Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drmies (talk | contribs) at 00:54, 6 May 2023 (→‎Persistent Unsourced and Unconstructive Edits from IP Hopping Anon: note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Alpinegora

    Well, I was told by WP:AIV to take it here.

    Major WP:NOTHERE, WP:POV issues, and anti-Iranian/Persian behaviour as seen through their edits and comment. Not a single edit by this user (starting from this summer) has been constructive and neutral. The vast majority of their edits have been reverted (some recent examples [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], notice their dishonest "simple changes" edit summaries) and they also responded to my warning with this grim comment, accusing me of getting paid for my edits, etc [6]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Writing so it doesn't get archived. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: this page is archived by Lowercase sigmabot III, which according to its manual should obey a Template:Do not archive until. I've added {{subst:DNAU|10}} to this thread, which should keep it here for 10 days. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's a thing. Err.. well, this is embarrassing. Thank you very much Apaugasma! --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by uninvolved editor: I agree, definitely looks WP:NOTHERE to me, only here to push a POV. Together with that user talk page response, should be blocked indef. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, that Talk page comment screams NOTHERE. Indef is the right call. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. They are still unashamedly pov editing under the same dishonest edit summary "simple changes", which I just reverted [7] [8] [9] [10]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been up for almost a month. It goes without saying that I too think that Alpinegora should be indeffed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to guess the reason why this hasn't been dealt with yet is because there are other methods at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that could have been tried here before ANI, have you exhausted all other DR options before ANI? — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but this isn't an dispute or disagreement, this is a user engaging in outright disruptive (and dishonest) edits and personal attacks. Nothing about them suggests that they are a net worth to Wikipedia (WP:NOTHERE), and thus I'm surprised to see how long this thread has been up. I did also add a warning to their talk page, which led to the personal attack. --HistoryofIran (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to support HistoryofIran here, this is not an editing dispute, but a behavioral issue. Alpinegora is directly accusing HoI of being "paid by a dictator regime." That's a direct personal attack and should not be tolerated. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Srich32977 and FAITACCOMPLI

    Srich32977 believes that ISBNs should be formatted as 0123456789 or 978-0123456789, and has been mass-converting correctly-hyphenated ISBNs to this form (e.g. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]), despite guidance in WP:ISBN to "Use hyphens if they are included", and {{cite book}} that "Hyphens in the ISBN are optional, but preferred." Often the rationale given for the edits is consistency; the changes invariably aim at consistent use of the above format. Between December 2016 and now, many editors have asked Srich to stop these edits ([18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]) – most recent attempt here.

    Certainly the content issue is somewhat arcane and opinions will differ, but that is best discussed elsewhere, e.g. WT:ISBN, where Srich has not succeeded in getting support for his position.

    The issue here is WP:FAITACCOMPLI: attempting to force his preference on others with mass edits over years, ignoring contrary guidance and the objections of many editors. I ask that he stop making these edits (removing correctly-placed hyphens from ISBNs) until and unless he can show consensus for them. Kanguole 12:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What is the rationale for removing the hyphens? Doesn’t seem to make sense. Hyphens are used as standard in ISBN composition. Makes no sense and doesn’t benefit the project in any way. Don’t usually comment on ANI cases because I am not an administrator but this one just appears very odd. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kanguole: mis-construes what I "believe". Out of my many edits, 7 recent examples are selected where I've taken a mix of ISBN hyphen-citation styles and established a consistent style. Were ISBN-hyphenations "correct" or "proper" before or after my edits? In a sense, yes – all the "checksumss" verified that they were valid. But were the citation-styles consistent? No. (And Consistency is one of the "5 Cs" that copy-editors cherish.) Moving along with another example, todays' Featured Article (Renewable energy in Scotland) has 7 references with ISBNs. One of the 7 comes from an edit I did — the expand-citations bot/tool added an ISBN-13 with no hyphens. (Later it was manually hyphenated to 978-1234567890.) My point? This is an FA with a consistent/established citation style and that style involves ISBNs with either 0123456789 or 978-0123456789. Should all WP articles have this sort of ISBN hyphenation? NO WAY. It is too big and clumsy to impose that sort of MOS. Again moving along – a few editors have admonished me. Kanguole is one, another admonishment is for a typo I did. Another recognized that the issue was one preference verses another. But is this "many"? No, in fact I've received "Thanks" and Barnstars for my ISBN-hyphen-related edits. So I will thank Kanguole for noting that my edits are invariably adding consistency to individual WP articles. And I will give even more thanks when Kanguole uses available tools to add consistent hyphen-citation-styles to references. – S. Rich (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems fairly self-evident to me that where a number of Wikipedia documents show a consensus that hyphens should be used, the reasonable thing an editor should do to improve consistency is to ensure that all ISBNs use hyphens. XAM2175 (T) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The presence or absence of hyphens makes absolutely zero difference to the meaning of an ISBN (I won't write more on that matter here, but see my posts at Wikipedia talk:ISBN#Hyphens in ISBNs). Therefore, adding or removing them is a purely cosmetic change. If done on the grounds of consistency, I would point out that WP:WIAFA#2C says nothing about ISBNs; it links to Wikipedia:Citing sources which basically says that ISBNs can be provided if available (it stops short of requiring their use), but says nothing about how an ISBN should be formatted. To my mind, if it's good enough for FA-Class, it's good enough everywhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ​I'll dispute that the hyphens make "absolutely zero difference to the meaning". They make no difference to which book is meant by the ISBN but they indicate whether the book was published by a large publisher (small registrant element) and is potentially more reliable, or a small publisher (large registrant element) and is potentially self published. The inconsistency of component length, and hyphen placement, is a part of the system. Where the hyphens are used incorrectly their removal is good. Where they are used as assigned their removal is a removal of information based on a misconceived idea of consistency. Cabayi (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is the mass changes to impose the preferred style, despite the objections of many editors. Kanguole 06:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is little functional difference between converting all the ISBNs on a page to your preferred format, e.g. [28], and performing the same conversion when there is variation, e.g. [29]. In the latter case the ISBNs were uniformly correctly hyphenated until a bot introduced a single unhyphenated ISBN, which you took as licence to convert the others to your preferred format.
    In any case, consistency is not a sufficient reason to override the existing guidance and the objections of many editors.
    However, there need be no conflict: you can achieve your stated aim of consistency by subst'ing the newly-resurrected {{Format ISBN}} template to correctly add hyphens to ISBNs that lack them. Kanguole 09:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ISBNs with hyphens are more informative than without, as they indicate, roughly, whether the book is from a major or minor publisher. Information is lost if hyphens are removed. Yes, an article may look inconsistent if ISBNs in one article are in a mix of hyphenated and non-hyphenated, but a partly-hyphenated set of isbns is more useful than a totally-non-hyphenated set, so the hyphens should not be removed in pursuit of consistency. If the inconsistency worries anyone, they can fix it by searching out and adding the correct hyphenation. Otherwise, just walk away. PamD 09:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I've just read more carefully the above post: {{Format ISBN}} seems the answer. Perfect. PamD 09:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The template "{{Format ISBN}}" is a very good answer. But there is only one configuration that solves the problem – "{{ISBN|{{Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}}" renders as "ISBN 978-0-631-18428-7". That gives the reader the Book Sources magic link and hyphens. The Format ISBN template instructions need clarification. E.g., the examples are non-linking-examples or they are parameter-error examples. But this Book Sources-linking version should be encouraged. I intend to use it. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A note that {{ISBN|{{Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}} was changed by a bot to {{ISBN|978-0-631-18428-7}} almost immediately. I don't know if that means anything. — Trey Maturin™ 16:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's expected; it was noted in the parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:ISBN § Hyphens in ISBNs that [the] template is auto-subst'd by AnomieBOT. XAM2175 (T) 17:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. We now return you to talking with people who are less technically incompetent than me ;-) — Trey Maturin™ 17:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the bot works fast! – S. Rich (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    {{Format ISBN}} should be subst'ed – then there's no need for the bot to clean up. That is, you use
    {{ISBN|{{subst:Format ISBN|9780631184287}}}}
    if you're not using citation templates, and
    |isbn={{subst:Format ISBN|9780631184287}}
    inside citation templates. Then the formatting happens when you save the edit, so these are saved as
    {{ISBN|978-0-631-18428-7}}
    and
    |isbn=978-0-631-18428-7
    respectively. Kanguole 18:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is that when either of these is used between <ref>...</ref> tags, substitution doesn't work. This is phab:T4700, and having been open for almost eighteen years, doesn't look like it'll be resolved any time soon. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One for the next version of the Community Wishlist, perhaps. In the meantime I've added a comment there on phab: perhaps all other interested parties should do so too, just to show those interested that this is a real issue of concern to current editors. PamD 07:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Srich32977: Since we now have a workable method (namely {{Format ISBN}}) to obtain consistency without removing hyphens from ISBNs, will you agree to not remove them going forward? Kanguole 19:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the answer is "no", as the campaign continues.[30][31]
    This low-level disruption is not as dramatic as some of the other matters on this page, but it has continued relentlessly for more than six years, despite the requests of many editors (diffs at the top of this thread). It is time for it to stop. Kanguole 20:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Back with more "but they don't serve any purpose anyway" at Wikipedia talk:ISBN as well: [32]. If having the next best thing to a set-and-forget formatting tool is still not good enough for consistency's sake then I don't know what will be – unless, that is, "consistency" is merely a veneer over "IDONTLIKEIT". XAM2175 (T) 20:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The OP's report seems at least formally warnable. WT:ISBN does seem to have generally resolved in favor of dashes, but that page is not a guideline (a showing of a half dozen in favor to one is a good start perhaps for a WP:MOS addition along the lines of "prefer dashes" if you have a choice).

    I separately don't find the "make the ISBNs on one page all consistent" argument as defensible for removing dashes from a page. Izno (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A formal warning ought to suffice. Could that happen? Kanguole 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    DePiep breaking Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep

    DePiep has been banned by the community (see below). Nothing else to be done here (but feel free to reopen if you think otherwise). (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 18:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    DePiep (talk · contribs) is subject Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#DePiep which impose immediate sanction for any failure to assume good faith on the part of another editor, or uncivil remarks. He is currently engaged in editor-baiting at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and has gone on to make a remark at User talk:XAM2175 (diff), which I believe goes directly against the editing restriction. I believe his comments to EEng (talk · contribs) in the MOS discussion are also in contravention. --10mmsocket (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § ENGVAR controls big L or little L for litres/liters? to be slightly more precise, starting from EEng's line NebY: before I unleash the mob to pummel you into submission... I wouldn't describe DePiep's conduct as editor-baiting, but rather exceptionally-obstinate civility policing where only the faintest shadow of a civility problem originally existed. I had hoped that my message would be read for the DROPTHESTICK suggestion I intended it to be, but alas it wasn't, and their referring to my message as one-way whitewashing in their post on my talkpage is bad faith in abundance. XAM2175 (T) 17:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, by editor-baiting I meant that he has deliberately joined in several days after the fact to have a direct pop at EEng, i.e. baiting him, using a pointy stick to get a reaction. Apologies if that causes any confusion and detracts from the very obvious poor behaviour. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah yes, I see what you mean now. No worries. XAM2175 (T) 18:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we have some diffs, please? Makes everything easier to assess. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      1. EEng's original post on 4 April: [33]
      2. DePiep's reply on 21 April: [34]
      3. (skipping a few more back-and-forth exchanges, still visible in the page currently, then)
      4. My interjection this morning: [35]
      5. DePiep reverts a further reply from EEng: [36]
      6. DePiep is reverted by Dondervogel 2: [37]
      7. DePiep leaves Dondervogel a talkpage message objecting to the revert: [38]
      8. ... then leaves me a talkpage message chastising me for not reverting EEng : [39]
      XAM2175 (T) 18:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In which universe is this kind of remark acceptable? [40]

    :Too bad cluelessness and unintelligibility aren't pillars -- you'd be the undisputed God King Emperor of Wikipedia. EEng 10:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

    What some might consider to be 'just wikt:banter" – especially when directed elsewhere, a reasonably dispassionate viewer would have to interpret as an ad hominem attack and bullying. It seems to me that DeP has been remarkably restrained in the circumstances, in merely deleting it. WP:boomerang time. I suggest. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unquestionably inappropriate, yes. XAM2175 (T) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    XAM, what "It" do you refer to? DePiep (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, it is about the 10:49 EEng quote (not a post). -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed if any editor baiting is being done, it certainly looks to me like it is DeP who is being baited into breaking the civility sanctions. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) reply by DePiep (1/n):
    - 10mmsocket did not provide diffs, nor in 2nd post (17:47). That's very unspecific then, and still cause for misunderstanding.
    - XAM2175's list of diffs leaves out EEng's posts ("skipping"), thereby hiding essence. For a judging editor, this does not look balanced. I will (have to) provide these, annotated, when I have time for this.
    - Re XAM2175's #8, I object to "chastising" as characterisation. Since XAM2175 stated Further discussion here will be completely unproductive (#4), that should be the final post in the indents. I respected. To my surprise, EEng continued (omitted by XAM here) and so I asked XAM to maintain (enforce) their DROPTHESTICK statement (#8). It has not been explained to me why that did not happen. As for "one-way whitewashing": that refers to XAM's multiple judgements in #8, exonerating EEng, which I was probibited to challenge. For the dispute-solving editor role XAM took, this does not look balanced.
    As said, later more.
    DePiep (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt, I omitted those diffs because I judged a diff-by-diff playback of the entire incident to be excessive. Nothing has been redacted or even substantially modified at any point, so it's easy to read the comments visible on the page before the diff in question. In retrospect it may have been better to simply insert an anchor at the correct place on the MOS talkpage and link to it, but that didn't occur to me at the time.
    I characterised your message to me as chastising because it seemed obvious to me that it would be inappropriate to remove another editor's talkpage posts for the simple reason of "enforcing" my suggestion that the discussion should be ended. I am backed in this interpretation by WP:TPO.
    I did not prohibit your challenging my "exoneration" of EEng – I very clearly stated that you were welcome to challenge it here at AN/I, the appropriate venue.
    For the further avoidance of doubt, the root cause of us being in this position now is that your reply to EEng on the 21st was unnecessary. EEng's remark was not uncivil, so you did not need to reply to it, and you should not have replied to it. You especially should not have replied to it after seventeen days had passed. You are the person I was telling to drop the stick because you refused to see that you were making a tiny insignificant problem bigger, and I wanted to help you avoid taking it any further. But I do not particularly wish to see you blocked for continuing, nor I am not attempting to provoke you into responding badly. Just please acknowledge that you made a mistake and that it would probably be best if you left civility policing to other people.
    All of that said, this should not detract from the fact that in the course of converting this molehill into a mountain EEng has latterly been unwise and made at least one remark that actually is uncivil, as opposed to just irreverent and flippant as usual. XAM2175 (T) 19:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    XAM2175, this post is still present. It is contravening your Further discussion here will be completely unproductive statement/attempt to dispute-closure [41]. Above here you state It is unquestionably inappropriate, yes about that very same post 18:36. Why did not you (or anyone else) remove it? ftr, I propose to have it removed right away. DePiep (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep, please stop. My post was intended as a suggestion, aimed mainly at you, that pointless discussion be ended. It was not a closure – or attempt at closure – that could be contravened, and I have already explained that per WP:TPO I do not believe that I have grounds to remove EEng's posts. XAM2175 (T) 10:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And, for clarity's sake: I will not be removing them. Please don't ping me about it again. XAM2175 (T) 10:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realize there are people that have trouble grasping social situations, but such people usually come to understand that fact about themselves and exercise circumspection in injecting themselves into others' interactions. Not DePiep! For almost 20 years he's been not only taking umbrage at random innocent things others say to him, but sticking his clueless nose over and over and over into conversations among other editors for the sole purpose of acting the incompetent civility cop. In an hour I could give you a dozen examples; here are a couple (in addition to the one already described by the OP):
      • In 2019 I said somewhere: Just a note in passing that whoever came up with the idea of separate WP: and MOS: namespaces should be shot. Naturally DePiep got right to work defending innocents from my "aggression": WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng_agression. A dozen editors told him to drop the ol' stick, but nooooooooooooo, DePiep kept Mrs. Malapropping himself into a deeper and deeper hole. At one point someone said:
        I had a friend once ... who was literally incapable of understanding hyperbole, jokes, or other non-literal forms of speech. It was very amusing telling him things that we all understood were not literally true but he didn't, watching him react, and then letting him know that it was not true so that he'd be in on the joke as well (as he was a friend and we wanted to laugh with him, not at him). This somehow reminds me of that, except for the part about being in on the joke once informed that it was a joke, and also the part about ending on ANI instead of in laughter.
    Did DePiep get the hint? Noooooooooooooooo. Here we are years (and several similar ANI threads) later, and he's still prattling on with the same nonsense.
    • In the very ANI thread in which DePiep get his editing restrictions slapped on him, I happened to mention as an aside:
      the single-letter template names are a rare and precious resource not to be squandered. The idea of wasting Z on something about chemical elements is appalling, and whoever appropriated {M} for earthquakes should be boiled in oil
    (I have to admit -- I seem to have a lot of fantasies of doing bodily harm to my Wikipedia colleagues.) And sure enough, we've got DePiep scolding me about this, not to mention spouting gibberish about the admin habit to not wheelbarrow easily [42], whatever the fuck that could mean (and that right after asserting that his English comprehension isn't part of his problem).
    One of DePiep's editing restrictions is that he's subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. And like it says WP:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack?, it's a personal attack for him to make Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. So I'm telling you now, DePiep, for the very last time: stay out of my fucking business, or the next time you call me uncivil when the actual problem is that you don't understand human behavior, I'm not going to bother reminding you to get a clue. Instead I'll just have you blocked.
    Actually, here's another idea: can I please have a one-way interaction ban against this pest? Then I wouldn't have to waste my time with him and he won't have to get blocked. I'd really appreciate it. EEng 04:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I might add a comment from someone not involved in any of the original discussions…
    DePiep is subject to previous sanctions issued at ANI, as listed above. They have been to ANI multiple times for this same issue. They replied to a two week old comment by EEng which had a gentle jibe inside, and took that miniscule problem and blew it up beyond all proportion, which is exactly what they have been told not to do in previous ANI discussions and in their sanction.
    While I do not condone EEng’s behaviour in response to DePiep, surely some action must be taken given the latter’s obvious disregard to their existing restrictions? Danners430 (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, see below. Accusing me of gaming the system is a failure to assume good faith. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Danners430: Your statements & judgements here are not based on (absent) diffs. Instead, they are speculative and inconsistent. -DePiep (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement here is based on the diffs and talk page link linked in previous comments. It’s not anybody’s responsibility to repost links that have previously been added to the report. Danners430 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As said [43][44]: diffs are absent or incomplete. As for inconsistency: you apply the phrase condone asymmetically. DePiep (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do love how you appear to be accusing everyone who is commenting on this thread instead of looking at yourself… not sure how I can use a phrase asymmetrically when I only use it once… Danners430 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are judging unbalanced, prejudiced. Your judgement is based on incomplete diffs. You are reflecting roused talks. DePiep (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The diffs, annotated

    AA. Discussion started at talkpage [45] (27 Mar)

    AB. EEng .. NebY: before I unleash the mob to pummel you into submission, .. [46] (4 Apr).

    AC. DePiep, regular contributions [47] [48] [49] [50] (17 Apr)

    AD. DePiep re AB: Needless violent language here, EEng [51] (21 Apr).

    AE. EEng Needless comment born of your misreading of social cues three weeks after the fact, DePiep [52].

    AF. DePiep You wrote it. It's agressive. If you mean something else, write something else [53].

    AG. 25 Apr (+4days), EEng stop trying to referee the interactions of other editors, because you lack sufficient awareness of social cues to understand what's going on .. I'm not going to use kindergarten baby-talk .. Really, just butt the fuck out of others' conversations [54].

    AH. 26 Apr, DePiep agressive and condescent language here, again .. Civility is a pillar .. My question stands: EEng, please avoid agressive language [55].

    So far: DePiep joined the ongoing talk on 17 Apr. The post re AB was on 21 Apr, 4 days after joining. Talk was still open, so all texts are active. Don't see why "three weeks", incorrect by itself, could be an issue.

