupt dispute resolution. We are editors, which includes tidying up articles and removing content that lacks sourcing. In the voluminous reporting above, I see zero policy violations and lots of I don't like that they remove unsourced content that I want in the article. Suggest OP disengage and return to dispute resolution before the community has no choice to involve themselves. Also calling it vandalism is a personal attack and OP should never use that term except when dealing with actual vandalsSlywriter (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not about "I do not like that they remove unsourced content". It is about abusing WP:BURDEN policy to remove materials primarily from Azerbaijan related articles and nominating primarily Azerbaijan related articles for the speedy deletion by the user who was previously warned on Anti-Azerbaijani bias editing.

AS per WP:BURDEN if any material lacking an inline citation it may be removed if editor believes that it may not be possible to find a source. If editor not sure or believe that it is possible to find a source, then it is recommended adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Moreover if editor think the material is verifiable, he is encouraged to provide an inline citation himself. This is how good faith utilization of WP:BURDEN looks like. However in all cases of Azerbaijan related article edits Kevo immediately removed material from article without even stating his concern, even if it was obvious that materials are easily verifiable. Abrvagl (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

COMMENT: Not going to reply to that absolutely unrelated comment made by Zani. But if anyone interested - I never justified my reverts by that. If anyone interested to read and even join discussion - it is available on the talk page Talk:Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan#The Mixed Messaging of Ilham Aliyev. Abrvagl (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That was not done, so it is proper to remove the material. When the content was introduced, sources were not there. The editor removing is under no obligation to do the work to keep the content.Slywriter (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not arguing with that. You correct in that, I am not saying that Kevo shall provide sources. The point is that as per burden, editor can remove material if believes that it may not be possible to find a source or he can add "citation needed" tag as an interim step. Also when tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, editor should state his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. HOWEVER, Kevo constantly choses to remove material immediately(even if it is obvious that material is easily verifiable), never uses interim step and never states his concern, and he does that primarily to Azerbaijan related articles. Abrvagl (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Given "obvious" is not found in policy and is a subjective term, that is your opinion of the issue and does not negate BURDENs opening statement.Slywriter (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:BURDEN does not replace what it actually says. The policy does not make any exception for material that is subjectively obvious (you can prove that by Ctrl-F'ing "obvious" to get zero hits). Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 22:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Haha good one. I just want to ask which part of this, this or this is reliable that you felt the need to revert and add back? Did you suddenly forget all the guidelines you cite constantly in talks and DRNs, or is it exactly the case of "I do not like that they remove unsourced content"?

Also, you still haven't answered how you edit-warring in another article removing Aliev quotes and misinterpreting them in talk page isn't WP:TENDENTIOUS? [97], [98], [99], [100].

The official Az president's website has all the quotes available, and I'm highly unimpressed with your 'arguments' in Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#The_Mixed_Messaging_of_Ilham_Aliyev, specifically the 2 points you provided, misinterpreting the source. This all is just basic WP:TENDENTIOUS. And being an OP of an ANI report doesn't bar you from consequences, see WP:BOOMERANG. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to engage in any conversations with you apart from those which are related to article edits. Have nice day Zani. Abrvagl (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:BOOMERANG Abrvagl

Insufficient ANI report, which seems to be filed on grounds of WP:JDLI. Continual refusal to engage questions about OP's own tendentious edits, edit-wars and misinterpretation of sources in talk: [101], [102], WP:CIR issues.

• Support as proposer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni what exactly are you even proposing? A boomerang is not a sanction in and of itself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to add, a topic-ban would be sufficient imo, mainly per WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:CIR. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Similar to something the 'Zilla once told me, ZaniGiovanni, it's not very dignified to ask for someone you're currently in a DRN case to be kicked out entirely from the topic area. It's also confusing to me how one would advocate for that justifying it with an "insufficient ANI report" as that would be closer to seeking an ANI tban. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Insufficient ANI report refers to Abrvagl's report itself and battleground comments in it, which aren't convincing and were noted as such by an admin and other editors. I have no problems waiting for DRN to finish before any hypothetical sanctions are applied (I think the DRN is close to an end anyways). That being said, an unfinished DRN case doesn't justify Abrvagl's tendentious edits and this battleground report, and my proposal is done in good faith. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Hope they read the room and return to Dispute Resolution and refrain from further misuse of ANI (and related pages).Slywriter (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This ANI has no relation to my discussions or disputes with Kevo327 on other topics. Allegations that this report was allegedly written out of personal dislike are unsubstantiated assumptions. If anyone interested to "edit-warning" here is the closed case Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Abrvagl reported by User:Kevo327 (Result: Both warned). Not sure if Zani knows what he does, looks like he just spamming and cherry-pickking everything he possible can in order to make visibility that his accusations of me have valid ground. Abrvagl (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support warning for Abrvagl re bludgeoning. Neutral on other proposals. While I'm not privy to all the details in the case, it's troubling how much Abrvagl is willing to misrepresent the contents of WP:BURDEN to their own benefit and just how persistent they are in bludgeoning their point even in the face of calls to drop the stick. Thus, I propose that they should at least be warned for such behaviour, though I'm not going to recommend other sanctions at this time. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reason for ANI: More detailed explanation

Jayron32, EvergreenFir, TheDragonFire300, Slywriter I am taking last try to explain the reason of the ANI. Kevo327 makes a lot of edits in the AA2 area, both Armenia and Azerbaijan related articles, that it true. Let us take sample of his last 500 edits.

In his last 500 edits he did 18 edits where he removed the material from the article with "unsourced" comment. All of these 18 edits were done either on Azerbaijan related article or he removed material related to Azerbaijan from the not Azerbaijan related article. Despite of the fact that user does a lot of edits in the AA2, there not a single material removed under "unsourced" souse from other articles, only from Azerbaijan related ones. He looking precisely for Azerbaijan related articles, where he abuses WP:BURDEN. As per burden, editor can remove material if believes that it may not be possible to find a source or he can add "citation needed" tag as an interim step. Also when tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, editor should state his concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. HOWEVER, Kevo constantly choses to remove material immediately(even if it is obvious that material is easily verifiable), never uses interim step and never states his concern.

More on this 500 edits sample Kevo327 did 8 proposals for deletion and speedy deletion. All of the articles proposed for deletion again Azerbaijani related.. Kevo was recently warned for looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion, even if the articles have existed for a long time, and was asked to stop because it appears that he has an anti-Azerbaijani bias.

I hope I could explain reason for ANI. While Kevo327 editing a lot of articles in AA2 area, such behavior of looking articles to remove materials and delete articles he shows only against the Azerbaijan related articles. So tell me please is it good faith edits and behavior? I personally do not think so, I think that Kevo has Anti-azerbaijani bias and he edits Azerbaijani related articles not with good faith. Basically all he does is tries to remove as much as possible material from the Azerbaijan related articles(or Azerbaijan related material from the not Azerbaijan related articles). --Abrvagl (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

So let's see, they PROD articles with NO sources that fail GNG. Still failing to see the issue here with them. Wikipedia is not a place for indiscriminate information dumps. That's what the rest of the internet is for.Slywriter (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, 1. Here Kevo327 on his own decides that inauguration the Guba Genocide Memorial Complex is unrelated to the Quba mass graves and removes without any discussions or talk.