    Note that DeP is asking, no problematic wording. Aimed as keeping the discussion free of bad language. Replies by EEng: Personal attacks. No civility. Steep escalating. Personal, i.e., not helpful for the discussion.

    AI. XAM2175, closure post: .. Further discussion here will be completely unproductive [56].

    AJ. EEng. After XAM closure. Trolling. Personal atacks. Too bad cluelessness and unintelligibility aren't pillars -- you'd be the undisputed God King Emperor of Wikipedia .. he doesn't know what he's talking about [57].

    AK. DePiep reverts, es .. As XAM2175 says: "Further discussion .. unproductive" [58].

    AL. Dondervogel2 reinstalled AJ [59], usertalk no further effect 3x.

    AN. DePiep on usertalk, request XAM to maintain their closure i.e., delete AJ [60]; not acted upon.

    Current state: AJ (after-closure trolling post) still present.

    AQ. cf this, from an other talkpage, illustrates EEng SOP.

    EEng [61].

    DePiep: [62] (22, 24 Sep)

    -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My judgment, which acknowledges this complete list of diffs, is that you should have abided by your editing restriction. You assumed bad faith in your April 21 response to EEng. You have likewise assumed bad faith in your responses to Danners430. Furthermore, in your 'report reject' subthread below, you have assumed bad faith by alleging that the OP is Throwing mud to see what sticks. I don't condone EEng's overreaction, but none of this would have happened if you hadn't assumed bad faith in your unnecessary response to a stale comment that was clearly a joke. Floquenbeam is right that it would be better if editors ignored your 'out of left field' comments, but at this point it's probably too late for that. If you do end up blocked, it will be a reasonable consequence that you brought upon yourself. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    10mmsocket: report reject

    OP report lacks diffs, therefor causes misunderstandings & speculation. Cannot be a base for discussion. Due and careful process broken.

    The 10mmsocket (talk · contribs) initial report here lacks diffs for its accusative remarks (which are unspecific otherwise too). Cause for misunderstanding and so projection, which is inexcusable in the ANI process [63]. No diffs added in 2nd post either [64]. Nor after explicit request for diffs [65] (1st). Their second post, 10mmsocket has disappeared.

    Given the unspecified report, and the reluctance to provide diffs, I conclude that the report is useless and not worth nor deserving replies. Every response would imply assumptions, speculations, and failed process. So I will not, can not reply thoroughly to the 10mmsocket report/posts. Treat as nullified, not present.

    Throwing mud to see what sticks, and then let others deal with it, is gaming the system. The ANI community & processes are failing due proces here. I propose and take for granted that the contributions of 10mmsocket are not part of the considerations.

    One could also consider disallowing 10mmsocket to interact with me or with ANI in a wider sense. ​ -DePiep (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh... Diffs were provided subsequently so I saw no need to add anything further. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I don't really see this closing any other way than a pretty long block for DePiep. Nobody is going to just drop it, and eventually, a "This has gone on long enough" type admin will come along. And I realize admins shouldn't just ignore editing restrictions, so this is just me venting, not "acting in an admin capacity" on this. But... is it just me, or is 51% of the problem that (a) DePiep is incapable of letting go of something once they latch on, even though they are often wrong on the subject, and also 49% of the problem that (b) there seems to be something about DePiep that causes otherwise sane people to be incapable of ignoring them when they say something out of left field. I mean, I suppose I understand enforcing rules and stuff, but couldn't everybody just ignore them? If the "this is violent imagery" comment had just been ignored, what would probably have happened? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Tell you what. Every month or two I'll pick a random discussion you're involved in, and into it I'll interject a largely unintelligible string of gibberish scolding you for doing something which I clearly have no clue about. Once in a while I'll open an ANI thread accusing you of misbehavior, into which I'll dump some kind of acrostic like DePiep's AA, AB, AC junk above, and a lot of people will spend a lot of time telling me to cut out being such an ass all the time, but their time will be wasted because that advice will sheet off me like water off a duck's back. I'll keep this up for years and years. Then we'll see how long you're able to ignore that. EEng 23:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That sounds awfully close to describing WP:Harassment to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity and because people sometimes miss EEng's point, what EEng wrote is what he believes happens to him. That is in response to Floq's wise advice to ignore inappropriate replies, and EEng is saying that asking him to just ignore it is unreasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When I was younger people saw my point all the time, but I changed my hairstyle a few years ago and now I'm told my point is difficult if not impossible to see. EEng 01:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a much better version of a joke I tell frequently. I'm stealing this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm available for children's parties. EEng 03:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I lost my hairstyle more than a few years ago, and now all anyone can see is my point. (I'm available too, and I work for union scale.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but just to be clear, that is exactly what I got from EEng's comment, and what I characterized as being close to harassment (of EEng) is DePiep's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a good thing most of us here know how to read EEnglish (and sometimes speak it, though with not as much success). ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I had interceded with the intent of preventing further escalation. Obviously that was naïve of me. XAM2175 (T) 10:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Turns out you were WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. EEng 00:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose a one-way interaction ban for DePiep on interacting with EEng is something that could be done. But really, as Floq says, one does have to wonder exactly how long this extended time sink of multiple contributor's time is going to go on for - after all it will just be someone other than EEng next time - and there will be a next time, previous experience tells us. Indeed, the paragraph that this comment is part of tells us quite a lot. Black Kite (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I really shouldn't have proposed the interaction ban, for a couple of reasons. (1) I've never "banned" someone from my talk page or asked for an interaction ban; it's kind of a point of pride to deal with things myself. (2) It's selfish. It would solve my problem, but not that of the teeming millions who suffer DePiep's inscrutable, infuriating ministrations year in and year out. The problem with the current block is that it's clear that, as always, DePiep not a clue what he's been blocked for. (See User talk:DePiep.) He thinks, as he's expressed many times before, that he's being blocked because everyone's against him, that I've got more friends than he does, etc. (See here: Looks like EEng has more friends than I have. Of course, that might actually be true, and DePiep might want to think about why that is.) His block will expire and he'll go right on back to doing the same thing, because he sees no causal relationship between his behavior and getting blocked -- it's everyone else that's at fault, and he's a martyr bravely enforcing the civility pillar. This will only be solved with an indefinite block, to be lifted only when he can convincingly articulate that he accepts that, for whatever reason, he is incompetent to judge or comment on others' behavior, and that he understands the he must restrict the subject of his posts strictly to article content only, on pain of a final indef. WP:HIGHMAINT indeed. EEng 05:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      My selfishness again: my post just above really only addresses DePiep's I'm-the-civility-enforcer complex. Other reassurances from him would be needed to address his other forms of misbehavior. EEng 11:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      b.t.w. I didn't report DePiep because I am your friend. I saw his post on XAM2175's talk page, which I follow due to previous interactions, and clicked through to see the offending discussion which frankly shocked me. I then thought "surely this guy has been blocked before" so looked at DePiep's contribution history and block log, which mentioned the editing restrictions. At that point seeing how many times he had been blocked I knew this was something that should be reported. I confess I'm surprised at him receiving just a month block after so many infringements. Not an admin, but I'd be leaning towards a permanent block this time.
      As an aside, I encountered an editor this week who I quickly judged to be a bit of an a'hole. Then I saw on their user page that they had a condition on the autism spectrum. I thought that was brave and my attitude has changed. I'm now a little more tolerant of their edits. Everyone should follow META:Don't be a jerk, but it helps to understand that (occasionally) there may be reasons for that degree of jerkitude someone is displaying. It makes me wonder about this case... 10mmsocket (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Autistics are capable of learning their own limitations. EEng 11:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree, depending where they are on the spectrum. Others are also capable of using it as an excuse/shield for continuing dickishness. But it still pays to assume good faith (initially). 10mmsocket (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those that are not capable should, like anyone else who can't learn their own limitations, find somewhere else to spend their time. EEng 14:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yup 10mmsocket (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 1 month

    I've blocked for one month for violation of their editing restrictions. I bumped it from from the two weeks given for their last violation. I'm leaving the discussion open to allow for further discussion about a possible 1-way iban with EEng, or another sanction. I'll keep an eye on the section and if it looks like no discussion or consensus is forthcoming on additional points I'll close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the fifteenth time this user has needed to be blocked for their terrible attitude. I cannot for the life of me understand why they keep getting off so lightly. An iban won't fix this problem, it has to come from the user, I guess we'll see how their sixteenth second chance works out.... Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. In the circumstances, SFR, I think that sanction was too weak. Leniency towards this user is injustice to his victims.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This needs to be a more substantive block. No fewer than three months, I would think, given the lengthy block history. This is a case of WP:HIGHMAINT where we are granting far too much leniency. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's a month to work out a consensus for a longer block. I just looked at the most recent block which was for two weeks and doubled it. With the number of blocks and the restrictions that were necessary are we at the point where an indef should be considered? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To my eye, as someone totally uninvolved who's never clashed with DePiep at all: we are clearly at the point of indef.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. We are past that point. This at minimum should have been a year. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As detailed above (I really shouldn't have proposed the interaction ban...) I really think that there's no long-term resolution that doesn't involve DePiep clearly articulating an understanding of what he's doing wrong. And an indef is the only way to get that. Any block for a term (month, year, 5 years) will expire, he'll go back to doing what he always does, and here we'll be again. EEng 16:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: Community Ban (CBan) for DePiep

    BANNED
    DePiep is sitebanned by the community. They may appeal this ban after 1 year, and every 6 months thereafter. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For their long, long history of disruption, personal attacks and harassment, User:DePiep is indefinitely banned by the community from editing English Wikipedia. If this proposal is approved, an administrator shall impose an indefinite block on DePiep and any known related accounts. This ban can be appealed after 1 year, and every 6 months afterward. It can only be lifted by a community-wide discussion on WP:AN. Should the ban be lifted, DePiep's current editing restrictions will remain in effect.

    • Support - as proposer. The editor's block log [66], their history on the noticeboards [67], and the evidence presented in this thread above all support the necessity for banning DePiep from editing here. (Note: As far as I can recall I have never been involved in a dispute with DePiep.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support: How in the pluperfect hell did this editor rack up a block log like that and avoid being indeffed much earlier? Or is this just another MickMcNee-esque case that if you rack up enough edits, you've got a measure of immunity for behavior that'd get a newbie indeffed twenty times over? (My reaction to the admins above musing over whether they should've just dropped the hammer on DePiep is "Who stopped you?") I haven't had any interaction with DePiep either, to my knowledge, but this is ridiculous. Ravenswing 11:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but with regret, and here's why. I have not the tiniest doubt that DePiep means well. And I have no belief at all that he means to harass me or anyone else. Instead, what we have here is a CIR problem. The essence of CIR is not knowing the boundaries of one's competency. One doesn't have to be competent in all areas of WP endeavor to be a useful contributor, but you do have to know where you are able to usefully contribute and where you are unable to usefully contribute. If you do not know this, and will not take advice from others on the subject, that's when you've got a CIR problem. So, for example, the fact that DePiep apparently has a cockeyed idea of what civility means, doesn't mean he's incompetent overall; but the fact that he's been told that over and over, yet continues to take on the role of civility cop, does. Until DePiep somehow gains self-knowledge in the area of where he's competent and where he's not, and demonstrates that knowledge to the community, he can't contribute usefully here. EEng 18:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support The only reason I haven't changed the block to an indef already is out of respect to SFR and to not wheel war a block with them. The block log speaks for itself and again I will say what I have said countless number of times: no one is bigger than the project. You have to show you can work with other people collaboratively. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm really not a fan of this sort of "votes for banning" stuff, but I'm also not a fan of how we extend almost endless patience to editors who are only just this side of the line, even if that sees off good editors. This is so counterproductive, and yet we do it at least once a week on this board, because we'd rather spend a year or so redeeming someone who will eventually end up indeffed anyway than spend 20 seconds helping someone who would be an asset without the damned problematic editor on their case all the time. — Trey Maturin™ 18:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I think there's a fundamental CIR issue here where I don't see any other option. Galobtter (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support - I'm not convinced that DePiep is a net-negative, so I have some misgivings about this. However, there is a clear evidence of a long-standing problem that has persisted for a long time in spite of numerous attempts to get the user to adjust his behavior. At this point, it is apparent that fixed-length blocks are inadequate to prevent the behavior from reoccurring. We now have to decide whether to tolerate the behavior or escalate to an indef, and I find myself leaning toward the latter option. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a Site Ban – As additional evidence, I will cite the long history of periodic table disputes, where, as I tried to explain, the original issue, the arrangement of the elements in the periodic table, was not a technical content dispute at all, but a matter of formatting that should simply be decided. Those disputes led to a Request for Arbitration, in which I said, in November 2020, that ArbCom should consider whether DePiep is a net negative for the encyclopedia:
    ArbCom declined the arbitration request, but I think that the community should answer my question with a Yes. Search for ANI reports on the Periodic Table, and three of them were complaints about DePiep: *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Alleged_interference_in_RfC_by_DePiep
    Nothing has changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's been a periodic periodic table dispute. EEng 22:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was elementary, my dear EEng. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. It was as if DePiep was on the left side of the periodic table and was mixing it up with someone on the right side of the periodic table, and the reaction was predictable (since prediction is one of the uses of the periodic table). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in case this wasn't clear from my contributions to the debate above, I wholeheartedly support the proposed community ban. DePiep will not understand why, and that's unfortunate, but the greater injustice is to let him continue this behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The editing restriction, which is about to turn five years old, was put in place as the result of two massive amounts of work: one was the building of the restriction by people who wanted User:DePiep to remain a part of the community long after he'd earned removal from it and the other was all the explaining of WP:CIVIL to an editor whose block log meant he was owed no such consideration. That second effort would have started well before his first civility block in January 2009 and 14 years later there's still plenty of evidence this guy still doesn't know when he's insulting people and he's still completely incapable of comprehending WP:AGF.
      Since the restriction was put in place, DePiep has been blocked either four or five times for incivility. (The April 2019 block was arguably just for edit warring but if I said it was also for incivility I doubt the blocking admin, User:MSGJ, would correct me.) I don't think he should be indefinitely blocked because he won't stop insulting people or assuming they're acting in bad faith. I think he should be blocked per WP:CIR because he genuinely has no idea if what he's saying is an insult and he has no idea what he's doing that means he's assuming another editor is acting in bad faith. I hate coming to that conclusion but there you go. CityOfSilver 17:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I've been an admin here for nearly 16 years and I've literally lost count of the number of times we've had this discussion. It's time for it finally to be dealt with, or it will, inevitably, be back here yet again soon. It is unfortunate, but such is the nature of a collaborative encyclopedia; if you can't behave collaboratively, you do end up being shown the door. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The current evidence presented doesn't lead me to believe this editor is a net negative. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's certainly a fair perspective. But Sasha talked about not being convinced of the "net" effect of DePiep's editing being negative~. That requires considering the positive contributions of DePiep as well as the negative. Some of those positives include foundational content on the Unicode Standard, an incredible amount of maintenance and functionality building in both the template and module namespaces, as well as a consistent pattern of assisting people undertaking large WP:AWB projects. Those kinds of contributions to this project can't just be ignored, just as civility issues can't be ignored. This should be a decision made taking the whole into account, and not just a narrow snapshot of when we fail to be our best. If the only thing that matters is our mistakes, then no editor of sufficient standing will be able to remain. Because while 300,000 edits is absolutely not a get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of behavioral standards, it is also a contribution history that is very easy to cherry-pick worst moments from. I don't think we can have a real conversation about the best thing to do in this circumstance if we are only talking about this editor's shortcomings and not their redeeming qualities as well. VanIsaac, GHTV contWpWS 00:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with what you say, but I think the situation here is that DePiep's positive contributions have been a major factor in his getting many passes in the past despite his incivility and disruption, and that people are pretty much fed up with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DePiep's template editor privs were revoked for misbehavior in that area as well, so you might want to drop that from your list of +ives going forward. EEng 02:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Fifteen blocks is enough rope to build a spider-web, let alone a proverbial noose. As much as I like to believe that everyone can change given time, I honestly can't see DePiep changing enough after 14 years of blocks. GabberFlasted (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support 15 blocks is enough. It's time for a C-block on him because he's obviously not changing. Dinoz1 (chat?) 16:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support If they were an employee, their loaded write-up file would've had them out the door seven blocks ago. Time to drain this time sink. Nate • (chatter) 22:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Incivility in talk and edit summaries from MrOllie, ultimate result is disruptive editing.

    I've been IP editing since yesterday under 142.115.142.4 and 66.207.202.66. I have declared this since first I was using both [79].

    Editor MrOllie has been uncivil in the short interactions with me and a brief look into his contribution history and talk page history shows a very similar interaction with another user running concurrently with me, and similar behavior going back. MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV [80] after a revert with the edit summary "no" [81], which is apparently in reply to my edit summary "see the talk page", which is in reference to this detailed talk message [82].

    I would have let it go, but MrOllie's history shows a pattern, not just this instance. So I added a talk page incivility message. MrOllie almost immediately reverted it[83] with edit summary "Rv more nonsense". I realized that I was on the other IP he had not seen yet, so I thought he might have mistook me for spam/trolling. I posted another talk message to clear that up. It was also almost immediately reverted with the edit summary "take a hint" [84]. I have taken the hint: MrOllie has no interest in civilly discussing my edit and his revert of it, in clear violation of WP:Civil and WP:BRD.

    Another IP user made a reasonable edit and was equally mistreated in almost exactly the same way: Message incivility [85] and Edit summary incivility:[86] [87] [88]. MrOllie has been uncivil since the start with this IP, just as he has with me. Some other instances that looks similar at first glance. [89] [90][91]. Thank you. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    MrOllie accused me of pushing a POV. No, he accused you of having an obvious POV. It's possible to have a POV and still edit neutrally. And if you are going to put a news outlet's Pulitzer win in scarequotes it's a bit rich to come and complain when someone suggests that you might have an obvious POV!
    MrOllie could have been less brusque with you, but I'm not seeing any sanctionable incivility here. Nor do I see it wrt the other IP – when you reinstate a message on an editor's talkpage that they have removed, after they have told you not to edit their talkpage, an edit summary of "rv harassment" is about what you should expect. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are equivocating two senses of "POV". You are suggesting MrOllie merely criticized my personal and reasoned perspective, rather than accusing I'm violating WP:NPOV. I'll admit my perspective, and reject the accusation at the same time: the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows. How they decided it won the Pulitzer is questionable and part of the controversial nature of topic. Every historical authority is shaking their head about this.
    But so what? MrOllie is terse and disruptive. He reverts and doesn't discuss. He actively tells those he reverted to go away, but will revert again if you edit. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "the NYT is not a reliable source for history, as the 1619 project page shows"...consider yourself very lucky you haven't blocked yet. Nothing actionable, and MrOllie warned you appropriately for obvious POV editing and was terse because of removal of well-sourced content. I'm going to be even more terse here; knock it off, now. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't remove any content from that article. Do you have a diff that you're referring to? 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you going to take back your claim I removed sourced content and concede that you didn't actually look very far into this? This argument with MrOllie (which I consider resolved) was about a very simple addition of a word. I don't appreciate that you'd fly at me with both fists up like this while clearly not even bothering to read the discussion and edit diffs. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the other IP edit..."Morris is not a medical doctor but has authored over 100 academic papers"...he's not a doctor, and again, reverted appropriately and we don't template regulars with sarcasm about civility. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    we don't template regulars. I can remember that. But I can assure you, there is no sarcasm here. I'm dead serious about MrOllie's behavior. This is my first ANI submission, but not the first time I've endured this kind of abuse. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's the IPs conduct here rather than MrOllie's that is the real concern. They are engaging in tendentious POV-pushing against the talk-page consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which preexisting talk discussion do you think is giving consensus that my initial edit and talk post address? And if you'd like to address how the message of my small edit is contrary to the existing article message (since it is a lede edit), I'd love to hear it on the article talk page. The fact is, the article is very critical of the topic, since that is the prevailing opinion among historians. The 1619 Project is and has been resoundingly criticized, and the leading sentence should reflect this, just like all other heavily expert-criticized topics. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The honorable IP needs to educate themselves very, very quickly on WP:RS if they want to continue having an editing career on Wikipedia. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the RS policy. You should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided.
    I understand Wikipedia puts NYT as WP:GREL. I also understand sourcing is evaluated on each individual case. I also understand that grel doesn't mean infallible, and that despite this many regular Wikipedians will argue "but it's grel" like that does confer infallibility. The NYT left a big mess in the bed on this one, and the Wikipedia article shows this. It is filed with heavy and aggressive criticism from history experts, and virtually no positive responses (because none exist). See my above reply for more info.
    But like I said, you should educate yourself on the topic and perhaps read the diffs I provided, since the grel status of NYT and sourcing in general is irrelevant to this issue. It hasn't even come up! This is about MrOllie behaving incivilly and ultimately editing disruptively. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, when multiple editors are bringing up a concern, even if it's not the one you started with, it's usually a good idea to listen. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Sound advice. However, the responses here are not giving a unified message. I also have doubts they've looked into the topic. But if they want to make this about POV, then they can take it to the NPOV notice board, then we can come back and settle the ANI. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be trying to use this complaint at ANI to recruit assistance in a content dispute. We do not do that. We address behavior. Multiple editors have expressed concern, with varying degrees of asperity, that you are pushing a POV against consensus. That appears to be the primary issue, not MrOllie's conduct. Your conduct here only reinforces that perception. Acroterion (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I said the exact opposite. If they want to discuss the POV of the article, then do so at the article or the NPOV message board. If they really want to double down, put an ANI on me for POV pushing. I talked about behavior. One admitted MrOllie is terse, but it's apparently ok because he thinks I'm POV pushing. I don't have much faith in his assessment, since he also thinks I deleted sourced content. I didn't delete anything from the article. 66.207.202.66 (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What you think you're doing and what you're actually accomplishing are two different things. When many people advise that you're doing something wrong, it would be wise to consider that they have a point. ANI is a bad choice of venue to try to direct an outcome to your specification. Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your actions that are being scrutinized and not what you said. Honestly, I suggest you do yourself a big favour and drop it. M.Bitton (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IP, I will refer you to WP:BOOMERANG, but for your convenience, it says: A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, it's about them", as if discussion is restricted to the original complaint, so that discussing the behavior of the original reporter would be "changing the subject". But that isn't the case: any party to a discussion or dispute might find their behavior under scrutiny. A reporter whose behavior is or becomes out of line may find themselves be bludgeoned with their own boomerang. I would take M Bitton's advice. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, MrOllie's user Talk page (what he hasn't reverted of it), unfortunately is overflowing with petty bickering with other users. Much of it seems to spark from a pattern of behavior: reverting entire edits and refusing to discuss, often antagonizing users who attempt to engage with him. I politely pointed out that these practices are bad practice and noted that this erodes civility on the platform.
    This kind of behavior absolutely merits addressing with sincerity, not yet more bickering and finger-pointing. 2604:4080:13F8:8320:D972:8646:9B07:D794 (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think that coming in as a meat/sockpuppet in an attempt to make it seem like your POV has support is going to work here? It's more likely to earn you rangeblocks. Ravenswing 03:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP isn't me. It's not even the same protocol... Range block that whole /64 if you want. I've been upfront since way before this ANI that I'm on 2 IPs at the moment. Why would I do that while also socking? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you ask me, all three of these POV IPs need a time-out from editing in order to fully understand Wikipedia's policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ^This, particularly with meat/sock puppetry now entering the picture. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal: a one week siteban for OP so they can read up on Wikipedia policies. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw this ANI. I believe I've overreacted a bit, though still believe MrOllie's contribution history shows he is quickly and unnecessarily curt, especially in discussion about his reverts. I've attempted to make this right with him. [92]
    As for this boomerang, ulgh. You guys jump to conclusions, out for blood, makes you feel powerful I guess. It was me that posted to NPOV [93] about the argument and it was me that conceded to MrOllie's position. [94] So, I feel quite justified at this point to tell you guys to go do something uncivil with yourselves. Good day. 142.115.142.4 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Following this edit, the IP made a series of POV edits to Xenophobia in the United States, removing the entire section on Donald Trump and much other material critical of US policy. The POV editing is indeed clear, and it looks as though a boomerang would be justified here. RolandR (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I cite policy on three talk sections I created, you cite nothing on your revert. And wp:onus applies to some of the edits. I'm happy to discuss with you there or on NPOV. 207.236.147.164 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently my IP changed again... 207.236.147.164 (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Follow up / proposal

    I wasn't planning on responding to this at all, since the IP editor has been doing a good job of making my case for me. But now I want to draw attention to this non-apology apology that was posted to my talk page about this ANI: ANI about your recent behavior posted. Between the inability to walk away without another round of personal attacks and the edit warring about Trump at Xenophobia in the United States I think some sort of boomerang sanction is warranted. Perhaps a topic ban from American Politics for the person behind these IPs? - MrOllie (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support though I'm not sure how enforcable such a topic ban would be. Regardless, these IPs need to be dealt with to curb their disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, they're clearly here to right great wrongs and don't care if they disrupt Wikipedia to do it. A topic ban seems like an appropriate way to push them towards editing in less contentious areas where they're less likely to continue running into these arguments (though I suspect they won't bother). Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 00:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Roger Ogden/Chicano Park

    I am requesting that user Roger Ogden be banned from editing the article on Chicano Park. I go into more detail on the article's talk page, but in a nutshell the user has a clear conflict of interest as he personally was directly involved in political protests at the park (news outlets cited him as the organizer of at least one of them, though he claims on the article's talk page not to have been), and the majority of his edits have been heavily rewriting the section regarding his protests in an extremely self-serving way, as well as inserting various political attacks on the park itself. Some edits also include links to his own web presence (a Scribd account under his name) and seem to constitute original research, again pushing a particular political agenda.

    The edits have taken place in two long batches, one in 2018 and one in 2023. Comparing the versions before his edits to the versions after illustrate the issue pretty clearly: 2018 edits, 2023 edits. Note that the diff links above also include a number of anonymous edits, but these coincide with both the timing and the nature of Ogden's logged-in edits and are almost certainly the work of the same person, just not signed in.

    Due to the clear conflict of interest and disregard for NPOV, it is my recommendation and request that this user (along with an apparent sock puppet account TRobles, which he seems to admit is also his account on the article's talk page) be banned from making edits to Chicano Park. -Literally Satan (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, the TRobles account has never posted an edit besides the one on the talk page that he immediately admitted was his, and the user talk page was created with the only text being "this is a test", so I think this may not have been necessarily intended as malice. --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The post by TRobles was a mistake. That is a dummy account that I was experimenting with, but had not used. I just forgot I was logged in on that account. I am a video blogger and I have never organized a political protest at Chicano Park. I have recorded protests at the park on both sides of the political spectrum, left and right. Just because I have a critical opinion of the park does not mean I have a conflict of interest. I should not be prohibited from making edits on this page. It is Literal Lucifer who has actually a bias and is operating on his bias. He doesn't want certain objective information about the park to be made public, even when it is supported by court documents and valid photographs. I recommend that you ban Literally Lucifer from the page because he erased wholesale all all of my edits, including from five years ago, which have never been contested before. Also, it appears that he deleted a number of actual photos of the park that I made myself. Those were completely valid photos of the park that showed the revolutionary nature of the park murals. There was nothing wrong with them in regard to uploading them to the page. They did not misrepresent the Park in any way. He has also misrepresented me as "alt right" to demonize me, which I am not and never have been "alt right". RogerO (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is correct that a "critical opinion" does not in and of itself constitute a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest comes from Ogden's direct involvement in an incident being discussed in the "controversies" section. All (or maybe almost all) of the edits Ogden has made to that section of the article were clearly intended to portray his involvement in a positive light and his opponents in a negative light, which demonstrates to me that the user is either unable or unwilling to adhere to the policy of NPOV, particularly when describing his own involvement.
    This is the second time he has accused me of trying to smear him as "alt right", which is not a statement I have ever made about him or inserted into the article. I did use the term "far-right" in an edit I made before discovering his involvement in the editing of the article, but this term is used in the Los Angeles Times article I cited for that paragraph. He has also accused me both here and on the talk page of trying to suppress information about the park in pursuit of a particular agenda, which is not the case. The only edits I have made to the article are:
    • rewriting the Controversy section (and fixing a typo) to change what I saw as an extremely biased account of the incidents described. These changes included providing context about Ogden and his motivations, more information on other attendees and their political affiliation, and removing an extended rant about the criminal history of a man who had nothing to do with the event (on either side) that seemed to only have been included to associate the park and its supporters with criminality. These changes were made before I realized Roger Ogden had been involved in editing the article, and included citations to local and regional media articles. (A couple of these edits were made when I wasn't logged in.)
    • removing material written by Ogden, which I did after I looked through the article history, realized his involvement in the article, and saw the nature of his edits. I felt these deletions was necessary for reasons I have explained repeatedly both on this very page and on the article's talk page. Some of these changes involved removing material that didn't directly have to do with the incidents in question, including the deletion of the aforementioned photos. This was done not in an attempt to suppress information; it was done to remove material inserted by a source who should not be providing material to this article due to the conflict of interest, regardless of the validity of any individual deletion. If other editors who do not have conflicts of interest feel that anything I removed or rewrote should be restored to the article as proper context, and that said material is not a violation of NPOV, they are of course free to reinsert it. Again, my reasoning for removing much of the material was its source, not necessarily the material itself.
    As for the alternate account TRobles, while I agree its use does not seem to have been malicious, I included it in this request because of the possibility that it could be used to evade the ban I was requesting. My ultimate concern is not which account has this or that action taken against it; my intention is that the person Roger Ogden (regardless of which account he may or may not be using) should not be allowed to edit the article on Chicano Park for the reasons outlined above. -Literally Satan (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple stated, and to not be argumentative. If I broke Wikipedia rules with some edits that would be due to not having much experience. Those edits could be reversed or deleted, though the edits I made are actually the truth. I think the motivation here, though, is to have me banned mainly because I have information about the Grand Jury investigation of the Chicano Park Steering Committee and also I have have information about the conviction of David Rico, one of he Founders of the Park and a member of the Steering Committee for about 50 years. David Rico was charged and convicted of criminal syndicalism for planning to firebomb a local college and it was believe they also intended to attack critical infrastructure in the hopes of starting a revolution. Criminal syndicalism is a law that they charged terrorists with before the current anti-terrorism laws. Rico was convicted of a crime of terrorism. The Park insiders do not want that factual information shared on Wikipedia. Also, my photos of park murals that show that promotion of radicalism should not be deleted. Chicano Park is a far-left political park similar in concept to the People's Park in San Francisco. Chicano Park has a large political following who want to suppress any negative information about the park. I believe that is what's going on here. So in the interests of fairness and truth in Wikipedia, I don't think I should be banned. Neither LL nor the other editors who have edited out my contributions ever tried to discuss this with me earlier, he just went straight to trying to have me banned by the admins. I am actually trying to input some objective information in this page, but I don't think they are concerned about objectivity. RogerO (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People's Park isn't in SF. Better check. EEng 19:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not why you're here. The reason you're here is that you're acting in violation of WP:COI, which is a simple policy that does not have to result in a ban and is honestly quite lax, but in my experience a lot of people end up getting banned because of it anyway, because they don't listen to the warnings. I strongly suggest that you step away from the article and leave it to uninvolved editors to decide what is and is not worthy of inclusion. We really don't care about whatever magic secret knowledge you have, the WP:CABAL is not after you, we're just random people and we like to keep this place clean and organised, so if you break the rules and make things messy, we get grumpy. That's all. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you were after me. However, I wouldn't classify "court records" and photographs of the murals as "secret knowledge". I had already decided to sit back and see what happens. :-) RogerO (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't touched the article, since this started and had no intention of doing that. RogerO (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    good! then I think we're likely done here. Take care to read the policy I linked (and maybe consider reading WP:NPOV as well, to be on the safe side). That way you may well be able to avoid ending up here a second time. ^_^ --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alejandro Basombrio: POV-pushing, edit-warring, canvassing

    Hello ANI, first or second time posting here, so I apologize if I'm doing this wrong. I think this has gone for long enough to warrant an assessment from a wider range of administrators. The user in question is Alejandro Basombrio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

    POV-pushing / Edit-warring:

    Canvassing:

    I admit having made ad hominem here, while trying to bring some light on this user's activities, and I'm standing behind my assumption that they were very selective in who to ping among many who participated in previous three sections. Whether I'm wrong or not about it, I'm leaving to the judgement of Wikipedia staff. –Vipz (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the POV at categories, looking at the edits: The added/deleted templates/categories of the user seem to be mainly used as more or less subtle associations to discredit/credit. For example the person did add to the Black Power movement the perpetrators and ideologies of the Rwandan genocide and vice versa [95] [96] [97] [98]. What has the genocide of Hutu militias against the Tutsi in Rwanda to do with the Black Power movement? This makes no sense (net search shows only Wikipedia as result too), other than to associate negatively with a supposed "gotcha" (yes black people can do crimes against humanity too). --Casra (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Page 49 from this issue in JSTOR (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40466134?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents) claims: "The "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement" or MRND changed its name in 1990 to "Mouvement Révolutionnaire pour le Développement et la Démocratie" after multiparty democracy was authorized in Rwanda. It retained the acronym, MRND. Other important political parties at the time included: the MDR (Mouvement Démocrate Républicain), the PL (Parti Libéral), the PSD (Parti Social Démocrate), and the CDR (Coalition pour la Défense de la République). In 1993, both the MDR and the PL split into two factions. In each case the faction opposed to RPF participation in the government called itself "Hutu powa" after the English term, power. The "MDR powa," "PL powa," MRND, and CDR parties all counted many among their numbers who later became active in the genocide against Tutsi.". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source mentions on p. 49, in a footnote describing the names of organisation in the conflict, that the faction used the English term power. Without mentioning the faction as part of the Black Power movement at all. That's no reason to include them as part of the Black Power movement, unless we want to add everything from Power Rangers to Power Forward (international used basketball term) to the template. With good faith in mind, I find it still hard to believe you really thought that when the rather common term "power" is used (with English being an international influential language) it makes the topic an automatic part of the Black Power movement, no matter if the source includes it as part of the Black Power movement, and that just by coincidence you added a genocide topic to the movement. Casra (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. About the "forced sterilization in Peru", the terms "class discrimination" is not present on the article, nor it is inferred. The "genocide" label is still debatable. The article uses more the term "ethnic cleansing".
    2. While I recognize national socialism is still debatable if it's a form of socialism, which I apologize to add without consensus, national-bolshevism or neo-socialism are not. National Bolshevism is a variant of Bolshevism, which is included in the socialism bar. NB was also included far before I added it again, because someone removed without consensus. On other neo-socialism is included in the "French Section of the Workers' International" bar. In fact, the article describes it as a "revisionist" socialism.
    3. All my "Ayacucho Massacre" edits were entirely extracted from the Spanish Wikipedia. If you were actually informed about my country's events or at least you learned some Spanish, you would not complain about the changes I made or you would complain about Spanish Wikipedia's information. In that case, go check the talk page, since it's not only me the only one who thinks the page already violated the NPOV rule far before I edited it.
    4. About the "Nationalist faction" article, the label of fascism is questionable since the nationalist faction included a diversity of right-wing ideologies, which not all were fascist. Conservatism, Traditionalism, Carlism, Alfonsism, etc. The main ideology of the faction is "Spanish Nationalism", not "Fascism", which in the infobox the ideology used in a faction is "falangism" and "semi-fascism", not fascism entirely. On other side, while I apologise for removing "fascism" from Francoist sidebar, Francoism is also considered by a lot of academics as a form of conservatism rather than fascism, reason I added "conservatism" category too.
    ----
    I apologize, such as how you apologize for ad hominem, for "canvassing" since I didn't know it was against the rules. Some user tagged me on a talk page before and then I thought it was allowed to do. But I only committed the pinging once with a user called "trakking", not with the others, which you claim I tagged them for canvassing purposes. You were also called out for being dishonest in your last comment by Spookytalk Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Forced sterilization of indigenous peoples constitutes genocide, it is not debatable. It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to justify attempts at denying this. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not mutually exclusive, they go hand-in-hand.
    2. Nazism ("National Socialism") being a form of socialism has been debated and proven WP:FRINGE more times than you can imagine; it is not. Its offshoots "National Bolshevism", "National syndicalism", "Neosocialism", "National anarchism" and such have not received as much attention. I told you on your talk page to start a request for comments that will cover all of these, either together or separately. Even if you're acting boldly, tagging some of these controversial edits as "minor" is very questionable.
    3. Since I did not participate on this article, someone else who did will have to attest.
    4. You've now been informed about the RfC that resulted in clear consensus that Francoism and its followers were fascist. Likewise, not mutually exclusive with other ideologies. While WP:CCC, it's only a little less unlikely to change compared to Nazism. You're welcome to present all of the academic work that has not been brought up yet (on the article's talk page), gather consensus, then act accordingly; as opposed to just casually changing this under a "minor" edit tag.
    I look forward to responses from others. –Vipz (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no "debate" over whether National Socialism is "a form of socialism or not", the consensus of subject experts is that it is not. The Nazis added "socialism" to the title of their party in the hope of attracting disaffected workers who might otherwise align themselves with the Socialists or the Communists, and to do so they redefined "socialism" to be something that is not socialistic at all, thereby setting up the current situation where right-wing cranks and wannabe Nazis pepper us with complaints and constant requests to redefine Nazism as "left wing" and not "right wing". Fortunately, the experts are perfectly clear than this is not the case, so we should not even allow a hint of that to remain unquestioned on English Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True. I was actually referring to Wikipedia talk page debates that keep popping up about it and which always result like you explain above. Thanks for the clarification, however, as I might not have worded the above reply too well. –Vipz (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Vipz's assertions, broadly speaking. While on a few occasions, seen in isolation, his edits may be/seem reasonable, this editor's overall activity consists precisely of general whitewashing and downplaying of far-right politics. The editor has been attempting to enact a series of bold changes on pages that are thought to be less watched like nav templates and categories in a predictably bivalent pattern: adds nazism to socialism navbox on one hand, removes integralism category from the fascism category (diff ... but doesn't remove fascism cat from Integralism or discuss this on the main article's talk page, which would be the starting point for such a change) on the other etc. Their Ayacucho massacre edits are discussed on the NPOV noticeboard, and probably shouldn't be discussed in detail here, but one of those edits is this preposterous 18k removal of the entire 'Background' section. —Alalch E. 20:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This. Glancing at the edits they look innocent, but for instance with the Template:Conservatism in Peru, they try to separate the newspaper El Comercio (Peru) from conservatism. Not to mention that with the Ayacucho massacre, the user tried to justify the killing of unarmed protesters, though this may be partially to blame on the media situation in Peru (with their El Comercio edit, I doubt this is the case, however). Another questionable edit would be this one where they remove information about Go on Country – Social Integration Party being described as "far-right" by multiple sources. So as other users have stated, this appears to be a whitewash effort regarding right-wing politics and Peruvian topics specifically. WMrapids (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you complain about the Avanza País article when you were the first one removing sources, such as the one from Amerika12.de? I moved the sources claiming that the party is "far-right" to the "far-right bloc" paragraph, where they fit more properly. Also about the Conservatism templates, I highly suggest you from checking the format used in the ones from Spain, Germany and Russia (the last one completely made by me). When recurring at media, people are not mentioned, like you added Erasmo Wong Lu, but newspapers and TV Channels. The claim about El Comercio being "conservative" is debatable and most sources describe it as "liberal" or "center-right". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. Your edits reverting multiple reliable sources makes it apparent that you are not here to build an encyclopedia and are rather an ideology warrior for the promotion (or whitewashing) of right-wing/conservative articles. Your questionable edits far outweigh the few good ones. WMrapids (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit you just put there to make the claim I'm "reverting multiple reliable sources" shows the reliable source from Amerika12.de you removed before. The modifications I made was not removing sources unlike you, but moving there to a place were they fit better, like the claim you literally wrote about Avanza País being part of a "far-right bloc". Also you wrote that globally the party is considered "far-right" and apparently only the national "mass media" claims that the party is center-right, then cherry-picking sources to make the claim that it is a far-right party. I highly suggest to check this Wikipedia essay and check if the biased sources make that claim because of ideological purposes or if they want to make a valid claim. As the article says: "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view". Alejandro Basombrio (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since much of the content is WP:USERGENERATED, it is a dubious source. Seeing that you recognize Amerika21.de as a reliable source for such information (it strangely describes Prensa Latina as a “partner” too), you either need help with determining reliable sources or you could be making quite the reach to support your ideological edits. Could be both. WMrapids (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, you tried to replace well-cited information with an opinion article, a site named “Olive Press” (?) and a .info site. Clearly making some reaches here. WMrapids (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Propose 6 month topic ban for User:Alejandro Basombrio from Politics, broadly construed

    This has gone on long enough. Despite multiple users giving strong polcy-based reasons that gis bahavuir is wrong, Alejandro refuses to back down and has done nothing but attempt to deflect and Wikilawyer his way out of this. A topic ban should give him the chance to prove he can edit constructively let he get caught on the receiving end of a WP:NONAZIS based ANI.