2. Here he removes sourced material without any discussion because it is "Highly dubious"

3. Here he removes sourced material without discussion stating that "Not if ref", while in reality it was supported with valid source(and was in ref)

4. Here Kevo on his own, with out any discussion removes sourced information related to Azerbaijan, because he on his own decides that it is "Undue, diplomatic formality".

5. Here Kevo without any discussions removes the provided fit for purpose source. I checked the source and it was valid.. Previously Kevo tried to delete this article with speedy deletion, but failed. This time, after sources were deleted from the article, it was nominated for deletion by ZaniGovanni (who magically appears every time when Kevo needs help) and reverted to other article.

6. In the Sevinj Stories, he made a change which he not mentioned in the edit summary. What he hided is that he changed title of the reference from the original(as stated in the source) "Xocalı soyqırımında həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl killed in the Khojaly massacre) " to the "Xocalıda həlak olmuş qızın Instagram hesabı (Instagram account of the girl who died in Khojaly)". Which completely changes the meaning of the sentence.

I can continue more and more. Gooing though Kevo327 contribution history it is clearly that what he does to Azerbaijan related articles is looks for any material which can be deleted or for any article which can be deleted. This is not good faith edits. This is disruptive and biased editing. --Abrvagl (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please continue, you just show more evidence of your WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior towards this editor. Virtually every edit you linked was cited with a partisan source and was undue: [103], [104], [105]. It's funny to see your double standards here considering the DRN discussion of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan and your surgical analysis of every source citing dozens of guidelines like an established wikilawyer. Once again, it's absent here for some reason (guess doesn't support a certain POV) and you continue this unfounded battleground pursuit even when others tell you to stop. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Zani, Not sure what is your point. There can not be a single evidence of battleground, for one simple reason: There is no battle between me and Kevo327. Yes we disagree in some points, but so far all our discussions were in civil manner and there was no insulting or harassments. I think you understood WP:BATTLEGROUND completely wrong. About the links you called partisan, non of the are actually partisan for the context they are used. Two just stating the facts related to the article, one about historical drama mini-series, second about Otorbaev visit to Azerbaijan. Third one I accept that can be deemed as partisan, but was used to support not partisan material. I find the way you communicate overwhelming. That's is why I do not want to interact with you outside of the formal article edit discussions. I am happily will answer to any of your further questions but only thru moderation of A. C. Santacruz, if she does not mind. Abrvagl (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Diff 1 - In 2020, on the occasion of the Azerbaijani victory in the Battle of Shusha, Otorbaev congratulated Azeri President Ilham Aliyev in his position as a member of the Baku-based Nizami Ganjavi International Center, calling the victory "a crucial step, which will lead to full liberation of Karabakh".

There isn't a context to include this partisan and NPOV text with non-neutral "liberation" in it, the source for it is far from suitable in this context, WP:UNDUE.

• Diff 2 - "It has been established that along with Azerbaijanis the mass grave contains the remains of brutally murdered Lezgins, Jews, Tats and other ethnic groups living in Quba." ... "The names of 81 massacred Jewish civilians were found and confirmed."

Highly controversial statements cited only by an archive to Az president's website and an archive to this visions.az website. WP:UNDUE and partisan for such claims. I'm amazed again how someone so knowledge about guidelines and policies doesn't consider this when looking at the sources, is there a particular reason that your behavior is changed now compared to the DRN discussion? Why are you so unbelievably soft on partisan and undue Az sources and claims cited by them?

• Diff 3 - sources used are partisan and unreliable, I don't see a problem with removing those.

To your last point, honestly, I couldn't care less whether you want to interact with me or not. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Ottayev wrote what he wrote. It is statement of fact.
2. This one used for not partisan context
3. This one was removed by Kevo with “Over-sourced” comment :) And I linked this case not for the sources he removed, but for other reason. So I dont get what u speaking about…looks like you not reading carefully:) This was my last reply to you.

Abrvagl (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I really encourage you to stop digging. At least one of your sources is a Presidential website for a VERY contentious statement of fact. That is by definition not a secondary source. Whatever content dispute there is can be resolved elsewhere but all I see here is a far too determined attempt to remove another editor from the topic area so that unsourced, poorly sourced and otherwise inappropriate material is allowed. WP:DROPTHESTICK before this really does become about your own conduct which is starting to look quite poor.Slywriter (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IBAN

• @Slywriter: can I ask that this editor gets a one-way IBAN from me? At this point he is basically stalking me, evidently searching through my edits all the way back to January (from the links above) and has even started voting the opposite of my votes in discussions out of spite without reseaching anything about the articles discussed [106][107]. This editor has a clear battleground mentality and I don't want to get dragged into a ABF fuelled Wiki-crusade everytime I edit. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Groundless. I have better things to do than stalking. What I was looking thru the Wikipedia:WikiProject Azerbaijan - Wikipedia clean up list and providing comments. It is not my fault that Kevo327 name signed almost under every article nominated for deletion/merge. Abrvagl (talk) 11:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  By better things to do you mean doing exactly what Kevo327 says, going through his contributions way back to January, trying to find 'dirt' (after your failed ANI attempt) and crafting a 6000bytes+ essay based on a nothing burger? Did you also find this, this or this in WikiProject Azerbaijan? Are you saying you weren't WP:HOUNDING Kevo327? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I did find them in the WikiProject Azerbaijan. No, I am not hounding anyone. Abrvagl (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate how did you find random articles like Nar (company) and Baku Crystal Hall in "Wikiproject Azerbaijan"? I don't see them being nominated for anything, yet you're in both articles undoing Kevo's edits and in other articles as well. Also, could you explain how in your irrelevant 6000bytes+ essay where you linked Kevo's edits even from January, you somehow didn't hound them? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  You can certainly propose it, Kevo327. In any case, I don't think an indefinite IBAN is justified. In my eyes if there is concern about hounding it's more of a very recent episode somewhat related to this ANI thread. If an IBAN is warranted for hounding concerns, a one month ban should suffice. WP:COOLDOWN are rarely useful, but as this is a new editor that may be a more effective warning that could help them improve their conduct and prevent further escalation in the future. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  A. C. Santacruz I'm afraid it's quite justifiable, they have a clear battleground mindset, repeatedly try to do anything to "win" by making aspersions that I'm a vandal or edit disruptively, even hounding me and going as far as vandalising a PROD that i made [108], they didn't also didn't stop after being told to drop it, all of their sourcing disputes are based on their repeated and unresolvable misinterpretation of WP:BURDEN, their personal POV and CIR issues. I can't forsee them to ever be an editor who's here to build an encyclopedia. The AA2 area always has problematic editors like this who see themselves in a virtual battleground. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Kevo327 the fact that they took up recent disputes to DRN when neither you nor Zani have makes the argument that they're not here to build an encyclopedia less convincing than you think and shows in my mind they could learn how to be a better editor with some guidance. In my mind this has all start as a minor sourcing dispute, got out of hand due to Abrvagl's inexperience and your own unwillingness to start a discussion in talk (I won't be arguing for arguments sake), and y'all are asking for everyone to get sanctioned like 2 days after this whole things started. I strongly recommend you, ZaniGiovanni, and Abrvagl leave the ANI thread for at least a day so that experienced editors can actually assess the situation without a new sanction proposal happening every 6 hours. If you think the AA2 area is filled with problematic editors, actually following WP:BRD as you failed to do in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan and trying to establish consensus rather than impose your view (however correct) through edit warring will certainly improve the virtual battleground experience you seem to come across often. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks A. C. Santacruz for acting as example and leading us. I will follow your recommendation and will leave ANI. I will not write anything here unless specifically asked for. Abrvagl (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, This is a preconceived notion that arose in the light of the report I raised ANI. I was going thru the WikiProject Azerbaijan and reviewing the articles and categories nominated for deletion/merge. I provided comments on number of them. In some cases I Agreed, in others Opposed or proposed other option [[109]];[[110]];[[111]];[[112]];[[113]];[[114]];[[115]]. I was not looking for Kevo327. It is just that Kevo327's name is almost under every WP:AZERBAIJAN related articles nominated for deletion/speedy deletion/merge.