    Support as proposed. 50.214.130.225 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Arkenstrone: baseless accusations

    Context

    User:Arkenstrone has been POV-pushing since the beginning of April at articles Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God. I recently removed their POV-pushing. The user opposed this removal, so I reverted their revert and tried to explain to the user that random blogs and reading clubs' websites and the likes were not reliable and why information had to be removed along with refs, but the user WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and stated they wanted to create a FALSEBALANCE between what they deem "pro-Valtorta" and "anti-Valtorta" points.

    Then, Arkenstrone's versions on both articles were revdeleted for copyright violation, part of which was due to me asking Diannaa to check them after their revdeletion at 'Maria Valtorta'. The user asked Diannaa for the revdeleted content, when Dianaa refused Arkenstrone stated: I am seeking other admins to give me access to the original material because you are unwilling, even though I've explained to you the unique circumstances of many valuable non-infringing edits being lost as a side-effect of your revision deletion. The user then went to ask 3 other admins to get an e-mail of the deleted versions (links to threads): Bbb23, Deepfriedokra, and DatGuy. The user has stated that all three were chosen because they had imposed sanctions upon me in the past (I have made those requests to these admins because you have been blocked by them at least 5 times previously for disruptive editing behaviour [...] I contacted the admins that previously blocked you because they might recognize a pattern of questionable behaviour in your conduct and be more sympathetic to my request), a reason the user has double-down on (on Deepfriedokra's talk page, admin Anachronist characterised Arkenstrone's behaviour as a blatant demonstration of WP:Admin shopping). By the way, the admin shopping worked with the last admin.

    Accusations

    The user has portrayed my behaviour as disruption or vandalism without any basis, thus violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links"). They have also consistently characterised my removal of their POV as "gutting" the articles. This is the the user's last remark to me that made me write this ANI, and I have updated the writing with DatGuy's recent acceptation of e-mailing the copyrighted material.

    • At User talk:Diannaa#The Poem of the Man-God: This editor's approach by removing large portions of the article because he doesn't like the sources, is extremely disruptive; the other editor removed large portions of the article because he doesn't agree that the sources presenting important information are good sources. This is disruptive; this user disruptively gutted large portions of the article.
    • At User talk:Bbb23#Assistance for Disruptive Edits: they state I have a long history of WP:3RR, WP:DISRUPT, and WP:VANDALIZE, and they ask that I be blocked for serial disruptive edits and vandalism: this is not true, I have never been blocked for vandalism and my removal is not disruptive nor vandalism.
    • At User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision?: I didn't give the normal editing process a chance to function, me asking Diannaa to check for copyvio is a sort of gaming of the editing process, and I have been attempting to confuse, conflate, and game the editing process.

    Sidenote unrelated to me: Arkenstrone has also characterised Diannaa's refusal of handing their revdeleted versions as well beyond your purview and veering dangerously close to a form of soft-censorship and micro-management of the editing process based on your own personal views and opinions. Veverve (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The admins involved in this discussion already came to a resolution. User talk:DatGuy#Access to copy of deleted revision? Arkenstrone (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a completely different issue, as DatGuy has told you at the very talk page you link. Veverve (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If Arkenstrone had stuck to the subject of getting back their content, that would have been great. But they personalized the conflict with Veverve and specifically sought out admins who'd sanctioned Veverve in the past. Me included. I'll leave it to y'all to decide what to make of this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing some important facts. Allow me to correct the record.
    • Bbb23 was the first admin I contacted after Diannaa, asking him for 1) a copy of the deleted revision and 2) to assist, and possibly block Veverve since he was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). That's not how things are done. You bring it up on the talk page, and if a source is indeed low quality, then tag the sourced text with "citation needed" or similar, and give other editors a chance to provide better sources. That's good-faith.
    • Bbb23 didn't want to have anything to do with it. So I respected his wish not to get involved and left it at that. Afterwards, I decided to focus on just getting access to the deleted revision and not confuse things with conduct issues. I made no mention of Veverve, on any other admin's talk page, including DatGuy's or yours.
    • It was Veverve that decided to make his presence known on DatGuy's talk page. Only then did I respond to his confused and deflecting statements, and provided the facts of his past bad behaviour, which was happening once again. I wasn't going to mention his past behaviour in that thread, deciding instead to give the editing process a chance to function, and see what happens.
    • Only after DatGuy [99] recommended to introduce material from the deleted revision with copyvio corrections + source improvement (slowly), did Veverve choose to file this frivolous ANI. I would advise Veverve to consider WP:BOOMERANG. Arkenstrone (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseless accusations?
    Patterns of questionable conduct: 1) gutting articles WP:VANDALIZE, 2) disruptive editing WP:DISRUPT, and 3) edit warring WP:3RR. At least 5 blocks have been levied and one Arbitration Enforcement Sanction. The facts speak for themselves (below). This editor doesn't seem to be getting the message. Before opening a frivolous ANI, perhaps he should consider WP:BOOMERANG.
    1. Edit Warring: [100] Block: [101]
    => "You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Russian fascism (ideology)) for a period of 1 week for EDIT WARRING."
    2. Edit Warring [102] Block: [103]
    => "You are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this?"
    => "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring."
    3. Edit Warring & Block: [104]
    => "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring in the same articles immediately after your previous block ended."
    4. Block Extension: [105]
    => "I have extended your block by two weeks and revoked your talk page access. Pinging other editors to argue with them and berate them while you are blocked is not acceptable. Please read WP:UTRS for your unblock options."
    5. Edit Warring & Block: [106]
    => "You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Heresy in the Catholic Church."
    6. Arbitration Enforcement Sanction: [107]
    => "The following sanction now applies to you: You are indefinitely topic banned from all subject that relate to "Russia", including discussion or any article that is related to Russia in any way, broadly construed. You have been sanctioned [108]"
    7. Disruptve Edits: [109]
    => in progress Arkenstrone (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to have completely missed the point. And you double-down on calling my edits Disruptve Edits (using your own warnings as proofs), accusing me of having vandalised (which I never did, you do not appear to understand the meaning of this term on WP), and baselessly state that I was repeating past disruptive behaviour for which he was blocked multiple times previously (by gutting articles due to what he considered unreliable sources and edit warring). I never denied receiving blocks or being topic-banned. That none of the three admins to which you mentioned my behaviour were willing to sanction me should have made you realise your accusations were baseless.
    That you decided to make it personnal and continued to baselessly accuse me once I intervened on DatGuy's talk page, or on whatever page, is not a defence at all: it only proves you have trouble working on a community project. And as I said, I had decided to start this ANI once you confirmed that you were clearly unwilling to give me the time of the day.
    You admitted you decided to ask specific admins that sanctionned me in your admin shopping. Veverve (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (comment so that it does not get archived before an admin has fixed the problem) Veverve (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversion to Islam in prisons

    Source number 20 is prejudicial and unreliable, a systematic review should be done of FOX news as a source. It should be discounted from every potentially biased article (on Religion, Race, Sexual Proclivity, Sexual Identity, Mental Health, and all American Partisan politics generally, I'm sure I missed some) on the grounds that it is a propaganda engine not a news service. Wikipedia should uphold the high level of editorial impartiality we, the public, have come to expect of it. I love this site and plan to become a content contributor when I have time and energy to seek out a wiki-site that I am prepared to fully research and claim expertise on; don't make my trust a folly. 70.113.35.12 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    An RfC (Request for Comments) is underway here as to whether Fox News should be deprecated as a source. Please go there if you want to make your opinion known, but it would be advisable to make an account first, as I don;t believe that IPs can participate. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly gets them a wierd look and possibly a removal as an SPA --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An IP isn't an account, and in general it's history isn't indicative of the long term editing history of the person using the address. It would be a strange take to disallow IPs from making an argument at an rfc, especially since they aren't votes. That is my understanding at least Very Average Editor (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks from C. A. Russell

    C. A. Russell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    C. A. Russell has repeatedly attacked the competence of Steel1943 in the RfD nomination for FILE pointer that was created by them, with comments such as:

    • This request could have only arisen from someone (alternatively: a naively implemented bot) that did not actually read the article.
    • If you feel there's something unclear about the statement that stdin, stdout, and stderr are all identified as FILE pointers, and the data type itself is, in fact, described in the section that immediately follows ("Member types"), then please take some time to consider whether you should be participating in, let alone initiating, the "discussion" part that's intrinsic to the "Redirects for discussion" process.
    • The person who opened this RFD lacks the attention span to read five sentences that directly address the claims they made in the RFD. Nominally, this is written as an example of a sentence about a topic that doesn't directly have the exact name of the topic. However, the choice of this exact wording rather than one that doesn't attack a user should still be considered a personal attack.

    Relevant RfD diffs: [110] [111] [112] [113]

    In addition, C. A. Russell has made edits to the target page with the specific intent to be reverted[114] as to "demonstrate a trivial edit" to add the exact wording "FILE pointer". This also should fall under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, however the amount of disruption here is immediately self-reverted edits in the article history rather than serious vandalism.

    I'd also bring attention to an earlier ANI report that seems to have went unnoticed by administrators before being archived. Randi Moth TalkContribs 11:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition, it seems this editor has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. There are also warnings regarding personal attacks in the editor's talk page history. Steel1943 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Anyone? Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anywho, I suppose I'll bring up some things that I feel the need to point out since it seems as though this editor is preparing a response statement and ... well, this whole scenario has caused me a lot of grief already:
      • A day or so ago, I replaced my user page with a link to Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and then reverted after I saw this report. Obviously, the former edit was in response to this editor causing me emotional grief. Ultimately, any such mention of this occurrence as a negative towards me is a strawman-type argument since it strays from the content of the argument that resulted in this report, but rather validates the grief that this user caused me, thus any such mention will probably be a WP:BOOMERANG.
      • As pointed out above, the editor's initial "keep" vote in the RFD discussion was identified to include a personal attack not just by me, but by another editor. In addition, the editor accused me of wasting the community's time with RFD ... which is a rather odd thing to accuse someone of and definitely did not seem like a "good faith" statement, considering RFD is one of the various WP:XFD discussion forums out there that literally is built on community participation, and thus utilizes the attention of the community. In addition, there are cases where such discussions will literally receive no community input, and will this result in "soft delete" or something similar: In other words, there is no requirement for there to be excess community participation in anything other than closing an open discussion ... which is really cheap resource-wise.
      • A few days ago, when this all started, I took it upon myself to see if this editor had a history of causing editors grief such as this ... and the results were astounding. In 2020, the editor was blocked for 48 hours due to personal attacks. In a recent RFD for a redirect titled Primus sucks (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 29#Primus sucks), the editor posted a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers that, to me, seems to have came off incredibly unhelpful for forming consensus and may have resulted in the nominator wanting to withdraw the discussion. (I mean honestly, if I had seen something like that in one of my nominations, I'd probably would have decided to ignore it and move on to actual consensus-building inquiries ... a lot of those questions seemed to be snidely attacking the nominator rather than having any sort of consensus-building purpose.)
    ...With all that being said, this editor, with their statements, has caused me the most unreasonable amount of grief I have had to deal with on Wikipedia for a good while; I'm no stranger to dealing with (and previously, finding) stress on here, and have over the years learned to do my best to avoid extremely controversial areas in response (but in no way am I diminishing the efforts of others who do so since thanks to them, policies and precedents are established on Wikipedia), but the responses from this editor were like a figurative land mine that I would not have been able to spot with the best mine-detecting equipment; their attitude comes off as needlessly defensive to a point of lashing out. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, here's a draft of the response they are writing. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guess I'm tangentially involved here, in that I originally put a comment supporting Deletion on this RfD, which I since vacated because the thing has become a wall of text that has more words than that redirect has seen page views in its entire lifetime and I don't want to be a part of that. Still, it's pretty clear that @C. A. Russell's behavior at that RfD is uncivil. They seem to feel ownership over this page and redirect, to the point of saying @Steel1943 is wasting contributor time by proposing it, requesting that Steel1943 not only change their mind about this particular redirect but stop participating at RfD altogether, and willingly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point ([115]). It's evident that they're someone convinced the only valid outcome of a discussion is one where everyone else acknowledges they're right. I think at the very least C. A. Russell should be formally warned here, and given that their behavior is enough to drive other editors away from discussions, I'd favor something more. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 06:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person intimately involved with the Primus sucks RfD and has started the "earlier ANI report" (already linked above) regarding that RfD, I broadly agree with Dylnuge's assessment of Russell. However, I do believe that we can probably start with warning Russell this time around but ensure that we emphasize the OWN-related issue that they have, given that Russell themself had created both "Primus sucks" and "FILE pointer" and proceeded to use that attitude when their redirects are challenged over at RfD.
    I would also like to alert you to this page in Russell's user space, which contains the list of "a rather long list of questions, demanding yes/no answers" (using Steel1943's words) that first appeared at the Primus RfD. I do deem the page pretty POINTy, but I don't know about you.
    (NB: Unless there is a comment directed specifically against me - whether I am mentioned explicitly (pings) or implicitly - or for minor, clearly-noted refactoring, I plan for this to be my only participation in this ANI thread. Need to cut down on drama after my previous ANI report.) NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like this is regular behavior on "their" redirects at AfD pretty much no matter what the redirect is, see also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_April_17#Yanny\_or\_Laurel. It may also be worth noting that the collection of quotes from themself they have at their talk page seems to be all surrounding an incident with another user that ultimately ended up at ANI and got them a short block. Their user page isn't a problem in-and-of-itself, but it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me that they'll listen to a warning here when they've got that little monument to how they were right and everyone else was wrong. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 16:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They're definitely combative and seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality based on my interactions with them. I certainly didn't appreciate Russell telling me that if I don't like the redirects they create I should stop patrolling redirects as part of WP:NPP. They also initiated a long back and forth with me on my talk page because I said they were taking the nomination too personally, badgering me to remove said comment and ranting about how inappropriate it was until I refused to engage further. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Will an admin respond to this report please? I feel this needs a proper close since this is not the first time there has been a report like this against this editor in the past few years, and since the report posted a month or so ago never got answered and ended up being archived. Steel1943 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked C. A. Russell for three days. See the block log for details. I didn't think a warning would be effective or sufficient sanction for their conduct. One of the itemsI listed in the block log that really troubles me is they appear to have no insight into their own behavior, which is a problem generally in a collaborative environment.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by Guns & Glory

    Guns & Glory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I removed two sources on the EF88 rifle in Steyr AUG as they were forums [116] per WP:USERG and added a {{Citation needed}} tag.

    Guns & Glory has removed the tag and added an Army source [117] for the rifle. The source did not clearly support the material as presented in the article per WP:BURDEN. The user misrepresented a reliable source per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS.

    I then substituted material on the changes to the rifle from the Army source and removed material not in the source [118].

    Guns & Glory then reverted my edit [119] re-adding the disputed material with the Army source.

    I left a disruptive editing warning on Guns & Glory user page [120] for the article.

    I then removed the disputed material on the rifle [121] and Army source.

    Guns & Glory then reverted my edit re-adding the disputed material with the Army source [122]. Melbguy05 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You're removing information that is important of the said topic. The list provides the changes/improvements of the EF88 from the F88. Know your weapons before you start crying like baby Guns & Glory (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin comment) Wikipedia can do without insults like "crying like baby"; see WP:CIVIL. I suggest you strike it. Narky Blert (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me ask everyone, what is the main purpose of Wikipedia? To educate and prove reliable information. What this guy is doing is removing information just because the new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before. New citations have been provided due to a different editor who removed previous citations. Guns & Glory (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore it shows your lack of knowledge of this particular firearm. Read the paragraph, it talks about the Thales F90, not the adopted EF88 by the Australian Defence Force. The F90 is capable of equipping the said new rifle grenade technology. Before you remove that list again, I suggest you do your research, cause you clearly need it instead of removing it. I already provided a citation for the main website and have added the need to provide a better source to accommodate every single detail that contains on the list. That list has been on the article for as long as I can remember. Maybe since 2012. Obviously whomever added it at that time, because the original citations were removed, it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list. But I read it, and I don't see anything that is misleading or incorrect with the information given. It feels like you just wanna remove content for the sake of it. Not even providing a better alternative just a straight up deletion which is absurd and contradicts the main purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide information. Guns & Glory (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guns & Glory WP:VERIFY requires that "All content must be verifiable.. and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The Army citation you provided did not verify the content in the 10 points. You even admit it did not saying above that the "new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before" and that "it will be difficult to find a source that will state every single thing on that list". Per WP:VERIFY "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." You restored the material without a citation that supports the material. The Army citation did not support the 10 dot points. It is disruptive editing to mispresent a source as you did for the Army source. I placed a disruptive warning on your talk page and you ignored this and re-added the unverified content to the article. Melbguy05 (talk) 07:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the original citations were removed by another editor. Then asked for new citations. I placed 2 citations, and added 'need better source' Guns & Glory (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guns & Glory You added the Army citation discussed above which misrepresented a reliable source. Later, which I did not discuss above, you added {{Better source needed}} with "The current source is insufficiently reliable (WP:NOTRS)" [123] you then added another source [124] Lithgow Arms citation. You kept {{Better source needed}} after adding Lithgow Arms. Since those edits you admit above that the ""new set of citations that were added didn't include what was mentioned before".--Melbguy05 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a revision dated June 2017 that has three citations for the list, which at that time contained 12 points: Diff of Steyr AUG. How about you two have a look at these 3 citations and see if they cover the points and look reliable. Do this on the article talk page, not here. — Diannaa (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an archive url for citation #28. The other two might be forums. Unsourced content can and should be removed if a supporting citation cannot be found. It doesn't matter if it's been there a long time. — Diannaa (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2011 Thales document has information on the F88SA2 rifle and on its planned replacement the EF88 rifle. The EF88 information on page 20 is potential design changes "areas for enhancement". The disputed material is the actual design changes implemented which came from the forum w54.biz. My edit comment was "remove WP:USERG forums, not in WP:RS ref" by WP:RS I meant the Thales document. --Melbguy05 (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If the previous supported the material in question, then just add the previous source. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    North8000 I'm not sure what you mean by previous supported. There were three citations that I removed when I added the {{Citation needed}} tag: two were forums (removed per WP:USERG) and other a 2011 Thales document that did not support the material. The forum indiandefence is a dead url and it is not available from an archive. The material in the most part comes from the forum w54.biz.--Melbguy05 (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was mostly addressing Guns & Glory / their argument. I haven't taken a deep dive into the article/issues. Their "Because the original citations were removed by another editor" implies that the material in question was supported by a now-removed source. North8000 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source was a forum, which is not an RS. So yes, the material in question was "supported" by a now-removed source, but the source was invalid. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With this edit they've continued the same behaviour of restoring unreliable sources. They've had the verifiability policy explained to them both here and on the AUG talk page several times now, so I'm really not sure why they're still having this much trouble getting the point. Loafiewa (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhsin97233

    Muhsin97233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    WP:NOTHERE, user is on a nationalistic mission rather than improving Wikipedia. The vast majority of their (pov) edits (some direct examples [125] [126] [127] [128] [129]) have been reverted, as seen here [130][ if you Ctrl + F "reverted". They are obsessed with turning everything to anything "Arab", even spamming talk pages with their WP:SOAPBOX nonsense [131] [132] [133] [134]. This has been going on since they first started editing, in February 2022.