Actually the reason I decided to raise ANI was that while reviewing WikiProject Azerbaijan, I found Kevo327 name almost under every article nominated for deletion. Then I checked Kevo327 talk page, and found that he was warned for looking for articles about Azerbaijani subjects and then tagging them for deletion and anti-Azerbaijani bias. Then I decided to check his contributions and found that Kevo327 removing materials from, and nominates/votes for deletion primarily Azerbaijan related articles. I identified that Kevo almost never added material or source to the Azerbaijan related articles and always voted for deletion of the articles. Kevo327 does not show same approach to other non-Azerbaijani related articles in the AA2 area. I found such behavior not good faith and raised ANI for admins to check. That is all story. Here I declare that I have no personal grudge or vendetta against Kevo327. We all grown humans and this is not kindergarten. --Abrvagl (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl I suggest you leave the community to decide now if the evidence you have provided is enough to justify sanctions against Kevo327 or if there is not enough evidence of disruptive behaviour. More diffs won't do anything expect reduce the likelihood of people actually reading through them, and more text will only reduce the likelihood people will actually hear your arguments out. You've said all you can really say about Kevo's conduct at this point, and I recommend you leave it at that and drop the stick. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you repeating the same unfounded accusations which you were asked to stop by 3rd party users and an admin? After so much talk and replies to you, I'm struggling to believe you don't understand what PRODing articles means, or removing unsourced / poorly sourced content. This just seems to be unfounded accusations again which qualify as personal attacks, and continual bludgeon of your point. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni you need to realize that Abrvagl is highly unlikely to listen to the comments or recommendations you make to them. You are preaching to deaf ears. You have been involved in numerous content disputes and disagreements recently with them so I think it's best if you let other editors give Abrvagl guidance at this time. I hope this doesn't sound passive aggressive but your rhetorical question and comment above won't move this issue forward at all. It's not disruptive, but it's not helpful either. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

With respect, it does sound like you're giving too much benefit of the doubt to this editor, considering I'm not the only one with the view of their battleground unfounded accusations and refusal to drop the stick. It seems like even editors who never interacted with them and an admin aren't capable of changing their mind. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni that's certainly a fair accusation. And yes, I am giving them too much benefit of the doubt and much more than I'm giving the rest of you. That's because they are a new editor that is not only having to learn the ropes of Wikipedia but also having to do so in one of the most contentious topic areas on the wiki. I myself was a new editor once and was so disruptive at first that I got a 3 month ban from ANI (entirely deserved) at about the same edit count as Abrvagl. That temporary ban is the best gift and soundest advice I've been given on-wiki. I learned a lot since then and greatly improved the quality of my contributions and value to the wiki since then. I think what Abrvagl needs more than anything is a very patient editor like myself that can help them be less disruptive. I think what you and Kevo need is to assume more good faith in newbies and stick to BRD more closely. You yourself have been at AE multiple times so it's not like you can claim to be entirely constructive in this topic area. As I've said multiple times above, this was a sourcing dispute that got out of hand. Let's dial down the heat, take a week long break, and then go back to making content and reaching consensus. WP:CANDOR is a rare skill and one we would all benefit from training in. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's because they are a new editor

Again with respect, I'm not sure how you can say this considering they cited more guidelines and policies in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan than any other 'new' account would ever do on this website, and considering you're a mediator in that dispute you should be aware of this. And they have been in enough disputes and ANI discussions already to know better. At this point, newcomer's defense reads more like a WP:CIR. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni they didn't cite the PAGs correctly, though. I've had to correct them twice that WP:CIRCULAR refers to sources that mirror Wikipedia and not non-wiki sources that refer to each other. The other PAGs they cited are ones we expect editors to be familiar with even as newbies (e.g. WP:WEIGHT) or ones that could come up repeatedly in contentious topic areas like AA2 (e.g. WP:EXTRAORDINARY). Their use of PAGs in their arguments didn't raise any flags to me and newbie editors should be encouraged to try and base their arguments off PAGs rather than opinions. Point is they have about 300 edits and have only edited for 3 months so yes, to me they are a new editor. Their conduct in this ANI thread definitely fits the mold of "new editor just found out about ANI, proceeds to inundate it with 100 diffs". I don't consider editors to stop being new until they reach 1000 edits and don't consider them to be experienced until 5000 or so. Your criteria may differ. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Is hounding Kevo327 again and reverting what seems to be a legitimate PROD, then objecting to it even after you yourself warned them also a 'newcomer's mistake', or something else? To me, there is a certain pattern here. I'll say this much. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni, as I said above, I would support a temporary one-way IBAN but I don't see Abrvagl's actions disruptive over a long enough period to warrant an indefinite IBAN or the extreme suggestion of a topic ban. The pattern that I see is a new editor getting flustered and irrational for a few days after being faced with experienced editors unwilling to engage in good-faith discussion with them. If they continue their actions after such an IBAN, or otherwise after this ANI is closed and they are warned, then I would agree that their disruption would not be explainable under the newbie benefit of the doubt and would support an indefinite IBAN at that time (which should probably be filled to AE and not here, by the way). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

...with experienced editors unwilling to engage in good-faith discussion with them.

Please don't make such accusations without any proof, you should know better. They were engaged in the talk pages:

• Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#The_Mixed_Messaging_of_Ilham_Aliyev
• Talk:The_house_with_angels#Objection.

Also, this report was filed on baseless and acccusatioral grounds, which isn't true and was noted as such by multiple editors, in reality being standard PROD of failed WP:GNG articles and removing unsourced or poorly sourced content by an editor. All of which to me and others was done in good faith and absolutely didn't warrant an ANI report. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• ZaniGiovanni Honestly, I think you have been unnecessarily involved and opinionated in this thread. Rather than allowing uninvolved editors resolve this, you have been pouring gasoline near the fire. Consider stepping back as there is ZERO benefit to the community by your continued responses and I give it an better than 50% chance of going unresolved as others are less and less inclined to read or join the discussion. Slywriter (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I prefer talk page discussions. Just wanted to clarify things, as I thought I was being accused of things without proof. All of this should've been discussed/resolved in talk page(s) regardless, and not brought up here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

ZaniGiovanni the phrase wasn't an accusation towards you, but a comment on Kevo [116] [117] refusing multiple times to initiate discussion themselves. The house with angels discussion started after this ANI so I did not take it into account. The plural was not meant to include you but rather make it a general statement applicable to other situations (to fit the definition of a pattern) and I apologize if you felt included in that. I agree no ANI report was necessary, but it is also true that the ANEW report was unnecessary as well. In any case, I will recuse myself from this ANI discussion lest parties start thinking I am involved or biased (similar to what happened with Robert McClenon), thus leaving no volunteer at DRN eligible to moderate disputes in this topic area. There's no point in discussing this matter any further as you seem to want me to comment on specifics and agree with you rather than letting me keep my comments as vague as I intend to make them and disengage from the discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

References

WP:NOTHERE by Husyn Musazade

Husyn Musazade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[118] Replaced 'Yerevan with Mount Ararat in the background' with 'İravan is Azerbaijan !!!'

[119] [120] Attempted twice to add a image of a random historical person into the infobox of a currently living person, think it's safe to call it trolling.

Made several disruptive edits to Afsharid dynasty, including the removal 6k information with no edit summary whatsoever [121]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• This looks very familiar... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Found via AIV; blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Need a block for undisclosed paid editing

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Nodiseos. Of particular interest is this edit. User has been spamming books with links to their respective Shambhala.com sales pages, as well as spamming external links sections, since 2011. Skyerise (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• It is apparently possible to keep on editing promotionally year after year, by using the simple technique of editing sparingly and ignoring all warnings. I have blocked indefinitely as an advertising/promotion-only account. Bishonen | tålk 20:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC).

IP user adding unsourced content to BLP football articles

I've been bumping into this IP user 142.165.195.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is adding unsourced, large additions to BLP football articles. A few warnings on their talk page last month did not seem to stop them. I see this as good faith but am unsure of what to do now. wizzito | say hello! 01:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see is that it is largely trivia about coaching trees. Trees are notable for the "head", e.g. Bill Walsh, Parcells, etc... but this IP is going down the rabbit-hole and adding tree data sections to the next person down, and then all the people THEY spawned, and also the upriver details to the "head" again. Exponentially-growing trivia. ValarianB (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can source the content, do so, and then warn the user. If you cannot source it then remove it and warn the user. If they persist then report them - personally I'd be inclined to block now, but will see what others think. GiantSnowman 11:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There are definitely a lot of edits from them that need to be reverted/rollbacked. Sorry, but I'm not too interested in football to really add any content or verify any sources (I just watch some football/sports articles for vandalism). I do agree with a block as the unsourced coaching trivia does not seem to have stopped after those talk page comments. wizzito | say hello! 00:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Repeated promotion of Karna on articles

Ashneer‬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Repeated promotion of a Hindu epic protagonist—Karna. This is a sock farm, see User:DaxServer/Karna disruption/Users.
Involved disruption diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4.
(Courtesy ping of previously involved editor @DaxServer:). WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is an ongoing nuisance. I’ve already asked for locks for this user and a couple of others on meta — DaxServer (mobile) (t · m · c) 07:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#LTA sockpuppetry, puffery of Karna of Mahabharata — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Isn't there some PoG that discourages compiling lists of editors? If I, as an unblocked editor, saw my username on such a list then I would edit war the fuck out of it. – ².O.^Boxing 07:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing That's a good point. What are the guidelines around this, perhaps an admin could clarify? What about this one: User:DaxServer/Karna disruption/Users blocked then? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Vinrpm.p6054 and persistent copyright violations, edit warring etc

Vinrpm.p6054 (talk · contribs) has been persistently adding copyrighted images of the team logo of Red Bull Racing, ripping the image straight from their website. After first adding it, the image was shortly after deleted on basis of being a copyright violation, the editor then added the image once again, with the same result demanding people to ″not remove it″. They were warned on 5 March about violating copyright, only to add the same image the very next day claiming it is free use when it is ripped from their website (the file has not been deleted yet, but is very likely also a copyright violation) here at which point they were again warned. They last restored the image with this edit made on 18 March here. Aside from this blatant disregard of copyright, Vinrpm also engages in edit warring on the Delhi article as can be seen with these edits: 1 2 3 and 4. In addition to this their response to being told on the talk page of Red Bull Racing by multiple editors that the image is not ″needed″ as they had claimed was the rather snide ″Another one of those typical admins on wikipedia″ (I am not an admin) here.

Overall surely some kind of sanctions are due here, I would say at least a temporary block. Pinging @Fowler&fowler: as well in case you have anything to add since you've also had plenty of experience with the editor in question and their disruptive editing. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Oracle Red Bull Racing logo.png - see WP:Non-free content. That should solve any problem with the Red Bull logo. I haven't examined any other issues you mention. Begoon 10:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not seeing much of a case for administrator action here, now that the non-free image has been uploaded locally. Vinrpm.p6054 has been mostly arguing with CommonsDelinker, which is a 'bot. What has been happening is that xe has been uploading the image to Commons (3 times at this point); it has been speedily deleted from Commons; CommonsDelinker has come along and removed the link here {e.g. Special:Diff/1071436474); and Vinrpm.p6054 writes edit summaries at a robot. Rinse and repeat (e.g. Special:Diff/1075406029). The problem to solve is to get Vinrpm.p6054 to stop uploading non-free stuff to Commons, which a block here does not prevent. That's the actual locus of the problem, and it's not just this image according to the Commons logs, either. A case needs to be made at Commons for doing something as every single upload by this account there has been a copyright violation. There's a very slow motion edit war over images at Delhi, but there's also talk page discussion. It had a minor flare up two days ago. I'm inclined to protect The Wrong Version to force use of the talk page, but only if there's another flare up. Uncle G (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think a temporary block would at least be a strong way to communicate that the behaviour is not ok, since the editor seems to completely ignore warnings. Since Begoon was kind enough to sort out the image, that should no longer be an issue. However while Vinrpm does make some limited use of talk pages I feel like they are just going to keep doing what they are doing unless there's some kind of punishment here. TylerBurden (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That is against blocking policy. The project with the need to prevent something is Commons, where there's a need to prevent further uploads of non-free images. Uncle G (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP edits (Chris Sununu/Latinx articles)

There has been recent disruptive editing by the following IPs relating to Chris Sununu and latinx articles. This at times is explicitly going against the outcome of an RfC. Not sure if they are the same editor or socks (as they seem familiar with WP inner workings). Either way it’s annoying.