    Their talk page is also full of warnings I have warned them multiple times, which they only addressed once with this comment (there's more in the diff); "...Conclusion We all know the English Wikipedia, most of them are run by racist Persians who falsify the facts in favor of their Persian nation..." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    HistoryofIran, I won't comment on this as I'm not well versed in the subject, except only to point out that it's pretty misleading of you to say that "Their talk page is full of warnings", when in fact all those warnings come from you yourself. To avoid creating the wrong impression, please use the active voice in such situations, such as "I have warned them many times". Bishonen | tålk 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    You're right, my bad. I have fixed it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is classic extremely one-sided ethnic POV-pushing. Basically, everyone of any note is Arab, not Persian or Berber [135][136][137]; [138]; [139]; [140]; [141]; [142]; [143][144][145]; [146]; [147]. Don't say 'Persian', say 'Muslim' Even the cookbook is not Arabic (=language), but Arab (=ethnicity)! Any pushback against this must of course be racist [148][149].
    Muhsin97233's disruption is sparse but ongoing since July 2022, with little or nothing else in between (diffed above is almost every mainspace edit they made). I think a wp:nothere indef block would be helpful. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reviewed the last several edits from this user, and it's a mixed bag; though nothing to me that says they need a block as yet. Maybe a topic ban at best. I mean, most of the edits are to talk pages, which we encourage, and is not really disrupting article text. Some of the edits, such as this one seem fine; the source doesn't seem to mention "Arabian" at all (at least, the little bit available online doesn't). Perhaps a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would solve the problem? --Jayron32 17:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Only their most recent edits are to talk pages. In mainspace, it's been almost all disruptive (see the diffs in my comment above; the Camel urine edits are one of the few exceptions). That said, I've encountered this user during patrolling but did not report precisely because their most recent edits did not disrupt mainspace. If that is taken as a sign that they might be willing to reform, then yes, a topic ban on adding or removing ethnic or linguistic labels from article text would certainly also solve the problem. But there clearly is a problem, and I think that now that we're here it would be helpful to do something about it. I therefore also support a topic-ban as an alternative measure. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    SimoooIX and M.Bitton - round 3

    SimoooIX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also previously known as Simoooix.haddi)

    M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous ANI discussions:

    Two weeks have passed since the last discussion, and I was recently called in to Talk:Ahmed Ben Bella to intervene in a latest round of dispute, taking place at Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#April_2023 and Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#May_2023. While there's some mild PA-sparring going on there and at discussions linked in those sections, what ultimately motivated me to bring this back to ANI is the exchange related to Talk:Ahmed_Ben_Bella#April_2023 and misrepresentation of sources. Reviewing the source in question [150] and the diffs carried out by SimoooIX (Special:Diff/1152380324, Special:Diff/1152392502), while I think it is possible that SimoooIX's misreading of the source may have been a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate intent to misrepresent the source, their willingness to insist on edits and argue forcefully for them despite their inability to understand the source cited is disruptive, and leads me to recommend that the community pass a topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. If this were a first time offense, WP:ROPE would be appropriate, but coming as it does after months of bickering, a p-block and 2 ANI threads (not to mention this opening shot to their relationship), I think that we have collectively been more than enough patient in waiting for SimoooIX to edit constructively. I would also note that the specific concern that SimoooIX was misreading French sources has been raised before by M.Bitton but does not appear to have been investigated in detail in the prior threads. signed, Rosguill talk 16:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support topic ban. Enough is enough, this has to stop. --Yamla (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Well, regarding the issue of sources misrepresentation (which is not the real issue why i pinged you, and i think you should have mentioned the edit warring and properly sourced content removal stuff):
    1)- the content i added is a matter of fact even if it wasn't mentioned in that specific source, It is supported by other reliable sources.[151]
    2)- the author of the article, did also write an other article in which He is clearly confirming what i added. [152]
    3)- The author of the article made this conclusion at the end of the paragraph. "Le futur président algérien est donc marocain et « berbère » par ses origines, rural et provincial par son statut social".Why would He even do that? SimoooIX (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics, broadly construed against SimoooIX. The above post does not help their case.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, per evidence above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Here are some reasons why a Topic ban from Moroccan, Algerian and West Saharan topics is not a good idea:
    • 1)- It simply means that i should definitively stop editing on Wikipedia (see my userpage in order to know why):
    • 2)- I have contributed many times on this topic and the majority of my edits were constructive (feel free to check my contibutions). i have also created the articles of Almohad conquest of Norman Africa and Awraba. and i have intentions to improve them in the future, also i have plans to create more articles.
    • 3)- the most important reason to me is that M.Bitton clearly has something against Morocco and you can see that in many instances. For example they have labeled mentions of Morocco 'stupid' [153] and i have highlighted their mistake [154] and another editor did that too [155]. Also they have referred to the Moroccan policies as being 'colonialist'[156]. Unfortunately there is no one to stop their POV pushing. if i get banned that means they will feel free to do whatever they want.
    As for my third edit. I admit that it was a mistake, and i have already apologized for it. i re-apologize if this was needed. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of SimoooIX's edits have been either disruptive or questionable at best. Here's their sole contribution to the Awraba article that they "created" (a single line with a factually incorrect nationalist POV that their tried to reinject after it was removed). The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view) that consists of 80% background that is covered elsewhere.

    Three days ago, they accused me of POV pushing and when asked to either substantiate their accusation or apologize, they referred to a discussion that proves the exact opposite of their assertion (this comment by Apaugasma sums it up quite well).

    Look, i'm aware that an Algerian president being Moroccan Berber by his origins is a bothersome to you. But Wikipedia is not the place to impose your biased POV. yesterday's personal attack (that they tried to hide 12 hours after making it) is beyond the pale. It's also near identical to the first they made on the day they joined the project. M.Bitton (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Now you are clearly making baseless accusations. When I created the article of Awraba, I simply translated a part of the French article that referred to the Awraba as a tribe of Morocco. When you changed "Morocco" to "North Africa" and mentioned that you've adressed the anachronism, I initially thought adding "modern-day" would address the issue. However, after you explained the issue more clearly, I agreed with your reasoning and moved on. I was assuming good faith throughout our interaction.
    "The other article is a POV fork (created according to them to present the Almohad's view rather than the Normans' view)" you clearly understood nothing from my comment ( I don't have to explain it now). So i suggest you refrain making accusations based on misunderstandings.
    Now let's talk about your behaviour as an editor. You've personally attacked me more than once [157][158][159], you have threatened me [160], accused my properly sourced addition of being "a POV serving a political agenda" [161] and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry [162]. As for the reason why i pinged Rosguill (apparently that was unhelpful), the following is a copied comment of mine that i have left in the talk page of Ahmed Ben Bella:
    I have added properly sourced content, but apparently M.Bitton didn't like what i added, and removed it as well as other relevant content for being 'undue' (which is clearly not). i have reverted their removal and respectfully asked them not to edit war and discuss their removal in the talk page first. but they clearly seem unwilling to cooperate and cotinued edit warring. (you'll notice that they are refusing to continue this discussion). SimoooIX (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, SimoooIX, unfortunately here at ANI we don't care that if you're t-banned, It simply means that i should definitely stop editing on Wikipedia. In fact, that hurts your case, as to most experienced editors it's a sign you may be here to WP:RGW.
    A topic ban means you apparently aren't currently able to contribute in a certain area in a way that is a net-positive. It doesn't have to be permanent if you can show you're capable of editing in other areas productively. It's possible you simply need more experience to understand that, yes, Wikipedia is not the place to impose your biased POV is indeed a personal attack.
    (That said, I agree M.Bitton has made the same kinds of personal attacks on you, and while I think they definitely need to be warned, it's a little hard to understand why you can recognize it when they throw it at you but not when you throw it at them. Although that's true for them, too. Really both of you are behaving badly.)
    At any rate, if you stop editing because of a topic ban, rather than attempting to learn how to productively contribute in other areas until the t-ban is lifted, we kind of consider that evidence you were WP:NOTHERE. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did my best to avoid them since the last ANI, but they kept casting aspersions and justifying them by referring to a discussion that proves the opposite of what they claim, culminating in the last PA (see above) that I simply ignored. They have a thing against me (as clearly highlighted in their third ever edit and repeated numerous times since) that I simply cannot ignore, and while turning the other cheek is what we're supposed to do, there are limits to how much harassment and abuse one can take. Also, if they can try to justify that to themselves, I don't see how they can possibly justify insulting the Algerian president (in wikipedia's voice). If that's not the sign of someone of who's here on a mission (one of which is to drive me up the wall), I don't know what is. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I get it, but when you retaliate with the exact same kinds of personal attacks, you've kind of forfeited that moral high ground. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not retaliate since the last ANI where I promised to avoid them. See the last two blatant PA (highlighted above) that I ignored. Also, what did the Algerian president ever do to them to deserve being called a pussy in Wikipedia's voice? M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your accusation is actually based on another editor's false accusation (on french wiki). Now tell me, why do you think that i called the Algerian president a 'pussy'? Please be precise! SimoooIX (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an accusation, it's a fact. I saw what you wrote with my own eyes before it was RevDeleted and you blocked indefinitely on fr.wp.
    The disgusting insult towards the Algerian president says everything there is to know about you as an editor. M.Bitton (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're just repeating things. I asked for an explanation! Do you even undestand Arabic, Amazigh or whatever the language? You should explain your accusation, otherwise this will not be tolerated anymore. SimoooIX (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Exchanges like the above are the reason I'm still not sure there isn't fault on both sides. M.Bitton must have mentioned this insult to the president of Algeria -- which none of us can see unless someone here is an admin on frwiki -- at minimum a dozen times in various discussions. Valereee (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, i should make this clear now, i cannot stand more false accusations! Here is the edit i've done on the french wiki:
    تبون -->طبون.
    Probably i was wrong, but that was actually the spelling i used to see in social media, so i thought there was some mistake in the arabic spelling. (Apparently there wasn't)
    Also as far as i'm concerned, the pronunciation of 'Tebboune' in french is more like طبون than تبون. (You can compare the Arabic pronunciation of both Arabic words on Google translate)
    Now M.Bitton should explain to us how is that an insult or how exactly that means that i called the Algerian president "pussy". SimoooIX (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee: since I'm damned if I respond to them and damned if I don't, I might as well do myself a favour and keep away from this nth time sink altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, you're totally free to respond. you have replied to me multiple even after the last ANI (including instances where you personally attacked me). Thus, I am curious as to why you are unable to provide a response to me at this specific moment. SimoooIX (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Valereee, I understand that you may be tired of this unnecessary conflict (which is understandable).
    First of all, i would like to apologize for any actions that may have been interpreted as a personal attack.
    An yes, my main reason for joining Wikipedia was to contribute to articles related to North Africa, and I also engaged in anti-vandalism efforts such as reverting edits and warning vandals, but that was secondary to me.
    As a former reader of Wikipedia, I noticed that certain mentions of Morocco were being removed, and upon checking discussions on talk pages and the contibs history of some editors, I identified M.Bitton as a frequent contributor to these edits. I didn't like their edits (especially that they had started their editorial careed by edit-warring). And that was the moment when i decided to open an account and personally attack them (again, i'm not justifying anything).
    In my early days on Wikipedia, I also engaged in edit wars frequently. Interestingly, M. Bitton was also involved in these conflicts consistently. What I found funny was that while they were sending warnings on my talk page about edit warring, they were simultaneously engaging in the same behavior. This led me to believe that edit warring was a typical occurrence on Wikipedia, even among experienced editors.
    To avoid an unnecessary t-ban, I propose a solution to address one of the root causes of the problem. Admins should tackle two problematic behaviors exhibited by M. Bitton, namely
    • Edit warring.
    • Refusal to discuss.
    I strongly believe that resolving these two issues with M. Bitton can eliminate the larger problem altogether, as other issues can be easily resolved once these two main issues are addressed. Thank you. SimoooIX (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no difference, none whatsoever, between your so-called early days and the way you've been conducting yourself ever since you joined the project (including you last comment). You're clearly here on a mission that includes, among other things, driving me up the wall.
    Did you "discuss" anything with the Algerian president before you decided to describe him as a "pussy" in Wikipedia's voice? M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. The current dynamic is toxic; I'm happy to revisit if SimoooIX demonstrates they can edit productively in other areas. The misreading of the Ahmed Ben Bella source is fundamental. One other matter: M.Bitton, I appreciate that dealing with SimoooIX is aggravating, but you need to disengage and de-escalate. Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but did you read what i wrote above about the sources and the content i added? Anyway, I'm not the only who has had issues with this editor (I can give names if you insisted, but for now, i don't feel the need of involving other editors) I was unlucky enough that my first interactions were with them and that they are editing on the exact same topic for which i've came to wikipedia to edit on. (I'm not justifying some of the mistakes i've done but i think the entire conflict could have been avoided. In fact, i have noticed that the exact same problem happened somewhere else with other editors, i was fan of how the experienced editor had dealt with the issue). SimoooIX (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I was unlucky enough that my first interactions were with them By which you mean you sought them out and made an unprovoked personal attack. Yes, very unlucky. [163] - MrOllie (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest you read the whole comment in order to undestand why i said that. Thanks. SimoooIX (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support t-ban. SimoooIX, your best bet is to go edit somewhere less contentious while you gain experience. If you really don't have any other editing interests at all, Wikipedia may not be a good fit for you. Valereee (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban as proposed. Since the previous ANI report, SimoooIX has continued wasting precious editors' time at Talk:Azougui#Sources and Talk:Almoravid_dynasty#First capital over an issue which seems to me to be tendentious in nature. Among three cities commonly called by sources 'capitals' of the Almoravids, SimoooIX insisted that the only non-Moroccan one should not be called capital, keeping multiple editors who disagree busy with this over several days, and utterly refusing to drop the stick.
      I already suggested to SimoooIX that they consider staying away a bit from Morocco-related subjects and look for other subjects to edit, but apparently they are only interested in editing North Africa-related stuff.
      However, interpreting "la sainte éponyme, qu’on dit originaire de Marrakech" as meaning that the Algerian politician Ahmed Ben Bella himself is from Marrakech (Morocco) [164][165], and doubling down on that even after an English translation of the relevant sentence has been presented, is ... strange. Either it's extremely tendentious, or (perhaps more likely) it's a combination of lacking French language skills (a rather serious wp:cir problem for anyone insisting on only editing North Africa-related topics) with a failure to assume good faith on the translation given. In any case, it's another talk page filled [166] with pure wp:timesink stuff keeping editors busy for days, and if nothing else that needs to stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Apaugasma, i suggest you are more precise. I insisted that Azougui mustn't be described as the "first capital" as per reliable sources that described Aghmat (another city) as the "first capital" and i have explained that here talk:Azougui#Sources and here talk:Almoravid dynasty#First capital.
      Have you read what i wrote above about the sources and the content i added? The content i added (that Ben Bella's parents came from the Marrakesh region) is a matter of fact and supported by other sources! SimoooIX (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The point is not 'capital' or 'first capital', the point is that you at least seem hell bent on diminishing the status of that non-Moroccan city, that you appear to resort to tendentious reasoning to arrive there, and –most importantly– that when multiple editors do not agree with this reasoning, you refuse to drop it.
      Yes, you added to the Ben Bella article that his parents were originally from Marrakesh, while the source you cited only says that the patron saint of his native town Maghnia was originally from Marrakech. It's true, other sources like [167][168] do confirm that Ben Bella's parents originated in the Marrakesh region, but you only came up with a new source after making this whole stir about it, and even then you did not admit that you misread the first source, nor that you clearly do not known enough French to read it correctly.
      Look, this is not about whether you're right or not, it's about the way you go about it. As Rosguill writes in this t-ban proposal, while I think it is possible that SimoooIX's misreading of the source may have been a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate intent to misrepresent the source, their willingness to insist on edits and argue forcefully for them despite their inability to understand the source cited is disruptive. It's not normal for a Wikipedia editor to create so many sprawling talk page disputes over seemingly simple edits. It's not normal for a Wikipedia editor to waste so much of their fellow editors' time. You need to learn how to communicate more effectively, to admit your mistakes, and to drop the wp:stick when appropriate. The best way to learn this is by editing in other subject areas for a while. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    the point is that you at least seem hell bent on diminishing the status of [that non-Moroccan city that's an accusation that you should prove!
    Well, if that makes others happy, i apologize for any actions that have been seen as a misrepresentation of sources. SimoooIX (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To avoid an unnecessary t-ban, I propose a solution to address one of the root causes of the problem. Admins should tackle two problematic behaviors exhibited by M. Bitton, namely:
        • Edit warring.
        • Refusal to discuss.
    • I strongly believe that resolving these two issues with M. Bitton can eliminate the larger problem altogether, as other issues can be easily resolved once these two main issues are addressed. Thank you.
    SimoooIX (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ready for close?

    Consensus seems pretty clear here. This could use action and close before the archive bot sweeps it away. - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, not yet. I've provided evidence of M.Bitton's violations of Wikipedia policies through the diffs I presented above. It's strange that except Valereee, no one else has acknowledged or dealt with these violations.
    I have also suggested an alternative (more reasonable and peaceful to me) solution above that should be taken into account.SimoooIX (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With unanimous sentiment of those other than yourself supporting the consensus, it's plain that whatever you feel about your own arguments, the other editors are unmoved by them. I find myself unmoved by them. As to the "three reasons" you list above for not being topic banned, the first one (that it would effectively bar you from editing Wikipedia) engages my sympathies as little as any other editor; if this is a declaration that you refuse to edit collaboratively and in accordance with civility policies anywhere if you're demonstrated to be incapable of it in this topic area, that's useful to know.

    In the second reason, claiming that the "majority" of your edits were constructive begs the question: why weren't they all constructive? In the final case, your allegations against M.Bitton don't hold water. He did not call Morocco "stupid" -- he said that referring to the Marinid rulers as a Moroccan dynasty, long before Morocco existed, was stupid, a defensible assertion. (Would you likewise consider imperial Rome, the Kingdom of the Vandals, and Carthage "Moroccan" states?) And while he referred to Morocco's occupation of Western Sahara as "colonialist," that is indeed the position of the United Nations, and only one other country on Earth recognizes Moroccan control over the territory. Ravenswing 00:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by User:Jacona

    Hello, I’m writing to report behavior of User:Jacona that I believe constitute personal attacks in violation of WP:NPA, as well as WP:OWN, and WP:TEND concerning Trinity Christian Academy (Addison, Texas). I’m an employee of the school being attacked, which has more than 1,200 students and a minority population of 17.5% as of 2021. Jacona has been forthright in making these personal attacks against the school on both the article’s Talk page and my user Talk page. This includes asking that I get the school’s administration to issue public statements in line with Jacona’s agenda and an outrageously false and libelous claim that the school “successfully continues that mission [perpetuating segregation] today.” Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page in many ways, which I will detail later.

    Here are examples of Jacona’s attacks against the school (ital emphases are mine):: 

    We all want the article to be better, but not everyone is interested in accuracy - the Wikipedia article should not look like the school's website, which tells this fairytale about the school's founding. It makes me very sad to see racial discrimination equated to "the glory of God". Since you're connected to the school, perhaps you could encourage the administration to publicly acknowledge their founding and demonstrate how they've grown despite of it, rather than claiming that very sordid beginning to be glorious and divine. (emphasis mine) [169]The school has certainly come a short way in a long time, so far as diversity is concerned! [170]

    Note: the school website Jacona links to describes the school’s religious mission and makes absolutely no mention of racial discrimination or equating racial discrimination to the glory of God. 

    If this article were an attack piece, it would likely dwell more on how this school was founded to perpetuate segregation, and successfully continues that mission today. (emphasis mine). [171] 
It saddens me to read your school's website and it's fairytale history of the schools founding that states "Founded on the purpose of educating and developing the whole person for the glory of God, we believe there’s more for us to do than simply teach and ultimately, there’s more for our children to do than simply learn" and "TCA was started by a small group of parents who were committed to building a school with a strong curriculum within a framework of traditional Christian values". It implies that the "glory of God" is to keep Black people from getting uppity and think they are good enough humans to attend the same school or ride the same buses as White kids, and that "traditional Christian values" include providing rich White and Asian kids an education free from the influence of poor black kids. (emphasis mine) I don't believe either to be true, and am inexorably drawn to Matthew 25:45-46. When we're talking about education in the United States in 1970 and today, it is obvious to me that when Jesus was speaking about "the least of these", he was talking about the students that were then and now are excluded from an education at TCA. (emphasis mine) [172]

    For the record, Trinity is committed to promoting diversity, including with scholarships, and as noted, has a 17.5% minority enrollment as of June 2021. [173] It’s worth noting that this pattern is not limited just to Trinity, but can also be seen with similarly disparaging Edit Summaries on pages about other Christian academies. In these two examples, Jacona inserted the term “segregation academy” into the lead of two articles about a private Chrisitan school, and then removed it shortly after, but left a disparaging comment in the Edit Summary about each school: 

    (Removed the term "segregation academy" to avoid offending whites who want to feel that an all-white school that admitted no black students is somehow not a segregation academy.) [174] 
(Removed the words segregation academy; although the school certainly fits the definition quite well, I can't find a source that uses those exact words. Split the current demographics into a separate section.) [175].