2600:8807:C80B:2D00:0:0:0:0/64 2620:104:E001:A000:A242:BD3B:6D75:7544 2001:16A2:CBEE:2800:7121:E138:5FC6:F258

Examples of edits:

[122] [123] [124] [125] [126] Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that you've got some more discussion to do on the points of disagreement. I notice that you opened, participated in, and closed that RFC. You should bear that in mind when talking to editors who come along with sources after closure and telling them that it's all decided. Given that this is a living person ethnicity dispute, I suggest referring the article to the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I’ve discussed the closure of the near unanimous RfC here and all sources were discussed in that RfC. It was open for 3 months and seemed to be exactly the kind of RfC you shouldn’t request a closure for. Still - I take your point. Regardless these IPs are editing disruptively and one was already given a temporary block for some of these edits. These IPs have not brought new sources but are just rehashing the RfC. From my recent visits here it seems conduct isn’t an issue if someone believes you are in the right. Oh well. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendly message from 148.252.133.235

FYI

 – Created section — Jthistle38 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please block Antandrus. He is a cretin who has blocked my mobile network due to an unrelated user’s edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.252.133.235 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP is now blocked for seven days. — Jthistle38 (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Lapado vandalism

Once again vandals are editing articles to put forward less than the truth on Joseph Ladapo BLP. Ladapo issued guidance recommending against healthy children receiving a covid vaccine. User:Snooganssnoogans had previously done that last week and is now again editing the article removing sourced information as cited by the source. I posted on his talk page asking him to stop and have not rereverted his edits vandalizing the article. Do not want to edit war though someone needs to have him stop vandalistic actions and maintain NPOV policies regardless of personal bias.2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Left message of this report though not sure if he will see/notice it. Thank you2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, the removal is not vandalism. The comments you added didn't have a reliable source. Even if the claim is true, Wikipedia needs sources to back such a claim. If I understand correctly, your concern is the article says he is opposed to vaccinating children and you are saying he is opposed only to vaccinating healthy (non-risk group?) children? If true that is a significant distinction and probably should be in the article. Do you have a source for the claim so editor scan assess it? Springee (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yo should slow down and go to the same source that is referenced and read it. t says healthy children shouldnt be vaxxed...Not all children and then the other edits same source where it staes four doctors disagree...in that source it says 17,000 mds signed a letter saying they agreed with Laado advisement. That is the other edit u removed with poor edits. When editing an article and reverting others good faith edits it would be wise to check the source and do due diligence to ascertain what the correct edit is. Please revert your incorrect edits to Ladapo and stop vandalizing the BLP 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is exactly what the source states. It is the same source that editors keep changing to remove the word healthy. The source is "The Palm Beach Post" That is the very source and only source in that portion of the paragraph. It is the source for the 17,000 doctors letter agreeing with SG Joseph Lapado of Florida. The edits by snoggins need to be self reverted maybe that will stop his vandalism. Thank you 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) SORRY DONT KNOW HOW TO SHRINK THIS DOWN...

That is exactly vandalistic behavior...editing an article to put forward an untruth. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In March 2022, Ladapo issued a recommendation that healthy children in Florida not be vaccinated against COVID-19. In doing so, Florida became the first state in the US to issue such a recommendation. The recommendation was contrary to that of the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics

Now there is the aragraph in question...gee looks like it is a cited source though must admit if i had no NPOV Ii "might" say it isnt sourced or its not what the sourcesays. Check it out and the article needs to be reverted back back snoggins...2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not call this vandalism again. Vandalism has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and false accusations of vandalism can result in you being blocked from editing. Vandalism does not mean "edits I disagree with." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thats really funny... that is exactly what vandalism is editing an article in opposition to what a reliable source says. That is also bias and a violation of NPOV on Wikipedia. The source's article is titled "Florida to be first state to recommend healthy kids not get COVID-19 vaccine, contradicting CDC". the source is "The Palm Beach Post". published 7 March 2022. The source actually says "healthy children" (believe it or not)

When an editor redacts the word healthy and allows the BLP to say just "children" that is misleading the reading public and dishonest. Whenever I see something I don't believe, I don't just edit the article to make it say what I believe the source says...I read the source and act and edit appropriately. Don't you? Otherwise Wikipedia would become a mishmash of people's bias and lack a neutral point of view which Wikipedia desires to avoid. The article needs to be reverted to correct the vandalism. Have a nice day. 2600:1700:7610:41E0:7CB0:D9D1:83BE:D383 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Non-Admin comment Added reflist so references are contained in this section, rather than being appended at the bottom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Childish vandalism from New Zealand: Summer Rogers name added

• MISS CALIFORNIA 3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

2406:5A00:6CFF:3200:0:0:0:0/40 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using a wide range of New Zealand IPs, and the registered username MISS CALIFORNIA 3, has been vandalizing various articles by changing names to Summer Rogers.[127][128][129] Quite often, their edit summary includes "true and correct". I saw nothing constructive from this person. Can we get a block? Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked. Although only one edit was recent, none of their edits are helpful and they are engaging in a childlike manner when asked about it. Not here to build an encyclopaedia. Secretlondon (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeam

(moved from WT:AN --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC))

Hi

Im new so pardon if I dont post this correctly. I had a discussion at Ponyos talk page where I argued that Wikis deletion rules and Ponyo's application of them where counterproductive (my point along with other editors being that the normally well functioning proces of deletion tags can in some instances be misused in the interest of censorship regimes such as Putin's Russia as in this case of the article of Marina Ovsyannikova). However Floquenbeam deleted my comment and wrote:

>>hello "new" editor. stop being a jerk. you were asked to stop posting here. if you do it again, you'll be blocked from editing with no further warning".<<

And this is what I wrote that Floquenbeam deleted:

>>Yeah, you keep refering to those wikiproceses as if they came down from the sky written in stone. In stead of getting offended by me critising the holy policies and you fighting for their rigourous application, could you not consider - as many others had in the discussions page - that in this case the "correct processes" were counter productive and that they actually benefit a real life dictator? Especially after you realised, that I was in fact right that the article shouldnt be deleted. That could have lead to a discussion about improving the "correctable processes" instead of a religious trench defense. HansClumsy (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)<<

I cant see that my argument merits deletion, getting blocked, or the Admin calling me a "jerk". By deleting my comment and threatening me with being blocked I believe that he is misusing his Admin-privileges. I have reinserted my comment to get the full picture here: [130], and I've tried to reason with Floquenbeam at his talk page.

Also, I want to reiterate my - and other peoples - point, that 40.000 people around the world saw Russian editor and Putin critic Marina Ovsyannikova's article with a red flag saying "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." After a few hours 95% of editors asked for a keep and deletion of the tag. But only the folowing day did the Admin remove the tag. This is clearly in the interests of Russian censorship that the article of her has a red deletion flag questioning her and the article. Im not blaming the original Admin, but this is in my opinion a weakness in wiki policy. These flags should not be placed instantly however they should be removed quickly when a consesus has formed. Remember it is in these first hours that the article is being wieved intensively by people that want to know who she is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansClumsy (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What you propose is not going to happen. If you do not believe, the venue to discuss this is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But I give exactly zero chances of success to such proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thxh. Are you talking about my proposal about deletion tags, or Floquenbeams threat of blocking me? The venue you link to doesnt work. HansClumsy (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Floquenbeams threat of blocking you was because you persisted in posting on a user's talk page after that user had stated that they were done discussing the subject with you. Generally once someone tells you to stop talking about something on their talk page, you should stop talking about it on their talk page. And continuing to do so would be considered harassment. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt know that. So that means if I have done something wrong - for instance misused my Admin privileges and blocked someone that I shouldnt have - if they write an notify me this on my talk page, then I can delete it? So the talk page on my profile is really just what I want people to see, not what people say. HansClumsy (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You don't have any admin privileges. You can delete whatever you want from your talk page. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not 100% true. You have broad control over your own talk page, but there are things you are not allowed to remove from it. See WP: OWNTALK, and WP:REMOVED. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Well ackchyually..." Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

When people are having trouble with policy, we do them no favors by giving them inaccurate policy guidance. It's better to just point them to the source. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thx, for clearing it up for me and directing me to the guidelines. Also the history is there, so people can always back and see what me and my pals dont want you to read about me ;-) HansClumsy (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've just blocked HanClumsy from Ponyo's talk page since they reinstated the comment again, after a clear warning not to. I realize I'm not supposed to call people jerks, but it is difficult sometimes when they are so clearly being a jerk to another editor. If this thread gets moved off this talk page and onto a noticeboard, and people want me to respond further, please ping me (not you, Hans, I mean other editors). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think again Floquenbeam is bordering on misusing his privileges here. Blocking a newbie for not knowing the rules, that doesnt make sense. As you can see from above I didnt know that I could not write on Ponyos page. Seeing I have no intention on breaking the rules and writing on ponyos talk page again, this blocking is rather symbolic. HansClumsy (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  If you're not going to post on the page again, then there's no harm here. De minimis non curat Wikipedia. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  The blocking was because they didn't think you would stop posting at their talk page about the subject. That is a subjective judgement they are allowed to make. Now, that you state you have no intention of continuing the behavior that Floquenbeam blocked you for, you can file an appeal. It is best to do so on your own talk page, and I would recommend reading WP: GAB. It is best to focus on what you did, and why you won't do it again as opposed to trying to claim that what someone did was un-justified. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, "I didnt know that I could not write on Ponyos page" is demonstrably not true. They objected, on my talk page, to my very clear message that they couldn't reinstate that post. This is not a misunderstanding, it is a lie. Misunderstanding = newbie who needs advice/guidance. Lying = troll who needs to be shown the door. I'll leave it to someone uninvolved to see how long we tolerate a troll here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  ! Involved block alert! Involved block alert! ! /hj Minkai (boop that talk button!-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 18:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would block the user indefinitely as some combination of WP:NOTHERE and disruptive editing, but I reverted an edit the user made to Peter Schmeichel, and although he reverted me right back and I didn't pursue it, I think it makes me WP:INVOLVED. That said, I recommend an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• I have increased the block to site-wide, and dropped an explanation on HansClumsy's talk page explaining why. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

VocalIndia

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

---

User:VocalIndia has continued a campaign of incivility and personal attacks, calling other editors dogs, evil, disgusting, bullies despite talk page discussion, a previous block and an ANI discussion where they were specifically challenged for using such terms. DrKay (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the user. The block notice lists only disruptive editing, but there are a slew of reasons in the block log.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by User:Panda619

Panda619 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Panda619 has been engaging in disruptive editing ignoring the concerns of other Wikipedia editors in the article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. On 2nd March 2022, User:Panda619 added [131] content to the article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. As I did not agree with his edit, I undid his edit [132] by providing the reason in the edit summary. Soon after, user User:Panda619 left a message[133] on my talk page warning me on disruptive editing. As I have only reverted his edit only once at that time, I questioned him[134] how my editing is disruptive as I have reverted his edit only once and also I have given a proper explanation in the edit summary. He didn't reply to my question and went on to add the reverted content to the article again [135]. As I disagree with his addition, I reverted[136] his addition and I invited him to the article talk page to discuss and achieve consensus[137]. User:Panda619 never came to discuss in the talk page and kept adding the same content to the article. As he was clearly engaging in disruptive editing, I decided to go to his talk page and post a message warning him on disruptive editing hoping at least then he would come to discuss[138]. However today, User:Panda619 removed my message from his talk page[139] and left another warning on my talk page[140] telling me that I may be blocked from editing as I haven't given a valid reason for the removal of his edits in War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War in the edit summary. However, I have given edit summaries in my edits explaining the reasons for reverting. As previously mentioned, I have even invited him to discuss in the article talk page. He seems to ignore them all. Without discussing, he keeps putting warning messages in my talk page.JohnWiki159 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's what I see going on:

• The image was added to the article by Panda619, JohnWiki159 objected and reverted, and started a discussion on the talk page. So far, all good.
• Panda619 continued a slow-motion edit war by reverting several more times over the course of a few weeks. An anonymous editor also reverted once.
• In the talk page discussion, no one agreed that the image was controversial or that it violated NPOV. While it wasn't widely attended, JohnWiki159 remains the only editor who believes this image is inappropriate, and there are at least 3 other editors who don't think it is inappropriate.
• The image was speedy deleted from Commons a few hours ago for being a derivative work based on non-free content.

My takeaways from all of this: big trout to Panda619 for the slow-motion revert war, and for not engaging on the talk page. Small trout to JohnWiki159 for not relenting once it became clear that no one agreed with him. Now that the image has been deleted, this is all a moot point. I don't see any sanctions resulting from this, so I'd recommend the trouts and then close this up and move on to something more productive. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scottywong:Thanks for the reply. I just noticed the image has been speedy deleted from Commons a few hours ago. Thanks for pointing that out. I understand there is no point in continuing this discussion further. However, I would like to highlight some few points. User:Panda619 left a message on my user talk page warning me on disruptive editing soon after I undid his first edit on War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. He warned me on disruptive editing after I undid his edit only once. I am pretty sure my revert does not fall under disruptive editing as per the guidelines as I have reverted his edits only once at that point in time by giving a proper edit summary. As I have only reverted his edit only once at that point in time, I questioned him how my editing is disruptive as I have reverted his edit only once and also I have given a proper explanation in the edit summary. He didn't reply to my question. He also never engaged in the article talk page. Today, he left another warning on my user talk page telling me that I may be blocked from editing as I haven't given a valid reason for the removal of his edits in War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War in the edit summary. However, I have given edit summaries in my edits explaining the reasons for reverting and even invited him for the discussion in the article talk page. He ignored them all and kept putting warning messages in my user talk page. Do Wikipedia policies allow Wikipedia users to put random warning messages in other user talk pages when it is evident that other users have not violated any of the concerns pointed out in the warnings? I am pretty new to Wikipedia as I joined Wikipedia about 7 months ago and I am still learning the Wikipedia policies. I think it is rude of User:Panda619 to leave random warning messages on my user talk page when I have not violated any of the concerns highlighted in the warnings. It is he who never replied to my concerns. JohnWiki159 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@JohnWiki159: I agree with everything you said; in this case, a templated warning message seems inappropriate after one revert, and User:Panda619 absolutely should have engaged on the talk page of the article instead of putting warnings on your talk page. Please understand that anyone can put a warning on anyone's talk page, and I don't think there are any particular policies or guidelines that put rules around placing those warnings. Additionally, admins understand that anyone can place these warnings and they're often overused, so you won't actually be blocked unless you're doing something particularly wrong. No admin will block you based on the presence of a warning template alone, they'd always look into the details of the situation to see what's really going on. So, while Panda's use of warning templates isn't great, there isn't much that anyone is going to do about it unless it really rises to the level of persistent harassment or something like that. You always have the option of asking Panda to not post on your user talk page at all, if you feel the need. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scottywong:Thank you very much for the explanation. JohnWiki159 (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Aprilcarteristhebest

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

---

• Aprilcarteristhebest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unconstructive editing and swearing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more appropriate as...I dunno an AIV request? CUPIDICAE💕 18:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Normally it would be, but there is also WP:NPA and harassment here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed. Also amazing they're so insistent it's where as, where it's always whereas, there is no variant where it's two separate words in any English variation. Canterbury Tail talk 19:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Incidentally, I suspect that this account is a WP:SOCK of 2a02:c7e:599a:c300:5f7:5633:7b54:ebd0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has done exactly the same thing. And yes, whereas is one word, so there.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's a suspicion, seems pretty clear cut. Canterbury Tail talk 19:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Edit warring of two IP user and probably vandalism?