    Jacona has also demonstrated a pattern of altering the leads of articles about Christian] academies with content that is original analysis based on WP:PRIMARY sources or no sources at all. For example, Jacona added this sentence to the lead of Trinity. The source does not have any information about the racial demographics of the area, and certainly does not make the comparison Jacona does. 

    The White enrollment is now 80%, in a community that is 48% White. (emphasis mine.) The school serves pre-kindergarten through grade 12.[1][176]

    Jacona does the same thing, using Primary sources, in the lead of another Christian Academy: 

    The public school district, Clarendon 02, had a student body population that was 47% Black and 46% White. (emphasis mine) [177] (contrasting public-school district demographic stats with those of a single private school.)

    As I said at the top, Jacona’s agenda has spilled over into damaging the WIkipedia page about Trinity Christian Academy in many ways. These include: 1) fabricating grossly inaccurate stats to attack the school (i.e. saying in the lead that the school had only 4 black students in 2020) [178]. 2) When User:Archer1234 removed this fabricated information [179], Jacona added in a wholly original analysis comparing the region’s racial demographics (without any source), to the school’s racial demographics – stating that “to not include [it] looks like whitewashing.” Edit Summary. 3) Jacona also cherry-picked this stat for the lead of Trinity on November 7, 2022: “...as of 2020, 4 percent of the student body was Black” (ignoring the overall minority enrollment from the Primary source.) [180] Yet the body of the article, where Jacona got the stat, gave the full demographics of the student body, including Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans and African Americans. By choosing to highlight only the recent Black student population in the lead (rather than all minorities), right after a statement about the discriminatory 1971 history, Jacona created the false impression that the current student body is 96% white. 4) Importantly, Jacona has blocked efforts to expand the page about the school from beyond attacks. They answered a Request Edit proposal I made last October in less than 24 hours, declining with thin rationale Request Edits regarding reliably-sourced school information (e.g. sports, curriculum, school activities) that comport with Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice [181]. The result is that the page remains about little else but the controversies. Jacona says they believe the school is only notable because of controversies, and should be deleted. Apparently in their mind this means the page should only be about the controversies. 

    So anyway, the only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. In my opinion, the article should be deleted. [182]

    Of course, it’s Jacona who has blocked the expansion of the article to include other topics, such as the curriculum and sports, in part by questioning the legitimacy of multiple local newspapers or topics not to their liking, despite the detailed content recommendations of the WikiProject Schools. There are many dozens of stories about the school in the local press over the past five decades, enough for it to even perhaps reach GA status, if future rounds of Request Edits are not blocked by Jacona. Given their history of making personal attacks and undisguised agenda editing, I do not see how Jacona can continue to make direct edits to the page in a neutral manner or evaluate/close Request Edits. Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Lkspears (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Search for Private Schools - School Detail for Trinity Christian Academy". National Center for Education Statistics. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved January 24, 2023.
    I'm curious why you brought this up 4 months after the last interaction you had with Jacona? This doesn't appear to be a pressing issue and I'm not seeing any personal attacks here. Attacks on the subject, sure, but not on you or any other editor. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Golbez note that this editor says they work for the school, not sure in what capacity. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be closed. There are no apparent personal attacks here, and this is not a forum for resolving content disputes or for determining if an article should or should not be deleted. @Doug Weller: For what it's worth, a quick inspection of the school's web cite here provided me with good evidence of the OP's job description. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoJo Anthrax yes and yes. I’d close it if I weren’t on my iPad. I’m as likely to mess it up as do it properly, clumsy fingers.😀 Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A) Personal attacks specifically include: “Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on [. . .] religious or political beliefs [. . .] directed against another editor or a group of editors.” Jacona singled me out as an employee of an evangelical Christian private academy to falsely accuse me and my school of equating racism and segregation with “traditional Christian values” and “perpetuating segregation”, and to demand that I pressure the school into issuing a public statement – outside of Wikipedia.
    B) And even if it’s not technically a “personal attack” under Wikipedia policy, Jacona is openly editing to advance an ideological viewpoint in violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY. Aside from infusing their viewpoint on the page and Talk, even in their response here on ANI, Jacona says the school has “made progress”, as though their personal evaluation of whether the school is meritorious should influence Wikipedia decisionmaking. Lkspears (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [T]he only areas that make this school notable are its history of bigotry against Blacks, and the more recent discrimination against homosexual students. This line amounts to Lkspears (talk · contribs) complaining about WP:NOTCENSORED — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Oops, misread the history — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made no personal attacks. As the self-acknowledged paid editor mentions, I've acknowledged that the school has made a lot of progress, being rougly 83% white/17% minority (albeit in a community that is majority minority), but that does not change history. It was founded as a seg academy. Their complaint boils down to non-acceptance that Wikipedia is not censored. They (or IPs I strongly suspect to be them) have just been trying to censor it for a long time. Jacona (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Logged out edits

    Can Lkspears confirm that they are not responsible the recent wave of IP edits that resulted in the semi-protection of the article? [183], [184], [185] [186]? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 20:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I am not responsible for any of those other edits and I have no idea who is making them. I didn’t go to the trouble of disclosing my COI on the page’s Talk, proposing Request Edits with COI disclosures over many months, and posting this extensive ANI complaint with another COI disclosure today, just to turn around and wantonly violate Wikipedia policy with undisclosed COI edits from an IP address. Lkspears (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrelevant, poorly sourced material at Midlothian, Virginia

    Writing this to preempt my violating 3rr (though I don't believe I would be based on WP:3RRNO). It looks like CWCvilleresident1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to insert poorly sourced BLP content into Midlothian, Virginia. In the spirit of full disclosure, I think that Chris-Chan is the victim of a nearly decades-long harassment campaign, but I recognize WP:RGW. Once again - since the content is in violation of WP:BLPRS I don't think my reversion would run afoul of the 3 revert rule, but I also think it's in the best interest to raise this matter here. PriusGod (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind. Vandalism is now blatant. Nothing to do but block PriusGod (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going to say! Honestly If I see doing [his/her/their/your/my] mom I typically stop reading because there's no way anyone with competence would type that. No matter what sources they doll the contribution up in or how plausible it sounds, some things will always be giveaways. There's nothing wrong with being cautious around 3RR though. I threw them up at AIV. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, they began socking. Ivanvector appears to be on top of it though GabberFlasted (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Protected and RD2'd by Ivanvector. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 17:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty simple, if it's Chris Chan related, it needs to be removed immediately. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If any oversighters are watching this, most of the edits have been zapped, but there are still a couple that are merely revdelled - I think there's a bit more that needs doing. Girth Summit (blether) 18:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I sent a request to the OS team earlier on this in fact. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't the username also be nuked from orbit? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 22:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also watch Commons; we had to get some KF-contributed 'content' obliterated earlier. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Marrakech

    I removed this comment that Marrakech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made to Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders because it seems blatantly transphobic to me, and to ignore styling guidelines for names of transgender individuals at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. After I informed then of the guidelines, they doubled down, [187]. Given their previous edits in the transgender topic area (eg [188]) I think a topic ban or an indef block may be warranted. Admittedly my original "taking out the trash" edit summary when initially removing their comment was not ideal and did not adequately explain the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe it's because I'm from that area and go there with some frequency (though I don't know anyone involved in this, it was a huge news story that was unavoidable around here), but given the context I'm having a hard time getting past referring to this specific person's previous name as a "deadname". The Linehan thing I don't know enough about, this isn't my topic area, so I'll defer to those more familiar. That said, the removed comment from Marrakech was totally inexcusable, I have no sympathy for Hayes but that was obviously intended to be as incendiary as possible. At minimum it deserves a strong warning, repeating it would certainly be worthy of (at minimum) an indefinite p-block from that page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah the person was clearly notable under their old name due to their crime, and I agree the name should be include. My issue was with Marrakech calling it a "disgrace" that their current gender identification be respected, which is part of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough with the hyperboles. It is not 'blatantly transphobic' to call the guy who raped and murdered an innocent woman a guy. Nor was my comment 'intended to be as incendiary as possible'. I am merely criticizing the article for treating Steven Hayes as if he were a woman. You may not agree with that, but voicing an opinion can hardly be a reason for any ban whatsoever. At least not in an environment that respects basic rights and principles. Marrakech (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, actually, voicing transphobic opinions is transphobic. "I'm just voicing my opinion" is not some magic protection from criticism, and being permitted to edit wikipedia is not a "basic right". Wikipedia's guidelines on gender identity are very clear, and you wouldn't be the first to be blocked for blatantly refusing to follow them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking further into this I'm deeply unimpressed by Marrakech's recent contributions as a whole, which are largely concerned with pushing their PoV on trans issues. Since the beginning of 2022 they have made 19 edits as I write this, including: the comment on Talk:Cheshire home invasion murders (once, twice, three times); this edit using Quillette as a source (generally unreliable according to WP:RSP), this edit sourced to a Forbes Contributor article (generally unreliable according to WP:FORBESCON; and the source doesn't strictly support the claim made anyway); this edit to Talk:Colorado Springs nightclub shooting where they argue that WP:DEADNAME should be ignored "as a general rule"; twice adding the word "alleged" to the description of Graham Linehan's anti-trans activism, and this edit to Talk:Ezra Miller arguing that the use of singular they in reference to a specific known person is ungrammatical. Some of these might be excusable individually, but they make up the majority of Marrakech's edits in more than a year, and together they constitute a clear pattern. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not helping yourself here. I can attest that, especially for anyone from here, this is about the least sympathetic subject imaginable on any level. Your problem is with choosing the most inflammatory way possible to express it, and I have a hard time thinking that you wouldn't intuit this would result; if you honestly didn't, that's a problem in and of itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is blatantly transphobic to call a trans woman a guy. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Marrakech's original comment - the one linked to by and removed by Hemiauchenia - was pure transphobia, and expressed in the most despicable way. They need to apologise and voluntarily back off, or I would support a block of some kind. GiantSnowman 22:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologise to poor Steven Hayes? Because my crime is on a level with what he did? Anyway, not believing in something does not equate to hating or despising it. I do not for a moment believe that Hayes is a woman, but that does not mean I hate and despise him for self identifying as such: no transphobia there. There are of course plenty of other reasons to loathe the guy. Marrakech (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're taking a very moralising stance about Hayes here but you've been doing the same thing on the dutch Wikipedia with regards to respecting the pronouns of Suzy Eddie Izzard. where, among other things, you've been repeatedly claiming that (paraphrasing slightly to accommodate translation): "just like a man claiming he feels like he's twenty when he is actually fifty, a man who feels like a woman obviously isn't a woman". I don't necessarily believe we should sanction people for behaviour on other platforms save for extreme cases, but it does lead me to believe that your behaviour on that talk page has less to do with Hayes, and more with you. --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    'You're taking a very moralising stance about Hayes (...).' Well, about as moralising as the stance you guys take about me for opposing the view that Hayes should be treated and described as a woman. Because that is what this is all about: wrongthink. Marrakech (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When looking at your edits more broadly, this clearly isn't about Hayes, but your contempt for people changing gender identity in general. The fact that you have an entire ArbCom case on nlwiki just dedicated to your disruptive editing regarding gender identity/pronouns suggests you have a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See, someone killing and raping another someone doesn't give a free pass to misgender them. I'm honestly surprised no admin has indeffed you yet, it's an obvious open and shut case. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should probably know this, but my eyes glazed over when they talked about the new contentious topics regime in class. Do you still have to have some kind of official templated warning before making a contentious topic sanction? I looked at WP:CTOP and didn't see such a requirement, but surely they're needed, right? Anyway, I'd suggest an official warning (if required) or a CT topic ban (if not). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh wait, sorry. They already got one last summer (although I'm still a little curious if they're officially required; did I miss something at WP:CTOP?). I'd suggest an admin more familiar with the i-dotting and t-crossing of CT sanctions just unilaterally topic ban them. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics; there's still some formality involved but they've tried to reduce it. Galobtter (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment: in case english-only people here are unaware, this user is currently the main party subject to an unresolved ArbCom case on dutch Wikipedia for a related issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marrakech has used a previous account. Per Wikipedia:Clean start#Contentious and scrutinized_topics they should disclose the previous account. I was going to impose a WP:GENSEX topic ban, which should be done as a minimum, but this edit suggests that the problems extend beyond the topic area. Galobtter (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is problematic about that particular edit? Apart from this, LilianaUwU's comment 'It is blatantly transphobic to call a trans woman a guy' sums it up nicely. You guys present mere opinions as facts and want to silence wikipedians who do not happen to agree with you. Is Wikipedia still a free and democratic encyclopedia, or an environment similar to countries where strict blasphemy laws continue to be in place? Marrakech (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not entirely sure which Wikipedia you're talking about, but this one is not and has never been either a democracy or a platform for free speech. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions, but I see this user finds it difficult to resist GENSEX-related topics,[189][190][191] where their viewpoint becomes evident, and as far as I can see all their edits in this area get reverted. That, combined with the Dutch ArbCom case, makes me believe that Marrakech should indeed be topic banned from the area of GENSEX. — Czello (music) 15:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Editing Wikipedia is a privilege. Having seen Marrakech's recent edits, their replies in this thread, as well as their behavior in the nl wiki, it's clear their editing is hateful and disruptive and not collaborative, as such I've indeffed them. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 20:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good block. Looking at some of their previous edits, they should probably have had at least a GENSEX ban a while ago. I suspect that their very erratic editing contributed to that. And I'm surprised that this took over 24 hours; we indef racists and misogynists on the spot, but apparently not transphobes. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah I agree. There's some types of hatred that we handle better than others, and how we handle transphobia is definitely not great. We should be faster at handling it in general, as there's a lot of disruption in the GENSEX content area that goes unresolved, especially so in clear cut cases like this. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Good block. GiantSnowman 10:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Entirely correct. XAM2175 (T) 23:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse the block. Way out of line, and digging themselves deeper. At a minimum, any unblock should be contingent to them agreeing to abide by a WP:GENSEX topic ban as well. --Jayron32 16:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. Marrakech's pre-block contributions and their post-block comments on their talk page indicate that a GENSEX topic ban would be the absolute minimum before any unblock request should be granted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ohairtneada's conservative/christian pov

    User:Ohairtneada hasn't edited since February 2019. (non-admin closure) XAM2175 (T) 23:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It appears that User:Ohairtneada has been editing many articles from Love to Heartbeat bill, adding information from a conservative and/or Christian point of view, including a massive edit of over 750 bits on Love. I'm requesting a block from editing for a couple of weeks due to persistent Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations, of which, the user has been at for a while and has been warned multiple times for. --AugustusAudax (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So yes their edits are not helpful to the project. However you appear to have missed the fact that they have not edited in well over 4 years. A couple week block is pointless and it's unlikely we'll ever see that editor again. Canterbury Tail talk 01:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they took a 3 year break. Maybe a longer break would be good, given the fact that they appear to off-and-on disruptive edit. So, who knows. Didn't notice the year though.
    --AugustusAudax (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they've done enough to warrant a block. A talking with yes, but not a block. We've started a talking with them and we can continue that should they return. Canterbury Tail talk 01:57, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unnecessary fighting

    An user named @DarkAudit: suddenly started to revert my edits without valid reason. As per the sources[[192] [193] , Paethongtarn Shinawatra is the head of Pheu Thai Family but the user keeps changing the word "Family" as "Party". I added the latest image of Chonlanan Srikaew but he reverted that edit to old image (I restored his edit now). Vish Yuva (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is titled Pheu Thai Party, not Pheu Thai Family. Reverting the image was because the name on the caption was inconsistent with the name of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DarkAudit: Please understand one thing first. "Head of the Pheu Thai Family" is a specific post created specially for Paethongtarn Shinawatra. [194] It does not equal to Head of the Pheu Thai Party. In October 2021, Paetongtarn was named chief adviser on participation and innovation, her first role in the party. In March, the party introduced her as head of the Pheu Thai Family, a party component. Since then, she has campaigned and participated in Pheu Thai outreach programs. [195] Vish Yuva (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit at Pheu Thai Party looks correct, the Title is 'Family' not 'Party'. @DarkAudit You made a mistake there. Nobody (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That one's on me, then. Apologies. DarkAudit (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Janglyguitars and logged-out Wisconsin IPs

    Janglyguitars has been editing logged out, using two Wisconsin IP ranges. They are all involved with music genre edits; a contentious field for sure. They've been enjoying the benefit of identity confusion, of not having poor behavior attached to their username. Both the IPs and the username have been edit warring. To me, it looks like the system is being abused for the benefit of Janglyguitars at the expense of the community.

    This edit confirms explicitly that Janglyguitars has used a Wisconsin IP. Similar editing style and the topic intersections would have confirmed it anyway. The two IP ranges are from the exact same area.

    Back in June 2022, Msftwin95 added a perfectly good, well-sourced genre to the article Book of Love (band), but one of these Wisconsin IPs reverted it.[196] In fact, most of the edits by Special:Contributions/2603:6000:8000:EADF:6DAB:6561:21E4:63FA were reverts of Msftwin95. Janglyguitars also reverted a good reference added by Msftwin95.[197][198] Looks personal.

    In this sequence, Janglyguitars and a Wisconsin IP violate WP:MULTIPLE by edit-warring over the same text.[199][200][201] Here's another example of the same thing.[202][203][204] All of these were reverted by Doctorhawkes, who is welcome to comment.

    All of the listed identities have recently been active at The Lexicon of Love article, adding genres and reverting other editors to establish their preferred version. This article is where 143.44.38.78 says they are Janglyguitars editing logged out.

    With this edit, Janglyguitars-editing-as-IP said that their "OCD" is why they must continue to edit war to restore their preferred version. They are saying that Wikipedia must adjust to their behavioral condition rather than the user adjust to Wikipedia's policies. Can we encourage Janglyguitars to log in by blocking the IP ranges? It will help greatly to keep the conversations about behavior in one place. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, there is hardly any collateral on the /17 and of course none at all on the /64 so I have blocked both ranges for 3 months. Black Kite (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi,
    I apologize for my logged-out editing and will refrain from now on. Using this account, I’ll leave comments on the talk pages of respective articles about why I prefer my version of pages I’ve edited, and should no one object I’ll edit them accordingly. And by the way, I am in fact officially diagnosed with OCD, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that pages shouldn’t follow site policies with consistency. Janglyguitars (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yngvadottir

    Reason: As stated at the top, This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, while this is a content dispute pure and simple. (non-admin closure)
    Suggestion: That the OP continues the discussion on the talk page. Also suggested is that they desist from edit-warring([205], [206], [207]) against several experienced editors. OP is also strongly advised not to accuse other editors of "vandalism" when the edits in question clearly were not; they are also reminded that comments such as You seem to be taking this personally. Is everything ok? can appear gaslighting or an attempt to query another editor's mental health. That's a big fat No-No. (Non-administrator comment) SN54129 11:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    Yngvadottir jumped into the heraldic tincture articles to take issue with the use of infoboxes. They attempted to build a consensus to make changes to the article on three separate occasions [208] [209] [210]. There was not a single editor who took interest in their suggstions. After this failure Yngvadottir moved the goal post, saying I failed to gain any support. This was strange since I wasn't the one seeking support, they were. I also pointed out to Yngvadottir that this whole issue was already discussed. Another editor, Jalen Folf, withdrew his complaints and supported my edits [211]. While it is only one editor, that is the only other editor that weighed in on this matter. Yngvadottir ignored this, and decided to unilaterally make site-wide edits to every relevant article they could find without consensus.