I'm not quite sure why this two IP users (seemed socks of each other or someone) , came to my user page asking for help from sysops saying they are engaged in edit war of 1811-1812 New Madrid earthquakes with another editor user:Dora the Axe-plorer.

2603:6011:7501:7862:FCD1:EA01:D1E8:AB2B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2603:6011:7501:7862:CC60:70EB:F3B2:4361 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

by the way, in my opinion, these two IP users were kept harassing me and user:Dora the Axe-plorer, and since I'm not a sysop at all, so I also had no choice but to come here for help. Pavlov2 (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

IP came to my talk page accusing me of not assuming good faith and engaging in and edit war 1811–1812 New Madrid earthquakes. Why would I? IP failed to explain what the changes were and add a citation to support their claim. Basically, IP changed the magnitude values in the infobox and body. User:Dawnseeker2000 reverted those changes on the basis that they were "unexplained". The revert was undone by IP who said they were "making these changes per the USGS website".

I assumed this was in reference to the USGS catalog of earthquakes (1 234). However, the new figured added by IP didn't reflect the USGS catalog, and again there uncited. IP also made changes in the body text, and the cited sources don't support their changes. I assumed these changes were WP:HIJACK and reverted them. Ultimately, it's not good practice to make scattered (but significant) changes and worse still, not add a citation.

There is no edit war; I reverted IP's edits and they didn't come back to fight. Though I was spammed with probably 20 alerts from my talk page by IP 5. IP dropped the first message and there were a bunch of alerts about smaller edits. Another message dropped but IP self-reverted them. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I also got a bunch of alerts from my talk page. Even don't knowing why... Pavlov2 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Facepalm They're the same user on the same /64... wizzito | say hello! 04:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

user:Dora the Axe-plorer I was in the process of citing the necessary references, when you reverted my edits without giving me a chance to finish typing them and post them to the Wikipedia page. I didn't "come back to fight" because I did not want to be blocked for edit warring per WP:Edit war. 2603:6011:7501:7862:1D0D:E473:BED3:671C (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I wouldn't have reverted them if you had adequately explained your edits and your intentions in the edit summary. How can I take them as constructive and allow the changes to stay? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 14:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism at Jerome Tang

It will not hurt my feelings if nothing else can be done because this is my first experience with identifying plagiarism. The article Jerome Tang, the new head men's basketball coach at Kansas State University, was just created by the user @ABCUSApreacher46926:. The sections titled "Baylor" and "Kansas State" were almost entirely plagiarised from the school's official announcement. I've already advised the editor and have removed the plagiarised information from the article, I'm not just sure what else can be done. Is this an instance where the edits can be redacted? Not sure when that can be done, just reaching out to see if anything else can be done.--Rockchalk717 19:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717:, CVrevdel is your friend here. I tagged the revisions that contain the copyvio for RD1. Best regards, Jip Orlando (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you need the edits be redacted, you could take a try for wp:revdelete or wp:oversight, happy edit Pavlov2 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize. I wanted to get an article for Jerome Tang up quickly when I learned he had been named KSU's new coach, and I didn't stop to think about violating Wikipedia's plagiarism policy when I copied the bio on him from KSU's website. I will be more careful to abide by Wikipedia's plagiarism policy from now on. --ABCUSApreacher46926 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ABCUSApreacher46926: You are more than welcome to give it another try. Just take care to not copy exactly what they say in that article. You can get the same points across without copying what they said. I'll that chance to you to give it a try. To everyone else, thank you! I'll remember that in the future if I run into this again.--Rockchalk717 20:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are some good suggestions for avoiding copyright issues: WP:FIXCLOSEPARA — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

User Btspurplegalaxy

Btspurplegalaxy repeatedly broke the rules and ignored talks. The rule was Wikipedia:No personal attacks. First, they suspected my bad intentions without proof on this edit on the page of Jimin (singer, born 1995), on which I started the talk. I stated this is problematic there, but in the talk Btspurplegalaxy called my edits “babbling”. I thought this is not acceptable, so I created a new discussion to discuss this, but they archived that 30 minutes after that. They soon deleted “archive” on the archive page. So I pointed out this fact on the talk page, but they deleted that soon, which they claimed is archived but actually is not archived at this point.小出-小坂井 (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

What they called “babbling” was my comments. I wrote this to avoid misunderstanding. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:OWNTALK editors are fully entitled to deleted comments posted to their talk page. There is zero requirement to archive them. Please do not edit war to keep a comment on another editor's talk page or to archive it. While their description of your comment as "babbling" was not particularly polite, it's the sort of comment that is pointless to worry about. Nil Einne (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason why I wrote that is this page demands me to use talk page. Guideline says “Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively.” Don’t conclude this is “edit war” so soon, please. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

You are indeed required to use an article talk page to discuss proposed changes to article content when there is dispute. If you are unhappy with an editor's behaviour it's fine to approach them about it, but if they're not receptive then just leave it. There's zero point forcing an editor to acknowledge what you said, let alone trying to force them to archive your messages. As OWNTALK says, if they delete you comment you take it that they've read it and hopefully taken on board any essential messages. If they haven't and they continue with problematic behaviour then they will have to take responsibility for that when it gets serious enough to bring to a noticeboard. But an editor deleting your comments from their talk page is not noticeboard worthy. I'd note that while you were able to complain about Btspurplegalaxy archiving your messages, you've failed to notify them of this discussion as the big boxes say you are required to do. Also where did Btspurplegalaxy actually say you were babbling? I AGFed that your comment was accurate but now that I've looked more carefully at the diffs, I don't see where Btspurplegalaxy said you were "babbling" Nil Einne (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I found the babbling thing, was confused by the mobile diffs. Anyway I've notified Btspurplegalaxy of this ANI for you. Please do so yourself in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Basically you made mistakes about understanding behaviors of editors. If they behave unacceptably you have to discuss that to change them. In some cases they can be blocked. Sorry, your misunderstanding is not directly relevant to the topic, but I understand your “opinion”. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@小出-小坂井: you're mistaken. We talk to editors when they behaviour is a problem. if they're receptive and ask questions or seek further feedback great, we can keep talking hoping this will help make them a better editor. If they're not particularly receptive we can hope they got the basics and will change their behaviour if necessary. We do not demand editors respond in a certain way unless their behaviour is already enough to justify a block and that only comes from an admin or the community. If it is not, then we just let them be. We especially do not violate WP:OWNTALK by demanding an editor keep messages or archive them. All editors needs to take responsibility for their behaviour and while we can try to help them if they don't accept that help we cannot force them. Trying to force them has been found from long experience to be unproductive. Especially when you're trying to force an editor to accept help from an editor they are in disagreement with and there's no party judging whether the concerns are even fair. Again you've already informed the editor of your concerns. What they do with that is up to them. Assuming your concerns is legitimate, if they don't change that's on them. Continuing to bug an edit when they are clearly non receptive to your messages is not a solution. While Btspurplegalaxy has not (I believe) specifically asked you to leave them alone, if you keep bugging them on the same issue when they clearly don't welcome your messages, it risks falling into WP:harassment territory and you will be blocked. Also your complaint was that someone called your comments 'babbling' but then you refer to my opinion as an '“opinion”' with the scare quotes? Pot, kettle, black much? Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Your whataboutism does not work this time. The reason why I made this section is to notify other editors of problematic behavior of the editor, and making talk page and talk page deletion is the dysfunction of the first step of the discussion. This is part of their problematic behavior. This is the reason why I wrote the deletion of talk page and your opinion is “opinion”. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

小出-小坂井, you started this report with, "Btspurplegalaxy repeatedly broke the rules". If you're going to make claims like that then make damn sure that you are not breaking "the rules", such as WP:OWNTALK, which was linked in the very first reply you received and says, "users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". Not an opinion, but a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you ignore guideline of “Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively”? This page also demands me to use talk page and pointing out deletion of that is to show “discussion” failed. In the first place I asserted the editor broke Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@小出-小坂井 Drop the stick and move back. Nowhere did Btspurplegalaxy broken WP:NPA which various others have pointed out on, you may have interpreted the word "babbling" in the wrong way/context, when all Btspurplegalaxy asked for is to gain consensus on the article's talkpage instead of moving away from the topic like stating other participating editors is doing vote when none of the participating editors in that article's talkpage are doing such with pretty obvious missing of Support and/or Oppose. Furthermore, editors are allowed to blank and/or archive and/or ignore discussion on their personal talkpage per WP:OWNTALK, of which Nil Einne has pointed out above. Continuously doing so, when the other party has blank and/or archive and/or ignore the discussion on their personal talkpage can be considered as WP:HARASS of which Nil Einne also pointed out above. Lastly, Btspurplegalaxy didn't violate WP:CIR either as they have clearly communicated on the article's talkpage whether or not, they blank and/or archive and/or ignore the discussion on their talkpage is perfectly up to them to decide on, if it's worth discussing then they would have done so, if they deemed it as not worth discussing then so be it, there's nothing you can do about it as Btspurplegalaxy did communicate on Jimin's article talkpage instead of completely ignoring any form of communication. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

We have to make it clear that only one editor was “third party” and that all participants of the talk but them were editors who deleted my edits without validity (which I tried to prove) or you who were called by them. Main purpose of the talk is to tell whether deletion was valid or not. I talked about this but they ignored that and called my comments “babbling”. Who did not discuss was not me, but them. That’s my point. 小出-小坂井 (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I can tell they didn't ignore what you said but read it and concluded it wasn't reason enough to warrant the edits you were trying to include. I babble all the time. That doesn't mean I'm doing anything in bad faith. Most of the time it has purpose in my opinion but in others it may not. Could they have left that out? Sure. It wasn't the most kind response but I don't see it as violating WP:NPA. The issue with their user talk page and your insistence on continuing your conversation with them after they removed it could border on WP:Harassment or WP:Hounding so just be careful and my suggestion is a lot like others here, let things go if it seems you are getting too invested or irritated. --ARoseWolf 17:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

LambdofGod's personal attacks

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

---

Following the discussion above, which resulted in LambdofGod being temporarily blocked from editing Arabs in Germany, they have engaged in discussion at Talk:Arabs in Germany#Updated population figure, but unfortunately don't seem to be able to refrain from personal attacks. This started a few days ago with this edit summary, then we've had this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Clear WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. This is the 3rd report about them at ANI in the past week, and their talk page is just screen after screen of warnings since they starting editing at Wikipedia. LambdofGod does not seem to be a positive contributor to the project. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, although for balance I should note that all three reports are by me, and are really about the same issue - if the first hadn't been archived and the second closed, I would have stuck to one report. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

True, but their behavior does speak for itself. And Floquenbeam has dealt with it (appropriately, IMO). Lamb needs to acknowledge the need to edit in a collegial and civil manner. Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Well that's enough of that. Blocked indef. If they make what another admin considers an acceptable unblock request that includes an agreement to stop making personal attacks, the admin doesn't need to feel the need to discuss with me first (I may or may not be available). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Mount View High School (Maine)

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

---

This incident needs admin attention: today, an editor named Dababyspersonaleditor registered on Wikipedia to make changes to Mount View High School (Maine). They later claimed at their talk page that they were part of a "student edit day" where the school encourages kids to vandalize the Wikipedia page for the school (weird, but this somewhat fits with the occasional periods of large disruption on the page). They also created a duplicate draft of the Mount View High School article and made a personal attack against an editor in their sandbox. I highly suggest that the high school page be semi-protected indefinitely and the user blocked. wizzito | say hello! 04:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think he's trolling, however, he has to follow the Wikipedia rules no matter what. He should already know the fact that he will be blocked, but he doesn't even care. I doubt that not doing the "student edit day" makes his notes go lower. Also, I think he is violating WP:NOTHERE due to his account having only edits of the school in the article namespace.

He also called Willondon a "numbskull" and a "control freak". [141] Viewer⁷¹⁹/_Contribs! 10:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTHERE by 5.197.232.50

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

[142] 10 September 2021 - Changed sourced "puppet state" to "Autonomous state", no edit summary

[143] 26 September 2021 - Replaced "Persian" with "Azerbaijani Turkic", no edit summary

[144] 13 November 2021 - Replaced sourced "Persian" with "Turkic", no edit summary

[145] 30 November 2021 - Changed sourced "of Iranian descent, born in Russia" to "of Azerbaijani descent, born in Azerbaijan,Baku", no edit summary

[146] 10 January 2022 - Replaced "Iranian" with "Mesopotamian", no edit summary

[147] 28 January 2022 - Replaced "Iranian" with "Safavi Qizilbash", no edit summary

[148] 21 March 2022 - Removed several sourced mentions of "Persian", replacing it with "Turkic", no edit summary

Attempted thrice to replace anything "Persian" with "Azerbaijani" in a well sourced article [149] [150] [151]. Again, no edit summary

Clearly WP:NOTHERE and on a nationalistic mission. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and not a NOTHERE issue. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

How is altering sourced information in several articles a content dispute? Could you kindly explain where those sources actually mention the stuff he is attempting to add? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not a content dispute, it's nationalist disruption. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Master Vampire Shihab

Master Vampire Shihab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
89.147.140.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Sylhet Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sylhet region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Greater Sylhet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The User:Master Vampire Shihab has had multiple warnings on his talk page regarding his troublesome edits by multiple users, and has now resorted to editing with his IP. I would request that both are blocked. Cheers. UserNumber (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)