    Yngvadottir does not seem to be interested in heraldry, and states they are not a "MOS wonk" [212], so I am not sure why they are so insistent on making these changes. The information that Yngvadottir wants to include in the articles is trivial at best, and I believe they are giving undue weight to this information by giving it its own subsection. They even falsely claim that the heraldic tinctures were "often" described by these "poetic meanings" [213], but this claim is not backed by their source. In fact, it is even contradicted by other entries [214]. These "poetic meanings" seem to be one-offs or wholly unsourced. Basically one guy a few hundred years ago used planets to describe the colors, and a different guy a hundred years later used gemstones to describe the colors, but these systems never caught on with anyone. Even Yngvadottir seemed to have discovered the uselessness of this information during the process of making their site-wide edits, saying no serious heraldist uses these poetic meanings and that sources can't even agree on what these "poetic descriptions" even are [215]. It's dubious that the information should even be in the article, let alone be given its own subsection.

    I am trying my best to clean up and expand these heraldry articles but this constant obstruction is making it difficult. Yngvadottir seems to think they can make undue demands of me at the drop of a hat. They think they can make site-wide edits without consensus. They think they can ignore the input of others. And for what? To include information they themselves think is useless and suspect? I believe Yngvadottir is only interested in winning, even if it means including misinformation in articles. I would ask an admin to step in to revert Yngvadottir's edits, warn them that these controversial site-wide edits shouldn't be made without a consensus of the community, and explain to them that a lack of interest in their suggestions is not the same as a consensus. Giltsbeach (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See top of this page: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." Which this clearly isn't, on the evidence presented. This is a content dispute. Start an RfC or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Srj.cooldude and Love jihad

    (non-admin closure) Srj.cooldude has been indefinitely blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish for disruptive editing and WP:FRINGE pushing. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Because I might appear to be WP:INVOLVED, I am bringing this issue to ANI for review. I propose that, at minimum, Srj.cooldude be WP:PBLOCKed from Love jihad and its talk page. This could be done as a sanction under WP:ARBIPA, but the severity of the behavior would likely warrant a regular WP:DE block.

    Srj.cooldude is a zombie WP:SPA that has re-awoken after 6 years of inactivity to push for various inclusions of "love jihad". The user has assumed bad faith, cast aspersions, and been overall disruptive including calling users biased in favouring jihadi... and promoting violence, promoting terrorism ([216], [217], [218], [219]). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I indeffed. I went over their contributions after their DRN post this morning and almost blocked, and I see there's been quite a few more edits recently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gracias! EvergreenFir (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block. --bonadea contributions talk 19:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    May want to look at revoking TPA. They've made themselves clear that they've no intent on appealing the block but are continuing to make bad faith allegations CiphriusKane (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Symmetry (journal)

    A few IPs insist on adding some critical text, but their sources don't mention this journal, just its publisher. A few moments ago they added a reference that mentions this journal but it's just in-passing mentions on somebody's personal blog. The publisher certainly is dodgy, but the way the IPs go about it seems wrong, too. Per WP:BOLD, they should have taken this to the talk page but instead they have edit-warred and their edit summaries also contain personal attacks. Perhaps I'm wrong here, but some extra eyes would be welcome. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated addition of Vietnamese spam links using various IPs/IP ranges

    There is a user who has been inserting the same few spam links (always Vietnamese sites afaict) to a selection of articles using various IPs, particularly in the last month but also earlier (see Betway). I'm not sure what to do here and was told after a few reports at AIV to take it here. Here are all IPs I'm aware of (grouped roughly by similarity, sorry for the long list):

    Here are the articles affected so far (all the ones I'm aware of; sorted roughly by edit frequency):

    Some of the IPs are/were already blocked and some of the articles are/were already temporarily protected. I have only notified the most recently used IP (1.52.41.60), I hope that's ok. Felida97 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the spamming has been going on in high volumes for quite a while here, from too many different IPs on too many various articles to make neither blocking nor page protection effective, what you could do, is request that the links being spammed by these IPs be added to the spam blacklist, over at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created a spam blacklist request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#dichvuchinhsuaanh.net and many other Vietnamese spam sites. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AP 499D25: That was a good idea, thanks for going through the articles and making the request, which has already been answered. Let's hope this hinders the user somewhat, although I have my doubts about that (for similar reasons you believe the many IPs and articles make blocking/PP not an effective option)... Felida97 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ApprenticeFan continuing to edit as IP editor

    (non-admin closure) 120.28.64.0/24 and 124.6.179.0/24 have been range blocked for 3 months by NinjaRobotPirate for block evasion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:ApprenticeFan was banned from the English Wikipedia earlier this year, yet has continued to edit in the same topic areas while logged out as an IP editor. I have opened multiple sockpuppet inquiries (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ApprenticeFan), but there has been no action taken. This editor confirmed yesterday (User talk:124.6.179.62) that they are continuing to edit despite being banned and they do not seem to understand that they (the editor) are banned and not just the account. Can anything be done - a range-block, or a sternly-worded notice from an administrator that continuing to edit as an IP editor is still sockpuppetry? Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I range blocked the latest two IPs used. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Robert Drinan article again.

    (non-admin closure) Cullen328 has semi-protected Robert Drinan for 2 months and indefinitely blocked Most Faithful for legal threats. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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



    Robert Drinan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

    Most Faithful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Back on April 19th, an IP (User:108.26.171.7) was blocked after making a legal threat in an edit summary. [220] Since then, a succession of IPs have tried to remove the same content that the original IP did, and now User:Most Faithful has appeared, making the same edits, with the same arguments, along with (implausible) claims to be an attorney, and comments approaching further legal threats. [221]. Given that this seems to be more than a simple edit-war, I brought this here. I'm not sure if another 'legal threat' block is justified, or one for block evasion, but this clearly can't continue, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure whether the disputed content is entirely justified. WP:BLP doesn't apply, and supposed 'defamation' obviously can't, so the IP/Most Faithful arguments are invalid, but maybe we need to look into this further? Anyway, we can't let fake 'attorneys' decide for us... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What ... you think it implausible that someone who knows neither the spelling nor the meaning of the word adjudicated might be an attorney? EEng 06:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted, I think they're over the 3RR. The allegations are published in Slate and the HuffPost so there isn't an issue with source reliability, as to whether it is due, I agree that there may be a case for omission, but their behaviour is disruptive and not conducive to getting consensus on the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just reverted an additional unconstructive edit to the page. Foxtrot620 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, they've been revered by over 4 different people and yet they continue to persist, blowing way past the 3RR, which I have just notified them of. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Most Faithful for legal threats, aggravated by edit warring. I have semi-protected the article for two months. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the legal threats, I find them . . . unpersuasive. Drinan, after all, died 16 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Jhofferman accused of paid editing at Vivek Ramaswamy

    I have no idea if this is true or not, but Vivek Ramaswamy Paid Wikipedia Editors to Erase His Soros Fellowship and Covid Work] says "Mediaite reports that Ramaswamy seems to have paid Wikipedia editor “Jhofferman,” to remove information from his page that he presumably thought would damage his candidacy in the Republican primary. A few days later, he announced his 2024 bid." Posting here as I don't know where would be better. Searched to see if it's been posted elsewhere but didn't find anything. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jhofferman disclosed the paid editing both on his userpage [222] amd the article talk page [223]. - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So it's technically not undisclosed paid editing, but considering the contentious topic, I think it's just as bad as if it were undisclosed. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps so, but in this case it looks like the disclosure meant that other editors stepped in and fixed many of the problems the paid editing made. Far less than ideal, but something. - Bilby (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They have extensively edited the article itself, both before and after the disclosure on July 14 2022, instead of proposing the changes on the talkpage. WP:PAID very strongly discourage[s] such conduct (bolding in the original). Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) User: Jhofferman has disclosed on their userpage that they have been paid to edit Vivek Ramaswamy, a long-shot Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. Here's the context: Ramaswamy received an academic fellowship from a group run by the brother and sister-in-law of George Soros. Association with Soros is the kiss of death in Republican primaries these days, so Ramaswamy has an obvious motivation to remove mention of his "youthful indiscretion", as it were. This is being discussed somewhere else, Doug Weller, but I can't remember where right now. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 At the obvious place (I should have looked!) Talk:Vivek Ramaswamy#Wikipedia manipulation. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (Fixed the link for you - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    @Boing! said Zebedee Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, Jhofferman commented on this on their talk page responding to someone else, before this ANI thread was created: [224]. My initial reactions is this is a lack of wisdom rather than evil intent. But there are multiple threads on his talk page about problems with his paid editing, and yet problems keep happening. It seems that at the very least the "very strongly discourage" recommendation against declared paid editors editing articles directly should be made mandatory for him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. A partial block for the article, leaving him to edit the talk page, seems appropriate. Doug Weller talk 16:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Based on issues raised about his other paid work, I'd say that's best for all articles he is paid, or has been paid, to work on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. Hanlon's razor applies but even innocent error is less forgiveable when a professional editor getting paid for their work creates clean up work for volunteers. Abecedare (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PAID is (IMO) not the issue here. What appears to be the issue here is that WP:NPOV has been compromised for pecuniary benefit, and against Wikipedia policy. I am not comfortable with this. Propose indef block. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Bilateral relations troll 3: Tokyo Drift

    Last discussion about them here. Still edit warring in See also sections while IP hopping, as is their modus operandi. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like all of these were picked off by a number of other admins; they're all webhosts/open proxies, etc. Thanks for being vigilant. Feel free to rollback at will anything that hasn't been already. --Jayron32 14:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found more while checking to see if the rollbacked edits were reverted again: 45.159.249.180 (talk · contribs), 5.182.36.108 (talk · contribs), 5.182.37.93 (talk · contribs), and what seems to be an actual user for once: Kindedir. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU Thank you for dealing with this. TylerBurden (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all IPs associated with Stark Industries Solutions. @Blablubbs:, who I believe works frequently with WP:OP to block open proxies. Is there any rangeblocks where we could take this down? It looks like this person is using Stark Industries Solutions, and I'm not sure there's any good reason not to block them; googling the name turns up a lot of red flags. --Jayron32 12:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Giltsbeach

    Indef'd by Cullen328. (non-admin closure) XAM2175 (T) 21:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Giltsbeach (talk · contribs) I regret having to do this, but I think it's time to talk about Giltsbeach's battleground attitude. I considered going to the edit warring noticeboard, but it goes beyond that.

    Giltsbeach created their account on March 23, and began editing heraldry articles. Their early edits had no edit summaries, and at one point their unexplained rewriting and removal of referenced information at Rule of tincture was reverted by Materialscientist, who templated them (but did not respond to their request for an explanation). They then got into an edit war with JalenFolf at Sable (heraldry) over their removal of the "Poetic meanings" section. They left the information in the infobox, but removed the references on 2 of the 3 points, which had been only in the text. They accused JalenFolf of accusing them of removing a template, and in later edits reintroduced a one-sentence summary: cumulative changes. After a rollback by Mako001, they brought both editors here: archived section. JalenFolf then saw the single sentence and dropped their objections. Previously in the section, rather than pointing out that they had added back a sentence and before responding on the article talk page, they responded to Mako001: "You accused me of "disingenous editing" because I moved information from a stub of a subsection to an infobox. An infobox that every other heraldic tincture article uses, mind you. You threatened me with a ban, but not the other user who refused to engage in dialogue with me. I don't think you'll be happy until I step back off a cliff."

    The claimed local consensus to have information in the infobox but not in the article prose violates the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and is detrimental to the encyclopedia to the extent that it requires the reader to read the infobox as well as the article prose. (The Sable article is also short, and expansion would be a better service to the encyclopedia than cutting a section of referenced information.) I joined the discussion on the article talk page, where Giltsbeach responded to me with the further assertions that the material is "trivial" and that the MOS is not a policy. (They have since informed me that they are only prepared to discuss explicit policies.) At one point they reverted me with an accusation of vandalism.

    I took the discussion to WikiProject Heraldry to clarify whether there was indeed a consensus to override MOS on the heraldic tincture articles, and if so on what grounds, but only Giltsbeach responded, ultimately with incivility; perhaps as a new editor they were unaware of its inappropriateness. I ultimately did some research myself, found what I thought was the origin of the practice that Giltsbeach claimed to be conforming the article to, reported it there, then took the issue to the talk page for the MOS guideline. Both of those who responded—and subsequently Girth Summit—agreed with me that there is no reason for these articles to be an exception to the guideline. I notified Giltsbeach of the section, but they did not respond until I gave them the courtesy of another ping in my summary at the end of the section: they accused me of "fighting a war of attrition" and lying.

    When I then went through the articles to conform them to the guideline, I discovered that my extension of good faith to Giltsbeach had been entirely misplaced; their assertion that Every other heraldic tincture article places this information in the infobox was an equivocation. There was no consistency in placing the "poetic meanings" only in the infobox: several articles had the section, with similar wording, at least one had the text but no section header, and some lacked references for the material. Giltsbeach's response has been a section here (soon closed), wholesale reverts (two rounds, the first of only half the articles I had worked on), claims of misreferencing including at the OR noticeboard (I suspect the initial issue was they failed to query the UWisconsin library archive we were referencing in the Sable article and thus did not find the relevant passage, but they are now quibbling over whether the word "often" is justified. And accusing me of advocating expansion of the articles, while also arguing (here) that I am inhibiting their expansion of the articles.

    I would be happy for Giltsbeach to bring the knowledge of heraldry that I presume they have to bear on Wikipedia's heraldry articles. But I have not seen them add referenced information. Most of their additions appear to consist of adding images, in many cases images they have uploaded themselves. As can be seen from the history of their talk page on Commons, many of these have been deleted as copyvios. That can be regarded as a newbie mistake (uploading from a site with an incompatible licence), but replacing the images in an article with their own versions of the same arms is uncollegial, and seeking to have someone else's image deleted in favor of their own is churlish. (And their dismissal of anything except explicit policy concerned their reinterpretation of the arms of Trøndelag so that en.wikipedia would use their version.)

    Giltsbeach appears to want to leave their mark at all costs and to be unable to brook having their work challenged or changed. They have learned to make edit summaries and belatedly re-fixed their typo that I had corrected in an edit they twice reverted. They haven't recently accused me of being upset or aggressive. But they are edit warring furiously and arguing dishonestly in pursuit of winning, and they demonstrate little respect for guidelines or much else except for what they have decided they want to do. I see they have just called me a troll :-) Can they be induced to stop the reverting and the escalating outrage and focus on article improvement? (Apologies for length; I have tried throughout to be fair, and so there's a lot of back story. Also, apologies, but right after notifying, I must go to bed. I'll return first thing to see whether I've been blocked, or taken to Arbcom). Yngvadottir (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have attempted to make the main points clear below, but you should really read the above to get the full story, there is a good deal here for a fairly new editor to have got themselves into:
    Giltsbeach treats Wikipedia like a WP:BATTLEGROUND.
    They have often got into heated disputes, whilst refusing to properly listen to others, taking editors to noticeboards as a tactic to gain the upper hand, and generally being highly tendentious.
    They got in a dispute over information being removed from the article body and placed in the infobox instead. They claimed that consensus from WP:HERALDRY supported them.
    The claimed local consensus to have information in the infobox but not in the article prose violates the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes.
    Yngvadottir joined a discussion on the article talk page, where Giltsbeach responded with the further assertions that the material is "trivial" and that the MOS is not a policy. (They have since informed Yngvadottir that they are only prepared to discuss explicit policies.) At one point they reverted Yngvadottir with an accusation of vandalism.
    Yngvadottir tried to clarify whether the consensus Giltsbeach claimed actually existed by asking at WikiProject Heraldry. But only Giltsbeach responded, ultimately with incivility. The consensus was determined to be against Giltsbeach's position in a discussion at the MOS talkpage. Giltsbeach responded by accusing Yngvadottir of "fighting a war of attrition" and lying.
    Yngvadottir has since found that Giltsbeach had not been entirely truthful when asserting that Every other heraldic tincture article places this information in the infobox. There was no consistency in placing the "poetic meanings" only in the infobox. Giltsbeach's response has been to apparently declare war on Yngvadottir.
    They also don't add referenced information, but do add images that they upload. As can be seen from the history of their talk page on Commons, many of these have been deleted as copyvios. That can be regarded as a newbie mistake (uploading from a site with an incompatible licence), but replacing the images in an article with their own versions of the same arms is uncollegial.
    They have also behaved tendentiously on Commons.
    Giltsbeach responds extremely poorly to criticism or percieved rejection. Some promising signs have been shown, but they are still apparently fighting a one-user war against a percieved enemy. They called Yngvadottir a troll. This needs to stop, and they need to be useful. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The easy way to deal with this would be to either TBAN them from heraldry or site ban them for a few days to let them cool off and read the relevant Guidelines. Nobody (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @1AmNobody24: They've had plenty of time to read those guidelines and been directed to many of them, but have chosen to act the way they do anyway. Blocks aren't really for cooling off, they are to prevent disruption. About a TBAN, a heraldry TBAN would do one of two things: stop them editing entirely (might as well block), or move the problem elsewhere. The latter would result in them being blocked anyway. A TBAN seems unlikely to gain consensus, but not because they don't need sanctions. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block Giltsbeach. Indefinite in length and for the cocktail of behaviors they bring to the project: not listening to anybody, raging incivility and a failure to assume good faith since they've been here, and general inability to work in a collegiate environment.
      After their tirade here yesterday, I thought they might become more reasonable. Yet the opposite is the case. Not only the recusancy but calling Yngvadottir a troll with no cause whatsoever is outrageous. If it hadn't been for that, I'd support a TB, reasoning that they might just need to gain experience in our myriad policies and guidelines. But their attitude makes a TB pointless; they will clearly continue to be as offensive anywhere else on the project. SN54129 15:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite me rescinding accusations of removal when I had reverted Giltsbeach, I’m looking back at contribs, and the incivility on display scares me. I had considered proposing a site ban, but given this user has only been with us for a month and a half, I later thought against it as possibly taking it too far. However, if another editor wishes to propose either a TBAN or CBAN given the current situation, I will not oppose. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why we're so keen to launch straight into site bans nowadays. To me, in a case of common-or-garden semi-trolling like this, an ordinary indef seems no more complicated than it has to be. As you say, they've only been here a few weeks; hardly time enough to demonstrate irredeemability. SN54129 18:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indefinitely blocked Giltsbeach as a normal administrative action. Cullen328 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Killing of Markeis McGlockton

    Two separate, related issues. The first pertains to disputed content about the victim's criminal record--Though it received extensive coverage, a case can be made that it's irrelevant here, so I'm not inclined to war over that, but would like further opinion. The second is the restoration of talk page comment that's a personal attack [225]. I do not wish to engage there while using different IPs, nor join the discussion after the 'racist' comment. Time for administrative input. More eyes appreciated. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the talk page comment again and explained on MayDay2099's talk page my reason. They are correct, normally you don't remove talk page comments, but calling someone "racist scum" is about as blatant a personal attack as it gets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that collection of titbits inserted to smear the victim is completely undue, and MayDay2099 and the IP were right to remove it, even if MayDay's rant on the talkpage was not optimal. Black Kite (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I was notified of this forum.
    I'm not the one who left the message. I merely restored a talk page entry that was removed by someone else because, as I read recently on the rules, it's not right to edit or remove someone else's talk page entry.
    I'll let it stand though, apparently there are admins. Thanks for not being crude or cruel to me for whatever misstep I made. MayDay2099 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, WP:FORUM covers the removal of messages that are not specifically meant for article improvements. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. I will read that. Thanks. MayDay2099 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Malformed RfC may need closing.

    Things are getting somewhat heated at Talk:Love Jihad, where an RfC [226] seems to have triggered a broader debate. The debate clearly needs to continue, but in my opinion, the RfC itself is malformed, and totally noncompliant with the way they are supposed to be conducted: it isn't simple, it isn't neutral, and it seems to be discussing three different things. Plus there is at least a whiff of possible sockpuppetry. Could I ask an admin (or at least some uninvolved experienced contributor) to take a look, and close the RfC if they think it appropriate, before it generates further antagonism? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Fwiw, I believe the IP editor who started the RFC was well-intentioned but inexperienced since IIRC they asked about the issue at User_talk:RegentsPark and at WT:INB before starting the RFC. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This may now be overtaken by events, but there was also a request for mediation at DRN filed by Srj.cooldude saying that the article was biased. I closed the thread because there is already an RFC, and I also recommended that discussion about bias in an article could be taken to the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. The filing editor has since been blocked for disruptive editing. I don't have any other comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please speedily delete Josh Alcorn

    This redirect page violates Wikipedia's policy on deadnames, when the transgender individual was not notable under the deadname. This individual wasn't notable under her deadname, Josh Alcorn. WarriorPlate (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't the right place for such requests. Please see WP:Deletion process. Callmemirela 🍁 02:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I’m new to Wikipedia. How do I request speedy deletion? WarriorPlate (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion. It would need to go the regular process. Callmemirela 🍁 03:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How would this square with the second paragraph at MOS:GID? CityOfSilver 03:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it doesn't fall under any criteria for speedy delete. It would need to go through PROD or AfD. Callmemirela 🍁 03:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which wasn't really what I asked (and it isn't eligible for either of those) but okay. CityOfSilver 03:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I have no idea what your comment meant, it seems. Callmemirela 🍁 03:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ec: And since WarriorPlate has already PRODded it, it should not go to AFD unless the PROD fails. Meters (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It would not go to AFD anyway, it would go to redirects for discussion. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. Thank you. Prod removed. Meters (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#May 5 for user:WarriorPlate Meters (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Abusive language from User:Cesarbongon

    This user has engaged in disruptive edits and after being warned, used abusive language against me on their talk page here: [227]. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The first admin who reads this ought to indefinitely block User:Cesarbongon and revdel that message. CityOfSilver 03:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned. I suspect it's a teenager. Callmemirela 🍁 03:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy one to address, in keeping w how we address personal profanity insults. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:40C6:2E91:2ACA:FD97 (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for assistance (and potential tutoring) with user

    A user named BlackRain1989 has openly identified themselves as a sock account of LemonJuice78 on my talk page. I have lodged sockpuppet reports against them before for, alongside the sock reasons, erroneous edits to Wikipedia military articles, but with each return they are communicating with me with increasing desperation and asking for forgiveness, stating they will not stop creating new accounts until they have the "right" to edit Wikipedia. There is some hostility, as I am the only user to lodge reports since the pages they edit receive lower editor traffic.

    LemonJuice78 has admitted to being unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and procedures, and is trying to learn, but creating sock accounts is not the way to do it. Their request for unblocking on their original account was denied by administrator Yamla due to not specifically addressing their mistakes. I have stated to him that his original block was administrator-applied, and to return to editing means direct contact with administrators. I have thus lodged this report to open up communications before the situation spirals out of control.

    Respectfully, LemonJuice78 may need assistance from another Wikipedia source (mentorship by a veteran user, I'm unsure), as I only have so much time on my hands and cannot have this user persistently following me as if I am the arbiter of their fate. I cannot keep handling this on my own. I literally can't. I hope an administrator can step in here and take necessary measures. I leave it up to admins, but if you can render assistance, rather than an immediate, unconditional block to the BlackRain1989 account, it would be noted.

    For further details, see Sockpuppet investigations/LemonJuice78/Archive. GirthSummit has usually been the one to handle their CheckUsers. SuperWIKI (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    They are WELL past WP:3X at this point, and creating socks over and over to continue editing is only going to dig the hole deeper. The BlackRain1989 account is being blocked as sock of a now effectively banned user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive edits by User:CXDS

    The User:CXDS has been making disruptive edits on a couple articles such as the Siad Barre article[228] and the Jigjiga article[229] removing sourced information and accusing their references of being "biased lies" and "old and inaccurate" without any evidence of course. I reverted these edits[230][231] and left a warning on his talkpage but he later blanked it with an edit summary of "you have no authority"[232] he then brought back his edits on the Jigjiga article[233], I reverted it again and sent him a second warning on his talkpage to not engage in disruptive edits, he of coursed blanked the page again accusing me of "impersonating the admins"[234] and then brought back his edits on the Jigjiga article[235] محرر البوق (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm confused. It's you who is changing the founding date to 1916, even though the article references it back to the 1840s, and the 1916 information in the text that you are adding talks about it being a garrison town until 1916? That seems inconsistent to me. Either way, this is not the forum for editing disputes - neither of you have tried to discuss this - heck, there's nothing this decade on the talk page! I'd suggest closing this, and both of you go read H:EC before a boomerang hits someone from behind. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added context to my previous edit with early sources from Richard Francis Burton debunking this myth created in the reign of Haile Selassie that Jijiga was founded in 1912 by a Abyssinian commander. In the Demographics section the main source used in the article doesn't breakdown the city by ethnic groups at all. Someone just made their own pie chart with percentages they conjured on their own.
      My edit regarding Siad Barre article was about the Early Years section specifically that he witnessed the murder of his father at age of ten and that it was in a raid done another clan. In the 3 sources used in prove this supposed claim was a magazine and two books. None of them having a source or evidence for this supposed raid. The Marehan and Habr Yunis live nowhere near each other for this raid to a have happened in the first place. Also the proof that Siad Barre's father being buried in Garbaharey. CXDS (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nfitz@CXDS I didn't add the 1916 information on the article, that was already there. The problem is not the founding date on the infobox, the problem is CXDS removing sourced information in the article, Pankhurst reference is reliable and there is no reason why it should be removed even if there is conflicting sources, WP:BALANCE. Also I added 1916 because I saw that number floating around in the article and the previous year of 1727 was unsourced, if CXDS just changed that to 1840 or whatever other year the article says then that wouldn't be an issue. The census for Jijiga DOES breakdown the city by their ethnic groups, its pretty obvious you haven't read the source.
      Your edit summary on Siad Barre's page was quote "This is just historical revisionism with no proof or even source of this supposed raid. Habr Yunis live nowhere where Marehan live." You obviously didn't go into detail as to why this was "historical revisionism", hence I obviously intepreted this as disruptive. محرر البوق (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Histrionic editor

    Blocked from that article for personal attacks. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I am dealing with a pretty shrill editor who hates my edits. Can you calm him down? Talk:Justice_League Kurzon (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, @Kurzon, you should send a message on their talk pages to warn them of the ANI discussion. I did it for you. (Admittedly, I haven't let you take the time to do so, but I did it for you anyways.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's silly, I assumed it involved the named editors. I didn't see the IP. Oh well, it sorta concerns them too, I guess. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's well out of order and I have pblocked the IP /64 range from that page and the talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    WP:CANVASS violation by User:William Allen Simpson

    This, this, this, this and this all violate the canvassing policy.

    I understand that Mr. Simpson is upset to see an emerging consensus to do away with his cherished policy, but I played by the rules and so should he. If he can make a convincing argument in favor of his preferred position, fine. But lashing out and mass-posting and pinging biased notices is not the solution. I did not forum-shop, I simply opened a discussion in the most appropriate place, without regard to where previous discussions may have occurred. — Biruitorul Talk 08:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I really wish we could stop obsessing about pigeonholing and labelling people by descent and ethnicity and get rid of these categories altogether, they cause nothing but edit wars and endless problems and presents the fiction who someone's parents or ancestors were is more important than who they are. Canterbury Tail talk 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really wish we could address the substance of my complaint here. — Biruitorul Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Canterbury Tail: Not that this is worth discussing here, but I would like to point out that this is not about the "pigeonholing" categories being especially cherished by me or by Biruitorul (though they do seem to have much support in the wikipedian community, and also do seem to have a purpose for at least some regions of the world); it is simply a fact that, if we are going to have them, we should at least have a consistent approach that is dictated by the sources, not an editorial decision guided by whims. You can either have all the categories mentioned by sources, or none at all; the current guideline is remarkably ludicrous in suggesting we should only have one. If there is any bias or preference on my part, it is one against whims, not for ethnic categories. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An editor who was not notified has appeared here. Meatpuppet? Sockpuppet?
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, because every editor who’s ever commented here has done so only by notification. Let’s focus on your canvassing behavior, Mr. Simpson, and leave aside the diversions. — Biruitorul Talk 10:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yes, I may be a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet (and a major creator of content when I'm not engaged by William Allen Simpson in absurd debates about his pet peeves, once they come to intersect with the content I create); then again, I may be a user who simply bothered to click on this rather public page and was drawn to comment here on a side topic brought up by Canterbury Tail. Dahn (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ASPERSIONS. Strike your absurd comment. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:B195:BCE:2355:7AD9 (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many editors visit ANI to keep track of disputes and weigh in on them. It is not unusual for unrelated individuals to chime in, and is in fact encouraged to get a broad consensus on the disputes in question. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be mistaken, but I think User:William Allen Simpson's response was likely a sardonic one, commenting about the fact that the two accusing him of canvassing, apparently didn't like the comments of another editor who showed up here. And so was sardonically commenting that it "must" be another attempt by him at another sort of collusion. I'm not saying whether that was appropriate or not, but just that's my impression of their comments. - jc37 17:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, let’s also talk about the WikiProject notifications. They begin harmlessly enough, but then go on with a lengthy paragraph about how I’m forum-shopping. Hardly the neutral announcement required by policy, is it? — Biruitorul Talk 17:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jc37: Please note that I had never accused Mr Simpson of canvassing -- I noted that the accusation may have some merit, but did not endorse it myself, nor had anything to to with this ANI notification. I did read it, though, and I did comment on the side topic opened up by Canterbury Tail. I then proceeded to make a point about the egregious claim brought up against Biruitorul. Also do me the favor of noting that even in the categorization RfC that's being discussed here I expressed an opinion that is substantially different from what Biruitorul proposed, regarding what the standard of ethnic inclusion should be (which did not prevent one of the users invited in by William Allen Simpson from suggesting I am Biruitorul's sockpuppet). Anyway, I really do wish that both parties could stick to the point that's being discussed, here and anywhere else. Dahn (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was WP:FORUMSHOPPING by definition. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. Biruitorul's RfC was posted on a less frequently visited Talk page (nothing posted in 3 months) during a (currently active) discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 17#Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and occupation, where such matters are supposed to be decided. (See WP:RFCNOT.) This is one of a series of such discussions over a period of more than 4 months: (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 20#Category:British people by ethnicity and occupation.) Biruitorul failed to notify any of the current discussion participants nor any relevant projects. After belatedly discovering it serendipitously, I've notified the recent participants and other relevant Talk pages.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint here is about you, Mr. Simpson. Your notifications were in no way in line with WP:CANVASS. Please stop diverting me discussion. — Biruitorul Talk 09:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:BOOMERANG. Your actions can be scrutinized here too. USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 10:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Scrutinize all you want. But while you scrutinize my actions, maybe also take a moment to scrutinize the actions of William Allen Simpson, if it isn’t asking too much. — Biruitorul Talk 10:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone else feeling like handing out interaction bans and topic bans against both Biruitorul and William Allen Simpson and just being done with this nonsense? --Jayron32 11:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, but what exactly am I guilty of here? I started an RfC, which I oversaw in the most civil, engaged manner possible. Then along comes William Allen Simpson who blasts me with some ridiculous charges, and canvasses his supporters. Sorry but I’m not the one in the wrong here. — Biruitorul Talk 12:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Jayron32's solution sounds like an especially appealing one to me. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Again: what have I done wrong? — Biruitorul Talk 12:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope Jayron32. What a horrible idea. The only thing it is going to gain is make you feel like you solved anything. How about either treating the topic at hand fully or not commenting at all? Sanctioning a more than a decade-long content writer out of laziness is not acceptable. This goes for WaltCip too. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it's a bad idea, I came up with it. All bad ideas originate with me. I'm an asshole, of course. It shocks me that anyone listens to me at all. Sorry all. Carry on. --Jayron32 14:29, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Biruitorul has only had a marginal involvement with this topic, unlike William Allen Simpson, whose edits largely revolve around this issue, and this interpretation of policy, in a manner and at a pace that very few could even keep up with. Biruitorul had requested for a comment not on Mr Simpson's behavior, but simply on whether the guideline makes sense -- it was raised in an appropriate venue, and was actually more valid than many of Mr Simpson's edits, precisely because it asked for input for editors who (like himself) have not been generally involved in this issue, and have no entrenched position either way. To which Mr Simpson invoked claims of forum shopping, all the while calling in people whom he knows share his exact position as !voters. So what is Biruitorul even accused of? Dahn (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At a minimum, William Allen Simpson should be cautioned that notifications should be worded neutrally. Schazjmd (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, but I really don't understand how this blatant canvassing is going completely unnoticed. Super Ψ Dro 14:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      William Allen Simpson's lack of diffs when referring to CFD discussions made it challenging to identify where those pings came from. I think it was this one, and as there weren't any editors who disagreed with the proposed deletion, I'm assuming good faith that had there been, they would have been pinged too. Schazjmd (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Schazjmd: IMHO, it should be noted that the CfD mentioned by Mr Simpson has in fact very little to do with the guideline that Biruitorul has brought under scrutiny -- we were not discussing the merits of categorizing by ethnicity and occupation (to clarify: I myself am agnostic on this issue -- though I have created some such categories, to the measure where they seemed to be validated by a long-standing practice, I do not object to them ultimately being folded into the larger ones, if this reflects consensus), but the notion that we should only categorize by one ethnicity. I'm not entirely sure that/if Mr Simpson's bringing in other editors who happened to vote his way on that CfD should count as canvassing, but I myself would be interested to know: (a) what other similar CfDs those same users have supported, in the plethora of like-minded CfDs started by Mr Simpson (so many in fact that it has become simply impossible to keep up with them); (b) why Mr Simpson thought the CfDs and this issue would be connected enough for those particular users to be called in. Dahn (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So what William Allen Simpson did was ping everyone from a CfD in which everyone supported them to an unrelated one? That is indeed canvassing. Though in the discussion that started this report some people that did not participate in the one you linked were pinged, so they must come from somewhere else. Super Ψ Dro 16:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    131.251.253.0/24 disruptive editing on book articles, incivility & attacks

    I'm reporting the IP user:

    for disruptive editing and uncivility, on the following articles:

    As a recent changes patroller, I initially came across this IP editor edit-warring with User:Nerd271 on the General Relativity article. Although I'm generally not highly involved / interested with articles outside of computer stuff, I had a close look at it anyway, and could not legitimately see anything wrong with the "Table of contents" and "versions" sections from an encyclopedic point of view, plus I looked at many other book articles to see if they had these sections or not, and quite a number of them did, so I shared my insight into this with this revert once, pretty much agreeing with Nerd271, although mildly at that. I also wrote in that edit's summary suggesting to take this to a talk page instead of continually reverting. Which was successful.

    They got back to me on my talk page, calling me an editor who started editing Wikipedia only recently, and mostly concern yourself with reverting and leaving warning messages (diff). The only content-related piece from that message was their mention of the WikiProject Books guideline WP:NONFICTION#Headers.

    However, I was not so sure if Nerd271 would agree with the reasoning citing the guideline above, so I started a discussion at the article talk page, inviting both the IP editor and Nerd271 into the discussion, with me both writing the message with a neutral stance and sharing my own thoughts on the matter besides it.

    Nerd271 and I both provided some high-value content-based arguments on said talk page, while the IP editor just blasts us with ad-hominem personal attacks, focussing their messages very little on the actual content of the article, if at all.

    Here are some quotes from that talk page:

    • Metadata that a monkey could copy and paste in adds absolutely nothing to any reader's understanding of a book. It is a pity that someone with just a few months of editing experience and no evidence of any prior interest in this topic has decided to assist an editor with a years-long history of ignoring guidelines and editing disruptively.
    • How many times have you reverted those who take them out with dishonest edit summaries like "restored good version" or "restored stable version"? Dozens? Hundreds? Even once would have been too many. The account which decided to support your years-long campaign of disruptive editing despite no prior interest in the topic and no familiarity with the guidelines should undo their most recent revert.

    Since then, the IP editor went on to edit war with three other editors on the article Principles of Quantum Mechanics, removing those same table of contents and versions sections from that article again, despite there being clear consensus on the General Relativity talk page in favour of keeping those sections. One of the edit's summaries accuses User:Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 of being a revert-and-warn SPA editor. A 48-hr block was placed on 131.251.253.112 by Ponyo shortly after they made their third revert on that article in less than two hours (block log).

    However, after that 48-hr block, the IP editor still continues to edit war on the General Relativity article, instead of seeking consensus / dispute resolution for their edits first, as well as commenting on editors instead of purely content in their edit summaries.

    I genuinely tried to be helpful here – I wrote a message on their talk page, recommending to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution protocol, even suggesting them to use requests for comments (RfC) to get some more feedback / input from other editors on whether those ToC and Versions sections should be included on these articles or not.

    But instead, they are not listening at all to my recommendations, not even noticing the clear consensus from three different editors in favour of the ToC and Versions sections, just continuing to remove them on the article disruptively instead of seeking WP:DR options. It seems they are blanking the messages I and other editors have left on their talk page without reading them.

    By now, a total of six different editors (including me, as well as both involved editors and recent changes patrollers) have disagreed with this IP editor's content removal. No one else has sided with the IP's edits (both edit-wise and talk discussion-wise) as of yet.

    I am making this report after a final warning for disruptive editing on their talk page: Special:Diff/1153283775 (which has been blanked already of course).

    Important note (for admins):

    If a block is to be handed out to the IP editor here, a range block needs to be placed, not a single IP block. They started out as 131.251.253.112, moving on to 131.251.253.41 a week later. The WHOIS info for the IPs suggest the range is /16, but considering the first three groups of these two IPs are the same one here, only the last one changed, I believe the range here is /24. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was one of the involved editors and I agree that the table of contents should be kept as I stated on the article talk page. This IP editor has been very uncivil and has repeatedly chose to revert edits without proper consensus. AP 499D25 handled this in a very professional manner however the editor still chose to be uncivil. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm getting a bit of a BKFIP vibe here, to be honest. XOR'easter (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    His attitude towards those who disagree with him is unbecoming for a Wikipedia editor. Thank you, AP 499D25 for bringing this up. Nerd271 (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is really just common sense that a bare table of contents of a book has no encyclopaedic value. This is clearly stated at WP:NONFICTION: "An exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included". Unfortunately, User:Nerd271 has added such bare tables of contents to many articles about textbooks. I've seen many people removing them at many different articles, but User:Nerd271 invariably reverts, with misleading edit summaries like "restored stable version". A succession of oddly similarly named accounts, all just a few months old and with no prior interest in the article, tag-team reverting in support, is strange indeed. 131.251.253.41 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked the /24 range 1 month for clear violations of WP:EDITWAR. Additionally, the bizarre comment above where they cast aspersions against Nerd271 with no evidence is beyond the pale. Let us know if they move to another range. --Jayron32 18:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent Unsourced and Unconstructive Edits from IP Hopping Anon

    User in Question:

    Anon has used multiple IPs to make several unsourced and unconstructive edits, which include overlinking and not following MOS:DATE. All edits are directly related to Hockey or Trains. At least two different users (@Wracking: and myself) have issued multiple warnings, but the user is hopping between IPs (likely unintentionally). A final warning and attempt to communicate was issued, but anon has persisted.

    Some of the Warnings issued:

    1. First Warning
    2. Second Warning
    3. Third Warning
    4. Forth Warning
    5. Fifth Warning
    6. Sixth Warning
    7. Seventh Warning
    8. Final/ANI Warning

    Edits After "final" warning:

    1. [236]
    2. [237]

    ANI Notice:

    Any help would be appreciated. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I blocked the IPv6 range for a week. IP, you should be reading this: you are blocked for persistent unexplained and unverified edits. Please communicate with your fellow editors, and explain your edits--which should have secondary sourcing--in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Long term pattern of unsourced edits and ignoring communication attempts with User:Masonjcole

    I have posted to ANI twice about this editor and both times there was no comment or anything. This user has about 10 months worth of unsourced edits, including adding birthdates and birthplaces to football related articles and prematurely updating articles before transactions (including number changes) are official. This user continues to do this despite a multitude of comments on their talkpage and multiple comments advising they need to communicate on Wikipedia. This user promised to start checking their talkpage more often in December but hasn't kept their promise because there is still zero communication and the editor is continuing the same pattern.--Rockchalk717 22:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1153386434"